Quote:
|
This is ture if you use a single core CPU and the bare minimum of RAM. But if you use Dual Core or Quad Core and have at least 2GB of RAM or more you will see that Vista is actually better. The reason, Vista is designed to use Dual Core and Quad Core efficently. XP is not. So while your article does hold true it is only for certain PC's not all PC's.
|
How many people have that? How many people can afford that? It is absurd that Microsoft would essentially FORCE people to upgrade so as to use their new software - especially when a good deal of hardware that struggles with it is still being sold.
Actually, in my experience, XP doesn't handle dual cores/procs too badly.
Actually, I think XP is a better performer - period. I have seen XP and Vista run on NEAR identical hardware and XP was more responsive; it booted faster and it didn't stall. Granted, these machines didn't have two gigs of RAM, but that's just absurd to call that a minimum to run an
operating system.