dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
6222

Maven
Premium Member
join:2002-03-12
Canada

2 recommendations

Maven

Premium Member

What was so bad about Vista?

Why were most people bashing Vista?

I never had a problem with it. In fact, I find it more stable than XP since SP1.

Sure, initially the driver support needed work, but that can be said for any new OS... And yeah, it needs a good system to run it, but so what?

What amazes me the most is that people are praising Win 7 before it's even released, but it doesn't look like a dramatic departure from Vista to me.

What gives? Is this a bandwagon situation? Looks like it to me.
BlitzenZeus
Burnt Out Cynic
Premium Member
join:2000-01-13

1 recommendation

BlitzenZeus

Premium Member

What did you actually do with your pc that mattered? Did you do much more than browser the web, watch a few videos, and e-mail?

Vista has been proven to be a pig compared to Win 7. Win 7 uses less resources when running, Vista was never a huge upgrade over XP except it had more x64 support. It was just the next version so people usually didn't buy it unless they got a new pc, which some demanded to be given xp instead from the system builders instead, mostly business customers.

Win 7 is Vista SP2 with modifications, just the next version out, but this version they have worked on making it run better with what they have. Systems that wouldn't run Vista can run Win 7. Even though Win 7 is just the next step of Vista, it's seen differently from a commercial standpoint.

Win 7 will be the next netbook os, they had netbook XP when Vista was out, but never did a public netbook Vista.

The combination of the lack of support, the change to include UAC making all accounts like a user account, which users should have been using a user account since XP, and the change in driver architecture made companies update their software to run correctly on Vista. The slow adoption rate, and the amount of users who went back to XP were part of it also, did you miss the 'Mohave' commercials? After a few years Microsoft decided Vista had enough bad press, and just wanted to release another os as Vista wasn't selling like they wanted. Vista was given a bad name commercially, and some feel it was rushed out since XP had been out for over five years without any new operating systems.

NT/2K/XP was no gem either, the outbreak of worms, messenger spam, and attack on the nt services open to the internet was really bad. Most consumers were on dial-up, and even if they were on broadband they were not behind a router. The fact they didn't include what could be considered a real firewall that was easy to configure for a home operating system, and exposing all these services to the internet was one of the dumbest thing they have ever done when other operating systems had included a basic firewall for years at this point. The history of giving users a admin account by default has never helped security either, which is why they came up with UAC, and in other operating systems, most people run as a user, not as root(admin), however 9x had this security model.

PeteC2
Got Mouse?
MVM
join:2002-01-20
Bristol, CT

9 recommendations

PeteC2

MVM

Actually, "most people" were not bashing Vista, the "PC Press" did that. In fact, the bulk of the complaints, which went along these lines: "Too "bloated"/too many driver issues/requires too much ram/cpu" were the exact same complaints about Windows XP, the sole exception being UAC, which frankly is much to do about nothing. Apple very quickly picked up on this, and launched a very extensive/intensive campaign to nab some market share, which certainly worked, but had little to do with actual fact. Of course, the sheep quickly fell into line...and Vista became a "bad" OS.

My best friend and co-worker, who uses a XP Pro work notebook daily, but has no knowledge of PCs other than using it as a work tool, also has a Vista based personally-owned notebook. When several younger family members basically crapped it up with a bunch of downloaded junk, he opined to me "Well, maybe you can help me fix it...that Windows Vista does not run too well" When I asked him why he figured it was a "Vista" problem, he replied that he "heard" that Vista was prone to these problems...frankly, with all the junk loaded onto his laptop, it was a miracle the damn thing would even boot! But now there you go: another unhappy Vista user! BTW: I de-crap-ified it, and now he thinks that I somehow "fixed Vista" on it...can't convince him otherwise

This would not be the first time that an OS goes down in history "villified" over bad press, without any real basis in fact.

Win ME to this day is panned as one of the all-time "worst" OS's, and yet there was nothing intrinsically wrong with it! If one considered Win 98SE as a success (and it was), then there should have been little reason to dislike ME, which after all was more a refinement of 98SE than anything else. My biggest criticism of ME was that it still at the end of the day was a DOS-based OS, with the associated extended memory problems.

I have several work and home computers using everything from XP Home, to XP Pro, to Vista Home Basic, to Vista Home Premium...and even an old clunker at work still running Win 98SE ...and all of them run well, and fullfill their intended functions. They are different generation machines, with different capabilities.

I am looking forward to when i purchase a system with Windows 7 as well...however I do not plan on shelling out money for an OS when each of these computers already came with a licensed OS installed!

There is nothing that I have seen with Win 7 that would make me spend time and money to replace the OS on my Vista-installed systems. In fact, the requirements to run Win 7 well are actually quite the same as what Vista takes...almost 3 years of newer hardware being on the market, makes Win 7 look as if it less resource hungry, when the reality is that it is more similar to Vista than not.

BTW, though it may seem otherwise, I am no particular "fan" of Vista...or for that matter any other OS! They either work, or they don't! I suspect that when I buy a Win 7 based computer (or Win 8, or OS "whatever"), that as long as it performs it's assigned functions, I will be ok with that! If I buy one that does not run well with whatever OS is pre-installed, then I undoubtably will return the sucker!

SysOp
join:2001-04-18
Atlanta, GA

SysOp to Maven

Member

to Maven
It has improvements over XP, as long as your hardware is up to date, and you understand the difference between administrator and user accounts.

It looks better at high res, such as 1080p than xp did.
damox
Premium Member
join:2002-01-07
Olympia, WA

1 edit

damox to Maven

Premium Member

to Maven
I myself, did like Vista, but Windows7 is much better. Before Windows7 came out I was running Vista on my main computer at work and here at home. Overall it worked fine, but it did have it's problems, especially prior to service pack 1. My son who is an avid gamer, programmer and web developer, ran it several computers and liked it as well, but now we are on to Windows7. Windows7 has presented some challenges along the way since we went to RTM, There were several that I've experienced, but the one that remains is on one of my home computers on which we are running Server 2008 R2 on VMWare. That box has suddenly taken to crashing seemingly randomly, so now we are trying to figure that one out, but in the long run, I have no doubt that Windows 7 will prove to be a great OS. The bottom line is that Windows7 is really just a new and improved version of Vista. Think of Vista as a beta which we had to pay for. When Vista came out, it wasn't ready, but Microsoft was under the gun to produce something, and so while we were beta testing what was a very unfinished product, Microsoft was busy rewriting much of the code and working on many of the features that they'd hoped to include in the original Vista.

not quite right
I'm not cool enough to be a Mac person
join:2001-06-23
Puyallup, WA

not quite right to PeteC2

Member

to PeteC2
OMG Pete That was probably one of the most sensible, fact based post I've read in years. Good job buddy.

poppster
Tell the truth and then run.
Premium Member
join:2003-12-23
Midwest

poppster to Maven

Premium Member

to Maven
We have vista on our laptop and I don't have any problems with it. It's a little more bloated than XP, but I have zero issues with Vista.

aaronwt
Premium Member
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
Asus RT-AX89

1 edit

aaronwt to Maven

Premium Member

to Maven
I have seven installs of Vista(four 64bit and three 32bit) and have never had any problems.
It was always so much better than XP. I really hated XP when compared to Vista. And Win7 is even better than Vista, so since the upgrade price is so low, $50, I'll be upgrading all my Vista installs to Win 7.

urbanriot
Premium Member
join:2004-10-18
Canada

urbanriot to Maven

Premium Member

to Maven
said by Maven:

Why were most people bashing Vista?
Sensationalism, often from people with no serious experience with all of Microsoft's OS's. That same sensationalism has spread to confuse the same people that Windows 7 is soooo much different from Windows Vista, even though it's practically the same OS. Maybe it's the taskbar that's wow'ing everyone.

Link Logger
MVM
join:2001-03-29
Calgary, AB

Link Logger to Maven

MVM

to Maven
Vista ran fine for me and I was very happy with it, but now that I'm running Windows 7, I certainly wouldn't go back as I like the usability features of Windows 7. For example I find gadgets handy and like to place them in different spots on my desktop and not just the screen side, I really like the Windows 7 taskbar being one of those people who have about a million windows going at once the new task bar makes it easier to find the one that I want.

The reality of it is, you shouldn't even notice what OS your running as its just a tool and a good tool just works and feel natural and at the end of the day you just don't notice that you were working with it all day as it doesn't flaunt itself, get in your way or limit what you can do etc. Its like my Windows Home Server, it just works, backups my systems every night (I don't worry about backups at all or losing files etc), shares media and files between all my systems and users, allows me to get previous versions of files etc, but do I spend any time with it as 'Windows Home Server', nope, I don't even see the hardware its running on as its in a room I rarely go to, so in a sense its just there like air, I need air to breath and live, but I don't worry it not being there or having to work to get, etc.

The big question is what do you do with the OS, likely very little as its just the platform you run your applications of choice on, but the OS needs to be a stable platform that enables apps to do what you want them to do in a fashion that you want them to do it in. So the OS is things like the GUI components, communication components (between apps, users, machines etc), administration and a huge pile of other things that you don't typically use directly. So as I developer I love Windows as the OS allows me to build apps that can do anything my users want in a way that makes sense to them. Most developers never used any of the features within Vista and I suspect it will be sometime before additional feature within Windows 7 are used, but thus is reality, but still as a user and a developer I love Windows 7.

Blake

lordpuffer
Legalize It Joe!
Premium Member
join:2004-09-19
Old Town, ME
Nokia XS-110G-A
Linksys Velop MX5300

2 edits

lordpuffer to Maven

Premium Member

to Maven
Without going into it in great detail, the only thing that I find bad about Vista is that it is slower than XP. You would think that Microsoft would have come out with an OS that was faster.

I myself have heard more good things than bad about Win 7, so I pre-ordered the upgrade and can't wait until Oct. 22nd comes when it is supposed to be shipped out.
brianiscool
join:2000-08-16
Tampa, FL

brianiscool to Maven

Member

to Maven
One word "compatibility"
SanJoseNerd
Premium Member
join:2002-07-24
San Jose, CA

SanJoseNerd to Maven

Premium Member

to Maven
I've never understood the complaints about UAC. I get more UAC prompts on Mac OS X than on Vista. The only difference is that Apple cleverly doesn't use a catchy name like "UAC" and so they mostly go unnoticed. Example: On Vista, when I run Windows Update I get only one UAC prompt at the start of the process, no matter how many updates are being installed. On Mac OS X, when I run Software Update I often get multiple UAC prompts, one for each update.

I've been using Vista x64 for software development and scientific/engineering applications, and I've liked it a lot. For 64-bit multi-core systems, Vista is a much better platform than XP.

Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium Member
join:2005-03-12

Wolfie00 to Maven

Premium Member

to Maven
I just replied to a post over in another forum. Someone was advising the OP to configure a new system with a minimum of 4 GB of memory and preferably 8 GB. I mentioned that I was over at a friend's place and their XP system was a bit sluggish because it only had 128 MB. I upgraded it to 512 MB and now it runs like greased lightning.

Does that help answer the question about Vista?

urbanriot
Premium Member
join:2004-10-18
Canada

urbanriot

Premium Member

XP on 512MB is pitiful. I haven't run on anything less than 2GB in at least 5 years...

Michail
Premium Member
join:2000-08-02
Boynton Beach, FL

Michail to Maven

Premium Member

to Maven
It's funny how worked up some people can get about this topic.

Still, I'm happy I haven't touched an XP machine in probably over a year. I'm all Win7, Vista and Server 2008. I like progress, change and a little problem solving to learn something new:).

Razzy12345
@rr.com

Razzy12345 to Link Logger

Anon

to Link Logger
Link Logger, you can pretty much do the same thing with gadgets with Vista. All you have to do is drag all the gadgets out of that sidebar and right click the sidebar itself and click "Close Sidebar". This does not close the sidebar but to minimize it. And those gadgets can be moved anywhere on desktop. If you right click the sidebar icon in systray and click Exit - that will close the gadgets and sidebar (obviously).

And yes XP on 512MB is pitiful.

nwrickert
Mod
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL

nwrickert to Maven

Mod

to Maven
Why were most people bashing Vista?
What was bad about Vista, was that it was not XP.

What is good about Win7, is that it is not Vista.

These are mostly fads/ group psychology. There's no point in looking for a rational explanation.

Mashiki
Balking The Enemy's Plans
join:2002-02-04
Woodstock, ON

Mashiki

Member

Slower driver rollout? Poor compatibility issues with peripherals? The "vista compatible" fiasco? Yeah, there was some good ol' foot shooting going on with it in my book.

Tasted more like the 3.x > '95 rollout to me. Consumers got burned, word of mouth spread it, along with reviewers who were unhappy with the core changes that were too out-of-step. So it died, and it should have. Win7 is what Vista should have been at launch, but MS Marketing got their hands on it. Pushed too hard, people said FU and poof. Dead OS. MS learned the hard lesson, you can't shove something down a consumers throat.

Snakeoil
Ignore Button. The coward's feature.
Premium Member
join:2000-08-05
united state

Snakeoil to Maven

Premium Member

to Maven
I like Vista never had a problem with it.

Only way I'll get win 7 is if I buy a pre-built PC with it. Any home built PC will have linux on it from now on.

I tried running the beta and the RC version of Win 7 on a home built PC. This PC ran Vista and linux just fine. Win 7 wouldn't detect the wireless keyboard/mouse or it would give me a BSOD at install. So screw it.

I have vista one 3 desktops and 1 laptop, all work fine.
I have linux on 1 desktop and it to works fine, and yes I can play World of Warcraft on my linux box.
For games, I have a WII and a PS3. Besides, I play WOW, when would I have time to play another game?

TCub
Premium Member
join:2008-09-03
Olmsted Falls, OH

1 recommendation

TCub to Maven

Premium Member

to Maven
....Have you tried Windows 7? Also, keep in mind it's available now as an RC... that's Release Candidate if you didn't know, so to say it's not out is not 100% true.

Use Windows 7, it feels better, looks better, and runs better than Vista. I think it's one of the best if not the best OS releases to date from MS. Snow Leopard, which was released yesterday is also pretty fantastic. I'm really happy to see Microsoft and Apple have both released wonderful OS's.
jfd15
join:2008-01-07
West Sacramento, CA

1 edit

jfd15 to Maven

Member

to Maven
i dont have the knowledge or experience that most do on here but....

i bought a notebook with Vista when it was early in roll out must have been around May of 2007(?) (or 2006?- i cant remember, but i bought it in May) and it seemed to take forever for all of these little programs like CCleaner etc to put out Vista compatible editions, which really %$#%### me off...i think it was well into October or November and it seemed like about half were still incompatible....i dont know how this compared to the rollout of XP though...

then it was the UAC, which actually forced me to learn a little about security and the reasons why they were doing this.... it was a pain though...

but mostly it seemed overall too heavy for the budget notebook computer that i had....i disabled the Aero or whatever it was, stripped out any excess junk, and only had lite, on-demand AV and AS scanners and it still seemed generally slow..

i now have a netbook(Samsung n110) on XP 3 and despite the limited CPU, etc. it does a decent job...

SLD
Premium Member
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA

SLD to Maven

Premium Member

to Maven
In some ways, Vista is better than Windows 7. For example, file searching in Window 7 is a huge step back. So is the new taskbar.

pnjunction
Teksavvy Extreme
Premium Member
join:2008-01-24
Toronto, ON

pnjunction to Maven

Premium Member

to Maven
I think the biggest problem was that they undershot the minimum requirements.

Vista on 1GB of RAM runs like ass, and yet so many of these systems were sold or upgraded.

And yet putting the requirement at 2GB would've been admitting that it's a hog so they couldn't do it.

It's no big deal now, 4GB of RAM is pretty much standard. But at release it gave many people (myself included) a terrible first impression.

Mchart
First There.
join:2004-01-21
Kaneohe, HI

Mchart to Maven

Member

to Maven
I never had any issues with Vista besides nvidia writing crappy drivers the first year or so of Vista's release. Which, is Nvidia's fault - Not Vista/Microsofts. Anyone who complained about issues with Vista frankly were blaming the wrong people.

banditws6
Shrinking Time and Distance
Premium Member
join:2001-08-18
Frisco, TX

banditws6 to Maven

Premium Member

to Maven
My personal gripes with Vista were mostly a cascade of nitpicky little user interface things that, when combined, drove me up a wall. I wear a number of hats at my company and use a staggering array of software to complete all of those tasks, am heavily reliant on keyboard shortcuts and use the mouse as little as possible. Vista changed things here and there that was like throwing a wrench into the works. One of the worst was the extra shift+tab that was required on file open/save dialogs when you wanted to put the focus into the file list instead of the filename field. Yes, that kind of stuff drove me nuts.

I hated search in Vista. I hated the concept of indexing and how unintuitive it was to add locations to the index. I also hated how your search results were thrown out as soon as you browsed into a folder to check out a particular result, then hit "Back" so you could look at something else. UAC would throw as many as two prompts when I wanted to do something as mundane as rename something on the Programs menu, for pity's sake. The sidebar was slow to update, constantly drawing improperly, constantly re-ordering my gadgets and such a drag on resources that I disabled it.

In Windows 7, they fixed the extra shift+tab problem. They added the concept of "Libraries" that keep all of my work files together and adds them to the search index at the same time. Search results remain cached in case you browse away and then return. The new taskbar is brilliant and saves me a ton of space. UAC no longer prompts me for stupid mundane garbage, or at worst, requires one extra click. The dumb "sidebar" concept is gone and now you can put gadgets anywhere you want, they're always where I put them and I have yet to see one lock up. Et cetera, et cetera.

Yes, all of these changes are very minor "polish" issues, and to complain about them is picking nits of the finest order. But on a day-to-day basis, when usability and efficiency is of the utmost importance, they add up...and to me, they make the difference between an OS I grudgingly used and secretly hated (Vista) and an OS that I actually enjoy using from day to day (7).

I've been working with the Windows 7 Enterprise x64 RTM since it hit MSDN and I absolutely love it. I could never have said that about Vista.

Everyone else's mileage, as always, may vary.
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN

RJ44 to Wolfie00

Member

to Wolfie00
said by Wolfie00:

I just replied to a post over in another forum. Someone was advising the OP to configure a new system with a minimum of 4 GB of memory and preferably 8 GB. I mentioned that I was over at a friend's place and their XP system was a bit sluggish because it only had 128 MB. I upgraded it to 512 MB and now it runs like greased lightning.

Does that help answer the question about Vista?
Ok, so if your machine has 128MB (or 512MB) of RAM, XP runs better than Vista. I'll grant you that. How relevant do you think that actually is today?

MineCoast
Premium Member
join:2004-10-06
Pensacola, FL

MineCoast

Premium Member

said by RJ44:

said by Wolfie00:

I just replied to a post over in another forum. Someone was advising the OP to configure a new system with a minimum of 4 GB of memory and preferably 8 GB. I mentioned that I was over at a friend's place and their XP system was a bit sluggish because it only had 128 MB. I upgraded it to 512 MB and now it runs like greased lightning.

Does that help answer the question about Vista?
Ok, so if your machine has 128MB (or 512MB) of RAM, XP runs better than Vista. I'll grant you that. How relevant do you think that actually is today?
You'd be surprised at how many people still have 512 MB or less of ram out there.

Jodokast96
Stupid people piss me off.
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
NJ

Jodokast96

Premium Member

said by MineCoast:

said by RJ44:

Ok, so if your machine has 128MB (or 512MB) of RAM, XP runs better than Vista.


You'd be surprised at how many people still have 512 MB or less of ram out there.
Or any other amount up to 2gb.

Razzy12345
@rr.com

Razzy12345 to banditws6

Anon

to banditws6
said by banditws6:

I also hated how your search results were thrown out as soon as you browsed into a folder to check out a particular result, then hit "Back" so you could look at something else.
You can right click the folder and click "Open Folder Location". At least they will display results faster when you do click back though.