Neowin.net

As they say, "The buck stops here...."

As I learned early "The first rule of leadership is that everything is your fault", but in the corporate world, the first rule is to find someone else to take the blame. Actually that applies to government as well.

More sensationalist Reg BS posted by our good buddy Daniel.


People have always bitched about requirements on OSs, games, etc. How is this anything new?

For your first point, would seeing a different source quote him wiggle from responsibility help you?
http://www.computerworld.com/action/articl...;taxonomyId=125

On your second item, this isn't about customer complaints (well, the court proceedings are). This is about how accountable is the CEO for the products his company markets.

Technically "capable" just means the damn thing will install, boot, and be usable -- it in no way implies the actual UI, operations, included apps, etc. will be comfortably usable. LOL

We may "all know" that. But Microsoft apparently hasn't got a clue, then.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-v...quirements.aspx
They clearly say 512 MB of RAM as their recommended requirement for Home Basic

Sure, they "recommend" 1GB for Premium and Ultimate. But the even still list "512MB" as their "minimum supported".

They are low-balling their own OS requirements, if you ask me (and apparently you would agree).

1GB for Premium is not enough, my laptop came with Vista Home Premium, and it's taking up most of the 1GB itself...I have a shared video card and it's taking only a tiny bit of the 1GB so programs have a small amount of free ram to work with. I haven't gotten around to buying a 4GB kit yet, but that should help matters.

Everyone seems to act like this is something new. Check out the requirements for XP:

Required:
233 MHz processor
64 MB of RAM

Recommended
300 MHz or higher processor clock speed recommended
128 MB of RAM or higher recommended

I've run 98se on those minimum requirements. Could hardly imagine trying to push XP onto the machine...

Now Vista comes out, the word "capable" is thrown around. If it can run Vista, even very crappy for that matter, it's still capable. While I don't agree with Microsoft's usage of throwing "Vista Capable" on machines that could barely run it, they've done nothing wrong if you want to get technical. That is, unless the machine really could NOT run Vista. Otherwise, it is still "capable".

Hopefully though, Microsoft will avoid doing this kind of crap in the future.

Still no real comparison between the two.

Agreed. Win98 was a hybrid OS, and it's minimum system requirements of a 486 DX/66 with 16 megs should only be compared to Win95's minimum system requirements of a 386 DX with 4 megs.

On the other hand, Vista is a true 32-bit operating system, and should only be compared to other NT OS minimum system requirements, such as:

NT4: 468/33 with 12 megs
NT5: P5/133 with 32 megs
NT5.1: P5/233 with 64 megs
NT6: Pentium III 800 with 512 megs

People have always complained when their upgraded OS required considerably more horsepower from the hardware, but only once before has an MS OS needed a minimum amount of RAM that was four times that of its predecessor, much less eight. However, another thing to keep in mind is that back in 2000, memory was about $1 per meg...today, it's about 2 cents per meg before rebate, so it isn't too painful on wallets to give Vista as much memory as it will consume.

However, it begs the question: will the minimum system requirements for NT7 be only four times as much as NT6? If this is the case, then it wouldn't be wise to release a 32-bit version, since you will only have one gig of RAM headroom to spare above the minimum system requirements.

You clearly have no clue how Vista works when it comes to memory. It's supposed to take up 'most of the 1GB itself'. It's called SuperFetch, it caches your programs into memory so the next time you use them they load faster. It also intelligently releases that memory as it is needed by applications. You're just taking what task manager tells you as fact and not delving any deeper.

Add more memory, and more stuff gets cached. However the more memory you have, the more likely it is that Superfetch wont fill it up. Cached program files only require so much memory.

Well, not everyone can afford to get the latest and greatest every year, Rockefeller, like you.

BTW, stop excusing Corporate America. That's one reason why there is such a mess in the USA now with that recent $700 Billion Corporate Welfare payout.

That makes no sense at all. Are you sure that you posted in the right thread? What does this have to do with corporate America and Bush's economic bailout? Oh, that's right...nothing.

+1 for Foub. If you're not screwing the customer; you're not doing your job.

If you can't afford the "latest and greatest", why are you ever running Vista? Vista is 5-6 years newer than XP, therefore the recommended specs for hardware are going to be 5-6 years newer than those of XP. If you've got a PC that wasn't "average" at the time Vista was released, then run XP instead. Don't blame Microsoft if your PC supplier sold you a lemon with Vista installed.

And +1 to the other guy who said that this post had absolutely nothing to do with corporate america and the $700b bail out.

This shows one man's understanding, and another's naivety.

The point being made, is greed! The US is headed for Marshall Law. Why? Because Corporate America is about to bankrupt the ordinary US taxpayer. When "The Armed Madhouse" (quote Greg Palast) wakes up to their shafting, the outcome is not going to be pleasant!

As for Steve Ballmer's involvement in this sorry tale The likelihood is, his fingers are all over it! Does this matter, and will it make a difference to the case outcome, probably not. By the time payout comes, the world economy will be flat-lining. We are about to enter a whole "New World Order" Welcome fellow peasant slave, to neo-feudalism!

+1