Originally posted by: Seeruk
You know for a tech forum, there are a lot of freaking luddites around!
OK... I crack here comes the car analogy.
Hi Mr Salesman... I have this ford, i want it to go faster, I want leather seats, I want a better stereo, and I want satnav, and I want the ultimate security system...
... but I want you to do it using less electronics, less metal and less leather and to cost less money.
Do you see the idiocy of your post/the original argument now?
I don't know if this is directed towards me but I'm pretty much in favor for a lean operating system as most of the crap that comes with windows is pure garbage. Now, if they can integrate USEFUL and advanced features into windows with no hit to performance, more power to them. Problem is we get crappy software integrated into more crappy software so we end up with a buggy operating system, trying to do "everything" which effectively makes each thing it does "crappy" and it becomes a mess.
If you're going to add something to windows, it better be worth it and it better not be killing performance.. You can add features to windows with out it hurting performance, you really can, problem with people on this forum is that they refuse to believe this is possible.
I used to be against the fact that windows was taking up so much space but the proportion and upgradeability of HDDs in systems is much cheaper than upgrading ram in a computer.
That cheap 256/512MB DDR module ain't goanna work in your PII/Pentium desktop, you've got to use older technologies in order to upgrade and it's going to cost you $$$... HDDs on the other hand you can stick a 200GB drive you got for $50 at frys in a 486 computer, if you want to access all the data, all you need is a controller card. Advancements in drive technology for now can be used with much older systems, this is not the case with ram.
Anyways, what I don't understand is why people believe "EVERYTHING HAS TO BE CACHED" into ram in order to have a fast operating system. Sure, logic would tell you that you would but then look at windows 98, look at it! It runs incredibly fast on PIII hardware and I doubt it's got these so called "Advanced caching schemes" integrated into the OS.
Look, if you're going to argue with me on my point that microsoft creates OSs that require more resources not because it's "absolutely necessary" but because they're trying to satisfy intel and give people and excuse to upgrade when in reality what they have is perfectly suitable, then you are truely the ignorant one.
And if you believe what I just said above to be true and you think it's perfectly fine and a good thing that microsoft does this, then you are a douche, and are probably a supporter of DRM.
