OFB Community Mailing Lists

[Jonathan E. Brickman]

A coworker who sits twenty feet from my desk, has 7 Beta on his laptop.  
It is faster.  The shop conclusion is that Vista was a rushed beta, and 
that 7 is the fix.

If one wants a reliable Windows, though, one should run Server 2008.  
Runs all the same apps, faster, more stably, more RAM available.  More 
expensive, too, of course.

Windows ME and Windows 2000 had approximately the same hardware 
requirements :-)  ME and 98 really used the same hardware, actually, and 
98 used it better.  Many techs are looking at Vista as the latest 
Windows ME.  ME was a weird hybrid that never worked very well, 
abandoned by Microsoft very quickly. 

J.E.B.
> I call it uncharted territory because, to my knowledge, this situation
> simply has no precedent. Virtually every new Windows version has brought
> with it up-rated CPU and memory requirements. The closest thing to the
> current scenario is the Windows 2000-to-XP transition circa 2001, and
> that one doesn't really count because almost nobody was running 2000 at
> the time (Windows 9x was still the dominant platform for mainstream
> desktop users).
>
> http://weblog.infoworld.com/enterprisedesktop/archives/2009/01/windows_7_the_b.html?source=NLC-DAILY&cgd=2009-01-06
>
>