Weekend Poll: Were you a fan of Windows Vista?

It's that wonderful weekend time again, and yes that means we have another weekend poll for you guys as always.

Windows Vista represented one of the largest changes to Windows Microsoft ever undertook, both in terms of features and interface, however the end result was less than desirable. The new Aero interface did look great at the time, but it required many people still using older Windows XP machines to upgrade their PCs to experience it, and driver and compatibility issues plagued those who merely upgraded to the new OS.

For many people Windows Vista's deployment and experience was a failure, but that didn't stop a number of others from enjoying the new OS with minimal issues. So in today's weekend poll we're asking whether you were a fan of Windows Vista? Did you have problems making the switch from XP or was it a smooth ride? Or perhaps you had no problems but still didn't like it.

Vote away in the poll below and as always, leave your feedback in the comments section. Enjoy the rest of your break!

Poll

Were you a Windows Vista fan?

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

God of War IV advertisement spotted in South Africa

Next Story

Lumia 900 sold out temporarily at AT&T's online store

86 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Vista was the first time we saw Aero's debut, it was gorgeous, and I was so surprised to see how well Aero worked on my Geforce 7300GT, Pentium 4 with 1.5GB of ram. Worked like a charm on that Desktop.
On laptops however, Vista was a huge power hog and file indexing caused some serious hard drive trashing.

vista ran like a dream for me on my amd athlon x2 3800+ with 2gig ram, certainly much better than it did with XP and i never had driver problems or anything

I voted 'Yes, I had no problems with the OS' and this is just about spot on. I honestly didnt use it for that long (had it on a laptop only) because I continued to use XP on my desktop instead of upgrading to Vista. But for the most part I did not have any issues at all.

One thing that I "miss" from vista are the screen savers and desktop wallpapers. I think they were a nice collection.

To me there were to issues with Vista:

1) Before its release there were a lot of talks about intrusive DRM and output protection, even things like Widnows Media Player not playing DVDs on region-free drives. However most of these hurdles were circumvented by using 3rd party software. But this was enough for opinion makers to recommend consumers to stay away from Vista.

2) Upon its release Vista, had a terrible performance. Like taking 15 seconds to start notepad on a fresh new Vista installation (and more than capable hardware), file copy issues, etc. Most of these issues where "mitigated" with Service Pack 1.

I installed Vista in the end, but ONLY after SP1 was released.

I remember purchasing a brand new Asus F3Sv (Intel T7500) laptop. It shipped originally with the initial release of Windows Vista. I had so many problems with Vista, that I went out of my way and attempted to install Windows XP. Installing Windows XP (32 or 64) proved to be nearly impossible to accomplish without manually modding your BIOS (later Asus released a BIOS update which provided native support for older OSes; or you could have rolled your own XP CD with SATA support).

After the second Service Pack was released, I eventually switched back to Windows Vista. I have to say, it's gotten better, but it did take its time getting there. Fun times.

My parents still prefer Windows Vista over Windows 7, but that's only because of it's visual appearance, and the simple nature of the task bar.

I had a lot of problems with it, personally and professionally.
Windows 7 is by far, much smoother.

I had no problems whatsoever when I Windows Vista was installed on my desktop. To this day, for a general user like myself, Windows 7 feels like Windows Vista, a minor upgrade you could say.

I actually was neutral about it since WinXP was "faster", BUT for me Windows Vista is:

- The OS with the deepest transition ever created. MS can speak blabber about how Metro redefines the whole OS usage, but for me it doesn't.

Vista brought Aero, new cursors, Breadcrumb traveling, full left pane inter-operation, easy reinstall and restoration, the swap of the "Start button" for an orb, the search on the start menu, DirectX 10, snipping tool, a better Windows Media Center, game center, better power management, Graphical ALT-TAB, and the very basics for Windows 7 and Windows 8 (I can go on...)

- The OS which was smashed by OEMs by putting crapware that even on new PCs with GREAT hardware, you'd get a message saying: "X program has stopped working" at first boot (HP DV6t as an example)

- The OS which made my life more difficult to connect to a wireless network @_@ (WinXP were fewer clicks)

- The OS which FORCED everyone to put great hardware on the machines. If it wasn't for Vista we wouldn't have more RAM, processor frequency, and faster spin rates of HDD than we would have now because of the OS wouldn't demand as much.

B*tch please the more that I thought of Vista, the more I thought of it as an OS that brought real revolution on the desktop-computer world.

I ran Windows Vista from build 5112 right up to Windows 7 build 6801 came out. Never had a problem. It is interesting this came up because this is something I was discussing in class. Persons were complaining about Windows Vista and saying that Windows 7 is a completely different OS that is so much better and uses less resources. Considering that Systems back in 2007 that came to market with Windows Vista were never Vista capable to begin with. Come on, 512 MBs of RAM and a sempron processor? That is just ridiculous. A lot persons are misunderstanding that by the time Windows 7 was released, a lot of hardware came up to par with Vista's requirements, recommended amount of RAM and both Vista and Windows 7 used the same driver model, so transitioning would be much smoother.

Vista basically did all the hard work. It was a good OS and I still have it installed and will probably keep it around until 2017, don't see any issues with it.

tbh, I've never actually had a problem with Vista (although, granted, I have only one Vista laptop) and I must admit I found the new Aero concept to be quite sexy

Few problems I have with Vista are not things I experienced running Vista, but the whole debacle around it's development, release and subsequent marketing.

Receiving a reboot halfway through development with a lobotomized feature set.

All of the Kernel changes between Vista and 7. Windows 7 was designed for multi-core, Vista, not so much. Just listen to Arun Kishan talk about the work that went into Windows 7 Kernel.

Hardware vendors for not adding Windows futures to their own development roadmaps.

Initial RTM version had issues which were addressed by SP1. With Windows 8 that they've done a tremendous amount of work to ensure that doesn't happen again.

While Vista was better than what came before, those of us enthusiasts were hoping for more.

I liked it and my wife liked it. If I didn't receive a free copy of Windows 7 Ultimate, we'd still be running it her system..

I use any version of Windows and it works perfectly for me except Windows 2000 and lower. =D so it's all good.

Windows 3.1 = junk
Windows 95 = junk
Windows 98 = junk
Windows 2000 = junk
Windows XP = Good
Windows Vista = Better
Windows 7 = Great
Windows 8 = Awesome

So there are my experiences with Windows even though I never use any version below 2000.

I voted yes because I eventually liked it, but not at first.

I installed Vista the day of release on a 2nd partition, and on day 1 it was absolutely unusable. The nVidia drivers were terrible, my HD controller's drivers were incomplete, and there were numerous issues with Windows Explorer, crashes, slowdowns and general incompleteness.

I left it installed, but kept using XP, only booting to Vista every couple months to see if things improved with updates. 9 months later, enough driver and OS updates were released that it was finally a decent OS and I made the switch to using Vista full-time.

Vista's main problem was that it was rushed out the door before it, and the ecosystem, were ready. I think most people who hated it were those that tried it when it first came out, people who liked it probably held off for a year or so, and by then it was pretty good.

First impressions are important, and your first impression of Vista likely depends on when in its lifetime you tried it.

No, I had no issues but still didn't like it - if you're talking about RTM Vista. As for Longhorn 4074, (as you can imagine from my sig,) I liked it. I had some issues with Longhorn 4074, but most of them was stuff like the fact that I needed to install VM Guest Additions & other VM related issues...

I hated Vista. I never thought that Microsoft can flop as they did with Windows Me. Boy was I wrong. The OS was just incredibly laggy, even with 8GB RAM and a Quad Core 2 processor. Microsoft just sucks at releasing two good operating systems in a row. I'm staying away from Windows 8 because of that.

I didn't have any problems with Vista. On the otherhand I started with Vista on new hardware that had drivers. When I first tried the x64 version I did find that some of my hardware didn't have drivers.

I liked vista, I was influenced a bit by its bad press but it wasn't horrible. Compared to 7 it was a trash heap tho. I can't go back, but in the day it was ok. It's good they learned from vista to make 7 what it is today

I purchased my first laptop (from a XP desktop) in Feb 2007 only for Vista and am currently typing on it.
1. The Annoying Part of Vista - Completely disabled UAC, Indexing, replacing windows explorer with xplorer2 and now using Teracopy instead of slower windows copy have made my Vista machine no different from my spouse's win7. And Yes, had to get a new Webcam as Creative would not provide Drivers for my old one.
2. Graphics Card importance - As a PC gamer, I gave more importance to the Graphics Card and Graphics Memory than the CPU and RAM. I believe Intel kinda screwed up the Vista Experience for most users with pathetic onboard graphics and the Vista "Capable" disaster.
3. 64 bit - While my laptop came with 32 bit Vista, I moved to 64 bit Vista very soon (even though I originally had only 1 GB RAM - have 2 GB now) - Yes I know 64 bit makes sense only for 4GB or more RAM.
4. Anti-Virus - I have never used an AntiVirus since 2007 with Vista. Could be because the AV really slowed my machine. But I never really found the need for an AV since Vista.

I'm surprised with the results actually. I think it's right up there with ME. It was a heap of junk that I have finally got my housemates and parents off.

Nashy said,
I'm surprised with the results actually. I think it's right up there with ME. It was a heap of junk that I have finally got my housemates and parents off.

I'm not. This is exactly what I thought I would see. Not many smart people on this site or they are very forgiving of Microsoft.

My favorite part of vista hate is the same as my favorite part of trolling. "It sucks cause it sucks" and never anything specific to complain about.

UndergroundWire said,

I'm not. This is exactly what I thought I would see. Not many smart people on this site or they are very forgiving of Microsoft.

Invizibleyez said,
My favorite part of vista hate is the same as my favorite part of trolling. "It sucks cause it sucks" and never anything specific to complain about.

1) Software compatibility issues. In fact Microsoft had to release several updates before SP1 related to compatibility issues.
2) Windows Vista executed typical applications more slowly than Windows XP with the same hardware configuration (applies to 32-bit)
3) Mid range computers had serious performance issues. Even when SP1 was released, performance still suffered.
4) Copying, deleting and moving files operated a lot slower.
5) Games performed worse on Vista and even dropped frames.
6) Battery performance on laptops were horrible when compared to the Windows XP counterpart.

These are the ones I can think of for now but I'm sure more will pop up later. But out of curiousity, do you really believe it didn't suck? Or are you trying to be controversial? Have a pleasant day.

What software issues? did you have software that didn't work? I didn't
So some programs started a little slower? Well that just enrages me.
I have never run a machine anything faster than mid-range, and vista never felt slower to me
Yes there was a file transfer/copy/delete issue. But i guess a bug is not forgivable. They fixed it very quickly.
I personally played cs:s and never had an issue with performance at all. I read that it was supposedly slightly slower, but i didn't notice so i didn't care.
I actually heard vista battery performance was way better, never worse. I cannot say definitively because i didnt expeience vista on a laptop until sp1 was out already.
Yes, i am a fan of vista. Read my comments above and see.

UndergroundWire said,

1) Software compatibility issues. In fact Microsoft had to release several updates before SP1 related to compatibility issues.
2) Windows Vista executed typical applications more slowly than Windows XP with the same hardware configuration (applies to 32-bit)
3) Mid range computers had serious performance issues. Even when SP1 was released, performance still suffered.
4) Copying, deleting and moving files operated a lot slower.
5) Games performed worse on Vista and even dropped frames.
6) Battery performance on laptops were horrible when compared to the Windows XP counterpart.

These are the ones I can think of for now but I'm sure more will pop up later. But out of curiousity, do you really believe it didn't suck? Or are you trying to be controversial? Have a pleasant day.


Honestly? That's your response? You just proved my point. You didn't have problems, you just read somewhere about them.
1.) You have no clue what software doesn't work. You think you read somewhere that someone said they had a problem. Maybe in the Netherlands?
2.) Upgrades of most software throughout time demand more of the system it is installed on. If you cry about this, you better buy some tissues, there are many tears in your future.
3.) I don't think you even tried to answer my response.
4.) Yes I acknowledged that it was a problem. You do not need references.
5.) see answer 2.
6.) see answer 2.

If you expect upgrading an OS or any other software isn't going to demand more of your system, then you have very low expectations of what software can do. The usual reason for software to be updated is for it to become more powerful, more capable, more visually stimulating. Yes, this will run slower on the same computer when compared to the old software. Yes it will use more battery because it uses more power. You know if you run Dos 3.11 your battery will last very long. The computer is doing hardly anything. Want to go back to those days? And applications can load much faster in DOS because everything is free and available. But, lets blame vista.

Invizibleyez said,
...

No these were my issues I had. I only linked a few things I found to show you that this isn't some made up thing somebody is saying. But it is OK, I totally get it. You are very forgiving of Microsoft. That's cool (for you).

I am extremely happy with Windows 7. So far this is the best to date that Microsoft has come up with. I look forward to Windows 9. Luckily Windows 7 still has mainstream support. Luckily a lot of business adopted Windows 7 and it is unlikely they will upgrade to Windows 8. I'm hopeful because of this, it will push Microsoft for another Service Pack for Windows 7 to further extend the mainstream support of Windows 7. By then Microsoft will get its act together and get it right for Windows 9.

I may be very accepting or tolerant but I really didn't find much to forgive. I understand how you feel, and there are certainly alot who feel how you do. I just think Vista got a very bed rep when it really didn't deserve it. Yes, they did things that seem absurd or crazy. Yes they changed things dramatically. If Vista didn't exist 7 wouldn't be considered great. There are those who feel every other version of windows is crap. Those same people usually end up loving an almost identical OS to the one they love to hate. Everyone has their own way of judging things. I still use Vista today on my laptop and Desktop and really have no desire to get 7. I'm not sure how I will feel about 8, but somehow I don't think I will be as harsh as everyone else is. Sometimes to make something great requires the trying of some crazy ideas. I think 8 is that crazy idea. We will see how it turns out.

UndergroundWire said,

No these were my issues I had. I only linked a few things I found to show you that this isn't some made up thing somebody is saying. But it is OK, I totally get it. You are very forgiving of Microsoft. That's cool (for you).

I am extremely happy with Windows 7. So far this is the best to date that Microsoft has come up with. I look forward to Windows 9. Luckily Windows 7 still has mainstream support. Luckily a lot of business adopted Windows 7 and it is unlikely they will upgrade to Windows 8. I'm hopeful because of this, it will push Microsoft for another Service Pack for Windows 7 to further extend the mainstream support of Windows 7. By then Microsoft will get its act together and get it right for Windows 9.

Invizibleyez said,
...

It got better through time but it is nowhere near to what Windows 7 is. And I do agree that Windows 8 is a crazy idea (and they had to). I am not criticizing them for go a different route. I'm just criticizing this particular route. Like you said, the question is will people like it enough to upgrade to it?

The worst OS I have ever used. I skipped Me which might have taken 1st place if I did use it.

I'm using the same computer with W7, 10 times faster and more stable.

HoochieMamma said,
The worst OS I have ever used. I skipped Me which might have taken 1st place if I did use it.

I'm using the same computer with W7, 10 times faster and more stable.

Nope, even Me was better!!

I preferred Windows 95 over Vista!! Vista was a total POS from day one!! Just the windows updates dis-feature was/is a nightmare!!

I did not have any issues with ME and would never go back to 98SE once I started using it. I actually did not notice any difference between 98SE and ME as an end user. I disabled 'System Restore' though and would rather do a complete re-install rather than do a Restore. Well, I did not have any problems with Vista either. I am not a Windows Fanboy, But I must admit I am a little geeky and cannot work on older stuff when something new is already out (even if it is not popular).

still use Vista Ultimate SP2!!!! even though I have access to 7 and such, no problems whatsoever, starts faster than 7, and love the dreamscenes, lol

I wanted to share that the Windows Vista Home Premium machine I purchased in 2007 summer is still there with me & working as efficiently as ever. My average boot time is [still] less than 30 seconds for Desktop to appear [with an Admin password to type] even with Norton Internet Secuirty 2012 installed.
And all this show is run by basic hardware comprising Intel 945GM Express Chipset and Intel GMA 950 for graphics - the minimum possible hardware required to run aero. My processor is an ordinary dual-core Intel Pentium T2060 [Yonah] processor. I have 2GB of DDR2 RAM & my WEI score is 3.1.
Maybe because it was my 1st PC ever, I absolutely adored the OS. In these last 5 years, I had BSODs only 2 times [yes, that is not a typo], which was caused recently [last month to be precise] by Norton Internet Security 2012.

The ONLY problem with Windows Vista in the real world was lack of drivers & a fairly steep rise in hardware requirements. But as a matter of fact, those requirements have remained same in Windows 7 & may not change even with Windows 8!
It must be noted that this change made good hardware configurations SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper. The initially painful struggle with drivers & app compatibility actually laid the foundation for the success of Windows 7.

I will further add, that the most serious problem with Windows Vista was from the free world - people writing negative 'reviews' for an OS they never, ever used.

MOST of my acquaintences who used Vista never had much of complaints & one huge difference with XP was, that it reinvented secuirty in Windows PCs. I am now an IT Pro, & I know only too well, what that means! Additionally, Windows Vista was rather popular in my country - India.
I still wish that Microsoft had released a SP3 for it. A update rollup later must be released. On a personal level, I have mitigated the problem of installing so many updates since SP2 almost completely by imaging my partition. I restore it from time to time & add the new updates & take a fresh image! It sounds cumbersome, but its actually easier than a second option.

Bottomline: Even today, I cherish using my ageing laptop & is the one I am posting this from! I see myself using this PC for atleast till 2015 or when the machine dies [whichever is earlier].

it is ok , had some serious driver issues with Nvidia 6800GTS driver at that time ,resloved after few month from Vista RTW

Well it's all relative. Compared to Windows 8, Vista feels a million times better. And it did look gorgeous although it worked like crap because of missing features and stupid changes.

I felt it was an improvement over XP and on a good machine actually seemed to run a bit faster too after SP1. Its drawback was that it brought nothing new on the UI front so it was more like XP 1.5, meaning a ****, awkward to use operating system. Win7 brought much needed UI improvements making it a rather decent if not enjoyable OS.

BigCheese said,
The problem with vista was that it was slower than XP and didn't really offer any benefits.

Maybe not at simple sight or straightforwardness. But in OS installation, file search, oh boy, that really felt like an upgrade!

only problem i had was creative not supporting my audigy sound card, after that i stopped using creative products...

Ran it on bootcamp on my macbook pro when it first came out, and it was terrible. The file transfer speeds would bring my $2000 (with $1000 worth of hardware and $1000 worth of design ) to its knees. A few years later and a service pack of two it wasn't bad, but by that time Windows 7 was out and I had moved on.

The only issue I had was multi tasking. It seemed to handle one thing with no problem but if you started to do something else with a different program it was painfully slow. Overall, very good.

Ran it as primary OS from public beta, worked good as XP even on my crummy Acer Aspire 3000 Laptop. Only had one driver that wasn't included in the beta package but was on Windows Update. No more problems then any other version of Windows has given me.

I ran the BETA and RC1 and had minimal issues. The expected things like the printer not having a driver etc. I think most of that was the fact I was going into x64 territory for the first time. With 7 we could always use the Vista x64 driver.

I went back to XP for a year and rejoined the Vista crowd a year later when Vista was available as part of a student deal. I really felt SP1 though.

Never had any major problems with Vista, besides the fact I had to replace my M-Audio soundcard for about a year until they released a proper driver.

When I first tried it on my Athlon 64, even scrolling graphic-heavy webpages had a certain lag to it, whether on Firefox or IE (there was no Chrome then). So I stuck to XP.

Two years later, when I upgraded to Core 2 Duo, I thought I'd give it a try, and installed Vista SP2. Had no complaints about it, it ran pretty smoothly. I was a BETA tester by the way, so I was given Vista Ultimate for free.

To me Windows 7 felt the same to me under the Core 2 Duo. I think I wouldn't have upgraded until much later if I wasn't BETA testing Windows 7 as well.

I had no issues from the start and it just improved with the service packs. The several machines that I did install it on for my family, my daughter still has it on her laptop - it came with it installed and she has found no compelling reason to change, it ran perfectly fine.

I sort of missed XP at the time but I assume that could have been because I was using it for so long before MS brought out its intended replacement.

i still feel vista was quite solid and stable in terms of look and usage (i know many people don't agree, but with SP1 and above , it became super stable)

even the windows 7 doesn't "look" as stable , maybe its just me , or the extra glass which makes me feel its delicate

I liked Vista but it was very unstable. A LOT of "not responding" over many many different experiences on many machines. And when you right clicked on the start menu to get to explorer it buried you balls deep into the folder structure.

No yes and no no for me. In the main Vista worked withpout Problems on my computers. But Vista was ugly, the performance was not the best, Aero was not love at first sight and I still hate the "new" Network and Sharing Center.

i can say i was one of those who was excited for vista and actually bought a new machine for it only to find out it was not actually "ready for vista". i'd like to take this opportunity to thank Black Viper.

http://www.blackviper.com/

for making the experience with vista easier. without him i'd have gone nuts.

I actually loved Vista. While it did have it's issue with memory and aero. I didn't like UAC and I still don't in Windows 7. Vista was better than Windows XP would ever be.

I never had any hardware issues with it.

I still primarily use Vista and yes I have tried windows 7. My wifes laptop runs windows 7, and I personally prefer Vista because it comes with more things like movie maker that I actually use. To charge the same price for a watered down vista with a new name seems like a ripoff to me. Windows 7 and Windows Vista SP2 are virtually the same and I see no benefit at all to using windows 7. This, I believe, makes me a fan of Vista.

Tom said,
There were fans of vista?

Never really had any technical problems with Vista, but I still yearned to get rid of it when all the positive things about Windows 7 started seeping through the rumour mill.

Once driver support started to catch up, and service pack 2 came out, and you disabled the search indexer, and disabled UAC, it was very much like windows 7

I had the NVidia 5950 Ultra which was the only 5xxx generation card that worked with Aero at the time, no complaints here

Neobond said,
I had the NVidia 5950 Ultra which was the only 5xxx generation card that worked with Aero at the time, no complaints here
Im still using my nVidia FX 5900! Not only it worked with Vista it also worked with 7 and now 8.
Its a shame that Windows thinks its a bad card and doesnt allow to use this card for hardware acceleration in IE.

Neobond said,
I had the NVidia 5950 Ultra which was the only 5xxx generation card that worked with Aero at the time, no complaints here

I had a fx5200 n aero was smooth as butter also I had only a single core CPU n 1gb ram

I absolutely loved Windows Vista - never had a single problem with it, even when I had it installed on a Pentium 4 @ 2.8GHz (though admittedly, the performance wasn't great on that hardware, but it was to be expected), and when I ran it on a Core2 Duo or a Core2 Quad, it ran perfectly fine.

I guess the biggest reason I had no problems is because I had no "out of the ordinary" hardware, I mainly used simple, generic hardware, or hardware that came out after Vista and had the necessary drivers...

Used Vista since it was released and up until Windows 7 came out. Never had one problem. Only people who bitched about it were those who didnt have the hardware to support it but went ahead and installed it and tried to use it anyway. At least thats all I saw. Yes, driver support was poor to begin with but that was resolved soon after.

Let's not forget bloatware and crapware. Even a core 2 duo laptop with 2 GB ram was bottlenecked by all those crappy programs.

But I also guess the the majority of people blame Microsoft for the fact that other 'vendors' didn't release Windows 7 drivers (see my HP scanner and Chasethebase's camera drivers).

kiddingguy said,
But I also guess the the majority of people blame Microsoft for the fact that other 'vendors' didn't release Windows 7 drivers (see my HP scanner and Chasethebase's camera drivers).

I guess Vista was partly their fault. They got it right with Win7 (and now 8) by involving the public to beta test the many iterations of their product. They easily exposed the OS to way more hardware variety than what they've got in their testing lab. The masses are then involved in either reporting bugs, or pressuring hardware vendors to release proper drivers. (and we quickly find out that crappy vendors like HP and Creative doesn't care about their customers..)

Sinofsky for CEO!

If you look carefully, and I mean you really actually have to pay attention, you will notice that 99% of drivers out for windows 7 are actually identical to the drivers for windows vista. So did Windows 7 fix a problem? No, Vista fixed the problem, and 7 got praised for the result.

GreenMartian said,

I guess Vista was partly their fault. They got it right with Win7 (and now 8) by involving the public to beta test the many iterations of their product. They easily exposed the OS to way more hardware variety than what they've got in their testing lab. The masses are then involved in either reporting bugs, or pressuring hardware vendors to release proper drivers. (and we quickly find out that crappy vendors like HP and Creative doesn't care about their customers..)

Sinofsky for CEO!

I had no problems with Vista, only problem with my current laptop is regardless of OS the camera drivers won't install, but that's Creative's fault *grumble grumble*

Windows Vista was okay as long as you had recent hardware. Not the crappy stuff from early 2000.
Maybe it's partly MS fault by having a huge periode between XP and Vista and didn't communicate the differences is hardware requirements.

I personally had no issues with Windows Vista, besides a replacement of my scanner due to the fact that HP wouldn't release a driver.

kiddingguy said,
Windows Vista was okay as long as you had recent hardware. Not the crappy stuff from early 2000.
Maybe it's partly MS fault by having a huge periode between XP and Vista and didn't communicate the differences is hardware requirements.

I personally had no issues with Windows Vista, besides a replacement of my scanner due to the fact that HP wouldn't release a driver.

The Windows Vista capable stickers certainly didn't help.

kiddingguy said,
Windows Vista was okay as long as you had recent hardware. Not the crappy stuff from early 2000.
Maybe it's partly MS fault by having a huge periode between XP and Vista and didn't communicate the differences is hardware requirements.

I personally had no issues with Windows Vista, besides a replacement of my scanner due to the fact that HP wouldn't release a driver.

My experience is the opposite. I had a system from 2003 that XP ran crappy on and Vista ran like a dream.

DJ Dark said,
My experience is the opposite. I had a system from 2003 that XP ran crappy on and Vista ran like a dream.

I had the exact same thing. Built a new computer right before vista launch and XP ran like it was on my old computer, when I upgraded to Vista it ran like I built a new computer.

dagamer34 said,

The Windows Vista capable stickers certainly didn't help.


This yea, I'm guessing they were pushed in to lying about the minimum specs by OEMs...
That said, while Vista was pretty great and without a doubt a big step up from XP it was far from optimized as proved by 7, vista could barely be run on the first generation of netbooks (full Ram and CPU on the Aspire One I've tried with) while 7 runs better on them than XP does