3 ms·

7 had very clearly optimized what was bloated and inefficient in Vista. It wasn't just that PCs were more powerful, there were many cases of 7 running better on

7 had very clearly optimized what was bloated and inefficient in Vista. It wasn't just that PCs were more powerful, there were many cases of 7 running better on systems that Vista would struggle with. The minimum requirements for 7 dropped considerably Personally I think 98, 2000, XP, 7, and to a lesser 10, were all stellar releases from Microsoft. None of those would be the GOAT, but the closest in my mind was 7, which dropped when I was doing tech journalism and I had the time and space to poke at it in an extended fashion

cogman10 2y ago
> The minimum requirements for 7 dropped considerably Nope. They were raised. Vista's minimum requirements were [1] A modern processor (at least 800MHz) 512 MB of system RAM memory A graphics processor that is DirectX 9 capable 7's [2] a 1 GHz or faster processor 1 GB (32-bit OS) or 2 GB (64-bit OS) of RAM, 16 GB (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit) available disk space a DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver. [1] https://techjourney.net/windows-vista-minimum-and-recommended-system-requirements/ https://techjourney.net/windows-vista-minimum-and-recommende... [2] https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/all/windows-7-32-bit-minimum-spec/62b96b44-09d9-4402-bb0c-d5b3caf66138 https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/all/window...
- p_ing 2y ago
  What changed was the availability/cost of hardware and much improved graphics driver situation. Vista RTM had some serious driver performance issues thanks to the new WDDM. Although resolved later in it's lifecycle, it was too late to shed that stigma. Plus Vista's UAC was far too intrusive.
  - seabass-labrax 2y ago
    > Plus Vista's UAC was far too intrusive. I agree, but I think that technology journalists were too harsh on this aspect of Vista. It was Microsoft's only really serious attempt at shoring up single-user security on Windows, and I think that its poor reception contributed to Microsoft neglecting to make any improvements thereafter. xkcd.com/1200 is still embarrassing relevant over a decade later.
    - wkat4242 2y ago
      I think it was too early really. These days everyone bugs you with confirmation screens. IOS, macOS, Android all do it too. But in the vista days security was not yet so much on the radar for most people. In fact even for companies. I remember working for a company where all the laptops had the same local admin password which was the company name + "123". I'm not exaggerating. There was also no full disk encryption used. These were also the days most websites would use plain http. With that in mind I just don't think the importance was clear yet to most users. They just saw the negatives, not the benefits. Post Stuxnet and Wannacry/NotPetya things are really different. Ps: it wasn't like that for all of course. I also worked for another company in the late 90s that had all their laptops equipped with windows NT 4.0 with full disk encryption (aftermarket of course as it wasn't yet built in), managed admin account and the whole shebang.
- pdntspa 2y ago
  Vista was absolutely unusable at that minimum configuration, but 7 was at its. Time has probably colored my memory some. But pound for pound 7 ran better than Vista on equivalent hardware.
HenryBemis 2y ago
I can't think of the "why", but I never got to tinker with 7. I think I jumped from XP to 8. I remember I had installed "Longhorn" for fun on a secondary PC, but I stayed at 8 and 8.1 (with ClassicShell) for many many years. I only jumped to 10 when I realized that my 2015 laptop can live and thrive even today with Win10Pro due to their amazing RAM/CPU performance (with some heavy fine-tuning)(black viper!![0],[1] even if the pages no longer exist I still keep them on my favorites!!) [0]: https://www.blackviper.com/service-configurations/black-vipers-windows-8-1-service-configurations/ [1] http://www.blackviper.com/service-configurations/black-vipers-windows-10-service-configurations/ It was said/suggested on SecurityNow from someone in the audience that "hey why don't you use Windows 20YY Server? It's like your home/pro Windows but without the shitware" (loosely reworded by me)
sureIy 2y ago
> The minimum requirements for 7 dropped considerably Typical nonsense people believe because it feels true. Vista was perfectly fine. The problem was trying to run a 2006 OS on a 2001 machine during a time of both great stagnation in OEMs and great progress overall. I used Windows Vista beta as my primary OS on my new computer that summer and that thing was amazing.

cogman10 2y ago

> The minimum requirements for 7 dropped considerably Nope. They were raised. Vista's minimum requirements were [1] A modern processor (at least 800MHz) 512 MB of system RAM memory A graphics processor that is DirectX 9 capable 7's [2] a 1 GHz or faster processor 1 GB (32-bit OS) or 2 GB (64-bit OS) of RAM, 16 GB (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit) available disk space a DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver. [1] https://techjourney.net/windows-vista-minimum-and-recommended-system-requirements/ https://techjourney.net/windows-vista-minimum-and-recommende... [2] https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/all/windows-7-32-bit-minimum-spec/62b96b44-09d9-4402-bb0c-d5b3caf66138 https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/all/window...

p_ing 2y ago
What changed was the availability/cost of hardware and much improved graphics driver situation. Vista RTM had some serious driver performance issues thanks to the new WDDM. Although resolved later in it's lifecycle, it was too late to shed that stigma. Plus Vista's UAC was far too intrusive.
- seabass-labrax 2y ago
  > Plus Vista's UAC was far too intrusive. I agree, but I think that technology journalists were too harsh on this aspect of Vista. It was Microsoft's only really serious attempt at shoring up single-user security on Windows, and I think that its poor reception contributed to Microsoft neglecting to make any improvements thereafter. xkcd.com/1200 is still embarrassing relevant over a decade later.
  - wkat4242 2y ago
    I think it was too early really. These days everyone bugs you with confirmation screens. IOS, macOS, Android all do it too. But in the vista days security was not yet so much on the radar for most people. In fact even for companies. I remember working for a company where all the laptops had the same local admin password which was the company name + "123". I'm not exaggerating. There was also no full disk encryption used. These were also the days most websites would use plain http. With that in mind I just don't think the importance was clear yet to most users. They just saw the negatives, not the benefits. Post Stuxnet and Wannacry/NotPetya things are really different. Ps: it wasn't like that for all of course. I also worked for another company in the late 90s that had all their laptops equipped with windows NT 4.0 with full disk encryption (aftermarket of course as it wasn't yet built in), managed admin account and the whole shebang.
pdntspa 2y ago
Vista was absolutely unusable at that minimum configuration, but 7 was at its. Time has probably colored my memory some. But pound for pound 7 ran better than Vista on equivalent hardware.

HenryBemis 2y ago

I can't think of the "why", but I never got to tinker with 7. I think I jumped from XP to 8. I remember I had installed "Longhorn" for fun on a secondary PC, but I stayed at 8 and 8.1 (with ClassicShell) for many many years. I only jumped to 10 when I realized that my 2015 laptop can live and thrive even today with Win10Pro due to their amazing RAM/CPU performance (with some heavy fine-tuning)(black viper!![0],[1] even if the pages no longer exist I still keep them on my favorites!!) [0]: https://www.blackviper.com/service-configurations/black-vipers-windows-8-1-service-configurations/ [1] http://www.blackviper.com/service-configurations/black-vipers-windows-10-service-configurations/ It was said/suggested on SecurityNow from someone in the audience that "hey why don't you use Windows 20YY Server? It's like your home/pro Windows but without the shitware" (loosely reworded by me)

sureIy 2y ago

> The minimum requirements for 7 dropped considerably Typical nonsense people believe because it feels true. Vista was perfectly fine. The problem was trying to run a 2006 OS on a 2001 machine during a time of both great stagnation in OEMs and great progress overall. I used Windows Vista beta as my primary OS on my new computer that summer and that thing was amazing.