![]()
| #9. Posted at 01:34 PM on Mar 13th 2008 | Edit Reply |
|
odizzido |
Windows 7.....this time it might not suck.
|
![]()
| Edit Reply |
|
JokerCPoC |
Let Me guess Windows 7 won't be compatible with XP or Vista and We'll need new software and maybe new hardware. XP x64 is good enough for Me.
|
![]()
| Edit Reply |
|
herothezero |
Exactly what is the appeal--particularly to businesses--of releasing new OS builds more than a three-to-five year schedule? Does anyone really think businesses want to upgrade faster than that? The consumer market is one thing--hell, look at the Macolytes buying point releases every year for $129--but I don't see the demand for greater OS build releases in business.
|
![]()
| Edit Reply |
|
emi25 |
I recommend for the Microsoft CEO to get back all the 486dx2 with 64 MB RAM machines they used 20 years ago, and put the programmers to release a smocking fast OS on them. If they can not, hire somebody who can.
|
![]()
| Edit Reply |
|
DASQ |
Here come the DURR M$ NEVER RELEASE ON TIME comments.
I guess it's welcome news to those who wanted to skip Vista. |
![]()
| Edit Reply |
|
YvonneJean |
Hmm, what struck me most was the 2010 part of the title. "Twenty-Ten" would be a good year to stick on any product. Sounds so futuristic.
|
![]()
![]()
| Edit Reply |
|
emorgoch |
I really could have sworn that back in 05/06, MS was saying they were going to move to smaller, incremental releases on a closer to 18 month cycle once Vista was released.
Not saying 18 months vs 36 is good or bad, just that was what they were originally saying. |
![]()
![]()
| Edit Reply |
|
DrDillyBar |
Vista 2K10 SE?
|
|
Jazztags: (they MUST be closed) r{ red }r g{ green }g /[ italic ]/ *[ bold ]* _[ underline ]_ -[ |