Some months ago I have installed Vista BETA and it was not fully software and it was not good for me because it has blocked each time tough I have good CPU and RAM. Now I will test it when Vista comes out in Europe, I like the new design pity that Vista requires a lot of RAM, 512 MB is a bit much.
My XP machine almost the some memory as my Vista machine. either way +1gb of memory is a good idea these days.
SEOdir, a new computer that you buy comes with ATLEAST 512mb of ram, and usually 2gb, and no, it is not considered alot anymore. Also, this thread is now a PR3, I wonder when this change occured.
I would agree with this - microsoft are not industry leaders by any stretch of the imagination. However, they are much better at marketing their 'stuff' and therefore have more of a stranglehold on the industry. Apple came out with the iPod - microsoft rallied to produce a competitor (Zune) and tie up music execs with download contracts. However, while microsoft were rallying to compete with apple against the iPod, Apple announce the iPhone... I am wondering where microsoft will come up with the 'MicroPhone' (oh wait it is already out ) Anyway, Microsoft have loads of projects and try and compete with everyone - they are not nearly as innovative as many competitors, but have the inane ability to jump into a market and take a significant share of the revenue. They are also determined to compete with google on search, advertising and blogging. Microsoft had hotmail and failed to use the information they had gleaned over time to be innovative, instead they act quickly on ideas their competitors are developing and throw sufficient marketing budgets to virtually guarantee 'everyone' is talking about microsoft.
Owning over 90% of the market doesn't make you an industry leader? Sorry, but can you clarify your bias?
I was referring to innovative leaders not market share percentage. As I said, they have that ability to arrive later in the industry and establish a stranglehold... innovative would mean they were the first and established a position and grew from that. Google were not the first search engine, but they became innovative leaders of the search industry after being a 'late entry' into the market. Their innovation drove the search industry forward whereas microsoft didn't manage to take advantage of their earlier market share and knowledge to be innovative to drive search forward. Google have only to worry about becoming complacent now - although they are now becoming more similar to microsoft in the sense that they seize other ideas and quickly formulate a strategy to get a foothold in new markets (or simply buy their way into having a good foothold then continue to develop ideas).
Well by your logic then, Ford, who didn't invent the auto air conditioning, Chrysler who didn't invent the convertable, Mercedes, BMW (and everyone else) who didn't invent the small block V8 has no right to be industry leaders? Surely you jest? That is the way of business. You build and build based upon your own principles, then watch the "other" guy. If the market trends move, you move with it. It would be tantamount to me accusing you of being an also-ran because "such and such" website had your website's idea(s) first, you just copied them and are therefore an illegitament webmaster. It wouldn't be fair, nor would it be acceptable.
I simply stated that microsoft were not 'INNOVATIVE Leaders' notice the word innovative... many companies such as Ford etc may be industry leaders in terms of market share, but not necessarily the innovative leader in any particular sector. The 'other' guy you refer to would be the innovative leader - since industry market share leaders are watching how it moves to determine their next move and are therefore followers, not innovative leaders. It generally means that at different stages in a product life cycle there can be different innovative leaders - shifting between different companies depending on their principles and the situation of the market trends in general. You are confusing what I said about industry leaders and taking it too literally. I am referring to innovative industry leaders and not market share leaders that you are referring to. Any company who has the market share of an industry can be considered a market leader - but that does not mean they are innovative industry leaders. It really depends on how they use their market position on whether or not they become innovative leaders as well as market share leaders, or whether they simply seize on industry trend changes quickly to maintain their market share. Innovative industry leaders may be much smaller companies and hold very little market share, although it is their ideas that get exposed by the market industry leaders and perception of who is innovative is therefore often harder to distinguish. Patents can help to distinguish this, but not always.
512mb to much? I didnt even know they sold computers with any less than 1gb anymore. 2gb should be standard by now for most people.