Was Windows Vista really THAT bad?Marked for deletion (Old)
No. Next question!
>>117426Kinda?So like, if you were upgrading an older system, or buying a cheaper new system: yes.Driver support sucked, the system requirements were SKY FUCKING HIGH for 2006, almost no one was ready for Aero (looked great if you could run it, at least -- I still think Vista's Aero interface looks better than 7's).Lots of software incompatibility, too. One that affected me at the time was that every single Game Maker 6 game didn't work on Vista without getting patched, and you couldn't reasonably use GM6 on Vista since while the editor would work, it would generate binaries that wouldn't run -- the author used the opportunity to put stronger DRM in Game Maker 7 and discourage use of the widely pirated Game Maker 6.I had a buddy who upgraded to Vista. Absolutely terrible. Every single bad thing I'd ever heard about the OS, his machine exhibited. Cosmically bad.HOWEVER:I bought a laptop with Vista. 2GB RAM, some kind of dual core Intel thing, maybe like 120GB of disk. I think this was sometime in 2008 or early 2009? Probably 08, since Vista SP1 wasn't out. Maybe they'd patched the worst of the issues out at that point, or maybe I was just very lucky being on well supported hardware that was high-spec enough (if not actually that powerful) to not choke to death.Worked pretty much flawlessly. Didn't update to SP1 for a while, either.I didn't upgrade until deeeep into Windows 7's lifespan, and the only reason I did was because one day Vista just didn't boot and I couldn't get the startup repair thing to work. Downloaded a Windows 7 ISO and that was that.
The worst you can really say is that Vista's minimum system requirements were a little too optimistic - but if they were higher, you just know people would have BAWWWW'd over "planned obsolescence" instead The whole "everything needs new drivers" thing was a moot point since Windows XP was exactly the same. Speaking of which, XP also ran like total crap on hardware that was supposedly above the minimum requirements
>>117449I upgraded to XP pretty fine, as did most people I knew. Most Windows upgrades were a bit of a pain, but Vista's stated minimum was a huge jump, let alone the actual system requirements.Yeah, XP's useful sysreqs were definitely pretty high vs 98 or ME's, although given that they were basically 2x what ME really wanted and just slightly higher than what Win2k wanted, things weren't that bad regarding what the market was offering around the time.2k wasn't a consumer-targeted OS, but companies weren't really shipping machines significantly weaker than XP's minimum system requirements at the time, unlike what happened when Vista came out.In the meantime, companies absolutely tried to sell systems with less than 1GB of RAM with Vista (they called it a "Windows Vista Capable PC" lmao). Genuinely hilarious. 1GB was the absolute bare minimum for a usable Vista system, ignoring any other dumb bullshit that came up like hastily slapped together Vista drivers. 2GB, you were really getting somewhere....at the time, I had a laptop with 512MB of RAM running XP and felt like I'd never run out of RAM lmao.Also, to this day I genuinely don't know why Windows is so absurdly hyper-fat post-Vista. I have zero clue what it's doing with all that disk space space or RAM (or rather, I have zero clue why it needs so much of it).I can literally install every single package in a current version of Slackware, just absolute assloads of software, and Windows with basically fucking nothing is a significant fraction of that size. Absolutely psychotic.
Yes because it pushed computers too hard. The marketing and everything also had to do with it.
>>117452>I have zero clue what it's doing with all that disk space space or RAM (or rather, I have zero clue why it needs so much of it).It's quite obvious really. It's so that you'll waste more money with a "good computer" so it can run shitty winblows 10
>>117452>>117477That, but also spyware
It was completely pointless at the time. I jumped from WinXP right to Win7 in 2010, and it didn't felt that I skipped a whole major OS release.I mean, XP still received security updates, it was quite stable, all software was compatible with it, so I didn't care about Vista when it was released.
It looked cool, and that's what's most important
>>117502yeaheveryone I knew wanted to run Aero, shit looked kickass
>>117436>>117502>>117520Too bad that almost noone is making good looking software anymoreNowadays everything is flat shit
>>117542interface design has been terrible for the last 10 yearsdid something get in the water
windows vista's best trait was its appearance. aero style is popular today with the whole nostalgia wave going on. i have a soft spot for XP, as oftentimes i still run it. and i guess i have a fondness for old OSes. the best OS isn't really determined for me so far. though, i'm a fan of OS/2, Win 2000, and Win 3.1.
sorry guys, but aero fucking sucks, seriouslyit's worse now, but that doesn't mean that what came before is good. Same thing with windows 7, vista and XP. Just because the new versions are terrible, that doesn't mean windows didn't already suck then, don't let nostalgia cloud your judgement.
>>117592nah, you're wrong lol7's UI sucks since that introduced all the ribbon shit, but Aero was mostly just the same as before but shiny. Mostly. 8's UI is abysmal, and we're still dealing with dumb shit from 8.in terms of outright usability, MS got it nearly perfect with 95 apart from a handful of really rough spots (editing file associations in 95 is obscenely unfriendly -- 3.x just had you select a program and that was that, and 98 onwards let you configure things via the Open With menu -- or at least, I think that was 98, that could have been introduced in ME)98 made some things better, a few things a bit worse, and each release was always less consistent, and that basically kept happening every Windows version since 95which, to be fair, is because 95 pretty much just discarded most things from 3.x and copied Apple's System 7 lmao95's UI was overall friendlier in terms of usability, even if a few aspects are less polished vs System 7, and all the really clunky bits are for things the Mac OS just doesn't have (like setting file associations lol)
The only reason why I am using Vista is because my laptop that had Windows 7 on it died. I am using a garbage picked desktop PC that came with a hard drive with Vista already on it. I am using Mypal, the only browser I could find that works half decently with modern websites. This is also my first computer with an AMD processor, I like how cool it runs.Returning to Vista made me remember a few things I hated about it, and a few things that were new to me, that I also hate.-It has a hard time remembering folder view settings and often forgets them. This really sucks as I am often in my file explorer moving files around.-For some reason, the file explorer search on the local hard drive sucks, it just can't find things at all. But when I search for the same files on a backup external hard drive connected via USB cord, it finds them just fine.-It can never remember the last folder I was saving things to. I save alot of stuff in Paint, it never remembers to stay in the folder I want it to be in, I always have to navigate to it. It can never remember the last file type I was saving as. I save alot of stuff in Paint as .png, it never remembers to stay on the .png format, I always have to navigate to it. More than once I have accidentally saved things as .jpg, it ruins everything as the compression/pixelation on this version of Paint is super bad.-You can't open a text box in Paint when the image is zoomed in or out, only when its viewed at 100%.-You can't make a text box smaller in Paint once you set the diameters.-Once you finalize your text in paint, the text appears in a white box, it's not transparent.-There is no font preview in Paint where the fonts are listed in the font they represent. Everything listed here was not a problem on Windows 7.
>>117816Paint in Vista is basically the same one used since Win2k (so, .png support at all) with a handful of really minor changes (the default palette is different IIRC). 7 onward Paint is basically a completely different program.As a result, Paint on Vista doesn't do a lot of things that more modern programs do and uses the old file selector.Also, turn off indexing on the drive to make search not suck. I have to do this even on 7/8/10. It's slower, but it actually finds things.
>>117816Just use a third party file manager