# Was Windows Vista really that bad?



## qubit (Nov 25, 2016)

I can't believe it's already been a decade - Vista was released to business around this time in 2006 and the great unwashed in early 2007.

While it was certainly pretty bad in the beginning with its crashes, high system requirements and incompatibility, it was a whole lot better after SP2 and later patches, being nice and stable and things generally working. It was always kinda sluggish on the desktop though, even on a fast system in my experience. W7 finally fixed that and a whole lot more.

But what of gaming performance? How does it compare to XP and W10? Check out the video and find out.

IMO it was the best _looking_ OS, with the GUI achieving that wow factor look which Microsoft intended.


----------



## Kursah (Nov 25, 2016)

I loved it after SP2 and ran it more often than XP before SP2 and dealt with it.

What was the best was x64 SP2. Stable, smooth, good looking.


----------



## Melvis (Nov 25, 2016)

The damage had already been done to Vista before SP2 came out and statistics proves this but after Windows 8/8.1 and 10 came out I think Vista isnt as bad anymore lol but......its still a resource hog and loves to do the whole "not responding" thing alot.

Also most of the machines ive seen with Vista are running 32bit, super rare to see a 64bit version and the system specs were appalling, 512MB to 2GB RAM? really.


----------



## Slizzo (Nov 25, 2016)

Never had issues with my Vista install personally. Was stable, and since I had 4gb of ram at the time (wow!) I never saw any performance issues. Sure it used a lot of resources sitting idle but that was because it kept things in cache available for when you sat down to use it, thus improving responsiveness.

But then, I also liked Windows 8/8.1 as well, however, I did have a license for Start 8 which made it mostly like a Windows 7 install for me.


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 25, 2016)

I used Vista a lot, and even advocated a bit for it because it wasn't that bad, but for sure, it was a slower than it could have been.


Slizzo said:


> But then, I also liked Windows 8/8.1 as well, however, I did have a license for Start 8 which made it mostly like a Windows 7 install for me.


I did the same with 8/8.1 as well, but I did not modify it at all. I don't tend to muck about with OS installs and tend to have fewer weird issues to deal with as a result.


----------



## Vario (Nov 25, 2016)

The big computer companies were heavily promoting vista, selling bundled Vista computers with weak processors and insufficient ram, that didn't help with the image.  512mb ram and single core P4 was not enough to run it well.

I had a Dell Vostro core 2 duo  and 4 gb of ram with Vista and it worked fine.  I didn't upgrade it to 7 until recently when I had a spare key.

Does anyone remember Windows Mojave?
https://www.cnet.com/news/microsoft-looks-to-mojave-to-revive-vistas-image/


----------



## Solaris17 (Nov 25, 2016)

I remember beta testing it and it had alot of issues. but honestly it was groundbreaking. it was gorgeous. After SP2 I had no issues with it at all and never really understood all the hate. Personally I think all the bad memories about it using more resources or being more unstable were unfounded or unfair. Of course it used more resources. 

It introduced Aero and other explorer effects to the likes of which we had never seen. It also had its bugs. but we were also just ironing out x64 back then. Vista was a representation of an industry change where GPUs did more than play video games, OSs could be pretty and multicore CPUs were hitting mainstream for consumers.

If it had been any other OS we would have hated that instead. Vista was not without its issues, but Vista was a victim of circumstance.


----------



## AsRock (Nov 25, 2016)

Later in life it was much better, although never had any real issue's with it tbh, i was using it a good amount of time after Win7 came out.


----------



## Vario (Nov 25, 2016)

AsRock said:


> Later in life it was much better, although never had any real issue's with it tbh, i was using it a good amount of time after Win7 came out.


I used it from 2008 until 2013 .  Got by on just a laptop that whole time.


----------



## AsRock (Nov 25, 2016)

Well i got my 2 copy's free of MS and as i said i used it though most of win7's life time.  In fact i have had more issue's with Windows 10 than i ever did with Vista but this is due to the OS update bull.

There was just no need to update too Win7 on either system i just did to see what the fuss was.


----------



## Vario (Nov 25, 2016)

AsRock said:


> Well i got my 2 copy's free of MS and as i said i used it though most of win7's life time.  In fact i have had more issue's with Windows 10 than i ever did with Vista but this is due to the OS update bull.


I am going to delay getting windows 10 as long as I can.

Seven 4 lyfe homie


----------



## Naito (Nov 25, 2016)

Ran it until the release of Windows 7. Was a tad buggy prior to SP1, but after that, had no major issues. Sure it liked to consume as much available resources as possible, but it definitely was a nice change from XP.


----------



## fullinfusion (Nov 25, 2016)

I loved Vista till I bought my first SSD and needed Trim... So yeah it was bad.

I'm a creature of habit and hate change but I adapt!


----------



## tacosRcool (Nov 25, 2016)

Never had many of the supposed problems. A few performance hiccups here and there and that was running an AMD Athlon 5600+, 3 gb DDR2 RAM, and 32 bit Vista.


----------



## Divide Overflow (Nov 25, 2016)

I recall a nightmare of driver and chipset issues with Vista.  Memory crunching, disk thrashing resource issues.  USB problems, video, sound and printer problems up the wazoo.  The UAC asking over and over again for approval on the tiniest change. It seemed to take forever to work many of those problems out.  Yes, in my recollection it really was that bad.


----------



## neatfeatguy (Nov 25, 2016)

I moved to Vista about a year before 7 was released. No issues for me. I know SP1 was about by this time, I don't recall if SP2 was out yet.



Divide Overflow said:


> I recall a nightmare of driver and chipset issues with Vista.  Memory crunching, disk thrashing resource issues.  USB problems, video, sound and printer problems up the wazoo.  The UAC asking over and over again for approval on the tiniest change. It seemed to take forever to work many of those problems out.  Yes, in my recollection it really was that bad.



When Vista came out, it was a different beast. Coded very differently over XP - access to the kernel was very different. Companies that had equipment and their drivers on XP, they worked like a charm. I heard MS wasn't very lenient when it came to allowing companies to work with Vista before it released. By the time companies were able to work on writing drivers for Vista, they had to learn a whole new system and it caused many driver issues due to lack of time allowed.

For example: SoundBlaster had issues getting certain parts of their software to function correctly because of how the access to the OS kernel was very different over XP.

MS did a piss poor job with the release of Vista - probably rushed it out the doors a year too early. Oh well, water under the bridge.


----------



## alucasa (Nov 25, 2016)

I didn't have that many issues with Vista except for the neverending HDD grinding. By time SP1 was out, I was back on XP x64 and moved to Win 7 from there, so I have really no idea.


----------



## fullinfusion (Nov 25, 2016)

tacosRcool said:


> Never had many of the supposed problems. A few performance hiccups here and there and that was running an AMD Athlon 5600+, 3 gb DDR2 RAM, and 32 bit Vista.


yeah I agree, Vista was the cats ass and I hated going to W7... but then again I hated going to W10 from 7 but now I don't regret it at all


----------



## fullinfusion (Nov 25, 2016)

alucasa said:


> I didn't have that many issues with Vista except for the neverending HDD grinding. By time SP1 was out, I was back on XP x64 and moved to Win 7 from there, so I have really no idea.


What ya mean HDD grinding?

you have a bad platter?


----------



## alucasa (Nov 25, 2016)

Vista introduced superfeching.

Upon new installation, it'd access HDDs for hours up to few days to fetch everything so that accessing would be faster. This was an era where there was no SSD and MS probably tried to improve I/O speed with superfetch. The superfetching was very aggressive and slowed down everything. 

Of course, you could disable it but normal users didn't and complaints filed up.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 25, 2016)

it was really bad on resources and driver compatibility, I totally Skipped it and went right to 7


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Nov 25, 2016)

I went from XP to W7 as well.


The closest i got to vista was living a house called Bella Vista which had stunning views across Carmarthen Bay.


----------



## HammerON (Nov 25, 2016)

I used Vista 64bit when it came out and did not have that many difficulties (really none that I can remember).  I did switch to 7 soon after it came out.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 25, 2016)

The main problem with Vista was that OEMs were selling machines with Vista on it with only 1 GiB of RAM.  Vista needed at least 2 GiB or it was painfully slow.

The second problem was the radical change in start menu from XP to Vista with no option to revert it.  The rush to Windows 7 occurred not because Windows 7 was really all that fantastic over Vista but because XP was too damn old to keep putting it off.



alucasa said:


> Vista introduced superfeching.


Actually, that was NT 5.2 (XP x64 and Server 2003 R2).

It caches data for frequently used programs in the RAM when the HDD was idle so it would open very fast when the user actually tried to run it.  This only happens if you have excess, idle RAM.  As applications require more RAM, Windows caches less.

XP x64 never cached much more than 500 GB.


----------



## FYFI13 (Nov 25, 2016)

I was early adopter of Vista x64, been using it since beta and bought full version as soon as it came out. At that time i had fairly powerful PC and it ran really smooth, didn't have any compatibility issues either. Oh, i had to buy new web camera actually. But that's a good thing, as i wanted to get a better one anyways  
And i have to agree with few others here saying that Vista was best looking OS (from Windows family).

On work PC's there was different story through. It was super slow, constant issues with networking and printers. Good few BSOD's. SP1 fixed a lot of things and SP2 made it even better.


----------



## Melvis (Nov 25, 2016)

fullinfusion said:


> 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 (Nov 25, 2016)

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 (Nov 25, 2016)

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 (Nov 25, 2016)

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 (Nov 25, 2016)

Drone said:


> 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 (Nov 25, 2016)

Mussels said:


> 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 (Nov 25, 2016)

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 (Nov 25, 2016)

Mussels said:


> 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 (Nov 25, 2016)

Mussels said:


> 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 (Nov 25, 2016)

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 (Nov 25, 2016)

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 (Nov 25, 2016)

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 (Nov 25, 2016)

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 (Nov 25, 2016)

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 (Nov 25, 2016)

I have never ever used Windows Vista.


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


----------



## alucasa (Nov 25, 2016)

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


----------



## Vayra86 (Nov 25, 2016)

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 (Nov 25, 2016)

alucasa said:


> 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 (Nov 25, 2016)

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 (Nov 25, 2016)

*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 (Nov 25, 2016)

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


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 25, 2016)

r9 said:


> 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 (Nov 25, 2016)

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 (Nov 25, 2016)

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


----------



## FireFox (Nov 25, 2016)

slozomby said:


> horrible.



Right it wasn't horrible but instead terrible


----------



## dorsetknob (Nov 25, 2016)

Microsoft Vista

"" Microsofts least Pirated O/S"" 
That in itself say's lots


----------



## Champ (Nov 25, 2016)

I enjoyed Vista. If I were forced to, I could go back


----------



## FireFox (Nov 25, 2016)

Champ said:


> I enjoyed Vista. If I were forced to, I could go back



Why do you lie to yourself


This is how you looks like when using Vista


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 25, 2016)

It was pretty bad before the first service pack. After that, most of the bigger issues had been smoothed out.


----------



## qubit (Nov 25, 2016)

I'm surprised that no one's talking about the gaming performance. In that video it was always lagging XP 64-bit and W10 to some degree.


----------



## Beastie (Nov 25, 2016)

Vista is not fundamentally that bad  except it was very badly executed. Microsoft addressed the issues that had arisen with XP very well but completely screwed up where XP suceeded.

 As a user interface XP was the best iteration IMO.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 25, 2016)

qubit said:


> I'm surprised that no one's talking about the gaming performance. In that video it was always lagging XP 64-bit and W10, to some degree.



The difference in my experience wasn't noticeable.


----------



## AsRock (Nov 25, 2016)

fullinfusion said:


> I loved Vista till I bought my first SSD and needed Trim... So yeah it was bad.
> 
> I'm a creature of habit and hate change but I adapt!



I believe it was my reason of moving away from Vista or else i would not have done.


----------



## qubit (Nov 25, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> The difference in my experience wasn't noticeable.


Yeah, the video also said it wasn't really noticeable without measuring it.


----------



## Grings (Nov 26, 2016)

Who needs ssd's when you've got readyboost?


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Nov 26, 2016)

If you were too lazy to tweak Vista and disable all the crap that made it run like a dog then you have no room to complain in this thread, I did it with XP why should it be any different in Vista? and if you tried to run it on a P4 with 1GB RAM then that's your fault not Vista's, XP ran fine with 128MB RAM also if all you ever did was start your PC and stare at the desktop without running any programs, I know, I ran it on a Pentium 2.......


----------



## dorsetknob (Nov 26, 2016)

NdMk2o1o said:


> XP ran fine with 128MB RAM also if all you ever did was start your PC and stare at the desktop without running any programs, I know, I ran it on a Pentium 2.......



i still got a 266mhz p11 dell laptop running XP tho its got 256m/b ram 
I do fire her up ocasionaly
Pics in nostalgia thread (still viewable i hope )


----------



## Mussels (Nov 26, 2016)

dorsetknob said:


> i still got a 266mhz p11 dell laptop running XP tho its got 256m/b ram
> I do fire her up ocasionaly
> Pics in nostalgia thread (still viewable i hope )



i've got a tweaked XP ISO i made that uses 80MB of ram on a clean boot - we used it at my last work for all the POS (point of sale, aka piece of shit) systems with 128MB of ram.


----------



## THE_EGG (Nov 26, 2016)

I never had any issues either really, it worked great when I had a Toshiba Portege R400 convertible (convertible ultrabook of its day?). The little aux LED Edge Display worked with Vista and told me if I had any new emails, calendar reminders etc.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 26, 2016)

My biggest issue with Vista prior to SP1 was copying files over a network. Other than that, it really wasn't too bad. I honestly think that these "major updates" for Windows 10 are causing more problems than I ever had with Vista.


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 26, 2016)

Grings said:


> Who needs ssd's when you've got readyboost?



I wanted to form a reply to this post, but your avatar beat me to it.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Nov 26, 2016)

Of course it was bad.... It took away hardware acceleration. EAX supported games became extremely buggy after that if EAX was enabled and Creative Alchemy while it worked, didnt always get the best results


----------



## qubit (Nov 26, 2016)

Mussels said:


> i've got a tweaked XP ISO i made that uses 80MB of ram on a clean boot - we used it at my last work for all the POS (point of sale, aka piece of shit) systems with 128MB of ram.


Just 80MB? Must run like greased lightening on better hardware!


----------



## Mussels (Nov 26, 2016)

qubit said:


> Just 80MB? Must run like greased lightening on better hardware!




our "server" was an athlon 64 with 512MB of ram and it ran awesomely. Irony is that you cant even install a modern web browser with so little ram, nowadays.


----------



## BiggieShady (Nov 26, 2016)

erocker said:


> 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.


I agree ...

... except for one thing, of you realized yet what you of done? Of you or ofn't you?


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Nov 26, 2016)

BiggieShady said:


> I agree ...
> 
> ... except for one thing, of you realized yet what you of done? Of you or ofn't you?




Download more ram?


----------



## qubit (Nov 26, 2016)

Mussels said:


> our "server" was an athlon 64 with 512MB of ram and it ran awesomely. Irony is that you cant even install a modern web browser with so little ram, nowadays.


You've gotta install it on a modern system just for giggles and watch it _really_ fly.  You'll have to get round the AHCI driver catch 22 of course...


----------



## newconroer (Nov 26, 2016)

Melvis said:


> The damage had already been done to Vista before SP2 came out and statistics proves this but after Windows 8/8.1 and 10 came out I think Vista isnt as bad anymore lol but......its still a resource hog and loves to do the whole "not responding" thing alot.
> 
> Also most of the machines ive seen with Vista are running 32bit, super rare to see a 64bit version and the system specs were appalling, 512MB to 2GB RAM? really.



I feel the same about Windows 10. It got increasingly terrible right up until the first large patch was rolled out, which made it then twice as good. I am not surprised businesses reverted back to Windows 7.


----------



## BiggieShady (Nov 26, 2016)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Download more ram?


Have course what else, I don't of enough ram, you know me too well


----------



## Disparia (Nov 26, 2016)

Went for the first option as there was nothing that could have redeemed it for me.

There was about a 9 month span where I was using Windows 7 at home and Vista at work. 8hrs on one, 8hrs on the other... it was maddening.


----------



## Recon-UK (Nov 26, 2016)

Vista.

BSOD
BSOD
BSOD
APPLICATION ERROR
APPLICATION HAS STOPPED RESPONDING
SYSTEM RUNNING OUT OF MEMORY

And for those saying it was good? eat this.


----------



## TheOne (Nov 26, 2016)

It's hard to be mad at Vista, it was rushed to be finalized in its incomplete state so it could meet a deadline and avoid the backlash if it didn't, Microsoft then spent the next few years reworking and polishing it into Windows 7. It's also hard to be mad at Windows ME, it was supposedly just a test bed OS that was never supposed to be released, but they wanted a companion to Windows 2000.


----------



## remixedcat (Nov 27, 2016)

Windows 10 is worse lol that os is the new millennium edition

I used server 2008 instead of vista... But on laptops I had one vista one.. It was OK compared to 10


----------



## SKBARON (Nov 27, 2016)

I ran Vista on my old Athlon 5000+ dual core, had 2 gigs of ram and for some reason it ran better than xp for me at that time; Metro 2033 even ran better on Vista than it did on Xp (my poor 8600gt had a hard time pulling that game). But after a while it started acting up, especially the ram hogging, which prompted me to think about getting another 2 gigs, so I bought a new pc .


----------



## Vayra86 (Nov 27, 2016)

remixedcat said:


> Windows 10 is worse lol that os is the new millennium edition
> 
> I used server 2008 instead of vista... But on laptops I had one vista one.. It was OK compared to 10



Enlighten me... how is it worse than milennium?


----------



## FYFI13 (Nov 27, 2016)

Vayra86 said:


> Enlighten me... how is it worse than milennium?


Re-read bud  Windows 10 is worse than Vista. Windows 10 is a new ME.


----------



## Vario (Nov 28, 2016)

ME was terrible.  Vista was a decent OS with 4 GB of ram but ME was just all around horrid.  My family had it for two or three years.  When I went to college in 04 I was pumped at building my own rig and using XP, which had long been out by that time.

I plan to keep using 7 as long as possible.  If DX12 becomes necessary to game, then I guess I'd switch or run a second boot.


----------



## Vayra86 (Nov 28, 2016)

FYFI13 said:


> Re-read bud  Windows 10 is worse than Vista. Windows 10 is a new ME.



Well in the same vein, how do you feel it's worse than Vista? I'm curious...


----------



## FYFI13 (Nov 28, 2016)

Vayra86 said:


> Well in the same vein, how do you feel it's worse than Vista? I'm curious...


Vista (after SP1) was much more stable than Windows 10 for me. It looked better and was less bloated.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 28, 2016)

Vayra86 said:


> Well in the same vein, how do you feel it's worse than Vista? I'm curious...


Vista didn't brick my install twice by installing "major updates." I think that's a pretty big part of it. When MS doesn't push updates, W10 works fine.


----------



## qubit (Nov 28, 2016)

FYFI13 said:


> Re-read bud  Windows 10 is worse than Vista. Windows 10 is a new ME.


No it's not, lol come on now. It's not perfect, forces updates and has a little too much telemetry for comfort, but it actually works very well. I don't see hords of threads on TPU complaining about it like I did with Vista in the early days.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 28, 2016)

qubit said:


> No it's not, lol come on now. It's not perfect, forces updates and has a little too much telemetry for comfort, but it actually works very well. I don't see hords of threads on TPU complaining about it like I did with Vista in the early days.


I don't disagree but, major updates are almost like upgrading to Vista all over again. Once it's stable, it's rock solid but, even people like my parents which are the most uninvolved PC users, have complained about Windows 10 updating and ditching drivers and stuff like that. In fact they stopped using the tower and are only using their Macbook Pro because of it. I think you underestimate the people irritated with Windows 10 compared to people who have the expertise to work around it. I, however, use my desktop for work and PD so, becoming unstable like this out of the blue because of an update that I didn't ask to install, is unacceptable.


----------



## Jetster (Nov 28, 2016)

Again I will remind you that Vista remains the only OS that received so many complaints manufactures gave you another OS to try to keep you from sending the PC back

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Windows_Vista

I still have unused copies of Vista that came with a Dell laptop


----------



## TheOne (Nov 28, 2016)

A lot of Windows 8/8.1 system were advertised and sold with downgrade rights.


----------

