Author Topic: forgetin' windows (Read 1966 times)

Because XP is over 9 years old, and Vista is only 3-4 years old.
Plus, XP doesn't support 64-bit (there is a version, but it completely failed and only ran 64-bit stuff, not 32-bit stuff, unlike Vista).

So therefore, Vista is a whole forgetton better than XP.

Sebster 105 · October 21, 2010, 05:13:12 PM

yeah but trustedinstall.exe kind of stuffted over vista and the surrounding 20 miles of landscape.

kevin 51l · October 21, 2010, 05:14:13 PM

he probably has a one core processor

JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE BEST loving GPU DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE THE BEST loving COMPUTER
REMEMBER THAT

Isjix · October 21, 2010, 05:30:44 PM

A week without restarting, on windows 7.

Snaffle J. Bean · October 21, 2010, 06:02:17 PM

Quote from: Miga on October 21, 2010, 05:10:58 PM

Because XP is over 9 years old, and Vista is only 3-4 years old.
Plus, XP doesn't support 64-bit (there is a version, but it completely failed and only ran 64-bit stuff, not 32-bit stuff, unlike Vista).

So therefore, Vista is a whole forgetton better than XP.

newer does not mean better; your logic sucks

also there's not really a need for a 64-bit version of an os unless you want and unneeded amount of ram

also vista is a ram hog and has a stuffton of glitches and problems

Miga · October 21, 2010, 06:18:41 PM

Quote from: Snaffle J. Bean on October 21, 2010, 06:02:17 PM

also vista is a ram hog and has a stuffton of glitches and problems

Vista uses less than 100 MB on my laptop, maybe 150 with Firefox.
Plus, with the games I run, it would be very hard to run them with only 3 GB of RAM.

Plus, newer is better, because they improved a lot of stuff that sucked in Windows XP.

You're trying to make an obsolete OS look good, it's not working. It's like saying DOS is better than any version of Windows.

Snaffle J. Bean · October 21, 2010, 09:41:47 PM

Quote from: Miga on October 21, 2010, 06:18:41 PM

Vista uses less than 100 MB on my laptop, maybe 150 with Firefox.
Plus, with the games I run, it would be very hard to run them with only 3 GB of RAM.

Plus, newer is better, because they improved a lot of stuff that sucked in Windows XP.

You're trying to make an obsolete OS look good, it's not working. It's like saying DOS is better than any version of Windows.

sometimes newer things don't improve, and sometimes they're worse than the older ones.

Arcturus · October 21, 2010, 09:49:29 PM

Quote from: kevin 51l on October 21, 2010, 05:14:13 PM

he probably has a one core processor

JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE BEST loving GPU DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE THE BEST loving COMPUTER
REMEMBER THAT

CAPS LOCK ARE COOL