why is windows vista betterly known as a FLOP SHOW?

[ANUPLUCIFERGAMER]

 why is windows vista betterly  known as a flop show?

 

if you were to choose between xp and vista which would you choose?

 

i'm not asking it for gaming. just asked :p

[Volbet]

Windows Vista was extremely broken when it was first released. Therefor it still have the reputation of being a broken down mess. Personally I have nothing major against Vista, but I was glad to upgrade to Windows 7.

[Jebonia]

I would take xp and not be able to play lots of games than use vista that will crash and burn

[Godlygamer23]

At first, Vista was unstable. But after a while, Microsoft matured it and it became stable. Another problem with Vista that at least a few people blamed on Microsoft was driver issues. Vista had bad driver support. Though that may have actually been Microsoft's fault with a potential lack of communication to developers.

[joelthezombie15]

I used vista for years and rarely had issues. I have had more issues with win 7 then vista. 

[Guest GRRigger]

Vista wayyyyy

never used vista, never will

hasta la vista

[RatedBlam]

I used Vista for quite some time and I didn't have many problems. Under the bonnet Vista Still has some flaws though

[xToFxREAPER]

I didnt mind vista at all i used it for a long while on a laptop although that laptop was purely for school and never once used for gaming except wow a little bit on lunch breaks and spares, overall i actually like it better then i did xp but ill take either

[R4STABAN]

I would take vista over XP. I had no real problems with it. It was faster, better looking and more productive than XP.

[legopc]

i would go with xp becus i had some nasty experience with vista... very nasty 

[RuecanOnRails]

It's a hard choice and depends on the situation.

I'd probably choose XP. But really given a choice, in a world where compatibility and drivers aren't an issue 98SE ;)

 

I'm currently using windows 7 with it's appearance and set up nearly the same as vista with my trusty quick launch toolbar, never combining buttons, etc.

 

I ran Vista for a few years, can't say I experienced any issues. I did avoid it for the first while after release until they fixed a few things before jumping on board in mid 2008. I've still got a couple older machines running XP, and places I've worked have used XP for simple workstations (nothing technical being done on them)

[AMICLG]

I would take xp and not be able to play lots of games than use vista that will crash and burn

Well that's not completely true because a lot of old games don't play on 7.

[BenD]

i actually had have more problems drives issues with w7 then with vista,  xp was good, but it's a graphical downgrade, and i dont like downgrades:p vista wins for me

[GoodBytes]

There are a lot of miss information on Vista. I have been following Vista VERY closely since Microsoft had leaked info on Vista's project name: Longhorn. In a nut shell, Microsoft had enough of XP. Windows XP is based on NT3, a 1993 OS. Microsoft pushed that architecture to it's limits, and is plagued with unfixable security issues. All Microsoft could do, is to make primitive fixes, which was easily broken soon after. So Microsoft decided to restart from "scratch".

 

While the concept and true core of Windows remains the same on how it works, everything else has been pretty much redone. This means great things, but also bad. Great things, as Microsoft, a now more experienced company, with more money to get more experts then ever before, allows new and better ideas to be implemented. It also means, however, that old optimized codes and system are not gone at the bin. It also means that issues that didn't exists, now exists.

 

Of course, like anyone would do; If you have a chance to redo something, let's redo it right. This also meant drop a massive amount of legacy hardware support, and technologies. And use tricks like translating or somewhat adapt old things in, to support some not too old technologies, as you want some support too... else it won't work on many systems. But doing that result in performance drop.

 

To make a long story short, Vista, at release, was WAY ahead of it's time. 3 years ahead, in my opinion. The only people that enjoyed Vista with "0 issues", if you will, where people that not only had a gaming PC, but specifically ensured that every single hardware including embed in the motherboard was the latest. Mixed with ensuring that all hardware manufacture you have are passionate to support Vista no mater how the OS will do. Sadly, such computer was kinda expensive. I remember mine, I got in 2005 to make it Vista ready, I've spent 2500$ (including a GPU upgrade I did later on, if not, drop 350$+tax from the price). My AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ 2.2Ghz Socket 939 cost 750$.

 

So, basically a high-end gaming PC could run Vista 64-bit properly without issue, and get a smoother, faster, and better experience than installing XP on it. I remember installing XP pre-SP1 on my new computer and I was stuck with 256 colors, and the graphic card and motherboard drivers could not install under so low amount of colors. Having the drivers of the graphic card installed from Device manager set to laod teh extracted drivers didn't help.. my graphic card could not be recognized as XP didn't know what PCI-E was. Ahhh.. good times...

 

Anyway, the average consumer didn't want to pay 2000$ for a computer, not even 1500$. No, they were asking the lowest price computer possible. So basically OEM was selling completely under-power crap, and pushing Microsoft to make the "Vista Basic" certification, and lower the bar for "Vista Premium" certification. You saw Vista Premium stickers on Intel integrated graphic that could not handle AT ALL Aero, 1GB of slow ass memory, with horrible motherboards, and single core or Pentium D at best (which Intel liked to call a """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""dual core""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" CPU). Vista was designed for high amount of RAM and 64-bit and specifically optimized for dual core CPUs. Microsoft did work closely with AMD to make this possible.

 

Mix with the fact that every OEM put Vista 32-bit for driver support, and that Vista 64-bit was the most downloaded and tested OS by public testers, as people that got Vista Beta's, where people like you and me, where we are like: We have a 64-bit CPU and 64-bit is talked a lot (at the time). Lets see it in action! Let's push it, and hope we start seeing 64-bit made games. The price is the same, the hardware is supported, so why not? So, Vista 32-bit was a bit of a mess with a lot of bugs.

 

3 years later, computer got massively faster, Microsoft got time to fix a lot of bugs, polished things further, and optimized a lot of stuff and bring the 32-bit and 64-bit version to par, and peripherals now, forced to support 64-bit drivers.. and not only that.. PROPERLY to be able to claim: "Windows 7 support". And, well you know the rest of the story. Oh and OEMs stop releasing crap system.. well less crap systems, forcing the consumer to pay more or to bad for them.

 

If you install Vista 64-bit today on your system, you'll see it's not half bad. I mean, you'll miss all the cool Windows 7 features, and you might face with 1-2 in your face bugs especially pre SP1, but nothing that is killer.

 

Oh and it didn't help that Vista had less than a hand full of end-user features. Many people said that Vista was nothing more than XP with a search bar and Aero, ignoring the biggest change, the new core it has as this is back end stuff, as they don't see the background stuff.