btw you could group win7, vista and windows xp together they are quite similar.
XP & Vista aren't similar, especially out of the box. Windows 7 & Vista maybe.
M$ wanted to make features to sell new OS versions.
How else do you think they'd be able to sell new OS versions?
They did not care to optimize because:
- RAM+CPU capabilities seemed go up automagically when they release slower than before SW.
The same has happened on Linux as well. People want newer flashier things & they need more CPU + RAM.
- it was normal/ok to force people to buy a new computer in every few years
When developing Vista they saw was that computers were doubling in speed every 18 months and people were buying them because games were also doubling in their requirements every 18 months.
Optimising software costs a whole lot more money than not optimising it & Microsoft sell most of their OS licenses with new computers anyway. Vista was a terrible time for Microsoft, like Pentium 4 was for Intel.
However Windows 7 is better than Vista and Windows 8/8.1 are better than Windows 7.
- support of hundred thousand expansions needed gigabyte of drivers (M$ plug and play wanted all of them on HDD, wether you need it or not)
Most people see that as a positive. I'd like to see how many people can cope with downloading the source of a driver for their network card, transferring it to a usb stick, copying it onto Linux, compiling it, re-linking the kernel.
Maybe because XP lets them use their computer the way they've been using their computer for the last nineteen years and doesn't expect them to alter their entire workflow because Microsoft's design department isn't feeling appreciated enough?
You make it sound like a dependency issue. But I like the way you angrily try to blame other people by making stuff up. Maybe this reaction is triggered because you don't feel appreciated enough?
