Wrong. I had like 3 games that no longer worked on Vista and they were all actually more due to 64bit issues than Vista itself. And they still don't work on 7 or 8/8.1, Vista was merely the first roadblock in the chain.
Comment has been collapsed.
I play all my games without problems (except the old old ones like Max Payne)
Comment has been collapsed.
Max Payne still works, even on 8/8.1.
I can only think of one at the moment which was Asterix & Obelix - XXL but I know there were another 2.
And the rendering on NFS Porsche 2000/Unleashed has been messed up every since moving from XP as well.
Comment has been collapsed.
When it was released it had a ton of compatibility issues with software. It also had fairly hefty system requirements - you basically needed 4 GB of RAM at a minimum to run the OS well. Nowadays after it's been patched up it's pretty similar to Windows 7.
Comment has been collapsed.
Seems a bit much. My laptop came with Vista before any significant patching was done, ran it without issue and had nowhere near 4GB of RAM.
But you are correct that it had horrible compatibility with drivers at first and was a resource hog compared to XP and 7.
Comment has been collapsed.
See, you probably came to Vista after it'd been patched to hell and back. Vista was fine after a couple of years or updates and service packs. But it was a diabolical mess at launch, with awful compatibility, bloat by the barrelful and bugs everywhere. That's why it was met with such derision and hatred, with many people never giving it another chance later in its life cycle.
Comment has been collapsed.
Also, people trying to run it on potato computers and sellers outright lying what computers would be able to run it (the whole 'vista ready' mess) didn't help. I got Vista 5 months after launch, but it was decent laptop so ran absolutely without issue.
Comment has been collapsed.
same here ...
Packard Bell 386 with MS-DOS and both size floppies. Man that was a huge 40 MB hard drive back then.
(still remember my DOS commands)
Comment has been collapsed.
Pretty much the same, DOS, Norton Commander to handle files easier and Windows 3.1
Comment has been collapsed.
I think it was alright. I had no issues with it.
-- Vista was your first OS? You must be yooouuuuunnnnngggg :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Keep in mind if you got it after service packs released, you had a different experience. Vista dropped a lot of support for older drivers and applications. Businesses couldn't use it because their old software did not work (in business anything that interrupts day to day is always a bad thing.) For home users many games, applications, hardware wouldn't work. It did get better after service packs, but people are resistant to change so the reputation stuck.
It's kind of like how people hate Windows 8 now. Performance wise it's great, but no one likes the UI. And even after Microsoft has made some changes people are stubborn and it's going to have this reputation until Windows 9 comes out.
Comment has been collapsed.
Vista was great....IF you had power to spare that you could throw at it.
Most of the hate came from idiots (especially store-bought PC companies like Acer and especially laptops) putting Vista on low spec systems that just didn't have the oomph to handle it resulting in a horrendously sluggish experience. Also in the early days there were a lot of driver problems (most of which came from 64bit issues though and weren't actually the fault of Vista by itself). Most of it's poor rep came from Bobby-Joe that knows jack about PCs walking into a store and buying a low-mid spec system labeled "Vista ready" and then having a much worse experience than they had with XP cuz Vista itself was chewing most of the resources. Or idiots that decided to install Vista on their ancient and utterly worthless Celeron systems.
I went from a AMD 3700+ (2.1Ghz single core) running XP badly cuz it was full of stuff I wanted running, to a Vista 64bit on a Core2Quad Q9550 (2.83Ghz physical quad core) and because of all that power it never felt sluggish to me. Also had very few issues and over the 5 years I had it it was MUCH more stable than XP.
Comment has been collapsed.
bad compability, bad performance, ugly interface that just costs resources (only a bit better in win7, win8 has better performance on interface but it's even more ugly through tablet/pc hybid), ...
The last acceptable to use version of windows has been XP and now without these strange updates that restart the PC always if I don't want it to it's even usable ^^
Just use Linux, it has even better performance for most Games (at least for those which are officially compatible with Linux).
And if you don't game as much linux is far better than windows since it's customizable to your needs and more fast+flexible in general.
Windows is a concept built for stupid users who want to pay money therefor they have the illusion that they got something that's worth anything.
If you ever hear an Operating System Introduction you'll learn to love the pros of Unix-based systems and how bad written/overthought windows really is.
:P
Back to main topic: Vista came after XP and XP has more fast behavior and less resource-waste animations, etc.
Additionally the users of XP learned to use the (rare) possibility to tell windows what they're gonna do within the Control Panel which got completely reworked within Vista to hide more information and features from the user. Everything got more complicated, some things that worked in XP aren't even possible within the Vista/7 Control Panel (or at least it's too well hidden from me). Since this got even more critical in Win8 I don't have any doubt that Windows is gonna die :-)
My only problem with linux concentrates on Ubuntu and Gnome 3 (Gnome Shell), which goes the windows-like way now: hide information from the user, minimize customizations, add additional required clicks/keys whereever possible.
So the best is to use a fully configured Arch-Linux with Awesome WM, but that may need to much time for the default windows user... :P so those people should start with Debian or even Linux Mint
Comment has been collapsed.
"bad compability, bad performance, ugly interface"
Pretty much this.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes. Those Unix-based systems that can run every application and game and media type on the planet are where it's at.....oh wait...that's why everyone still subscribes to the Windows experience, not because they have less intelligence.
Comment has been collapsed.
I see a Linux fanboy. Vista is actually pretty good after the patches, though I do agree that MOST games do work better on Linux because Linux uses much less processing power to run the OS than windows. Though Linux has way less support for games than Windows.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok, Linux is great and all, but what if someone wants to play Windows-only AAA games? Launch them under Wine to get in the best case halved fps and worse performance? No, thanks.
I do realize that the list of games ported to or made for linux is expanding rapidly, but there always will be Windows-only compatible games. There always will be major Win-only compatible software, which open source analogs won't be as good as it due to various problems, such as usability, cross-platform compatibility and lack of some functions. They just won't let Windows die, because Windows brings helluva lot money to Microsoft. So Windows is not gonna die, not in the near future at least.
I run ArchLinux myself on my laptop, but I don't let the fact that I use Linux make me feel l33t compared to Windows-users. Being a fanboy just isn't cool.
Comment has been collapsed.
exactly this is the reason for windows still dominating gaming OSs.
Many users think of linux like it's not able to game on but this is just wrong, the Game Devs just write windows-specific code (eg. directX instead of using OpenGL) which means the Game Devs prevent their games from running on linux.
In conclusion if more users would change to free and better linux the Game Devs would use it's pros and could benefit of it.
Some Pros of Linux:
Some Cons of Linux:
I can really not think about other cons which could be real reasons to avoid Linux (from the view of Game Developers).
But since the most common Game Engines support Linux now it's just a matter of time until the windows-users notice that they don't have to pay for a worse OS.
"There always will be major Win-only compatible software, which open source analogs won't be as good as it due to various problems, such as usability, cross-platform compatibility and lack of some functions"
lack of some functions may be right, but cross-platform compatibility is nonsense.
usability is a relative word, but if you mean that you mostly have to do x>0 more clicks to reach a function you're right in most cases.
another lack of closed-source software is minor plugin-support in most cases.
PS: being a fanboy is cool as long as you have valid reasons for being a fanboy.
But I'll shut up here since this post is off-topic at all and would need a new thread
Comment has been collapsed.
Nobody tells you to shut up; there's nothing wrong in expressing your opinion about one operating system as a replacement for another OS, which is being discussed in a thread. I know all the pros of Linux that you listed, in fact, most of them are the very reasons I switched from Windows to it back in the day. But there are people who have reasons to stay with Windows, for example, some hardcore gamers who don't really care about how all this OS-related stuff is functioning, they just wanna play new games like that neverending COD-series without problems they might encounter trying to launch this under Linux. Or those using some proprietary software, which is not present on Linux. But still this doesn't mean they're stupid just because they don't really need to switch to unix-like OS. Funny thing, I know some folks who think that I am stupid for using Linux, but I don't really give a damn about their opinions.
Comment has been collapsed.
I wouldn't say the interface was ugly - it was a bit too flamboyant for my tastes, but better than both classic and Luna by a long shot.
Then again, you seem to be coming from a Linux background, where you were spoilt for choice with regard to UI.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh boy, I can't wait to downgrade to Linux. I can play a whole 30 games in my 400 game library from now on.
Comment has been collapsed.
If gaming is what you're looking for try steamos, seriously everything windows can do linux can do 10x better and it's free!
Comment has been collapsed.
To be honest IE, especially the really bad ones IE5 and 6, actually remind me more of XP than Vista.
Comment has been collapsed.
For me, IE became really bad with IE7, which was bundled with Vista. That was the moment when I decided to jump ship and start using Firefox.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's when IE started crashing but it was able to display more stuff slightly more accurately than IE5 and 6 again. IE5 was like a random firewall because at random it would just decide certain sites don't exist and progressively lost more and more of the internet. Sites would work fine in Netscape or Gecko but IE5 would just decide to permanently deny their existence until it was uninstalled and reinstalled and started the cycle again.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not exactly. IE has a vastly different implementation of JavaScript and CSS from any other browser. Until recently the 64bit version of IE was actually slower than the 32bit, in some circumstances, due to a poor implementation of the JS engine. Due to the lack of standards compliance, building a cross-browser compatible application is difficult. When taking into account the many business applications which rely on "features" of older IE browsers, even pushing an upgrade of IE to a user group can result in severe headaches.
One of my clients is relying on software that requires IE 7. An admin pushed an update which included IE 11. Not a single CSR in that site was able to log into their soft dialer. Another client only phased out of IE 6 last year due to the myriads business software relying on the older browsers. It took over a month of UAT for them to agree to a partial roll-out to one business group.
Comment has been collapsed.
The main problem was that people were running XP on low end hardware. No one wanted to spend the money to upgrade anything and when they did everything was new and weird. Who needs these special effects? What are these things running? Why doesn't it work flawlessly with my decade old software? It was necessary to move people onto modern technologies though. And it was the era where 64 bit really came into relevance. But many people still stuck with 32 bit since no one developed anything that required 64 bit exclusively at the time.
Now all of that has changed and we're at the point where 32 bit is the odd one that cannot take advantage of all of the hardware we have easier access to.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is exactly the correct answer. Everyone with issues with Vista, in most cases, was trying to run it on an old Celeron with 1GB or less RAM that they used to run XP on. My first Vista computer was a notebook PC, dual-core 2GB RAM, etc. designed for and preloaded with Vista. It worked completely normally, no different from any Win 7 PC I have used since, and not much differently than it does now (still have it) since I upgraded it to Win 7.
Comment has been collapsed.
When Vista came, I had a good PC which I even used to run Windows 7 without problems. Still, I hated Vista mostly because I first used it when it was released.
Comment has been collapsed.
Most sales of Vista were for new machines, which were certified as "Vista-Ready". Unfortunately, the requirements for Vista-Ready certification were below what was needed to run the operating system well. They probably would have been fine for Windows 7, but early Vista was more demanding on hardware than 7 is. Anyway, this left many customers with a bad experience and was probably one of the bigger contributors to Vista's bad reputation.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hmm, see a lot of different reasons given but at the time win 95 - xp was all largely the same, then vista tried to change a lot of the windows useability experience and in its attempt to simplify things they hid a lot of the options and old ways of doing things and at launch a lot of it was buggy and didnt work. We went from fill in boxes or simple wizards for networking to that discoverability crap that tried to do everything for you and never found anyone else.
Comment has been collapsed.
For starters when Vista came out, WinXP required 512MB of RAM to run perfectly, while Vista needed 2GBs. It also packed a "nice" +50% booting time.
Also games and applications compatibility was all but perfect, since everything needed new drivers and a specific version for Vista.
Sure it looked pretty, but required more RAM (which wasn't as cheap back then; in fact RAM became cheaper "thanks" to the greatly request and production forced by Vista), had worse performance overall and compatiblilty issues.
For comparison when Win7 came out, it used the same drivers Vista did, had 10 seconds less boot time then Vista (still 10 more then XP), and could run well on 512MB of RAM again (I first tried the release candidate on my old Athlon XP 1800+ with 512 MBs and ran as good as XP SP3 on that machine).
Comment has been collapsed.
My mothers laptop uses vista and the only real complaint i have is how they set up the control panel and a few other minor gripes otherwise its pretty much just a early version of windows 7
Comment has been collapsed.
Vista took quite a lot of patches to get to a point where people were relatively happy with it. By that time, Windows 7 was already coming out so Vista's moment to shine was gone.
Comment has been collapsed.
The increased security over XP was top notch, with Vista every time you clicked on anything it was sure to ask you "Are you sure you want to do that?"! ;)
Note: I'm running Linux Mint, I've been done with Windows since XP, and I'm a much happier person. Windows makes me grumpy. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Quite sure you could disable UAC, like you can in Windows 7.
Comment has been collapsed.
Linux is becoming a great gaming platform, recently due in big part to Valve and their SteamOS push. I have over 200 Linux games in my Steam account now, and my library is constantly growing. Us penguins love to waste our lives gaming too. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
UAC doing its job in asking you if you want to do what you just told it to do, wow what a great security feature!
Imagine if your car ran on Vista ... every time you turned the steering wheel you would get a message "Are you sure you want to turn here?" and just have to click OK before you missed the turn. Because your car is running Vista you would never take a wrong turn, might miss a few intended ones though.
I sure wish there was a Linux port of the Windows UAC, I'm sure it would make my Mint much safer! ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
No. Vista was originally configured to have UAC go far beyond the call of duty. You'd get prompts for just about anything (always accompanied by that horrible animation), regardless of whether privilege escalation was involved. Aside from being annoying and highly disruptive, it completely undermined security because you had no way to avoid accidentally giving admin rights to a program while you were doing some perfectly ordinary thing (which is ironic considering the whole point of UAC). That was fixed by the time Windows 7 was released.
Comment has been collapsed.
One thing people need to remember is that 64 bit operating systems weren't the norm until Windows 7 came out. 32 bit was still the default. Most people's memories of Vista are from a 32 bit experiences. A computer with the 64 bit version of Vista is far more efficient and very similar in speed and performance to Windows 7 64 bit than it is to Vista 32 bit.
Comment has been collapsed.
Everyone likes to complain because Microsoft Windows.
They have nothing better to do.
For me,
98 was better than 95, especially by 98c.
Me sucked.
2000 was different.
XP was better than 98, especially SP2&3.
Vista x64 was better than XP,
7 was better than Vista.
And 8 is a clusterfuck, faster n better than 7 but with a shitty interface.
Comment has been collapsed.
I had Vista running on laptops and PCs with 512MB & 768MB [though it did need 1GB to install].
Starter Edition was very nice, but a major PITA to get ahold of here in the US.
Take a short time to streamline the OS and it was very good.
It was a better OS at release than ME and it seemed/seems about 75% of the problems were user created.
The boot time problem will never be fixed, due to Windows being a somewhat universal type OS, meaning the largest variety of Hardware [and Drivers] by a magnitude and and insane amount of Software compatibility, many built in features for simple and basic users.
So I repeat, people love to complain.
OSX is nice, but pricey a all get up.
Linux is not simple to learn, nor does it have great Hardware, Driver & Software support ... still, after all this time, but it is getting better.
I have Computers running Win 98c, 2000, XP Media Center SP3, Vista Ultimate x64, 7 Professional x64, 8 Professional x64, OS8 (8.6), OS9 (9.2.2), OSX (10.4, 10.5, 10.6 & 10.9), Peppermint OS 5, Debian 7.7.3 & Ubuntu 14.04.
Comment has been collapsed.
31 Comments - Last post 49 minutes ago by devotee
2 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by yush88
2 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by FluffyKittenChan
12 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Konsterter
757 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Alfhar
1,958 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by MeguminShiro
31 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by hookjaw
486 Comments - Last post 6 minutes ago by MrCho
120 Comments - Last post 6 minutes ago by CultofPersonalitea
101 Comments - Last post 8 minutes ago by CultofPersonalitea
174 Comments - Last post 9 minutes ago by emanuelml
42 Comments - Last post 10 minutes ago by ChimChakMan
83 Comments - Last post 10 minutes ago by CultofPersonalitea
40 Comments - Last post 13 minutes ago by CultofPersonalitea
When I was younger, I knew little to nothing about computers. However, when I inherited my Grandmother's PC that ran Vista, I didn't have any complaints. I found it to be really cool. So, I ask this, I was a simple-minded consumer and liked the product, but why do others hate it?
Comment has been collapsed.