XP vs. 10 - Some Contrasts

[Jody Thornton]

I don't think kernel is the issue as much as underlying system bloat

there are too many dependencies on useless junk that they are forcing on

 

you still have OS that is now MORE dependant on IE than ever before

you have OS that NEEDS .net framework

you have OS now that has tons of "online" aka live services

and all this bul***** is connected with "metro"

 

both 8 and "10" are just fast spitted out products made to compete with iOS (and very poorly i must say)

but name branding change and stupid visuals obviously work on these days people

 

lets talk about useful stuff ...

ONLY NOW do they provide in "10" support for MKV and FLAC file format - oh my gawd - took them only 10 years

ONLY since year and half ago they implemented ISO mounting into explorer - *facepalm

 

what else is useful there ... ehm ... nothing, integrated skype ? lol

I think ever since XP, the OS has become LESS dependant on Internet Explorer.  During the early 2000s, apps like Music Match Jukebox relied on IE6 libraries to be present, in order to run.

 

It's not so much that Windows needs .NET Framework.  But application developers have found it easier to work with, so it's here to stay.  Mind you (when not in use) I don't find .NET to impact performance at all.

 

I dunno; I used to hate Vista when it cam out, and even Windows 8.  But I'll tell you, Windows 8 (when used with Classic Shell applied) really can be a stable desktop OS.  It runs exceptionally well.

[dencorso]

@Jody: You might like this: VersInfoEx. It brings back the much more complete Version info (XP style). Works on 8.x all right, and in case you use the x64 version, NoelC has kindly compiled and made available the latest version, which the author presented only as a diff and hasn't still released in compiled form. You can get it from this post. Enjoy!

[vinifera]

 

It's not so much that Windows needs .NET Framework.  But application developers have found it easier to work with, so it's here to stay.  Mind you (when not in use) I don't find .NET to impact performance at all.

 

this is bul*****

why do so many vcpp 6 and vb6 communities bitching still today of leaving compatibility with future NT

 

vista, and seven needed .net 2 for DWM, MIL and Mediacentre

eight and ten, need it for DWM, MIL, and METRO appx's since they are WPF

-

and worst thing with .net is that user MUST "keep up" with versions and thus new OS

there is no legacy support unless dev "recompiles" (which isn't really compiling) the stupid app.net to use lower version IF possible

since v2 doesn't have some functions that 3 has, anyone doing their crap within 4.x and makes it, users with v2 won't be able to use it

 

so lets download bunch of new crap libraries that are useless...

 

with NORMAL visual studio's all you had to do is install ~800 kb of runtimes

and everything works !

 

theres nothing about .net that is easier

but it was MS's way to kill Java and again enforce their crap onto users

and bravo for them they managed...