Why did Windows Vista filter so many back in 2007?Vista was much better than “Fisher-Price Theme” XP, made hardware acceleration for UI standard, brought all the new media libraries and systems windows uses today, created the modern security permissions controls, created the current driver system (thats why all default microsoft drivers are dated 2006), and the current version of the windows kernel. Vista technically only required 512MB but it ran much better with 2 or 4 GB DDR2 800 RAM. Memory limit of 128 GB.
Because it>created the current driver systemand nobody made decent drivers for it at launchBy the time 7 came out things had normalized, but 7 was already out, so nobody cared.UAC was kind of a meme that caused lots of problems for existing software and people still get raped by malware all the time anyway.
Yes, the UI was fucking great, magnificent but the very first years most system only had 512MB and not because its the minimum it meant that it ran fine, it had a bug that made it eat more ram than needed so if you open so many windows you eat up all the ram.It was only after the SP2 and a few ram upgrades later that it ran decently doing anything from small office tasks to heavy workloads.t. 38y unc
>>109638955Vista required faster processors, more RAM and a rather fast video card supporting a modern shader model.PC vendors like Dell had... have a business model where they take the cheapest, most obsolete hardware they can find, put it into a prebuilt and sell that for a lot of money. The people who buy these are suckers.The vendors wanted to sell PCs with the new, shiny OS. But their prebuilts sucked shit and couldn't run it properly.So Microsoft created two certifications: "Windows Vista Premium Ready" for PCs that actually are ready to run Vista with the new Aero theme and everything and "Windows Vista Capable" for fucking garbage that had no business running Vista and will do a lot better not wasting what little RAM it has on Vista's new bells and whistles and should just run XP or 2000. But guess what. They came with Vista, so that's what people used. And they hated it. Their "new PCs" (Shitty Dell prebuilt that cost a lot of money, but had XP era hardware) ran like ass. And they blamed Vista for it. After all, "downgrading" to XP (the OS the computer should have run in the first place), made the computer run much better.Vista was great if you had a self built computer with good hardware. Or a really, really expensive "Windows Vista Premium Ready" prebuilt. Most people didn't.tl;dr: Vista was fine. Prebuilts of the era were not.
>>109638955Instability. White people complain about jeets but white people did Vista and it sucked.
>>109639160you will never have slaves chud, in fact, you are one and don't even know it
>>109638955Because it was shit. I'm thankful it finally forced me to switch off Windows full time at least, I'd always dual booted before then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Windows_Vista
>>109638955> Vista was much better than “Fisher-Price Theme”why wouldn't you use classic theme anyway> made hardware acceleration for UI standardGDI was no longer hardware accelerated and still isn't today, resizing a services.msc window is noticeably slower on Vista+ than XP (still true for literally ANY windows version past NT 5.x)in fact it's so slow, a pentium 4 desktop with literally any gpu will be running circles around your ryzen desktop in GDI benchmarkswhat vista and newer accelerated was the desktop compositing> brought all the new media libraries and systems windows uses todaycool (i don't give a shit)> created the modern security permissions controlsi disabled UAC> created the current driver systemfine> and the current version of the windows kerneloklosing hardware accelerated GDI and directsound was a downgrade though
>>109638955Vista ran fine on a Q6600, 8GB and SSD. Your average shitbox at the time couldn't handle it though and Microsoft were wrong to say it would.
>>109638955>created the modern security permissions controlsVista`s `implementation` of UAC was up there with Windows 8 in the MS fuckups Hall of Fame. It was, truly, fucking abysmal.
>>109639584The average shitbox at the time had a Celeron (pentium 4 architecture), 512MB RAM, and a HDDPeople also had issues when they bought into the 64bit version since lots of hardware never got updated drivers for it. Even basic shit like certain webcams just were not 64bit compatible.
>>10963895564bit performance was better on XPpro, only servers had more than 4GB RAM, the UI looked nice but that's it. UAC was really annoying too, but it probably protected a fair number of ignorant people. Kids will never know the thrill of finding good and free anti-virus/spyware cleaning utils. MS might have dealt with a lot of malware, now, but they made up for it with more bloat and govt issued spyware.
>>109638955I bought a $700 HP p6000 that took 10 minutes to boot. I installed xp and used it like a normal person for another 8 years.
>>109639284> GDI was no longer hardware acceleratedIt drives me insane how this truth is denied by most people. They say that Vista added hardware acceleration, when in fact it removed it. Vista had a hardware acceleration for a totally superfluous anti-feature that did not exist pre-vista.
