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

In article <wL6dna98KpefIo3XnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Steve de Mena <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

ZnU wrote:
In article <IOWdnTMtJqEFDY3XnZ2dnUVZ_gli4p2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Steve de Mena <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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

ZnU wrote:

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?

You apparently feel the need to hedge on this issues, which I find
utterly inexplicable. This is technically a very straightforward
question; your hedging can only be due to a desire to leave open the
possibility of arguing one way or another in the future depending on
which position supports whatever argument you might try to make.

In other words, it's a clear indication that you're a troll, rather than
someone with an interest in substantive discussion. As if we didn't
already know.

The point was I wasn't entering into a discussion into this at all,
who cares what I think, just laughing at your using version numbers as
an indication Windows versions were based on each other.

You buffoon. We were already several exchanges into a discussion of this
subject, which started when you made a post implying that while Snow
Leopard was an incremental upgrade from Leopard, Windows 7 wasn't an
incremental update from XP... and you then offered the introduction of
UAC as evidence of this.

You're attempting various sorts of obfuscation now to distract from this
ludicrous and technically claim.

A "troll" is another one of those undefinable terms that is based on a
definition of your own, and thus can me defined to fit anyone.

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who thinks you're a troll.

--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
.

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: 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)
  • Re: Macs not used in business?
    ... Steve de Mena wrote: ... its traditional Windows server architecture to install a similar ... The company considered upgrading its aging Windows XP terminal server ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)