http://www.msnbc.com/news/606526.asp?0si=-

"...Windows XP requires at least a 300-megahertz processor, 128 megabytes of RAM and 1.5 gigabytes of hard-disk space. That means that most people who bought computers before January 2000 would need a new machine...."

isn't that great? we're all thrilled to be waiting to spend more money on hardware.

 

How much does Intel pay MS to write bloated code? I mean sh*t, Linux can do anything Windows can do and run on a tenth the power.

 

The computer industry is counting on Windows XP and a new replacement cycle driven by all the aging PC's bought in '99 for Y2K.

Personally, I hope it's the most bloated, memory and processor intensive OS ever!

 

If you don't mind getting technical, Linux doesn't require a different power supply.

This is good news, the beta kicked butt.

 

So XP is extra processor "required"?

 

I can't stand MS or their products. Theres always problems with everything they make, so bloated and unstable. I go back and forth between my dell and mac. Makes things a little easier.

I Still can't see how they can say straight faced that they are not a monopoly with 90% of the OS market

 

microsoft....the marketing geniuses....make a product the requires alot in order to get more people buying new pcs. if you can't sell more new ones...make people buy them by making theirs obsolete within 2 years =)

 

I think people give Microsoft more credit than they deserve. Judging by the people I know that work there (some of whom are very high up the chain of command), they aren't clever enough to administer the many giant conspiracies attributed to them.

The scary fact is that they actually believe all their talk about "innovation" and when they release XP, they're doing the best that they can. Sometimes economies of scale backfire in software development.

I, personally, will continue using OS X. The only time I need Microsoft is if some jackass sends me an Office file. IE is a piece of junk, Word is a piece of junk, Outlook is a piece of junk, Windows is a piece of junk (beginning to see a pattern here?)

People seem to think that Microsoft is very good at what they do. When were they ever good at what they do? When Bill Gates bought/stole DOS from others? When M$ released Windows 3 (what a POS that was!)? When M$ released IE (made Netscape look like geniouses)?

OHHH, right. the only good thing M$ ever did was ally themselves with IBM in order to partner their way into a monopoly position riding the ignorance of the masses in the early days of personal computing.

I have a 1984 Mac (the original). Occassionally, I turn it on and marvel and reminisce at the glorious revolution it started. MacPaint and MacWrite still rock. It affected all of us, including M$. (Don't start with the Xerox PARC nonsense; if they wanted to market GUI's, they would have.)

Now, how many people turn on their crappy PC, Jr.'s and reminisce about Charlie Chaplin using DOS?

Some people say that PC's and M$ are for people that like to compute without imagination. I say that most people have been fooled by M$ and the PC makers into thinking that imaginitive computing is for hippies and graphic designers. Their loss, I suppose.

 

I think most consumers are getting the idea that the next upgrade isnt always needed. Win 95 was a good jump for PC users but since then its been mear refinement *ahem*.

One thing I thought was sooo stupid is naming the OS after the year it was released. Here people are using win 95 in 2001! 98 till 2000 when ME was released. Its like everytime you start up your computer its a constant reminder its outdated.

 

Why did you think Micro$oft changed the window versions from numbers to years?
Microsucks simply sucks (everything, including itself)