To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I almost never say this on the internet since everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I'll say it now, since just because you have a right to an opinion doesn't make you immune to being wrong:
You f--king idiot! I can't tell if you're trolling or if you're really this stupid, but in my experience I'm usually right when I assume the latter.
"crappy hardware"? Hardware bought two years ago is still good hardware, but not good enough for Vista. Vista was the straw that broke the camel's back regarding the Microsoft-forced illusion that it was NORMAL to double or triple the hardware requirements of an OS with every release. The box says a minimum of 512 MB of RAM, but I have never had a satisfactory experience with Vista with less than 2 GB. The computers we have at work have 4 GB of RAM and Quad-core processors, and even they feel the weight of Vista sometimes.
The number of people who ask us to "fix" their computers because they're slow is astounding. You know what they all have in common? They're running Vista with only 1 GB of RAM and a dual-core processor. Windows XP says 128 MB of RAM required on the box, have you ever tried running XP with that? On a machine with 512 MB of RAM, it's only just on the fringe of what I'd call useful.
To get anything worthwhile out of Windows, you need hardware at least four times as powerful as what Microsoft tells you. In the case of Vista, you'd need a time machine to make a trip to the future to pick up what you'd need.





Member since:
2006-12-05
The real question is why would you want to use such an OS, when better options exist like Windows XP and Windows Vista, or the free option (Linux) for people who care about money?
Wow. Just... wow. What the hell are you talking about?
And I'd really hate to burst your bubble, but my first "real" computer (a '97 Gateway 2000 machine with Windows 95) was the introduction that really sparked my interest in computers (sorry... the previous Apple IIe with DOS doesn't count), and I've been a Windows user until just a couple years ago. It ended with Windows XP for various reasons, including:
1) Microsoft's seemingly increasing lack of care for their own users with preference towards the mega "entertainment" corporations (one word/abbreviation: DRM).
2) Their insistence to attempt to kill off what worked, and worked quite well I might add (Windows XP), and try to force Vista onto PC users like they've never forced an "upgrade" before. It seemed like an eternity that they held back even the slightest hint of an SP3 of XP, for example, while they were busy trying to force Vista down people's throats.
3) My increasing knowledge of what they, as a company, have done in the past, and increasing skepticism of them as a result.
4) The realization that there are, in fact, "better" alternatives to their OSes available, and even free of charge.
What this all means is that, as a longtime Windows user, I've given up with Microsoft starting with Vista. I'm currently a Linux user, but BSD, Solaris, Haiku, and possibly even Mac OS X are not out of the question. So, I'm not quite sure what you mean when saying that Windows XP and (*gasp*) Vista are better. They're exactly what I'm running from.
Edited 2008-12-25 03:30 UTC