__/ [ Brad ] on Sunday 02 July 2006 12:57 \__
> On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 08:40:02 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> Hi Brad,
>>
>> IU very well remember the following post/thread, which I have found rather
>> quickly.
>>
>>
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/browse_frm/thread/70404c3ab503be30/034fde7768eb6482?q=deus+vista+memory&rnum=1#034fde7768eb6482
>>
>> To quote:
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | Vista => http://www.stardock.com/brad/vista/Bootup.PNG (look at
>> | dwm.exe)
>> | Mine => http://static.flickr.com/44/149418144_2afb294c08_o.png
>> |
>> | VM Size: 200m/124m
>> | RES: 159m/74m
>> `----
>
> Heya Roy,
>
> Regarless of the presence of debug code, Vista is still using LOTS of
> memory in comparison to a running Linux system. The only thing that all of
> this means is that Vista has greater hardware requirements than Linux. We
> already knew this. Heck, XP has greater hardware requirements than many
> Linux distro's. I am merely surprised that the requirements for Vista are
> as HIGH as they are. As beautiful as Vista is, it remains a pig, albeit a
> pretty one.
I respect this and I won't deny this either. Sounds in Windows Vista were
also said to have a famour composer assigned to handle them. On the other
hand, just remember that you can put a pig in a dress and take it out for
dinner. But it's still a pig in a dress, not a girlfriend.
It would have been more reassuring if Microsoft invested its efforts where it
matters most. All the major pillars of Longhorn, as they were perceived in
the past, have been knocked down. I'd rather Microsoft take the pressure off
the Net by addressing security. At present, the Net is a terrible place to
be, especially to those bound to it. Windows machines are spewing out spam
and automated requests to support DDOS attacks. They also leak a lot of
confidential data, which costs everyone in terms of money, labour, and
convenience.
> I think to argue the point of beta vs release is of little consequence. As
> is the comparison of windows vs linux. (Apples and Oranges). I was
> only stating my observations. My computer is pretty current hardware wise,
> but on Vista's performance index it only scored a 3. This should point out
> that Vista is a real hardware hungry OS....It sure showed me first hand
> that it is.
The scales in hardware costs is never linear, due to the nature of mass
production and R&D investments. This means that your machine may have cost
you five-ten times the worth of my machine at home. Vista is pushing the
financial barrier quite badly. Intel, for example could sell you a processor
for $100, one that would handle a *lean* vista, rather than one which costs
$400. Will Joe Average be wise enough to realise what a Vista-ready machine
costs, in comparison with its Linux counterpart? I sure hope so.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Play Reversi: http://othellomaster.com
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 172 total, 3 running, 152 sleeping, 0 stopped, 17 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
|
|
