"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:m2sm841kv5d4uptccu1uq5o9cu6o8qj8be@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 08:56:39 -0700, "Alex Clayton"
> <alexx1400******.com> wrote:
>
>> IMHO, MS did this to themselves with Vista. The first one I tried was a
>> new
>> Laptop a co worker bought from Dell right after Vista hit. It was a POS.
>> It
>> took forever to get it set up, it was so slow I often thought it had
>> frozen.
>> Problem was it had 512 Megs of RAM, because MS told everyone Vista needed
>> 512.
>
>
> Microsoft has always cited the *minimum* configuration need to operate
> their operating systems. That's very different from what's recommended
> to run it acceptably. There is nothing new in this respect with Vista.
>
>
>> They IMHO, would have been far better off to just tell people the truth
>> right from the start. Tell them "if you try it with 512 it will run VERY
>> poorly".
>
>
> Although information on recommended amounts of RAM has always been
> available too, I agree that they could have done a much better job of
> making that clear.
>
> But again, there's nothing new here, exactly the same was true of
> Windows XP, and of other Windows versions before it.
>
>
>> Tons of new PCs went out like this. Often of course these were
>> bought by people either new, or very inexperienced, and soon you got a
>> hell
>> of a lot of people bitching saying the OS was crap. I have since found
>> the
>> problem was not the OS, it was putting it in a machine with 25% of the
>> memory it needed. Hell I am VERY much an amateur where it comes to PC's
>> and
>> when I got this Vista machine it was actually fun to set up. The learning
>> curve was no big deal because the machine ran, not sat there all the time
>> like it was locked up.
>> I have a recommended book on it on the way, and I'm sure as I start
>> reading it this will get even better.
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>
>

I learned to use a PC late in life on an ME, with 64meg of RAM. It ran, just
a crappy OS. At the time I did not know that and it was frustrating but
doable. When XP hit I was teaching my Dad how to use a PC, he bought one
that had XP months before it was scheduled to be released. It had 128 Megs
of RAM. It seemed to run fine, only problem was drivers for stuff, but we
could find them. My first laptop had XP, and 256 RAM, I could see an
improvement, later bought one with 512. That first Vista with 512 was
nothing like that first XP with 128. It was REALLY bad. At the time I did
not know what was really the problem. I don't remember any major upset when
XP hit. A lot of people seemed glad to get rid of ME, and the 98 users
seemed to be fine with the change from what I saw. Vista did cause a HUGE
backlash on MS, and from what I see it seems a hell of a lot of it would
have been prevented if they had just told builders 1Gig Ram, as absolute
min, rather than piss off so many new customers. What the hell they still
have something like 90% of the market I think it is???, so I guess they did
not have to care. It is a shame though that so many people went through a
lot of frustration with this OS, that could be either eliminated, or at
least GREATLY reduced, with something as simple as enough RAM. I figure with
as little as I know about PC's, if I can use Vista, and like it, anyone can,
but it needs to be able to run.
--
"Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites.
Moderation is for monks."
[Lazarus Long]