G
Guest
All I want is for us to wait until final release before calling vista a
"slumbering giant of blatedness". It is pretty obvious that microsoft is
working hard to fix this. Each release is considerably faster. For example,
5384 was 3.13gb, 5456 was 2.56gb (don't get mad if the numbers are a couple
decimal places off!). Not only was it smaller, it was considerably faster to
install. If that is what they can do in a month, what can they do in the next
few months?
Because it is beta, we shouldn't complain that this Vista will be the next
ME. If microsoft told us they were done today, I would agree. But the
haven't. They said they won't be done for a while.
If your computer sucks, vista doesn't have to suck too. I say this because I
tried to install it on a 866mhz processor with 383mb memory, and old computer
by most people's standards. Yes, I only had the basic interface, and
understandably I didn't have the sidebar on, but it was very fast.
"slumbering giant of blatedness". It is pretty obvious that microsoft is
working hard to fix this. Each release is considerably faster. For example,
5384 was 3.13gb, 5456 was 2.56gb (don't get mad if the numbers are a couple
decimal places off!). Not only was it smaller, it was considerably faster to
install. If that is what they can do in a month, what can they do in the next
few months?
Because it is beta, we shouldn't complain that this Vista will be the next
ME. If microsoft told us they were done today, I would agree. But the
haven't. They said they won't be done for a while.
If your computer sucks, vista doesn't have to suck too. I say this because I
tried to install it on a 866mhz processor with 383mb memory, and old computer
by most people's standards. Yes, I only had the basic interface, and
understandably I didn't have the sidebar on, but it was very fast.