Does it make sense if newer Operating Systems were made to be faster without over-reliance of brand new technology?
It just seems in the case with Microsoft, each new OS like the upcoming VISTA or current XP need huge amount of system resources. With the case of XP most people say to run it decently you need at least 1GB of ram unless u were the type to single-task only.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-11 17:56
XP runs fine in 512Mb with multiple applications open. Single task you can comfortably use 256Mb. You can just barely get away with 128Mb, if you don't mind it being rather slow.
Anyway, all operating systems are bloating these days. Consumers have come to expect flashy interfaces with rounded corners, fading effects, animation and the like, as well as assorted behind-the-scenes services, all of which take up RAM. The companies do it because flashy interfaces have the "wow" factor that draws people to upgrade. Would people feel compelled to upgrade to Windows XP if it looked like Windows 3.1? Would people drool over OSX if it still looked like the original MacOS?
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-11 20:17 (sage)
OS's should degrade gracefully.
Of course lots of things 'should' be, but they won't, because people suck.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-11 20:36
>>1
Windows XP is bloated, but if you need 1 GB RAM to make it work decently you fail at configuring it or you use Internet Explorer.
You can get rid of part of the bloat and disable all the gay user stuff.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-12 6:45
Use lunix
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-12 7:02
Lunix with any current window manager isn't that far behind XP for minimum system requirements these days anyway.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-12 9:21
Lunix with any current desktop environment isn't that far behind XP for minimum system requirements these days anyway.
fixed
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-12 11:01
KDE is hueg lol
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-12 11:20
>>7
I acknowledge this fix as truth, yet I feel obliged to mention Linux' GUI without a desktop environment sucks even more and is even further behind Windows XP.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-18 7:38
>>9
Only if you were weened onto computer in a way that expects 'a desktop environment'...
Even when I have to use Macs or Windows, I'm still using the "run application first from a mouse-menu/Start button, then open the file to work on" method typical of the X Window System. Being able to double-click directly on a file to open it (in hopefully the right application..) would only improve my work efficiency by 0.0001% ...