Justin said:
If you're so dimwitted that you don't understand what a NEW FONT is
then there is no point in talking to you.
I understand the new fonts. What you don't understand that fonts can be
installed on almsot any operating system. They really have little to do
with the OS itself, other than being pre-packaged together. You could
just as easily transplant them into other OSes.
In that case, you're just a damn fool. If you can't stay within
scope of the topic then, again, there is no point in talking to you.
You're just making things up to prove your own point. Vista versus
XP, not Vista versus ALL OTHER OSs even none client ones.
The scope in general is about Windows. Since many compare XP and Vista,
XP is perfectly valid to bring up.
Obvoiously it's only a problem for you when you can't think up an
intelligent rebuttle... your reply has nothing to do with the text of
mine you quoted. Instead you dance around it. Well done.
Who said less resources? Again, learn to read. Why are you making
things up? Why do you consitantly put additional words into a
conversation? We discussed SLOWER. Not more resources. Go back and
read.
Slower tends to imply using more resources... thats what usually leads
to slowness. Why are you trying to impose artifical boundries on what
can and cannot be talked about, which all serves youself? You are not an
authority figure, acting like you are only makes you look more foolish.
Again, read above. Vista versus XP. If you want to have a Vista
versus Linux or Mac conversation then knock yourself out.
Now who's putting "additional words into a conversation" ? I never
mentioned Linux nor Mac. This is about Windows, and how one can do
virtually anything in XP you can do in Vista. Granted, Vista has them in
one package, but that doesn't obliviate al lthe short commings of Vista.
Not really, read above. Vista versus XP. Oh, and please either use
your own words or properly quote me!
You are the one who constant chops off parts of my threads and you talk
about proper quoting...
From your buddy Saran:
"...what Vista really is. a Bloated step up (or
down) from XP with extras thrown in just to make people like yourself
think it's a brand new OS."
So again, Vista versus XP.
"Vista versus XP".. So what, what is your point with that, or do you
enjoy making NULL points over and over? Vista is an OS that needs a lot
of work to become a viable replacement for XP right now as it stands.
Spinning half truths and what not, to advocate Vista the way you and
your brethren love doing, serves no one. Why is it so hard for you and
others to just come out and admit Vista needs a lot of work?