[citation][nom]Nemo888[/nom]Vista was such a gold plated turd I don't see why anyone would ever pay money to own it. The "New" 7 has the same kernel as Vista and is full of even more disturbing and invasive DRM. The faster hardware would need an extra 40 watts of electricity just to run this flaming turd as fast as XP. We didn't need a new OS, let alone an unfinished broken pile of shiny crap.[/citation]
Who shoved a stick up your hemerroiding anus?
[citation][nom]vaskodogama[/nom]seriously, what is the difference between win98se gen programs [ like office 2000 or yahoo messenger in early versions or something else ], and new gen programs? they all grow in visual effects as the functions mostly are equal, so, there is one problem, is it with the programs that are not coded good enough like old times? or is it the OSes that are eating all the resources that a program needs to run? like office 2007!I recently bought a notebook with good hardware in specifications [intel core2dou 2.26 with 3mb cache, nvidia 9200m gs 3g RAM ... for office use] and running vista, I installed office 2007, and I can feel the lag between keypresses and showing letters on monitor!!!I really wonder, office 2000 and 2007, do the same, mostly only visual effects are different, but it costs too much resources for these? or is it a bad new codings for programs? or OSes Suck? [ not mentioning that vista is vad, vista with a desktop pc and good HW is good! ][/citation]
Of course the programs are "slower" because good programmers aren't worth it anymore.
You can just get some guy who can do the job "okay" but perform like "crap" but that's most of the time okay with the companies.
Mostly because we have more processing power these days as time goes on.
Infact,it's Wirth's law.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram