A
Alias
Flightless Bird
JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2010-03-29, Frank <fb@tbb.moz> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/29/2010 2:44 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>> On 2010-03-29, Frank<fb@amk.cmo> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 3/29/2010 12:57 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>>> On 2010-03-28, Stewart<gortamus@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Leythos"<spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:MPG.26188920e0b43ba798a227@us.news.astraweb.com...
>>>>>>> In article<home5p$v93$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>>>>> yogig@no.spam.hotmail.com says...
>>>>>>>> "LD55ZRA"<LD55ZRA@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:4BAEB3A3.F10E7C7B@discussions.microsoft.com...
>>>>>>>>> This has always been the case. Dos machines were faster than
>>>>>>>>> Win95
>>>>>>>>> which were faster than WinXP which are faster than Win7.
>>>>> [deletia]
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andrew, if you check the history of Microsoft OS's since DOS, each
>>>>>>> one,
>>>>>>> running on the same exact hardware, IS and HAS ALWAYS been slower as
>>>>>>> each new one comes out.
>>>>>> Didn't see much of a difference going from DOS 2.1 to 3.0...the old
>>>>>> 286 ran fine.....
>>>>> A lot of the cited examples for "the new being slower" involved rather
>>>>> large architectural changes and functional improvements and sometimes lots
>>>>> of new features. From XP to Vista to Win7 there really isn't so much of that.
>>>>>
>>>>> [deletia]
>>>>>
>>>> How do you know?
>>>> Well...?
>>> So I managed to miss a transition there as significant as DOS or DOS
>>> shell to NT? Do tell. An no, extra eye candy doesn't count. Neither does
>>> a poorly thought out variation on sudo or breaking everyone's old drivers.
>>>
>> Thanks for proving that you are nothing but clueless linturd troll.
>
> I wasn't trolling but you clearly are.
>
You've just figured that out?
--
Alias
> On 2010-03-29, Frank <fb@tbb.moz> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/29/2010 2:44 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>> On 2010-03-29, Frank<fb@amk.cmo> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 3/29/2010 12:57 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>>> On 2010-03-28, Stewart<gortamus@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Leythos"<spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:MPG.26188920e0b43ba798a227@us.news.astraweb.com...
>>>>>>> In article<home5p$v93$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>>>>> yogig@no.spam.hotmail.com says...
>>>>>>>> "LD55ZRA"<LD55ZRA@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:4BAEB3A3.F10E7C7B@discussions.microsoft.com...
>>>>>>>>> This has always been the case. Dos machines were faster than
>>>>>>>>> Win95
>>>>>>>>> which were faster than WinXP which are faster than Win7.
>>>>> [deletia]
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andrew, if you check the history of Microsoft OS's since DOS, each
>>>>>>> one,
>>>>>>> running on the same exact hardware, IS and HAS ALWAYS been slower as
>>>>>>> each new one comes out.
>>>>>> Didn't see much of a difference going from DOS 2.1 to 3.0...the old
>>>>>> 286 ran fine.....
>>>>> A lot of the cited examples for "the new being slower" involved rather
>>>>> large architectural changes and functional improvements and sometimes lots
>>>>> of new features. From XP to Vista to Win7 there really isn't so much of that.
>>>>>
>>>>> [deletia]
>>>>>
>>>> How do you know?
>>>> Well...?
>>> So I managed to miss a transition there as significant as DOS or DOS
>>> shell to NT? Do tell. An no, extra eye candy doesn't count. Neither does
>>> a poorly thought out variation on sudo or breaking everyone's old drivers.
>>>
>> Thanks for proving that you are nothing but clueless linturd troll.
>
> I wasn't trolling but you clearly are.
>
You've just figured that out?
--
Alias