Re: Is your Windows PC, "Windows 7 Ready?"

ZnU wrote:
In article <ccadnZutFLDA843XnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Steve de Mena <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

ZnU wrote:
In article <DIqdnStrEPasBpLXnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Steve de Mena <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

ZnU wrote:
In article <kMWdndnfDODSmJLXnZ2dnUVZ_hpi4p2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Steve de Mena <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

ZnU wrote:
In article <eJydnSBSudfMF5HXnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Steve de Mena <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

ZnU wrote:
In article <W-Cdnb6wt4SZ8JHXnZ2dnUVZ_ohi4p2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Steve de Mena <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Because Leopard was just an incremental upgrade from previous OS X versions.
Err... And Windows 7 isn't an incremental upgrade from XP? Last time I checked they still hadn't dropped Win32, switched kernels, or done anything else that would plausibly make Window 7 a different operating system from XP.
UAC - different security model!! Apps can no longer assume they are running with full administrator access.

That was a biggie! Why else do you think apps, a small minority at this point in time, don't run?
A different security model hardly makes Windows 7 or Vista a different operating system.
I have a feeling the definition of a "different operating system" is solely defined by you, based on whatever point you are trying to make at that time, or to suit whatever position you are arguing.
W2K, XP, Vista and Windows 7 are all successive upgrades to Windows NT. Microsoft's own version numbering reflects this. Windows 7 is NT 6.1.
Version numbering? Are you for real? Those have to be successive so programs can test for versions >, < or equal to a number, for compatibility purposes.
Are you actually denying that W2K, XP, Vista and Windows 7 are all successive upgrades to Windows NT? This is rather unbelievable technical ignorance ever for you, Steve.
I didn't agree or disagree with that, I was laughing so hard from you using "version numbers" as backup.

If you're actually talking about two different operating systems, successive version numbers are largely meaningless, so your objection is worthless.

"Successive Upgrades" will be whatever definition you want it to be, nothing more, nothing less, so no point in my commenting.

Your continued insistence on playing dumb with respect to the lineage of Windows operating systems is noted.

What part of "I didn't agree or disagree with that," did you miss?

Steve
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Mac advocacy again: Springer changes to Mac
    ... Steve de Mena wrote: ... Macs are more user friendly than other computers ... It also said they'll be running OS X, Windows Vista and Windows XP on ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Morgan Stanley: 40% of college students plan to buy Macs
    ... Steve de Mena wrote: ... when people mainly had computers at home to do ... Windows version of the VPN client then that cross-compatability goes ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: holding down shift too long
    ... "Steve N." ... >> then you're going to have to disable a LOT of the operating system. ... >> Name me one piece of computer hardware or software that won't ... I wasn't bashing Windows. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: New Macs at the Apple Store?
    ... Steve de Mena wrote: ... with the previous Mac Mini. ... may have to consider a windows box instead. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Is your Windows PC, "Windows 7 Ready?"
    ... Steve de Mena wrote: ... And Windows 7 isn't an incremental upgrade from XP? ... W2K, XP, Vista and Windows 7 are all successive upgrades to Windows NT. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)