[Squeek]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

One is a lot more taxing on resources than the other.

Oh and the other one already had a good installbase and was a good product in its own right and didn't need to be replaced.

You wouldn't have said that if Microsoft stuck with their three-year cycle.

I'm not really sure what caused them to drop that plan, either. They're getting back in it though. People hear about the next Windows and think 'oh they're doing it to cover their shame with vista'. Was Windows 98 to cover for 95's shame? Hell no. 95 kicked ass. Was 2000 to cover for 98's shame? Hell no. 98 kicked ass. Was XP to cover for 2000's shame? Hell no. 2000 kicked ass. Was Vista to cover for XP's shame? Hell no. XP kicked ass.

Also if your computer can't even run Vista then it's time to update your computer. Experts say you should be getting a new computer every two years. I stick to doing it every four years. Seriously, if you can't even run Vista then you won't be able to run much of anything at all. Times change quickly in this world, folks. Game installs aren't 500MB anymore. We're almost at 20GB for one game. A terabyte isn't that big anymore. Hell I have more than a terabyte and I'm close to filling my capacity. It's time to get more than 512MB of RAM. It's time to move past that 128MB video card. It's time to get more than one core in your processor.