Is Vista the worst OS in history?

nyarlothothep

I'm not a computer buff but it seems to me that vista is beyond sucking, its just an abomination that shouldn't be. Are there any OSs in the history of computing that suck more?

Jonathan

Windows ME

leninbenjamin

Vista is a fine OS if you know what you're doing, and have enough RAM so that its large footprint doesn't impact the running of other applications. I've been using it for 2 years now and it's actually been a lot smoother than the previous 3 running XP.

The only hassle with Vista is having to disable all the expensive features everytime you do a fresh install. Overall it's a bit slow to boot up, but once it has it's as responsive as my father's laptop running XP (we have the same specs).

Venom

Windows ME without a doubt.

Been using Vista Ultimate since it first came out with zero problems so dunno where all the Vista hate comes from.

KTRIC

+1 on Win ME. They must have been off their f*cking faces on E's when they wrote the code for that.

Kimbot

KTRIC wrote: »

+1 on Win ME. They must have been off their f*cking faces on E's when they wrote the code for that.

Don't forget all the coke and hookers distracting them either!!

Vista is fine for me, have it running 2 years and no complaints at all once its configured right!

sceptre

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I'm not a computer buff

You don't remember OS/360 then.

Or the first version of Windows, MS-Dos 4, Windows ME, Lindows or JavaOS.

That's just the quick ones that come to mind. I'm also patiently waiting for GNU/Hurd, the OS without a kernel after a quarter of century (honestly, it's coming, like, real soon, they swear)

It might be trendy to hate Vista but it does the job it was intended to do. Unlike the others I've listed above. And I've heard the same dislike for most versions of Windows that came before it so the dislike is nothing new

Most people who hate Vista so much don't seem to list many (if any) reasons why they hate it but they're pretty sure they do because someone else told them they should. And I'm pretty sure I remember hearing that in August 1995 as well.

"ZOMG, it's the worst ever!" No it isn't, go look.

Venom

sceptre wrote: »

Most people who hate Vista so much don't seem to list many (if any) reasons why they hate it but they're pretty sure they do because someone else told them they should. And I'm pretty sure I remember hearing that in August 1995 as well.

"ZOMG, it's the worst ever!" No it isn't, go look.

Most of the people Iv encountered who hate Vista are trying to run it on craptastic PCs and have trouble getting drivers for their outdated hardware :rolleyes:

Voodu Child

Never had an issue with Vista. Im not going to disagree with those who say they hate it, since thats their own personal experience, but it doesnt tally with mine.

For me its been fast, stable and secure on any of my systems - none of which are particularly high-end. And I know where everything is and how to configure it to my liking. No issues here.

Bob_Harris

Venom wrote: »

Most of the people Iv encountered who hate Vista are trying to run it on craptastic PCs and have trouble getting drivers for their outdated hardware :rolleyes:

Funny that, on the exact same PCs Windows 7 runs fine :pac:

mike65

Vista is grand.

why so serious?

running vista the last two years now, no problems what so ever and I much prefer it over XP

yoyo

I never really understand Vista getting so much negativity, Yes it is slower on poorer hardware and companies didnt release machines with a capable spec at the start, I upgraded from Vista Ultimate to Win 7 Ultimate and on my pc the performance seems to be identical.
People also seem to praise XP as being the best thing since sliced bread, when XP came out 10 years ago it was a disaster, remember all the security holes in it, people getting annoying viruses like sassar etc? It took years for microsoft to stabalise XP, and only really after SP1a/2 it became decent.
Worst microsoft oses in history? Well Windows 98 was a buggy upgrade to 95, even crashed at a demo! And Windows ME was aweful aswell, Vista wasnt that bad at all. Manufacturers were lazy at bringing out good drivers, people gave out about UAC even though such methods are used in unix based oses (although the Vista UAC was too sensitive), I had no problems really with Vista, and am using 7 now and like the new features of 7.

Nick

Rezident

Vista seems to work fine for many people now and my dad's never had a problem with it on his dell but I have had regular stability issues with it on several different sets of hardware. It just hasn't worked for me and still crashes.

heh heh I remember ME was pretty awful too, think I've actually had more problems with Vista by now so +1 for Vista here. Windows 7 looks great though so far.

quiche

KTRIC wrote: »

+1 on Win ME. They must have been off their f*cking faces on E's when they wrote the code for that.

Obllig: The Balmer peak http://xkcd.com/323/

(xkcd also gone nuts with its geocities commemoration )

dlofnep

Vista appears stable, but my biggest qualm with it is the amount of resources it uses.

manutd

I didn't have a problem with it, using for last 6 months.

Blanchguy

I had terrible problems with it, bought it with a new dell. After about a year it decided that it was not a legal copy and stopped updating.

Firefox10

quiche wrote: »

Obllig: The Balmer peak http://xkcd.com/323/

(xkcd also gone nuts with its geocities commemoration )

Ahhh....the internet, circa 1995.:)

nyarlothothep

sceptre wrote: »

You don't remember OS/360 then.

Or the first version of Windows, MS-Dos 4, Windows ME, Lindows or JavaOS.

That's just the quick ones that come to mind. I'm also patiently waiting for GNU/Hurd, the OS without a kernel after a quarter of century (honestly, it's coming, like, real soon, they swear)

It might be trendy to hate Vista but it does the job it was intended to do. Unlike the others I've listed above. And I've heard the same dislike for most versions of Windows that came before it so the dislike is nothing new

Most people who hate Vista so much don't seem to list many (if any) reasons why they hate it but they're pretty sure they do because someone else told them they should. And I'm pretty sure I remember hearing that in August 1995 as well.

"ZOMG, it's the worst ever!" No it isn't, go look.

Any computer I've used it on has been terminally slow, this is other peoples computers. Its a resource hog in my experience.

5uspect

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Any computer I've used it on has been terminally slow, this is other peoples computers. Its a resource hog in my experience.

I would say exactly the same for XP.

Although I mostly use others PCs when I'm fixing them...

Jonathan

I don't remember many people complaining about Windows Server 2008. Funny how that shares about 90% of its code base with Vista.

DigiJem

I'm old enough to remember DOS4 which was terrible, I never had any issues with vista on recommended hardware and I loved it from day 1. Waiting to see how Win7 goes before I upgrade.

limklad

Windows ME, which i forgot about. I say little difference between windows 95 and 98 which the exception of extra media functionality. So Windows ME I say very little difference.

Vista is slow booting in which I find annoying and security was not as good as they said it was comes a comes a good second in the worst OS list, so looking forward to windows 7.

limklad

5uspect wrote: »

I would say exactly the same for XP.

Although I mostly use others PCs when I'm fixing them...

I found with XP is that third party software which slows down XP. There is a lot of clean up to do, repair damage to the registry and killing unnecessary programs from starting from boot up helps alot. I Found the same with Vista.

AlmightyCushion

limklad wrote: »

Vista is slow booting in which I find annoying and security was not as good as they said it was comes a comes a good second in the worst OS list.

If that is all that's wrong with vista then it is definitely not the second worst os in history. As long as it's run on decent hardware I'd definitely consider it better than xp. Hell even if the only advantage of vista was that search bar in the start menu I'd consider it much better than xp. That thing is hard to live without once you've got used to it.

Overheal

All this Vista hate remains perpetuated by the likes of John Hodgeman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0rzYKyeLz4

See, I know why Im meant to hate Vista - and yet, I have no idea why I should by a Mac instead, after reading that. Except of course oh wait - its not vista?

Frankly You get 2GB of ram you shut UAC off clear the bloat (Which takes 20 minutes, oh Woe) and you have a good time. Vista was great with me. Windows 7 is becoming even greaterer.

Agent Smith

it all went down hill since 3.1

swirlser

I dont believe MS have the most talented people in the business developing their software, but in their defense (which I dont do often!) they have the task of trying to support everything and anything out there and history has shown us they tend to take some time to get there after every OS launch.

Personally I started off on DOS (in terms of a traditional PC) and first windows I used was 3.0, followed closely by 3.11 for workgroups ooOOooo.

Over the years Ive kept away from early release versions, using Win95 from '96, Win98 SE from '99.... switched to XP perhaps 2003 (!) still using it today! But for the first time Ill be jumping onboard without giving them a year odd to sort their **** out, new PC due in a fortnight will have Win7 on it, reason for this is I consider it Vista SP3 (or just what Vista should have been basically).

(realised I rambled without answering the OP/topic... think the last paragraph speaks for itself tho, never have and never will use Vista XD)

5uspect

limklad wrote: »

I found with XP is that third party software which slows down XP. There is a lot of clean up to do, repair damage to the registry and killing unnecessary programs from starting from boot up helps alot. I Found the same with Vista.

That and most people have crippled old Dells with feck all RAM.

mukki

those who hate vista should check out my sig

EvilMonkey

Vista isn't as bad as claimed
7 wont be as good as claimed

Ghost Train

Switched pc at home to vista when it first came out and could never never get parents back to xp, they liked vista. Have had very few problems, with good hardware it runs fine, UAC seems to prevent anything too nasty happening. For a stable OS for day to day tasks has been very good.

Overheal

EvilMonkey wrote: »

Vista isn't as bad as claimed
7 wont be as good as claimed

XP Prelaunch: "The best thing since the Byte!"

XP Post-Launch: "OMFG RUN AWAY Im installing 98 again"

XP SP3: "This may be the most awesome OS ever. Marry me."

monkeypants

Jonathan wrote: »

Windows ME

Hear hear!

Venom

EvilMonkey wrote: »

Vista isn't as bad as claimed
7 wont be as good as claimed

It wasn't.
It is.

Rebel021

ME was dreadful
Vista was bad because it had very little driver support when it ws released and we had to wait untill SP1 to see real improvment.
MS corrected this in Seven by having a huge beta release and won't have a fraction of the problems vista had.
Vista isn't a bad OS and once you tweak it a little is very stable and runs smoothly.

Cuddlesworth

Rebel021 wrote: »

MS corrected this in Seven by having a huge beta release and won't have a fraction of the problems vista had.

Ms corrected this by re-releasing Vista. Just a less bloated Vista. Of course there would be great driver support and a relatively stable kernel.

Rebel021

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Ms corrected this by re-releasing Vista. Just a less bloated Vista. Of course there would be great driver support and a relatively stable kernel.

I always thought Vista was just an upgrade to XP as Seven as you pointed out is an upgrade to Vista.

Outkast_IRE

I had vista since launch and have 7 for the last week or so .
I really liked vista the only issues ever was badly programmed 3rd party drivers . Vista was a solid follow up to xp

PogMoThoin

If the dog doesn't eat his dinner, You put it back in the tin and serve it again tomorrow.

There is nothing wrong with Vista except they made the minimum requirements too low and people always opt for the cheapest possible option. With Windows 7 they have just disabled a few services to make it run a little leaner and changed the taskbar. Hardware has now caught up with the requirements for Vista, netbooks are even coming with 1GB ram and dual and quad cores are the norm

leninbenjamin

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Ms corrected this by re-releasing Vista. Just a less bloated Vista. Of course there would be great driver support and a relatively stable kernel.

Rebel021 wrote: »

I always thought Vista was just an upgrade to XP as Seven as you pointed out is an upgrade to Vista.

No, Windows 7 really is as Vista was intended. Windows 7 started development as the succesor to XP, but there were problems with the kernel and they basically took the intended features from the original 7 project and integrated them into a different kernal, which became Vista.

Dempsey

mukki wrote: »

those who hate vista should check out my sig

Slightly offtopic

I recently did a clean install of XP and I somehow have 66 processes on startup!

I'm wondering if you have something similar for that!

Although the early feedback is that windows 7 is good, no doubt that there is security holes waiting to be found like every other OS and the patches for them will drive up resource usage.

Cuddlesworth

leninbenjamin wrote: »

No, Windows 7 really is as Vista was intended. Windows 7 started development as the succesor to XP, but there were problems with the kernel and they basically took the intended features from the original 7 project and integrated them into a different kernal, which became Vista.

From the mouth of the a Microsoft employee at a Windows 7 tech event.

"99.9% of all Vista apps will work on Windows 7"

"Would that have anything to do with the closed Beta Kernel being the exact same as the Vista kernel at that time"

Laughs, "Yeah pretty much"

"And the .1% being anti-virus apps which are coded to look specifically for Vista"

"I think you just won yourself a memory key"

And that was the day I got my 4gig Windows memory key.

Apart from that, they just added some stuff to the Vista kernel. That had 3 years of Beta testing worldwide for a rock solid foundation, lumped a few meaningless bits on and marketed it as the next big thing.

News flash, its the same big thing.

Now don't get me wrong, I like Windows 7. Its really a proper step forward for Windows even with the many parts of it that most people don't see. And I like Microsoft changing tactics with Hard-ware vendors and actually getting the OS to scale back to meet the hard-ware rather then force the hard-ware to catch up with the OS. But its not really a new OS, its Vista 2.0.

AlmightyCushion

PogMoThoin wrote: »

If the dog doesn't eat his dinner, You put it back in the tin and serve it again tomorrow.

There is nothing wrong with Vista except they made the minimum requirements too low and people always opt for the cheapest possible option. With Windows 7 they have just disabled a few services to make it run a little leaner and changed the taskbar. Hardware has now caught up with the requirements for Vista, netbooks are even coming with 1GB ram and dual and quad cores are the norm

Agree there is nothing wrong with vista but they did a bit more than just add a new taskbar and disable a few services. There is a great (but pretty long) article on ars technica about windows 7 and it explains some of the improvements over vista. It's a good read.

jif

Windows 7.

Anti

The one thing ive noticed about Vista, the people that bitch and complain about it non stop truely are retarded.

No, vista wont run on a p3 with 64mb of ram(you can make it do so though). If you cant work out how to get the best out of vista after over 2 years since launch, maybe its time you step the feck back and get the feck away from your pc. Go buy one of those kids v-tec jobbies and come back in a few years when you finially work out how to program your Vcr.

leninbenjamin

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

"Would that have anything to do with the closed Beta Kernel being the exact same as the Vista kernel at that time"

haha looks like I had that wrong then.

So what happened the original blackcomb kernal then? did it get completely thrown out? or did i have it wrong and the two were always the same thing?

AlmightyCushion

Anti wrote: »

The one thing ive noticed about Vista, the people that bitch and complain about it non stop truely are retarded.

No, vista wont run on a p3 with 64mb of ram(you can make it do so though). If you cant work out how to get the best out of vista after over 2 years since launch, maybe its time you step the feck back and get the feck away from your pc. Go buy one of those kids v-tec jobbies and come back in a few years when you finially work out how to program your Vcr.

Lets not get into a macs v pcs debate here. :pac:

Anti

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Lets not get into a macs v pcs debate here. :pac:

I lol'd

LoGiE

No chance! Windows ME was filth..... I remember years ago walking onto a site with several Windows ME machines and thinking '**** this is going to be a long day'