Why is Vista bad? I've never had it so I dunno why is it so hated.
im guessing cause nobody updated their drivers/programs right away.
took several years....by that time windows 7 came out.
>>53194838
Same as Windows 8. It was shit at release, but got better.
>>53194858
that makes sense
>>53194838
Windows 7. Vista, but... FIXED!!!! At the time it was released, the kernel was so new that it was highly incompatible with most drivers and software. Now Vista SP2 X64 wasn't too bad.
it wasn't, people were just reactionary and didn't like change. same with win8, the only modern windows os that's been a step back has been win10 with it's noticable more sluggish ui and spyware.
Vista SP2 x64 runs about the same speed and takes up more RAM than 7. The real fuckup that gave Vista such a bad rep was being crammed into so many 1 GB RAM laptops that should've still been running XP, but had "Vista capable" stickers slapped on them and shipped out with an OS that the hardware was in no way prepared to handle. If you ever had to use one of those laptops, you'll know. They are absolutely unuseable.
>>53194949
On top of that, the integrated graphics in said laptops could not even handle Aero, so all the shiny new graphics effects that were being advertised as part of Vista didn't even work.
>>53194878
But windows 8 was good at release but got worse. It took away all that made it good and watered it down.
8 at release was the best windows. 8.1 was terrible
Vista and 7 are practically identical nowadays.
There are some annoying things with Vista, but I used it until a couple of months ago, and it was fine
It was way too heavy for most computers at the time.
>>53194838
dipshits trying to run it on Pentium IIIs with 256 MB of RAM
Session0.
Took some time until software catch up.
Aero in Vista did look better than in 7.
> Despite its defense of the Vista Capable program, Redmond, it seems, had doubts. A number of internal Microsoft e-mails that pertain to the case have recently been unsealed by court order, and they paint a picture of a company divided.
> Microsoft's stated goal for Windows Vista was to "raise the bar" for an OS experience. That's a lofty goal, but it doesn't necessarily track well with OEM sales targets and price points. By August of 2005, Microsoft knew what hardware specs would be required for a system to qualify for a "Vista Ready" label. According to the company's projections, however, only 20 to 30 percent of the systems on the market would qualify as Vista Ready by the spring of 2006.
> This low qualification rate was a significant source of worry for OEMs. Both Microsoft and its various partners were concerned that announcing Vista in the early part of 2006 could create a stall in the PC market as buyers held off on purchases until the new OS was available. The "Vista Ready" campaign was meant to prevent or lessen the impact of such a stall, just as the "XP Ready" campaign did in the murky past of 2000. But with Vista there was a difference: it seems that everyone knew that Vista was delayed, and Microsoft wasn't able to pull off a pre-holiday 2006 launch for its consumer versions. The end result was that Microsoft launched Vista for business in late 2006, but the holiday shopping season would come and go without Vista being on the retail scene. This half-launch terrified OEMs and Microsoft. The marketing campaign was thus even more important than one might normally expect.
>>53195005
This. 2GB of ram was top-notch, like 32 GB of ram today. Imagine your OS taking up 16 GB of ram today, it's an outrage.
>>53195090
> To make matters more complex, Microsoft had created a new video driver model for its new operating system and required any laptop with a "Vista Ready" sticker to include an integrated graphics module capable of supporting WVDDM (Windows Vista Device Driver Model) and all the advanced graphical features of Aero, including Aero Glass and Flip 3D. Windows Vista Capable, meanwhile, was meant to apply to systems that could run Windows Vista without all the advanced graphical features. Crucially, however, as originally defined, a "Windows Vista Capable" system was a system that used a WVDDM-compatible video solution.
> http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2008/03/the-vista-capable-debacle-intel-pushes-microsoft-bends/
bad drivers, hardware that wasn't ready, major kernel changes like the removal of hardware accelerated sound, new display driver stack, and a poorly optimized OS is what made vista shit when it launched.
vista didn't become good until sp2, but 7 launched shortly after it and everybody moved over to 7. 7 was what vista was post to be.
>>53194838
>Why is Vista bad
Ahead of its time.
Vista is a fucking great OS nowadays, I would run it instead of 7 but it doesn't ship any IE past IE9 now. Its basically 7 but you can get Ultimate licenses for super cheap (~5 dollars(
>>53195090
>>53195113
Weren't there also concerns about DRM? I've only used it once, so I don't know.
>>53194838
unfinished
All Microsoft Windows versions are bad.
Except for Win2k, which was merely poor.
>>53194980
You're on cancer. 8.1 beats 8 by a long shot.
>>53195162
The only thing that I didn't like about 8 was that it broke some stuff or made it run poorly. Like some RPG Maker 2k games. I think timidity stopped working as of 8 as well. 10 fixed the graphics issues, at least.
>>53195098
>This. 2GB of ram was top-notch, like 32 GB of ram today.
No it wasn't, you underage faggot. 2GB was poorfag tier in 2007.
I have just changed jobs and now sometimes have to use a computer with vista. It is the worst of both worlds between XP and seven, with none of the UI improvements of seven (window snapping for one) and all of the resource sapping. I would rather use XP because there's no software which is incompatible with XP while compatible with vista. It really is horrible.
>>53195144
Some random guy wrote some long screed about how Vista's DRM was basically Microsoft shooting themselves in the foot. As usual with the doomsayers, nothing happened.
>>53195137
It still lacks proper trim support, it will be EOLed very soon.
>>53195337
Oh, gotcha. This was something I had heard from a friend, and this was a long time ago, so I don't really remember specifics. I think I've used it for a grand total of less than 10 minutes.
Broke a lot of driver compatibility and people installed it on toasters. So the issues basically got fixed with time.
However, the OS itself was pretty solid. The user interface got into Windows 7 without many changes and 7 was universally loved. It was also the first Windows release to properly support 64-bit, as Windows XP 64-bit Edition was a dumpster fire.
Almost a decade after Vista, we're just now finally getting back to the point where mainstream Windows can run on low end hardware again. Windows 10 32-bit on 1-2 GB RAM is tolerable if you disable a bunch of shit, but no amount of praying to jeebus is going to help you trying to run Vista on the same amount.
>>53194980
Examples?
>>53195368
>It still lacks proper trim support
So does 7.
>>53194838
Pretty much his whole thread.
>Vista was quite resource heavy, majority of PCs could not run it properly.
>Didn't have the most stable start either with compatibility and driver issues.
>Programs from the 95/98 era that ran fine on XP did not appreciate Vista which made business and gamers at the time cry out against it, also started the whole Vista is shit meme because of it
I think the most important feature of Vista is that it simplified things for the user, I don't know if any of you remember it but connecting to a WLAN router with an XP laptop was a real pain in the ass since it would more often than not demand that you know all details of that networks security features. Ranging from what type of network it is, what security type it uses, what the name of the network and its password was, what IP address it has and so on. I think the only time connecting a XP device to a WLAN router was easy for me was with a third party USB wifi hub with post-Vista made software.
>>53194838
It isn't.
Every OS since Vista is just reskinned Vista with minor optimizations.
The OS shipped on Pentium 4s with 512mb ram and ran like shit on them.
>>53195408
I installed Windows 8.1 64x onto a USB 2.0 hard drive today for testing a server. The experience was probably around the speed I normally see from C2D laptops with 4GB RAM. I was surprised how fluid it ran from such a slow drive. Granted the server has some grunt to it, but I assumed it'd run like dogshit being at USB 2.0 speeds and it was fine.
>>53195267
Not that it matters, but the halo 2 pc port was a real shitshow because it didn't support XP
>>53195137
Why is the IE thing a problem?
>>53195238
That's not true at all.
I ran Vista from launch.
On a brand new system it was great. If you were trying to run it on legacy hardware it would fail miserably due to:
>no drivers
>high system requirements due to unnecessary eye candy and desktop 'gadgets'
I never, not even once, had a problem with it.
>>53195439
Windows XP had very minor wireless network support.
Thats not a good example
>>53195525
That's microsoft's trup card every time, isn't it? "Oh, you don't want to upgrade to the latest Windows, huh? Let's see how you like it when your precious VIDYA is taken away!". And then everyone whines and squeals, begrudingly moving on to the next version. Still doing the same shit, too. DirectX 12 only runs on 10.
>>53195550
Except it is true. I know because I was a fucking poorfag in 2007 and had a shitty Pentium 4 system with integrated graphics and 2GB RAM. It's absolutely laughable to claim that 2GB was anything impressive when Vista was released.
>>53195600
When Vista was released, 3GB of RAM was literally the maximum (Windows XP 32bit being the "standard" OS of the time)
2GB ran like shit on Vista, that's the entire point they're making
>>53195600
yeah 4GB was equivalent to 8GB nowadays
I ran 4GB even though /g/ would have been memeing the shit out of it at the time
it wasn't completely necessary but it would have been rather uncomfortable to use less
>>53195701
Yeah, to almost every consumer Vista was a slower, less compatible version of XP that gave no benefits outside of a few minor UI issues it fixed.
>>53194838
slow and buggy as fuck
>tfw my first PC was a dell prebuilt with a c2d, 2gb of RAM and an ATI card I can't even remember running Vista
feels good man. It was clearly a goat OS
>>53194980
8.1 is better than 7
>>53195506
Would you want to use it for more than 10 seconds testing some shit? That's the real test.
>>53195910
your first pc had 2gb of ram?
>>53194838
Vista is amazing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0iAQnCQp9o
What is bad is wondows 7 service pack 6
>>53195959
yes grandpa
>>53195959
my first PC had 4gb
>tfw born in 98
>still a 90s kid at heart
>>53194838
Vista's great and will always be great.
>>53196081
you're a weeaboo, of course you like Vista
my first pc ran win 98 and had like thirty-something MB of RAM... the next one i've got ran windows xp wih 512 MB of RAM, but... in 2007. when that crap (literally) burned down after a power outage year later i got a amd phenom tripple core with 3 GB of RAM with win7... so, I skipped win vista, but my cousin had it on his NETBOOK, it ran like shit, and he needed it for work. I cried for him.
>>53196081
Good tastes in OSes but what a hideous theme. Why would you modify Vista's UX, it was literally miles ahead of 7
>>53196191
[spoiler]Because it's actually 8.1 made to look like Vista, can't get it perfect.[/spoiler]
>>53195437
Bullshit run fsutil behavior query DisableDeleteNotify
If the result is 0_ trim is enabled
>There will never be an OS as good looking as Vista
>MS will never go back to MSN Messenger and GFWL style themes
Flat a shit
>>53194902
so are you saying MS forgot to include most drivers in the kernel ?
ever looked back at how people talk about MS product ?
xp good critics
vista bad critics
7 good critics
8 bad critics
10 ?
can't you see a pattern here ?
>>53196417
8.1 good critics
10 bad critics
>>53194949
This this this.
Keep in mind that Vista came out during a time where the norm for most laptops and desktops was still 512mb's of RAM. Vista was simply just too ahead of it's time in a way.
>>53194838
It was huge, taking up a shitton of ram, slow etc.. windows 7 came after it, it's almost the same kernel, but much lighter in everything else. They even saved space or ram on the mouse pointer. No, i'm not joking, thats why win7's loading mouse icon is faster, as they dropped every second frame
Even .net 3.0 that launched with Vista was a bloated hog. Trying to run C# programs was like pulling teeth compared to native win32 API shit. Hell, even VB programs ran better. Wasn't ahead of it's time, just unoptimized and didn't add enough to the core experience.
>>53194838
Instability and incompatibility when it first came out.
Starting with SP2 it has gotten pretty damn good.
>>53196840
>didn't add enough to the core experience
Really? Look at all this shit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista
They added so much there's multiple articles detailing every change. Every version of Windows that has come after vista is essentially Vista but with some comparatively small changes.
>>53196840
XP to Vista was the biggest jump since 3.x to 95 and probably the biggest jump you'll see in your lifetime
>>53194838
There were several reasons, all of which contributed.
It required new drivers, and manufacturers who take eons to get their shit straight wrote terrible messes which caused terrible performance and blue-screening.
Microsoft at the last moment under pressure from manufacturers lowered the "Vista Ready" recommendations to accommodate low-end computers. This made it perform even worse.
Vista was also the first Windows OS to use compositing. Again, a lot of hardware wasn't actually up for it, so bad workstation graphics hardware caused more headaches.
Vista also tried to "improve security", and by "improve security" it really just nagged the user a LOT. One example was someone creating an empty text file on their desktop, and needing to authorise 3 confirmation prompts to delete and recycle it. (Are you sure you want to delete it? You need authorisation to delete it. Etc)
Next, many computers shipped with the "basic" edition of Vista. Take anything useful Vista gave you, strip it out, and still demand more powerful hardware.
Vista introduced REAMS of DRM. Today it's average fair for Windows users, but at the time it was unprecedented. Also, as with everything else, it was inefficient and made things like playing DVD unusable on hardware that could previously handle it.
Lastly... It was just bad. Even Bill Gates admitted in an interview after launch that Vista would be the "worst operating system" in Microsofts history.
>>53195525
I played it with an xp mod so it worked :,)
>>53194980
THIS. Finally someone on /g/ who agrees with me on Windows 8. I found 7 to be sub-par, so skipped it (after a 2 month trial run) jumping straight from XP to 8. I immediately disabled updates, because updates break things and 8.0 with classic shell is perfect. Very glad I decided to stick with 8.0 after seeing this new privacy debacle.
