"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.08.21.19.55.08@users.easynews.com...
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 03:33:04 -0400, Lang Murphy wrote:
>
>> "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 would say you have an anomalous test bed.

And what makes you think that?

>>
>> 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.
>
> You must not be familiar with what is available. Some Linux distros have
> beefy hardware requirements, whereas other currently supported versions
> (like DSL) will run on a 486.

I am familiar with what's available... I'm comparing apples to apples... I'm
not interested in running a character based OS on a 486. I'm interested in
running a GUI based system that will run multimedia stuff like photo
organizers and movie editing software. Don't tell me I can run movie editing
software at an acceptable speed on any OS, Windows, nix, OS X, with 256MB
RAM.

>>
>> 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?
>
> I wouldn't complain if Vista offered some kind of important new
> capabilities. But it doesn't. It's a replacement for something that
> didn't need replacing.
>

Well, then, I can only spew your own words back at you: "You must not be
familiar with..." Vista. Improved memory management. Improved security (not
perfect, but improved nonetheless). Improved system tools. Those are
important to me. The other stuff, like Aero, is way less important, but Aero
doesn't make me froth at the mouth like it does many others, both pro and
con. LOL. And my Vista experience has generally been quite good. All my
Vista installs have been clean installs. I believe that has helped with my
Vista experience. I am cognizant, only too well, having hung out in this ng
for a year, that others have not had great Vista experiences. But, still,
that doesn't mean MS made conscious design choices to ensure
incompatibilities with older software and hardware. As others have pointed
out, MS goes to great lengths to try to get older hw and sw working with
Vista. If a third party company doesn't want to write Vista drivers for hw
or update their sw, MS cannot be held accountable.

Lang

> Charlie