Jump to content

Why Windows Vista doesn't suck


WinClient5270

Recommended Posts

 

I've yet to understand where all this negativity towards Vista comes from.

From Vista itself! People hated it. Were they all wrong ? By the time they got used to it, 7 came out (which as you all say is just the same as Vista, just better), Seven had an other advantage; it came out on hardware that was twice as powerfull, and that's why people did not hate it. Saying that Vista is a viable choice for many today is like saying XP SP2 is a viable choice. I don't hate Vista, I don't hate SP2, it simply wouldn't come to my mind to use them unless it was already installed on a machine, but that would not be "a choice". Cheers.

 

Well that's your opinion and I respect that. But as a whole it's safe to say it is a usable OS. Both have positive and negative sides to them. I still prefer Vista for various reasons.

Yes your absolutely right there, by the time Windows 7 was out it was pre-installed on machines double the specs of that in 2007. Better hardware, identical OS, everybody falls in love with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


 

I've yet to understand where all this negativity towards Vista comes from.

From Vista itself! People hated it. Were they all wrong ? By the time they got used to it, 7 came out (which as you all say is just the same as Vista, just better), Seven had an other advantage; it came out on hardware that was twice as powerfull, and that's why people did not hate it. Saying that Vista is a viable choice for many today is like saying XP SP2 is a viable choice. I don't hate Vista, I don't hate SP2, it simply wouldn't come to my mind to use them unless it was already installed on a machine, but that would not be "a choice". Cheers.

 

"Saying that Vista is a viable choice is like saying XP SP2 is a viable choice"

Not at all.

Windows XP SP2 (x86) has been unsupported since July 2010. The 64 bit version has poor 64 bit support (lots of 64 bit apps don't work on it, examples are Waterfox, Palemoon, and iTunes).  And has been unsupported since April 2014, not to mention that it's poorly optimized for modern hardware and is stuck on DirectX 9.0c which means any modern game that requires DX10 or later (and most do nowadays) won't work on it. It has also been known to have tons of driver issues.

Vista SP2 on the other hand is supported until 2017 and most 64 bit apps support it (only one i can think of that recently dropped support is photoshop CC). And it works well with modern hardware and bears close resemblance to Windows 7 in the way it handles core scheduling and RAM usage, and nowadays driver support (if you have AMD or Nvidia graphics or amd chipset, intel recently dropped support for vista) is fine.

Vista SP2 with a platform update has DirectX 11 and most games will work on it. 

Like I said, I never said we should all switch to Windows Vista. But if you have an old machine lying around that has decent specs and still runs XP, Vista is a "viable" upgrade option as long as it's still supported.

However you are completely correct about 7 being installed on better hardware than vista was installed on. Which contributes to it being so highly praised over Vista.

Edited by 2008WindowsVista
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if you have an old machine lying around that has decent specs and still runs XP, Vista is a "viable" upgrade option as long as it's still supported.

 

... and you have also a Vista license "lying around", and you have not a 7 license "lying around" ... :whistle:

 

jaclaz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But if you have an old machine lying around that has decent specs and still runs XP, Vista is a "viable" upgrade option as long as it's still supported.

 

... and you have also a Vista license "lying around", and you have not a 7 license "lying around" ... :whistle:

 

jaclaz

 

If the machine that's old wouldn't Linux make a viable choice? ;) Just say'n

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On archaic systems (I mean some real P.O.S. ones) Win7 has always ended up being a better performer for me than vista.

 

I see lots of arguing here that you can Extremely easily change the word Vista for Seven and still be saying the same thing.

 

If I had a choice (Which I do) I would always go from Xp then Seven. Just for the fact that the obtainable, hardware, drivers, games and progs for seven are so much more obtainable than Vista.

 

Unless you have a license for vista honestly it shouldn't even be considered. Seven is in essence what service pack 2 was for xp just for vista.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went straight from Windows 98 to Vista, never had much experience with XP. I found Vista to be (while imperfect) vastly more reliable (stable) than 98, and incomparably more appealing visually than anything before it (and especially the Fisher-Price XP and its chiclet window buttons).

 

Visuals are important to me. To my mind, Win7 is a less beautiful version of Vista. One of the first things I do when setting up a 7 system is to get rid of those enormous, gaudy taskbar icons and switch to informative text-based buttons. I've even installed a Vista theme (with the IMHO gorgeous 3D taskbar) on one system and am very happy with it.

 

--JorgeA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went from Windows XP (retail upgrade) to Windows Vista (OEM) and then Windows Vista to Windows 2000 when my laptop died and then back to Windows Vista (retail).

 

The reason is that I admit that I used the old computer for more than 11 to 13 years, I found that it is just simply too slow and no longer useful to remain on Windows 2000 (which has been unsupported for more than four years). By using Windows Vista on this new computer for a couple of years, I will be able to still use software that is still designed to run on the aging OS. Windows Vista will remain supported until April 2017, btw.

 

I'm very happy with the OS that I'm using right now. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

LOL wut. Vista sucks completely. You just have to read this list to understand why. Then read XP was my idea blog and download Classic Shell to truly understand why Windows Vista sucked hard. Finally, try to patch a Vista machine and bring it fully up-to-date to understand how Windows' servicing/update stack was completely screwed up in Windows Vista.

 

Yeah I know. Vista brought a million genuine advancements to Windows. I wrote mostly the entire Vista series of articles so I know how many new features it introduced but my did the user experience suck and the sheer number of unfixed regressions and steps backward and compromises made compared to XP! Although Vista takes second fiddle in terms of suckage to Windows 8 which is truly the most horrible operating system ever designed.

 

Vista was a tremendous step forward too but you expect a perfect regression-free product from Microsoft, not some half-baked something-improved-but-tons-of-things-broken kind of OS. And yeah Vista was incredibly beautiful. But the usability and user experience? Zero marks. Negative marks if I could give it negative marks.

 

Vista can be summarized as a step forward architecturally for Windows - improved security, improved networking, improved graphics, improved printing, better management and deployment tools, but with massive and unacceptable regressions in the user experience, shell/GUI, usability, performance, compatibility and serviceability.

Edited by xpclient
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vista can be summarized as a step forward architecturally for Windows - improved security, improved networking, improved graphics, improved printing, better management and deployment tools, but with massive and unacceptable regressions in the user experience, shell/GUI, usability, performance, compatibility and serviceability.

 

well said

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though in "improved security" one needs to read "declared theoretically improved security not really-really confirmed by any real world data". 

JFYI:

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/155290-windows-8-deeper-impressions/page-208#entry1070010

and:

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/163539-are-ms-updates-for-xp-really-necessary/

you may want to skip to here ;):

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/163539-are-ms-updates-for-xp-really-necessary/?p=1047286

 

jaclaz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When XP was being regularly updated, Windows Update on my XP systems (three of them) had a nasty habit of frequently offering updates with that yellow shield in the notification area -- and then doing nothing after I clicked on it. And if I then checked for updates via the Control Panel, the page would start loading but never finish loading, or else claim that there weren't any updates. (So why'd you tell me there were some??)

 

Nothing like this has ever happened to me with Vista. Once they're announced, Windows Updates don't vanish on me.

 

And I much, much prefer the Vista Start Menu which stays at a discreet size no matter how many levels deep I go into the All Programs listings. This keeps in view whatever is displayed on the screen, which is especially useful when trying to follow unfamiliar instructions on the screen. The XP menu, on the other hand, can fly out to cover half the screen, obscuring the instructions I'm trying to follow. In that regard, it serves a (hindering) function similar to the Windows 8 start screen. As far as I'm concerned, the nested menu listings were a stroke of genius.

 

I used Vista before I used XP. Both graphics and text on XP feel crude, primitive. I have one PC that dual-boots XP and Vista on (of course) the same monitor, and there is just no comparison. On XP, the Desktop has a grainy look and the letters in a piece of text -- it's hard to describe, but the words that come to mind is that the letters look thin and eroded. Whereas on Vista the Desktop is smooth and clean and the letters are filled-in.

 

At first, Vista was incompatible with some of the programs I'd been using on my previous Windows 98 machine, which was inconvenient and annoying. But then, a few months in, a compatibility update came in that took care of that issue.

 

Sadly, it's not often (if ever) that we get a new OS that offers new features while keeping every single feature that the previous OS had. But overall, I'm much happier doing my work on Vista than I expect I would have been on XP.

 

--JorgeA

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When XP was being regularly updated, Windows Update on my XP systems (three of them) had a nasty habit of frequently offering updates with that yellow shield in the notification area -- and then doing nothing after I clicked on it. And if I then checked for updates via the Control Panel, the page would start loading but never finish loading, or else claim that there weren't any updates. (So why'd you tell me there were some??)

 

Nothing like this has ever happened to me with Vista. Once they're announced, Windows Updates don't vanish on me.

 

And I much, much prefer the Vista Start Menu which stays at a discreet size no matter how many levels deep I go into the All Programs listings. This keeps in view whatever is displayed on the screen, which is especially useful when trying to follow unfamiliar instructions on the screen. The XP menu, on the other hand, can fly out to cover half the screen, obscuring the instructions I'm trying to follow. In that regard, it serves a (hindering) function similar to the Windows 8 start screen. As far as I'm concerned, the nested menu listings were a stroke of genius.

 

I used Vista before I used XP. Both graphics and text on XP feel crude, primitive. I have one PC that dual-boots XP and Vista on (of course) the same monitor, and there is just no comparison. On XP, the Desktop has a grainy look and the letters in a piece of text -- it's hard to describe, but the words that come to mind is that the letters look thin and eroded. Whereas on Vista the Desktop is smooth and clean and the letters are filled-in.

 

At first, Vista was incompatible with some of the programs I'd been using on my previous Windows 98 machine, which was inconvenient and annoying. But then, a few months in, a compatibility update came in that took care of that issue.

 

Sadly, it's not often (if ever) that we get a new OS that offers new features while keeping every single feature that the previous OS had. But overall, I'm much happier doing my work on Vista than I expect I would have been on XP.

 

--JorgeA

Very well said. I agree completely.

Link to comment
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.
×
×
  • Create New...