Posted 12/08/2008 at 04:10:33am

you can have a gui that looks and functions better than vista for free if you use Linux. And you can run it on computers 4 years older than you can run Vista on. It's called compiz. I run it on a machine that was low end even when it came out in 2004!

Posted 12/08/2008 at 04:08:12am

I agree with ghot and hogkill, absolutely right both of you thumbsup

 with vista they gave it a new 'skin', which you can do in XP for free. Oh and they also updated directx to the latest version. That's the only 'real' improvement in my eyes of vista over XP. Windows 7 looks to be the same sort of thing! As you can see they're concentrating on GUI....not how the OS actually functions deep down. The resource hogging-ness of it will go up by a factor of 10 again, probably.

Posted 12/07/2008 at 03:49:24pm

funny how the title of your post made like you're pathetic! though i agree also and am completely sick of intel, though they do good CPUs :P

Posted 12/07/2008 at 03:46:52am

Saying something is 'planned' is not the same as saying it exists. This is how these companies use clever language, which fools some people but doesn't fool others. Generally the more gullible types, or just plain fanboys like you, believe this tosh. Fine, intel had that idea, but they never even said that they actually made it into an actual chip.

 AMD and intel are both great. AMD's for one category, ie performance without a huge price, and Intel's for people who need as much performance as they can possibly get, without a budget. I'm building a PC right now, and I've chosen AMD for the mere reason that I found a good cheap amd board, and the X2 5600 2.8GHz isn't expensive. Now, Spider-Mom, can you please give me a proper argument as to why Intel is so much better than AMD in your eyes.