• ColonelPanic@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    8 months ago

    I agree and think the main issue with Vista, as you alluded to, was that Microsoft set the minimum specs far too low and gave companies an excuse to add the absolute minimum bargain basement components, then blame Vista for being slow.

    However, if they’d increased the minimum requirements those same companies would have a fit and refuse to ship Vista at all.

    • w2tpmf@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      8 months ago

      The main issue with Vista was an absolute garbage HAL and driver stack.

      It was incapable of working with hardwarw that XP did out of the box. Even if you managed to find a working driver it would likely crash once a day.

      Also the active desktop that would always crash leaving you with an IE error page for a wallpaper.

    • MystikIncarnate
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Microsoft has always had ridiculously low system requirements. Even if they seemed high at the time, they were rapidly outpaced by the technology.

      After XP, if someone fell below the minimum spec, it was more of a question of, “why do you still own something so shit?” Rather than, “why are the requirements so high?”

      Even with W11, which I’ll only lightly touch on, the only concerning requirement is the TPM. Until Microsoft required that you have one to run 11, nobody really knew WTF a TPM is, outside of IT security circles. Most still don’t know, and only understand it’s a requirement for Windows 11.

      It’s fine, for most people the role of a TPM is entirely technical mumbo jumbo. What hurts is that a lot of motherboard OEMs put little to no thought into even allowing an option for a TPM; so anyone who built their own machine essentially got screwed by the requirement.

      Beyond the TPM, 11 requires a 64 bit processor, 1Ghz+, 4G of RAM, 64G disk, UEFI, a GPU with support for DX12, 720p display with at least 8 bits per color of depth, and internet.

      Given that I’m not even sure they make single core or less than 1Ghz processors anymore, and who tf doesn’t have a 64 bit compatible CPU (that was added to Intel CPUs at the core 2 series… No, not core i* 2nd gen, the core 2, two generations prior), if you have less than 8G of RAM for anything now, WTF can you even use your computer for? 64G of storage is a joke. I don’t even think they still manufacture SSDs smaller than 64G now. HDDs are easily 500G+ pretty much exclusively. UEFI replaced BIOS booting a while ago. Like 5-10 years ago. It was at least an option for booting on systems for nearly a decade or more. DX12 is kinda new, if you consider 2015 (DX12’s launch date) “new”. 720p is tiny, are you using a netbook? I don’t even think you can find anything smaller than 720p as a full monitor anymore to buy, and 8 bits per channel of color is 24bit, which has been the standard to strive for since XP.

      The only pinch was the TPM. Most people didn’t have one, many couldn’t even get one, and those that could, couldn’t find them. Most custom builds didn’t have one included and the main board OEM didn’t make one available, even if they had a port for you to put one in. People using prebuilt systems were mixed, some laptops (and some desktops too, I suppose) shipped with one whether you asked for it or not, notably business systems were often in this category, and if they didn’t, you were SOL. Buy a new computer.

      For CPUs, anything before the Intel core i series 8th gen was generally “unsupported” according to Microsofts supported CPU list for W11. 8th gen came out in what? 2017? Making them 4 years old by the time W11 landed, at which point you’ll probably want to upgrade to something newer before upgrading to W11, since an unsupported CPU would be at least 5+ years old at that point.

      The required specs are so far below what I would have recommended for a build when W11 launched. Most people only failed on the TPM. A product which they had never heard about before, didn’t know what it did, and didn’t know why they would even want one at all, at the time.

      I’m not saying older hardware isn’t useful, but most people upgrade more than once every 5 years. Enthusiasts like myself are the ones running systems from 2010, and they’re happy about it. The TPM was, and is, the issue.

      • Almrond@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Oh, Intel had 64 bit CPUs in the consumer market as far back as Pentium 4. Prescott, released in 2004, was a 64 bit architecture.

        • MystikIncarnate
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          The N0 stepping. Yep.

          I think the last mainstream Intel CPUs that lacked their EM64T tech (at the time), was the Intel Core. As of the core 2, all mainline chip series came with 64bit by default, including all of the core i* series.

          Prior to core i* you had to almost be careful when buying a CPU so you could make sure you get 64bit, if you wanted the feature, but after that point, everything had it, so it didn’t matter.

          I don’t think anyone in their right mind is still using a computer that’s older than a core 2 at this point.