vista and windows 7 benchmark lower than windows xp in almost every single task.
if windows xp can do what you need to be done why would you opt to do the same thing slower?
other than dx 10 and 11 is there any program that you are running or task that you need to get done that requires you to have windows vista or windows 7?
Because of my work, I have to use windows xp, vista and windows 7, in order to provide support for different computers.
I still prefer windows xp because for what I do personally, I don't need vista or 7 to do it so why would I want to do it slower?
if windows 98 supported the software and modern hardware that people use today, most people will still be using windows 98 today instead of windows xp.
(because windows xp doesn't like having more than 1GB memory, it is annoying but if you were to take a modern system and install only 1GB memory and use a video card and other hardware that still have windows 98 drivers available, then do benchmarks, you will see that windows 98 outperforms windows xp, windows vista and windows 7 easily.
most of the adoption of windows vista and windows 7 comes from new computers being sold with it preinstalled, but many people who buy their OS still like windows xp. and over here in NY, many of the smaller computer stores are doing really good business selling copies of windows xp.
even tomshardware has said it that no new version of windows has ever been faster than an older version, (windows vista benchmarks higher than windows 7 when it comes to CPU and memory performance)
if microsoft released dx 10 and 11 for windows xp, I bet you would see adoption for vista and windows 7 drop and people will move back to windows xp.
with good hardware and a stripped down startup, windows xp can boot in under 10 seconds (to reach a 100% ready to use fully loaded state)
it is also more responsive, since most content in xp is vector based and theres no extra eye candy thrown into every part of the OS, things are snappy, the menu system and other aspects of the OS respond instantly with barely any hard drive usage, but after XP where microsoft went crazy with eye candy, it is not as snappy and everything in the OS requires a lot more hard drive usage in order for the content to be loaded. and microsoft tries to compensate for this by preloading commonly used aspects of the OS into memory at startup, and if you disable that bandage of a feature, the OS becomes very sluggish while with XP it doesn't need any of that for things to respond instantly. it is a smaller OS and compared to vista and 7 every aspect of the OS is smaller and lighter weight, and guess what, it is faster to load less stuff, than it is to load more stuff.
everyone hating on older OS are doing it because they can only view things from a subjective point of view. (a subjective point of view is the reason why someone who is still using AGP will be angry that everyone is bashing AGP when ever a company releases a new AGP videocard but when that person upgrades to PCI-e, they them self will wonder why people still use AGP
from an objective point of view they will see things in a more scientific way and will see the good and bad of both sides and understand what works for people.
Look at windows xp, windows vista and windows 7 from an objective point of view. (when you do this, it is not about what you like, it is about what fits the need of the user of the product)
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram