Re: [LUG] vista cost you two hours a week

On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 18:35, Paul Sutton <zleap@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Tom Potts wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/20/windows_vista_overtime/
>
> Costs me more than that* and I haven't even installed it!
> Tom te tom te tom
>
>
>
> *in laughing at its failures and bitching ...
>
>
>

How does a modern PC with vista end up taking as long as 15 minutes to
be ready to use from switch on and then 15 mins to switch off, perhaps
they are not using vista hardware, or perhaps they bought vista ready
PC's upgraded to vista only to find the actual specs needed for vista
were higher than they have,

If people go out and buy Windows 7 after this sort of farce, they need
their heads looked at.

on the subject of Windows 7

http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2008/10/28/windows_seven_review/

transparent windows, hmm, i have that on my Debian desktop here running
KDE, have had this for years, and before vista was even released,
looking at the specs its still pretty high just for an operating system,
designed to interface a user with applications, eh

Also its faster, then they mention that features have been removed for
the preview relase, this means once they are back in the software will
be back to good ol bloatware that windows is, and always will be.

Paul

I would like to mention here the case of Mac OSX (Tiger and Leopard) they both too have awesome graphics capabilities with low hardware requirements (by the way everybody knows that Vista is copied from OSX) but yeah KDE is much better.

Aashish