Re: Windows vista

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 01:21:30 GMT, AZ Nomad
<aznomad.2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Gave us:

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:09:37 -0700, MassiveProng <MassiveProng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:13:35 GMT, AZ Nomad
<aznomad.2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Gave us:


If history is any guide, SP2 will only consolidate h/w support and bug fixes
and will require another 50% for cpu and memory requirements. By then
microsoft will be able to have dual core/3ghz 64 bit machines w/ 4 gig of ram
run dog slow.


Idiots! Quad core is already emerging!

My dual core Vista Ultimate machine runs fine in either 32 bit or 64
bit setups.

Sure. And windows XP runs just peachy in 32M.
By the time XP-SP2 came out, the minimum requirement was 192M;
add the current patches on top of that and today the minimum is 256M.

Except that I was NEVER talking about XP, dip***.

The same happened on windows 3.1; the same happened on windows 9x;
and the same will occur on vista.

Bull***.

By the time SP2 rolls around, it's
minimum requirement will be at least 4gig.

You're an idiot, and I'd take that bet and the SP2 bet at Vegas any
day.


I've run vista on 2.2ghz amd64 which screams for linux or windows
XP; vista on it is a bloated lethagic pig.

You probably have a *** video card. (another bet)

My 320MB 8800 made my machine a screamer! And being HDCP compliant,
I get to watch my HD DVDs in full resolution.

Bwuahahahahahaha!
.

Quantcast