Why did windows xp run so well on literally anything, and it made me so happy, and windows 10 runs like shit on literally anything with less then 16 gb ram?
TL:DR;
Why do I look at win 10 with such disdain by comparison? shouldnt new mean better?
A technical discussion: windows xp
>Why did windows xp run so well on literally anything
it didn't, when xp launched the average moron had 32mb ram or less in their p3 or worse 486 shitbox and getting xp to run was horrific. it was a horrible resource hog and came with six quadrillion unnecessary drivers. stability was ass until well into sp2.
>XP was the last good Windows version evar!!!
>Needed up until SP2 to actually be good
>Vista was the worst Windows version evar!!!!!
>Ran just as well as 7 by the time SP2 rolled around
I mean, suit yourselves, that attitude is the reason it never got spyware backported from 10, but you wienersuckers really need to get your heads screwed on straight.
was the worst Windows version evar!!!!!
This one specifically triggers my autistic rage, especially because, as you said, it ran just as well as 7 after a couple of updates (also this is just my opinion but it looked way better than 7).
But nooo, all morons follow the same "XP good, vista bad" logic without ever questioning if that was really the case.
These fricking morons must not remember how hard XP was shat on when it came out, with many people opting to use 2000 instead.
Thing is, 2000 had the usual "slow and bloated" comments thrown at it too.
Keep in mind you were coming from either 9x or NT 4.0 onto 2000.
32MB to make it boot, 64MB to make usable, 128MB RAM to make it snappy? NT 4.0 worked pretty well in 32MB, the frick?
1GB disk space? NT 4.0 was 150MB.
And so on and so forth.
>it ran just as well as 7 after a couple of updates
People don't want it to run well "after a couple of updates", they want it to run well at launch. It is a commercial product.
XP fetishism is unwarranted but the hate for Vista was not.
I ran XP on Pentium 3's when I was a kid, and it was unironically just fine. I didn't exactly have a ton of money, either. If you were still trying to use a Pentium II when XP came came around, you were an absolute poorgay. By 2003 or so, I was picking Pentium II boxes at garage sales for $10.
XP required MMX, so you couldn't run it on a 486 - a late-model Pentium 1 was required.
To be fair, you were a terminal poorgay if you still ran a 486 in 2002.
running a 486 in 2002 is better than running a 2500k in 2022
Nah, 486s (even an overclocked 5x86 at 160-200MHz) was just too far behind the curve by 2002. Back in those days, your machine was obsolete in a couple of years, and a couple of years after that, software wouldn't run at all.
Compare and contrast to now. A 2500K is five-9s pure poorgaygium, surpassed in leaps and bounds by the cheapest i3, sure - but at worst, software will run pitifully slowly on it, rather than not at all.
128mb ram was typical for low end P3 machines running win98. Those on older hardware stuck to dos or win95. The underage moron here is you but worse than OP you are also full of yourself so that makes you double moronic.
Holy shit are you zoomer as frick
>typical for low end P3 machines running win98
>when the very first, very expensive, P3s came out in 1999
Either zoomer LARP, or grandpa's dementia is flaring up.
I don't know which is worse.
>128mb ram was typical for low end P3 machines running win98.
If you had said 64MB you would've had me fooled, 22 IQ zoomzoom dumbfrick.
Windows 10 runs on machines made in the last 12 years just fine, provided you have a marginally decent processor and at least 8GB, which is extremely easy to do given how cheap DDR3 surplus ram is getting as it gets replaced by DDR4/5 systems in lifecycles in organizations. An SSD makes things better, even a shitty little 120GB 19.99 MicroCenter Special.
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=ddr3+12800+8gb+laptop&_sop=15&_oaa=1&Total%2520Capacity=4%2520GB%7C8%2520GB%7C16%2520GB&rt=nc&Capacity%2520per%2520Module=4%2520GB%7C8%2520GB&_dcat=170083
Agreed. I still had issues with XP past SP3.
Windows 10 is totally capable of running snappy with a dual core CPU, 4GB of RAM and SSD though
Yeah, but the applications will eat the RAM quickly.
And? People don't magically upgrade their shit the day something comes out.
Did you run WinXP ever in hardware of the era or only on VM in 2010s system?
ive run it in 06 as a kid
have a nice day aesthetic zoomer
captcha: XD YVT
What is this zoomer bullshit? XP was whined at for high system requirements and "bloat" at launch, just like every version of Windows.
In fact - for the normies anyway, who were coming from 9x - it was like the step up from XP to Vista: literally quadruple the RAM and disk space requirements.
>Why did windows xp run so well on literally anything, and it made me so happy
It didn't, there was actually a lot of backslash since people tried to use it on hardware that wasn't even recommended requirements.
Literally like Vista backlash was 7 years later or like with Win 10 and Win 7 years after that.
>and windows 10 runs like shit on literally anything with less then 16 gb ram?
Windows 10 on hardware that's not recommended requirements runs just as bad as XP on hardware below recommended requirements.
Windows 10 is totally capable of running snappy with a dual core CPU, 4GB of RAM and SSD though.
>Why do I look at win 10 with such disdain by comparison? shouldnt new mean better?
It is actually better.
>What is this zoomer bullshit? XP was whined at for high system requirements and "bloat" at launch, just like every version of Windows.
>In fact - for the normies anyway, who were coming from 9x - it was like the step up from XP to Vista: literally quadruple the RAM and disk space requirements.
This. Exactly how I remember it too.
This. Agree too.
>Windows 10 is totally capable of running snappy with a dual core CPU, 4GB of RAM and SSD though.
This was my gf's configuration for her HTPC until last year. The only reason she replaced it was because the motherboard was giving out (onboard sound and networking had died, sensors were reporting -128 degrees, that sort of thing).
I have several machines with similar configurations running Windows 10 and for general usage it's totally fine, you don't even feel it being shit hardware unless you're doing something that pushes the CPU 100% or open 50 tabs.
XP was pretty bloated. A not insignificant amount of that bloat was caused by the hideous new look. All those 32bit color icons and bitmaps burnt quite a bit of memory.
same kernel as 2000, rock solid.
Sure anon. Now explain why almost no XP drivers work on Windows 2000, it requires twice the RAM of Windows 2000, etc.
Congratulations for getting filtered by driver installer version string checks.
Last I heard, the dozen or so new Ke* and Ex* APIs aren't string checks,.
Different WDM versions, drivers compiled against the newer WDM model won't work on 2000.
Pentium 3 was a 2 year old CPU by the time XP came out, anon.
You can still manually install the driver packages and it will work with minimal issues.
As said, if it did use newer WDM features, it would not work, even with edited drivers or manually installing them.
Not really, most people still used Pentium 2's by the time XP came out. Upgrade cycles were just as slow, hardware just increased in performance faster.
Hence why games that came out in 2004 still have requirements for hardware from 1999, since that's what majority market was.
Yes, but upgrade cycles were still vicious back then. A several year old processor was considered 'old' back then. Not like today when it isn't uncommon to see someone still using an Ivy Bridge shitbox as their main computer.
Running Windows 11 on this 15 year old processor without a hitch.
Makes sense - it's a workstation/server platform, it had things like UEFI, TPM, virtualization etc. right from the get-go, unlike coomershit.
>it's a workstation/server platform
>it had things like UEFI, TPM, virtualization etc
UEFI isn't something that came much earlier on Servers
Even if it has TPM, it's certainly not 2.0
Also, W11 has a CPU whitelist. Anything that is not 8th gen or Zen+ are automatically excluded
>UEFI isn't something that came much earlier on Servers
Yes it is. Somewhere around 2005, we had a server running 2k3 AMD64 which booted by EFI. Can't remember any more details than that, though.
>Even if it has TPM, it's certainly not 2.0
Fair comment, but it seems 11 happily degrades to TPM 1.1.
>Also, W11 has a CPU whitelist
To be fair, we're probably arguing over nothing and the anon I replied to just did the bypass.
>Why did windows xp run so well
pajeets, thats why
IQfy in 20 years:
>Why did Windows 10 run so well..
>on literally anything
It didn't. XP is well regarded now but there's a reason it has 3 service packs.
Because back then application developers had to program less bloated stuff. Video games had to run on the same computer your dad did his taxes on.
I think we can all agree that 7 is the last and best Windows.
For despondent poorgays and baby ducks, maybe. But having said that, 8.1 is a better choice for the true NEET: smaller, faster, and requires less resources. Remember, it was optimized to run on those horrible Atom tablets with 1GB RAM and 16GB eMMC storage that were around in 2012.
infact the problem is the new era of useless plugins, the internet has screwed all operating systems into a a full garbage , and especially alphabet(google)
the google search engine and scripts have frozen the web into a boring spiral of stupid and useless scripts
when you look at a website, it can load so many useless scripts that hackers don't even need to waste time hiding malware's
navigate on web for your computer is like this video link below but played at 0.25 speed
Windows Explorer and GUI runs at kernel level
>Windows Explorer
Wrong.
>and GUI
Not since Vista. Hell, a lot of the video driver runs in user mode again, though not to the level of NT 3.x.
It didn't.
The 128MB RAM recommended requirement was a joke.
The 64MB minimum RAM requirement was flat out delusional, and many people back then still ran systems with half that amount.
It didn't.
You only thing that because Vista was such a colossal frick up XP stayed around longer then usual and was run on much more powerful hardware then it otherwise would've.
I have a very shitty PC. Win10 LTSC runs faster than Debian for some reason. It's bizarre but I had a 1,6GHz 2gb ram laptop for a while and Debian ran better in it.
I gave up on understanding this kind of shit long ago and will upgrade to Linux again as soon as I have a better PC.
Because people used it for so long. Vista being delayed and also shit made that era's cheap machines be used as performant XP devices. Most 98 PCs probably couldn't run it (well)
>Most 98 PCs probably couldn't run it (well)
I had a Dell Dimension 4100 with a 933MHz PIII.
I remember seeing visible lag whenever opening menus in XP unless I disabled drop shadows.
Find out for yourself:
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:1a4e5b67060ff2bc8fe2de36a6c265c77f392a0c
>then
it's than you fricking moron. Frick sake the world is dying one grammatical error at a time.
>inb4 oim tyred n just typed rong