<?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>Fri, 14 May 2010 02:51:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<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>
	<item>
		<title>By: Oliver Smith</title>
		<link>http://computerworld.name/evolution-of-versions-windows-from-10-to-vista/comment-page-3/#comment-608</link>
		<dc:creator>Oliver Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:52:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://computerworld.name/evolution-of-versions-windows-from-10-to-vista/#comment-608</guid>
		<description>wow thats weird i could of sword windows ME is Windows 2000</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>wow thats weird i could of sword windows ME is Windows 2000</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
