quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
I wouldn't have bought an extra GB just to let it rot away 
Neither - but the problem is I often end up using all my ram as well as the page file (if I use a page file).
quote:
All preferences, not flaws!
I consider it to be a flaw, because ergonomically it reduces my production rate etc trying to do things I'm used to with all Windows operating systems which are now in weird and wacky places. To be fair though you can't just stick to the same thing forever, and I'm probably just not used to using Vista (how can I booting 6 operating systems) but my other friends who do have Vista solely agree with me that things such as the layout of the start menu are poorly designed and frustrating to use.
quote:
Where are those posts talking about compatibility and people bashing MS and hating Vista because it still supports old stuff, isn't "innovative" enough and all that because it still needs to be compatible, and how MS should break their road map and start building things without taking in account old stuff...
Realistically that frustration of programs not working should be directed to the software makers who haven't come out with a newer version that actually works with Vista. They don't HAVE to but they do keep on pumping out regular updates and bug fixes. Some even claim vista compatibility when there is actually none! Best example of that: Alcohol 120%. For some people it works, for other it doesn't!
quote:
but you could change that too by letting Vista only use a certain amount of RAM.... (is possible in XP too btw).
Cool didn't know that.
quote:
I think he meant compared to XP on that very same machine of his.
Yeah that's what I meant too. I've got XP and Vista both on my computer and I often compare the boot time differences.
EDIT: @mattisdada
I actually have MS-DOS 6.22 installed (and Windows 3.11 too, of course
)
And this is all on the same laptop.
/ 
