On Fri, 11 May 2007 16:17:34 -0700, Tim Smith
<reply_in_group@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In article <4644723e$0$2286$ec3e2dad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> "amicus_curious" <ACDC@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Read all about it:
>>
>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=247&tag=nl.e622
>
> The responses to this are interesting. Quite a lot of regulars here
> now seem to be pretending they are new to the group, and so haven't
> seen all those posts saying Vista can't run well in that amount of
> RAM, and so they are pretending they don't see what your point was.
All I can say is "so what"?
This is supposed to be impressive and unexpected, dispelling the FUD,
yet three out of the five computers I have at home has less memory than
that, and none have more. 512 MB is a "big machine" around here and I
don't find that amazing or unexpected at all. Just the normal way of
things.
I simply don't buy a new computer until the old one breaks or can't do
the job I bought it for. I upgrade the OS whenever Debian makes a new
release, but for some reason the old hardware continues to work about
the same as before.
I must be missing out on something, but I'm not sure what it is.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
-| http://www.haucks.org/
|
|
