It takes a lot of RAM, other than that I happily used it for a year before I switched to 7. Also it doesn't compera with XP compatibility but i didn't use any software that giave me problems.
Windows Vista - Why all the hate?
- Thread starter Josh123914
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Remembering the initial launch of XP and previous windows releases, Vista was par for the course. But I never really had problems with it, I heard a lot of horror stories that I've been unable to reproduce in my own settings (perhaps its a lot to do with shitty hardware being released with most major PC's that aren't homebrewed).
The switch in architecture was hell on some programmers, also didn't initially allow for cross O/S compatibility. Mostly these problems were from people who wanted to run 10+ year old software on a new machine. Also the change in the GUI was too much for some users to handle and thus some declared it to be "shitty" or "incompatible" when it really was user error.
It wasn't the best release Microsoft has had, but it wasn't bad, just got a bad rep from people who already hated MS anyway.
However, Windows 7 is much more stable in the long run. I don't use linux or unix for many reasons, most of which have to do with the fact that most of the people I do work for don't even have a clue on how to run those Operating systems and thus I need no experience with them. And personally I just don't like the way they're set up, I don't find them easy to install or run on an "out of the box" system especially with new hardware. But thats me.
The switch in architecture was hell on some programmers, also didn't initially allow for cross O/S compatibility. Mostly these problems were from people who wanted to run 10+ year old software on a new machine. Also the change in the GUI was too much for some users to handle and thus some declared it to be "shitty" or "incompatible" when it really was user error.
It wasn't the best release Microsoft has had, but it wasn't bad, just got a bad rep from people who already hated MS anyway.
However, Windows 7 is much more stable in the long run. I don't use linux or unix for many reasons, most of which have to do with the fact that most of the people I do work for don't even have a clue on how to run those Operating systems and thus I need no experience with them. And personally I just don't like the way they're set up, I don't find them easy to install or run on an "out of the box" system especially with new hardware. But thats me.
sorry were you implying I was a clone? Because I doubt genetic engineering has came far enough to clone 12,345 versions of a random forum user.Josh_v2.0 said:
It hit the memory HARD. And not because it was supposed to. It was just very slopply handling data.
Windows 7 was much more solid. And as a result didn't make your computer chug like a 1980's box computer.
Vista was perfectly managable if you had a Terabyte of space and 8gigs of RAM my friend who needs a good punch tells me however.
Windows 7 was much more solid. And as a result didn't make your computer chug like a 1980's box computer.
Vista was perfectly managable if you had a Terabyte of space and 8gigs of RAM my friend who needs a good punch tells me however.
Massive compatibility issues, bugs, resource hogging to the point where it wouldn't even run on something like a netbook, and way too much trying to copy Apple---news flash, Microsoft, if I wanted an OS that looked pretty and couldn't play games, I'd buy a Mac!
Vista : 7 :: ME : XP. Attempted improvement fails miserably, MS figures it out and fixes it before they lose too much market share. I expect Windows 8 (whatever they call it) to suck and Windows 9 to be awesome, lather, rinse, repeat.
Vista : 7 :: ME : XP. Attempted improvement fails miserably, MS figures it out and fixes it before they lose too much market share. I expect Windows 8 (whatever they call it) to suck and Windows 9 to be awesome, lather, rinse, repeat.
Technically, Vista was fine, but MS fudged bigtime on the business side.
There's a lot of people saying that Vista was buggy, which is technically incorrect. The OS itself was fairly stable, in some ways, more than XP. But, Vista changed the driver model. Why? because XP is hopelessly riddled with security holes on that front. Remember, XP came over 10 years ago, in a much more innocent time.
Clearly, the change was needed, so where did it go wrong? OEM support. MS went back and forth with the release date so much -whilst changing how the whole thing worked- that manufacturers gave up on trying to create drivers for an even changing platform. As a result, drivers at launch were rush jobs. Most dev teams didn't really get the new model. Hence all that incompatibility and instability, it wasn't really Vista's fault, it was the drivers. This got way better as OEMS got the hang of it, but by then the perception was set, and it was a lost battle.
With Vista, Microsoft was between a rock and a hard place. Keeping the -non existant- XP security model was not an option. But adding security would break lots of poorly designed programs. Seriously, tell me why a freaking game needs to run as the Admin.
Another way Microsoft dropped the ball was the "Vista Compatible Program". In trying to please hardware manufacturers the program allowed the approval stamp on machines that could barely run the thing.
And yes, vista uses more memory and its slower than XP. Of course it does! Its doing way more. Hey, I don't see anybody winging about XP using more memory than DOS.
Of course, at the end of the day, all the technical prowess of Vista is meaningless if the experience sucks, which it did.
There's a lot of people saying that Vista was buggy, which is technically incorrect. The OS itself was fairly stable, in some ways, more than XP. But, Vista changed the driver model. Why? because XP is hopelessly riddled with security holes on that front. Remember, XP came over 10 years ago, in a much more innocent time.
Clearly, the change was needed, so where did it go wrong? OEM support. MS went back and forth with the release date so much -whilst changing how the whole thing worked- that manufacturers gave up on trying to create drivers for an even changing platform. As a result, drivers at launch were rush jobs. Most dev teams didn't really get the new model. Hence all that incompatibility and instability, it wasn't really Vista's fault, it was the drivers. This got way better as OEMS got the hang of it, but by then the perception was set, and it was a lost battle.
With Vista, Microsoft was between a rock and a hard place. Keeping the -non existant- XP security model was not an option. But adding security would break lots of poorly designed programs. Seriously, tell me why a freaking game needs to run as the Admin.
Another way Microsoft dropped the ball was the "Vista Compatible Program". In trying to please hardware manufacturers the program allowed the approval stamp on machines that could barely run the thing.
And yes, vista uses more memory and its slower than XP. Of course it does! Its doing way more. Hey, I don't see anybody winging about XP using more memory than DOS.
Of course, at the end of the day, all the technical prowess of Vista is meaningless if the experience sucks, which it did.
lolol.. some of the speed complaints are true but maximumpc readers might remember an article they did about the speed of xp/vista/7. Comparing different functions side by side and found that XP won some catagories, Vista won some catagories, and 7 won some catagories.
I attribute the bad wrap to Vista basic x86. This is the shit that people claim Vista to be.
Anything above that or better yet x64 and the majority of issues dissappeared.
I attribute the bad wrap to Vista basic x86. This is the shit that people claim Vista to be.
Anything above that or better yet x64 and the majority of issues dissappeared.
