Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 27th Aug 2007 22:21 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 266287
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-06-21
Perhaps because XP was (and is) a rather stable product, whereas Vista is not. I don't understand why some people are amazed by the issues with Vista. It's common knowledge that any Windows should be still considered beta, no matter what Microsoft says, until at least SP1. People went and installed Vista in spite of this, yet now they complain of this and that. Why do that? What was so wrong with XP that they couldn't wait for Vista SP1? I don't know. Whatever. I guess someone's gotta do beta-testing for Vista and be the guinea-pig. So thanks to all current Vista users for a better SP1.
Edited 2007-08-28 12:53