Why Vista is So hated, and Why 7 is doing mcuh better.

By Inertia
in Microsoft (Windows)

 Share

Recommended Posts

Veteran

Frylock86

Posted
Posted
What kind of idiot accepts expensive buggy products? How fast you got a fix for "Not remembering folder view settings" bug? Thanks to people like you MS will do it again and again.

Expensive buggy products describes every single technology product on the market.

That's not an excuse not to install updates.

Grand Master

Subject Delta

Posted
Posted
I'm going to hazard a guess here, you have a mac. So all I can say here is, Snow Leopard. That should sum it up.

Also, programmers are human. There is no possible way for microsoft to test windows on every system out there. Even people with the exact same hardware will notice things sometimes run a bit differently on their respective computers.

So yes it had a file copy bug, but they fixed it shortly after the initial release.

Actually CuCumber runs OSX on a normal PC, he just likes to troll Windows threads because he has nothing better to do.

For me, Microsoft screwed up with Vista by changing the code base so far into the project, which meant that the end result was a product that was behind schedule, but still rushed, and had a lot of the original killer features cut because of time and development constraints. There is little doubt that Vista was hit or miss for a lot of people, and upon initial release it was rather buggy to say the least, personally I found the X86 SP0 edition of Vista to be reasonably stable, but the X64 version seemed really bad (on the same hardware I might add), but the release of SP1 fixed most of the major issues, and with SP2 it is now a perfectly good and stable OS, I personally never suffered as many other issues with it as some other people did, but I will admit that I feel it was rushed a bit, and not quiet at RTM quality when it was released.

Windows 7 represents a maturation of the Windows Vista code (as it probably shares 85-90% of Vista's code anyway) that is 3 years overdue in my opinion, and for the fact that it has exactly the same features as Vista, it performs far better on low end hardware.

Windows Vista however, in my opinion is now however still a very good and usable OS, but I don't really think that it will ever recover from the bashing it took, and my personal opinion is that the vast majority of Vista users will move over to Windows 7 quickly, and that Vista use will dive in the next 1-2 years probably even below Linux and OSX

Grand Master

Calum Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

I think I agree with the sentiment that Windows Vista was released at a time when not everybody could afford to buy hardware which it worked well on. I bought a laptop a few days after Vista was released and it cost quite a bit; it housed 1GB RAM and Vista was quite slow at times. Around 2 years after, I got a computer with 2GB RAM and Vista ran smoothly. During those 2 years, it did become faster, quite shortly after I'd bought it, but the slow speed at first was quite noticeable.

However, Vista was a great operating system from the get-go, if you had the hardware to support it.

The many improvements over XP were enough for me to switch, despite a few performance issues.

Grand Master

Subject Delta

Posted
Posted

To be fair, the whole "Vista Capable" fiasco didn't help either, it just meant that Microsoft allowed OEM's to sell Vista on machines that where in reality grossly underpowered for even the home basic version with none of the 3D graphics support, so it is quiet easy to see why it got such a poor reception, as bargain basement machines actually account for quiet a high portion of sales.

I remember a friend of mine payed ?300 for a laptop with Vista Home Basic on it, had 512mb of ram and a really weak CPU, it was so sluggish it was unreal, it took about 3 minutes to boot to a usable desktop, and sometimes even photos took 30 seconds or more to open. My own HP laptop which only costs about ?100 more is light years ahead of her machine, and I essentially told her that she wasted her money, sadly too many people these days rush into purchases without really knowing what they are getting.

Hopefully Microsoft will learn from that and impose more restrictions on what is needed to achieve "Product x Capable" certification in future.

Veteran

Frylock86

Posted
Posted (edited)

^^^ There is no way you just put XP above Win 7...

I think I agree with the sentiment that Windows Vista was released at a time when not everybody could afford to buy hardware which it worked well on. I bought a laptop a few days after Vista was released and it cost quite a bit; it housed 1GB RAM and Vista was quite slow at times. Around 2 years after, I got a computer with 2GB RAM and Vista ran smoothly. During those 2 years, it did become faster, quite shortly after I'd bought it, but the slow speed at first was quite noticeable.

However, Vista was a great operating system from the get-go, if you had the hardware to support it.

The many improvements over XP were enough for me to switch, despite a few performance issues.

Anyway, well put.

Edited by Frylock86
Enthusiast

Donkey88

Posted
Posted
To be fair, the whole "Vista Capable" fiasco didn't help either, it just meant that Microsoft allowed OEM's to sell Vista on machines that where in reality grossly underpowered for even the home basic version with none of the 3D graphics support, so it is quiet easy to see why it got such a poor reception, as bargain basement machines actually account for quiet a high portion of sales.

This is spot on. Vista Home Basic should not have been allowed to carry the Vista Capable marketing. The Home Basic edition was just such a non starter in everyway I'm surprised it ever existed.

For what it's worth, I thought Vista was quite good. It was never given a fair chance. Computers that were too underpowered to run it gave it a bad rep, the lack of drivers for far too long caused issues, and the fact that 7 just does everything better means it'll be just be behind ME in "things we'd rather forget".

Grand Master

Subject Delta

Posted
Posted
This is spot on. Vista Home Basic should not have been allowed to carry the Vista Capable marketing. The Home Basic edition was just such a non starter in everyway I'm surprised it ever existed.

For what it's worth, I thought Vista was quite good. It was never given a fair chance. Computers that were too underpowered to run it gave it a bad rep, the lack of drivers for far too long caused issues, and the fact that 7 just does everything better means it'll be just be behind ME in "things we'd rather forget".

Its not just whether the Home Basic version should have been included, some computers I have seen have been so slow that they shouldn't have been running Vista at all, they simply set the hardware bar far too low

All the fanboyism in the world will never make a lie become truth, just type "vista sucks" into google and watch the mighty search engine come to a crawl...

The problem with the Internet is that uninformed opinions borne out of FUD still show up on search engines, making them an unreliable source of data. You can find a massive amount of links on the web for people having all sorts of problems with Linux, but would it be fair to draw the conclusion that Linux sucks because of that? of course it wouldn't.

Grand Master

Roger H. Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
All the fanboyism in the world will never make a lie become truth, just type "vista sucks" into google and watch the mighty search engine come to a crawl...

Misery likes company and don't believe everything you read. According your theory - Windows 7 sucks MORE than anything else out there currently.

post-698-1262053012.png

I was running Vista on a Thinkpad T42 1.8Ghz Pentium M with 2GB of RAM and it was more than good enough for me and i wouldn't even touch XP on that system. The simple fact that upon installing a slipstreamed Sp3 XP Pro - it still didn't have drivers for half the devices in it. To ME that just says this software is not designed for todays hardware.

Grand Master

Mr. Gibs

Posted
Posted
To be fair, the whole "Vista Capable" fiasco didn't help either, it just meant that Microsoft allowed OEM's to sell Vista on machines that where in reality grossly underpowered for even the home basic version with none of the 3D graphics support, so it is quiet easy to see why it got such a poor reception, as bargain basement machines actually account for quiet a high portion of sales.

That's debatable tbh. I know it turned out to be a whole mess, but it really depends on how you read the word capable.

Capable means that it can do something, but it doesn't mean it can that thing really well or be the best at it. (If that makes any sense). For example, my car is capable of going off-road, but that doesn't mean it's good at doing it.

Mentor

wellofsouls

Posted
Posted
i love how no one remembers how crappy XP was when it was first released. people wouldnt leave their beloved Windows 98SE.

no one remembers all the threads about gaming on XP vs 98? OMG 98 IS SO MUCH FASTER FOR GAMING.

people hate vista today b/c theyre misinformed. "what do you mean i cant run vista on my machine i bought from HP in 2001?"

I don't think people hate it because they are "misinformed", but more about the OS itself ahead of its time. It's always a problem when some software is "too advanced" that it's ahead of its time, so that there's poor hardware and driver support.

Yes I do remember how XP sucked when it first came out, that's why I only installed XP one year after its release, and only switched to use XP full time two years after its release (for the year between, I just dual boot and still mainly use 98SE). And I only switched to NTFS another year later. And I was an early adopter among my peers. XP and NTFS just sucked for most gamers at that time, I still remember the time when games loading with FAT32 would be twice faster than NTFS.

Vista is not so lucky in that now 7 is out in less than three years, so most people won't need to switch to Vista at all.

Grand Master

redvamp128

Posted
Posted (edited)
That's debatable tbh. I know it turned out to be a whole mess, but it really depends on how you read the word capable.

Capable means that it can do something, but it doesn't mean it can that thing really well or be the best at it. (If that makes any sense). For example, my car is capable of going off-road, but that doesn't mean it's good at doing it.

I think you have a point about capable (does not necessarily mean it can run it good)

I think a lot of the reason Vista was so hated- is kind of like when XP first came out.

It was so much of a change to what people were used to.

You take some one who was used to Windows 98 and the layout of the start menu and the one on Xp would just make that person a little bit of confused. Though after a while as people get used to it that becomes the normal.

Vista on the other hand was so much of a change over XP that people found it difficult at first to be used.

People are now used to the way Vista operates now, and Windows 7 is similar so not much of a change there.

That and to be honest when Vista first came out a lot of the drivers just were not up to par, and it was very much a resource hog, until service pack 1. Then as drivers became more and more stable Vista became more friendly towards the user.

And also to be honest - I remember a lot of users finding win95 a bit of a hassle because they were used to windows 3.1 and everything being inside a window on the desktop and they hated having to look in a "start menu" to find their programs.

Edited by redvamp128
Grand Master

Xerxes

Posted
Posted
Is it normal to you that an expensive OS is crappy when it's new? :x

Selective memory much? XP was no better till SP2 was released, people seem to conveniently forget that and I'm pretty sure Win95/98 were also the same. Vista bulldozed the way for 7, since 7 is no more then an optimized version of Vista and fully compatible with Vista drivers of cause it's going to have less problems.

Veteran

toadeater

Posted
Posted
MS should not have released such a buggy public beta of Vista.

Vista was the remains of Longhorn. It was like five years late. MS had to release something, so they released what they managed to complete in two years after the Longhorn meltdown. It's no surprise it came out so bad, it didn't take seven years to make, the kernel, tcp/ip stack, new driver model, and new DX took that long, but the client part and the GUI had to be redone in about two years. It was a last-minute hack-job, and they've been trying to fix it ever since.

Community Regular

Tim the Enchanter

Posted
Posted

I've used Vista for the longest time till win 7 RC was out, absolutely loved it, never understood where all the hate was coming from. Using windows 7 now, but definitely had a positive experience with Vista.

Grand Master

soldier1st

Posted
Posted

xp was terrible until sp1 as i know i used it and i went back to windows 2000 but after sp1 hit and xp was stable i switched but for the rest it took time to ween them off of windows 2000 and there still on xp as it just works good for them and Vista my gawd boy was it terrible at first but i did manage to find workarounds for apps that didnt work but then when 7 came out and i tested it and i said wow 7 is here and goodbye Terrible Vista SP2 but of course a new os will always have growing pains till it matures and it adopted more and accepted more.

Enthusiast

CuCumber

Posted
Posted
Selective memory much? XP was no better till SP2 was released, people seem to conveniently forget that and I'm pretty sure Win95/98 were also the same.

Which is why I asked why is it acceptable. XP sucked so it is OK that Vista was released unfinished?

Hi I paid $$$ for my OS and it sucks, but I'll just wait patiently and it'll slowly get better. I'm so happy.

Isn't it about time that MS actually starts working for their money? I've no idea why sheep consumers defend them. If they've no idea what to do, start from here:

http://www.windows7taskforce.com/

Grand Master

Scorbing

Posted
Posted

I say Vista sucked because when I had Vista on my PC I had nothing but problems. Explorer crashing for no damn reason at random times, Recycle Bin freezing while deleting the contents, laggy GUI performance - even with the latest drivers - nothing. Just one headache after the other, not to mention horrible game performance.

Windows 7 is a totally different world. It simply works. I have had absolutely no issues with Windows 7. Not one, and you Vista fanboys have the nerve to come up and say that there was nothing wrong with Vista?

Get real.

Guest xiphi

Posted
Posted
Which is why I asked why is it acceptable. XP sucked so it is OK that Vista was released unfinished?

Hi I paid $$$ for my OS and it sucks, but I'll just wait patiently and it'll slowly get better. I'm so happy.

Isn't it about time that MS actually starts working for their money? I've no idea why sheep consumers defend them. If they've no idea what to do, start from here:

http://www.windows7taskforce.com/

http://www.aquataskforce.com/ Again, what's your point?

I say Vista sucked because when I had Vista on my PC I had nothing but problems. Explorer crashing for no damn reason at random times, Recycle Bin freezing while deleting the contents, laggy GUI performance - even with the latest drivers - nothing. Just one headache after the other, not to mention horrible game performance.

Windows 7 is a totally different world. It simply works. I have had absolutely no issues with Windows 7. Not one, and you Vista fanboys have the nerve to come up and say that there was nothing wrong with Vista?

Get real.

Ok, I'll get real. I had absolutely no one problem with Vista. No laggy performance, no freezing, no random explorer crashing. Everything was great, even the gaming performance. Am I a Vista fanboy for keeping it real, even though I'm on 7 now?

Grand Master

Mr. Gibs

Posted
Posted
Which is why I asked why is it acceptable. XP sucked so it is OK that Vista was released unfinished?

Hi I paid $$$ for my OS and it sucks, but I'll just wait patiently and it'll slowly get better. I'm so happy.

Define unfinished, yes Vista didn't ship with some of the features it was supposed to have but that was due to time constraints and companies like nvidia and intel pressuring microsoft to get Vista out the door asap. Also according to you, Microsoft should be able to test windows out on every single system out there. Which is not only unrealistic, but also absurd.

Isn't it about time that MS actually starts working for their money? I've no idea why sheep consumers defend them. If they've no idea what to do, start from here:

http://www.windows7taskforce.com/

Hahha windows7taskforce. A good amount of suggestions for that site are retarded. Stuff that you really won't make out at all, unless you were so anal about it that you would spend your day staring at pixels on your screen. That said, however, there are a few good suggestions there.

I say Vista sucked because when I had Vista on my PC I had nothing but problems. Explorer crashing for no damn reason at random times, Recycle Bin freezing while deleting the contents, laggy GUI performance - even with the latest drivers - nothing. Just one headache after the other, not to mention horrible game performance.

So 50% of the issues you experienced, were thanks to ****ty graphic drivers. The windows explorer crashing was linked to some 3rd party software that used context menus in an incompatible way, yet again not Microsoft's fault as the apis for windows explorer are well documented. And also what do you mean by "recycle bin freezing"?

Windows 7 is a totally different world. It simply works. I have had absolutely no issues with Windows 7. Not one, and you Vista fanboys have the nerve to come up and say that there was nothing wrong with Vista?

I never had any problems with Vista, none of the ones you mentioned either. Yes nVidia took forever to come out with good drivers, but that wasn't Microsofts fault.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.