backtop


Print 54 comment(s) - last by Wiggy Mcshades.. on Jul 23 at 11:12 AM


Microsoft's Kevin Turner
Perhaps you could say that implies that Microsoft thinks Apple will rebound from problems?

In the realm of bold statements, you might expect Microsoft's vocal and boisterous CEO Steve Ballmer to be sounding off.  But instead it was mustachioed chief operating officer Kevin Turner who was playing the axman leveling a wild statement against one of Microsoft's chief rivals.

Speaking about the Windows Phone 7 series, which will be released over the holiday season, Turner remarked, "It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that."

The remark was not first time Microsoft admitted that Vista -- which never passed its predecessor Windows XP and was swiftly passed by its successor Windows 7 -- was far from a success.  Ballmer had previously bemoaned that Vista was "not executed well."

It is also unsurprising that the iPhone 4 would be receiving criticism.  From Apple's arrogant approach to antenna issues (it's all in your head -- the phone is just drawing the signal bars wrong) which yielded a new class action suit, to proximity sensor issues, the iPhone 4 is coming under increased scrutiny.  Even the typically pro-Apple 
Consumer Reports, despite offering overall praise for the phone's hardware, said it could not recommend it because of the severe antenna problems.

What is perhaps surprising is that Microsoft would be the one to criticize Apple's phone debacle.  Microsoft just had its own phone bungle when its 2-year long Kin project (stemming from the $500M+ USD Danger acquisition) ended after two months in a train wreck.  Estimates indicate that just over 8,000 Kin phones were sold.  Much of the reason for the failure was reportedly due to Microsoft's insistence that Danger port its code to Windows CE.

Furthermore, Microsoft has even shown close to showing admiration for its rival's success in the smartphone sphere.  It has said that it is "following in Apple's line" in releasing a feature incomplete phone (in its opinion) early, and then filling in the holes.  It is also embracing Apple's approach of censoring adult materials, and even joined in the criticism of Adobe's Flash platform.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Vista?
By sebmel on 7/14/2010 8:27:55 PM , Rating: 0
On the same hardware?

From Microsoft's site:
Here's What You Need to Use Windows XP Professional
PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended
128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)
1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*

If you want to run Windows 7 on your PC, here's what it takes:
1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
1 gigabyte (GB) RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit)
16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)
DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver

So the CPU for Windows 7 needs to be three times faster and you need 8 times more of a much faster type of RAM... and a DirectX 9 compatible graphics card.

Surely if it were faster that would mean it would run faster on the same computer... wouldn't it?


RE: Vista?
By goatfajitas on 7/14/2010 11:45:30 PM , Rating: 2
uhhh... you do realize you are talking about 2 OS's released 8 years aprt right? 8 years of hardware improvements and the quoted speed is really more relevent to what is available at the time.

YOu can put 7 ony any older PC and it runs better than XP. I have personally put it on a Pentium 4 1.8hz machine with 512mb ram and and 40gb hard drive - its faster than XP. 2 exactly the same OEM systems side by side. 7 boots faster, launches apps faster


RE: Vista?
By StevoLincolnite on 7/15/2010 12:57:53 AM , Rating: 2
Running Windows XP on such a system is painful at-best.
I remember running XP on a Pentium 2 300, 128mb of ram and a TNT2 M64, I could actually take a coffee break while restarting the OS on that rig.

You need to double those minimum requirements to even have a remotely enjoyable experience with Windows XP.

Windows 7 on the other hand... When I was testing the Beta I ran it on a Pentium 3 800mhz system, 768mb of ram and a Geforce 6200 AGP without an issue, besides gaming it was notably faster in day-to-day usage. (Web surfing, even turning the computer on, and yes you can run it on a system below the minimum system requirements.)

Plus Windows 7 looks better, and makes life allot easier. Great networking, mouse gestures (Shake a window and all windows minimize, bring a window to the edge of the screen and it will automatically re-size), pin programs to the task bar, better hardware support, and 64bit driver support is actually great. (Which is non-existent for XP systems)


RE: Vista?
By piroroadkill on 7/15/2010 3:46:26 AM , Rating: 2
It's the RAM that kills it. 128MB just isn't enough to run XP without swapping. 192MB is just about okay, but with a minimum of services. You really need 512MB to consider it a usable desktop system


"Google fired a shot heard 'round the world, and now a second American company has answered the call to defend the rights of the Chinese people." -- Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.)














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki