Yes, it's an API tied into the new graphics tech in Vista and up that would've been a considerable effort to backport into an ancient broken OS, at which point it'd have been a completely different OS.
I find your lack of technical background knowledge amusing.
Are you running Win Vista, 7 or 8? Ohh... dear it is broken.... because you know technically... it is Windows XP with upgrades....
We are actually speaking about Windows NT here:
Win NT 4.0 = NT Version 4
Win XP = NT Version 5
Win Vista = NT Version 6
Win 7 = NT Version 6.1
Win 7 = NT Version 6.2
Of course the newer versions are more advanced in some areas, but they are all based on the same - ancient - Windows NT.
A good part the of code that keeps your system running right now is XP code... actually NT code... but you are getting the point.
It is like comparing an car engine from 1980 with a car engine from 2000. Yes, the year 2000 engine is more refined but the basics havent changed much. You still have an 4 cylinder inline engine..... yes, they fuel is injected a bit more precise, a few details here and there have been altered and advanced.... but the core is still the same.
You can remove the "new" parts.... and you still have a car engine.... certainly not as good as the year 2000 one but still an working engine. (Leaving aside development failures... Vista cough... 8 shudder)
On the other hand if you remove the core parts.... your new engine is broken. Even the most modern engine will not move a centimeter without pistons and such things.
If you purge all NT 5 code from your beloved Windows 7/8 you will find yourself without an - working - operating system.
BTW.. Congratulations on using an 20 year old file system.... yes.. NTFS is that old.... it was part of the first Windows NT. Now go and format your harddrives with something modern.... because there is no way in hell something 20 years old can still be good enough for you!
From an technical and business standpoint it makes no sense to remove or change parts of the code base that work perfectly fine. If - just an example - the printing queue has been already organized in a efficient way all the way back in NT 4.0 why change it without need? And so you probably will still have the age old NT 4.0 printing queue (add any basic OS function inside here) in Windows 20.
Or, they could've just done the API and had vastly different performance from it in different OSes. Wouldn't that be awesome?
Ahh.... if I remember correctly... and I do.... the reviews were all over the net back then... Windows Vista with DirextX10 did perform considerable below Windows XP in games and in software. Although you cannot blame a poor API for failing to meet expectations when it is forced to run on the piece of junk Vista was on release. The Servicepack helped matters a bit but only Windows 7 managed to be on par with XP.
Which is quite unimpressive, considering they had 5 years of development time for Win Vista and even 7 years for Win 7.... although to some extent Win 7 is just Vista without bugs and most performance bottlenecks removed. Basically a Servicepack.
Had an brand new Vista Laptop back then at work.... runned terribly..... made me wonder what they really had a large team working for 5 years or rather had some trainees put the pieces together 6 month before release.
And you know why nothing uses it? I already said! There aren't any 64 bit games, even though there has been some related promises from EA (and Stardock iirc) for this year.
There are no 64 Bit games because there is no market for them yet. At least not one of reasonable size. Say thank you to the consoles.
So, to be perfectly honest, I can't continue this conversation civilly because you're technologically illiterate, so I must be off.
To be perfectly honest... I am not so sure who is the technologically illiterate here.... but anway... have a nice day.
SO you prefer an unskinned xp over the look of WIN8? wait let me grab my pink glasses and take a look at this screenshot of XP ehh NO.
Compared to Win 8 a 10 year old Linux distribution looks good.... and no.... that is not a compliment.
Taste is of course a personal matter.... but if the rumoured sales figures of 8 are true.... it appears most desktop users lean more forward to the classical taste.
Yeah but does it do perform as windows7 ... NO
No notable difference in speed to Win 7 at work (inferior system), but much faster than old Vista Laptop.
Yes, there are some games out there finally that do profit from more RAM. It is still somewhat funny to see how many people buy all that RAM and then use the comp for word processing.
Im not a console Gamer but that statement is hiding the truth in a box locked away in a safe that is stored in an underground bunker.
playstation 2 was able to play PS1 games PS3 does play ps2 games i bet xbox360 did the same with xbox games ( in fact before i say something wrong let me google that) ok it did with certain games.. but PS4 already said its backwards compatible with games and i dont know many that will throw away the old station most folks keep them anyway
1. How do you know my location?
2. Ahh, ok, I didnt knew that.
I would say im an average user/gamer and let me asure you i know why i run 8 gigs i couldnt even model and render out a sleek model with 10kpolys, others that make skins wallpapers ect. with Vue infinite Maya PS Ai all those programs can become a pain in the ram if you try to render something with 2 or 3 gigs or start a bigger project on PS AI or so, you are highly likely to run out of mem in a very short period since your OS is already using half of 2 gigs ok almost half of a gig on XP but if you mean average with browsing the www use word, checking mails and nothing else ok then you are right that can be done and is with 1,5 gigs of memory and was done with 512MB back in the days on XP but the OS is then/was performing like a old car that had no oil for 50 years.
I tend to disagree. Rendering (cool hobby BTW ) is not what the average user uses his computer for.
XP runs on 128... but you need a lot of patience
on 256 it is bearable
512 and you can work normally
1 GB and above... speedy
as long as you dont play any games of course.
Vista probably didnt run worse than XP on release day on the average hardware on release day. Part of Vistas problem might have been that people were used to XP running at lightning speed on modern hardware.
uhm your serious about that last part?
The problem for MS is that leaving gamers/other hardware demanding hobby aside the demand for powerful desktops is in a decline. On the mobile market however, they face fiercy competition.If they dont manage to claim a good portion of that market they will no longer be capable of doing business on this magnitude.
They will still exist 2020.... but depending on their success on the mobile market they may be a lot smaller than today.
MS knows that.... they have the numbers and they see the storm that is approaching them.
The enforcement of the new GUI over the desktop is driven by desperation. All of their attempts so far have been unsuccesful in entering the mobile market in any reasonable capacity. They need to make this work.... they are running out of failures that they can afford.
People no longer think
Computer = Desktop = Windows + Office
and for a company relying on selling Windows and office for a large part of its revenue that is very very bad news. For all of its attempts, MS has only very few cash cows.... and now those are endangered, too.
is doesn't mean newer operating systems and/or tech serve no purpose and have no genuine advantages.
That a misunderstanding, I am not saying that newer operating systems have no advantages. Of course they have many advantages. The question is merely if those features justify an early upgrade for the average home user. And that I have my doubts about..... and if the sales are any indication... I dont seem to be alone.
I will answer your remaining points tomorrow.
Please keep your off topic out of this thread. Thank you.