Why not blame vista for being designed around hardware that wouldn't be commonly available for another 2 years? Was it the media's fault that Vista required 2GB of RAM to be usable when at release most XP systems were still being sold with 256MB of RAM? (It also happens to be wrong, as several subsequent years have been hotter but that's beside the point). This is, of course, due to 1998 having an abnormally strong El Nino so being prime for cherry picking as a starting data point. Win 10 runs even better than Vista did on the old hardware I realise I've already replied to you, but it just occurred to me that what you're claiming is a lot like what climate change deniers often say about the year 1998: Atmospheric temperatures haven't increased since 1998. Ended up replacing Windows with Fedora Linux and XFCE, and the difference is night and day. I'm amazed anyone would consider a 2 minute boot time acceptable, and forget about trying to actually run any programs on it within the next two minutes. I see crappy netbooks on offer at my local retailer with 32GB SSDs (16GB of which is taken up by an already trimmed-down version of Windows 10) and 2GB RAM. I put Ubuntu on our 8 year old Vista machine, but only because it wasn't worth purchasing a Win 10 license. If it weren't for the spyware, adware, and cost, It'd be a decent OS. Win 10 loads things more intelligently, uses RAM compression, and tries to only load one copy of a cached shared library instead of multiples - one for each app using them. Win 10 runs even better than Vista did on the old hardware - due in part to streamlining the OS to fit on low-resource PCs to compete with tablets and Chromebooks.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |