4 ms·

>And OS vendors cannot afford to support old versions indefinitely. So instead they built Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, 10 and 11?

by agilob 4y ago

rolenthedeep 4y ago
Why support one OS indefinitely when you can support five concurrently for a decade each!
paulryanrogers 4y ago
XP's architecture had to be replaced or it would have held things back. Vista may not have been as ambitious as Longhorn but it was an improvement. Not saying every major release was justified, only that we couldn't have stayed on XP forever. Or at least not without sacrificing some improvements and innovation. Windows 11 though seems entirely arbitrary, especially since TPM requirements appear inconsistent and capricious.
- maximus-decimus 4y ago
  held back how? at least it had a working search bar. Seriously, the only improvement I can think of since XP is the gpu resource monitor in the Task Manager. I think maybe the search bar worked better in Windows 7 before getting broken in 10?
  - antisthenes 4y ago
    Proper 64-bit support in Vista and later versions? Also out of the box support for TRIM and a few other goodies. XP --> Vista/7 was the biggest jump in terms of functionality, since it also happened to coincide with massive performance gains in hardware.
  - paulryanrogers 4y ago
    IIRC the driver model and general security improved in fundamental ways. Some could've probably been back ported but not every improvement. Consider that even XP wasn't the same from first release until SP3. It was really two or three OS's, just with fewer user facing changes than Vista and later major releases.
  - nikau 4y ago
    Windows 10 search is much better if you turn off web searches. But of course Microsoft being Microsoft require you to modify some obscure registry key to do that.
- agilob 4y ago
  >XP's architecture had to be replaced or it would have held things back. Same can be said about Linux, but the kernel is evolving internally without being replaced. With enough eBPF modules Linux can act like a microkernel or even driven kernel.

>And OS vendors cannot afford to support old versions indefinitely. So instead they built Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, 10 and 11?

by agilob 4y ago

>And OS vendors cannot afford to support old versions indefinitely. So instead they built Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, 10 and 11?

rolenthedeep 4y ago

Why support one OS indefinitely when you can support five concurrently for a decade each!

paulryanrogers 4y ago

XP's architecture had to be replaced or it would have held things back. Vista may not have been as ambitious as Longhorn but it was an improvement. Not saying every major release was justified, only that we couldn't have stayed on XP forever. Or at least not without sacrificing some improvements and innovation. Windows 11 though seems entirely arbitrary, especially since TPM requirements appear inconsistent and capricious.

maximus-decimus 4y ago
held back how? at least it had a working search bar. Seriously, the only improvement I can think of since XP is the gpu resource monitor in the Task Manager. I think maybe the search bar worked better in Windows 7 before getting broken in 10?
- antisthenes 4y ago
  Proper 64-bit support in Vista and later versions? Also out of the box support for TRIM and a few other goodies. XP --> Vista/7 was the biggest jump in terms of functionality, since it also happened to coincide with massive performance gains in hardware.
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  IIRC the driver model and general security improved in fundamental ways. Some could've probably been back ported but not every improvement. Consider that even XP wasn't the same from first release until SP3. It was really two or three OS's, just with fewer user facing changes than Vista and later major releases.
- nikau 4y ago
  Windows 10 search is much better if you turn off web searches. But of course Microsoft being Microsoft require you to modify some obscure registry key to do that.
agilob 4y ago
>XP's architecture had to be replaced or it would have held things back. Same can be said about Linux, but the kernel is evolving internally without being replaced. With enough eBPF modules Linux can act like a microkernel or even driven kernel.