Originally Posted by mark thorpe
meh, on my PC im running vista on 512, with no problems at all... i dont see where everyone has got this complete BS from that vista needs huge amounts of RAM to run... im sitting here perfectly happily running vista on 512
What I want out of software is usually a bit more demanding than most people. I don't doubt at all that somebody could get a cheap brand pc with vista preloaded and have it run just dandy.
I'm one of those people who take a Windows iso, open it in nLite, remove all the stuff I deem useless, burn it, then grin as window's boot time gets cut in half.
Originally Posted by Äß§ý∩†H♠HäŽ€
If you can't afford $18 dollars you can't afford Vista. Cheap ass gig of memory
Maybe they should include a value coupon for people like you. It can read "There we gave you 1GB of memory quit whining already" Much like there giving people so much for a digital converter box's for Feb 09. Whoops I just gave you something else to complain about.
I know what they should do. Just re brand Windows 95 and sell it next. That way a newer OS will be much faster yet less demanding than the last one. Do you realize what you just said about not being sure if a new OS should be more demanding than a previous one
I don't expect anything older to run the latest and greatest stuff. Its not like its the early 90's were computers were priced a lot higher. You can buy a complete desktop for $299 that's more than capable of running Vista.
Its not a argument that your 5 year old PC can't run Vista. To bad can a regular nintendo work on a HDTV? Not with the factory cables. You'll have to shell out for adapters. Opps HDTV's are a waste now because it can't play on your "new TV" without buying something extra.
Putting aside sarcasm, the point that hardware is becoming dirt cheap is made.
Though for kicks..
First off, I have 2 gigs of ram.
Second off, I have DirectTV (Already digital, Foo.)
Third, the NES and composite jacks.
and fourth, I just find it odd that I can take a PC from 1998, run the os it came with (98se,) upgrade (to 2000) upgrade again (to XP) and have no problems with any of them at all, then BOOM vista is the cut off. Maybe I'm just too picky, but I don't see enough improvements in vista to warrant upping the system requirements (granted cheap hardware makes that matter less and less as time goes on)
Windows 95 was a major step up from Windows 3.1 or using DOS, and frankly it made sense that a little 386 would be incapable of running things smoothly on it.
But you know what, I have bitched and moaned about this for so long with no real reason to keep doing so, so I think I'm just gonna stop here... yeahhhh...