- last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT
[too lazy to quote Minjita...waste of space. No offense, Minjita, but your post, while delicious and in some instances valid, was LONG.]
*sigh* I guess I didn't make it too clear after all. My apologies. My point, though, is thus: At the very offset, you were obviously (from the above quotes) implying that Vista was the lesser between XP and Vista. Yet later on, you completely contradicted yourself, doubling back and citing dual-core support.
Oh, again, no offense, but if you had read my post carefully, I intentionally didn't omit your bit about Vista being the greater in terms of "dual core support, etc."
I'm not trying to prove that Vista will be perfect on release, that'd be just plain retarded. While my post was admittedly confusing, how you derived that out of my posts is a mystery to me.
Secondly, yes, I think we can firmly establish that everyone here is making assumptions. Including you. Including me. Including Recon. How this detracts from either of our arguments is beyond me, except that yes, I am making assumptions like you mentioned. You're no different with your assumptions.
Either way, you're beginning to drag this out a bit too much. Again, not to sound belligerent, but you're beginning to look far too much into things and trying to find things when they really don't exsist in my posts. Sometimes, a cigar really is just a cigar. ;)
=====><=====
To Recon, yeah, I've heard about it as well, I think either from PC Mag or Ars Technica, I read an article somewhere detailing some method of Vista being able to run programs designed for XP or even earlier.
[Edited on 9/28/2006]