Windows 2000 is XP. XP just has a new interface. 7 and XP are for consumers. 2000 and Vista are more like server editions (even the pro versions.)
Vista has Aero but also the classic server(windows NT/2000) UI. Even modern server versions have essentially the same classic control panels. And server versions don’t have all the extra bullshit(7 wasn’t so bad yet, but 10 and 11 are). That’s why I prefer to run Windows server as my desktop.
What made Vista/7 great were the under the hood(kernel) improvements, particularly to the threading model. They made safe handling non-negotiable. This retroactively fixed countless programs and improved overall system stability significantly.
There’s really no other major differences between Vista and 7 besides aesthetics(the shell.)
Right, but none of that is enshitification or contradicts that 7 was an improvement over vista in most every way. As you stated, there were numerous kernel improvements going to 7, as well as improvements on locking logic, memory access and (let’s not ignore the most obvious) driver support. The two operating systems were very similar, but saying there are no major differences other than aesthetic is not accurate. There were less major differences than xp > vista or 7 > 8, but it was a bit more than just aesthetics.
Also, fuck Server 2016. All my homies hate Server 2016…
7 was a facelift to Vista. It changed the control panels back to the dipshit XP-like way. That’s not an improvement.
The kernel improvements landed in Vista. 7 inherited them. They “fixed” the driver support in Vista. 7 also inherited that.
I’m a Windows developer. Well, more so was during the release of Vista and 7 and certainly prior. Much less these days. I loved Vista. Worked flawlessly. I’ve also used 7 extensively. They’re (near)exactly the same OS as far as the kernel and driver and API models.
Maybe as support for Vista ended and 7 got continued support. That’s really the biggest difference, IMO.
That’s the thing… 7 is Vista. Just with a new UI.
Windows 2000 is XP. XP just has a new interface. 7 and XP are for consumers. 2000 and Vista are more like server editions (even the pro versions.)
Vista has Aero but also the classic server(windows NT/2000) UI. Even modern server versions have essentially the same classic control panels. And server versions don’t have all the extra bullshit(7 wasn’t so bad yet, but 10 and 11 are). That’s why I prefer to run Windows server as my desktop.
What made Vista/7 great were the under the hood(kernel) improvements, particularly to the threading model. They made safe handling non-negotiable. This retroactively fixed countless programs and improved overall system stability significantly.
There’s really no other major differences between Vista and 7 besides aesthetics(the shell.)
Right, but none of that is enshitification or contradicts that 7 was an improvement over vista in most every way. As you stated, there were numerous kernel improvements going to 7, as well as improvements on locking logic, memory access and (let’s not ignore the most obvious) driver support. The two operating systems were very similar, but saying there are no major differences other than aesthetic is not accurate. There were less major differences than xp > vista or 7 > 8, but it was a bit more than just aesthetics.
Also, fuck Server 2016. All my homies hate Server 2016…
7 was a facelift to Vista. It changed the control panels back to the dipshit XP-like way. That’s not an improvement.
The kernel improvements landed in Vista. 7 inherited them. They “fixed” the driver support in Vista. 7 also inherited that.
I’m a Windows developer. Well, more so was during the release of Vista and 7 and certainly prior. Much less these days. I loved Vista. Worked flawlessly. I’ve also used 7 extensively. They’re (near)exactly the same OS as far as the kernel and driver and API models.
Maybe as support for Vista ended and 7 got continued support. That’s really the biggest difference, IMO.