It wasn't simply just long winded criticisms previously my friend. I run separate Win Vista Home Premium, Ulti 32 and XP SP3 rigs right here on my home LAN. It's collectively a and still what we can consider as my daily experience of usage. All rigs here are with between 5-15 default Windows Services killed off and several other tweaks just to match each' work ability. When we're talking milestones, one doesn't have to be an old school geek all the way from Win 3.1 or DOS even. Start off from Win 95 and you can really tell which milestone has succeeded or failed for short or long terms. Of course I still consider in comparison to Vista, ME takes the crowning crap cake for sure.

That's an excuse really if we're to talk about OSes' hardware certifications. My question before was simply this; Even when 90% of the time if we have a fully stable and working Vista rig with higher and better specs, is it justifiable to put it head to head to a lowly Intel GMA 950 driven Macbook? See my point or not? Both different rigs are working. Hence no relevance whatsoever to worry about certifications. But both are different at performance levels. You'd still have to turn some features off the Vista rig to match up to the Mac. Can understand now? We're talking designs here.

When we talk about hardware certifications, then what about Linux? It's an independent movement with more unpaid coders and software engineers working on it part time oni all these years, with nary close to MS' Labs outfit at their disposal? No godly amount of financial and organization resources like MS. And yet they can still do distros that runs on 700Mhz CPUs and pitiful by today's standards 256mb RAM? And have you seen those GNOME, KDE and the lowliest XFCE, LXDE desktops lately? On par and even better at most than Vista. Linux fanbois never bother to bat an eye about multi tasking when there's cooler "virtualizations" to be done.