Forum Home
PC World Chat
 
Thread ID: 94093 2008-10-14 03:51:00 It's Official! jwil1 (65) PC World Chat
Post ID Timestamp Content User
712094 2008-10-14 04:56:00 Who gives a toss as long as it works?

Must we assume they do not listen to feed back on over kill.?
Cicero (40)
712095 2008-10-14 05:37:00 Could 7 have been derived from i7, the latest family of 3 intel desktop processors? Blam (54)
712096 2008-10-14 05:52:00 Surely it just means the 7th version of widows? pine-o-cleen (2955)
712097 2008-10-14 07:38:00 Surely it just means the 7th version of widows?

Most probably-Vista 6.0 to Windows 7 7.0.
It is a coincidence that the i7 sounds similar...
Blam (54)
712098 2008-10-14 08:07:00 From the original link:

Likewise, coming up with an all-new "aspirational" name does not do justice to what we are trying to achieve, which is to stay firmly rooted in our aspirations for Windows Vista, while evolving and refining the substantial investments in platform technology in Windows Vista into the next generation of Windows.

I guess "firmly rooted" says it all...
Jayess64 (8703)
712099 2008-10-14 18:09:00 Windows 2009
Windows 2010



Yes that was a good idea.

They have no consistency in their marketing.

How about Windows Hope (ie they hope someone will want it)
Digby (677)
712100 2008-10-14 19:33:00 Theres a house, windows, 1, 2, 3, 4, turn the lock and open your wallet, it's Gatesville! dadadadadaduh! rob_on_guitar (4196)
712101 2008-10-14 19:38:00 I think we have come a little way since Windows 1.01 Metla:-)

Yep.
More pretty screen pointlessness.
More nag screens.
More bloat.
More "features" we don't want.
More space required.
More resources just to get it launched.
More patches, critical updates.
More spaghetti.
pctek (84)
712102 2008-10-14 20:47:00 Yep.
More nag screens.


To me, thats my biggest windows pet hate.

Down with yellow baloon messages!!
rob_on_guitar (4196)
712103 2008-10-14 21:13:00 Yep.
More pretty screen pointlessness.
More nag screens.
More bloat.
More "features" we don't want.
More space required.
More resources just to get it launched.
More patches, critical updates.
More spaghetti.

Nobody is making you give up DOS you know.

Either that, or Windows 3.1 sounds like it could be just the thing for you.
Thebananamonkey (7741)
1 2 3 4