Was Windows Vista really that bad?

[Melvis]

What ya mean HDD grinding?

you have a bad platter?

No no I know what he means Vista was very well known for hitting the HDD ALOT and mainly after doing updates. Its a known thing that Vista has always done.

 

[P4-630]

Haven't had many issues with Vista Ultimate x64, gaming was also fine.
The only thing what could annoy me was the "loading/search bar" when you clicked on "my computer" and it was slow in searching files on the system, however I only had HDD's at that time.

What I really liked was the windows dreamscene, the waterfall desktop background and such!

 

[Mussels]

vista had some HUGE improvements over XP, but one of its biggest flaws was the combined audio and network stack.
almost no one noticed this, but basically playing audio slowed the network - or rarely, network activity caused audio stuttering/crackling.


At the time i co-ran 20 people LAN parties and we did a lot of file sharing, and simply starting up winamp or windows media player would cause network traffic to drop from 85-90MB/s down to 5-10MB/s

 

[Drone]

Initial release was pretty abysmal. Network cards, modems, sound cards bsoded left and right. After SP1 everything settled down and it was just like any other OS. Installing SP1 was pretty awful process though, took a looooooong time, but then again installing CU on Windows 10 can take a lot of time as well.

 

[Mussels]

Initial release was pretty abysmal. Network cards, modems, sound cards bsoded left and right. After SP1 everything settled down and it was just like any other OS. Installing SP1 was pretty awful process though, took a looooooong time, but then again installing CU on Windows 10 can take a lot of time as well.

theres a thread here on TPU with the latest W10 ISO's and updates - 15 minutes is all it takes for a clean W10 install over USB. Installed XP recently on a PC, friggin hated every step of that slow, clunky process.

 

[FYFI13]

Installed XP recently on a PC, friggin hated every step of that slow, clunky process.

Try installing Gentoo or at least, Arch Linux I could install Windows XP with a chick sitting on my face

 

[RCoon]

Vista wasn't that bad, but it came out at a time where software was beyond hardware. It hit at a very specific time between architectures, RAM pricing and this magical plateau where nobody had upgraded their PCs in years. When Vista hit, nobody's PC was powerful enough to run it because they had relied on Pentium 4's or first gen Core2Duos with 1-2GB RAM.

Sure it was bloated, and yes, nobody was given time to iron out drivers for it. But I think the problem was exaggerated simply because nobody was willing to pay for the hardware upgrades to run it.

 

[Drone]

15 minutes is all it takes for a clean W10 install over USB. Installed XP recently on a PC, friggin hated every step of that slow, clunky process.

Clean install W8/10 is fast (15-20 mins even from dvd) but upgrade is a long and crappy process (45-60 minutes), plus 5-10 mins of disk cleanup after that. And sometimes upgrade won't even work, so it takes 45 mins, then some reboot loops and after that rolling back.

Installing XP is really meh indeed, especially with SP3. But there are third party tools that let you re-pack XP and slipstream unofficial SP4. And there's tool to make a bootable XP usb but only a few people these days would need that.

 

[alucasa]

theres a thread here on TPU with the latest W10 ISO's and updates - 15 minutes is all it takes for a clean W10 install over USB. Installed XP recently on a PC, friggin hated every step of that slow, clunky process.

That's one huge positive for Win 10. MS udpates Win 10 ISO frequently and you never need to go through lengthy update process if you keep ISO up to date which ain't hard.

 

[infrared]

I thought Vista was pretty crud, only ran it for about 6 months, went back to XP and waited for 7. I remember first trying it out when it was codename Longhorn, anyone remember that? I was fairly impressed at the time, obviously keeping in mind it was a beta release more or less.

I'm busy playing about in Ubuntu atm, gonna try a few different distros, it's pretty interesting. I think windows 7 for gaming and overclocking, and a Linux distro on the laptop.

 

[r9]

I don't think that Vista was ever the problem it was just it took some time for the software/hardware developers to release products that were fully compatible.
When it was released most of the applications were made for XP in mind and the driver support was lagging behind.
Once that was up to par and with the service packs at the end was a descent product.
And Windows 7 just took off where Vista left off.

 

[MustSeeMelons]

Went from XP to 7 here, the experience I have with Vista is very minimal, while using my moms laptop at the uni. The laptop was with a Celeron, so I guess I can't really judge Vista with that as I think XP would have been slow also.

 

[NdMk2o1o]

I was an early adopter and ran it from release until Win7 came out, no issues that couldn't be fixed by tweaking a few services on a clean install.

 

[Jetster]

Games ran slower, memory problems, security nightmare, driver support. Then there was the updates, and more updates

It was a big shift in the interface that people did not adjust well too. So manufactures were offering both XP and Vista with new PCs

 

[FireFox]

I have never ever used Windows Vista.


This is what it happened to a friend of mine because Vista

 

[alucasa]

Windows Millenium was worse. BSOD left and right. I broke the CD.

 

[Vayra86]

Vista was mostly Microsoft feeling the backlash of a userbase that wanted to stick to XP, because XP was there for so long and why would you upgrade. Vista was the 'in between' OS for when x64 was actually out of reach but perhaps one day in the life of Vista you'd run an x64 system with it. And when the userbase doesn't want to move along, economic principles dictate that driver support was more needed on XP than it was on Vista. Result: nobody cared enough to support the new driver model and Vista became a self fulfilling prophecy really.

In the same vein, Windows 8 suffered from that as well. Another big UI change that scared people off and made them stick to 7. (OR even XP still ) Microsoft knew what was coming and pushed 8.1 > 10 faster than most of us would have dreamt, even giving it out for free which still is essentially cheaper than a Vista/8 repeat.

Another very funny similarity between the Vista and 8 releases: hardware. Vista pushed hardware into a new era but that inflated the price of a PC, so PC's were being built that were running Vista with below par specs. On 8, Microsoft figured we'd all be using touch hardware, but people are cheap and use their ancient machines or just prefer old skool desktop.

Now we have 10 that runs on a toaster. Battle won and MS got a little smarter for good now. Next battle: gaming. Tried twice, failed twice, trying a third time now with a different name again. GFWL > XBOX > failing framework to push gaming to 'apps' and the Windows user to an overpriced Store.

Don't you worry MS, we'll drown that baby too.

 

[Nosada]

Windows Millenium was worse. BSOD left and right. I broke the CD.

I was about to mention Millenium for the people who consider Vista the worst thing since moldy bread. It was nowhere near as bad as ME, but it had the bad luck of coming after the rock-stable XP x86 and had to deal with horribly coded x64 drivers. I consider Vista the puberty phase of x64 for MS, we just had to get through it to get back to XP levels of stability.

 

[Jetster]

XP was hardly rock solid with its fat partition, and XP had 64 bit but it was bad. People like 2000 for its NTSF partition. Vista was to be a transition of many things but one being NTSF stability and 64 bit. So it was a huge jump and likely to have issues

 

[FireFox]

Glance at the History of Windows OS


Windows has been the most popular operating system in the world for desktop users as well as developers and various enterprises. So, How much do you know about the history of Windows. Don't worry after reading this post, you will know all the popular features and its various versions of Microsoft Windows operating system.
History of Windows
Version: Windows 1 Released: 1985
Released to muted acclaim, this was essentially MS DOS with some applications sporting an interface. The original name was "Interface Manager" before someone in marketing came up with "Windows". And the rest was, well, history!

Version: Windows 2 Released: 1987
With Excel & word applications, windows received a further boost to user base when the then very popular Aldus PageMaker was released as a Windows version.

Version: Windows 3 Released: 1990
Now featuring a graphical interface comparable to the Apple Macintosh, this was the most successful version of windows to date. It offered better stability, wider support or MS DOS applications. Later updates ushered in multimedia capabilities and also peer-to-peer networking.

Version: Windows NT Released: 1993
A new operating system derived from various ventures including lBM, and expertise from other companies. Windows NT introduced a 32 bit API and now had an as to handle the needs of the growing LAN networks. NT started a new branch of server 05.

Version: Windows 95 Released: 1995
The start Menu and taskbar originated in Windows 95. Introduced plug and Play.

Version: Windows 98 Released: 1998
Along with stability and performance enhancements, it included internet Explorer 5 and Wake-on-Lan.

Version: Windows 2000 Released: 2000
Expanded hardware support for Firewire, USB devices and wireless products. Resource hungry, this wasn't aimed at the consumer market.
Version: Windows MILLENNIUM EDITION
Many would argue it was best forgotten, this was the last DOS-based operating system from Microsoft. It did introduce a feature, system Restore, which continued into later versions.

Version: Windows XP Released: 2001
XP was a solid operating system that provided reliable service. It finally brought together the Windows NT & 95/93 lines into a new build.

Version: Windows Vista Released: 2007
New visual design with AERO. The increased graphics demand proved too much for many Laptops and pcs.

Version: Windows 7 Released: 2009
Stable operating system that fixed most of the problems from vista. Viable replacement for XP.

Version: Windows 8 Released: 2012
Complete break with the Traditional Microsoft OS. Visually appealing with the modern Metro Ul, New features designed for Touch tablets only, but not Keyboard and Mouse. Start button removed, Apps introduced. This version is Not received well by end users.

Version: Windows 8.1 Released: 2013
Start Button returns. OS of two halves. Best of windows 7 with Apps and improved touch capability.

Version: Windows 10 Released: 2015
Start Menu is back and doesn’t take over the screen. With full Touch functionality, it works equally well with Keyboard & Mouse. Great for Desktop users.it resizes to at any device. Direct x 12 promises to deliver better graphics.

Microsoft announced this will be the last ever version of Windows! Future revisions will be made via regular online updates.
​

 

[dorsetknob]

somewhere in the middle of your post ! you forgot windows for workgroups

 

[newtekie1]

I don't think that Vista was ever the problem it was just it took some time for the software/hardware developers to release products that were fully compatible.
When it was released most of the applications were made for XP in mind and the driver support was lagging behind.
Once that was up to par and with the service packs at the end was a descent product.
And Windows 7 just took off where Vista left off.

Was going to say exactly this.

 

[erocker]

The answer is yes due to its awful memory management alone. If it wasn't that bad it wouldn't of been replaced so quickly.

 

[slozomby]

once you figured out the over protective uac and found good drivers it wasn't horrible.

 

[FireFox]

horrible.

Right it wasn't horrible but instead terrible