• Announcements

    • xper

      MSFN Sponsorship and AdBlockers!   07/10/2016

      Dear members, MSFN is made available via subscriptions, donations and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, become a site sponsor and ads will be disabled automatically and by subscribing you get other sponsor benefits.
2008WindowsVista

Why Windows Vista doesn't suck

82 posts in this topic

IMO you are right on the money: with Vista, the software raced ahead of the hardware.

 

--JorgeA

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you found yourself cringing when you've heard Windows 8 compared with Vista?  I have.

 

Though a few things may have been improved (you can't fix bugs for nearly 10 years without accidentally improving something), there's simply more wrong with Windows 8+ at a fundamental level than there ever was with Vista. 

 

It's completely different for a system to be ahead of its time vs. have no merit (MetroAhemModern).

 

Microsoft bets most people can't tell the difference.  Perhaps that's true.

 

-Noel

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I test vista many times on few pcs with different hardware never got good performance

even with windows server 2008 sp2

 

i tried to change drivers...

 

weird OS working ok on same hardware like oem but the rest, pretty bad

 

if its working good on ur system there no good reason to upgrade

Edited by aviv00
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vista wasn't necessarily a bad OS, it was just released way too early. They should have waited until at least 2008 to release it, as consumer PCs were finally getting to the point where they could run it somewhat acceptably. Vista got its bad reputation from being preinstalled on underpowered machines that really should have been running XP.

 

actually if you track the whole story with longhorn you would understand why vista sucked so much

but lets go down the memory lane shall we, bit short but you'll get the idea

 

XP stops development at build # 2542 and jumps as final 2600

but Server 2003 (whistler server) and XP (whistler) tracked each other with build compiles up until 2500

here they split into 2 teams

XP -> XP client, follows path from 2500 to 2542(2600) (xpclient)

where Server gets 1000 jump, where 2500 becomes 3500, and goes forward toward 3790 (dnserv)

 

MS uses latest code to compile their next OS, which was longhorn which was at the time Server 2003 RC

this happened somewhere at the 355x builds, this is the earliest stage where prototyping in Macromedia Flash Director was DONE

builds 36xx were already stage where OS was compiled, this was early year 2002

 

longhorn itself (if you track leaked PDF antitrust docs) supposed to be Minor version of OS, they even called it XP+1

while "blackcomb" that wasn't even being in progress, supposed to be after longhorn and be Major version of OS

 

long story short, longhorn gained many features along the way that blackcomb supposed to have, their code became messy

so they rebooted the project with then fresh codebase of Server 2003 SP1 RC, they decomponentised it, made it more flexible

and only main features of longhorn (minus 3D file view and WinFS database layer) was stiffed into Vista

-

but my main point is, if they didn't play with longhorn so much it wouldn't be as you say released so early (meaning late)

as longhorn already had DWM/Aero & Sidebar, working just fine in mid 2004, and all you needed was Radeon 9550 or Geforce 5x to use Aero with all magic 3D effects, DirectX 9L (10) was done then, LDDM drivers were adopted,

so the only thing they had missing was fast search

WIM installation was done year before, but it still sucked as it still sucks, but what the hell ...

 

RAM also wasn't the issue as it consumed a little bit more than XP

-

so there you go, if they didn't play and screwed it up, you'd had vista by late 2004 DONE

-

but since it got reset and there was huge gap between XP and Vista, naturally HW manufacturers didn't rush nothing

and why should they, world running PC's had all XP for freaking 8 years

and then BAM !!! you got yourself new OS that had totally different approach in mind for future use, and not present

so it failed, and by the time all HW was adopted to its needs you got yourself win "7"

 

so basically if they sticked to the plan on 2-3 yearly OS release there wouldn't be problems

hardware would adept step by step, this way it was major jump and they weren't ready

 

lets not forget that after reset of longhorn, MS had to rush alot not to lose the race with Apple (which they did and still do)

so yeah you get unpolished half broken OS that was only visually appealing

sure with SP2 its better but why bother when you have win "7" SP1

Edited by vinifera
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like you want to push things to extremes a bit, vinifera...

 

I used XP x64 and got good value.

 

I used Vista x64 Ultimate for some years and got great value out of it.

 

I found Windows 7 x64 Ultimate, after some tweaks and augmenting, gave me even better value.

 

I now find Windows 8.1 x64 MCE, after some more extensive tweaks and augmenting, gives me the best value I've had from any OS yet. Maybe not by a lot - I probably wouldn't be much worse off if I'd stayed with Win 7.

 

That I've found value in newer and newer systems doesn't mean Vista sucked.  Frankly it provided me more value - on good hardware - than XP ever did.  Vista was the first system I ever used that achieved the status not needing regular reboots.  XP always needed a reboot about every week or so - even the x64 version - because some resource or another would get exhausted.  Now I have computers at least 10x more powerful than the systems I ran XP on and they just run and run indefinitely, no matter how much work I throw at them.

 

Everything before NT, frankly, sucked (though I managed to get value out of all the versions except Windows ME).  NT - a reincarnation of Vax/VMS - was the first Microsoft package that tried to be a real OS.  It finally succeeded somewhere in the life of Vista.

 

-Noel

 

 

P.S., Windows 10 is not ready to supersede Windows 8.1.  Yet.  Maybe in a year or two.

Edited by NoelC
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm comparing soft vs hw at THAT time

not now

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sure with SP2 its better but why bother when you have win "7" SP1

OEM install and too cheap to lay out the $$$ to upgrade. Besides, then I clears out all the stuff that I already have set up how I like it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.