Jump to content

Welcome to MSFN Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account



Photo

Why Windows Vista doesn't suck

- - - - - Windows Vista Windows XP Microsoft Windows 7

  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#26
xpclient

xpclient

    XP was my idea. 3rd party apps make NT6 my idea.

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 335 posts
  • Joined 30-July 05
  • OS:XP Pro x64
  • Country: Country Flag

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, 22 August 2014 - 11:45 PM.

Impossible to run NT6 without third party fixes.



How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#27
vinifera

vinifera

    <°)))><

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 976 posts
  • Joined 27-August 09
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
  • Country: Country Flag

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


If you want true Windows user experience
try Longhorn builds: 3718, 4029, 4066

#28
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 14,864 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

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/...08#entry1070010

and:

http://www.msfn.org/...ally-necessary/

you may want to skip to here ;):

http://www.msfn.org/...sary/?p=1047286

 

jaclaz



#29
JorgeA

JorgeA

    FORMAT B: /V /S

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 3,296 posts
  • Joined 08-April 10
  • OS:Vista Home Premium x64
  • Country: Country Flag

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

 



#30
2008WindowsVista

2008WindowsVista

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 14 posts
  • Joined 06-June 14
  • OS:Vista Ultimate x64
  • Country: Country Flag

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.



#31
xpclient

xpclient

    XP was my idea. 3rd party apps make NT6 my idea.

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 335 posts
  • Joined 30-July 05
  • OS:XP Pro x64
  • Country: Country Flag
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.

The XP Start Menu can be made to "Scroll programs" then it won't occupy multiple columns, at least the column with the full list of programs. Are you aware of that setting? :) When that is checked, the Programs column will overlap the right column of the main menu only (Documents, Pictures, Music etc), It won't go beyond that although if you expand program folders further, they do take screen space horizontally. It still manages to show more programs than the nested "All Programs" treeview which is too cramped and requires too many clicks to get to the program. (In the XP menu, just hovering was enough).

 

I agree about Windows Update. It is much improved in Vista. The text can be tuned using ClearType Tuning PowerToy but the visuals are no match for the beautiful Windows Vista. Vista's DirectX is obviously also much more capable.


Edited by xpclient, 03 September 2014 - 07:21 PM.

Impossible to run NT6 without third party fixes.


#32
vinifera

vinifera

    <°)))><

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 976 posts
  • Joined 27-August 09
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
  • Country: Country Flag

letters are different coz of font type and cleartype thingy :P

otherwise letters are same -_- (that was bad comparison there)

 

as of look, I always used WindowBlinds on XP and never default XP look, the OS looked better than vista and 7 :D


If you want true Windows user experience
try Longhorn builds: 3718, 4029, 4066

#33
JorgeA

JorgeA

    FORMAT B: /V /S

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 3,296 posts
  • Joined 08-April 10
  • OS:Vista Home Premium x64
  • Country: Country Flag

Very well said. I agree completely.

 

Thank you!

 

--JorgeA



#34
JorgeA

JorgeA

    FORMAT B: /V /S

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 3,296 posts
  • Joined 08-April 10
  • OS:Vista Home Premium x64
  • Country: Country Flag

 

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.

The XP Start Menu can be made to "Scroll programs" then it won't occupy multiple columns. Are you aware of that setting? :) When that is checked, the Programs column will overlap the right column of the main menu only (Documents, Pictures, Music etc), It won't go beyond that. It still manages to show more programs than the nested "All Programs" treeview which is too cramped and requires too many clicks to get to the program. (In the XP menu, just hovering was enough).

 

I agree about Windows Update. It is much improved in Vista. The text can be tuned using ClearType Tuning PowerToy but the visuals are no match for the beautiful Windows Vista. Vista's DirectX is obviously also much more capable.

 

 

I tried changing the XP Start Menu setting to scroll the programs, and hit Apply. Didn't make a difference, they're still flying out halfway across the screen. :unsure:

 

Is a reboot necessary, in addition to Apply?

 

--JorgeA



#35
xpclient

xpclient

    XP was my idea. 3rd party apps make NT6 my idea.

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 335 posts
  • Joined 30-July 05
  • OS:XP Pro x64
  • Country: Country Flag

I tried changing the XP Start Menu setting to scroll the programs, and hit Apply. Didn't make a difference, they're still flying out halfway across the screen. :unsure:

 

Is a reboot necessary, in addition to Apply?

 

No idea. Your Start Menu is broken lol. It's a setting available since Windows 98.


Impossible to run NT6 without third party fixes.


#36
2008WindowsVista

2008WindowsVista

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 14 posts
  • Joined 06-June 14
  • OS:Vista Ultimate x64
  • Country: Country Flag

 

I tried changing the XP Start Menu setting to scroll the programs, and hit Apply. Didn't make a difference, they're still flying out halfway across the screen. :unsure:

 

Is a reboot necessary, in addition to Apply?

 

No idea. Your Start Menu is broken lol. It's a setting available since Windows 98.

 

No no, I did the same thing. And it changed nothing. and i used a real, legit copy of Windows XP Pro SP3.

Screenshot here: http://gyazo.com/437...080d0ea652adf93

Notice how it is clearly checked and is enabled in start menu options.



#37
JorgeA

JorgeA

    FORMAT B: /V /S

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 3,296 posts
  • Joined 08-April 10
  • OS:Vista Home Premium x64
  • Country: Country Flag

I concur with @2008WindowsVista -- I made the Start Menu settings change on a second XP system, and got the same (lack of) result.

 

--JorgeA



#38
xpclient

xpclient

    XP was my idea. 3rd party apps make NT6 my idea.

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 335 posts
  • Joined 30-July 05
  • OS:XP Pro x64
  • Country: Country Flag

Ah ok I see what you mean from @2008's screenshot. I meant that the Programs column itself won't expand to the right of the main menu when "Scroll programs" is enabled - the Programs column shows in a single column then. But it's subfolders do expand beyond that - no way around that in XP. It's a tradeoff - to avoid scrolling vertically and clicking to expand each folder in a relatively cramped area like the Vista Start Menu, XP's menu requires you to move the pointer horizontally to reach the program. IMHO using the available screen estate is better than click-scroll-click-scroll to launch the program, but I see how some users may prefer the compact Vista style because it doesn't cover the rest of the screen. Of course, searching to launch a program is an outstanding improvement of the Vista Start Menu but it forces mouse diehards to use the keyboard.


Impossible to run NT6 without third party fixes.


#39
2008WindowsVista

2008WindowsVista

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 14 posts
  • Joined 06-June 14
  • OS:Vista Ultimate x64
  • Country: Country Flag

except s***ty performance even under sp2

I simply hated it coz of its clunky file manager and whole system wide ui

 

7 got better less cluttered FM, yet again system wide ui still sucks, but I guess with M$ you can't get it all

finally 7 SP1 runs better to me than vista SP2, so why downgrade  -_-

 

in fact if XP had option for scaling of folders/image thumbs to bigger

and 7 taskbar (tho viglance somehow helps but it aint it), i'd switch back to XP even today

actually, i don't know what level of performance you're aiming to get, but Vista runs like the wind on my pc, blows 7 away in terms of speed, boots up in 5 seconds and shuts down in 3.

vista's "cluttered" UI can be customized, i saw where you didn't like how they crammed the file "tree" under the favorites links, but you can turn those off, see here: http://gyazo.com/743...260837c47cdc25d

and i prefer vista's level of backwards compatibility (in terms of UI) over 7 or 8 any day of the week.

7 got rid of the classic start menu, so no choice for users that prefer it than to install classic shell (shouldn't have to install 3rd party software for something like that IMO)

win8 got rid of the classic theme and start menu and has the cluttered and uncustomizable ribbon UI in explorer, as well as that intrusive and ugly start screen, so vista easily beats it.

also 7 forces auto arrange in explorer for no reason, have to tweak a registry setting to turn it off, but vista doesn't do this.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Windows Vista, Windows XP, Microsoft, Windows 7

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users