On 2006-04-21, DFS <nospam@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> The hesitance to move forward owing to a monopoly
>
> Poor Roy, he's just a victim... of his own inability and inaction.
>
>
>
>> that discourages steps forward (64-bit architectures spring to mind).
>
> What mind? There was a 64-bit version of Windows 13 years ago, in 1993.
> Did you know how to lie and snivel so well way back then?
No, you're the one indulging in the lies. Your statement is
carefully creafted to give the unwary the impression that there is some
13 year old version of 64-bit windows out there when there is infact not.
64-bit Windows is much like Microsoft Unix.
It is nothing like AIX, HPUX, Solaris, IRIX, or even Linux that has
been consistently 64-bit during that same timeframe. There is big difference
between something that was half-heartedly attempted and then abandoned and
something that is treated as a company's flagship enterprise product and
supported as such.
--
Negligence will never equal intent, no matter how you
attempt to distort reality to do so. This is what separates |||
the real butchers from average Joes (or Fritzes) caught up in / | \
events not in their control.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
|
|
