What was so "Bad" about Windows Vista?

Discussion in 'Operating Systems' started by pimp_gimp, Sep 29, 2009.

  1. pimp_gimp

    pimp_gimp Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,658
    Likes Received:
    44
    GPU:
    RTX 2080 Super SLI
    As the Windows 7 release is just around the corner, I have noticed a few websites going back and doing what has happened for 2 yrs, trashing vista, calling it a "trainwreck", etc. Honestly I never had an issue with the OS, even when it was 1st released I never had issues. What was the big issue with Vista, except for that hardware and software vendors were too lazy to update their drivers, or give updates to there software? Seriously, I am confused.
     
  2. korn666

    korn666 Master Guru

    Messages:
    657
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GTX 295
    not a damn thing no never had issues here with Vista...BUT! I got when SP1 was out
     
  3. WhiteLightning

    WhiteLightning Don Illuminati Staff Member

    Messages:
    29,058
    Likes Received:
    1,903
    GPU:
    GTX1070 iChillx4
    they also released an unfinished os. ok a few problems here and there would be ok, but it was hell instead. still it worked out in the end
     
  4. ShadowMyth

    ShadowMyth Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,490
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GByte GTX 980 G1 Windforc
    It was a system resource hog. Windows 7 & XP run just fine on my old Pentium 3 machine, Vista wouln't run on my old Pentium 4 machine. ^ see above comment for further observations.
     

  5. SolidBladez

    SolidBladez Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    GTX 1080 Ti OC
    I remember it back when it was released in 07' when the file transfer were slow as hell. Luckily Microsoft released a few patches that fixed that and other things (gaming performance, tweaks, etc.).

    It ran great when I installed it a few months ago, though it felt like my video card was sluggish in Vista compared to Windows 7.
     
  6. DSK

    DSK Banned

    Messages:
    17,917
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    HD5770/BenQ G2220HD
    It was the sh1t once it hit SP1
     
  7. Zen0

    Zen0 Master Guru

    Messages:
    601
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GPU
    You don't notice how good Vista is until you've used it for a while and then you go back to XP. XP is just horrible...can't believe how unstable it is.
     
  8. Darren Hodgson

    Darren Hodgson Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    16,050
    Likes Received:
    570
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 1080 Ti SC2
    Vista works fine provided you have a decent CPU and lots of RAM. When I had a dual-core Athlon64 X2 CPU and 2 GB of memory Vista 32-bit was a pain and absolutely useless for gaming as they tended to hitch far more than they did with XP 32-bit.

    I've been using Vista 64-bit for almost a year now on my current PC and it feels like an almost completely different operating system to the one I used before on my old machine. It's faster, there's less hitching, it'd be perfect if it wasn't for the irritating bugs like the way it forgets window placements and folder settings (sure there are fixes but you really shouldn't have to go looking for them in the first place). Also it seems to take a long time to boot up, I can start using Windows within a minute, fine, but it's still loading data for sometime after that and it causes applications to open slower than they would otherwise.

    Windows 7 RC from my experiences with it seem to address both of those issues and even with the same applications running at bootup, the whole operating system feels sleeker, more responsive and loads up quicker. It's a shame Microsoft didn't just fix the remaining Vista issues by releasing another Service Pack because, in all honesty, that's all Windows 7 really is: Vista Service Pack 3. Of course, Microsoft wouldn't have been able to charge another £65+ for a Service Pack so that's why it is being sold as a new operating system. Most of the Vista drivers work fine in 7 so there's your proof that they're more similar than dissimilar. That certainly wasn't the case with XP and Vista, despite both being based on the NT kernel.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2009
  9. Kaleid

    Kaleid Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,600
    Likes Received:
    221
    GPU:
    Gigabyte 3070 OC
    It uses way more resources than it should.
    And I friggin hate the 10 minute or so hdd-trashing just after boot.
    XP even though it loads slower is far more responsive.
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2009
  10. UZ7

    UZ7 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,523
    Likes Received:
    67
    GPU:
    GB Vision 3080 10GB
    Aside from UAC and the amount of resources needed to run it, it was pretty good for me. I used it for about 6 months and it was pretty solid though I had to tweak it (disable UAC, get the right drivers) but other than that it was pretty much how Windows 7 is running for me right now.

    When people say Windows 7 is what Vista was suppose to be, it is. But they did clean up Windows 7 a bit since its running fine on my laptop. I know that Vista would have been sluggish on that thing.
     

  11. dshramek

    dshramek Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,483
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    Gigabyte GTX 1070
    I have never had a single issue with Vista either. Granted, I started using it after SP 1.
    I had an AMD64 X2 4600 & 2 gigs ddr400 & it ran like a dream. Far smoother & responsive than XP did on the same hardware configuration. It was like driving a Ford & swapping to a Mercedes.
    Now with the current hardware I have, I cannot tell a real difference in Vista & 7...they feel the same to me.
    I think it is totally lame the way almost every tech site is now dogging Vista like it never ran at all. Everyone forgot how crap XP was until SP2.

    I will say this, though...7 runs better on my netbook than XP does. I think that is pretty awesome. I never tried Vista on it.
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2009
  12. Fri4rTuck

    Fri4rTuck Master Guru

    Messages:
    629
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    MSI 580GTX Twin Frozr II
    If you gave VISTA the hardware it needed it was an awesome OS. Unfortunately, MS and vendors didn't give the "true" system requirements.
     
  13. ibitato

    ibitato Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,958
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    4870X2+4870 1GB on S T260
    I couldn't be happier with Vista SP2.

    As a matter of fact, I will be reluctant to move on until DX11 it's mature and W7 it's on the market for a year or so.

    And yes, you need a good rig; it's a resource hug out of the box, but that can be managed with a little tweaking. Anyway, right now it's a hell of a stable environment.
     
  14. Flukester

    Flukester Banned

    Messages:
    1,505
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    eVga GTX 260 Core216 896M
    I wouldn't even attempt to sit here and ask what was/is wrong with Vista. Performance issues, serious bootup delays, running services not needed, 2gb memory limit for installations even requiring removal of peripherals to make it to end of an install. Insufficient/Poor Parental controls. Nobody initially cared about Vista release and drivers were seriously lacking. I knew lots of people who bought Vista and were unable to run it on their machines due to installation or performance issues. I think Win7 pretty much resolves all of the above and manufacturers are getting a little wiser this time around to make sure they have drivers.

    I thought like you up and until a few weeks back. I was running Vista 64bit. Windows 7 is better. Period. I don't see myself ever going back to Vista. 50second reboot to desktop is one reason. General usability is a lot better on Win7 as well. Win 7 doesn't slow down 5 days down the road, Vista does.
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2009
  15. H83

    H83 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,544
    Likes Received:
    923
    GPU:
    MSI Duke GTX1080Ti
    I´ve been using Vista since 2007 and i´ve never had any real problems with it. It´s true that Vista eats up RAM like there is no tomorrow and at first it was slower than XP but after i overclocked my CPU and put some more RAM, it worked just fine, all you need to run Vista is a decent computer, that´s all. Even in my laptop with a Core2Duo 7500(2.2Mhz) and 2G of RAM, it works well.

    For me the bad reputation of Vista was due to ****ty drivers and that stupid "Vista capable" marketing, because lots of people bought PCs from OEMs with Vista installed thinking with would work fine like XP and it didn´t because most of that computers simply didn´t had the necessary specs to fully ran Vista. some of them didn´t even had a decent graphics card to use Aero interface!!! Microsoft ****ed up things when releasing and selling Vista and did nohing to invert the situation!...
    And i also think that some software reviewers are too be blamed by the way they talked about Vista...

    In the end Vista is as good as XP, the diference is that Vista is more stable and secure and XP is faster abd lighter.

    For me the only reason to buy the W7 is because i want to jump to the 64bit bandwagon, otherwise i would stick with Vista.
     

  16. pimp_gimp

    pimp_gimp Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,658
    Likes Received:
    44
    GPU:
    RTX 2080 Super SLI
    Hmmm, interesting responses here, as I previously posted, I never had issues with Vista, but I myself have recently moved to Windows 7 (thanks to Technet) and also also noticed the faster boot times, better memory optimization, etc. As said Windows 7 is what Vista was supposed to be. Also I remember someone saying awhile back that MS was pushed into releasing Vista earlier than they had originally planned. Now I don't know if that is true or not I just know that Vista worked for me well, but had it short comings which were fixed in Windows 7.



    What about running Vista 64-bit?
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2009
  17. ibitato

    ibitato Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,958
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    4870X2+4870 1GB on S T260
    Well I must admit that W7 has some nice improvements on GDI and GPU memory management that really makes a difference (plus so many other things, but bc all i do it's game..........)

    I am sure (after all i've read on this forums) that W7 it's the way to go. It's just that that now that I am in Vista 64 SP2 stable, it's not that urgent.

    I bet some game in DX11 will make me take the desition, but it will be bc the need of DX11, new games and W7 , not just bc W7 itself (hell, Id have to renew my GPU system as well, it's gonna hurt).

    I have to admit that M$crosoft paid their debts with W7 over Vista.

    stay frosty
     
  18. Tiger253

    Tiger253 Master Guru

    Messages:
    432
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA GeForce GTX 280
    There wasn't much bad about it once it got SP1. That's when I started using it and I had no problems. And it was good once you tweak it a little like turning off UAC, transparency and min-max animations, etc. I could not go back or even look at XP after that.

    But now it's time to move on and sooner or later it's going to be all about Windows 7.
     
  19. allesclar

    allesclar Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,714
    Likes Received:
    113
    GPU:
    GeForce GTX 1070
    for me it was the initial start without the sp1.
     
  20. TheHunter

    TheHunter Banned

    Messages:
    13,405
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    MSi N570GTX TFIII [OC|PE]
    i tried it like 5-6 times both 32 and 64 bit(without sp, with sp1 and last time with sp2) and always returned back to good'ol xp, but now that i tried win7 there is no turning back, except for few games that don't work on very well yet.
    imo Vista is nothing but bloatware with useless crap and not to mention optimization..
    If i compare win7 to vista, the first thing i noticed how faster it is especially GUI; allot lighter on the system, next thing are programs not responding i got that quite often in vista, then problems with dvds and large files on it (like exe installers, etc..), maybe one or two more things but i cant remember atm..
     

Share This Page