Microsoft Vista Service Pack 1: Early 2008

[ZokesPro]

Here is a column about some of the problems real people are having when they realize they need more memory.

The column suggests upgrading to more memory -- on a Windows system -- is often more difficult than they realized:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2188727,00.asp

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

@Jerry: That article is more PC bashing that anything else which is exactly what your doing as well. If you want people to respect what you have to say, come up with better arguements an articles.

First off, the memory on an Inspiron 1100 is easily accessible and secondly, that guy did not check if both memory slots would be filled before ordering the system. That's ignorance. Get a iBook or MacBook with both memory slots filled and your in the same situation!!

Secondly, when the iBooks were still popular, the basic iBook G4 came with 512MB of RAM and you only had one slot cause the other was soldered on the board and it was a 256MB modole!!! And yet you quote in one of your posts that system manufacturers don't include enough RAM with their systems. Looks like Apple doesn't either. But did you know that the Inspiron 1100 came out 4 years ago??? And your article is from 07/09/27??

All your doing is bashing PC's and your articles are B.S..

[Jerry Jones]

Yes, I *am* PC bashing.

That is precisely what I'm doing... and for good reason.

Let it be said, however, that I do not yet own a Macintosh.

Most of my computer experience has been on Windows systems.

As for the previous column I posted about deficiencies in PC Windows-based computer RAM memory in "new" systems, I stand by the point as accurate.

Yes, the whole point is to show how Windows-based PCs sorely lack the RAM they really need to operate Windows successfully and -- in addition -- the RAM being put into so many so-called "value" Windows-based computers is cheap and slow.

On the contrary, look at the APPLE systems here:

All three Macbook Pro laptop models come with a MINIMUM of 2GB of high quality memory:

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?nnmm=browse&mco=916FC32&node=home/shop_mac/family/macbook_pro

Even the economy "Mini" models ship with 1GB of memory -- high quality memory -- and the APPLE Macintosh OS X is not as code-bloated as Microsoft Windows Vista:

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?nnmm=browse&mco=916FC33&node=home/shop_mac/family/mac_mini

In addition, here is another example of copying APPLE.

The new Adobe Premiere Elements 4.0:

http://www.wired.com/software/softwarereviews/news/2007/09/adobe_premiere4

Note the *uncanny* resemblance to APPLE's iMovie.

Yes, I am bashing Windows-based PCs because they deserve to be bashed, in my view.

They are not offering the same kind of *value* that one gets on the APPLE Macintosh side of the equation.

And I'm currently using a Windows-based PC.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[ZokesPro]

Look at Dell's site. The lower end laptops (inspiron) come with 1GB ram, just like the MacBook's. The higher end laptops (XPS) come with 2GB just like the MacBook Pro's. And I didn't add any memory, is the basic configuration like on Apple's site. And it's high quality memory as well. Are you catching on yet???

Software aside, your arguments remain a big pile of B.S. and I've already pointed this out to you before and don't make me point it out to you again.

[Jerry Jones]

Speaking of B.S., you seem to be quite good at slinging it when you create the false impression that Microsoft Windows Vista can run on 1GB of memory successfully.

As I've tried to explain to you, the consumer needs a minimum of 2GB of memory if the consumer plans to use VISTA.

So -- listen this time -- the minimum system configuration for Microsoft Vista computers should be 2GB... period.

Moreover, the models you list differ *significantly* from the typical Microsoft Windows-based computers that one sees in the retail stores such as Best Buy and Circuit City and you know it.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Elie]

Jerry, Vista is Microsofts next generation OS, Apple will also be releasing Leopard (or what ever they are going to call it) let's see how much memory it's going to require.

If you want a better comparison, you have look at memory requriements for XP vs OSX, I can run XP on 512MB's or ram, however if you include apps, it's not recommended, but it will run nicely with 1GB.

So let's not start a PC vs MAC war here, they each have their problems, the best way to find out Jerry, is to dive into their world and see if the grass is greener on the other side.

Cheers,
Elie

[ZokesPro]

Speaking of B.S., you seem to be quite good at slinging it when you create the false impression that Microsoft Windows Vista can run on 1GB of memory successfully.

As I've tried to explain to you, the consumer needs a minimum of 2GB of memory if the consumer plans to use VISTA.

So -- listen this time -- the minimum system configuration for Microsoft Vista computers should be 2GB... period.

Moreover, the models you list differ *significantly* from the typical Microsoft Windows-based computers that one sees in the retail stores such as Best Buy and Circuit City and you know it.

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

When did I imply that? I was merely telling you that the PC manufacturers ship their basic systems with just as much RAM as Apple does, nothing more. Maybe YOU should take the proper time and read what I have to say instead. I took the time, now it's your turn.

Speaking of which.

Now you claim that anyone with less than 1GB RAM will be unsuccessful (the opposite of "successfully" the term which YOU used in your post) in running Vista. So, please define "successfully", as you so put it, because the dictionary defines it as "an event that accomplishes its intended purpose". So what happens next? All those with 1GB RAM can never run Vista? They HAVE to upgrade to 2GB just so they can boot their newly purchased PC with only a mere 1GB RAM?

But then you go and contradict yourself with the next phrase in your post. You then claim once again, and I quote: "the consumer needs a minimum of 2GB of memory if the consumer plans to use VISTA." and that's YOUR words there Jerry. So therefore, you explicitly say (and not "imply") that you CANNOT run Vista on anything less that 2GB RAM by using the word "need".

But then you say "So -- listen this time -- the minimum system configuration for Microsoft Vista computers should be 2GB... period." which completely contradicts what you said in the previous statement because of the word "should".

And the fact that I directly quoted you (quote, copy & paste) proves that I actually am listening to you and that you most definetly are not! And it also proves that you are full of B.S., for a THIRD time.

[Jerry Jones]

This is true, Elie, and I'm anxiously awaiting next month's Leopard release to find out if there's a memory increase quotient.

At this point, I'm of the opinion that the Apple Macintosh OS X is less "code-bloated" than the Microsoft Vista operating system and, therefore, it seems to be a logical choice for those who value more efficient code.

The other problem with VISTA is that Microsoft has created so many different versions the consumer has to really study to find out if he or she can avoid buying a version that isn't going to support their use.

With Apple Macintosh OS X, it's -- once again -- simpler.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

Elie wrote:

Jerry, Vista is Microsofts next generation OS, Apple will also be releasing Leopard (or what ever they are going to call it) let's see how much memory it's going to require.

[Jerry Jones]

Great Information Week article about Microsoft, Vista, and "code bloat" here:

http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2006/08/windows_vista_t.html

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Marshmallowman]

Jerry if you want a mac get one, there are plenty of people happy with their macs and plenty of people happy with their PC's.
You don't have to convince us.

[Hulk]

Jerry,

Don't take this the wrong way but our discussions over the past few years (how many years has it been now?!) I think you're the kind of person that can find the flaws rather quickly in any application or OS. And that is meant as a compliment. You seem to be able to dig in and expose weaknesses in short order. I would be interested, as I said before, to see what your evaluation of the Mac is 6-12 months after making the switch.

And "code bloat" can be a necessary thing from an economic standpoint. Sometimes programmers will write incredibly tight code that is nearly impossible to edit at a later date. This is especially true with hand coded assembly. Now I must admit that I am a total hack as far as programming but in high school I was really into assembly programming on my old (don't laugh) Atari 800. Anyway I could write very fast, efficient programs in assembly but coming back to them 1 month later to make changes was nearly impossible. I couldn't figure out what the heck I had done! I have spoken with modern day programmers and they tell me the same thing is true today. So in order to be able to update programs to fix bugs, add user requested features, etc... it's may be the better option to code in a high level language that can be easily edit/updated. In addition I have heard that some of the new compilers do a great job, sometimes better than a person could do since processors have become so complex. I don't know how true this all is but I think it is worth consideration.