<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why Windows Wins &#124; Linux Magazine</title>
	<atom:link href="http://philcrissman.com/2007/02/01/why-windows-wins-linux-magazine/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://philcrissman.com/2007/02/01/why-windows-wins-linux-magazine</link>
	<description>Web Development, startups, entrepreneurship, books, art, and other stuff</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:49:26 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Phil Crissman</title>
		<link>http://philcrissman.com/2007/02/01/why-windows-wins-linux-magazine/comment-page-1#comment-1260</link>
		<dc:creator>Phil Crissman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 2007 13:40:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.philcrissman.com/2007/02/01/why-windows-wins-linux-magazine/#comment-1260</guid>
		<description>I suppose you're right; for me, I'd say the scale was what made it seem worth commenting on. I don't necessarily think that earlier versions required quite as much of an upgrade on the hardware side. XP was capable of running on a PII with 128MB of RAM -- admittedly, performance would suffer, but if you had a PIII or equivalent and 256MB , you could probably have upgraded and be perfectly happy.

So, yes, it's certainly not a "new" tactic -- just a little bigger upgrade requirement.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I suppose you&#8217;re right; for me, I&#8217;d say the scale was what made it seem worth commenting on. I don&#8217;t necessarily think that earlier versions required quite as much of an upgrade on the hardware side. XP was capable of running on a PII with 128MB of RAM &#8212; admittedly, performance would suffer, but if you had a PIII or equivalent and 256MB , you could probably have upgraded and be perfectly happy.</p>
<p>So, yes, it&#8217;s certainly not a &#8220;new&#8221; tactic &#8212; just a little bigger upgrade requirement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mrben</title>
		<link>http://philcrissman.com/2007/02/01/why-windows-wins-linux-magazine/comment-page-1#comment-1259</link>
		<dc:creator>mrben</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 2007 09:29:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.philcrissman.com/2007/02/01/why-windows-wins-linux-magazine/#comment-1259</guid>
		<description>Why is everyone treating this like it's somehow a new idea? _Every_ version of Windows, without fail, has required a certain tier of users to go out and replace their old hardware in order to upgrade. Granted, the size of that tier may be bigger, but this is not a new concept.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why is everyone treating this like it&#8217;s somehow a new idea? _Every_ version of Windows, without fail, has required a certain tier of users to go out and replace their old hardware in order to upgrade. Granted, the size of that tier may be bigger, but this is not a new concept.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
