|
|
|
|
|
|
by sieongioetnio
1122 days ago
|
|
|
Except that, when applied to Windows 7, they would actually make sense. There have been no objective improvements since Windows 7 that I can think of. The UI is changed all around for no reason, the system is less responsive, the hardware requirements are higher, and there's a whole lot more built-in malware, but that's it. There's a reason Microsoft had to deploy every dirty trick in the book to make people upgrade. Windows 95, on the other hand, was barely usable. My installation would go down literally every day. Running DOS programs in emulation on a more recent version of Windows is a vastly better experience than running them on DOS ever was. |
|
|
I think this is pretty rude to the many people who have contributed to Windows in the years gone by. I won't argue that there hasn't been some crappy things added or on the advantages/disadvantages of later Windows versions but there have been plenty of things added since Windows 7. Some I can think off just off the top of my head
* Credential Guard - protection of secrets in the lsass process even from kernel access
* gMSA support - Windows 7 could only use standalone MSA accounts which weren't as useful
* Windows LAPS - now supports encryption and is builtin to the OS
* Schannel improvements - newer cipher suites and TLS protocols (cipher suites in Win 7 are right at the edge of what people might support these days)
* SMB 3 - encryption, compression, better integrity/mitm/downgrade protection over SMB 2
* WSL
* Windows Sandbox
* Windows Terminal - including ConPTY support in the underlying APIs
There's plenty more out there but these are pretty important features for me to have on Windows. Granted some only make sense in a more corporate/domain environment but not all of them.