__/ [ Peter Köhlmann ] 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:
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?
Best wishes,
Roy
|
|
