[arachne] Re: DOS only or?
- From: Jason <jasorn@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: arachne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 03:37:55 -0400
Arachne at FreeLists---The Arachne Fan Club!
L.D. Best wrote:
Arachne at FreeLists---The Arachne Fan Club!
Glenn McCorkle wrote:
<snip>
However, you can count on one thing for-sure.........
_I_ will NEVER make a WinCrap version. ;-)
DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.............
P.S. Food for thought: XP was less popular than W2K because CLI was
more limited.
How was CLI more limited? The cli seems less limited to in xp than it
does in dos.
But what can do in the w2k cli than you can't do in xp?
Any truth to the thought that VISTA dug 6' deep because it took even
*more* control away from user?
I think Vista's issues are:
1. It's not linux :)
2. You suddenly have HW that is no longer supported.
3. The gui is different for no apparent reason other than to be
different. MS, you got me hooked on where stuff is. Don't go mucking
around with them unless you give me a choice to revert to the old way.
To be fair, I've only used vista for about 48 hours in total.
4. Vista runs soooo much slower on same hw than xp.
My wife hates vista so much after about 2 weeks with her new laptop she
asked me if I'd put 'that linux' on it :) I did and now when she has to
boot windows about once a month, she complains.
Arachne at FreeLists
-- Arachne, The Premier GPL Web Browser/Suite for DOS --
Other related posts:
