<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Evolution of versions Windows. From 1.0 to Vista</title>
	<atom:link href="http://computerworld.name/evolution-of-versions-windows-from-10-to-vista/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://computerworld.name/evolution-of-versions-windows-from-10-to-vista/</link>
	<description>Hardware, software. News.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2011 18:32:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Person</title>
		<link>http://computerworld.name/evolution-of-versions-windows-from-10-to-vista/comment-page-3/#comment-16433</link>
		<dc:creator>Person</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Aug 2011 15:18:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://computerworld.name/evolution-of-versions-windows-from-10-to-vista/#comment-16433</guid>
		<description>Windows is the best line of OSes. Windows 2000 is my favourite. You have to add Windows ME, after so many comments on it. Windows XP screenshot is actually Windows 2000 with a new GUI.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Windows is the best line of OSes. Windows 2000 is my favourite. You have to add Windows ME, after so many comments on it. Windows XP screenshot is actually Windows 2000 with a new GUI.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The evolution of Windows &#171; onlydarksets</title>
		<link>http://computerworld.name/evolution-of-versions-windows-from-10-to-vista/comment-page-3/#comment-15185</link>
		<dc:creator>The evolution of Windows &#171; onlydarksets</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:59:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://computerworld.name/evolution-of-versions-windows-from-10-to-vista/#comment-15185</guid>
		<description>[...] 09 2008   While searching for &#8220;Evolution for Windows&#8220;, I came across a history of the evolution OF Windows.  Although I didn&#8217;t start with Windows until v3.0, it&#8217;s all a trip down memory [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] 09 2008   While searching for &#8220;Evolution for Windows&#8220;, I came across a history of the evolution OF Windows.  Although I didn&#8217;t start with Windows until v3.0, it&#8217;s all a trip down memory [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rich</title>
		<link>http://computerworld.name/evolution-of-versions-windows-from-10-to-vista/comment-page-3/#comment-14554</link>
		<dc:creator>Rich</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 May 2008 05:35:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://computerworld.name/evolution-of-versions-windows-from-10-to-vista/#comment-14554</guid>
		<description>in my opinion... i have worked with 3.1, nt workstation, 95,  98, xp home and pro, and vista home premium.... i would have to say 95 is most stable windows .... but then 98 is second to that ... 98 would be the best.. because it is the absolute minimum for what a computer user nowadays should have... it was pretty stable... except... most times.. bsod happens.. just fucking restart the comp.. or insert a windows recovery disk for gods sake... 98 is hard</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>in my opinion&#8230; i have worked with 3.1, nt workstation, 95,  98, xp home and pro, and vista home premium&#8230;. i would have to say 95 is most stable windows &#8230;. but then 98 is second to that &#8230; 98 would be the best.. because it is the absolute minimum for what a computer user nowadays should have&#8230; it was pretty stable&#8230; except&#8230; most times.. bsod happens.. just fucking restart the comp.. or insert a windows recovery disk for gods sake&#8230; 98 is hard</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

