User talk:VShaka
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A Cid Kampo y Saint Domingas y demás sociópatas:
Llevo años insultando a esta puta gente de mierda pero parece que pasan de mis insultos e insisten en querer conocerme personalmente ya que espiarme durante todos estos años les parece insuficiente. Quieren conocerme en primera plana. Eso no va a pasar nunca ya que yo paso de paletos de pueblo, manipuladores, engañadores, aprovechones y demás características de sociópatas que tantas veces os he dicho y explicado. Yo tengo conocimientos de psicología, por consiguiente será muy difícil que me podáis controlar/engañar/manipular/aprovechar. Desgraciadamente y obviamente no puedo prohibiros que me espiéis pero algún día tendré pruebas sustanciales para poneros demandas por acoso y acceso a información confidencial.
[edit] Welcome to VShaka!
[edit] Windows Vista unofficial requirements
Microsoft's official hardware requirements are a laugh matter. This is why I included 2 professional opinions about recommended specs, which actually go in line with general public opinion on the matter. Anybody who tested this OS, even on a modern PC like mine, would agree. Now, is it possible to include an unofficial recommendation without it being somebody's opinion? I think not. VShaka (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think you're missing my point somewhat. I completely agree that official recommendations by Microsoft with regards to vista specs are laughable and indeed pathetic if one wishes to have a happy and reasonably trouble-free experience with the operating system. My point, which I noticed has seen agreement on the article talk page, was that the 3rd column was misleading in its representation of "recommended specifications", in that it was implying it was official like the previous 2 columns where, and the description to accompony this was added on to a bit of text above the table which your average reader, skimming through, could quite easily miss; the column header of "recommended" showed no indication that it was unofficial and opinionated recommendations (unless one followed the links, which I did to come to this decision), however more realistic they are.
- Getting back to the text; I did make an amendment to it rather than completely remove it, which fits in to an explaination of it being more realistic than the official recommendations, but not officially released as such by Microsoft. Such a 3rd party recommendation should not be merged into the official ones as if they are alike, and I think should clearly be noted they are 3rd party opinions, aside from the actual official ones. I hope you can see my point at least, and I would gladly encourage civilised discussion on it if you have more to add. Cheers! Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- I answered you on the Vista talk page. VShaka (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
