>>>>>>Sounds like you haven't been following hardware requirements for Win7 or Win8 compared to the versions just before them. (OK, compare Win7 to XP, Vista was an anomaly)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I would rarely upgrade an operating system. Certainly with WIndows the hardware requirements usually make it pointless.
>>>>>
>>>>>Really
>>>>>
>>>>>(from Microsoft)
>>>>>
>>>>>The minimum hardware requirements for Windows XP Professional include:
>>>>>Pentium 233-megahertz (MHz) processor or faster (300 MHz is recommended)
>>>>>At least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM (128 MB is recommended)
>>>>>At least 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available space on the hard disk
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If you want to run Windows 7 on your PC, here's what it takes:
>>>>>1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
>>>>>1 gigabyte (GB) RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit)
>>>>>16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)
>>>>>
>>>>>so thats upgrade the processor
>>>>>get a lot more RM and I need ten times as much free disc space.
>>>>
>>>>The reqs for 7 are very reasonable in today's world, IMO.
>>>
>>>I agree but the point was that if you had a PC which would run XP bought when XP was new it probably would not have the spec tun run Win7
>>
>>I thought it was assumed that you had to account for technology "inflation" for 10+ years.
>
>My point is that a PC bought with the original release of XP would probably not run 7.

Yes, I would expect a PC that is at least 10 years and 6 days old would not run an OS that was released 2 years and 9 days ago.

On a side note, I was surprised that they were both release at the end of October.