__/ [ Erik Funkenbusch ] on Sunday 03 September 2006 07:58 \__
> On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 07:36:53 +0900, High Plains Thumper wrote:
>
>>> That's bull. Vista will run on a $300 PC you buy today. It may not have
>>> the highest end features, but it will run just as well as Vista with the
>>> biggest resource hogs disabled (like Aero)
>>
>> I thought Mary Jo Foley made a very good point in
>>
>>>> http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,2180,2010894,00.asp
>>
>> as she usually does. Then you propose running a crippled Vista version?
>
> And what point might that be? Be more specific.
>
> Are you seriously suggesting that using Vista without Aero is "crippled"?
> By that logic, using Linux without Fluxbox is "crippled".
>
>>>> Vista apparently is very hardware intensive. For example, minimum
>>>> requirements for Windows XP
>>>
>>> Vista is hardware intensive for the high end features, but not hardware
>>> intensive to simply run. Just like you can turn off KDE and run with
>>> Fluxbox on a Linux distro to save resources.
>>
>> Oh? Who is going to want to install Vista, so they can just surf the
>> 'net,
>> write letters or E-mails, chat? One could save considerable costs by
>> running Linux, and that with better security.
>
> Yeah, and Linux advocates have been making that argument for 10 years, and
> yet there is still very little Linux adoption on the desktop.
>
> No, people will buy new PC's when their old ones wear out, and they will
> get Vista just like they got their previous OS. Microsoft has
> traditionally sold less than 1% of it's OS's at retail. People don't
> upgrade that way.
>
>> No, they will want to run bloatware Microsoft Office latest version,
>> AutoCAD, business spreadsheets, high end Adobe graphics, high end games,
>> etc. You do not take a $300 PC and expect it to run these. Of course one
>> could take Linux and the equivalents and do well.
>
> What equivelent is there to AutoCad? Or high end games or most of the
> other things you mention?
>
>>>> Vista will run on an 850 MHz Pentium with 512 MB memory.
>>>> However, those are considered minimal requirements. I see the
>>>> hardware inflationary cycle continuing.
>>>
>>> That's for all features. If you're willing to do without the 3D desktop,
>>> then it will run in significantly less.
>>
>> That is not what the Microsoft website stated that you conveniently
>> snipped:
>
> It's talking about all features. I promise you, Vista runs just fine in
> 256MB and a celeron 500 (I'm using one for a test machine, I know).
>
>> Vista follows in the footsteps of previous Microsoft products and will
>> require greater resources to run satisfactorily. Running a crippled
>> version on minimal hardware will only frustrate users.
>
> That's like calling a Honda Civic "crippled" just because it can't go
> 200MPH on a race track. Aero is the big memory waster, and you don't
> really need it. There's a shit load of other new stuff in Vista that works
> just fine in less memory.
Good example. I never realised why you even bother with Erik. All he ever
farts out is FUD, FUD, FUD. He could put it in his resume.
Experience: FUD
Skills: FUD
Dietary preference: FUD
What's he got to find in COLA anyway?
|
|
