InterviewSolution
Saved Bookmarks
InterviewSolution
| 1. |
Solve : Microsoft to stop selling Windows XP on Monday? |
|
Answer» Yeah, it's a shame. A lot of desktop computers and laptops here are sold without an OS package. I know Acer, ASUS, and BenQ all offer their laptops here without an OS. It lowers the overall price of the laptop, then the customer usually installs a PIRATED copy of Windows XP on it (or the shop who sells the laptop does it for them!). More than a few times has a computer been brought into my shop with the request of installing Windows on it. I politely tell them sure, I'll do it, and then I tell them how much the OS costs and that they'll have to buy a licensed disc. They usually huff and puff then walk out of the shop. Funny thing is, I know I could install the pirated software here and get away with it. I just won't. Kudos to you, serously. I don't know a single computer shop around (here) that even stops to think about what they're doing when they BREAK rules like that- I walked into a shop once, asked if they had windows 98 CDs (as in to BUY) and he went in the back and CAME back out and gave me a burned copy- *censored*? I got it free (I would have refused to pay for it anyway, on account of only costing them the cost of the media), long story short, my Laptop now has it's OS CD. I mean, they come off seeming all bound to the rules, but it doesn't take more then a small nudge (I'd be thankful if you could do this...) all because they think that that person might come back and actually spend some money. Really it's just a case of the shop being far TOO friendly with customers.I'm not much of a vista fan, not saing that I really like it. I like xp better but these are only my opions cause I been around alot of differnt OS. I tend to think of Vista on a computer as analogous to putting a old lady in a lamborghini- the car will never reach it's potential. (alright- cases can be made for memory and such, but performance-wise Vista will almost never touch XP)Too bad thats not all true Quote from: BC_Programmer on July 08, 2008, 05:53:42 AM I tend to think of Vista on a computer as analogous to putting a old lady in a lamborghini- the car will never reach it's potential. (alright- cases can be made for memory and such, but performance-wise Vista will almost never touch XP)It's not meant to, and that's the point people are missing. Due to the huge gap of 7 years between the two systems, the performance lag is also huge. Think Windows 95 compared to Windows XP, and then some - Vista's gap is nowhere NEAR that huge. I hope this makes sense, I do know what I want to say but not sure if that said it.Quote from: Calum on July 09, 2008, 12:58:56 PM Quote from: BC_Programmer on July 08, 2008, 05:53:42 AMI tend to think of Vista on a computer as analogous to putting a old lady in a lamborghini- the car will never reach it's potential. (alright- cases can be made for memory and such, but performance-wise Vista will almost never touch XP)It's not meant to, and that's the point people are missing. I know exactly what you mean- basically Vista will have the edge when software/hardware manufacturers completely stop supporting it (that is, driver wise and such) or for core features, such as memory limits (this is the same story with 3.1 which couldn't handle more then 64MB, and 98 which I believe maxes out around 512 or thereabouts). I just don't personally think a video card should require anything more then basic 2d functions simply for running an office application, but Vista requires a DX9 card- (or is that just for aero/aero glass?) A 32-bit OS will not handle more than 4GB of RAM, period. I believe that by the time 64 bit operating systems become commonplace Vista will be long gone anyway, so in that respect it doesn't have much of an edge over, say, XP. I believe that the video card is mainly used for the new visual effects, including Aero - I just find it funny that Vista's requirements surpass many of my PC games' requirements. |
|