<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:osnews="http://osnews.com/rss2#">
	<channel>
		<title>OSNews: </title>
		<link>http://www.osnews.com/story/19996/Windows_7_is_Old_News_Get_Ready_for_Windows_8_</link>
		<description>Exploring the Future of Computing</description>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<copyright>Copyright 2001-2009, David Adams</copyright>
		<webMaster>adam+nospam@osnews.com</webMaster>
		<lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:54:49 GMT</lastBuildDate>
		
		<item>
			<title>Not suprised in the slightest.</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?321899</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?321899</guid>
			<description>It would be pretty silly for a company that size not to be thinking one OS ahead of the development OS. Particularly when Windows is Microsoft's flag-ship product.</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 13:25:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (Laurence)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>I'll take you by your word...</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?321961</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?321961</guid>
			<description>now, let's not hear anything about it anymore before it's done, say 2015 or so.. <img src="/images/emo/wink.gif" alt=";)" /></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:24:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (Googol)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>One more os from Windows!!!</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?322068</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?322068</guid>
			<description>Every 3-4 years new OS, new architecture, new way to deal the hardware... is it a design flaw that is not able to consider changes in hardware and future requirements? Why cant they push new updates, and upgrades just like Unix, Linux, BSD systems?<br />
<br />
I see its all for money! Nothing more...</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 04:59:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (TusharG)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Linux architecture is obsolete</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?322080</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?322080</guid>
			<description>Are you envious? Oh, Linux's architecture is very ancient... it needs a revamp!Edited 2008-07-09 07:21 UTC</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 07:17:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (casuto)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>RE: Linux architecture is obsolete</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?322098</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?322098</guid>
			<description>HeHeHeeee.<br />
<br />
Funny comment you gave. Linux has it's architecture as it is because the architecture has been proven to be good for quite some time now.<br />
<br />
Everybody can see Microsoft asymptotically merging towards the UNIX principles. Might still take some time until they finally go for the real thing, but until then they have to deal with the effects of their bad (but &quot;modern&quot;) architecture.</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 10:07:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (gustl)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
