>>>>>>>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.