Quote:
Originally Posted by Makaveli213  Did i say anywhere in there that 2GB of RAM was MIMIMUM? No. The minimum for Vista is 512MB. Granted it runs like XP does on 64MB but still. With newer software require more hardware. |
I still find it hard to believe why it takes 2GB for Vista to do what Mac OSX Tiger or Linux w/Beryl does in as little as 512MB.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makaveli213 I hear all these complaints about Vista but yet no ones says a thing when a game requires these things. Nor do they say anything when a a photo application requires these things. So why is it that a brand new OS that has some eye candy among other things require it people go nuts? |
Because Vista requires way too much for what it does. If it is going to require this much resources, it needs to have something to show for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makaveli213 Since Dual Core is now becoming the standard with at least 1GB on all pre-built systems i would say the chances are better than most now. Yes XP does boot faster, as it does have to load the totally new OS built from scratch instead of built of a older kernel like XP was. So yeah it boots faster it is also just the NT kernel with a couple new things added to it. The NT kernel was created in 99 or so. That offers a lot of security. Hence why XP is so easily hacked. Unlike Vista which was built from scratch off the Server 2003 Kernel which has yet to get a vulnerability found for it. |
No, dual-core and 1GB are not standard. At least in my area, 9 out of 10 PCs we sell are Celeron D processors with only 512MB of RAM. People buy the cheap stuff, the stuff on the front of advertisement flyers. Also, Vista is still on the same NT kernel that has existed since 1993. There are some differences, but its essentially the same under the hood. I ran into a Vista machine today with so messed up with spyware nothing could save it but a complete reformat. There were like 5-6 toolbars in IE too. Vista is far from completely secure.