You keep repeating the same nonsense. Why?
Vista (Longhorn) represents a drastic and correct step built on a completely new and greatly advanced core. Finally, security, allocated memory and permissions began to be addressed, because the arrogant mess that existed before Windows XP was simply unsustainable and dangerous. Likewise, there were demands for HW, for which the market was not quite ready. Personally, I think that this is where the myth arose as a result of unpreparedness and chatter of developers who did whatever they wanted. In a sense, Windows 11 is similar, it has significantly increased security (eg: protection of critical modules of the kernel and memory), they also have their demands (they require an instruction set) and what hasn’t changed is the chatter.Windows 11 is annoying in many ways, for example simply because the graphic designers have jumped off the chain and don’t really know what direction they are going to take. Then there is the risk called Copilot, who is very difficult to get rid of, lacks control and digs into absolutely everything with his persistent fingers. Irrespective of the herd’s dissent and the ramblings of how Unartificial had a problem (bugs affected NT, 2000, XP, W7, … W10), the rants about the artificial requirement for TPM2.0 that you (eg: Mr. Urban) blather on about here constantly and completely ignore the fact that the required instruction set (MBEC) is required to isolate and encrypt the address space of kernel modules, let alone consider what it’s for is. That mainly those who “got around” have problems … good for them. I could curse Vista, for example, for Aero (DirectX), which broke CAD and everything around the depth of 10 bits per channel (OpenGL), and now I can curse exactly the same, because when they “make nicer icons”, they often think about rendering (OpenGL). The last time it bounced was Solidworks, or RTX 4000 ADA drivers and rendering, and a rollback had to come.
date:2026-02-14 05:21:00