Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 24th Jul 2007 15:08 UTC, submitted by Uncle Fester
Thread beginning with comment 257773
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Shift the blame to someone else
by brostenen on Tue 24th Jul 2007 15:39
in reply to "RE: Shift the blame to someone else"
RE[2]: Shift the blame to someone else
by Kroc on Tue 24th Jul 2007 17:21
in reply to "RE: Shift the blame to someone else"
I came across a laptop being sold with 512MB of RAM, 32MB removed for the shared graphics. It was being sold with actually less than the minimum spec for Vista. Performance was, as imagined.
It's always been like this though. I clearly remember seeing a laptop being sold with just 96MB of usable RAM with XP. The CPU sat at 30% when idle.
RE[3]: Shift the blame to someone else
by psychicist on Tue 24th Jul 2007 17:56
in reply to "RE[2]: Shift the blame to someone else"





Member since:
2005-07-02
The only reason Vista is rising in sales and usage is that it comes pre-installed on PCs - whether the PCs are powerful enough to correctly run it, might I add...I bought a desktop PC at Future Shop in Canada (for my ex's parents), and asked if I could get XP. They told me all their new PCs had Vista on it.
It took me three hours to get the system up and running (it was an English version, so I had to reinstall it in French), and once it was all installed it took a full 2 min. 40 sec. to boot (which was 15 sec. more than booting from a Kubuntu LiveCD, incidentally). The system felt very sluggish - this was *not* a PC that should have been sold with Vista.