Linked by David Adams on Fri 27th Jun 2008 05:10 UTC, submitted by Ager Ignis
Thread beginning with comment 320456
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[3]: Is any company "upgrading" to Vista?
by google_ninja on Fri 27th Jun 2008 23:43
in reply to "RE[2]: Is any company "upgrading" to Vista?"
OK. Stupid question.
Doesn't it strike you as odd, that you need a -very- powerful machine just to run a OS? (with almost zero functionality by itself?)
Doesn't it strike you as odd, that you need a -very- powerful machine just to run a OS? (with almost zero functionality by itself?)
Actually, nowadays these machines would be low to mid range at best. You can get an Optiplex 755 from the dell site that is half again as good in every category for under 500$.
What makes my company not ordinary is we actually upgrade our PCs very regularly, which is why the machine I am on is only mid range from a year or two ago.
But please tell, why do I need to spend money on new hardware... just to run a bare metal OS?!?!? *
You shouldn't. However, when you do upgrade your machine, vista will run fine on it.
RE[4]: Is any company "upgrading" to Vista?
by gilboa on Fri 27th Jun 2008 23:59
in reply to "RE[3]: Is any company "upgrading" to Vista?"
You shouldn't. However, when you do upgrade your machine, vista will run fine on it.
... you are still missing the main point.
The CPU and memory should be used to run -applications- and not the bare OS. (... And I'm not even talking about DRM and friends)
-Even- if I should only spend 1000$ on a Vista compatible hardware, shouldn't -I- be better served by having to spend only 500$ on Linux/XP compatible hardware instead? What exactly am I getting for the additional money? (In terms of actual features)
- Gilboa





Member since:
2005-07-06
The whole company is on Dell Optiplex GX620s though (or equivilent), and that isn't normal in most places (3ghz dual core pentium D, 4 gigs dual channel DDR2 ram, 250 gig SATAII drives)
OK. Stupid question.
Doesn't it strike you as odd, that you need a -very- powerful machine just to run a OS? (with almost zero functionality by itself?)
Should I really point out that I'm (still) running CentOS 5.1 on a 10 year old Laptop with a 366Mhz CPU and 256MB of memory? (Plus development tools, etc)
I understand it when my private 8C Xeon chokes when I run far too many Virtual machines or compile something huge on it; I can live with DOOM3/Linux or ETQW/Linux choking down my private workstation at home at HD resolutions.
Heck, I just saw Crysis kill a brand new C2Q/9800X2 machine and I can understand why.
But please tell, why do I need to spend money on new hardware... just to run a bare metal OS?!?!? *
- Gilboa
* Before someone starts, I -am- using Vista [sadly, at work] for testing purposes; It does run nicely (?) on a QX9650 machine w/ nVidia 7600 GPU; I just don't understand why [unlike Linux and XP] it is allowed (!) to crawl on 2-3 year old desktops and for what reason!
Edited 2008-06-27 22:46 UTC