Breaking backwards compatiblity

H. S. Teoh hsteoh at quickfur.ath.cx
Sat Mar 10 11:49:22 PST 2012


On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 02:23:15PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Alex Rønne Petersen" <xtzgzorex at gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:jjg7dq$24q$1 at digitalmars.com...
> > On 10-03-2012 18:58, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >>
> >> Then you must be running a very different Linux from the one I use.
> >> In my experience, it's Windows that's an order of magnitude less
> >> responsive due to constant HD thrashing (esp. on bootup, and then
> >> periodically thereafter) and too much eye-candy.
> >
> > This. On the other hand, OS X has all the eye candy and is still
> > extremely responsive. ;)
> >
> 
> That's because they cram [their] hardware upgrades down your throat
> every couple years.
[...]

Yikes. That would *not* sit well with me. Before my last upgrade, my PC
was at least 10 years old. (And the upgrade before that was at least 5
years prior.) Last year I finally replaced my 10 y.o. PC with a brand
new AMD hexacore system. The plan being to not upgrade for at least the
next 10 years, preferably more. :-)

(Maybe by then, Intel's currently-experimental 80-core system would be
out in the consumer market, and I'll be a really happy geek sitting in
the corner watching 1000 instances of povray cranking out images at
lightning speed like there's no tomorrow.)


T

-- 
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask
about Exchange Server next. -- (Stolen from the net)


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list