@mikoto@jeder well... when vista came out it was horrible in performance as well as noming ram. That became better tho and when 7 got released it was basically a better version of vista, i agree. but vista is still in the mind of everyone as a really bad because until 7 it has way to much issues
@Jain@jeder really what happened was that computers got better within that time span, in 2007 oems were churning out systems that only just met the minimum specs with 512 MB of ram and pentium 4s. By 2009, pretty much everything was at least at the performance range of a low-mid core 2 and with at least 1 GB of ram if not 2+
@mikoto@jeder thats only part of the reason... back then xp didnt had uac which was the big thing with vista. vista was asking for higher permissions all the time, they reworked partly the uac and the use of it in 7. it had good ideas but its implementation was not made for common users. and the uac was just one critic of windows vista
@mikoto@jeder other things i remember were bigger install size. well i guess that 7 has the same or even worse... but in general the computers were much faster when 7 got released than when vista got released... i remember that games usually were slower in vista and it used around 2-4 more ram in comparison of a configured xp...
@natty@mikoto@Jain@jeder Yeah it was an x86 CPU (i don't think it supported 64bit instructions as nobody would ever think you'd need more than 3GB of RAM and/or install a 64bit OS if you're using only the web browser... haha) with power consumption as closest as possible to ARM with an x86 CPU, but they were as powerful as a Pentium III (a chip as old as us)
@instereo256@natty@jeder@Jain funnily enough my atom netbook does have 64 bit support, though since it only maxes at 2GB of ram it doesn't mean that much in terms of performance potential
@mikoto@Jain@jeder also Aero effects required a DirectX 9 GPU and was graphically intensive for GPUs of the time, at least with my old Nvidia 7600GT having Aero enabled did hit in game FPS quite significantly, and that was a midrange dedicated GPU from 2005, i don't know how well it ran on PCs with only onboard Intel graphics
I'm not sure if P4 computers were still sold in 2007, there however were Pentium Ds which were two P4s glued together, and Celeron Ds (not two P4s glued together)
Vista also loaded much more system files than XP, the system folder was over 1GB
also afaik there were big driver issues with release/pre-SP1 Vista
system folder size correction@mikoto@Jain@jeder i was wrong about the drive usage; XP took 1GB on the system drive, Vista took around 10 (and windows 10 takes 20gb)
🔜 eth0
@jeder@miau.jeder.pl
