I am sure Wordstar would run much faster on DOS 5.0 Windows is
just a reasource HOG DOS FORVEVER.
Is there a point to this post or are you trying to convince
yourself vista is great and a good idea for everyone?
Serioulsy Vista is doing more and is set up to run on recent
hardware or better. Any upgradeis.. I am sure that Fedora Core 5
needs more resources than say Redhat 5.0 and OSX needs more than
System 9 or 8.
I am sure we all have out views as to what makes a good OS and what
does not.
Your inablitly to accept areas of weakness doesnt do you any
favours.......
So you are saying that those who only complain about Vista have no credibility? I think I don't need to help them they point this out well enough I am looking to create some balance.
Whats next...you will tell us that MS needs so many versions of
vista? Or that maybe they went a tad overboard?
I am not a big fan of too many versions:
Basic is there to server older and low end hardware
Home is for Home
Business is for Business
Ultimate seemed to be for Geeks who didn't want to choose between Home and Business but it also seems to be the only one with a couple of features if I read the comparison.. so I don't get that.
Considering the usage profile of the PC is so diverse.. people got frustrated with questions about installing or not installing features previously.. Making a named versions for each segment makes sense.
Why are there Ford XLTs, Eddie Bauer, and Limiteds.. why not just have a one ford model and make people check off all the add ons they want.
I have no proof that that Vista is the fasted it could be. There are more things than speed that go into a complete product.
ACDSEE is a lot faster than Adobe Bridge and even Lightroom. But after releasing "Pro" it was clear ACDSEE didn't give a darn about Pros as they have left the RAW module in Beta for a year and have not updated it for Vista while bringing out a whole new version. I will never again give them a penny because they basically orphaned their most expensive version... too bad I liked the design so this was killed by their management not their developers.
So I don't know what could be don to make Vista better. I just know I find it odd that people are grumpy because it requires more resources.. that;s a big DUH!! in my book...
Windows 3.0 could run on 8MB of RAM..
3.1 I think liked 16 MB of Ram better
95 I think wanted 64 MB of RAM
98 wanted 128 (really 256 K) of ram
2000 wanted 256K but really did better with 512MB
XP would run well in 512MB but we all know it was happiest with 1 GB
Vista will run in 512- 1gb for many people.. but we know for what we do it will be much better with 2GB..
SO yes someday we will have 10GB machines.. my first machine had 48K... this is much less outrageous an assumption than someone telling me I would have a 1GB machine when I was paying $200 to add 16K to my Apple ][+
I don't think I have to point out the pattern here.. so to say Vista's increase in RAM requirements is extreme just doesn't wash if you understand basic multiplication.
It even tracks well with the slow down in Moore's law because in the 5 years between Windows 3.0 and 95 there was a 4 to 8 times increase in ram requirements. Vista after 5 years is only a 2 to 4 times increase.
There are for sure things that don't work.. some will be fixed by Microsoft some by the maker of the product.
There are always things one can say "Why did they do that?"
But it is just silly to decide a system is BAD because it needs more resources... after a half dozen upgrades.. if that is still a surprise.. it isn't Microsoft's fault.
This is different from someone saying.. I like to wait.. I always do.. So I won't buy it for a couple of years. It gets annoying when they start making up reasons trying to get others to join them. Some people are early adopters some are late buyers.. neither is wrong.
I used to be early adopter.. I am now more in the early majority.. I like it to work smoothly. The excitement of the new has less value for me now than it did.
------------
Ken - KM 5D
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com 
