To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I think what most people get upset about isn't the fact that they need to upgrade their computer per se, but the fact that for all that extra hogging of resources Vista brings very little benefit on top of XP or even other alternative oses when you come right down to it. It hogs more resources, requires more power... and yet doesn't really do much more with it. Win 7 might be different, I'm of the wait and see mindset. I've seen it perform well on some systems, and worse than Vista on others, but as it's still in the RC stages I'm willing to give it more leeway than Vista when judging it.
Also, keep a watch on your mentality. Yes, many of us in the more developed--for lack of a better word and I'm sorry how that sounds--nations can go and buy or build a new computer for pretty cheap... but not everyone everywhere can do that for any number of reasons. When a hardware upgrade is required, there really should be a reason for it other than that the hardware comes cheap in some areas. That's a very lazy mentality, imho.




Member since:
2006-02-02
I cannot believe Microsoft would have the unmitigated nerve to release a modern operating system that won't run on my beloved NEC V20* based PC!
How can they expect to be taken seriously in the operating system arena if they can't provide such a basic level of support?!?
... ok, ok, I'm kidding. Still though, people who complain that Vista (or Windows 7) runs poorly on their 5 year old computer with half a gig of memory annoy me, especially when you can build/buy a Vista-capable machine for under $500.
* Yes, I have a laptop with an NEC V20 chip in it-- I don't actually do anything with it other than haul it out every few years and see if it still boots.