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.
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.
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.