Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 24th Jul 2008 22:04 UTC
Permalink for comment 324517
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/15/13 23:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
[q]Your friend got a new laptop, with only 1gb and that's Microsoft's fault how? Several things here - most onboard laptop video cards are weaker than wet cardboard. 1gb of RAM? XP struggled with that in all honesty, and you expect Vista to happily crawl along with that?
Let me spell-it-out-for-you - how about friggen blaming the damn well laptop manufacturer for being a tightass and ONLY giving 1gb of RAM? [/quote]
Microsoft gives out the 'compatible with Windows Vista' logo - it is based on what Microsoft demands the system to have before it can get the logo. There is nothing stopping Microsoft from upping the specifications and thus force the companies to increase the default amount of memory installed.
Microsoft could tomorrow, if they wanted, up the minimum specifications for Windows Vista compatible to 2GB if they wanted. The problem is that they're sucking on the OEM tit rather than being honest with their customer base and saying, "Windows Vista has higher system requirements, and in fairness, anything less than 2GB, the system will run like crap". The only people who would piss and moan would be the OEM's.