Umm, yes, it is true, many benchmarks were done of XP SP3 vs Vista SP1, and XP SP3 is definately faster than Vista SP1, and it definitely _requires_ less memory. I can run an XP machine with 512MB of RAM, and it will be OK. Not great, but OK. Put Vista on the exact same machine (or even on a more modern, faster machine, but still with only 512MB of RAM), and it will be a total dog. Vista really needs a bare minimum of 1GB of RAM to be usable, whereas XP will run acceptably on 512MB... you could probably get away with 320MB if you don't run any memory-itense applications.
Really? You mean Vista with 512 MB of ram (Below the recommended) runs badly? You don't say, I suppose my copy of Crysis would run like shit on high if I only had 512 MB of ram when it needs 1 GB on Vista or if I had a 1.0 GHz processor when it needs a 2.8 GHz. That being said, Everyone knows you need 2 GB of ram to actually run Vista worth anything.
If this were opened up to support updating AND INSTALLING of Microsoft AND 3RD PARTY applications
Obviously, you've not used Windows Vista's version of Microsoft Update since the ability to install updates for 3rd part software was available from release. Mind you it may not have updates for
I cannot believe that this case is not already closed. Internet Explorer is one of many monopolistic paths Microsoft has pursued. Also, Windows Explorer and IE are very closely linked and you can see this if you type a URL into the address bar of Windows Explorer - surprise, page loaded in IE, even if Firefox is your default browser...
Really? I just typed www.google.com into windows explorer and, OMG SURPRISE, it loaded in Firefox, my default browser.
He keeps differentiating, flying off on a tangent.