While a very nice drawing, the OS-tans have their own board! look for "net characters"

>>2 This is madness!!

>>3
This is VISTAAAAAAAAA!

>>4 FOR FAIL AND POOR PROGRAMMING!

At least vista takes up a lot of memory... and you know what that means!

>>6
no delicious flat chest ;_;

>>7

'Flat Chests' are the ULTIMATE turnoff.

Bewbs are SUPERIOR! 3 :3 :9

>>8
What the fuck is wrong with you.

>>8
You sick fuck!

I'm no techy, but I gotta say, an OS which takes up most of your resources is pretty sucky...

Same thing happened with XP, oh wow, new...
Its got bugger all new functionality, and it takes up 5 times as much in resources, a true masterpiece! >.>

Then again, I guess with a lot of tweaking and testing, you could get it to work quite well, but as I said, techy be not I so, tend to just run things straight out of the box...

That said... If you guys dont like women with tits, send em my way =D

Ya do know Vista is programmed to use unused resources for things such as prefetch? Unlike XP which is programmed to keep as much resources free as possible, Vista is set up so that unused resources are considered wasted resources, so find ways to put things in there that are predicted to be used in the near future, cutting down on later load time. It's actually what makes Vista a bit more of a risk for Microsoft, it's a different kind of memory use architecture than everything else they've made.

>>13
Well that totally explains the 2-gigabyte memory requirement. Wait, NO IT DOESN'T.

Where do people get the "2 gigs memory" requirement from? It has 512 required, 1 gig recommended.

>>15
Practical requirement. VistAIDS with the laughable minimum requirement takes well past five minutes to boot.

A coworker runs it with minimal trouble at 500megs of ram(do not ask me how he has that much ram. I think it has something to do with shared ram on his laptop), and roommate runs it on 1 gig without a hitch. Yes it's going to have some higher requirement than XP, though also look at the release date of XP. Oct 25th, 2001, that's what, 6 years old? Think of the difference in system requirement from Windows 98 to XP. If you look at the Hardware requirement change from 98 to XP then from XP to Vista, the jump from XP to Vista is alot more minimal than 98 to XP. As things get newer, they often will come to take better hardware to run, despite what apparently you seem to believe.

>>8
get out. a dimutative "memory footprint" is best!

>>8
I had no idea

>>10>>11

Same person

Anonymous demands moar Vis-tan