I disagree, Windows 7 needs a gig of Ram, a GHz of processor, 16 gig of HD space and at least a DX9 GFX card. What do I get in return for this over a 32Meg 486? Not enough IMHO. I now run a machine that's over 100 times faster than my old blue lightning but it's far from 100 times quicker in practice, so much power is eaten up by the OS. Even mundane background programs like the BBC iPlayers updater use over 30Mb of RAM and as for the file structure, who knows what half of those .dll files do, why many of them are repeated over your hard disk or if they are even necessary. Even MS themselves have admitted that they have lost track of the file interdepedencies in Windows. The only reality is that MS has a monopoly that can't be broken. I use Windows because I have to (my university software requires it), not because I like it. Windows needs trimming down, I don't need half of the extra nanny managers nor do I need a stack of built in drivers for hardware I don't have and when I uninstall a piece of hardware and reboot I certainly don't need Windows installing it's own drivers when I boot up again without bloody well asking me or deciding to reboot because it's updated myself and I loose the last half hour of my Galactic Civ II game. I know, I know, I can change the update options.....and then it nags me to change them back to what MS thinks is best for me. Grrr...decent OS? your joking surely.
It just shows you that Microsoft aren't talented just lucky. Except for maybe Windows 95 (imho) nothing they have done has been particularly imaginative or user-friendly. And of course Office 97-2003 seems to cross all the t's, dot all the i's.
Is it true they got outside developers to do Windows XP?
Compared to MacOS 68k/PPC it's a finely crafted user interface with easy to understand preferences etc.
AmigaOS, I wouldn't say out of the box user-friendly, but you can learn how do everything in a hour (and not forget it because it's intuitive).
