![54d3d4dba3e94_-_cage-gifs-monster[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/oKC5Qoe.gif "54d3d4dba3e94_-_cage-gifs-monster[1].gif")
>>53481724
Sort of
NT 6.0 was objectively a good kernel (they still use it, skipping from 6.x to 10.0 for Windows 10 is just for marketing reasons), but the user-land was rushed and people who were used to absolutely no security at all were surprised by the sudden introduction of UAC (even though UAC is a good thing).
>>53481761
Vista had the comfiest ui in my experience but later versions of windows, despite offering superior performance, were also released in times when more powerful hardware was available, making them look better than vista did on launch.
bloated and slow as fuark
>>53481724
It was a resources hog at the time.
Can't believe it was 10 years ago this year Vista was released, that at some point in my life 512MB of RAM was a reasonable amount.
>>53481761
It was more than that though. It's launch was marred by poor vendor support(no drivers) and bugs. It took a sufficiently powerful system to run it which most vendors didn't provide(e.g. that shitty HP laptop that all the normies bought). After SP2, it became reasonable to use on normal systems with normal users, but before that it was a godawful mess.
>>53482229
My first PC was a Packard Bell with Vista at launch and it ran bretty well for the 4 years I had it before I upgraded.
>>53482256
The HP I referred to was that one Walmart sold for around $300. It barely met the required spec, and in one variation it didn't. The ones that did had horrible battery life because they had to power all of this newer more high-end hardware. I remember 2-4 hours being the norm. Vista could've been really sweet if MS held off for another year and polished it while giving 3rd parties more time to prepare. I didn't mind vista, barring a few superficial bugs, but I had a good rig to run it on(new and high-end hardware).
>>53481724
yeah the same idiots love 7 when its just a reskin of the same thing
>>53481724
No, it had a lot of problems. Btw, windows 7 is basically fixed Vista.
>>53481724
It wasn't a meme because, in 2006, it ran horribly in most computers and DirectX 10 didn't show improvements at all.
However, since then it got much faster, SP1 came, it got a DirectX 11 patch, people weren't buying PCs with 512MB of RAM anymore. Today its basically 7 with better looking interface and less RAM consumption as upsides, and less program compatibility as downside.
>>53481724
pic related is my vista gaming rig vanilla wow baby
>Vista only makes up 1.66% of internet users
>By 2020 there WILL be a "Teenagers react to Vista"
>After that there will be millions of 15 year olds loading Vista on to virtual machines with 8GBs at least and complaining about how terrible it is in YouTube videos
>tfw you thought Vista was pretty great and only bluescreened once and were pretty sad to see it go.
Vista was a saint! It could have been the next 3.11 or XP for longevity! If it wasn't for those damn "Get a Mac" ads..
>>53481724
Not really. But a huge part of the problem came form vendors selling underpowered computers with the "made for Vista" bullshit stickers on it even if they should never have been allowed to do so.
People looking back at Vista today, after it has had countless updates and on overpowered machines capable of outpowering its shitty performance, tend to get the false impression that it wasn't so bad.
The truth is it WAS bad, but ISN'T so bad ANYMORE.
Vista had bad HW support. It looks fine, considering it looks just like 7
It really isn't all that different from 7
>>53482256
>My first PC was a Packard Bell with Vista
You need to be 18 to use this site. Get out underage.
>>53482398
As if XP was any different and people literally burst into tears over memories of that shit.
>>53482415
I'm 22 you terminal wally. Vista was a long time ago.
>>53482420
XP was more hit or miss. Installed vanilla XP on all computers in the household and 2 out of 3 worked wonderfully – the 3rd kept bluescreening like every hour.
It was the shared PC though so could have been user error.
Vista however seemed universally bad.
>>53482429
>Vista
>long time ago
Confirmed underage b&
>>53482451
A decade ago this year.
