Charlie - unfortunately mis-information of the type you espouse (been
wanting for opportunituy to use that work -meaning?)

A major difference, initially, between OSs such as Apple, Atari, Linux, etc.
was backward suport for applications writen for previous versions. Windows
consistenly provided backward compatibilty ( still does so), the other OSs
did not. However as programming skills progressed, backward compatibilty
provided opportunity for virus/spyware/malware infection./

Successive versions of "any" OS have require more capibility ( Memory,
storage, Processor upgrade) to run applications as they (applications)
became more complex. Each Windows version has decreased backward
compatibility as new applications are written to take advantage of new OS
feartures.

BTW - Whst program are you using to post to the newsgroup? Evidently to
support your view(s) of Microsoft you are not using any Microsoft products.


"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.08.19.18.52.54@users.easynews.com...
> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 03:18:10 -0400, Lang Murphy wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>>> It's no accident that you're being fleeced. Microsoft made conscious
>>> design choices with Vista to ensure it would be incompatible with older
>>> hardware and software.
>>>
>>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Whaaaaat? Geez, I've read some crazy stuff in here, but "...Microsoft
>> made conscious design choices with Vista to ensure it would be
>> imcompatible with older hardware and software." makes me ask... what's
>> your source on that? That's nuts.
>
> My source? My source is right on the package. How much video memory
> does it take to run Vista? How much RAM?
>
> What do you think is going on here?
>
> Charlie
>