Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 8th Oct 2007 20:18 UTC, submitted by Corinne Iozzio
Thread beginning with comment 277007
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: nice, but could be better
by sbergman27 on Mon 8th Oct 2007 21:39
in reply to "nice, but could be better"
"""
Improvement is good, but in this case, many people expect more.
"""
Why would they do that? It would not be in keeping with Windows' history. New versions of Windows are always slow on the hardware which is common in at the time the OS is first released. Microsoft then waits for hardware to get faster. It was true with Windows 3.1, and it is still true today.
Edited 2007-10-08 21:40
RE[2]: nice, but could be better
by Doc Pain on Mon 8th Oct 2007 22:26
in reply to "RE: nice, but could be better"
"Why would they do that? It would not be in keeping with Windows' history. New versions of Windows are always slow on the hardware which is common in at the time the OS is first released. Microsoft then waits for hardware to get faster. It was true with Windows 3.1, and it is still true today. "
Of course it is true, because it drives the market. Newer software - better hardware - new features - new software - ... continue ad libitum. This is "straight forward" software - designed to run on future hardware. And users essentially need it. :-)







Member since:
2005-07-06
Slightly faster is not fast enough. It should be *fast*, not slow like it still is after applying SP1. Improvement is good, but in this case, many people expect more.