Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ Peter KÃhlmann ] on Sunday 03 September 2006 09:38 \__
>
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>> 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"?
>>
>> It sure is. You could just as well (or even better) stay on XP then
>>
>>> By that logic, using Linux without Fluxbox is "crippled".
>>>
>>
>> Your "logic" as usual is crap
>> A linux machine without Fluxbox could be one with KDE / Gnome/ whatever
>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> This has exactly nothing to do with running vista as a glorified
>> web-browser There is *ZERO* need to run vista for writing
>> letters/webbrowsing/email
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Right. They are force-fed with garbage they would not buy in the first
>> place
>>
>> < snip >
>>
>>>> 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).
>>>
>>
>> Your "assurances" mean absolutely nothing. You are lying way to often to
>> believe any of your claims
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Minesweeper?
>>
>> After all, the promised features of Shorthorn MCD have all vanished in a
>> puff of smoke
>
>
> Oops. Reply to Erik was inended to be descendent of yours (wrong article
> in focus). To repeat it:
>
Shit happens
> Good example. I never realised why you even bother with Erik.
Well, he /tries/ to sound reasonable. To a newbie in this group he even
might be convincing if he is not shown to be an outright liar and FUDder
> All he ever
> farts out is FUD, FUD, FUD. He could put it in his resume.
>
> Experience: FUD
> Skills: FUD
> Dietary preference: FUD
>
That is for sure exactly what he did. He had lots of experience ion the OS/2
group before
> What's he got to find in COLA anyway?
>
His employers worst nightmares
> Best wishes,
>
> Roy
--
Microsoft? Is that some kind of a toilet paper?
|
|