ITT we name things that improved from XP to 10

ITT we name things that improved from XP to 10

Umm... multimonitor support? And even when you can have a clock on both monitors... In 2016 you can have a fucking 2 CLOCKS ON YOUR FUCKING TASKBAR. FUCKING AMAZING.

Why is microshit so shit?

>ssd support
>x64 support
>filesystem
>display scaling
>power management

I'm so mad I wrote shit.

I mean you can't have 2 clocks. One one each monitor.

Well XP and 7 were both quite legit. I'm not quite sure between 95 and 98 which was better but afaik 98 was decent. Right now we're in some weird stage as far as software is concerned. They're fucking us in the ass with a strap-on without even hiding and it looks like most people either don't know what's going on or are willing to take it.

So literally only display scaling yes?

SSDs and X64 and power management are just new hardware features. Not related to Windows at all...

I'll give you half of the filesystem. But thats more a result of hardware again same shit as ext4...

>x64 support

Completely pointless at consumer level.
Nobody should need more than 4GB.

>nobody should need more than 4GB

Objectively speaking to a casual user.

The difference between XP and 7 is basically Aero..

Technically you're right but all browsers these days easily suck up 2 GB if you have like 20 tabs open...

I think it's more than aero (which I don't use anyways and I have my bottom bar to look just like 98) it's mostly the way it manages registry. I remember XP getting slow as fuck after a certain period of time and you had to use registry cleaners and shit Windows 7 can run way longer without slowing down.

You mean even people who just let the bloat build up?

Yeah you're probably right. They do seem to run smoother... but I can't tell if it's the SSDs or them.

I still format my OS every 6~12 months regardless. Guess it's just a thing I got used to in the 95 days... or well every 3 months in the ME days...

Virtual desktops.

>Nobody should need more than 4GB
What era you living in grandpa? 8GB is the standard now.

I will name you the only thing that have improved from xp to 10:

Support from developers. This is literally the only fucking thing.


Hevc
Shadowplay from nvidia
Net fucking framework 4.5 from fucking Microshit
BPG
Webp codec (still can open the image, but not showing in explorer)
League of legends bots (because of Framework 4.5)
Fucking chrome and i dont know why (firefox still support)

What does one have to do with the other?

trying to think
did they fix the registry?
no - 10 still has the registry
ntfs?
no, it still has that
erm .. let me think ... it's the same, a GUI desktop - invented circa 1980 by apple was it, xerox -- what do they market? licensing - it became the default lock-in .. the biggest and most damaging monopoly/con in human history. They regressed that history. Now they have to compete, it's found they can't compete -- same old same old .. they want linux - embrace extinguish. parasites

the "weird stage" is the decline of microsoft

> objectively speaking

steve jobs said that gates et al. never got to grip with objects - why their software has been so consistantly dire

> aero

yeah the real nowhere geeks thought anything that didnt "max out their graphics card" wasn't "it".

freetard delusion: the post

m$ should have been a company writing/controlling drivers nothing else

no (thinking) - they have screwed that up consistantly since the early vista mess

Plug&Play
security (UAC)
Search
Networking
Multiple users on one device
Still fully compatible with really old PDAs and such
Self recovery after fuck-up
Built-in backup solutions

He isn't wrong, though.

The way you post is giving me space aids.
>only difference between 32 and 64-bit x86 is more RAM
Sup Forums in a nutshell

public safety

They made Windows much harder to use since Windows XP. Only improvement is the detection and better 64-bit support.

>UAC
That's not improvement. At least not as its implemented
>backup
XP has a great backup tool which you fully controlled
>Self recovery
Well that depends on how bad the fuckup

>tfw running XP right now

Thats true. Only reason people need more for basic Internet browsing, printing and writing documents is poor optimization and bloated OS. On modern Ubuntu, which is a definition of bloat in Linux, world you can hardly use more than 3 GB of RAM without gaming. And thats for desktop tasks. My debian sits around 1GB with firefox/facebook + steam + vlc playing a 1080p video. Still i own 16 GB of ram for vidya and graphics editing reasons (yes i went over 8GB of ram playing plannetary annihilation, its a shitty written game)

API changes

What?

also x64 bit optimizations are not really seen on consumer level. Normies don't really care, to them an SSD equipped celeron laptop is faster than a i7 equipped PC with a HDD unless they try to play games or use some kind of heavy 3D/Cad/video editing software.
Example: How long did mozilla and google wait with delivering a 64bit browser on windows, while on Linux it just was there for years?

64bit support. Better multitasking scheduler (you'll notice if you run at high load).

And the Windows task manager and file copy popup dialogs.

What does people buying 8GB of ram have to do with people actually needing more than 4GB of ram?

98 was a bugfest.
98SE was good.

>plug in a graphics card with 4GB of memory
>cant use it because it maps to the same memory

If they kept windows xp up to date I would still be using it. There haven't been major OS developments in 15 years (when Microsoft ditched the win9x line of products in favor of NT).

I don't think that mozilla and google delaying 64-bit versions of browsers had anything to do with optimizations, and more to do with the fact that Linux embraced 64-bit nearly immediately and Windows lingered in 32-bit. Anyone remember XP 64-bit? No? The two people who used that aren't here I suppose. Perhaps Vista 64-bit? Okay, bad example. The first reasonable 64-bit Windows version was 7, and even you had to go through hoops to make VS compile your code in 64-bit. I'm out of the loop now, but I expect that Microsoft got its act together and made 64-bit compilation more appealing than crawling through molten lead.

>tfw running windows

That's cute as fuck.

i actually used XP 64 bit for some time, so you better watch out who are you replying to mate :^)

>tfw things have gotten so bad I had to install Ubuntu

good night sweet prince

Everything improved from XP to 10. Everything improved from XP to 7 as well. Kill yourself you Luddite faggot.

>What is PAE
pic related, 2GB GTX 760 + 16GB RAM on a 32 bit system

>mfw people can't differentiate the different 'classic themes' between OS-es
>there are people who assume you're running "Windows 98" if they see a classic theme, even though it has modern icons in the taskbar

What the fuck, man? I'm using the Classic Theme on XP right now, and every time everybody says "Are you running 98, lol" to somebody on Sup Forums who uses the Classic theme on Windows 7" I die a little. Surely people can't be that dumb, right?

>pic related, 2GB GTX 760 + 16GB RAM on a 32 bit system
why not use the 64 bit version?

The only issue I had with 64bit XP was the lack of drivers for certain accessories

>Search
>Multicore
>PnP improvements
>x64
>WDDM
>Compositing
>IE9+
>UWP
>Faster boot times
>Task Bar
>MAJOR start menu and control panel improvements
>Powershell
>DX12

the list, literally, goes on

>That's not improvement. At least not as its implemented
Explain.

>On modern Ubuntu

dropped

>Nobody should need more than 4GB.

Everybody remembers XP64-bit you fucking newfig

>window snap works with dual monitors
this is all i need t b h

Surely nobody should need more than 640GB though right?

you realize its not 2010 anymore

>>x64 support
??? XP had that and even Itanium support

And what advancements in application and OS design made them require so much more memory in the last 6 years?

what kind of question is that?

A simple one.

>SSDs and X64 and power management are just new hardware features. Not related to Windows at all...
Are you serious my nigga

A stupid one

giggle

Well, there's virtual desktops now. That's something.

pointless

Start menu

A. Lot improved from xp to 7

From 7 to 10 though you're right. We actually lost features (like classic mode)

>classic mode

literally no reason to disable compositing

x64 support
>Install W10 on 4GB machine
>2.8GB RAM free
>Install XP on 4GB machine
>3GB usable, 2.8GB free
Literally the same.

>display scaling
Still shit on W10

>ssd support
You can install Windows 95 on an SSD with no problems, let alone XP.

>Install XP on a 4GB
>2GB used up by the VRAM
???????