Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 24th Dec 2008 20:49 UTC, submitted by judgen
Thread beginning with comment 341588
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[5]: I was too quick to judge Psystar in the past...
by DrillSgt on Fri 26th Dec 2008 22:43
in reply to "RE[4]: I was too quick to judge Psystar in the past..."
"Hardware bought two years ago is still good hardware, but not good enough for Vista."
Vista runs fine on my hardware that was purchased in June of 2005. That is over 3 years old. The hardware is still good enough to run any modern OS, and that includes Vista. I buy a new machine every 3-4 years, and make sure that it will last for at least that long.
RE[6]: I was too quick to judge Psystar in the past...
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 27th Dec 2008 00:13
in reply to "RE[5]: I was too quick to judge Psystar in the past..."
My desktop is from 2002/2003 (P42.8Ghz-HT, 2GB, GeForce 6200 128MB) and Vista flies, without any tweaking, full Aero, all bells and whistles.
My laptop, an Aspire One netbook, has 1.5GB RAM, Atom 1.6Ghz, integrated Intel video, and Vista flies, without any tweaking, full Aero, all bells and whistles.
I don't know what everyone else is doing wrong, or what I did right.





Member since:
2008-04-10
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.