Please correct me if I am wrong, but is Windows 7 Microsoft's first OS released which has a lower system requirement than their prior OS release?
It is not, since it has the same System Requirements as Vista (afaik)
Looks about the same:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/get/system-requirements.aspx
http://windows.microsoft.com/systemrequirements
I know Windows 7 was touting being able to run good on older machines, but so did Vista. Wasn't Vista supposed to automatically dumb down or something? Did we ever see that?
Well I know Vista Home Basic rans like crud on of our "test" systems of which has 512MB of RAM. When we put Windows 7 on it you could actually keep a few windows open at the same time. On that same system running Vista everything would grid down to a slug's pace.
I think they may well have just gone for a safer 'requirement'.. but the reality is 7 seems to require less to 'get by'.
It indeed seems to get by with less, but the system requirements are the same. But in al these years since vista the default hardware in a new pc has skyrockted to, the requirements did not luckely.
Every OS is claimed to be more performant than the previous iteration, but I think Windows 7 actually has some legitimacy to this claim.
I does feel faster by using less RAM. And the boot time is faster with less stages. Vista SP2 probably has similar performance, but, when people think about Vista, it is Vista, not Vista SP2.
Not really noticing any difference with Vista on my desktop. Media Center player 7 seconds to start. I'll see what happens when I install it on my laptop tomorrow. Of course, it'll be a fresh install, so it'll be fast anyway.