From The Forums: Was Windows Vista really that bad?

Earlier this week, Jun Dong-soo, who leads Samsung’s memory chip business, slammed Windows 8, saying that the launch of Microsoft's latest OS did not boost the PC business. Perhaps the quote that stung the most was that Windows 8 was "no better than the previous Windows Vista platform."

The comparison between Windows 8 and Windows Vista was certainly not meant to be a compliment. Much has been made about the fact that Vista, which launched in January 2007 did not have robust driver support from third party companies at the start. Despite two service packs designed to improvedWindows Vista, it was left in the dust when Windows 7 launched in 2009. In about a year, the market share for Windows Vista was overtaken by Windows 7. Currently, Net Applications shows that Vista is only installed on 5.17 percent on all PCs worldwide.

While there's no denying that Windows Vista was a brand perception disaster for Microsoft, was it really that bad of an operating system? In a recent forum post on our message boards "Windows Vista - Your experience and opinion?", Neowin readers gave their own thoughts on the OS and many of them are quite positive.

Neowin reader InsaneNutter wrote:

Personally i loved Vista, it was a massive upgrade from Windows XP. Yes it broke a lot of stuff in regards to drivers, however it was a needed change and it forced manufacturers to start pushing 64bit drivers too. I personally loved Windows Media Center, as i was a big fan of MCE 2005 in XP and it was a great upgrade in Vista. I loved the modern theme, widgets and improved start menu too. Everything appeared to get a fresh coat.

Another Neowin member, theyarecomingforyou, had similar good thoughts about Vista:

It certainly wasn't perfect but the visual theme was a significant improvement from XP, gaming was great (performance was largely similar but it included DX10), driver handling was much improved (thanks to the online check) and stability and security were both improved also (people forget how insecure and unstable XP was). I was glad to upgrade to Windows 7 upon release but to me it was simply Vista 2.0 - I never understood how people could hate Vista but love Win7. Contextually I think Vista was better than Windows 8, though Windows 8 is still the superior operating system.

Microsoft launched a bus tour in January 2007 to promote Windows Vista

While Vista has its supporters, they also point out its flaws, particularly with the early months of Vista's launch when driver support for the OS was lacking. Neowin reader virtorio wrote:

Vista had some genuine issues when it came out, probably the biggest issue for me was how slow it was to copy files, but there were other issues as well. I brought it on release day and, along with the slow file copying, experienced frequent Explorer crashes and blue screens. Lousy drivers from hardware vendors (on release, and for a while afterward), a ton of software that was not designed to run under a non-admin account (that people blamed Microsoft for, not the actual developers of the software), the negative response people had to DX10 (exclusive to Vista, but with hardly any advantages), the joke that was Ultimate Extras, and the fact it had only a portion of the "cool stuff" Microsoft had been showing off for years with Longhorn, it gained a bad reputation that it never could get rid of (even after a myriad of patches fixed many of the bugs and performance problems).

The big question: Will Windows 8 have the same fate as Vista? Windows 8 certainly doesn't have the driver and bug problems that Vista had, but the new Modern interface and the fact that the desktop UI is no longer the default is apparently keeping many people from trying it out.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Android design principles: Enchant Me, Simplify My Life, and Make Me Amazing

Next Story

Yahoo Mail accounts continue to be hacked despite 'fixes'

91 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

No it wasnt. I loved it especially after SP1. It was a bit slow with copying which I did hate. What ruin Vista is it didn't support legacy hardware and OEM's were ****ed. Instead of developing driver support, they wanted people to run out an buy new hardware; even tho what they had worked fine. I thought they learned their less but they repeated much with Windows 8.

I still like Vista, but certainly prefer Windows 7. But I also didn't have issues with Windows ME.

To get my devices ot work in Vista, I would download drivers for XP SP2 or higher where possible. Downbload drivers I could extract and let Vista pull the files it needed. Where I couldnt do that, I downloaded the more recent possible driver and simply went into the registry and changed the OS name so when I ran the installer, it would think it was XP and install perfectly in most cases. This came in handy for scanner and MFP's.

Most consumers wont know how to do either, so I spent lots of time getting paid to make devices work in Vista.

When Vista first came out, it was dreadful. Unstable, driver issues, etc. But within a couple months, it was much better and I never reverted to XP. The same cannot be said for my current situation -- I installed W8 on this laptop as an experiment but within a month, I realized that I was doing everything in my power to make it as much like W7 as I could. So I finally took the hint and just put W7 back. I personally think that W8 will be much more of a disaster, financially and in terms of publicity than Vista ever was.

I never had issues with vista. The reason folks had issues is because it was loaded on machines that barely had enough specs to install XP and they expected it to run the same.

Practically we are still using Vista but faster version of it... So one cant call Vista bad, rather it was not optimized for available hardware hence it was really slow... that is it..

The main problem with Vista is that it required higher end video cards in order for the glass effects to work as well. At the time I had a GeForce 5950 Ultra (the most expensive in the 5xxx series) and that was the only card in that series that supported Aero as well! Among other things like driver issues of course, not to mention the constant changes in development (Longhorn and finally Vista) over a period of more than FIVE years.

Yes, the Areo effect to be precise needs a good video card to render, that's why most people has problems. I'm not sure if they did like Windows 7, if you don't rate your PC, you get a basic ugly looking theme.

Everyone forgets that, at launch, Vista suffered from the same complaints and problems that XP had at launch.

XP struggled with driver and program issues and performance issues for the first couple of years until SP1 and then SP2 (then SP3) made it what we know and love today.

The different back in 2001 was that there was no viable public Windows OS to fall back on. ME was garbage. 98/95 were too old. 2000 was not accessible. With Vista everyone could complain the way they did with XP but fallback onto a mature and stable XP at the same time.

Look for XP and Vista reviews. You'll see they have a very similar list of gripes.

I didn't really have problems with Vista, though I recognize that many people did and that Win7 was a significant upgrade from it. I don't get why people wigged out so much, Vista brought a number of new things to the platform that Win7 perfected.

Maybe the one screwed up thing was restricting DX10 to it. I'd love if more games could be based on DX10/11, but they have to cater to the DX9 holdouts, which is disappointing.

Then again, I am at a complete loss for people who insist on using XP, as some say, "until I die"... Anyone running 32 bit XP should be slapped with a large trout until they stop dragging down everyone else.

It wasn't bad at all. It's just a rumour spread by people. I wish I had a PC with Vista. I'm still with XP, so it's time for 8.

im also one of those people that had a perfectly good work ing vista machine never saw half the problems, and im liking windows 8 aswell, i find it hard to go back to 7 now that i know my way around 8

I had bought new hardware while beta testing vista and it was just such a resource hog. i tell people this all the time, any computer that has vista on it is more than capable of running windows 7 and will perform a whole lot better. i feel like vista was an unfinished product for the world to beta test which was why windows 7 was a good operating system.

No, no, a thousand times no. I was much more satisfied with my two years of Windows Vista much more than I did my time with Windows 7 or even Windows 8, from a new features perspective. Vista was a fresh air from the stale 5-year-old Windows XP that was back then. I especially loved Media Center.

I had a good computer at the time running vista, Never had a problem with it. I think one of the main reasons Vista was "bad" is because the media made it so. Same as what's happening to Win 8 now, people bashed it even before BETA. It runs faster than 7 has a lot of improvements and new features that you can't find in 7, yet people still bash it.

i dont get why its news, someone asked a question and gets put on the front page. Pointless dragging it back up. Vista was a massive change and gets better with each new windows release as the improve it. leave it at that

My biggest issues always involved patching through Windows Update. Often times, we'd run into walls where because one patch wasn't properly loaded, it would prevent the whole service pack from installing. Tried dozens of work around, on a frequent of enough basis that I was like,"Dude, just get Windows 7..." to which the issues disappeared.

And then the computer ran better anyway. Win / Win.

I've talked about this so many times, I need to collect my posts from places and put them all in a single document. Until then, I'll just say this:

I still use Vista because I detest what Microsoft did to what was essentially SP3 for Vista (though more like Vista SE).

Here's as clear as an example as I can give to people to explain why I use Vista over 7, despite support being dropped for it: http://imgur.com/a/DXZ0G

It is entirely a usability problem; nothing more. The same is true for every new OS released that differs from the last. Windows 95 and Windows 8 are by far the biggest examples of this.

That said, if anyone knows of any mods to fix 7's UI, please let me know. As much as I'll defend Vista to death, I -need- to upgrade because of the dropped support for it, but can't because of the usability issues.

Edited by DAOWAce, Mar 10 2013, 11:52pm :

Simply put, Vista and Win8's Achilles heel was bad or lack of good publicity. Win95 albeit an old OS, had the marketing that proliferated the OS and the new UI. Vista, Nothing but a dribble perhaps. Win8? you only see a commercial now and then or a commercial for HP or other OEM that would put a display of Win8 on the system screen. MS shoots themselves in the foot yet again by not campaigning Win8 as they should have.then the recent article that MS blames the OEMs for not jumping aboard.. this is MS's fault again... MS spends man hours and years to dev an OS but can't put out a win95 like campaign to generate ANY interest... oh well, loving my Win7

Windows 8 is way better than Vista. There wasn't a clear reason to upgrade to Vista from XP, while there is for Win 8. The new Start Screen is awesome, the Metro apps are too, it has drastically faster boot times, and much more. I love Windows 8 and I won't go back.

Liked Vista a lot when it came out, I didn't have any real driver issues or slowness (had a custom core 2 duo 6800 machine, with 2GBs RAM and dual GTX 260s). While I could understand that there was some issues, I never understood the incessant complaining about it.
UAC was a good thing, programs should not have admin (root in nix) without permission. I read about and was really fond of the improvements to security in general in Vista, loved that x64 was fully supported (after I upgraded to 8GBs ram), loved the stability, in 3 years of running Vista 24/7 that system never crashed once due to a software problem (one bad gpu and a bad psu did however but that's to be expected.) Overall I was really impressed with Vista, and 7 and now 8 have even improved upon that.

I think the problem people have with 8 is a psychological one, I know for a fact the system is perfectly usable. When they say opinionated things like it's jarring, etc. these are not scientifically measureable things and I could as easily say Win 7 is jarring when I use it and can't see all my programs in one click, or a bunch of real world information in live tiles etc. because that's what I expect now. Under the hood I think no one knowledgeable would dispute that Win 8 is better. When the complainers can be specific and separate science from knee jerk opinion then they will have credibility.

Well, it was a "heavy" OS, so that alone is enough to make it bad.
I didn't have any issues, like crashing and such, but oh god, it was sloooooow!

I was excited in the beginning to see the changes in Vista. Had a laptop with Vista. If you configured it right turned UAC of and so...
It was a bit like Windows 7.

I've ran Vista since Beta 2 back in mid-2006 through late 2009 when I got Win 7.

No problems with drivers on my old Dell Dim 8400 I got in 2004, though it took a while for Lexmark (at the time - I replaced my all-in-one printer in May 2011 as a college graduation gift) to supply drivers for it.

Vista was a much needed change from XP. Win 7 only improved upon it.

It was bad in the sense that it came out at a bad time when a lot of computing was shifting to lower power consumption and it was very resource hungry in comparison to XP. There was also the maturing process which is to be expected but took a little longer and was a little more painful with Vista. I think it got more of a bad rap then it deserved and after a service pack, assuming your hardware was up to snuff, it was pretty decent for Windows.

It laid the foundation for 7 though which is in my opinion the best Windows release to date.

The problem with Vista was that it was overhyped way before it was released. Remember all the anticipation of this next big thing formerly known as Longhorn? So many promising, revolutionary ideas, but in the end it was cut down bit by bit and became nothing more than a modest improvement over Windows XP in terms of features (though they did re-work the entire backend). So I believe the enthusiast community was let down, first and foremost.

Next, Vista required quite beefy system requirements. I remember I was running an AMD Athlon 64 3000+ at the time (which was only about 1.5 years old when Vista was released). Even surfing the internet on Firefox or IE proved too taxing--there would be a noticeable lag while scrolling through pages, and this is with smooth scrolling turned off. I was a BETA tester for Vista and got a free Vista Ultimate license, but in the end I just went back to good old XP instead.

It wasn't until 2008 when I upgraded to a Core 2 Duo that I decided to give Vista another go once again. This time, it felt much smoother and a pretty pleasant experience. The only gripe I had were the design oddities--maximised windows have a black titlebar instead of Aero Glass, and the taskbar was way too black for my liking, not to mention the start orb protruding out of windows...

The odd thing is that when I moved up to Windows 7 eventually, it didn't feel very much different. Speed-wise, it was roughly equal, but it felt much more polished and thought through than Windows Vista. It felt less 'heavy', perhaps in part to the new translucent taskbar and translucent maximised windows...

All in all, I believe the main problem of Vista was that it was way ahead of its time. It was too ambitious in terms of predicting system requirements.

Vista itself wasn't bad; it's just that people expected it to run on 10-year old machines.
Also some driver issues, but those were fixes quite rapidly.

512MB RAM, horrible Nvidia drivers and forced Windows XP era Wifi software made for a horrible experience. Every time someone got a new Vista pc I would clean install it with the latest drivers and I would never hear another complaint. It was also this same time when HP, Compaq and Dell laptops with Nvidia Graphics chips had the overheating and MB failure issues. I never understood who approved the design of having the wifi card sit directly on top of the GPU on those machines

Vista was great actually, the only issue I had was excessive Disk I/O... mainly because it loved to index like wild when it was a new install... even with indexing turned off I'd still hve a lot of disk I/O to the point the disk was goign non-stop... in the end it was a combination of services causing this, and MS fixed all those issues in later service packs and windows 7 really fixed all the issues... but vista was good

Vista was buggy at first but once they ironed out the bugs it wasn't so bad. Granted, performance and reliability has been since improved with Windows 7 but given the choice I'd take Vista over Windows 8.

"Was Windows Vista really that bad?" -- IMO, the answer is 'yes and no.'

First no, in the sense it was more a new look than actual UI redesign. Things were mostly the same, and many things were made easier to access and use. However, sometimes information presented seemed a little confusing if not too much here and there (and yes the dreaded permission dialogs galore). Otherwise the new OS was pretty and a nice change from XP, and not so much a change that hid what you're used to like Windows 8 does.

Then of course yes, from the technical standpoint. As mentioned, the lack of drivers issue. Then there was the memory hog issue (but part of which was the misunderstood SuperFetch system). Then there were performance issues that made gaming a little worse than with XP (why I stayed on XP until Win7); and for crissakes, file transfers?!! Then the fact Vista took the better part of 6 years to come out, and there were still all these "basic" issues, not only made many wait until an SP1, it made many (like me) skip Vista altogether.

Also people were so entrenched in XP by the time Vista came along, that was a compelling reason to avoid it (a factor for Win7's improvements and quite speedy release). Windows 8 is having the same problem as Vista now because Win7 works so well for the most part, and 8 is geared towards touch screens (tablets) that most people either don't want for their desktop, or maybe they would like it but see no reason to replace their nice monitor, e.g.

IntelliMoo said,
...and yes the dreaded permission dialogs galore...

I find those sort of funny looking back now. It's as if Microsoft just got so sick of being blasted for viruses and malware that they just said "screw you guys, now I'll check with you before I do anything and if you let anything bad through it's your own damn fault".

Vista was a blast after SP1. Before then, I had issues connecting to my server (at the time) running XP x64. When it did connect, my music was jumpy, videos stuttered, ect. Not a real problem, just a pita.

Windows Visa was wonderful, tons of improvements on every level, and wonderful pen tablet support, it was power hungry and the colors are darkish, designed by someone in his basement with skeletons around.

Windows 7 came and fix the hardware issue and the colors, and became sensation, and everyone wanted to use it.

Windows 8 is another story, they hired Fidel Castro to redesign the UI, and what we got is a plain dead UI, they FIERED Castro (he resigned and went to teach in some university) and they hired his brother Ralph Castro (She is not much different), so we are not expecting to see significant improvements on the UI; it will stay plain communist CASTRO style UI.

Again, it is not a modern UI it is a CASTRO UI :-)

Vista did not sell because the customers needed something to work with their hardware, and Windows 8 did not sell for the same reason.

Vista did not sell good because not every customer is in a dark room with skeletons around, and Windows 8 did not sell well because the people are running away from CUBA, no one loves the CASTRO style, they just smile and say yes when they have too

Vista was essentially WinXP with a backend that wasn't totally ****. At the time it just required really beefy hardware to run and the almost complete lack of real user interface upgrades didn't make it exactly an enticing update.

Win7 is the first (and so far last) Windows version that to me doesn't feel like I want to kill myself every time I use it. Yes, it still has a boatload of usabililty issues and crap design but at least it doesn't get too much in the way in everyday use.

If MS just bothered to hire competent UI designers they could have a really great OS on their hands. The backend is solid, but many things are just awkward. The next-next-next-finish install/uninstall routine, shortcut links to program executables, all the crap Win8 brought etc are just downright poorly thought out stuff. They don't make the OS easy to learn or easy to use. By comparison even many computer novices have been able to learn Mac OSX succesfully. Now, before the Apple fanboy crap starts, OSX has its own share of issues and plenty of them too but it's still light years above the competition when it comes to ease of use.

Vista had some serious issues on my computers. Some actions slowed down or stopped for a while without any obvious reason. E.g. copying files, deleting files, shutdown, etc.
Many action had some level of randomness attached to it. Xp and windows 7 are way more predictable. So in general i liked vista, liked its design, but im glad i dont have to use it anymore.

In general all windows versions have been crap. What made windows stellar are SSDs. Windows 7 & 8 with an SSD is pure pleasure to use.

My wife still uses it. If she needs any help, then that's down to me. But it works fine, I don't need to upgrade it and I don't need to show her anything new as it does everything she needs.
It's a non-touch enabled desktop screen and if I put Win8 on it, there would be no end of trouble (nb I am not a hater, I use Win8 on my primary laptop).
Vista suffices for straightforward WP and emailing, and we have drivers for printer/scanner so no issues there either.

Vista is part of the 3 major os failures from microsoft with the first being Me and the third being windows 8.

Vista failed on its own merits, it was a buggy mess when it was first released, service packs seemed to fix a lot of the problems eventually but by the time it was fixed it was far too late since its reputation was already well tarnished.

Microsoft and most of their blind zealots liked to play the blame game (sound familiar?) and claimed that driver manufacturers and oem's were at fault for vistas failure but all of this is false since microsoft gave their seal of approval on the drivers with their whql cetification and gave oem's their minimum hardware requirements.

A lot of people don't remember that XP went through very similar growing pains. XP RTM absolutely sucked on some machines and most games at the time wouldn't run on it--even in compatibility mode. Drivers were also very problematic and even though the specs said it could be run on older hardware, it was a VERY unpleasant experience. It was XP SP1 fixed a lot of out-of-box experience issues, and XP SP2 was an entirely new, much more mature and reliable OS.

Vista wasn't bad at all. I never had any issues with it and never understood the complaints people were rambling about.

The main issues were
(1) people ALWAYS complain when there's change (see people's rants everytime Facebook changes and now with Windows 8); and
(2) manufacturers were slow with releasing drivers for certain hardware (but it wasn't as bad as people were saying).

j2006 said,
Vista wasn't bad at all. I never had any issues with it and never understood the complaints people were rambling about.

The main issues were
(1) people ALWAYS complain when there's change (see people's rants everytime Facebook changes and now with Windows 8); and
(2) manufacturers were slow with releasing drivers for certain hardware (but it wasn't as bad as people were saying).

MS changed the drivers requirements later in the OS development; Vista Capable boxes were underpowered for the OS and people who bought them complained. Data,transfer issues were fixed with SP1.
But please keep blaming people......

We got 2 computer with Vista RTM--a Gateway Laptop (Intel Pentium Dual Core 1.6Ghz w/ 2 GB RAM/160 GB HDD/x86 Vista Home Premium) and a Gateway Media Center PC (Intel Core 2 Duo 2.3Ghz w/ 4 GB RAM/400 GB HDD/x64 Vista Ultimate). On both, since they had the proper OEM drivers, we had no out-of-box issues--aside from the slow-ass file transfers and some DX10 stability issues. Our printer (a Lexmark all-in-one) had tremendous issues with Vista. It's as if Lexmark re-built their existing XP drivers without making the appropriate changes for Vista. It was a nightmare. Ended up buying an HP printer with proper drivers and all was well afterward. Since the laptop had 2 GB RAM, it was a bit slow and the HDD thrashed a lot. Gateway was smart and used a single 2 GB DDR2 SoDIMM, so we added 2 GB from a Newegg.com special (yes...I know...4 GB not usable in x86 OS--consider it "Future Proofing" HA HA). Worked like a charm after that...and battery life increased by at least 20% as the HDD wasn't always running.

My wife hated it immediately because of the over-zealous UAC. We immediately disabled that and the annoying pop-ups to enable UAC. She was then happy. After about 6 months, as proper drivers started to trickle in, and later SP1 came out, it became much more usable and stable. The arrival of SP2 made it even more stable and I believe on-par with Windows 7 RTM (which we all know is Vista SP3).

Don't even get me going on the joke that were known as "Ultimate Extras". The only good thing to come from that was the game, "Tinker". Microsoft royally screwed its users with the "Ultimate Extras". $200 more for these extras and all we get is looping movie desktop backgrounds that peg most CPUs of the time, a couple of exclusive "Themes", a $50 game, and BitLocker--which was extremely pre-mature for the time. I seethed every month when I'd check for new "Extras", only to find none.

Forgot to mention--the DX10 issues were on the desktop machine and later found to be due to the nVidia GPU packaging issue--some of the BGA contacts weren't even connected to the PCB and shorting! New Video card fixed that issue!

No and to get around the driver issues until the manufacturers put them out, you could just use the XP ones for most things.

Vista was fine. The problem was that when Vista came out, it demanded completely new drivers, new hardware, etc. and for the most part the hardware that it came with was woefully inadequate. Pretty much all the points of contention for Vista was exactly the same for XP pre SP2.

Even with that bad perception, Windows 8 isn't anything like that whatsoever. It works better than Windows 7 did on the same hardware for the most part.

testman said,
Vista was fine. The problem was that when Vista came out, it demanded completely new drivers, new hardware, etc. and for the most part the hardware that it came with was woefully inadequate. Pretty much all the points of contention for Vista was exactly the same for XP pre SP2.

I actually found Vista pretty decent for drivers. I remember that I had a Bluetooth device that I couldn't get working with XP and yet with Vista it automatically connected online and installed the driver automatically - it was quite impressive.

testman said,
Even with that bad perception, Windows 8 isn't anything like that whatsoever. It works better than Windows 7 did on the same hardware for the most part.

Actually, I've had some significant issues with printer drivers and my soundcard had minor crackling and dropouts until the driver was updated. Pretty trivial in the grand scheme of things - and certainly better than the jump from Win9x to XP - but it's not a flawless experience.

john.smith_2084 said,
Yeh, just demands everyone stop using Windows and start using Full Screenox

Where exactly does Windows 8 "demand" you use full screen? Last time I checked, you didn't.

It was fine after some service packing and indeed I did warm to it after a year or so when some of the problems were ironed out - but the initial release was pretty terrible. I tried it on a bunch of hardware and it ran horrendously, thanks in no small part to great ideas like SuperFetch.

I think it's something that Microsoft seem to not give much thought to - they had gotten Windows XP to be a pretty sweet package because it'd been on the market so long.. it was well refined, everyone knew where they were with it - then they released Vista which was quite a different animal with very different requirements to Windows XP. It's no wonder it got a lukewarm reception.

It was a good foundation to work off though and I still think Windows 7 is the best version of Windows ever made.

Used it for five years... Had no issues with it. I was ecstatic to be able to ditch XP, and have never looked back since. XP was a pile of poo.

Nope, it wasn't. It was a little lacking in the Drivers department upon initial release, but that didn't take too long to sort out.

Never had a problem with it. Just one of those tech things people like to jump on the bandwagon and whine about because that's the perception.

Part of the problem with any new Windows release that gets bad press is that hardware vendors take the opportunity to blame any issues caused by poor drivers or firmware on Windows.

I had the privilege of being the tech support friend for several people with Dell machines around the time Vista came out and pretty much any issue that came up was blamed on Vista. "Surprisingly" these issues were later fixed with firmware and in a couple of occasions even hardware revisions.

Vista is a big reason why I'm glad that Microsoft is developing in-house items like the Surface. OEMs and developers really tanked that OS for them. "Vista Ready" was the phrase that OEMs used to push out computers barely meeting minimum specs. Nevermind the fact that proper video/sound card drivers weren't put out until months after release. For the vast majority, Vista ran like **** but after everything involved, I'm not surprised.

I also don't get the comment from the Samsung rep. Why would Windows 8 change the game if hardly any manufacturers (especially Samsung) are stepping their game up? Microsoft shouldn't be responsible for their success. Hell, it took them something like three of four years to finally put out an Android device that wasn't complete and utter ****.

Davo said,
Vista is a big reason why I'm glad that Microsoft is developing in-house items like the Surface. OEMs and developers really tanked that OS for them. "Vista Ready" was the phrase that OEMs used to push out computers barely meeting minimum specs. Nevermind the fact that proper video/sound card drivers weren't put out until months after release. For the vast majority, Vista ran like **** but after everything involved, I'm not surprised.

I also don't get the comment from the Samsung rep. Why would Windows 8 change the game if hardly any manufacturers (especially Samsung) are stepping their game up? Microsoft shouldn't be responsible for their success. Hell, it took them something like three of four years to finally put out an Android device that wasn't complete and utter ****.

Actually MS decided the requirements to have machine labeled Vista Capable and Vista,Ready...
Personally I never had, besides slow data transfer, performance issues but I had a top of the line box with two Nvidia cards and plenty of RAM.

It introduced a lot of new, immature technology to Windows - in this case in the operating system's core and it broke a lot of things. However once that codebase matured the result was excellent - Windows 7 and I seem to remember Vista being fine as well by SP2.

Windows 8 does much the same thing, it introduces a lot of new concepts at the surface-level of the OS and in doing so 'breaks' a lot of the experience, in terms of the consistency and robustness from people have come to expect. However I would expect a lot of this to get ironed out in 8+1. I wouldn't expect the Start menu back for example, or a major pull back from Metro - but I would expect the Start screen and Metro apps to improve and become a lot more refined.

Vista was bad for it's time.
by that I mean it was too heavy on the resources compare to the hardware at the time.
It was good progress, that ended by Vista 2.0 which called Windows 7.

Win XP was Ver 5.1
Win VIsta Was 6.0.
Win 7 Was 6.1
An 8.... 6.2.

So Vista was necessary. it was the base for MS's future OS's
(And yes I know about WinRT...)

That's true for some software.
but for microsoft, they have a reason.
take for example Windows phone 7.x build numbers.
they mean more than the marketing version itself.

valhalla_rk said,
That's true for some software.
but for microsoft, they have a reason.
take for example Windows phone 7.x build numbers.
they mean more than the marketing version itself.

The NT version numbers are marketing version numbers....

The Windows kernel version numbers are pretty irrelevant.

When MS went to version 6.0 with Vista it broke a lot of software compatibility, as some software (stupidly) checks the kernel version and if the kernel version is unknown, the software wont install. So since Vista, MS have purposely kept the kernel as 6.x in order for all software to work. MS have stated this themselfs.

Windows 8 probably had the biggest kernel changes since Vista but did not go to version 7.0 because of this. Windows Blue is already on kernel version 6.3. And Windows 9 will likely be 6.4 regardless oh how large the changes are under the hood.

At the time, I thought it was the best version of Windows to be released. Then again, the hardware I had was more than capable of handing the OS without breaking a sweat. While it wasn't my primary OS at the time (that was Mac OS then), it was what I used when I needed to use Windows. I dual booted and ran it on a VM on my MacBook Pro at work until a month or so after Windows 7's release.

Today, I run Windows 8 as my primary OS and have replaced my MacBook Pro with a Surface Pro for daily use both at home and at work.

No it wasn't, just people with crappy computers that couldn't handle it, having said that, it just needed more optimizations and a better marketing and hardware from major brands like HP, Dell, Sony...

daniel_rh said,
No it wasn't, just people with crappy computers that couldn't handle it, having said that, it just needed more optimizations and a better marketing and hardware from major brands like HP, Dell, Sony...

You kind of got it right there.

At the time of Vista's release, we were going through a stage in PC hardware when the majority of people were tipping to the side of having a 3d accelerated graphics card in their PC rather then relying upon the on-board chipset.
Back then, the on-board graphics cards were bad. You'd be lucky if you got any kind of OpenGL let alone DirectX 3D capabilities. Mostly they would be simply 2D accelerated.. and worst still, the majority of gaming 3d cards were still voodoo with a pass through when 3d kicked in, making them cards useless on the desktop.

With Vista however, Microsoft took the chance and tried to take advantage of the 3D cards so the CPU had less work to do. Great for higher end cards at the time, but for low end 3D cards, the system would struggle and, for the cheap machines that the likes of Dell, HP, Compaq etc were pumping out, they had '3D' onboard chipsets that used the CPU to power them in software mode. So it was actually worse then having a 2D card, and going back to the classic mode rather then Aero glass, even worse still, Microsoft allowed certification of these types of machines creating a boat load of cheap desktops that just performed really, really bad.

On top of that, we had driver issues as a lot of the leading hardware manufactures, including the likes of NVidia, ATI, and soundblaster for the most common hardware not release drivers on time and when they did they were bug ridden. If you were unfortunate enough to need to use a printer, good luck getting drivers for old hardware working for the lonest time.

Vista would have been a great OS, but it was simply release before its time, given a few more years and it might have faired better....

In fact, a few years in, and 3d cards were becoming standard and drivers were ready for most hardware, Microsoft had released service packs for issues and it was performing well as people upgraded their machines to make use of it (more ram for example)...
But, Windows 7 was just around the corner and the horror stories stayed with Vista for a long time, and it even scared people off from using Windows 7 for a short time on it's release..

I actually never had any issues with it.. I think it ran like crap on slower machines and did not work well.. if you had a fast computer with a lot of ram.. i think it ran fine..

And yes, I think Windows 8 will have the same fate as Windows Vista..
^My thoughts. I know 99% of this site has different thoughts..

Fus10n said,
I actually never had any issues with it.. I think it ran like crap on slower machines and did not work well.. if you had a fast computer with a lot of ram.. i think it ran fine..

And yes, I think Windows 8 will have the same fate as Windows Vista..
^My thoughts. I know 99% of this site has different thoughts..

Yeah, the same thing in my case. It was a memory hog with slow file transfers, but it worked perfectly fine after the proper drivers had arrived though.
Windows 8 is working perfectly out of the box for me and all 5 of my in house machines have been upgraded to Windows 8 Pro with WMC (for only €30 I didn't give it any second thought). My parents and myself have learned to use it and everything works like a charm!

Fus10n said,
I actually never had any issues with it.. I think it ran like crap on slower machines and did not work well.. if you had a fast computer with a lot of ram.. i think it ran fine..

And yes, I think Windows 8 will have the same fate as Windows Vista..
^My thoughts. I know 99% of this site has different thoughts..


I agree, though Windows Vista and Windows 8 have bad reputations for different reasons. With Windows Vista, Microsoft really did great work. They advanced the operating system far ahead of XP. Most of the "problems" that people had with it were due to the large amount of software and drivers (at the time) whose developers couldn't be bothered to keep them up to date. And then, people didn't understand the memory management changes, so they would look at the task manager and think it was using up all of their memory. And let's not forget UAC. It received so much hatred, and yet what it was doing was really good. When I launch a program, it should NOT be running with full admin access. I want to know when an application is trying to make a system chance, and UAC alerts me of that.

Windows 8, on the other hand... I will say, the "under the hood" changes were good. But the interface designers were seriously misled. Yeah, I know there's a lot of people here at Neowin who think Metro is the greatest thing since sliced bread. But look, we can't use this where I work. Just look at the simple things... How do you reboot or shutdown? How do you logoff? If you click a Metro app, how do you get back to the desktop? This will confuse the hell out of people, and we don't have time or the desire to train them on design changes that we think are nonsensical ourselves. With the latest Windows having interface changes this big, we are seriously looking at Linux as an alternative, and we already have some people using it. I would love to move them away from Microsoft Office anyways, because that's one licensing headache that I would like to be rid of.

Fus10n said,
if you had a fast computer with a lot of ram.. i think it ran fine..

The problem was you could buy a "Vista Capable" PC that came with 512mb of RAM. Which then causes Vista to thrash your hard drive.

RAM was not big problem by itself, real problem was integrated intel graphics which could not handle Aero so GUI worked without hardware acceleration.

RAM was definitely a problem though... but yes video was definitely an issue too.


Realistically, Vista was just ahead of it's time... The average computer during the time of it's release had 512mb of RAM, some still running 256... 1GB was above average and 2GB at the time was almost unheard of. The standards on computers had to go up and realistically Vista pushed them passed their limits. By the time 7 hit, most people were on 2-4GB of RAM.

Honestly. I liked Vista... and to this day people still call me crazy, but they just don't get it. When it came out, I had just built a new "awesome" gaming PC at the time which had 8GB of RAM (which was a TON of RAM back then.) I was so disappointed when I installed XP and found that only 4GB could be utilized. Having no other choice, I made the switch to Vista 64bit when it was released and realized it wasn't as ****ty as I had thought it was (first experience was on my laptop... which ran it like total crap). I quickly fell in love with the OS at the time and never went back.

Since that day, I have not owned a single new computer that I ever put XP back on. It's been Vista/7/8 ever since.

mDaWg said,
RAM was definitely a problem though... but yes video was definitely an issue too.


Realistically, Vista was just ahead of it's time... The average computer during the time of it's release had 512mb of RAM, some still running 256... 1GB was above average and 2GB at the time was almost unheard of. The standards on computers had to go up and realistically Vista pushed them passed their limits. By the time 7 hit, most people were on 2-4GB of RAM.

Honestly. I liked Vista... and to this day people still call me crazy, but they just don't get it. When it came out, I had just built a new "awesome" gaming PC at the time which had 8GB of RAM (which was a TON of RAM back then.) I was so disappointed when I installed XP and found that only 4GB could be utilized. Having no other choice, I made the switch to Vista 64bit when it was released and realized it wasn't as ****ty as I had thought it was (first experience was on my laptop... which ran it like total crap). I quickly fell in love with the OS at the time and never went back.

Since that day, I have not owned a single new computer that I ever put XP back on. It's been Vista/7/8 ever since.


Vista had its issues, partially because a rewrite of Windows and an entire redesign of user and driver space. And driver makers using old XP ways to let drivers work on Vista like many did times and times before with each windows upgrade. And indeed systems without a dual core, less then 2 GB of ram... Vista was absolutely horrible, and here is what most hatred came from. People buying cheap ass computers and excepting that Vista is like XP, it'll run semi-decent on anything with a CPU.

But what I wanted to say, XP is also 64bit. If it was upto MS, Windows would've been 64bit only since XP's release.

@Chugworth, Wow! Easy even without touch. “How do you reboot or shutdown?” Anywhere just move to lower right corner, one click on configuration, one click on shutdown; 2 clicks total, same as W7. “How do you logoff?” At Start Screen one click at your User on upper right, one click on Close Session; 2 clicks total, same as W7. “If you click a Metro app, how do you get back to the desktop?” Just move to upper left corner and if desktop was open you'll see it there, if not, lower right corner, one click at Start Screen, one click at Desktop.

Fus10n said,
I actually never had any issues with it.. I think it ran like crap on slower machines and did not work well.. if you had a fast computer with a lot of ram.. i think it ran fine..
^My thoughts. I know 99% of this site has different thoughts..

Amen to that, I recently re-installed Vista on a Dell with a 1.6G Core 2 duo and came with only 1GB of RAM. The thing still ran like a dog until I put Windows 7 on it, I think a lot of Vista's bad press was down to OEMs doing stupid things like this, although the fact Windows 7 runs better doesn't put Vista in a great light.

Fus10n said,
I actually never had any issues with it.. I think it ran like crap on slower machines and did not work well.. if you had a fast computer with a lot of ram.. i think it ran fine..

And yes, I think Windows 8 will have the same fate as Windows Vista..
^My thoughts. I know 99% of this site has different thoughts..

Same here mate, Vista was rock solid for me.