On 22 Nov 2009 17:04:00 +0100, Death <-x> wrote:
> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:07:27 -0500, Death <-x>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Stan Starinski wrote this, and it somehow bypassed my kill-file:
> >>
> >> > What you say is largely correct. There are very few 64-bit programs
> >> > yet. That means that the advantage of 64-bit Windows is mostly
> >> > *potential* right now. I think it's good to be running 64-bit Windows
> >> > instead of 32-bit Windows, because it lets you buy and install 64-bit
> >> > software as it becomes available in the future (and almost certainly,
> >> > we will all start seeing more and more of this very soon). But don't
> >> > expect much of a performance increase until you start running 64-bit
> >> > software.
> >>
> >> Why did you not quote Ken Blake on that?
> >> He said that in the same thread, you friggen moron.
> >
> >
> > He not only said the same thing I did, he repeated it word for word.
> >
>
> You can bet if spelling errors are less than 30% in his posting, it's
> plagiarized.
LOL! But I should mention that I'm very prone to making typos myself.
>
> --
> Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,
> Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.
>
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
|
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
