Ballmer's day in court

BuddyJBuddyJ Dept. of PropagandaOKC Icrontian
edited November 2008 in Science & Tech
Ballmer's day in court

Comments

  • KwitkoKwitko Sheriff of Banning (Retired) By the thing near the stuff Icrontian
    edited November 2008
    Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers!
  • MiracleManSMiracleManS Chambersburg, PA Icrontian
    edited November 2008
    I guess I'm not really sure what the problem was with what happened. Did they do it specifically for Intel? I don't know. Its not like they weren't forthcoming with what was necessary to declare something "Vista Capable". So, I guess the issue is that...people are mad they didn't read?
  • BuddyJBuddyJ Dept. of Propaganda OKC Icrontian
    edited November 2008
    In the end, Microsoft created a marketing program telling people OH NO YUR SYSTEM IS GOOD for systems that were less than good. Critics say they initially set the bar high but when OEMs complained that the high bar would kill sales, MS lowered it to appease them and in lowering it, they allowed incompatible or underperforming hardware to carry the label, which then duped the consumer into buying something they may not have otherwise purchased.
  • SnarkasmSnarkasm Madison, WI Icrontian
    edited November 2008
    But that hardware could still run Vista, even if it was Home Basic, couldn't it? Is that not "Vista-capable?"
  • CBCB Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Der Millionendorf- Icrontian
    edited November 2008
    There's a difference between running Vista and running Vista capably.
  • SnarkasmSnarkasm Madison, WI Icrontian
    edited November 2008
    But then some here would argue that no computer is "Vista-capable." :p
  • MiracleManSMiracleManS Chambersburg, PA Icrontian
    edited November 2008
    I'm with Snark on this on this one, it could run Vista, just not Aero and some of the other bells and whistles. I guess that explains my confusion.
  • TimTim Southwest PA Icrontian
    edited November 2008
    A P2 300 Mhz pc with 64 MB of RAM is CAPABLE of running XP, but would it be good? No.

    And if Vista sucks, is ANY computer capable of making it run well? Probably not.
  • SnarkasmSnarkasm Madison, WI Icrontian
    edited November 2008
    Oh look, it's Tim. Hey Tim, what do you really think of Vista?

    Oh, right, we've heard it before.
  • mas0nmas0n howdy Icrontian
    edited November 2008
    The real problem here is that Microsoft has lots of money.
  • jj Sterling Heights, MI Icrontian
    edited November 2008
    Question: Since Vista doesn't really run all that well on any computer, can you really say that lowering the spec was wrong? Perhaps if vista was a more stable system it might have worked fine on old hardware. I bet no one really anticipated how bad vista was going to be.
  • SnarkasmSnarkasm Madison, WI Icrontian
    edited November 2008
    Wow. I mean wow.

    A stability argument? Surely you're joking.
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska Icrontian
    edited November 2008
    There's a difference between running Vista and running Vista capably.
    Semantics. For that matter, there are a few million anemic off-the-shelf laptops out there that in stock configuration can barely run XP. Heck, I'm typing on one of them now! I doubled the RAM for a total of 1GB! I'm sure this computer had an XP sumpinoranother sticker on it when new. Yeah, in my eyes, it is XP capable.

    It's an IBM Thinkpad A31. Slow, but oh-so-well built and reliable. Just like a former girlfriend who.....

    oh never mind
Sign In or Register to comment.