__/ [ BearItAll ] on Friday 18 May 2007 13:32 \__
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> Lawsuit spotlights Vista's hefty hardware needs
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | If you bought a Windows Vista Capable PC late last year and want to
>> | move up to the Home Premium version of the Vista operating system,
>> | you may already need a hardware upgrade.
>> `----
>>
>>
>
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9015701
>>
>
> You can understand these people beeing cheesed off.
>
> I would have said that the words 'Vista Capable' on a PC would mean that
> when Vista comes out it will run on said PC. I remember that close to the
> release time there was some confusion as to how many versions of Vista they
> would be, so how could MS expect those who bought their PCs to know which
> version 'Vista capable' was meant for. We also know that the split in the
> distros has nothing at all to do with the underlying Vista, the splits are
> in daft areas such as one gets a backup but no scheduler, another gets the
> scheduler but no ... {what ever it was}. So if one wont work on your PC
> that chances are none will work.
>
> But I'll tell you what I think.
>
> We know that the full Vista was never tested pre-release, that has to be a
> fact and the only way to explain their current mess. Forget the beta, that
> obviously didn't test the Vista that people have been trying to use since
> release date. They were so few working drivers available that a lot of
> hardware was never tested, that might be improving I don't know, but I do
> know that up to a month after release people were still finding that they
> were no drivers for their printer, scanner, various other equipment types.
>
> I believe that MS really had no idea what so ever which PCs vista would run
> on and the only reason they didn't know, was because no one had really
> tried.
>
> So I really can not see these people sueing MS losing in court, because the
> MS case is pathetic. We ought to all club together to make this go to court
> rather than settled outside, because it will make MS look very stupid.
Facing Microsoft in court is often something which leads to exhausion and
impatience. Ask the EU. You can't make their pockets run dry or have them
worried about spendings. Look at Iowa. Comes settled after Microsoft
realised that all these E-mails were too much to bear. Microsoft never gets
prosecuted. It's a criminal that has a whole pile of bail coupons.
>> Related:
>>
>> Buying a new PC? 'Windows Vista Capable' barely hits the mark
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | Microsoft's on-the-box minimum RAM requirement "really isn't
>> | realistic," according to David Short, an IBM consultant who works
>> | in its company's Global Services Divison. He says users should
>> | consider 4GB of RAM if they really want optimum Vista performance.
>> | With 512MB of RAM, Vista will deliver performance that's
>> | "sub-XP," he warned.
>> `----
>>
>>
>
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9011523
>> http://tinyurl.com/2x29tu
>
> 4G sounds a fair bit over the top. That SuperFetch sounds like a poor man's
> cache, instead of cleverly bringing back parts that are likely to be next
> and holding those most used, SuperFetch grabs as much as it possibly can in
> the hopes that what you want next is likely to be in the heap. Gads, after
> it has fetched all of the software in your 5 most used programs list, it
> can probably load in most users entire data excluding videos, but is there
> really a benefit in doing that.
>
> Looking to wash your white socks for tomorrows cricket match? Well just
> pour the whole washing basket into the machine and chances are you are
> washing your white socks too. I wouldn't have said that is very efficient
> (though it would put you ahead for once with your washing basket).
No, no. It's a fine example and a funny one, too.
> Cacheing is a good technology, but as every trainy IT person knows, they
> are times when even the best cacheing algorithm can have a negative effect,
> but the overal is advantagious, so those occasional loses are worth it.
> SuperFetch doesn't look very clever to me. It seems that much of Vista's
> loss of speed at startup and copying are due to SuperFetch too, but I think
> we would all expect that to be the case when you are going for huge cache,
> and have no real idea if filling the cache will give any benefits. Today
> your user might do something entirely new.
Caching sucks (when/if it becomes required). I'll admit that I use almost all
my cache, so I rely on being able to judge what I can do to avoid flushing
the cache. Sometimes, for example, if I 'travel' too much between virtual
desktops, my COLA index would be dropped and it would take like 20 seconds
to rebuild it (100,000 messages). I always have the system monitor in sight
mainly because of cache.
--
~~ Best regards
Roy S. Schestowitz | Partition if an operating $ysteM must be set aside
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
roy pts/3 Wed May 16 14:23 still logged in
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
|
|
