• SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 month ago

    This is just Vista all over again. Calm down people. Go to Linux or church if you’re scared.

    • excral@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 month ago

      The difference is, that you could just continue using XP until Win7 was released or continue using Win7 until Win10 was released. Win10 will reach end of life next year and then the only supported Windows will be Windows 11. Vista or Win8 were never as forced as Win11 is now.

    • moe90@feddit.nlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      not really because Vista does not have strong hardware requirements. But, this one have

      • Capricorn_Geriatric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Today, sure.

        2005 was a different story, one the opposite of this one.

        While Vista didn’t have high specified requirements, it gobbled resources so updating from XP to Vista you’d have a noticable slowdown.

        Win11 is the opposite of that story. While modern PC models (as in 5-year-old when Win11 first came out) can run Win11 fine, Microsoft forces requirements which aren’t needed.

        Sure, while having a better TPM and newer processor is a good thing, making anything other than that ewaste (because windows runs 90+% of consumer PCs, with Apple being the majority of the 10%) definitely isn’t.

      • Pantsofmagic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 month ago

        Vista was absolutely the slowest thing imaginable. They reduced the requirements as part of a marketing campaign for “Vista-ready” PCs, but PCs that ran it “well” were few and far between. Even after 7 came out if you went back to Vista it was noticeably slower.