[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > <http://www.theregister.com/2007/02/14/pricey_beta_bugger/> >
I don't know about the rest of what he says, not having tried it yet, but: > Aero looks nearly as good as KDE, although it demands about three times the system resources. That's a ridiculous statement. First, in no way does vanilla KDE look anything like as good as Aero, although you can make it look that good. Secondly, is the comparison of system resources between the fundamentally different Linux and Windows architectures a valid one? I don't think so. What system resources, anyway? _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
