In news:655q3519les4t0jskefkt4nh9rtlbf4d5o@4ax.com,
AJL typed on Sat, 20 Jun 2009 13:20:17 -0700:
> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> There are virtually no applications that requires a Vista
>
> There are applications that require Vista only. But still a small
> percentage I agree. I blame the Vista debacle...

If you were a software developer, why would you write software just for
Vista when it isn't hard to make it Windows XP SP2 compatible too?

>> or W7 machine.
>
> WMP 12 apparently requires W7.

So? Does anybody really care, seriously? I mean besides Microsoft?
<grin>

>> And I don't see this changing much in the next 5 to 10 years either.
>
> 10 years back would be W98. Check the shelves for W98 software today.

Not the same thing at all. W9x is very limited as far as resources are
concern. Not a great OS for modern day bells and whistles applications.
Windows 2000/XP doesn't have this limitation at all. I forget what the
limit is, but something like 2TB per application. Even the most bloated
applications hasn't come close to this limit yet.

>> some netbooks on eBay have W7 installed on them.
>
> The W7 basic which apparently will be used on netbooks is still in
> design flux. But it is apparently going to be very emasculated.

Well they have to come up with something for netbooks. As Microsoft
really doesn't want to support Windows XP forever. <grin>

--
Bill
Windows XP Home SP3 (5.1.2600)
Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC