170
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 May 2024
170 points (100.0% liked)
Ask Lemmy
26275 readers
1167 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
def win 7
And that’s only because XP wasn’t a given option.
Let's not kid ourselves. Xp is extremely dated and 7 was the better OS
Better in terms of features, absolutely. XP SP3 was a more stable OS. Only downside is lack of security updates, which wouldn’t matter much in the woods.
What if you’re attacked by a bear ? You’d be wishing you had gotten those security updates wouldn’t you
Same applies to Vista despite being much closet to Windows 7 than XP.
But I bet it's this way only because nobody gave a shit about Vista. I was the only person who gave a shit about it.
Vista was hot garbage. That shit took ~1.5 GB of RAM to boot. In 2007. Total trash. Windows 7 was what Vista should have been. All of the features with less overhead.
Computers did take the take to adapt to the new software requirements, not to mention the two service packs that were released. By the time that happened, Vista became really good, but nobody cared because Windows 7 was RIGHT around the corner.
And yeah, if Vista ran poorly on that Pentium 4 thing, then I would suspect 7 would run poorly on it as well. Hell, I tried a virtual machine that barely met the requirements for Windows 7, installed Vista on it, and as expected, it ran very poorly. I tried Windows 7 on it. Same thing, it ran very poorly.
XP had the exact same criticisms when it came out in 2001. Again, computers had time to adapt, and as a result, people started loving XP, and I mean they started LOVING it, A LOT.
I’m one of those people. I ran XP SP3 straight through the rise and fall of Vista, and into the first few years of Win 7. I did the same thing with Win 98 and skipped ME/2000. The driver issues were insane with those releases. Microsoft seemed to have an “every other” rule with OS release quality.
Driver issues were mostly the fault of the manufacturers, not Microsoft. But even then, it would be a pretty terrible experience regardless.
That’s true, although I recall it being a problem with their development toolkit. The drivers were released, but didn’t work as expected.
Oh well.
At least they fixed it. But once they fixed it, nobody cared anymore.
They lasted one year each before XP was released. Same with Vista’s two year run. Didn’t even have a chance to standardize before being replaced.
No question.