That wouldn't be a bad idea. The TV, Satellite & Radio forum has a "Soccer Bashers Thread" where all the "so and so bashed soccer" stuff goes, and I don't see why the technology forum can't have the same.
it's not just memory you'd have to worry about, it's also your graphics card and sound card, I believe. check this out: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/buyorupgrade/upgradeadvisor.mspx it's a thing that you can run on your computer that will determine for you if you're ready or not.
I've been programming Windows applications for over 12 years now. Every release has gotten better. Can it be better still? Of course. But the same can be said for every operating system and every program that has ever been created. In my career, the only "perfect" program I've ever seen is one that prints out the phrase "hello world." Of course I have a vested interest. I've invested a large portion of my skill set into learning how to program Windows applications. However, if the OS-X and / or Linux starts to take away significant market share from Microsoft, I will make every attempt to learn what I need to do to program for those platforms. I love programming. However, I have to support myself and make a living. I can make a better living programming for Windows than I can for any other operating system. And none of this changes the fact that I hate OS religious wars. Mac, Windows, OS/2, CP/M, Amiga, MS-Dos, BSD Unix, SCO Unix, Linux, whatever. Every single one of them has strengths. Every single one of them has weaknesses. If Jean-Louis Gassée hadn't convinced John Scully to ignore Bill Gates back in 1986, when Gates suggested to Scully that Apple port the Mac OS to the Intel platform, I'd be a Mac programmer today and we'd be hearing about all the flaws in the Mac operating system.
LOL That's pretty much the way it seems to me as well. I remember the same things being said about every version of windows for the past 15 years and it always seems to disappoint.
But I can't really see how pointing out the deficiencies in wIndows is taking part in any sort of religious war. It isn't. It's just saying it doesn't work properly and they KEEP releasing products which have major problems with them and then leaving the fixes until the next 'service pack' or some such nonsense. I mean, did you SEE that report a few years ago that said a windows machine was compromised within 4 minutes, on average, after being connected to the internet in it's default configuration? I mean to say, ffs! 4 MINUTES???
FFS, a few years ago. You hate Microsoft. We all understand that. I don't particularly care one way or another. I'll develop code for whichever operating system happens to be the most prevalent.
Er... yeah! http://www.techweb.com/wire/security/54201306 What would you call it then? Don't be so childish. I don't HATE anyone. I just don't think they should be selling products they haven't bothered to develop properly. What is strange, however, is your determination to support them from people's, (quite proper and justified), criticism when there is no logic to your position. ... and, as I've already said, I can understand that. What I do NOT understand, however, is your continued insistence that there is no problem with their products, (or that others have problems equal or greater in severity), when there quite obviously IS a problem particularly in relation to my area of interest, security. THAT, quite honestly, sounds more like the position of a religious zealot than mine. Belief in something in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Let me give you an example of the sort of problem I've been faced with. A company employed me to try and sort out their network security. They'd had about a half dozen major virus and exploits over the previous 12 months and were getting heartily sick of it. They had, (unfortunately from my point of view but there we are), just purchased windows server 2003 and had placed this outside the security zone so the machine needed updating as exploits and holes appeared. Now, bear in mind I came into this scenario AFTER they'd already set their system up. They were pretty fed up with paying out money for computer consultants and didn't feel like paying out much more so I wasn't about to start altering everything around. I thought the least I could do was to make sure that patches were applied to the windows server as they became available. Easy enough, you may think. Er... WRONG! As the server handled about 100 users and worked 24 hours a day it couldn't just be taken off line, (not easily anyway), so I had to make sure everyone had finished their work before doing so. As more and more patches came out it got to the point that MS were, in fact, releasing patches faster than I could install them. SO! That's how things look from MY perspective. This is not a religious thing at all. I dislike them for very good and practical reasons.
Well, you keep on insisting that I'm only criticising them because I 'hate' them and that my feelings toward them are because of some kind of religious fervour on my part. But that, apparently, is completely reasonable.