Linked by Stephen Reilly on Mon 12th Mar 2007 17:47 UTC
Windows I have been both a Windows and Linux user for a long time (I started with Windows 3.1 and RedHat 5.1 kernel 2.0.x if I recall correctly) and have stuck with both for various reasons. I'm writing this article not as a DIY lofty vantage platform by which I can bash MS nor as a 'Why you should switched' flame bate piece, but have tried to keep an open mind and reflect the actually experience that I have had with Vista so far, regardless of OS political propaganda. Please keep in mind this is still an opinion piece and most probably to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Thread beginning with comment 220511
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Amen
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 12th Mar 2007 18:22 UTC in reply to "Amen"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

Still, my Pentium M 1.73Ghz/768MB RAM/Ati Radeon x300 128MB (dedicated) runs Vista just fine and dandy. I'm really interested in what all these people saying Vista needs 2GB of RAM are doing with their computer.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Amen
by sandwichbutton on Mon 12th Mar 2007 18:25 in reply to "RE: Amen"
sandwichbutton Member since:
2007-03-03

You talk about that like its a semi-archaic! I guarentee >95% of the desktop machines deployed throughout the world are not even that fast! (The most popular OS on desktops is STILL Win98!)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Amen
by MollyC on Mon 12th Mar 2007 18:34 in reply to "RE[2]: Amen"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

"The most popular OS on desktops is STILL Win98!"

Um, no.
http://www.onestat.com/html/aboutus_pressbox46-operating-systems-ma...
OS share as of Aug 2006:
1. Windows XP 86.80%
2. Windows 2000 6.09%
3. Windows 98 2.68%
4. Macintosh 2.32%
5. Windows ME 1.09%
6. Linux 0.36%
7. Windows NT 0.24%
8. Macintosh Power PC 0.15%

And go to any number of web stat sites, and you'll see very similar numbers.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Amen
by kaiwai on Mon 12th Mar 2007 22:29 in reply to "RE[2]: Amen"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

You talk about that like its a semi-archaic! I guarentee >95% of the desktop machines deployed throughout the world are not even that fast! (The most popular OS on desktops is STILL Win98!)

You're right about that; even in 'first world nations' like Australia and New Zealand, don't be surprised to see people still running PIII/PII with less than 256MB RAM, and a 40GB hard disk.

For my machine, its what I would consider 'top of the line' for its price range, and given its specifications, I was shocked at how terrible it ran Windows Vista - and this is a 'Vista Capable' Laptop btw; installed Solaris, Linux, Ubuntu, and it was a speed demon; loading in a few seconds, effects without sluggishness, applications loading snappy.

Windows Vista seems to be a product looking for a problem to solve; yes, it has some good technologies, but the whole thing is castrated in terms of performance for the sake of providing backwards compatibility - Microsoft should have said 5 years ago that they were going to throw away all legacy crap; Windows Vista was going to be new, legacy free, and designed for the future - Windows XP support coninued for another 4 years plus give away Virtual PC who need compatibility with "Windows Classic applications".

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Amen
by Bink on Tue 13th Mar 2007 01:10 in reply to "RE: Amen"
Bink Member since:
2006-02-19

My Core 2 laptop had 1GB of RAM and, when multitasking, Vista was quite slow. I had to move to 2GB to keep myself from pulling my hair out. Previous I was running Windows 2003 on my laptop with 1GB and things were just dandy.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Amen
by PlatformAgnostic on Tue 13th Mar 2007 03:20 in reply to "RE[2]: Amen"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

I agree. Things are great over here with 1.5 GB (minus ~128 for intel integrated graphics). I was pretty frustrated when I had 512 MB.

Reply Parent Score: 1