Frank Jackson46 said:Thanks for the info, but honestly, your post is completely irrelevant. I have no idea what the point of this pseudo-intellectual nonsense is; the message is clear enough to everyone, yet it holds absolutely zero value...
And what am I supposed to say to that? I didn't offer any criticism, so there's no need to immediately jump down my throat calling things "pointless"!🙄
When I mentioned that everything depends on the hardware, I meant that people constantly complain about things like Windows Vista being useless because it’s too demanding or slow. Well, newsflash: it wasn't designed to run on a 0.1GHz processor with 1MB of RAM. That's exactly why you need a slightly more powerful machine—which is why "hardware requirements" are printed right on the box. A computer can be optimized for specific tasks, and for certain jobs, a particular OS is simply the better tool for the trade. That was the whole point.
As for the users, it's the same logic. If you need an OS that wows you with raw speed rather than flashy graphics, you'll probably go with Linux (sure, it has an interface, but it isn't anything special). If you want an OS that impresses you with its "beauty" and unique design, then you grab Windows Vista or Windows 7.
Everyone should just choose whatever they want. Just like how some people will love Windows 7 while others hate it, an OS is only "better" or "worse" depending on what you actually need it to do.
👍
P.S. It's spelled "irrelevant."