Z98 wrote:That's like saying you don't understand why Linux distros today use much more memory than they did in 2001, when XP was released, thus all Linux distros must also fail.
I havent seen any distro eating 500 Mb Ram yet. ;)and you z98?.
Of course each year and each OS will eat more RAM than the previous,but 500MB is too much.7 is also,nowadays, a Beta,with some Services not running yet,so this 500MB is going to be more in Final Release:Approaching dangerously to the Vista´s 700MB.
When Microsoft said 7 will run better than Vista in our Pcs/Laptops I thought it was going to decrease really RAM consumption, which seems (i wanna be wrong)isnt going to happen..
And yes,Linux distros ARE failing.But not because RAM but because concept.They are trying to arrive to all users but normal/basic users arent following them.Distros must ask why:beggining with their GUI concept.
Ged wrote:Why do people who have no understanding of what they are talking about always seem to comment, esspecially if it involves bashing Microsoft ....
I dont have any special hate to Microsoft.I´m not a Linux fanboy.
But,really, i dont understand a OS which is slower than XP and consuming more resources: If it consumes more resouces(all that the OS needs) why is it slower than XP in the same PC?
Saying "7 is going to fail" isnt a free statement.I said before Vista appears.And i´m saying again:
When an OS wins/fails? The OS real market are the companies(no Home Users).An OS WINS when the companies buy the OS licence to install it in the PCs they have(substituting other OS installed in them:i.e XP/Vista).
Of course 7 is going to sell licences(since all the new PCs are going to have it installed),but this licences number cant be used to decide if 7 WINs/FAILs (as Microsoft did,sorry but he did, with Vista:counting each new PCs licences as a Winner point.Of course he didnt discount the 40% downgrades to XP of those PCs).
And why the companies arent going to change their Xp PC ?Because Xp pcs gives to the companies all they need.Companies doesnt need a more comfortable GUI,neither a more good-lucking GUI. Maybe Home Users,but not Companies.And Companies (as you know) are the ones which pays licences.
If Microsoft wants to WIN,they must change drastically the OS concept as they are doing with Cloud computing (or any other new concept).
Ged maybe you can teach me a lot of things about DeadLocks,Kernerl,GDI32,Subsystems(as Posix),memory manager,round robin,or any of the Windows Internals 4th Edition(and 5th)(maybe also improving my English), but be sure i can teach you a lot about Commercial and Bussinness Trade
BTW,your answer isnt useful at all,and you dont know anything about me to say: "who have no understanding of what they are talking about".
Seem i have pissed off a Windows fanboy
Black_Fox wrote:XP sucks nowadays, it can only use 3,5 GB RAM, doesn't include DirectX 10 and cannot take advantage of more than 2 cores (and XP 64-bit isn't an answer for its lack of drivers). I have it on my older desktop, though, newer is occupied by Vista x64 and I can't complain. Looking forward to 7.
You are talking as a Home User. Normal Companies doesnt need PCs with 3,5 GbRAM or Directx10 or more than 2 cores(of course there are some exceptions).You can say: "Well I´m talking as a Home User...and?".My answer: Home Users dont Pay licences,dont they?This shows how Microsoft is failing about choosing the correct Market Target(is the correct Market Target the group that is going to download 7 from Torrents?)