I’m afraid I can’t speak authoritatively on the subject, however taking a step back - MS do have a record for driving hardware uptake with their system releases.
In theory it’s not a bad thing - Unreal and Quake II (among many) requiring 3D accelerator hardware largely drove PC gaming into the lead for cutting edge graphics - but the type of hardware MS have been requiring has always been a bit of a clusterfuck - a prime recent example being the supposed requirement of a TPM board in a Win11 computer.
My anecdotal experience is that Vista - while pretty - is a bit of a bloatfest regardless of what hardware you run it on.
brsrklf@jlai.lu 1 day ago
It was certainly pushed on many PCs that had no business trying to run it, especially laptops. But honestly I’ve used both and even on a computer that could run it, I didn’t see anything that justified how much more resources it required.
First_Thunder@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
And apparently on launch it was quite buggy in part due to poorly made drivers
fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
The OS was kinda buggy, but vista changed a lot with drivers so probably most of the issues vista had were drivers. I bought a laptop with vista on it in 08 and it was rock solid.