>>>>>>>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.
The release dates are immaterial. Craig stated or implied that Win 7 was less resource hungry than XP so there would be no need to buy new hardware.Thats clearly b__lls.
Previous
Reply
View the map of this thread
View the map of this thread starting from this message only
View all messages of this thread
View all messages of this thread starting from this message only