Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Windows 8 Consumer Preview Available for Download


Kevin Greene

Recommended Posts

I've got it running in an ancient 2004 laptop. It's slow ad crap but that's the computer! Its a nice idea, but I still find myself doing things in desktop mode because u don't do multi touch on that PC. It has beautiful design and I wish I had something more modern to put it on. It will be interesting to see how well the market responds. Its very interesting that's for sure!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every other OS microsoft puts out is poo.

95 - crap

98 - good

ME - crap

XP - good

Vista - crap

7 - good

I'm not holding my breath for 8.

Windows 95 was a decent OS, it wasn't totally crap.

Also, you missed 2000, which was actually a really good release. (No Windows ME and Windows 2000 are not the same thing. Windows ME was released after 2000.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it's a stretch to say 95 was crap. It was definitely sandwiched between two better OSs though. I don't really consider 2000 or NT in the regular progression line as they were much different and eventually turned into MSs server OSs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'd rearrange your list to say

95: good

98: poo

2000: ok

ME: fuging horrible

xp: probably the best (ram and dx limitations aside)

vista: total poo

7: not bad at all

still follows the pattern

windows 3 wasn't bad, but i definitely preferred dos. i never used windows 3.1 except to play solitaire. too much of a resource hog in the 386 days

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Totally.  I'm less comparing them as players and using him as a reference point.  I legitimately think Bryce is capable of being a better NFL QB than Kyler has been.  Kyler has no clutch gene and doesn't seem to have a grip on the locker room, or much love for the game.  Much different body types/strengths and weaknesses.   Crazy to think-- but Kyler is at year 7 as a 1.01...38-48-1 on his career, 0-1 in the playoffs. He's somehow played well enough to keep it going but crazy to think he's barely even touched the playoffs.  Hasn't done anything that special for the Cards.  That's what you don't want to be stuck in.  Cardinals are in softball purgatory with him.    
    • It's not analysis. There was no attempt to analyze anything or even convey new information at all.
    • As to the topic, I've complained before about "superstar" mentality, i.e. the notion that you can win championships with one superstar player surrounded by a group of mediocre fill ins. It just doesn't work. The Manning-Brady rivalry was something of a showcase for that. The Colts general approach focused everything on Manning. The Patriots? Oh, they also had a superstar quarterback but they built a complete team, especially on the defensive side. This sort of thing is why I've argued many times that "system quarterback" should be to considered a description, not an insult. I know everybody loves the "MVP" athletic types, and they're fun to watch, but that's not necessarily the true path to consistent winning and championship glory.
×
×
  • Create New...