<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8' ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:icbm="http://postneo.com/icbm" xmlns:includedComments="http://www.laudably.com/rss2-comments" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" xmlns:pingback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/pingback/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:trackback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/trackback/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
	<channel>
		<title>Smalltalk Tidbits, Industry Rants</title>
		<link>http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView</link>
		<description>Cincom Product Manager</description>
		<webMaster>jrobertson@cincom.com</webMaster>
		<lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:58:11 EST</lastBuildDate>
		
		<admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="/CincomSmalltalkWiki/Silt"></admin:generatorAgent>
		<admin:errorReportsTo rdf:resource="mailto:jrobertson@cincom.com"></admin:errorReportsTo>
		<dc:language>en-us</dc:language>
		<dc:creator>James A. Robertson</dc:creator>
		<dc:rights>Copyright 2007 Cincom Systems, Inc.</dc:rights>
		<dc:date>2008-02-14T06:58:11-05:00</dc:date>
		<icbm:latitude>39.214103</icbm:latitude>
		<icbm:longitude>-76.878807</icbm:longitude>
		<item>
			<title>Cliche Based Analysis</title>
			<link>http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView?showComments=true&amp;printTitle=Cliche_Based_Analysis&amp;entry=3358927892</link>
			<category>analysts</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:31:32 EDT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<p>Those bright guys at Gartner are back with more <a href="http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2140512,00.asp">conventional wisdom based analysis</a> - this month, it's the death of the traditional workplace. Hey - they only lag the weekly news rags on this by a <em>decade</em> or two:</p>
<blockquote>Gartner argues that three of the four traditional pillars of work -- the living wage, long-term relationships with loyal employers, and government- or company-provided pensions -- have already gone the way of the dinosaurs, leaving only the 40-hour workweek.</blockquote><p>Here's what I'd like to know - when was the &quot;golden age&quot; when people had it so good? This kind of analysis usually ends up pointing at the 1950's and 1960's, which were economically good times for the US - you have to bear in mind that much of the rest of the world we compete with now was still recovering from the utter destruction of WWII though. </p><p>I wonder if they would select the 1930's as a golden age? Or the 1870's? Analysis is so easy when you don't know a thing about history.</p></div>]]></description>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">3358927892</guid>
			<pingback:server>http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/servlet/CommentAPIPBServlet?guid=3358927892</pingback:server>
			<pingback:target>http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView?guid=3358927892</pingback:target>
			<includedComments:comment-collection>
				<includedComments:comment>
					<includedComments:guid>blogView?showComments=true&amp;printTitle=Cliche_Based_Analysis&amp;entry=3358927892</includedComments:guid>
					<includedComments:puid>blogView?showComments=true&amp;printTitle=Cliche_Based_Analysis&amp;entry=3358927892</includedComments:puid>
					<includedComments:author>Arnold</includedComments:author>
					<includedComments:pubDate>2007-06-10T19:49:44-04:00</includedComments:pubDate>
					<includedComments:content>&lt;div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also, before the late 1960s or early 1970s, non-white workers and female workers did not always get the protections (e.g., work week / overtime or pay scales).  Few in those groups ever had pensions, and it was well-known that employer loyalty existed because companies could and did get rid of non-white and female employees first.
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</includedComments:content>
					<includedComments:title>Good times for whom?</includedComments:title>
				</includedComments:comment>
			</includedComments:comment-collection>
			<wfw:comment>http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/servlet/CommentAPIServlet?guid=3358927892</wfw:comment>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Gartner: Wrong Again</title>
			<link>http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView?showComments=true&amp;printTitle=Gartner:_Wrong_Again&amp;entry=3357988840</link>
			<category>analysts</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2007 14:40:40 EDT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<p>It's refreshing to see that the software industry isn't the only place where <em>Gartner has no clue</em> - <a href="http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=14103">listen to them on the Wii:</a></p>
<blockquote>The newly published article cites Van Baker of analyst firm Gartner suggesting of the Wii: &quot;Its appeal is primarily to casual gamers, and there's a serious question about how long casual gamers will stay engaged with the platform... It wouldn't be surprising to see them lose interest after a relatively short amount of time.&quot;</blockquote><p>I suspect that Baker has never used a Wii, or attended a party where one is around. The Wii gets everyone engaged - serious game players and casual audiences. The Xbox and PS3 pretty much hit one demographic: the hard core. </p><p>The last time I looked, the hard core gaming crowd wasn't as big as the casual one, but hey - that's a complicated thing for a Gartner guy to wrap his head around - he might have to engage with the real world, or something.</p><!-- technorati tags start --><p style="text-align:right;font-size:10px;">Technorati Tags: 
<a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/games" rel="tag">games</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/wii" rel="tag">wii</a></p><!-- technorati tags end -->
</div>]]></description>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">3357988840</guid>
			<pingback:server>http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/servlet/CommentAPIPBServlet?guid=3357988840</pingback:server>
			<pingback:target>http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView?guid=3357988840</pingback:target>
			<includedComments:comment-collection>
				<includedComments:comment>
					<includedComments:guid>blogView?showComments=true&amp;printTitle=Gartner:_Wrong_Again&amp;entry=3357988840</includedComments:guid>
					<includedComments:puid>blogView?showComments=true&amp;printTitle=Gartner:_Wrong_Again&amp;entry=3357988840</includedComments:puid>
					<includedComments:author>Norman Gerre</includedComments:author>
					<includedComments:pubDate>2007-05-30T21:58:26-04:00</includedComments:pubDate>
					<includedComments:content>&lt;div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That&amp;#39;s irrelevant. The point isn&amp;#39;t that casual gamers are engaged, but that they&amp;#39;re engaged only casually --&amp;nbsp; as in temporarily, for short periods of time. The terminology is confusing, because some players of casual games do so obsessively, like those people who&amp;#39;ve spent the last decade playing Solitaire for half the day, but most of them aren&amp;#39;t like that. A lot of consumers are used to flitting from one form of entertainment to the next: it&amp;#39;s not unreasonable to think that they might lose interest in the platform faster than hard-core gamers traditionally have. 
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</includedComments:content>
					<includedComments:title>.</includedComments:title>
				</includedComments:comment>
				<includedComments:comment>
					<includedComments:guid>blogView?showComments=true&amp;printTitle=Gartner:_Wrong_Again&amp;entry=3357988840</includedComments:guid>
					<includedComments:puid>blogView?showComments=true&amp;printTitle=Gartner:_Wrong_Again&amp;entry=3357988840</includedComments:puid>
					<includedComments:author>
James Robertson</includedComments:author>
					<includedComments:pubDate>2007-05-30T22:49:14-04:00</includedComments:pubDate>
					<includedComments:content>&lt;div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Comment by 
James Robertson&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;


&lt;p&gt;Yeah, that explains the astounding Wii sales numbers (which show no sign of slowing) - that's word of mouth at work. Also, so long as Nintendo sells a unit (which they make money on), the games are gravy - unlike MS and Sony, who lose their shirts on each console sale.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</includedComments:content>
					<includedComments:title>
Re: Gartner: Wrong Again</includedComments:title>
				</includedComments:comment>
				<includedComments:comment>
					<includedComments:guid>blogView?showComments=true&amp;printTitle=Gartner:_Wrong_Again&amp;entry=3357988840</includedComments:guid>
					<includedComments:puid>blogView?showComments=true&amp;printTitle=Gartner:_Wrong_Again&amp;entry=3357988840</includedComments:puid>
					<includedComments:author>
&lt;a href="http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/userblogs/troy/blogView"&gt;Troy Brumley&lt;/a&gt;</includedComments:author>
					<includedComments:pubDate>2007-05-31T08:46:46-04:00</includedComments:pubDate>
					<includedComments:content>&lt;div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Comment by 
&lt;a href="http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/userblogs/troy/blogView"&gt;Troy Brumley&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;


&lt;p&gt;Is if people are engaged long enough to buy one or not :) I would buy a Wii if I could find one because I know that Jackie and I would play it. Other game consoles just don't have the appeal. I would class us as &amp;quot;casual&amp;quot; gamers, but our money spends too.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</includedComments:content>
					<includedComments:title>
the key</includedComments:title>
				</includedComments:comment>
			</includedComments:comment-collection>
			<wfw:comment>http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/servlet/CommentAPIServlet?guid=3357988840</wfw:comment>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Smalltalk Daily: 2/8/07 - Profiling Multiple Processes</title>
			<link>http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView?showComments=true&amp;printTitle=Smalltalk_Daily:_2/8/07_-_Profiling_Multiple_Processes&amp;entry=3348380079</link>
			<category>analysts</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:34:39 EST</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<p>In today's <a href="http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/casts/stDaily/2007/smalltalk_daily-02-08-07.html">Smalltalk Daily,</a> we take a look at the Multi-Time Profiler - which lets you profile all running processes in the system for a period of time. It's a great way to find out what your code is doing when it works off multiple processes.</p>
<!-- technorati tags start --><p style="text-align:right;font-size:10px;">Technorati Tags: 
<a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/smalltalk" rel="tag">smalltalk</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/profiling" rel="tag">profiling</a></p><!-- technorati tags end -->
</div>]]></description>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">3348380079</guid>
			<pingback:server>http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/servlet/CommentAPIPBServlet?guid=3348380079</pingback:server>
			<pingback:target>http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView?guid=3348380079</pingback:target>
			<includedComments:comment-collection></includedComments:comment-collection>
			<wfw:comment>http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/servlet/CommentAPIServlet?guid=3348380079</wfw:comment>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>DRM is bad for the Enterprise, too</title>
			<link>http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView?showComments=true&amp;printTitle=DRM_is_bad_for_the_Enterprise,_too&amp;entry=3345436471</link>
			<category>analysts</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jan 2007 07:54:31 EST</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<p><a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/JamesGovernorsMonkchips/~3/71119436/">James Governor</a> makes another excellent observation:</p>

<blockquote>
What are the implications for the enterprise? If you think you can succesfully run your business as a top down fiefdom, a command and control structure, then by all means encumber all your documents and files with DRM. But if you want to enable your employees to innovate then a little more freedom might not be such a bad thing. That&rsquo;s the thing with command and control - its inefficient and so bound to fail in the long run.
</blockquote>

<p>Outfits that don't trust their employees to do the right thing are just going to have problems. Better to trust and weed out the bad apples than to treat everyone like a suspect.</p><p>For those of you who want to bring up various regulations surrounding various businesses - bear in mind that the classification scheme used for documents by the US government has managed to get by without DRM for years. </p><!-- technorati tags start --><p style="text-align:right;font-size:10px;">Technorati Tags: 
<a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/DRM" rel="tag">DRM</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/enterprisey" rel="tag">enterprisey</a></p><!-- technorati tags end -->
</div>]]></description>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">3345436471</guid>
			<pingback:server>http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/servlet/CommentAPIPBServlet?guid=3345436471</pingback:server>
			<pingback:target>http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView?guid=3345436471</pingback:target>
			<includedComments:comment-collection>
				<includedComments:comment>
					<includedComments:guid>blogView?showComments=true&amp;printTitle=DRM_is_bad_for_the_Enterprise,_too&amp;entry=3345436471</includedComments:guid>
					<includedComments:puid>blogView?showComments=true&amp;printTitle=DRM_is_bad_for_the_Enterprise,_too&amp;entry=3345436471</includedComments:puid>
					<includedComments:author>denis bider</includedComments:author>
					<includedComments:pubDate>2007-01-05T08:52:36-05:00</includedComments:pubDate>
					<includedComments:content>&lt;div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Not so. Systems used to store classified information must implement various levels of security, including such things as filesystem level permissions. If you go by what the acronym stands for - Digital Rights Management - this already is DRM.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#39;m sure the various agencies that use confidential information will&amp;nbsp;take advantage&amp;nbsp;of more DRM technology as it becomes available, gladly.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</includedComments:content>
					<includedComments:title></includedComments:title>
				</includedComments:comment>
				<includedComments:comment>
					<includedComments:guid>blogView?showComments=true&amp;printTitle=DRM_is_bad_for_the_Enterprise,_too&amp;entry=3345436471</includedComments:guid>
					<includedComments:puid>blogView?showComments=true&amp;printTitle=DRM_is_bad_for_the_Enterprise,_too&amp;entry=3345436471</includedComments:puid>
					<includedComments:author>
James Robertson</includedComments:author>
					<includedComments:pubDate>2007-01-05T09:22:27-05:00</includedComments:pubDate>
					<includedComments:content>&lt;div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Comment by 
James Robertson&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;


&lt;p&gt;However, when I worked in that field, they managed just fine without it. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</includedComments:content>
					<includedComments:title>
Re: DRM is bad for the Enterprise, too</includedComments:title>
				</includedComments:comment>
			</includedComments:comment-collection>
			<wfw:comment>http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/servlet/CommentAPIServlet?guid=3345436471</wfw:comment>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Vista Requirements: Large</title>
			<link>http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView?showComments=true&amp;printTitle=Vista_Requirements:_Large&amp;entry=3345275978</link>
			<category>analysts</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 03 Jan 2007 11:19:38 EST</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<p><a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/JamesGovernorsMonkchips/~3/70257703/">James Governor</a> cuts through the fog surrounding the &quot;free evaluation laptop&quot; issue, and gets at the real problem - which is something I really wish I had thought to notice:</p>

<blockquote> Check out the specs&#8230; &ldquo;an AMD Turion 64 X2 dual-core 2ghz CPU, 2GB of DDR2-667 RAM, AMD-ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 on a 15.4&#8243; widescreen. It also has a 160GB SATA drive, HD-DVD reader and burner as well as a 1.3mp camera.&rdquo; </blockquote><blockquote>That&rsquo;s some pretty heavy specifications. The message I take away is not that Microsoft has an ethical problem but that the hardware upgrades required to run Vista smoothly are going to delight PC manufacturers most of all&#8230; If you need a Ferrari to have a decent road experience then Redmond, we may indeed have a problem. 2gig2gig&#8230; </blockquote>

<p>Unless you're a serious gamer, you probably don't have a system anything like that, and it is telling that they sent out such high end systems as part of the evaluation. Sure, they didn't want the OS to crawl for the people getting them, but that's pretty far up the scale to go in order to ensure that. The Thinkpad I'm using right now has 768MB of RAM and the HD is small (just 35 GB). Yes, I always want more disk, and I could certainly use more memory - but XP typically runs fine on this hardware. I can only imagine how Vista would operate on this system...</p><!-- technorati tags start --><p style="text-align:right;font-size:10px;">Technorati Tags: 
<a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/Windows" rel="tag">Windows</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/Vista" rel="tag">Vista</a></p><!-- technorati tags end -->
</div>]]></description>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">3345275978</guid>
			<pingback:server>http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/servlet/CommentAPIPBServlet?guid=3345275978</pingback:server>
			<pingback:target>http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView?guid=3345275978</pingback:target>
			<includedComments:comment-collection>
				<includedComments:comment>
					<includedComments:guid>blogView?showComments=true&amp;printTitle=Vista_Requirements:_Large&amp;entry=3345275978</includedComments:guid>
					<includedComments:puid>blogView?showComments=true&amp;printTitle=Vista_Requirements:_Large&amp;entry=3345275978</includedComments:puid>
					<includedComments:author>
&lt;a href="http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/userblogs/troy/blogView"&gt;Troy Brumley&lt;/a&gt;</includedComments:author>
					<includedComments:pubDate>2007-01-03T11:51:39-05:00</includedComments:pubDate>
					<includedComments:content>&lt;div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Comment by 
&lt;a href="http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/userblogs/troy/blogView"&gt;Troy Brumley&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;


&lt;p&gt;About way back when there was a hardware tax for the Apple/Mac experience :)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</includedComments:content>
					<includedComments:title>
tell me again, grandpa</includedComments:title>
				</includedComments:comment>
				<includedComments:comment>
					<includedComments:guid>blogView?showComments=true&amp;printTitle=Vista_Requirements:_Large&amp;entry=3345275978</includedComments:guid>
					<includedComments:puid>blogView?showComments=true&amp;printTitle=Vista_Requirements:_Large&amp;entry=3345275978</includedComments:puid>
					<includedComments:author>denis bider</includedComments:author>
					<includedComments:pubDate>2007-01-03T12:25:06-05:00</includedComments:pubDate>
					<includedComments:content>&lt;div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I am amazed at what&amp;nbsp;old technology some people at ostensibly serious development companies&amp;nbsp;have to&amp;nbsp;use daily. In 2006, I visited a software company where everyone still had 15-17&amp;quot; CRT monitors and desktop machines slower than my 3 year old laptop. I was amazed.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I subscribe to the Joel Spolsky&amp;nbsp;paradigm that&amp;nbsp;state-of-the-art hardware is way cheaper than a salary increase, and much more effective at motivating a developer employee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</includedComments:content>
					<includedComments:title>sissy hardware</includedComments:title>
				</includedComments:comment>
				<includedComments:comment>
					<includedComments:guid>blogView?showComments=true&amp;printTitle=Vista_Requirements:_Large&amp;entry=3345275978</includedComments:guid>
					<includedComments:puid>blogView?showComments=true&amp;printTitle=Vista_Requirements:_Large&amp;entry=3345275978</includedComments:puid>
					<includedComments:author>Rick</includedComments:author>
					<includedComments:pubDate>2007-01-03T13:23:13-05:00</includedComments:pubDate>
					<includedComments:content>&lt;div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I remember being shocked at how Windows 95 wouldn&amp;#39;t run all that hot with 8 meg of ram. &amp;nbsp; 8 whole megs! 
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</includedComments:content>
					<includedComments:title>Going for a ride in the way-back machine</includedComments:title>
				</includedComments:comment>
				<includedComments:comment>
					<includedComments:guid>blogView?showComments=true&amp;printTitle=Vista_Requirements:_Large&amp;entry=3345275978</includedComments:guid>
					<includedComments:puid>blogView?showComments=true&amp;printTitle=Vista_Requirements:_Large&amp;entry=3345275978</includedComments:puid>
					<includedComments:author>
&lt;a href="http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/userblogs/troy/blogView"&gt;Troy Brumley&lt;/a&gt;</includedComments:author>
					<includedComments:pubDate>2007-01-03T13:33:12-05:00</includedComments:pubDate>
					<includedComments:content>&lt;div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Comment by 
&lt;a href="http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/userblogs/troy/blogView"&gt;Troy Brumley&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;


&lt;p&gt;Denis, you are correct about software development companies. More than Splosky though, I learned from Todd Nathan many years ago that some of this is the responsibility of the individual developer. I expect my company to provide a certain baseline of equipment, but I buy many bits of software, hardware, and books on my own because it helps me be better than the schmo down the aisle who insists on only using what the company will pay for.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For example, I personally plan to get a serious MacBook this year and use it as my primary machine, relegating office supplied hardware to testing roles.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;That said, the point is that the hardware required to run Vista is too much to expect email/powerpoint/web users to pay for and use.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Not everyone who needs or uses a computer is a software type.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</includedComments:content>
					<includedComments:title>
Re: Vista Requirements: Large</includedComments:title>
				</includedComments:comment>
				<includedComments:comment>
					<includedComments:guid>blogView?showComments=true&amp;printTitle=Vista_Requirements:_Large&amp;entry=3345275978</includedComments:guid>
					<includedComments:puid>blogView?showComments=true&amp;printTitle=Vista_Requirements:_Large&amp;entry=3345275978</includedComments:puid>
					<includedComments:author>Tom Sattler</includedComments:author>
					<includedComments:pubDate>2007-01-03T15:20:30-05:00</includedComments:pubDate>
					<includedComments:content>&lt;div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;James, your laptop is overkill.&amp;nbsp; You don&amp;#39;t need anything near as powerful as you have, in order to successfully run Linux. 
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</includedComments:content>
					<includedComments:title></includedComments:title>
				</includedComments:comment>
				<includedComments:comment>
					<includedComments:guid>blogView?showComments=true&amp;printTitle=Vista_Requirements:_Large&amp;entry=3345275978</includedComments:guid>
					<includedComments:puid>blogView?showComments=true&amp;printTitle=Vista_Requirements:_Large&amp;entry=3345275978</includedComments:puid>
					<includedComments:author>denis bider</includedComments:author>
					<includedComments:pubDate>2007-01-04T08:57:22-05:00</includedComments:pubDate>
					<includedComments:content>&lt;div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;That said, the point is that the hardware required to run Vista is too much to expect email/powerpoint/web users to pay for and use.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ljubljana is full of bill-boards these days featuring a Dell 6400 Inspiron laptop, 1.83 GHz, dual core, 1 GB RAM, 120 GB HDD, &lt;strong&gt;for 1.085 EUR &lt;/strong&gt;(tax inclusive).&amp;nbsp;It&amp;#39;s pretty much&amp;nbsp;a bargain, and will run&amp;nbsp;Vista like a charm.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</includedComments:content>
					<includedComments:title></includedComments:title>
				</includedComments:comment>
				<includedComments:comment>
					<includedComments:guid>blogView?showComments=true&amp;printTitle=Vista_Requirements:_Large&amp;entry=3345275978</includedComments:guid>
					<includedComments:puid>blogView?showComments=true&amp;printTitle=Vista_Requirements:_Large&amp;entry=3345275978</includedComments:puid>
					<includedComments:author>Jimmy James</includedComments:author>
					<includedComments:pubDate>2007-01-04T12:00:48-05:00</includedComments:pubDate>
					<includedComments:content>&lt;div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So we can set the price of running Vista at around 1000 Euros.

Somebody should start buying the gently-used hardware that will soon be available, install Linux and resell it.
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</includedComments:content>
					<includedComments:title>Cost of Vista ~1000 Euros</includedComments:title>
				</includedComments:comment>
				<includedComments:comment>
					<includedComments:guid>blogView?showComments=true&amp;printTitle=Vista_Requirements:_Large&amp;entry=3345275978</includedComments:guid>
					<includedComments:puid>blogView?showComments=true&amp;printTitle=Vista_Requirements:_Large&amp;entry=3345275978</includedComments:puid>
					<includedComments:author>Dennis Howlett</includedComments:author>
					<includedComments:pubDate>2007-01-06T16:01:58-05:00</includedComments:pubDate>
					<includedComments:content>&lt;div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This has been known about for a while. So why the fuss now?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</includedComments:content>
					<includedComments:title>I don't understand all the fuss</includedComments:title>
				</includedComments:comment>
			</includedComments:comment-collection>
			<wfw:comment>http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/servlet/CommentAPIServlet?guid=3345275978</wfw:comment>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
