GitHub for Windows

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.wevud50reav7ka at steves-laptop...
>
>>> These are misleading statistics:
>>>
>>> 1. Most PCs that were built for XP *cannot* be upgraded to Win7.  People
>>> are *very* unlikely to throw away perfectly working equipment just so 
>>> they
>>> can upgrade to Win7.  I only upgraded because my motherboard died.
>>
>> I've heard a LOT of drum-banging about Win7 being faster and more 
>> efficient
>> that XP. (Not rhetorical:) Was that all just a load of crap?
>
> No.  First, it requires more RAM.  XP required 64MB, Windows 7 requires 
> 1GB (and that's going to be pretty damned slow).  Some systems can't even 
> *accept* 1GB, I know I have a laptop that can't have more than 512MB.
>

Well, realistically 128MB for XP, and even that was back around 2000 or so. 
I'm not really sure what the heck exactly happened (Just web sites? Or 
something more?), but these days, even on XP, 1GB is really bare minimum.

> Second, they *vastly* improved the startup and shutdown process.  I 
> remember when I was on XP, I'd log in, then go get a drink or something, 
> because it would be another 2-3 minutes before I could run anything.  Win7 
> is usable immediately.
>

Yea, I knew about that. But I thought the whole system was consdered to be 
more efficient, too? (While I've used Win7, I've never compared it with XP 
on the same physical system. So that's one point I can't really say.)

>>
>> I agree that the UI changes don't account for 100% of the XP group, but I
>> don't believe for a second that "I like XP better" makes up a portion 
>> that's
>> remotely insignificant.
>
> I would be curious how much of that crowd is "I've never tried Windows 7".
>

I'd be surprised if it were very many, but at this point I think we're both 
reduced to hand-waving. :/