Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 8th Mar 2013 23:07 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 554894
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.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-08-18
I think it is easy to make bold statements. I think there has been a big architecture change in recent years and some change in thinking.
I think Vista being late was because they re-wrote and mvoed a lot of stuff, which paved the way to improvements in 7 & 8.
Also Windows XP just doesn't run well on modern hardware even with specifications as good as my machine (I have a partition for .NET 1.1 dev). It just doesn't know how to take advantage of the hardware.
Edited 2013-03-09 20:12 UTC