DFS wrote:
> nrballardco@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > I'm using Vista RC1 at this very moment, and while I must admit that
> > it is much faster than Windows XP and perhaps even Linux,
>
> ROFL! Say it ain't so!
>
> Some cola nuts claim Vista requires 10x to 20x the resources of Linux. Is
> that what you're finding?
>
Well...I wouldn't dare try Vista on my Pentium II laptop, but Linux
runs on it quite nicely. I wouldn't say definitively that Vista uses
10 or 20 times the resources, as I only have one desktop PC and
therefore can't thoroughly test the exact resource use of Vista.
>
>
> > it is still just a toy.
>
> Damn those toy operating systems - they give Linux such a hard time when it
> tries to be a toy.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=110016492&size=m
>
>
Linux can look cute and still get work done. Vista does nothing useful
and only looks cute for the sake of competing with OS X.
>
>
> > Like XP, Vista appears to be meant primarily for playing
> > games, viewing pornography, and writing documents.
>
> You forgot "and making Linux look like an amateurish, half-ass effluent."
>
Hmmm...Linux distributions release upgrades about every six months.
The latest upgrade from Microsoft have taken about six years and lacks
most of the "killer apps" that Microsoft had promised. How is Linux
half-assed?
>
>
>
> > As long as people
> > can perform these tasks reasonably well with Windows XP, there is
> > really no reason for them to upgrade.
>
> Many will upgrade anyway. Because it's a new version, because it runs
> faster, or looks different, or is pre-installed, or has a new game API, or a
> bunch of new apps.
I suppose we'll all find out on Vista's launch date.
|
|
