Microsoft to Respond to Apple's 'Get a Mac' Ads

[BongoBanger]

Vista has had 1 major service pack, along with lots of smaller updates.

Yup. A lot of those hot fixes are updates to Windows Defender though. In addition MS has a history of streaming minor improvements to Windows as and when they are available.

Leopard has had 4 smaller than service pack updates and a couple of security updates on top of that.

Well, yes, but they're still service packs whichever way you look at it. Bottom line is that Leopard has had four major revisions in a year.

Apple and Microsoft are two different companies with two different strategies for updates.

Yup. Windows Update is definitely better than Apple's distribution mechanism.

Trying to judge software value/quality solely on the basis of size and frequency of updates is a little naïve.

Absolutely, just as pretending that service packs are small updates is too.

A vast number of Windows users most certainly have been for the past 22 years.

No they haven't. If they had they woud have migrated to Apple or Linux in huge numbers which just hasn't happened.

The bloat I refer to is a mess of patched sloppy and error ridden code, which has been Windows demise for the past 22 years.

Sorry, is this the same demise that saw them rise to over 95% marketshare in that time and which is still in excess of 90% or is some other ficticious construct?

The SLOC in Leopard are not hacked in this fashion, resulting in a much more stable and more responsive platform.

Really? You may want to look a bit closer at its developement.

LOL, look at the exorbitant number of businesses, consumers, and pros who have downgraded back to XP, and who will likely wait for Windows 7 before considering the risk of another monumental disappointment.

So are you going to provide numbers for that statement are you going to continue to demonstrate you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about?

Here's some questions for you:

What percentage of the corporate market did XP have 1, 2, 3 and 4 years after release?
What's Vista's corporate market share after 1 year and projected at 2 years?
Was there a high resistance level to migrating from 98/NT/2000 to XP?

Now, see, I actually have the answers to those instead of pulling subjective nonsense out of the air. Maybe if you look around you could find them too?

Vista SP1 = One hell of an extreme makeover.
Leopard updates = minor refinements and patches.
Nice comparison, Windows Fanchild.

Yeah, yeah. The Kool Aid stand is over there.

On the other hand, of the 70% of iPod users, 70% actually chose the iPod over competitors.

And over 90% of people choose to buy a Windows based PC rather than a Mac.

 

[BongoBanger]

Just googling "Vista Compatibility" brings up these gems - http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&resnum=0&q=vista compatibility&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn

So yes, we have every right to bash Vista and their terrible compatibility issues

Well you did until they were largely resolved. Now, in fairness, we could talk about Leopard's list of incompatible devices but I think Mr Pot and Mr Kettle are pretty well acquainted already, don't you?

microsoft delayed and delayed and cut some of the most important promises of their OS... and still delivered a sub-par product. I don't accept that of microsoft.

And since Leopard was delayed, buggy and has needed four updates to fix it so far you shouldn't of Apple either.

What I am confused about is why a Windows user such as BongoBanger is in a Mac forum? insecure about his 'platform choice' he feels the need to troll Mac forums bashing people who run Macs simply to boost his own fragile self esteem?

Except I'm not a "Windows user" I'm a "PC user who uses Windows, Linux and Mac PCs". My self esteem is fine since I don't feel the need to worship a particular piece of hardware or an OS, thanks. Maybe you could learn from this?

As for trolling, my posts are in response to people implying that Windows users are stupid. It's called a rebuttal.

Yes there are a lot of trolls on this forum which is why I posted such a response.

Looking at your posting history that does indeed seem to be the case. I fear you may have mistaken this Apple fan site for a Windows hate site.

The rest of your post and a good part of the next couple are the usual load of nonsense, unsupported hyperbole and pointless MS hate so we'll leave it at that. Those of us who use multiple platforms and appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of each know better after all.

 

[darkane]

And over 90% of people choose to buy a Windows based PC rather than a Mac.

That's because PC's are dirt cheap. Most people who just surf or burn cd's won't pay the $ for a Mac.

 

[BongoBanger]

That's because PC's are dirt cheap. Most people who just surf or burn cd's won't pay the $ for a Mac.

*Sigh*

Another silly myth. They're all in today!

 

[NovemberMike]

Except I'm not a "Windows user" I'm a "PC user who uses Windows, Linux and Mac PCs". My self esteem is fine since I don't feel the need to worship a particular piece of hardware or an OS, thanks. Maybe you could learn from this?

qft.

There are three parts to the computer: the Hardware, OS and Software. I generally care about the software being able to use the hardware effectively. If the OS doesn't get in the way of that, I don't particularly care about it. I think I said this before, but I am not a Windows fanboy, I just don't see anything wrong with it.

 

[DiamondMac]

That's because PC's are dirt cheap. Most people who just surf or burn cd's won't pay the $ for a Mac.

Friend of mine just spent over 2k on a laptop

Far from cheap

 

[roach]

Apple's battery life, HDs, lcds, do not suck, and the OS is far from buggy. If the OS does a few bugs, that's not bad considering the swarm found in others. Most people I know in IT, major corporations, and professional media production who have recently switched are amazed at their increased productivity due to not having to restart and reformat their systems, monitor viruses, spyware, malware, etc. Those who went with Vista originally, first switched back to XP before switching to a Mac. Vista was alright for many of them, but XP overall, was still faster, more responsive, and less convoluted by comparison. Those who prefer to get their work done, using a state of the art system on well written apps, consider Macs over the so called standard environment they were originally immersed in.

I was actually referring to Vista being blame for bad products (bad drivers, old hardware, ect.) created by other companies and individual. Do you think its fair when Apple gets blame over heating laptop batteries created by another company.

Actually once driver issue got fixed, a lot of Vista problem was solved. Here's a link that show Vista equalling and even surpassing XP.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2303830,00.asp

 

[DMann]

I was actually referring to Vista being blame for bad products (bad drivers, old hardware, ect.) created by other companies and individual. Do you think its fair when Apple gets blame over heating laptop batteries created by another company.

Actually once driver issue got fixed, a lot of Vista problem was solved. Here's a link that show Vista equalling and even surpassing XP.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2303830,00.asp

I agree. However, this is quite an embarrassment for Vista, barely being able to eek an improvement, only in some areas, over XP.

 

[DMann]

Yup. A lot of those hot fixes are updates to Windows Defender though. In addition MS has a history of streaming minor improvements to Windows as and when they are available.

And you distinguish those from the minor updates released for Leopard. They were not major revisions. Another case of double standards.

No they haven't. If they had they woud have migrated to Apple or Linux in huge numbers which just hasn't happened.

And continues to. Why is MS even addressing this advertising issue if this weren't the case?

Sorry, is this the same demise that saw them rise to over 95% marketshare in that time and which is still in excess of 90% or is some other ficticious construct?

Most people who were hoodwinked into using Windows were not aware of a viable option with sufficient software available to meet their needs. This has changed - look at the Apple Store success.

Really? You may want to look a bit closer at its developement.

I have - UNIX - NeXT OPENSTEP - OS X, summarized. OSX built on XNU kernel, derived from BSD implementation of UNIX in NEXTSTEP. This represents an evolution of UNIX to a rock solid and stable OS. Windows, however, is another story:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Windows

Buggy, Buggy Buggy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/t...15316800&en=3ee2a82dbd97932d&ei=5070&emc=eta1

Here is a partial list of what Windows users have been saying about Vista:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2254104,00.asp

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2209837,00.asp

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9785337-7.html?tag=nefd.only

http://www.pseudomarketing.com/vista-nightmare-oww/

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&...

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/gadgets/0,39029552,49293700-10,00.htm

http://www.itwire.com/content/view/13114/1090/

http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,1000000567,10006214o-2000331758b,00.htm

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=378

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/cont...her_windows_vista_feature_bites_the_dust.html

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060625-7128.html

70% of iPod users actually chose the MP3 player over competitors. 80% of the 90% of Windows users likely did not. MS has threatened to discontinue support for XP, further pressuring companies to migrate to Vista. Vista has literally been dumped by MS with Win 7 on the way. (2011-12) Not a bright future, to say the very least.

 

[kaiwai]

I have - UNIX - NeXT OPENSTEP - OS X, summarized. OSX built on XNU kernel, derived from BSD implementation of UNIX in NEXTSTEP. This represents an evolution of UNIX to a rock solid and stable OS.

Its actually a fusion of Mach and BSD. The Mach kernel also forms the foundation of OSF/1 which is the core of Tru64.

As for Mac OS X; given the clean nature of its design and implementation, Apple isn't saddled with the same problems as Microsoft. Microsoft on the otherhand (and said by Jim Achlin - former Windows grand poobah) has stated that things came unstuck in the 90s when it came to how Windows was developed and maintained.

 

[BongoBanger]

Yet more of the usual cherry picking and nonsense. 95% or so of the world chose a PC over a Mac. In other words they chose Windows over OSX. Full stop. End of story.

It's not even as if Apple are a new player on the market, they've been around as long as MS it's just they failed to take the opportunity when it presented itself.

So it goes.

As for Microsoft "coming unstuck in the 90's", that would be why they changed from DOS based systems of 95/98 to the current structure used under NT/XP/Vista and others. It always helps to take quotes in context, eh?

Now that will really have to do as whilst it's useful to debunk the same old tired myths I think we're wasting our time continuing this merry dance.

 

[DMann]

Yet more of the usual cherry picking and nonsense. 95% or so of the world chose a PC over a Mac. In other words they chose Windows over OSX. Full stop. End of story.

It's not even as if Apple are a new player on the market, they've been around as long as MS it's just they failed to take the opportunity when it presented itself.

So it goes.

As for Microsoft "coming unstuck in the 90's", that would be why they changed from DOS based systems of 95/98 to the current structure used under NT/XP/Vista and others. It always helps to take quotes in context, eh?

Now that will really have to do as whilst it's useful to debunk the same old tired myths I think we're wasting our time continuing this merry dance.

The only nonsense here has been emanating from your 'end.' Apple was never interested in peddling to the masses. Their business model has been doing much better than most, and at 5-10% market share, they'll continue to be highly successful. A comparatively small percentage of the 90% of the world actually chose Windows as a platform - for most of them, it was handed to them at work, as most corporations have been locked in. Others may have chosen Windows seeking a cheaper solution, or a gaming machine, and others have been unaware of a viable alternative. A very large percentage currently uses pirated versions of Windows.

Of that lot, not too many are happy campers with their current upgrade. It's certainly much easier, and far less painful to gloat, in denial, but the fact remains that droves of people have been looking for, and many more are beginning to, seek better solutions.

 

[DMann]

Its actually a fusion of Mach and BSD. The Mach kernel also forms the foundation of OSF/1 which is the core of Tru64.

As for Mac OS X; given the clean nature of its design and implementation, Apple isn't saddled with the same problems as Microsoft. Microsoft on the otherhand (and said by Jim Achlin - former Windows grand poobah) has stated that things came unstuck in the 90s when it came to how Windows was developed and maintained.

Thank you for that. Jim Allchin certainly did air his grievances in regard to the direction Windows was taking. He made his commitment to bail as soon as Vista was released. Perhaps he actually had a conscience. Bill, on the other hand, likely got tired of the whole charade.

 

[Sesshi]

The only nonsense here has been emanating from your 'end.' Apple was never interested in peddling to the masses. Their business model has been doing much better than most, and at 5-10% market share, they'll continue to be highly successful. A comparatively small percentage of the 90% of the world actually chose Windows as a platform - for most of them, it was handed to them at work, as most corporations have been locked in. Others may have chosen Windows seeking a cheaper solution, or a gaming machine, and others have been unaware of a viable alternative. A very large percentage currently uses pirated versions of Windows.

Of that lot, not too many are happy campers with their current upgrade. It's certainly much easier, and far less painful to gloat, in denial, but the fact remains that droves of people have been looking for, and many more are beginning to, seek better solutions.

There's little indication of the nature of the polled parties, and the polls rolled out by the Apple advocates frequently indicates the shallowness of their thinking allied by a very simplistic view of Apple - something perhaps in line with their core ownership demographic. In a 'lowest common denominator' aspect, I'd expect Leopard to score more highly due to it's more idiot-resistant respect and unified support for the neophyte.

However, idiot-resistant does not necessarily equal 'better' in many respects.

 

[Quillz]

The only nonsense here has been emanating from your 'end.' Apple was never interested in peddling to the masses. Their business model has been doing much better than most, and at 5-10% market share, they'll continue to be highly successful. A comparatively small percentage of the 90% of the world actually chose Windows as a platform - for most of them, it was handed to them at work, as most corporations have been locked in. Others may have chosen Windows seeking a cheaper solution, or a gaming machine, and others have been unaware of a viable alternative. A very large percentage currently uses pirated versions of Windows.

Of that lot, not too many are happy campers with their current upgrade. It's certainly much easier, and far less painful to gloat, in denial, but the fact remains that droves of people have been looking for, and many more are beginning to, seek better solutions.

How many people were sampled in this poll? Who conducted the poll? Because again, it's a vocal minority that dislikes Vista (often for stupid reasons.) Just like most other OS, the vast majority of people either like it or have no strong opinion one way or the other.

 

[Quillz]

And you distinguish those from the minor updates released for Leopard. They were not major revisions. Another case of double standards.

And continues to. Why is MS even addressing this advertising issue if this weren't the case?

Most people who were hoodwinked into using Windows were not aware of a viable option with sufficient software available to meet their needs. This has changed - look at the Apple Store success.

I have - UNIX - NeXT OPENSTEP - OS X, summarized. OSX built on XNU kernel, derived from BSD implementation of UNIX in NEXTSTEP. This represents an evolution of UNIX to a rock solid and stable OS. Windows, however, is another story:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Windows

Buggy, Buggy Buggy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/t...15316800&en=3ee2a82dbd97932d&ei=5070&emc=eta1

Here is a partial list of what Windows users have been saying about Vista:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2254104,00.asp

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2209837,00.asp

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9785337-7.html?tag=nefd.only

http://www.pseudomarketing.com/vista-nightmare-oww/

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&...

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/gadgets/0,39029552,49293700-10,00.htm

http://www.itwire.com/content/view/13114/1090/

http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,1000000567,10006214o-2000331758b,00.htm

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=378

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/cont...her_windows_vista_feature_bites_the_dust.html

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060625-7128.html

70% of iPod users actually chose the MP3 player over competitors. 80% of the 90% of Windows users likely did not. MS has threatened to discontinue support for XP, further pressuring companies to migrate to Vista. Vista has literally been dumped by MS with Win 7 on the way. (2011-12) Not a bright future, to say the very least.

Microsoft should discontinue support for XP. They should have done it a few years ago, actually. Also, how exactly have they "dumped" Vista? They just recently released SP1, continue to improve it every day, continue to sell it, advertise it, and it continues to ship on nearly all new PCs. I'm sure it's not far off to say they are working on SP2.

By your logic, Windows 95 was a failure because it was known early on that Microsoft was already working on Windows 98. And Windows 2000 was a failure because Windows XP was being worked on immediately after, too. Longhorn was in progress even before XP ever shipped. Just because Microsoft starts working on the successor OS immediately is in no way shape or form an indication of the progress of the current OS. Just because Windows 7 is coming out in 2010 means exactly that... It will be released in 2010, about four years after Vista. This is the normal life expectancy of most OS. XP was one of the few exceptions to this rule, as was Tiger. Generally, most major companies will release OS updates every 3-4 years. We saw it with 95, 98, 2000, XP and ME. We're seeing it with Vista not because Vista is a failure (it's not, it's selling at a faster rate than XP did at a similar point in time), but simply because that's how progress... progresses.

 

[t0mat0]

Microsoft should discontinue support for XP. They should have done it a few years ago, actually. Also, how exactly have they "dumped" Vista? They just recently released SP1, continue to improve it every day, continue to sell it, advertise it, and it continues to ship on nearly all new PCs. I'm sure it's not far off to say they are working on SP2.

By your logic, Windows 95 was a failure because it was known early on that Microsoft was already working on Windows 98. And Windows 2000 was a failure because Windows XP was being worked on immediately after, too. Longhorn was in progress even before XP ever shipped. Just because Microsoft starts working on the successor OS immediately is in no way shape or form an indication of the progress of the current OS. Just because Windows 7 is coming out in 2010 means exactly that... It will be released in 2010, about four years after Vista. This is the normal life expectancy of most OS. XP was one of the few exceptions to this rule, as was Tiger. Generally, most major companies will release OS updates every 3-4 years. We saw it with 95, 98, 2000, XP and ME. We're seeing it with Vista not because Vista is a failure (it's not, it's selling at a faster rate than XP did at a similar point in time), but simply because that's how progress... progresses.

And what do think would happen to those XP users and businesss?
They'd be annoyed. Mighty annoyed. Starting on the new OS isn't necessarily an indication of the progress of the current OS. But looking at the previous and current OS is an indication of the progress of the current OS.

Most = Microsoft I guess, because Apple is on line to release OS updates i.e. new versions every 12-18 months or so, not every 36-48 months.

Selling copies does not a success make. It depends how you measure sucess of an OS = if you're using sales figures, you've got to remember some of those are XP sales for starters...

 

[BongoBanger]

And what do think would happen to those XP users and businesss?
They'd be annoyed. Mighty annoyed. Starting on the new OS isn't necessarily an indication of the progress of the current OS. But looking at the previous and current OS is an indication of the progress of the current OS.

XP is supported to 2014. The corporate adoption rate of Vista is similar to XP which didn't achieve over 50% until 4 years after release. MS are right to discontinue new sales because Vista is better than XP now.

Most = Microsoft I guess, because Apple is on line to release OS updates i.e. new versions every 12-18 months or so, not every 36-48 months.

Which, given the rate business technology refreshes, isn't a great idea.

Selling copies does not a success make.

Well actually it does.

It depends how you measure sucess of an OS = if you're using sales figures, you've got to remember some of those are XP sales for starters...

Relatively few though. The vast majority - in excess of 90% - of new PCs will run Vista, not XP. This figure, UMPCs aside, will continue to increase.

 

[dsnort]

Meh, my folks have a new laptop with Vista I get to play on occasionally. Overall, it's nowhere near as bad as I expected after reading all the complaints here online. It's very pretty, and some of the "Gadgets" are pretty neat.

But it shows it's heritage when you actually try to do something with it. I can sum up working with Vista in three words: CUM BER SOME. It's like it's a couple of steps down the evolutionary ladder from Mac OS X and some of the recent Linux Distro's.

When they first got the Vista machine, Dad was fairly happy with how fast it was. It's only a AMD chip, no blazer, but not bad. Last week he had me come over to clean out the start menu, defrag, and other Windows housekeeping chores because it had slowed down, a bunch. We did all that, but it's still running slow. Anyone have any suggestions?

 

[DMann]

Meh, my folks have a new laptop with Vista I get to play on occasionally. Overall, it's nowhere near as bad as I expected after reading all the complaints here online. It's very pretty, and some of the "Gadgets" are pretty neat.

But it shows it's heritage when you actually try to do something with it. I can sum up working with Vista in three words: CUM BER SOME. It's like it's a couple of steps down the evolutionary ladder from Mac OS X and some of the recent Linux Distro's.

When they first got the Vista machine, Dad was fairly happy with how fast it was. It's only a AMD chip, no blazer, but not bad. Last week he had me come over to clean out the start menu, defrag, and other Windows housekeeping chores because it had slowed down, a bunch. We did all that, but it's still running slow. Anyone have any suggestions?

Yes, dump it and revert back to XP. CUM BER SOME sums up the experience quite well. You'll still have to clean, defrag, reformat, and clean install regularly, but at least XP is more responsive, and less cumbersome than Vista.

 

[DiamondMac]

Meh, my folks have a new laptop with Vista I get to play on occasionally. Overall, it's nowhere near as bad as I expected after reading all the complaints here online. It's very pretty, and some of the "Gadgets" are pretty neat.

But it shows it's heritage when you actually try to do something with it. I can sum up working with Vista in three words: CUM BER SOME. It's like it's a couple of steps down the evolutionary ladder from Mac OS X and some of the recent Linux Distro's.

When they first got the Vista machine, Dad was fairly happy with how fast it was. It's only a AMD chip, no blazer, but not bad. Last week he had me come over to clean out the start menu, defrag, and other Windows housekeeping chores because it had slowed down, a bunch. We did all that, but it's still running slow. Anyone have any suggestions?

I remember my mother upgraded to Vista a few months ago

She had plenty of memory and space and decided to give it a try.

She first had installation problems as she got 2 errors, she then had printer issues as her HP printer wouldn't work with Vista, then had freeze issues every 5 minutes, and it generally slowed down her computer to the point of just utter annoyance.

She cleaned out any installation files and did other things to possibly quicken it but to no avail

Just an overall terrible upgrade that forced her to downgrade a few months later (few weeks ago)

Several friends thought about upgrading to Vista at work when it first came out but still to this day laugh when I ask them whether they will

 

[DMann]

Microsoft should discontinue support for XP. They should have done it a few years ago, actually. Also, how exactly have they "dumped" Vista? They just recently released SP1, continue to improve it every day, continue to sell it, advertise it, and it continues to ship on nearly all new PCs. I'm sure it's not far off to say they are working on SP2.

Discontinuing support for XP would be a detrimental business move for MS, as well as further accelerate migration to Linux and OS X. The dilemma here is that MS is a monopoly, and their interest is in keeping users sucking at the tit. Sure, MS will likely eek out an SP2, but nothing is going to reduce the underlying convoluted mess which is outperformed, on many levels by its predecessor XP, which, as an added incentive, functions on less expensive equipment.

By your logic, Windows 95 was a failure because it was known early on that Microsoft was already working on Windows 98.

Interestingly, a parallel dilemma occurred with the release of Windows 98. Windows 98 was substantially criticized for its slowness and for its unreliability compared with Windows 95. MS was able to slightly improve on it a year later, but improving Vista's speed and performance to XP's will likely not happen during Vista's lifetime. Although Windows 95 outperformed 98 at the time of it's release, it was a champion of the "Blue Screen of Death," unstable, buggy, ultra-prone to crashing, and many users I know actually booted into DOS to get work done. Yes, MS was indeed successful in peddling this **** to the masses, who, for the most part, blindly accepted that perpetual restarts, defrags, re-installs, and spending three days to connect peripherals, were all necessary rituals of the computer user experience. Windows ME further reinforced this impression of the Windows user experience.

Longhorn was in progress even before XP ever shipped.

How sad is that?

Just because Microsoft starts working on the successor OS immediately is in no way shape or form an indication of the progress of the current OS.

I never claimed that is was, I simply stated that MS assured us that Windows 7 was on its way. In light of Vista's poor reputation, however, and the coincidence of both Allchin and Gates announcing there resignation before the release of Vista, I do not have much confidence that either MS nor Steve Ballmer have Vista as a top priority, while advertising, and competition with Google takes front stage.

 

[ClassicBean]

Ironically, the 'Steve Jobs of the ad world' will be heading up Microsoft's new ad campaigns. Love or loathe Microsoft, I think we can look forward to some incredible ads:

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/126/believe-it-or-not-hes-a-pc.html

 

[DMann]

XP is supported to 2014. The corporate adoption rate of Vista is similar to XP which didn't achieve over 50% until 4 years after release. MS are right to discontinue new sales because Vista is better than XP now.

Better? In what ways?

Which, given the rate business technology refreshes, isn't a great idea.

Why not?

Well actually it does.

250,000,000, 000,000 pints of Thalidomide were sold between 1957-1961 to almost 50 countries. Does the volume of sales of this detrimental chemical make it a great success?

Relatively few though. The vast majority - in excess of 90% - of new PCs will run Vista, not XP.

New PCs will not run XP? All the more incentive for corporations and companies to hold on to what they've got.

 

[SkyBell]

All I can say is, Apple had better get off their butt and make Leopard usable with under 2 GB of RAM if they want more switchers.