Vista: One Year Later

One year ago today, Microsoft released Windows Vista to manufacturing. In the obligatory anniversary post we ask: Was it ready? Will it ever be ready? The answer to the first question is an emphatic "no." Vista wasn't ready. Hardware manufacturers and software developers weren't ready for it. The channel and enterprises weren't ready, and consumers couldn't get it because Vista missed holiday 2006.

Microsoft promised WOW, but the reaction was, "What?" What is different from Windows XP? What is wrong with the hardware requirements? What is the difference between "Capable" and "Ready?" What is this Software Assurance requirement for Vista Enterprise? What happened to the familiarity of Windows XP? What is wrong with my Vista applications and hardware? More recently the "W" question is "When?"--as in when will Microsoft release Vista Service Pack 1?

View: The full story @ MS-Watch

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft: Just a pair of security updates coming next week

Next Story

Asustek to push desktop version Eee PC next year


Commenting is disabled on this article.

I've been running Vista dual-boot since the day it was released, and at the time Vista was a horrible mess. Drivers were either nonexistent or nonfunctional, and many of the most important software packages weren't compatible. Not to mention things like the file copy bug, media center errors, network problems, etc...

But things have changed in the last few months. New drivers are out, software's been updated, and Microsoft has released 5 "fix packs" to fix most of the problems with Vista itself. In fact, things are running smoothly enough that back in August I went ahead and wiped XP off my main machine and switched to Vista x64 and never looked back.

I'm pretty happy with Vista right now, and I'm looking forward to SP1 to make it the OS it should have been in the first place...

Vista ran pretty poorly on my single core PC. It just felt slow. The HDD trashing was annoying, more so when playing games.

I've not upgraded to a Quad Core system 2Gb RAM. Vista still thrashing away but now I can ignore it. I'm actually happy with it. I will be glad though to see SP1, hopefully this will get the ball rolling and tempt me into recommending Vista systems to my customers.

I am a Mac user, but I run Vista via BootCamp and I don't have a single problem with it. Runs really fast and games run great. I don't understand why I hear so much about how bad it is.

I'll probably give it until next year summer until I get onto the Vista boat. Only because I don't want to have upgrade my PC. Gonna get a laptop =)

í´ve upgraded to Vista and i´m glad ...A few notes about high demanding processor but i hope they will fix it with sp1...above all i´m quite satisfied with vista

sisiphus said,
í´ve upgraded to Vista and i´m glad ...A few notes about high demanding processor but i hope they will fix it with sp1...above all i´m quite satisfied with vista

It's NOT about the processor anymore, IT'S THE MEMORY. Vista is a memory whore and that's how I like it.

i have been using vista for more than 1 month now...overall, im happy with's much more stable...interface has improved...
but still, i expect more since it has been 6 years already...

On my side, I'm still running Windows XP, and I'm in transition to Ubuntu. I'm not playing games as much as before, so using Ubuntu as a work environment is pretty fitting my needs.

On top of it, creating themes for Metacity is pretty easy when you get it. PNGs are so much easier to work with than editing Microsoft prioprietary themes.

WOW what a disappointment that you would post such flamebait on the front page. This is not news of any kinda. The same things were said about XP. Please remove this.

In that case you didn't read the full article along with the editor's note in the end too.

It looks back historically at Vista and will (later today) have another part to it added on how the outlook for SP1 could be more positive.

I think it's a pretty fair article. Vista hardware support in the start was junk, compatibility was junk, and people didn't understand what was so good about it because MS hadn't communicated that well enough. And no, XP wasn't quite as bad, but that has to do with it not being an as major update to 2000.

Some say that Vista is bad because people do not have the latest hardware. I'm not sure that's true. I bought a new IBM laptop that has Mobile Intel® PM965 Express Chipset. It is the latest, best chipset of Intel. But, my laptop loads up slower and my applications run slower on Vista than it does on XP. Now why is that?

Funny I have an Intel D865GBF Desktop board and Intel P4HT @ 3.0GHz and Vista runs a hell of alot faster then XP did on this system.

bobbba said,
since when has the chipset been a significant factor in performance :rolleyes:

Why wouldn't the chipset play a significant factor? The Southbridge handles all your IO, and the northbridge (for intel chipsets) does all the memory work. The chipset is a KEY PART of performence. Bad motherboard drivers would make your stuff run slow or unstable even if it's newer and expensive.

I think sum talk bad about Vista is because it took microsoft 6 years to make.. if i recall Vista was being worked on a few months before XP came out and was in alpha stage at that time..

so 6+ years and all they could come up with is what you see in Vista.. what a shame.. and they still could not add the stuff that they wanted to add. that even more of a shame.. what was Microsoft doing for 6 years+ years??

As is what happened with Windows XP when it first came out, Vista is suffering the same now and will until enough people are using it.

XP was poorly received, overall, and thought of as a stable but bloated system. It took a long time to adopt, had a stupid colorful interface, and added features all around that nobody uses. Users were annoyed because their computers weren't powerful enough, at the time, to run XP. But when they later upgraded everything worked well.

Vista has been poorly received, overall, and thought of a stable but bloated system. It's been adopted faster than XP. It has a better looking, less stupid colorful interface, that is highly demanding of weaker systems, and adds feathers that nobody will ever use. Users are annoyed because, like when the upgraded to XP, their computers aren't powerful enough to run Vista (but they forgot that part about XP because it was so long ago and they've already upgraded a few times since then).

The general reaction to Vista has been almost the same the reaction XP when it was released. However, nobody acknowledges the similarities. They all go on bashing Vista with the same arguments they had against XP 6 years ago.

You know what? In 2 years these same people will be talking about Vista as if there was nothing else, and when Windows 7 releases they will again start their irritating, hypocritical, trade against it.

I've been saying this also. It's just history repeating itself. The same can also be said with regards to Windows 2000 back when it first came out and lacked support and good drivers.

MS is making core changes to the OS which are for the better, you just have to give this process time. And it will break older things, but that is a must if you want it to be more stable and more secure.

I agree, and just like XP I think Vista needs a service pack before we can start recommending it to people, I for one am doing just that.

XP was no where near as bad as Vista is when it first came out. Not by a long shot. Some here have a very selective memory and don't want to upset their god M$.

Foub said,
XP was no where near as bad as Vista is when it first came out. Not by a long shot.

It wasn't?? Sorry but it was..

Remember XP came out in 2001 ( it's more than 6 years old ), and i remember seeing the same story's, over and over again...

Okay okay, I absolutely detest Vista, and have done since I first saw it, but even I am getting bored of reading how it isn't as popular as {insert preferred product}, or how it fails on x, y, or z. We get it already.

i tried it for 3 months over the summer and im now back to windows xp and most likely will be until Windows 7

Rudy said,
i tried it for 3 months over the summer and im now back to windows xp and most likely will be until Windows 7

Unless they screw that up as well

TCLN Ryster said,
What specifically did you not like about it?

erm most likely the things that are already mentioned in the article above, have a read.