Mike Hall - MS MVP wrote:[color=blue]
> Alias
>
> It is way more capable.. live with it, or say nothing..[/color]

LOL! Capable of what, having One Care flag MS product files? Of emptying
your pockets to buy Vista and Ninja hardware? Of making sure you don't
play DRM protected media files? Of driving you crazy with UAC? Of
forcing you to call and grovel to some operator in India every time you
update the BIOS, hardware or a driver?

Does it surf the web faster? No.

Does it send email quicker? No.

What, exactly makes Vista more capable than Ubuntu or XP?

Alias, not expecting an answer other than to be called a troll or
otherwise insulted, the SOP when an MS fan boy is called to the floor.
[color=blue]
>
> "Alias" <alias@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message
> news:eu33hh$kic$1@aioe.org...[color=green]
>> Mike Hall - MS MVP wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> Vista was released as the next stage up in Windows OS, just like all
>>> of the others.. it flies in the face of lower end computers no more
>>> than XP did on its release..
>>>
>>> To have a more capable OS requires more capable hardware.. it is that
>>> simple..[/color]
>>
>> "Capable"? You mean more resource hungry, not more capable.
>>
>> Alias[color=darkred]
>>>
>>>
>>> "Wrecklass" <wrecklass1******.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ONwSnxebHHA.1216@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>> Valid points. It seems to me that there is a lot of truth in the
>>>> Rumors that Vista
>>>> was designed to help sell more hardware. Totally flying in the face
>>>> of the new
>>>> lower priced PC's being made by the bigger hardware vendors. I
>>>> suspect Dell
>>>> is happily selling these cheap systems knowing full well that they
>>>> will end up
>>>> selling expensive upgrades on every one.
>>>>
>>>> I am sad, and a bit surprised by the number of people I see saying
>>>> "But Vista
>>>> is newer, so it should be faster, right?" I can only look at them in
>>>> disbelief. MS
>>>> really sold people on this idea, but they were banking on most
>>>> people buying
>>>> higher end systems, which would mask the performance problems in Vista.
>>>>
>>>> The only WOW I've heard from people is "Wow, this is really going to
>>>> cost me
>>>> a lot of money, isn't it?"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Gordon Keenan" <gordon@tasystems.org(removeme)> wrote in message
>>>> news:E46E012E-B40C-4BD9-BF35-57F8402B899C@microsoft.com...
>>>>> I have (over the last three weeks) had the opportunity to work at
>>>>> different places that have recently purchased new Dell Computer
>>>>> Equipment. A few small business's and some home users, so it's been
>>>>> a combinations of Vista Business and Home Edition.
>>>>>
>>>>> My experiences have left me extremely cold on what Dell considers
>>>>> to be an acceptable platform for the Vista operating system.
>>>>>
>>>>> All of the equipment is way under powered for decent use, though I
>>>>> have to say it would be fine for Windows XP.
>>>>>
>>>>> 512MB RAM - it's crippling the system!
>>>>> On-board video - Aero - zero chance of that happening for these
>>>>> users and certainly no WOW factor!
>>>>>
>>>>> The thing is, the people buying the equipment don't know any better
>>>>> but they all said the same thing... Why is the new computer running
>>>>> so slow? Surely it should be really fast with the new vista on it?
>>>>>
>>>>> As I run Vista Business on a dual-core Athlon 5600+ with 2GB of
>>>>> ram, and I find it sluggish at times, all I could do is tell them
>>>>> that in future, they should ask advice before just buying something
>>>>> cheap.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for Dell, a company that is trying to tell people that it KNOWS
>>>>> about computers, they should hang their heads in shame.. but the
>>>>> good thing is that independent computer builders now have a chance
>>>>> of making good spec pc's that will work better for the end user!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>[/color][/color]
>[/color]