ie8 fix
madison

Hardware 2.0

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes
Home / News & Blogs / Hardware 2.0

48% see themselves running Windows XP in 2014

By | May 2, 2008, 7:24am PDT

According to a poll I ran here on Monday, fully 48% (or over 2,000 respondents) see themselves running Windows XP in 2014. Another 10% expect to be running XP in a limited sense. How viable will it be to run an OS that is over a decade old?

Running XP in 2014

Now, I’m going to come right out and say that I’m already skeptical that so many of you will be running Windows XP in 2014. In timescale terms, this is equivalent to running Windows 95 now - and I don’t know many people who are still doing that. XP’s already feeling long in the tooth to me and the idea that I’ll still running it in five or six years time just doesn’t appeal to me.

But there are going to be technical challenges facing those wanting to hold on to the security blanket that XP offers. These are the 4GB RAM limit that 32-bit offers and the gradual shift from 32-bit to 64-bit. When I shifted over from XP to Vista in November 2006 I didn’t really see many benefits. In fact, thanks to the fact that most drivers were still at the fetus stage of maturity (and shovelfuls of baked-in Microsoft bugs), performance and reliability took a dip. Over the months that followed the situation got a lot better as I was drip fed new drivers and Microsoft released patches and updates. However, the biggest performance boost that I’ve seen from Vista was when I moved from Vista 32-bit to Vista 64-bit. Finally, all the hassles of migrating to Vista felt worthwhile. I believe that the desire to break free of the 4GB addressable memory limit on 32-bit will become a powerful motivator for many over the coming years. After all, most motherboards now support in excess of 4GB of RAM, and RAM is cheap.

For me, breaking the 4GB barrier was a refreshing experience, and after you’ve experienced a PC with 8GB or more of RAM in it you no longer feel the need to mess about disabling services, defragging all the time and trying to squeeze more performance out of the system by optimizing the registry and nonsense like that.

I’ve made a note on my calendar to post a poll in 2014 so I can see just how many of you are running XP.

Thoughts?

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “Hardware 2.0”

Topics

32-bit, Microsoft Windows Vista, RAM, Microsoft Windows XP, Microsoft Windows Vista (Longhorn), Microsoft Windows, Operating Systems, Software, Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology.

Disclosure

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

All opinions expressed on Hardware 2.0 are those of Adrian Kingsley-Hughes. Every effort is made to ensure that the information posted is accurate. If you have any comments, queries or corrections, please contact Adrian via the email link here. Any possible conflicts of interest will be posted below. [Updated: February 23, 2010] - Adrian Kingsley-Hughes has no business relationships, affiliations, investments, or other actual/potential conflicts of interest relating to the content posted so far on this blog.

Biography

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology -- whether that be by learning to program, building a PC from a pile of parts, or helping them get the most from their new MP3 player or digital camera.

Adrian has authored/co-authored technical books on a variety of topics, ranging from programming to building and maintaining PCs. His most recent books include "Build the Ultimate Custom PC", "Beginning Programming" and "The PC Doctor's Fix It Yourself Guide". He has also written training manuals that have been used by a number of Fortune 500 companies.

Adrian also runs a popular blog under the name The PC Doctor, where he covers a range of computer-related topics -- from security to repairing and upgrading.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
Ask a Question Start a Discussion
171
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Just In

I agree and am now proclaiming that
What the ...! 12th May 2008
I actually run Win98SE on a 10 Yr. old PC at home. Does what needs to be done and now costs virtually nil (/Yr.).

I'll prolly run XP on my next PC, or not. Linux is actually getting to where it's usable.
View in thread
0 Votes
+ -
The old saying is if it works why upgrade
Randalllind 2nd May 2008
Just because you have a new OS doesn't mean your pc can handle it. Why upgrade if your PC and XP is doing the job you want?
0 Votes
+ -
Why take global computing seriously
fr0thy2 2nd May 2008
when you can use Noddysoft to order a pizza !!!
0 Votes
+ -
the issue becomes
rtk 2nd May 2008
repairing a decade old system when a hardware failure occurs, and it will eventually without exception.

Even getting an IDE drive in 6 years will probably be tough.
0 Votes
+ -
upgrade hardware, not software... XP doesn't require IDE...
shryko 5th May 2008
I know this as our household's main machine is running XP, and it was installed on a SATA drive.

Sure, hardware will fail, but it's still replaceable. The software, well, if it's not broke, why pay to replace it? a hard drive is still cheaper than a new machine.
0 Votes
+ -
Hard drives aren't the issue...
Wolfie2K3 5th May 2008
Sure, hardware will fail, but it's still replaceable. The software, well, if it's not broke, why pay to replace it? a hard drive is still cheaper than a new machine.

The REAL issue will be other components - such as video cards and other devices that require DRIVERS.

By 2014, Windows 7 will likely to have been released. And if Microsoft keeps it's word, it's successor (Windows 7.5 or 8 or whatever they're going to call it) will likely also have been released. What version of DirectX will be included? 11? 12? Will they be backwardly compatible with 9..?

Also, by that time, who knows exactly what the hardware landscape is going to look like. We've got quad core chips now - by then, how many are we going to have? 16? 32? 64? And how many GB of RAM will they support? Are we even going to be able to get a motherboard with only 2 - 4 GB of RAM? Are we going to have some new fangled connector - USB 3 perhaps? Maybe 100 GB networking?

Honestly, I couldn't tell you what the answers to those questions are. I don't have a TARDIS handy and my crystal ball is quite hazy. But, I can almost guarantee that whatever the state of computing will be years from now, it will be get harder to find drivers for XP as time goes on. The past 25 odd years have proven how quickly things do change.
0 Votes
+ -
buy some backup harware now, on the cheap
pcguy777 5th May 2008
at places like tiger direct...

buy a nic or two for 20 bucks, a mid grade sound and video card for 30 bucks, and a few ata/eide hard drives

and you should be good to go for another 10 years.
0 Votes
+ -
Have you driven an Oldmobile today?
gtdworak 5th May 2008
Just goes to prove Microsoft is stuck in the 20th century. if you really want to know where the future is, look no further than Mac OS X. That's a real 21st century operating system.
0 Votes
+ -
I totally agree
GuidingLight 2nd May 2008
I?m going to come right out and say that I?m already skeptical that so many of you will be running Windows XP in 2014

Do not forget, these polls are also open to the Anti-Microsoft crowd; many may say that they will be running XP in 2014 only as another way to "prove" that "Vista is crap", in truth using something altogether different.
maybe even voting numerous times to onec again "prove" the point.
0 Votes
+ -
Still, in 1995, there were about zero that were even thinking about using
DonnieBoy 2nd May 2008
Win3.1 for even another year. Everybody was switching in mass. This is quite different. By the standard of Win95, Vista is a complete dud.
0 Votes
+ -
And you prove my point, entirelly
GuidingLight 2nd May 2008
You openlly complain (to the point of fabrication) that you hate Microsoft, and that you are 100 percent Linux all the way.

Why would I believe that you actually responded to the poll with "No"?

You don't use it, so why did you respond to the poll?
0 Votes
+ -
Don't Believe Us
Harry Bardal 2nd May 2008
Please don't believe a load of fringe dwelling Mac Zealots
then. Give Adrian credit for his skepticism. Then promptly
give him credit for the other things he's doing to validate
Vista. This includes avoiding the review of peered and
competitive systems. Then further endorse adding 8 gigs
of RAM to a corpulent mistake to do what an iMac can do
with 1. Go on to join him in a chorus of "Apple is too
expensive", just to round out your willful ignorance of
anything that exists outside the harem's chamber.

If naysayers input is untrustworthy, your input sings
backup for PC repairmen trying to protect their careers.
This goes both ways. If Vista needs 8 to be responsive, it
has failed almost unqualifiedly. No one but the author of
this blog has offered up that little tidbit. Take it up with
him.
0 Votes
+ -
Message has been deleted.
fr0thy2 Updated - 5th May 2008
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
Message has been deleted.
jamesrayg Updated - 12th May 2008
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
512meg vista responsive?
stevey_d 3rd May 2008
ridiculous
0 Votes
+ -
The the Vista machine I've got must be an hallucination
tonymcs@... 4th May 2008
I have a 512 Vista machine performing as my Window Media Center, Web access and downloads, as well as occasionally playing games on it.

Seems to work fine - sorry to contradict your fabrications with facts.
0 Votes
+ -
Orrrr,, you could be having delusions of grandeur, Tony
Ole Man 5th May 2008
Which is far more likely, summarizing all your former posts.
0 Votes
+ -
Vista basic runs quite well on 512 RAM Ive heard
pcguy777 5th May 2008
have you tried it?
0 Votes
+ -
"Ive heard" exactly the opposite
Ole Man 6th May 2008
Do you have a reliable neutral source to prove that it does?

Didn't think so. Sounds like one of Microsoft's "Vista Capable" falsehoods. It may be possible, but not practicle. Like putting a flat tire on a race car. The car will still run, right?
0 Votes
+ -
Who said...
aussieblnd@... 5th May 2008
Must be vista basic edition!
0 Votes
+ -
I was running on 512mb's with Vista's RC 2
morrig 10th May 2008
On a basic Vista and it certainly was not responsive.
0 Votes
+ -
And I have a bridge to sell you
hasta la Vista, bah-bie 5th May 2008
Painted red.

wink
0 Votes
+ -
You're a dinosaur
fr0thy2 2nd May 2008
Progress will kill you.
0 Votes
+ -
I totally don't agree
aussieblnd@... 5th May 2008
Living in your own little world aren't you!
0 Votes
+ -
Wrong audience
Rick_R 2nd May 2008
This is exactly the wrong audience for such a poll. The audience for that poll would be people with little or no computer knowledge who "just learn at work what I need to know. I don't have a non-work email address."

THIS audience will go running to Windows 7 as soon as their new tech toy doesn't support Win XP. In another 6 years we can expect very good voice-recognition and OCR, a number of new communications technologies--where was blogging and RSS six years ago--that won't be supported by XP.

There are also hardware issues.

Memory prices follow a U-shaped curve. They start high and then drop. As the market moves on they rise again. Compare prices for 2GB of DDR2 and 512MB of DDR. Aside from the processor, it is generally less expensive to buy a low-end motherboard AND 2GB of DDR2 RAM than to buy 2GB of DDR.

I recently checked into the difference between PCI and PCI-e and found the latter is a completely new PARALLEL technology. It will become increasingly difficult to simply find peripherals for XP-based systems because no one will be manufacturing them.

There is also the issue of digital rights. Have you tried running DRM content on Vista Basic? At some point the new DRM and other technologies won't support XP.
0 Votes
+ -
Stuckist Network!
User07734 2nd May 2008
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/08/28/the_stuckist_net_what/

"We'll call ourselves Stuckists. We like open hardware, and we like routers that don't care about the packets that run through them. We'd like to be stuck there. Where will we be in a world of Multiple TCPAs?"

"Well, the first obstacle will be hardware. There's a ready alternative in Linux, which would thrive in such conditions, but Stuckists will need processors. They could clone x86, or license a non-Intel instruction set such as ARM cheaply, or SPARC for no cost at all. That's the easy part. Manufacturing requires huge capital investment"

More:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/08/22/a_stuckist_net_you_want/
0 Votes
+ -
thats why gateway computers drive me nuts
pcguy777 5th May 2008
if there more that 3 years old.. you cant get a 1 gig stick without spending 300 to 400 dollars a stick of ram...

look it up if you don't believe me
0 Votes
+ -
You can't compare Windows 95 to Windows XP
betelgeuse68 2nd May 2008
With stable drivers, Windows XP can run for weeks and weeks without the need to reboot... until some update comes along. I know since I've been in that boat.

Windows 9x/ME meant a reboot of at least once a day.

Years ago when I went back to using Windows ME on an old system when my Windows XP hard drive crashed, it really reinforced how much better Windows XP was.

Windows XP probably feels long in the tooth since that's just "techno lust" manifesting itself. Windows Vista functionally doesn't offer anything dramatic... in fact the constant reports of inferior DirectX 10 performance vs. Windows XP (frame rates) has been enough of a detractor for me.

If you say "Security" and "improved UI" neither of arguments is convincing.

Windows XP has security, I'm not ignorant, er... let me start over, I'm sufficiently advanced not to run my Net talking applications with an administrator's rights.

As for "Improved UI", Windows XP has had theme support from day one and this has kept the Windows XP desktop experience fresh for me.

I've been using this theme for quite some time:

http://www.softpedia.com/get/Desktop-Enhancements/Themes/Royale-Theme-for-WinXP.shtml

Unless Vista's driver and DirectX performance dramatically improves, there's just no reason to bother.

.Net applications aren't interesting. There isn't going to be another killer desktop application. People stopped asking the question. The question of .Net engendering interesting desktop applications is moot. Ok, so Microsoft is moving developers of Windows applications to a new API. So what, I, like most people at home do one of three things:

1) Browse
2) Email
3) Games

But going back to stability. This is a big reason why *NIX powers telephone networks, many corporate back end processing systems, etc., etc.

While *NIX may not be interesting to Windows XP desktop users, I would hazard to guess most can appreciate stability and this is *precisely* why *NIX is so well ensconced in the trenches it finds itself in.

It's 2008 and I still see no reason to move away from it.

-M
0 Votes
+ -
W95 is the wrong comparison base ....
mmpaca 5th May 2008
if we're talking about a decade ago then the comparison has to be with W2k (or even NT) versus the present

I for one choose to run the computers I own on W2k and it's still perfectly viable despite it's age. I have used XP as a contractor over the years and frankly have never found a compelling reason to move over

When and if that day ever comes I'll probably move to Linux
0 Votes
+ -
Have to A-gree ...
thx-1138_@... 6th May 2008
...completely.

Nice post! :^)

You're damned right - what a crappy comparison to make: Win95 (DOS-based/FAT-16) system versus XP (NTFS) system.

I'll take the 'Pepsi Challenge'. So, AKH wants to throw down the gauntlet? That's fine by me. I'll take my chances with XP SP2 till then.

I got my still, i got my sour mash and i got a *spesheel batch* that i'll be savin' for the occasion AKH. You just be gardamned ready to eat your words city slicker!! And you can keep the Pepsi AKH, we don't drink city sewerage down these parts.

"Status Quo is the way to go! Y'all come back now, y'hear!?"
0 Votes
+ -
You're kidding, right?
Confused by religion 2nd May 2008
Run a 13 year old system in 2014? Why in the world would anyone stick with something that old and outdated, let alone unsupported by commercial vendors who will have moved on a long time before 2014?

This sounds more like a backlash than a poll - no one would have argued that they would stick with Win 95/98 for 13 years rather than upgrade to XP (when it first came out) - so why the extreme reaction to this poll?

One reason and one reason only, an orchestrated attempt to maintain the myth that Windows Vista is an inferior operating system that DOES NOT enjoy widespread support and acceptance by the vast majority of users.

The same bloggers/posters/complainers post their anti-Vista comments in numerous places (in fact, anyplace and anytime they can, whether asked for or not) in a constant drumbeat designed to further the ABM agenda. If one examines the complaints (without prejudice) and compares them item for item with the same complaints about Windows XP (now the savior of desktop computing) when it was first released, there is an eerie similarity.

Oh, and the same folks who b*tched back then are the same ones b*tching now, and they still don't use Windows.
0 Votes
+ -
Next, you will be telling me its time to upgrade my Oric Atmos next...
Scrat 2nd May 2008
C'mon seriously, as Milly points out, who would have held their head high and defiantly stated that they would be still using Windows 95 in 2008?

This anti-Vista stance is nonsense. As systems evolve even the most basic of new computers will easily be able to cope with the extra demands of Vista. This argument is moot and needs to die...
0 Votes
+ -
No, he is not...
Solid Water 2nd May 2008
Do you work for a small company?

I am asking this because in my company (~3000) nobody is going to jump on Vista. And I understand why:
My laptop is Compaq 6710b (Core Duo/2GHz/1GB RAM/120 MB drive and it is dying under the current load.

About the load:
I have 5-6 applications open at the same time PLUS ANTIVIRUS scanning my drive, PLUS MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE scanning my drive periodically PLUS ENCRYPTED disk.

There is no way Vista can run on 1MB!

Do you think my company is going to upgrade memory for my laptop? How do I explain the need for 3 GB or RAM? The machine is slow and I can not type a document? Or the machine is slow and I can not do my embedded development? Or? happy

So, I voted for XP from the perspective I see at the company that I work where the motto is - do not spend extra money unless it gives you a profit.
0 Votes
+ -
1GB of memory will set your company back $15.
ye 2nd May 2008
They're unwilling to spend $15 to increase your productivity?

Also note the poll is about what you will be using in 2014. It sounds like you've got a reasonably new system there. So I expect in six years from now they'll have bought you something that can easily run Vista.
0 Votes
+ -
Endorsements
Harry Bardal 2nd May 2008
No question, people move on, but so see this poll as
something other than a rhetorical is a little silly isn't it?
People know they can't effective predict, understand that
this is a vote of confidence. The point is this argument is
being steered by PC repairmen who have a vested interest
in Windows looking inevitable. The argument is on behalf
of the upsale. "For 25 cents more you can get more
popcorn than you can ever eat?". Really?

An iMac runs fluidly with 1 gig. If Vista does not, then why
not? Why should we endorse second tier engineering
regardless of cost? You don't get out of answering this by
kicking shins and calling us cheap.
0 Votes
+ -
Vista runs fluidly on 1GB of RAM too.
ye 2nd May 2008
At least Ultimate does on my 1.5GHz Dell GX240 with 1GB or PC-133 RAM.

But then the situation Solid Water described is taxing a Windows XP system with 1GB of RAM. This tells me the issue is not which OS he runs but rather he needs more memory. I suspect if he were running the same application set on a Macintosh with 1GB of memory he would encounter the same issue.

In the end if it's really the problem he alludes to he shouldn't have any problem convincing his employer to spring for $15 to buy an additional 1GB of memory. They would be foolish not to.
0 Votes
+ -
Don't waste your time, ye.
B.Beck 2nd May 2008
Ye, it's a waste of time to argue with someone who believes that "PC repairmen" are behind any postive Vista feedback because they are trying to save their jobs. Besides, I am sure that Mr. Bardal has actually run the tests that prove that his 1GB IMac can perform the same functions side by side with an 8GB PC running 64 bit Vista and do it just as fast. So there is no use arguing with him. LOL

I just recieved an advertisement from CDW in the mail that is titled "Replace your PC's with Macs? What a brilliant idea!" Then inside you see an ad for a MacBook Pro for $2499.00. GEEZ, LOUISE? How am I going to convince the company Vice-President, who loves his new Vaio with Vista, that we need to buy a Macbook Pro when I can by 2 more Vaios with similar hardware for the same price?

Keep fighting, Ye. Not everyone who reads these blogs are MS haters. I have more problems with the XP systems here at work than the Vista systems. I haven't seen a blue screen of death yet in Vista.

B. Beck
0 Votes
+ -
Re: Don't waste your time, ye.
none none 2nd May 2008
...argue with someone who believes that "PC repairmen" are behind any postive Vista feedback because they are trying to save their jobs.

Presumably, because you didn't say anything about it, you agree with the OP who mentioned the existence of an orchestrated ABM agenda. I'd think if you believe that conspiracy theory then the PC repairman conspiracy shouldn't be too hard to swallow, no?

At least a rationale is offered to explain the PC repairman conspiracy.


I haven't seen a blue screen of death yet in Vista.

There's something I didn't know. I thought MS licked the BSOD with XP.







happy
0 Votes
+ -
Maybe because it was replaced by the Red Screen of Death
asterus@... 5th May 2008
Maybe you don't see the BSOD because it was replaced by RSOD grin.
0 Votes
+ -
It's actually a red screen now?
alaniane@... 8th May 2008
I haven't seen it yet. Of course, I haven't run the pre SP1 Vista and the version I have has been quite stable. I've yet to have the system crash.
0 Votes
+ -
ye I love Vista but
marks055@... 2nd May 2008
I wouldn't consider running it with less than 2gb ram. I just put4gb's in my Dell inspiron 1420 with 2.2 core 2 duo and the difference from 2 to 4gb is fairly significant. This is not a knock on Vista. When XP shipped in 2001? it ran fine on 512mbs of ram in a 1ghz processor. The 4GBs of ram cost less than $80 to my front door. No Vista loves lots of ram, and who cares, its so cheap. Unless you were doing office apps or email only 1GB is not enough for any kind of resource intensive application.
0 Votes
+ -
This has nothing to do with Vista.
ye 2nd May 2008
Solid Water wrote:

"I am asking this because in my company (~3000) nobody is going to jump on Vista."

Which implies he is not using Vista. He then goes on to explain how his current system, sans Vista, is slow with 1GB of RAM.

End of story: He needs more RAM for his workload.
0 Votes
+ -
Re: ye I love Vista but
none none 2nd May 2008
1GB is not enough for any kind of resource intensive application.

Like Aero?







happy
0 Votes
+ -
@none none: Aero runs just fine with 1GB of RAM
ye 3rd May 2008
Perhaps you should actually try using Vista before forming an opinion on it.

But it's all moot anyway. Buy more RAM. It's a great ROI. Amazing how over the years one of if not the top recommended ways to improve a computers performance is to add more memory. Recommended to Windows, Macintosh, and UNIX users alike. But when it comes to Vista suddenly adding memory is so taboo.
0 Votes
+ -
harry why do you troll windows post when you don't use windows or know
SO.CAL Guy 5th May 2008
harry why do you troll windows post when you don't use windows or know what your talking about.

for the normal user 1gig of ram in vista works well. as it does with a mac.

but when you start getting away from checking and writing email surfing the web and doing minor things you need more ram.

even with a mac do you really think people who do resource activity's use 1gig of ram on a mac no they use more. the same with vista.

my wife does basic things with her computer as does 90% of all users. she does not need more memory and she using vista.

me i do 3d rendering and gaming. and i multitask as in having 30 or 40 web pages open at the same time. game and many other resource intense activity's. so i need the extra ram in both my mac and my vista box. the writer of this blog is not saying everyone needs 8gigs of ram. for what he does he uses 8 gigs of ram.
0 Votes
+ -
I wouldn't waste RAM on Vista
hasta la Vista, bah-bie 5th May 2008
If you're gonna use 8GB of RAM then virtualize, virtualize, virtualize.
0 Votes
+ -
Photoshop
Len Rooney 5th May 2008
I've run Adobe CS1 and later CS2, along with Final Cut
Express, Garage Band and other resource hungry apps for
past 8 years, all on less that 1G of RAM.

What you guys need to get a grip on is the amount of
waste that you buy into when you buy Vista. Most of that
waste comes from the Aero component which forces you to
buy newer, faster gear and lot's more RAM simply to run
the OS itself. All this new overhead is simply allowing you
to have drop shadows and transparency effects. OS X gave
us that in 2001 with only 400mhz processors and 125MB
of RAM.

So the issue is not strictly techno-political--NBM vs ABM-
-it's about looking at two technologies and asking yourself
which is better engineered, more efficient, less wasteful.

Also, if I remember correctly, Mr Bardal is like me in that
he uses both Mac and PC. I have a Vista laptop sitting
right next to me.
0 Votes
+ -
Who cares? Geez...your obsession with running...
ye 5th May 2008
...on inadequete amounts of RAM just to "prove" Vista is "slow" is ridiculous. With RAM costing a few dollars for a GB insisting on insufficient amounts makes you look desperate. It's cheap. If you're doing Photoshop work $15 for an extra 1GB is nothing.

Amazing...until the release of Vista the recommended way of increasing performance of a computer was to add RAM. This applied to Windows, Macs, Linux, etc systems for years. Now, when RAM is at the lowest cost it's ever been, all of a sudden it's taboo to add it. Amazing.
0 Votes
+ -
But it's not just RAM
Len Rooney 5th May 2008
To say that RAM is the bandaide that will fix all of Vista's
bloat is simply hiding your head in the sand.

It's the sum total of machine resources --RAM, processor,
GPU, HD, throughput, etc, etc that the average Vista user
has to sacrifice _just_ to run the OS. Aero gobbles up more
than half of your computers resources just to draw the
drop-shadows and transparency effects.

I'd rather devote those resources to my apps, you know,
the ones that I earn a living with.

This is NOT about Mac vs PC! It's about comparing two
technologies honestly and critically and deciding which is
more efficient and better engineered.
0 Votes
+ -
@Len Rooney: Get over it!
ye 6th May 2008
Why does Leopard require an 867MHz processor? Why doesn't it run on the 604e processor? Why can't I run it on 32MB of RAM? Why does Apple sell 2GB of memory on all but four of their systems? Why does every system Apple sells contain a dual core processor? Why is the minimum speed in their systems 1.83GHz?

The reality is that as time marches on system requirements increase. That's reality. To insist that an OS meet some arbitrary specification is foolish.

One can buy a brand new system, with sufficient specifications, for just a few hundred dollars (I've quoted many with a cost of $250) that is more than capable of running Vista very quickly. To insist one use some arbitrary configuration smacks of desperation by those doing the insisting.
0 Votes
+ -
Message has been deleted.
hasta la Vista, bah-bie Updated - 6th May 2008
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
I agree and am now proclaiming that
What the ...! 12th May 2008
I actually run Win98SE on a 10 Yr. old PC at home. Does what needs to be done and now costs virtually nil (/Yr.).

I'll prolly run XP on my next PC, or not. Linux is actually getting to where it's usable.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

Blog Roll

Blog Archive

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix