Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 24th Jul 2008 22:04 UTC
Windows As someone who uses Windows Vista practically daily, I've always wondered where all the negativity in the media comes from. Sure, Vista isn't perfect (as if any operating system is), but I just don't see where all the complaints are coming from. It runs just fine on my old (6 years) machine, all my software and hardware is compatible, and it's stable as a rock. Microsoft has been wondering the same thing, and after a little test, they may have found out why people seem to dislike Vista so much.
Thread beginning with comment 324515
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Indeed, a little lie
by Laurence on Fri 25th Jul 2008 07:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Indeed, a little lie"
Member since:

Righto, complaining 1gb of ram isnt enough is a very weak argument, I cant do much of anything in Linux or windows on a machine with that little of ram.

Its not 8 years ago people, wake up and buy some ram, its cheap! REAL cheap.

That's absolute rubbish. XP runs just fine on 512MB RAM (I've even got audio sequencers and real time VJ packagers running on a 512MB XP machine).
My works XP machine runs even less RAM than that and I have a full array of Oracle database tools and MSOffice running on it.

As for Linux, that was designed to run on very little RAM. I have a file and web server running on 512MB RAM and never once needed to even consider upgrading it.
Granted you probably wouldn't want to run Compiz on a machine that old, but then most of Compiz is just eye-candy rather than genuine interface improvments. Vista wouldn't even load on 512MB RAM even with the eye-candy turned off.

So don't tell me that 1GB isn't enough for XP and Linux when both those OSs /HAD/ to survive on that little RAM not more than 4 years back.

In fact, the only part of your statement that was true was how cheap RAM is, but then I don't see that as an excuse for forced into upgrading because Microsoft release an inefficient OS. It's their cock up and you're telling me I have to foot the bill (regardless of how cheap or expensive that might be).

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[4]: Indeed, a little lie
by hollovoid on Fri 25th Jul 2008 08:34 in reply to "RE[3]: Indeed, a little lie"
hollovoid Member since:

I suppose you missed the part where I cant do much with windows or linux with less than 1gb of ram. And since the topic was about Vista, I assumed I didnt have to specify, but apparely people attack and insert thier own experience at will if you dont spell it out to them. And in linux, I compile everything, openoffice runs very healthy on system resources as it is, get java kicking with firefox, and your 512mb is looking bleak indeed. Again, I cant do much with less than 1gb, thats good for you if you can.

Edited 2008-07-25 08:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Indeed, a little lie
by mbooth9517 on Sun 27th Jul 2008 14:34 in reply to "RE[3]: Indeed, a little lie"
mbooth9517 Member since:

They didn't release an ineffecient operating system, they decided to include features which require more ram, since they made the call that people would probably have more ram these days..
You can't surely believe that every operating system should have the same requirements as its previous version?
I actually want something to take advantage of the hardware I bought!

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Indeed, a little lie
by 6c1452 on Sun 27th Jul 2008 19:38 in reply to "RE[4]: Indeed, a little lie"
6c1452 Member since:

You think indexing, desktop effects and the sidebar explain an eightfold increase in memory requirements?

Reply Parent Score: 1