Why does a new OS have to have at least 20 times the minimum memory requirements of its previous version? The OS should be fitting the requirements of the average PC already on the market, not the other way around (ie: dictating the average PC requirements). The OS should be a platform to run applications, and those applications should be the ones that use up the memory.

Microsoft has been playing this game with consumers for decades, forcing unnecessary PC upgrades with every version, which means big $$$ for memory and processor corporations. This time, the consumers had enough and rejected that philosophy.

Good for them. It's too bad that Microsoft isn't going to learn anything from this experience, though.

Vista has also hurt Vista.

While I agree it should have been expected my reasoning is different.

As I've stated vista didn't offer enough of a feature set over XP x64.
But here's is where I strongly disagree we eed technology unlocked. There are many uses for higher ram for both the cpu and gpu.

GPU cards are coming out with 2 gig of gddr.

What we need are developers conntinuing to push the evelope.

Ram is the fastest processig option we have. When you don't have enough we have to tur to other options flash memory used as ram.

We've bee using virtual ram, which causes your OS to grab hard disk space are fake like you have more ram. Causes memory swaping between applications etc.

This means your hard drive (depending on your system setup) is getting hit for data two, three or more reason at one time.

Remember in the old days (still does it today) when you could here your hard drive cry with activity?

You should never want technology to hault for the average user. The aveage users move forward as with just at a slower pace,

If they didn't then how in the hell would the average be using a pc higher than 486, pentium 60 etc...

You shouldn't need more technology for the sole purpose of the OS to give the user a better system feel.

Vista merely raised the standard amount of ram to a minimum of 2 gigs.
Microsoft is not to blame because manufacturers failed to accurately estimate the demand for RAM.
nor is Microsoft to blame because Vista failed, the biased press is, along with Apple for their libel ads loaded with false information and the self-proclaimed techs (with no degree) who call it crap based on trying beta2 on their 4-year old dell desktop.