"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
>


I think what's going on is MS released a new OS that has steeper resource
requirements than previous Windows versions.

I've gotten Aero to run on boxes with 64MB video RAM. Can't get Beryl to run
on the same system.

I'd say 1GB is sufficient to run Vista. And that's from personal experience.
All claims aside, don't think I'd want to run any nix distro with less RAM.
Sure, the OS may load OK, but when one starts using apps... same difference.

So... I'll continue to be skeptical of your claim that MS "...made conscious
design choices... to ensure it would be incompatible with older hardware and
software." There are plenty of folks that hang out in this ng that would beg
to differ. Sure, some old stuff won't work with Vista. So what? That's no
different than when XP was unleashed on the world. That observation is also
from personal experience.

Lang