what changed in windows from xp to vista and later 7? what warranted such a big change in specs?
bubble themes and gay desktop effects raising the needed specs
>>108534658The only good thing they added was the ability to move the software icons in the task bar. I can't think of anything else that Windows 2000 didn't have...Basically, with each new version they replaced something good with shit. Remember the 2000 search panel for example? I think it was kind of still there in XP, but it disappeared in Vista and 7, replaced with unusable shit.Remember XP's perfectly fine Wordpad? Look at 7's shitty Wordpad...So here is my answer, what they added is shit.
>>108534658WinForms -> WPF64bit apps (winXP was 32bit only, it's greatest downside)Afaik, new NT kernel.>>108534719If they are gay, why Apple failed to recreate those in tahoe?
yeah i dont think much substantial changed during those releases besides enshitification and causing compatability issues
>>108534836>The only good thing they added was the ability to move the software icons in the task barYou could do this in literally windows 98
The jump from Windows XP to Vista represented a complete overhaul of the system's foundation to prioritize security and modern hardware capabilities, which directly explains the dramatic increase in system requirements. While Windows 7 is often seen as the "fixed" version of Vista, it was largely an optimization of the same new architecture.Here is a quick comparison of the official minimum system requirements:Component Windows XP Windows Vista Windows 7Processor 233 MHz 800 MHz 1 GHzRAM 64 MB 512 MB 1 GB (32-bit) / 2 GB (64-bit)Graphics Card No specific requirement DirectX 9 capable,32 MB VRAM DirectX 9 with WDDM 1.0 driverHard Drive Space 1.5 GB 15 GB 16 GB (32-bit) / 20 GB (64-bit) Note on Official Specs: It is important to note that while Microsoft's official minimum specs were 512 MB of RAM for Vista and 1 GB for Windows 7, contemporary users and experts widely agreed that 2 GB of RAM was the practical minimum to run either operating system smoothly .
What Changed in Windows Vista?Windows Vista was a ground-up rewrite of the Windows kernel (moving from NT 5.1 to NT 6.0), built to address the security flaws and technological limitations that had become apparent in XP. Key changes included: A Focus on Security: This was the biggest shift. XP was notorious for being insecure "out of the box." Vista introduced several major features to change this : User Account Control (UAC): A feature that limited applications from making system-level changes without explicit user permission, ending the era of "admin-by-default" . BitLocker Drive Encryption: Full-disk encryption to protect data if a device was lost or stolen. Windows Defender: Built-in protection against spyware and other malware. Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR): A security technique that made it harder for malicious code to find system functions to exploit.A Completely New Graphics Engine (WDDM): This was a primary driver for the increased hardware requirements. Instead of the old XP graphics model, Vista introduced the Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM). This new driver model enabled the Windows Aero interface—the translucent "glass" effects, Flip 3D, and desktop thumbnails—but required a modern, DirectX 9-compatible graphics card.Under-the-Hood Performance Tech: Vista was designed for modern hardware, introducing technologies that are standard today, such as: SuperFetch: A memory management system that pre-loads your frequently used applications into available RAM for faster loading. ReadyBoost: A feature to use USB flash drives as a cache to speed up system performance.
>>108534658>>108534719>>108534836reminder microsoft single handedly raised the bar on personal computers and dragged people out of the 2000s shitbox era into the 2010s internet era. a highend pc built for windows7 is still usable almost two decades later. say "thank you microsoft"
>>108534870> picThis is very bad. Designed by idiots. Even loonix has normal autocomplete when you start typing the name of the program you want to execute. Instead of that bullshit labyrinth completion and imagine the rage when you misclicked and have to do that again.
>>108534945Ok
>>108534875Thank you geepeety.
>>108534918is that why the file explorer takes time to launch on magnitudes more powerful hardware compared to opening instantly in the 90s?
>>108535141Or windows 11 idles at 12gb ram usage with a few Firefox tabs open lol
>>1085348752gb was a bit overkill for 2007 desu. Ram only became cheaper than dirt around early 2009 iirc. Good thing windows xp had a sp3.
>>108534658the amount of sovl
>>108534658Tfw you could run windows xp on an old 98 laptop and install a vista theme on it and it ran just fine.
>>108534945>proves those articles claiming "zoomers dont understand folders" correct
>>108534658Well, for one they removed all hardware acceleration from the UI replacing it with software rendering all for a transparent window gimmick.
>>108534658OS integration with the Microsoft ecosystem used to be better. Library folders were a good idea. The IE look was good.
>>108534885> Under-the-Hood Performance TechThe performance tech is like a 400lb man's electric wheelchair. Utterly redundant if you were normal and healthy.
>>108535570That menu exists only for one reason: launch some software you need right now.For some time Gnome2 had same retarded idiotic design. It was terrible, yet morons insisted that Gnome2 was better than 3. Although what happened afterwards is Apple stealing features from Gnome 3 and pretending they came up with it independently. But I'm going on a tangent here.Point is: idiotic design should not be glorified. As much as I like old software, I hate it's flaws even more. Because they are blatantly obvious and bothersome.
>>108535280>Android using half the ram idling: unused ram is wasted ram, it's le linux after all, very efficient>iOS using half the ram idling: unused ram is wasted ram, it's le unix after all, very efficient>Windows using half the ram idling: noooo it fucking sucks it's trash it's garbage
>>108535789>Library folders??
>>108535897They're all equally bad.
>>108534945I mean it was cool at the time and did the job. But I agree, even the Windows 10 Start menu with scrollable items and inline expansion is 10x better
>>108534857>winXP was 32bit onlyNope, there's a 64 bit version (no i don't mean the itanium one)
>>108534658Desktop became fully hardware accelarated with Vista and forward with all the bloat that comes with a fancy GPU pipeline. XP only used the GPU through GDI.
>>108540872> Nope, there's a 64 bit version (no i don't mean the itanium one)Wrong, windows 2003 was the first version of windows with amd64 support. Windows "XP" x64 is what amounts of a resource hack. Its not real.
>>108540938Its actually backwards. Windows XP was fully hardware accelerated, in Vista it was all stripped out. The only thing that is hardware accelerated in Vista is that transparent window gimmick. The actual contents of the windows was all software rendered and slow as treacle.
>>108540982I'm glad we agree there was a 64-bit edition of Windows XP. Not sure why you're moving the goalposts so hard to try and avoid being wrong.
>>108540872Official 64-bit win XP either never existed, or was released very late, so adoption was marginal. In fact I remember using something like that. But various software refused to work there, despite running flawlesly on same hardware, just with the normal 32bit OS version.
>>108540992So if I take windows 11 and resource hack it to say windows 98, I can claim that windows 98 supports amd64 and arm, and can run modern software? Sticking a label on something does not make it that thing.
>>108541002Look, I'm sorry you were wrong, but every post you make consequently just makes you look more and more bitter that you can't accept it.
>>108541015Find me a version of "XP" x64 that reports NT 5.1. XP = 5.12003 = 5.2If you think "XP" x64 exists, then show me this mythical OS
>>108541038I didn't read your post. The discussion is over. Sorry you were wrong and are so upset about it.
Ooooof
>>108541042Lost so hard he's shutting his eyes
>>108541052My version of fake XP64 did not pretend it's got SP2, as far as I remember.
>>108541052Unless you can show it reporting NT 5.1 then its not real. A Microsoft sanctioned resource hack.
>>108541062>>108541053
OP is a faggot
>>108541072>>108541053
>>108535897>Android using half the ram idling???Mine uses 4.5GB with NOTHING open after a fresh reboot and as many services disabled as it allows. Android is probably even more jeeted than Windows at this point.
>>108534658Vista kernel put far bigger emphasis on security, most applications ran in user space now and the system would bitch at you if something wanted low level access. It also had a DLL file bank to prevent installations overwriting certain shared DLL files with something that would break other applications. This latter is the reason why installs grow in size over time, with the WinSxS folder being filled up with application-specific copies of shared files.That and it came with far more background services and features, and upgraded many built-in apps to use higher quality graphics. Had GPU rendering out of the box, replaced the old 4-color win32 boxes with curved edges, upgraded everything to 64-bit (which created another split, one directory for 64bit and one for 32bit system files), more aggressive pre-caching for stuff that would go in memory, Bitlocker, a shit ton more drivers, and so on.I know for a fact it would run fine on as low as 1GB memory, I had that much when first installing it, only doubled it to 2GB "just in case". Keep in mind that XP at the time would run the OS itself with as low as 128MB, but if you tried doing ANYTHING modern on it, it would slow down to a grind if you had less than 1 gig. So it's not like Vista needed that much more memory, it just used what you had more efficiently.
>>108535141>is that why the file explorer takes time to launch on magnitudes more powerful hardware compared to opening instantly in the 90s?It does that because whenever you open the File Explorer it enumerates all your network connections, network folders, checks every folder you have in quick access, loads all the garbage junk that extra apps put in the quick access like Dropbox, evaluates ZIP files and lists them as folders, and so on and on.IIRC you can do something like remove network handling to speed it up, but I haven't done that in a decade so I don't remember the specifics.
>>108535844NTA what did they steal?
>>108540991It was "stripped out" because it fell back to software emulation when the fancy gpu pipeline features in question were not present, even if you did have graphics accelaration.
>>108535141>>108535280No those are the jeets and vibecoders they hired to replace all the senior white and yellow guys who actually built Windows Vista&7 but were "too expensive" or wouldn't go along with Salty Nutella's retarded ideas after Ballmer left.
>>108541644Those "fancy gpu pipeline features" did not do anything useful. All they were used for is rendering transparent windows. Utterly worthless gimmick. With WDDM the GDI acceleration function table was removed, making all window contents software rendered always. Vista was the worst thing to happen to computing, the end of low latency responsive user interfaces.
>>108541289>Had GPU rendering out of the boxnonsense. it was still CPU rendering. GPU rendering comes after win7>most applications ran in user space nownope, it has another model for drivers. consult with AI before posting nonsense gramps
>>108535339Win7 uses about 400MB after boot. You needed 2GB because bloat like Firefox, but it has little to do with system itself.
>>108541750CPU rendering > GPU rendering (aka "hardware acceleration") gimmickMS got into GPU trap and now its one of consequences its secondary to Nvidia.
>>108541791CPU rendering is bad because pcie is slow as treacle. The main value of GPU rendering is keeping everything in GPU memory.
>>108541819the main vailue in GPU rendering is fitting into Nvidia's bubble, a hardcoded (into hardware) algorithm company.
>>108541939Basic gpu rendering has nothing to do with Nvidia specifically.
>>108541981sure sure. so where have you optimized to, whats the result?ive grown out of "loook performance" or "looook immutability" mind traits already, i need real technical justifications.
>>108534658Saars
>>108534918gm sar
I used this in 2002 as my daily driver. Miss it still. It was soul
>>108544808This was like one of the things that when i saw it i had hope for the future. Instead we got edge and copilot
>>108541591See for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALCUPp-5UwE
>>108534836Remember the extra tool bars you could make? I used to make extra tool bars for my extra HDDs.
