Windows TRIM support - is Wikipedia incorrect?

[mikeymikec]

Doesn't Vista SP2 have TRIM support? I thought it did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIM#Operating_system_support

Edit - answered my own question. It doesn't apparently.

 

[Coup27]

this is one of those moments where you hate that AT won't allow you to delete your own thread

 

[VirtualLarry]

Nope. MS are bastards, and rather than just upgrade the FS and DISK device-drivers in Vista, they want you to pay for an upgrade to Windows 7.

 

[mikeymikec]

Nope. MS are bastards, and rather than just upgrade the FS and DISK device-drivers in Vista, they want you to pay for an upgrade to Windows 7.

Admittedly in recent years I think they've been short-changing customers. Vista's performance issues should have been addressed (mainly wrt boot times), Win7 should have USB 3.0 natively, Vista ought to have had TRIM IMO, the list probably goes on.

I think MS is copying Apple's "just upgrade" strategy, but the difference is that a MacOS upgrade costs about a third of the cheapest Windows upgrade licence.

I think they've changed their tactics in recent years, because for example I don't think that Windows XP would have got any IPv6 support under the current regime (though that may have been due to the long Vista release delay).

this is one of those moments where you hate that AT won't allow you to delete your own thread

Yup

 

[groberts101]

this is one of those moments where you hate that AT won't allow you to delete your own thread

Point well taken.

On the other hand?.. there surely are some posters around here that could do with a bit more humility on ocassion. Because humbleness is definately in short supply for some who hang around this joint.

No offense intended to the OP in this case. I know I would probably be banned from them all if I couldn't edit my posts. lol

 

[Topweasel]

Admittedly in recent years I think they've been short-changing customers. Vista's performance issues should have been addressed (mainly wrt boot times), Win7 should have USB 3.0 natively, Vista ought to have had TRIM IMO, the list probably goes on.

I think MS is copying Apple's "just upgrade" strategy, but the difference is that a MacOS upgrade costs about a third of the cheapest Windows upgrade licence.

I think they've changed their tactics in recent years, because for example I don't think that Windows XP would have got any IPv6 support under the current regime (though that may have been due to the long Vista release delay).



Yup

I disagree. Windows Vista is closer to Windows XP then it is Windows 7 at heart. Think of it like Windows ME in that sense. What became Windows 7 was still off a ways and people were clamoring for a new OS. So Microsoft took the Windows XP kernel and applied the GUI and feature sets that they were working on for what again became Windows 7. In terms of how old it is, sure Microsoft should be still be supporting it. But in terms of development, they would for all intents and purposes be developing these features for Windows XP.

 

[F1shF4t]

I disagree. Windows Vista is closer to Windows XP then it is Windows 7 at heart. Think of it like Windows ME in that sense. What became Windows 7 was still off a ways and people were clamoring for a new OS. So Microsoft took the Windows XP kernel and applied the GUI and feature sets that they were working on for what again became Windows 7. In terms of how old it is, sure Microsoft should be still be supporting it. But in terms of development, they would for all intents and purposes be developing these features for Windows XP.

Actually its the other way around. Win 7 is a tweaked version of Vista with a nicer GUI.

 

[groberts101]

Actually its the other way around. Win 7 is a tweaked version of Vista with a nicer GUI.

Yep. And the same thing could be said about W8 too.

 

[Makaveli]

Actually its the other way around. Win 7 is a tweaked version of Vista with a nicer GUI.

I was gonna say doesn't windows 7 and vista share a similar code base?

 

[Coup27]

I disagree. Windows Vista is closer to Windows XP then it is Windows 7 at heart. Think of it like Windows ME in that sense. What became Windows 7 was still off a ways and people were clamoring for a new OS. So Microsoft took the Windows XP kernel and applied the GUI and feature sets that they were working on for what again became Windows 7. In terms of how old it is, sure Microsoft should be still be supporting it. But in terms of development, they would for all intents and purposes be developing these features for Windows XP.

What an absolute load of bunkum. Everybody knows that Windows 7 is basically Vista SP3. And the main reason it was released as Windows 7 was because people had totally lost faith in the word "Vista" and no matter how many service packs or updates MS did or would do, would change that.

So they got Vista, finally got a handle on everything which didn't work, added some new features so they could call it a new OS and released it as 7, which has worked out for them pretty well.

 

[Topweasel]

What an absolute load of bunkum. Everybody knows that Windows 7 is basically Vista SP3. And the main reason it was released as Windows 7 was because people had totally lost faith in the word "Vista" and no matter how many service packs or updates MS did or would do, would change that.

So they got Vista, finally got a handle on everything which didn't work, added some new features so they could call it a new OS and released it as 7, which has worked out for them pretty well.

Not true. Windows 7 is based on the NT 6 kernal being built from the ground up starting in like 2003. Vista is still NT 5 built off of the same kernal used in Windows 2000.

Look it up.

Windows Vista = Windows XP, with a new GUI, a couple new driver models, a new registry system, and features they were developing for what became Windows 7.

Vista is a much closer gap to Windows 7, then ME was to Windows XP, but its still pretty similar.

EDIT: Crap take back everything I said. I could have sworn and it might be because Microsoft is hiding the proof. But I remember Specifically the RC 1 identified its self as an NT 5 kernal. But I wouldn't be surprised it they changed the numbering. I know I remember that Server 2008 was the first OS to use NT 6. But I can't find proof of that now. So consider me a dumbass till I prove otherwise.