You remained faithful to me too, right user?

You remained faithful to me too, right user?

wccftech.com/another-year-windows-10-still-cant-get-over-windows-7/amp/

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.fo/QFL8e
voat.co/v/technology/comments/835741
youtube.com/watch?v=i2IiQ6fS0FM
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>two different stats websites
>vastly different results

The only company that has somewhat accurate data is probably Google.

...

The biggest competitor to microsoft have always been their older version.

Yes. Touko is a crazy yandere, fuck her.

...

Windows 10 is utter trash. The moment I see that windows 7 is not feasible, I'll permanently switch to Linux.

archive.fo/QFL8e
>I have configured the DD-WRT router to drop and log all connection attempts via iptables through the DD-WRT router by Windows 10 Enterprise.
>I have chosen the customized installation option where I disabled three pages of tracking options.
>verifying the internet connection through ipconfig and ping yahoo.com
Disable three pages of tracking options in setup == set telemetry to basic, updates enabled

>set telemetry to basic
>make it think that it has an internet connection but drop connections when they are attempted
>be mad that it's retrying connections
I'm not surprised that he deleted the post voat.co/v/technology/comments/835741

This

>fuck her.
You wish, white boi.

i don't recall windows 7 having difficulty replacing vista.. i mean xp, since nobody wanted vista
even then, 7 was just "Windows not-vista, honest edition"

>Even having telemetry in the OS level
ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING

It took Windows 7 exactly two years.
We are now at two and a half years since Windows 10 release but this time there are even more versions of Windows.

Sorry Nanami, but I bought a PC with Touko and a laptop with Ai&Yuu - and I don't have a reason to switch them back

It wasn't as public I guess.
But it was definitely there.
Back then, computers didn't last that long.
3 years and most computers were changed so the OS rarely lived past 3 years after the new OS was default with computers.
Now the computer market have slowed down to a crawl, it will also take more time to replace an OS.

while i wouldn't say it's like today, where computers have a much larger focus on mobile and low-power models, that in some cases, have gotten /slower/ (as in what people are buying, not what is available)
by 2009, things had already slowed down quite a lot, compared to the early 2000's

Keep in mind, Windows 7 was not offered free of price for all users of Windows Vista and Windows XP for a full year after release. Windows 10, on the other hand, was offered free of price for a full year for all users of Windows 7 and Windows 8.
AND it was made easier to install with the MCT and in-place upgrades which Win7 lacked.

And yet it STILL is taking significantly longer than Win7 to replace previous versions of Windows.

I work at a major bank and all the rank and file workers still have W7 on their stations. It'll probably be replaced by something else when time comes, my bosses don't trust the telemetry shit.

...

winxp was complete garbage
win7 was like a breath of fresh air, with Aero, polished smooth UI, transparencies, system-wide vsync eliminating the tearing, automatic driver installation and whatnot
the transition effect was immense, because there was a lot of work done on win7

win10 on the other hand is basically win8.2, and it still uses win7 as a baseline, which you can see when metro bugs out and reveals win7 basic UI beneath it.

the only real advantage is maybe dx12 and new task manager, and that's fucking nothing. Add the two control panels, ugly flat UI, forced telemetry and whatnot, and you got many people questioning why the fuck should they update.

Microsoft dropped the ball in the desktop sphere. Either they got really lazy or shifted their focus elsewhere. In any case, i blame Pajeet Nadella for it. This currynigger decided he is tim cook of microsoft, and things have been going consistently down with him in charge.

I agree 100%. Windows 7 was basically just Windows Vista but not shitty, but that's exactly what desktops needed in '09. It solved all the problems of XP and Vista in one package.

I think the biggest factor is that computers progressed significantly more in between 2003 and 2009 (launch of XP to launch of 7) than between 2009 and 2015, even though the latter interval is only a little smaller. Windows 7 didn't have any major issues beyond touch screen support, and there were no significant advances in technology that Windows 7 was unable to support (see WinXP's dodgy and elusive support for 64-bit systems). MS only created Windows 10 to boost their bottom line and further the 'major release every 2.5 years' brand.
It was purposeless, so they create purpose to it by making DX12 exclusive to it even though there's NO reason it has to be (friendly reminder that Win8 and Win10 use the same major-version NT kernel; even Win7 and Win8 don't share the same version), and doubling down on the touch screen shit from Win8.
They KNOW that there's no reason to upgrade from Win7, so they pile shit on top to make it pretty for normies, gamers, and 2-in-1/tablet users.

Also remember how they hyped up a lot of linux-competetive features before launch, such as the terminal-based package manager? What a ball drop that was. It still, years later, only has maybe five percent the software support that chocolatey does.

MS gave up on desktop users and then made DX12 exclusive in order to force gamers (the most well-paying non-corporate desktop market) to upgrade.

The "problem" is that all systems resist change.
Since we have made computers, look at what they are used for:
A slight evolution of the type writer.
A slight evolution of the phone and fax systems.
A slightly upgraded tool to draw stuff.
A very small minority use computers to simulate or calculate things that simply took too long to do before, and a small portion of those use computers to make those applications.
Games are actually the most intensive thing that is widespread enough to push change and that worked wonders for a long time.
I don't know how much the current market is for games (the only new games I have played in the past decade have worked just fine on old hardware)

>>Microsoft dropped the ball in the desktop sphere. Either they got really lazy or shifted their focus elsewhere.
No they knew exactly what they were doing. They were and are aggressively contemptuous of their users, but thats 100% intentional.

They saw they were spending lots of money supporting OSes for ten years, and that if they could force the users to not do that, they'd save a bundle. Hence the (mostly) rolling-release nature of W10.

Telemetry was because they'd spent years watching Google become an enormous powerhouse, and learned the lesson that consumers are worth more to advertisers than they'll pay out of pocket for your product. Look what happened when Vista, and later 7 and 8 came out. There were a bunch of people who said "You want how much for it? Fuck that, XP is quite good enough" These people cost MS money in security support, but aren't giving them any revenue because they aren't on the upgrade treadmill. Microsoft decided to force as many of them as possible on to the upgrade treadmill, where W10s ads and telemetry could monetize them.

The flat UI exists for the same reason that car makers (yeah, its a car analogy, so sue me) learned in the middle of the 20th century: You want people to buy your product even though the old one is perfectly functional. What do you do? Change the appearance and make it into a fashion item. Make last years model look dowdy and old-fashioned. And flat bullshit is the meme of the hour among graphic-design faggots, so they slathered some of it on top of their OS. Its not very good because it doesn't need to be. It was always superficial, meant to convince superficial consumers (the name consumer says it all) that the product was new and different and better, despite not really being such.

MS did all this shit because they knew that most consumers weren't going to go elsewhere, because Apple doesn't bother competing on price, and businesses are all very, very locked in.

Windows 7 has issues too
newer CPUs don't support it
and beyond MUH GAYMEN there are benefits in 8 and 10

one of the biggest issues in Win7 is the fact that microsoft decided that fifty billion updates beat issuing a proper service pack. now once you have office and such eventually there are so many updates that the Windows Update agent goes fucking haywire using crazy I/O and CPU.

yeah but win 10 is two versions newer than 7 (counting 8 and 8.1 as one version).

XP was shit, the 64 bit edition of XP never had proper driver support on most hardware.
7 brought real upgrades to XP including a properly supported 64-bit edition with kernel patch protection and enforced driver signing (both of which massively helped stability) while offering 32-bit windows for backwards compatibility with legacy enterprise desktop/laptop hardware and legacy enterprise software.

win8 had the horrible start screen UI paradigm and few real benefits over 7. for compatibility reasons (including with PXE/USB boot tools like Norton ghost or full disk encryption like Symantec PGP Desktop) a lot of companies used BIOS legacy CSM boot instead of UEFI, one of the few advantages 8 had. 7 also had UEFI support (if you compiled it right) and bitlocker FDE, and fewer compatibility issues with older applications.

win10 doesn't offer much for most enterprises while further windows changes break everything. full fledged directaccess only came in Win8.1 and up but most companies don't implement the servers for that, and older versions of enterprise software can be really finicky on win10. combine that with the support for win7 going through 2020 and the upgrades will be delayed until late 2018 or 2019.

>newer CPUs don't support it

top kek

>XP was shit
I want underage to leave.

>one of the biggest issues in Win7 is the fact that microsoft decided that fifty billion updates beat issuing a proper service pack.
That happened because a lot of big businesses had support agreements that required MS to continue supporting Win7 for X time after the last service pack.

a lot of users didn't want 10.
enterprise users, which from a number of seats perspective is quite large, were automatically opted out (assuming they were on a Win7/8 enterprise license). any that were running the non-Enterprise version could block the updates with group policy and did so for user friendliness/testing/etc.

some people don't turn windows update on, others had hardware that didn't pass the compatibility checker, others declined or blocked the update.

there's a massive portion of windows users in foreign countries who are not on real licenses and would not update because it would break their activation.

telemetry is blockable in win10 and compatibility with legacy software means they will invariably upgrade to win10 before win7 ends support.

there are some other more minor enhancements in 8 and 10 but not enough to act as a carrot for most companies to do the actual upgrade.

USB 3.0 support was not native in win7 but was in 8 and up, but you can roll this into your image and as long as you use a 2.0 port it works fine in WinPE environment for install. hiberboot enhanced boot times, but for the biggest boot time benefits you needed to be on UEFI boot instead of BIOS. Defender was built in on 8 and up but most companies use a third party antivirus. DirectAccess was much more flexible in Windows 8 and up but it was not set up by most companies. all of these benefits were nothing compared to the usability trainwreck that was the start screen.

win10 has a proper UI (if not with some inconsistency) and further incremental benefits but breaks with older versions of some software particularly enterprise software, so most people are dragging their heels for as long as possible.

>win10 has a proper UI
for phones maybe
not for desktops, interacted through mouse and keyboard

>yeah but win 10 is two versions newer than 7 (counting 8 and 8.1 as one version).
Doesn't mean people want to use them
>XP was shit
I remember, but it was a lot better than 7, 8 and 10.
7 had a better window manager, but also took up 50 times as much space and used a lot more RAM and CPU.
The security was so shit, it created a generation of "experts" that learned to point out how to make things secure.

>I think the biggest factor is that computers progressed significantly more in between 2003 and 2009 (launch of XP to launch of 7) than between 2009 and 2015, even though the latter interval is only a little smaller. Windows 7 didn't have any major issues beyond touch screen support, and there were no significant advances in technology that Windows 7 was unable to support (see WinXP's dodgy and elusive support for 64-bit systems). MS only created Windows 10 to boost their bottom line and further the 'major release every 2.5 years' brand.
8 was not purposeless and neither was 10. they both had purposes to microsoft beyond money alone.

8 was microsoft's attempt to cash in on a vision of connected devices which included RT as a version. they wanted to trounce the iPad. unfortunately, windows RT sucked ass without backwards compatibility. combine that with the limitations on the store. it's telling that the successful surface is the Surface Pro versions that run full windows on x86_64 with full windows apps available too. they also bought into the touchscreen meme UI shit which users flatly rejected. microsoft thought tablets were going to eat laptops and desktops out of house and home, which didn't quite come to pass. and MS wanted the store as a revenue stream and to prop up windows phone.

10 has a different purpose. it was designed to assuage hate from Win8 by giving the start menu back, but more importantly it views Windows as a service, instead of a release. feature creep had played into disastrous releases before including vista's shelving and restarted development. they gave windows 10 away for free because they want you to buy windows when you get the computer and then get drip fed the features on a more continuous basis. more incremental changes to the model would mean that you wouldn't get the massive driver stability issues. people don't rush out to buy new windows versions anymore, keeping the features drip fed means more people will use them.

(continued)
additionally for win10, MS fired about half the quality assurance testers taking it from 1 dev to 2 QA people to about 1:1. this means 10 is a buggier release. they view windows as being "continuously improved" blah blah meme shit which is also why 10 is less stable than 7. the "continuous release" and forced updates model lowers the number of target configurations (hardware, patchlevels, etc.) and theoretically means that users are forced to get the updates that fix their shit. Enterprises can take the LTSB but you still have to take all of the fixes in bundled updates instead of selecting them like a menu, again reducing the number of variable targets to test against.

MS won't publish the security updates for Kaby Lake and up and Ryzen and will stop soon for skylake. combine that with them not pushing microcode fixes and you end up with something that sucks ass to run win7 or win8 on.

eh, the control panel is too touch oriented, as are parts of the start menu, but it's far better than win8 was on the start screen.

>Doesn't mean people want to use them
agreed

>I remember, but it was a lot better than 7, 8 and 10.
nostalgia. XP was dogshit and total swiss cheese security-wise until SP2 with the built in Windows firewall. SP2 also brought more stability and other major enhancements like proper built in wifi support on the OS rather than relying off third party shit.

>7 had a better window manager, but also took up 50 times as much space and used a lot more RAM and CPU.
vista glommed CPU and RAM, yes 7 used more but it offered a proper indexing service and other enhancements. and using more hardware is common for windows releases. a lot of people decried XP as being a lot less resource efficient than 2000 with similar software compatibility until around 2006/2007 as hardware became cheaper and vista launched to disaster.

I think the big thing is that up until Windows 8 the main problem with windows was always either "it's slow/bloated" or "it's unstable/unsececure". Suddenly with win8 the biggest problems were "the new features are undesirable" and win10 added "it's malicious" to that.
The situation was only barely comparable to Vista because the main problem with Vista was hardware incompatibility/slowness. That is something that can very clearly be fixed by newer hardware and more dedication to driver support (which is what happened; Vista SP2 is very different from Vista launch).
Meanwhile the problems with Win10 (and Win8 to a lesser extent) derive from how Microsoft WANTS their operating system to function, rather than problems with acheiving that. That isn't anything that will ever be fixed because from MS's point of view it isn't wrong.

xp was better because it stayed out of the users way.
I know the security problems were bad, but it wasn't that bad.
People installed a proper firewall and an anti virus and kept everything up to date and it was fine for the most part.
Windows pushing malicious software through the automatic updates was the worst thing that could have happened as it turned some people off updating their system.

Whenever I tried to install Windows 7, I'd get errors about USB driver smissing since I'm on new hardware apparently

Your fault for using a TPM-enabled processor.

>I know the security problems were bad, but it wasn't that bad.
>connect your fresh XP install to the internet
>get instantly pwned
>"wasn't that bad"

i wonder if macfags have any similar problems with their OS and apple

maybe it would be a better solution to just get a mac and forget about all this crap

You basically just kept a bunch of installers locally so you could install updates when you needed.
The online 0days that didn't require interaction was not that common at the time.

Honestly the biggest macOS-specific os glitch in recent memory is the root password bug in High Sierra. Prior to that macOS was pretty golden security wise. And they support older hardware for much longer than Windows usually does (I have a 9-year-old macbook running El Capitan, which was the latest macos release with significant feature gains).

>I think the big thing is that up until Windows 8 the main problem with windows was always either "it's slow/bloated" or "it's unstable/unsececure". Suddenly with win8 the biggest problems were "the new features are undesirable"
the main new feature was a total UI change. there were some minor carrots but none compared to the start screen which was totally not optimized for desktop & laptop use.

>and win10 added "it's malicious" to that.
for home use yes
with the controls available on enterprise, no.
the LTSB for enterprise doesn't solve the problem of microsoft bundling security fixes and bugfixes into monthly rollups, you have to take the ENTIRE thing each month or none rather than picking and choosing like a menu.

10 and 8 also broke certain compatibility particularly with really old ActiveX shit and 7 worked well.

>xp was better because it stayed out of the users way.
not really compared to 2000

>I know the security problems were bad, but it wasn't that bad.
>People installed a proper firewall and an anti virus and kept everything up to date and it was fine for the most part.
tons of people didn't and even if you did there were bad automatic remote code execution exploits, 2001-2004 was RAMPANT with infection on xp machines

win7 preinstall environment only supports USB 2.0 (EHCI) and skylake only supports USB 2.0/3.0 combined in XHCI. that's why it's impossible to install windows 7 on a skylake system via USB, the WinPE (windows preinstall) environment lacks the support.

>it's impossible to install windows 7 on a skylake system via USB
thought all you needed was a USB 2.0 PCI/PCI-E card.

Forever and ever!

( ; ﹏ ; )

>/amp/

Fuck the fuck off

Well, I meant using the onboard USB ports or the USB headers on the mobo.

If you have an add on card then that's different.

Soon to become a whore filled with security holes.

I-I'm just going to go down to the 7-11 and get some more vape juice babe

Nothing a little virtualization can't fix!

I needed to install Windows on like 10 different machines and didn't have time to hunt down ancient Windows 7 drivers for all of them. Sorry, I went with 10.

>not posting real win10 girl

I remember that happened with 2000, but not XP. Unless you tried to load up some page with ancient unpatched IE 6.

>telemetry is blockable in win10 and compatibility with legacy software means they will invariably upgrade to win10 before win7 ends support.

My direct superior has argued that we can just block everything through our proxy but the tech illiterate higher ups still won't trust it. I think it's a good thing, MS can't treat corporate solutions like consumer products like they did with w10

Windows 11 will fix everything.

You can disable all of the privacy nightmare shit using group policy in Windows 10 Enterprise, including telemetry in entirety (Rather than on the Win 10 Pro edition, where it can only be dialed down to basic). Eventually when 7 is ending support and there's software that would require major upgrades or replacing to be compatible with Mac OS or desktop Linux they will acquiesce to the WIn10 upgrade as the path of least resistance/lowest risk.

You can modify the w7 installer to load USB 3 drivers.

Windows 11 or whatever it's going to be called will be cloud based garbage and you know it

The whole point of the Windows 10 annual releases is to eliminate the "new" releases and just have feature updates to 10. Microsoft has called Windows 10 "the last version of Windows" since 2015.

That's the thing, we don't use enterprise editions on the rank and file stations. Pro is enough for people who only use excel and access

I mean Apple tried to do the same thing with Mac OS X but realistically that doesn't work. On a long enough time span technologies change and you have to overhaul everything (see Snow Leopard).

I love you Nanami, lets stay together til the botnet comes for us.

>You remained faithful to me too, right user?
Yes, but only until my old heap of shit computer breaks down, then it's most likely bye bye Windows.

>shifted their focus elsewhere
Botnet telemetry, that's where.

The whole point is to eventually require people to pay a subscription to keep using Win10. I hope everyone here gets that.

Well Microsoft is telling you put up with the telemetry shit and having candy crush automatically install on new account/OS setup or shell out for volume licensing.

Between MS Office compatibility and user retraining, infrastructure shit, other legacy software that is not fully supported or supported at all on Mac OS X / Unix clients, etc. most companies are just going to shift to Windows 10 by the end of 2020 (when Win7 exits support).

>I mean Apple tried to do the same thing with Mac OS X but realistically that doesn't work. On a long enough time span technologies change and you have to overhaul everything (see Snow Leopard).
Okay, what am I missing on this one? The time between Leopard and Snow Leopard was shorter than Tiger and Leopard.

Looking at leopards rewrites:
>pretty much all of the included apps in OS install were rewritten for 64-bit and on kernel level
Well microsoft beat Apple to the punch with Vista x64 on that one. Not all windows apps were rewritten for X64 but a lot of stuff gains no real benefit from that.

>Grand Central Dispatch
Other APIs exist to distribute workload on other OSes. Task Parallel Library exists in .NET, Cilk for C and C++, Threading Building Blocks for C++, etc.
Apple could have also shipped this as part of any other release including one months later like the Win10 seasonal relases.

>OpenCL
Other OSes have APIs like AMD and Intel on Windows Vista and up..

>CUPS
Minor version enhancement to 1.4

>improved power management
Not anything that couldn't have been shipped as a part of a release.

There were other improvements too.

Lion focused largely on features (TRIM support was added), Mountain lion was features, Mavericks was the same. And same for the rest.

...

The technology that Mac OS X was written for became irrelevant during the OS's lifespan. By the eol of Snow Leopard a large portion of software written for previous 'versions' of the Mac OS X operating system ceased to function on computers that had shipped with that operating system within the previous three to four years.
I'm not saying this was a bad move in any way -- in a way it saved Apple's life in the long term. But when it happened a lot of not-that-old machines were rendered irrelevant and a lot of not-that-old software was forced to be abandoned. Simply because the technology that was prevelant and seemed to be the future when Mac OS X launched becamse irrelevant.

The same thing will happen to Windows 10, eventually, and knowing Microsoft they won't handle it nearly as gracefully as Apple did. Mainly because Apple had the benefit of having full control over the hardware that its software ran on.

I don't even remember having problems with vista I managed to shitpost Sup Forums and get Minecraft working fine on it when I was like 11

>The technology that Mac OS X was written for became irrelevant during the OS's lifespan. By the eol of Snow Leopard a large portion of software written for previous 'versions' of the Mac OS X operating system ceased to function on computers that had shipped with that operating system within the previous three to four years.
Not really. OS X had some major problems due to Apple flip flopping, moves that are unlikely to happen again.

x86 was big in the PC market. Apple went with PowerPC. IBM was able to be competitive with PowerPC in the desktop market. When OS X launches it's on PowerPC hardware.

The early 2000s roll around, laptops are becoming big, PCs are booming in performance. By 2005 Intel is optimizing with the Pentium M and such and getting performance per watt down, and IBM is not competitive. Steve Jobs is NOT happy. This requires an implementation of a huge translation layer, Rosetta, for compatibility with Mac OS apps that didn't update. Translation layers are a huge performance penalty and pain in the ass to maintain. This ships in OS X Tiger in 2005, and isn't fully compatible with all PowerPC applications.

By 2009, MOST major apps have updated to run with x86 or x86_64 native code and not PowerPC, so in Snow Leopard they finally put proper 64-bit support in. Additionally, they want to cut off the legacy cruft. So they also make Snow Leopard the last edition that supports 32-bit Intel processors (which is the 2005 and 2006 Macs). There's not a technical reason why they couldn't continue support, Apple just got tired of it. Hell, MS still makes Windows 10 in 32-bit.

>But when it happened a lot of not-that-old machines were rendered irrelevant and a lot of not-that-old software was forced to be abandoned. Simply because the technology that was prevelant and seemed to be the future when Mac OS X launched becamse irrelevant.
Apple has a more dedicated customer base that will put up with shit like this, see above.

Remember when Sup Forums said that 7 will never replace XP.
Man, those denialfags tears sure is delicious now.

See you guys in the next 10 years to repeat the same bullshittery.

>11
>vista shipped in 2006
>even if you had vista in 2008, that was ten years ago and 11 years old + 10 = you could be 21 and not underageB&

Well that's depressing.

Anyhow, Vista was a fucking shitshow at launch and most of the MAJOR problems were fixed by SP2, if you had adequate hardware.

>the whole story
So Vista's development cycle is really fucked up and they make major changes to the OS. NT goes from 5.2 in XP to 6.0 in Vista. The version string major number changing ALONE breaks a lot of software that is looking for NT = 5.x.

In addition, there are major changes to the driver model and the Windows kernel. On 64-bit Windows, the drivers must be signed by Microsoft (which requires microsoft to WHQL certify them first, Microsoft rejects drivers that are dogshit) and Kernel Patch Protection (random non-Microsoft shit like Antivirus cannot patch the Windows kernel whenever they want). 32 bit versions of Vista have NO such requirement. Since most computers at the time of Vista's release had 4GB or less of RAM (if they had a 64-bit processor at all), the OEMs shipped 32-bit windows, with horrible buggy drivers that don't work well and security programs that patch the windows kernel badly, leading to all sorts of performance and stability issues.

The changes to the video driver model alone are huge and contribute to this massively. NVIDIA alone is responsible for 30% of all Vista crashes in 2007.

Meanwhile Microsoft sets a bar to run Vista that reflects something that would actually be usable on minimum requirements. OEMs bitch because they want to sell cheaper hardware. Microsoft acquiesces and makes a "Vista capable" tier that performs so badly running the OS that it's not usable. Most consumers purchase value machines. Some OEMs like HP who oriented their system build planning and parts purchases around the higher requirements are livid (now "Vista Premium Ready").

A recipe for disaster upon launch that unfolded.

If everything going right to MS, Windows 10 will become just Windows in next years, faggot.
Also, XP was killed by time and 64 bits processors. (But was not so great as w2k)

Sup Forums likes to stay on a OS for years, and years, and years.

>I'll never leave XP
>Windows 7 comes out
>Windows 7's start menu sucks
>XP support is gone
>Windows 8 and 8.1 comes out
>I will never leave Windows 7
>Windows 10 comes out
>Windows 10's start menu sucks

What are you going to do when Windows 7 is dropped from Microsoft being supported? Run React OS or switch to GNU/Linux, BSD, Mac OS, or even if Haiku is finally released as they're extremely close to being in Beta 1?

This is what I think will happen. A bunch of people on Sup Forums will switch to GNU/Linux while some will stay on Windows 7 for years and ignore new security flaws. That is what is happening now with XP users. Some are using Windows XP POS edition because they refuse to switch.

>using XP, ever.

>Also, XP was killed by time
Exactly my point, faggot.
Those denialfags still wrong in the end.

here
Consumers buy cheap PCs and have unusable slow computers that crash all the time.

People who are performance oriented find themselves with an OS that takes more resources and hits more disk I/O while not really offering a compelling benefit. XP was leaner and DirectX10 was not really that much better than DirectX 9c (whereas 9 was a MASSIVE improvement over 8). So gamers and other people don't really need it yet either. Most shit hasn't been 64-bit enabled yet, nor does it need it.

By the time SP2 is out, if you had a good machine with 4GB of RAM and a 64-bit processor, and a decent hard drive, vista ran pretty fucking well.

7 offered some polish but it was more about the time it came
>hardware makers had 3 years to get their driver game together
>more machines shipped with 64-bit windows allowing for more stability on drivers and kernel
>software was updated to do proper versioning checks
>hardware power increased meaning the budget shit shipped with more RAM
>some performance optimization on Vista
7 was basically Vista SP3, they tried to save Vista with the "Mojave experiment" but after Vista blew up they said they needed a new name to save face and that's what they did.

But this is the destiny of every no rolling release OS. If XP still receive support it would still the second most popular OS.

>If XP still receive support it
That's what the denialfags said 10 years ago, they think that some hobbyiest third party russian or chink will modded XP so it can run flawlessly with modern hardware and software.

The problem with normies is that they just like things that werk and look the same. That is why Sup Forums had a shit fit when Windows 8 came out. It looked different to them. I understand why people don't like Windows 10, but people need to accept change.

>if it works then why fix it?
If everything was the same all the time it would be boring. No new features, no new UI improvements, nothing.

Well, we have nip doing it to W2K

The only change we need is to Wine start run our VNs and ero games without problems.

XP was very different from Vista
the audio stack was re-written entirely
the print structure was redesigned
the networking stack was entirely new
the kernel was entirely new
NTLDR as bootloader was split in two with large changes including redesigned behavior for UEFI compliance (achieved compatibility in Vista SP1 x64)
redesigned power management
very different I/O management (superfetch being the biggest)
a brand new video display driver model
move to WinPE for the installer environment and recovery tools
etc...

de-Internet Explorering the OS, with Windows Explorer and the user desktop no longer using the trident rendering engine

comparing XP to Vista, 7 is iterative
>Aero is pretty but skin layer enhancement on vista
>improved sensor support, more minor change
>Direct2D and DirectWrite to eventually replace GDI/GDI+ for certain graphics and text drawing, eventually
>minor changes to I/O to optimize for solid state, + TRIM, and automatically disabling certain things on SSDs that aren't required (like defrag) but could be disabled manually on Vista or detection added through updates
>default mini partition for boot, bitlocker, and Windows Recovery Environment and a second for everything else
>Bitlocker support (existed on vista) but for removable drives (vista didn't).

pretty much everything in 7 could have been backported, whereas you couldn't really do the same to XP because the driver models were totally different to rip a lot of outdated shit from XP out.

8 was even less
>lots of software feature shit like MS account integration
>UEFI was already supported on Windows vista SP1 & win7, but now native, largely mandatory, and UEFI must support secure boot from OEMs
>hiberboot, which could have been backporte
>WIM based image for windows install for reduced install size

10 is even less than 8, it's basically all surface with minor model and API enhancements

blackwingcat will save us all

New SP will be release soon.

>telemetry is blockable in win10
lol
even if it is, why would install an OS where you have to take measures like that?

The worst part is it's designed to leave you with security holes if you disable parts of it

I'm so sorry Nanami-chan. ;_;

I just want to play Xbox "exclusives" on my PC.

Anyone has that picture of xp-chan convalescing in a hospital bed with some IV tubes? I was looking for it, in the mood for some feels

youtube.com/watch?v=i2IiQ6fS0FM

fuck you bitch

There is no viable alternative for the average user.

Imagine a world where Microsoft released xp's source code...

>W10 monitors all your traffic!
>has a smart phone

durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

>he fell for the 32 GiB of memery meme

got it for $90 bitch.

lol this, even rooted an android device probably send more data than a tweaked, say LTSB version of windows 10

Yep, still have 7 as my dualboot of choice and run it in a Vm for office.

W10 can suck my dick.

Requesting more pics of XP Chan.

>LTSB
Has someone come up with a daz loader equivalent yet?