BGil said:
No, 233mhz Pentium 1 not Pentium 2. And the required amount of ram is 64 megabytes. The recomended amount is higher.
There was no 233MHz Pentium CPU. Pentium MMX CPUs were the only ones to break 200MHz, and by the time they reached 233MHz, Pentium II processors were already out. Windows XP will give you an error message if you try to install on 64MB of RAM, and Microsoft admits that XP will not be fully functional (not even just "slow" but that things actually won't work). Regardless, that RAM difference is not quadruple, and the CPU age is the same.
No, it's not "ALL third-party hardware for Windows". That's complete B.S.
I'm sitting here right now using a PC with 2 video cards, two tv tuners, a fully loaded motherboard, a USB MIDI Keyboard, two ethernet controllers and more. My uptime is 29 days, 3hours, and 47 minutes... and that's only because that was the last time I booted this machine into Vista or Ubuntu otherwise it would be much longer.
Yes, it is all third party hardware. Every single bit. And congratulations on your uptime. My Windows computer is sitting at 44 days right now. How long a skilled person can keep something running isn't the point. The point is that the WDM and registry system allows for hooks into lower levels of the OS than should be permitted. The Windows 2000 HAL helped, but has not solved, this problem.
In fact, with a Mac I would recommend not even installing the Apple OS updates until one can be certian they are safe.
Same with upgrading to XP, SP1, and SP2. Remember the SP2 hubbub?
Seondly, the experience of most Mac users is that their computers don't even support any third-party (internal) hardware. No video cards, no PCI, no PCIe, no extra hard drives or disk drives... nothing.
That's because most Macs don't even *have* expansion bays. It doesn't mean they don't exist. There are architectural problems to overcome with video cards (the VESA BIOS does not work), and for other hardware, nobody bothers to write the drivers. For hardware where someone actually took the time to do the software, things are just fine.
Obviously that's not the point because the original quote was this:
Claims of Windows bloat are based on the fact that Windows is now 2GB+ at install time, whereas Windows 98 could be squeezed into 300MB. Has that much really changed in Windows technology? No.
But how much did OS 10.1 require for installation, back in 2001? 300MB to 1.5GB, compared to 300-500MB for OS 8.6...and that was with a totally new OS with a completely different architecture and paradigm (Win98 - Win2k was a major rewrite, but based on the same monolithic paradigm). How much did XP require? According to Microsoft and my experience, at least 1.5GB. What you can remove after the fact is of limited use, and Windows, without changing the fundamental nature of the beast, inflated like a balloon.
It still takes up space because it creates a default restore point. That point will restore the machine back to the "fresh install state".
It won't create a default restore point until you make changes. If you leave the computer as it was installed, it won't create anything. Only when you make a change is a restore point created.
A joke? Probably to MS haters with zero understanding of the technology. I fail to see how MS giving something away for free to it's current users is somehow negative. Only a true hater could make a comment like that.
I never said it was negative. I said it was a joke, because it's gone from being a completely new way to manage files and a major pillar of Longhorn to a metadata add-on that will ship sometime in 2007, maybe. Even Paul Thurrott is agitated by this.
LOL! If that's what you think then I'm going to stop addressing your points at all because you're just plain ignorant. WinFX is a completely new set thing. There's more difference between WinFX and Win32 than their is between Carbon and Cocoa.
No there is not. With the exception of Indigo and some new extensions to the GDI+ system, WinFX doesn't give you any new possibilities. It just organizes everything into a single presentation layer system so that it's easier to access and better consolidated. It's based on existing languages and existing Windows subsystem components. It's a good thing, but it is not a new programming API--just a recombination of old ones.
3. That's not really necessary with SP2. Viruses and Malware can't just install itself without user consent.
Sure they can. If some program executes on my machine, it's done. It doesn't ask for confirmation to make changes.
I don't think there's a console game in existience that has a higher framerate than 60FPS. And keep in mind most consoles (PS2, Gamecube) can only really do 720x480.
That's because they're optimized for TVs, which allows them to control more variables and concentrate on performance. It's why OS X is more stable, too. More variables are under control. Neither one is totally perfect.
