What's your opinion on Windows Vista?

[OldNewComputers]

Personally, I really love Windows Vista, though it's a hated OS. (I love it so much that I make my Windows 7 look like Vista with a custom theme). Why do I like it? Let me list out the features:

- Windows Movie Maker 6.0

- Aero / Flip3D

- Windows Presentation Foundation

- WDDM

- DirectX 10

- new 3D games (Chess Titans, etc.)

- Tablet PC integration even in Home editions (Home Premium, Business, Ultimate) with Tablet Pen Input Panel, Inkball, etc.

 

Also, Vista runs fairly well as long as you have 2GB of RAM and a dual core CPU (plus a GMA950 or better for Aero support).

 

If you bought a high-end Media Centre or Gaming PC in 2004/2005 (with a Pentium 4-HT/Core 2 Duo/Pentium D, 1 to 2GB of RAM, a dedicated GPU) plus some optional upgrades depending on the original specs, you can run Vista usably well. And if you buy a laptop in 2006/2007/2008 with at least these specs then Vista will run well:

 

- Pentium Dual Core/Core Duo (Yonah) or Celeron Dual Core/Pentium Dual Core/Core 2 Duo (Penryn)

- 2GB memory

- Intel GMA 950 or better

 

I know Windows Vista RTM had some problems with activation and driver compatibility, but by SP1+, those problems had been fixed (and machine manufacturers had written drivers), and the average computer was too slow until Windows 7 came out. If Win7 had come out when Vista had, 7 would be hated. If Vista came out when 7 did, it would be loved.

 

 

So....

what is your opinion on Windows Vista?

[Jurrunio]

My experience with it is terrible. Back then I'm using a prebuilt with Pentium G640 (a 2.8GHz Sandy Bridge dual core) with 8GB RAM at 1333MHz, and integrated graphics. Not expecting gaming performance, but back then I only play webpage based games and do paperwork.

 

It lags in IE and Chrome, but somehow works fine with Safari

It stutters in Excel, or even Control Panel

Takes a whole minute to boot

 

Not even disabling Aero and make it look like Windows 95 solve the issue. At last it got changed to run XP which is much better. At least it's smooth there.

[dcgreen2k]

My Core 2 Quad machine came with Vista but was upgraded to Windows 7 before I got it. I never really saw any visual differences between the two though.

[Mira Yurizaki]

Vista was great for me. I even used it as my primary OS before SP1 came out. I even used it on a computer that had 2GB of RAM and never really had issues with it running out. Looking back, I think most of the problems were from shoddy driver support at launch.

 

But yeah, the OS did need a bit more than what most people had at the time.

[Nocte]

The poll is wrong... You don't skip vista by going from 7 to 8... Windows Vista was before 7.

 

Anyway, Windows Vista was probably the worst OS that I ever had to deal with.

[OldNewComputers]

9 minutes ago, Eibe said:

The poll is wrong... You don't skip vista by going from 7 to 8... Windows Vista was before 7.

 

Anyway, Windows Vista was probably the worst OS that I ever had to deal with.

It was a mistake (sorry!) - I meant XP to 7!

And what was so bad about your Vista experience. And if it were the slowness of the OS, what were your system specs when you ran Vista.

[PorkishPig]

I used Windows Vista from 2007-2010. It was great, a serious step up from Windows XP SP2 visual wise. It could run Zoo Tycoon 2, which was basically all I cared about. I eventually stepped up to Windows 7 when I was given a copy after getting a virus. My hatred for the OS came from one of my client's computers, who had Windows Vista from 2007-2015. Windows Explorer on Vista is an absolute nightmare.

 

I had a far worse experience when I used Windows 8 for personal use. I upgraded to the Windows 10 Beta as soon as it was released.

[OldNewComputers]

4 minutes ago, Homeless Pineapple said:

I used Windows Vista from 2007-2010. It was great, a serious step up from Windows XP SP2 visual wise. It could run Zoo Tycoon 2, which was basically all I cared about. I eventually stepped up to Windows 7 when I was given a copy after getting a virus. My hatred for the OS came from one of my client's computers, who had Windows Vista from 2007-2015. Windows Explorer on Vista is an absolute nightmare.

 

I had a far worse experience when I used Windows 8 for personal use. I upgraded to the Windows 10 Beta as soon as it was released.

What's wrong with the Windows Vista Explorer?

[GoodBytes]

Vista ran well if:

• You had a computer that contain no legacy technologies (this include motherboard features).
• You had a gaming computer with plenty of RAM (4GB), actual dual core CPU (in other words: no Pentium D), and to have the GPU power and memory to drive Aero.
• You installed 64-bit version of Vista.
• All your hardware contains well coded drivers.

3 years later, technology caught up mixed with optimization on Microsoft part, made Windows 7 ran great on many systems.

That said, Vista was released too quickly. For an OS largely made from scratch, new bugs are bound to appear where you didn't have, and really started to function well after SP1. MS pushed a released probably from a lot of pressure from investors/shareholders due to be baking for 6 years. And of course, usually long dev time doesn't end well, as things is never released, and technology moves forwards and core things needs to be changed to adapt, and that changes everything, adding more delays, and you are stuck in a loop, and end up with crap product. See: Duke Nukem Forever as a famous example of this. The game was so long in development to make it "the most awesome", competition moved forward, and now the original game mechanics that would have been nice back then, turned no longer good, and needed to be redone... and redone... and redone... you get the idea.

 

If you install Vista today, and fully update it, it isn't far off from Windows 7.

 

I enjoyed Vista because it prioritized RAM, something that XP can't do due to the core way it works (moved everything it can to page file), actually brought much needed security (one of the key reason why MS dropped XP which was based on the 1993 NT3 kernel.. yes, before the internet as we know it by a long shot), it did things right, such as using the GPU to draw the interface, drop lots of legacy stuff in favor of new technologies, multi-core CPU optimized, and more. In addition, it pushed stagnated hardware world (at the time) forward. No more OEMs loving to put shitty S3 graphics, no more Intel integrated graphics that can't even play a DVD properly, no more OEM liquidating old hardware by making system with imbalanced specs (although they loved doing it with Vista early days, which didn't help Vista image: For example: dual core 64-bit CPU, OK'ish GPU for handling Aero, DVD playback, and so on.. but 512MB of RAM, and some shit 80GB 4200RPM HDD)

 

[OldNewComputers]

1 minute ago, GoodBytes said:

Vista ran well if:

• You had a computer that contain no legacy technologies (this include motherboard features).
• You had a gaming computer with plenty of RAM (4GB), actual dual core CPU (in other words: no Pentium D), and to have the GPU power and memory to drive Aero.
• You installed 64-bit version of Vista.
• All your hardware contains well coded drivers.

3 years later, technology caught up mixed with optimization on Microsoft part, made Windows 7 ran great on many systems.

That said, Vista was released too quickly. For an OS largely made from scratch, new bugs are bound to appear where you didn't have, and really started to function well after SP1. MS pushed a released probably from a lot of pressure from investors/shareholders due to be baking for 6 years. And of course, usually long dev time doesn't end well, as things is never released, and technology moves forwards and core things needs to be changed to adapt, and that changes everything, adding more delays, and you are stuck in a loop, and end up with crap product. See: Duke Nukem Forever as a famous example of this. The game was so long in development to make it "the most awesome", competition moved forward, and now the original game mechanics that would have been nice back then, turned no longer good, and needed to be redone... and redone... and redone... you get the idea.

 

If you install Vista today, and fully update it, it isn't far off from Windows 7.

 

I enjoyed Vista because it prioritized RAM, something that XP can't do due to the core way it works, actually bring much needed security (one of the key reason why MS dropped XP which was based on the 1993 NT3 kernel.. yes, before the internet as we know it by a long shot), it did things right, such as using the GPU to draw the interface, drop lots of legacy stuff in favor of new technologies, multi-core CPU optimized, and more. In addition, it pushed stagnated hardware world (at the time) forward. No more OEMs loving to put shit S3 graphics, no more Intel integrated graphics that can't even play a DVD properly, no more OEM liquidating old hardware by making system with imbalanced specs (although they loved doing it with Vista days, which didn't help: dual core 64-bit CPU, OK'ish GPU for handling Aero, DVD playback, and so on.. but 512MB of RAM, and some shit 80GB 4200RPM HDD)

 

I challenge that. While I agree with your last statement of what Vista needs and pretty much everything else, but I disagree with the other three "what you need to run Vista well" items.

 

- 2GB of RAM runs Vista fine

- 32-bit Vista is fine

CASE STUDY: Dell Inspiron 1525 (2GB RAM, Pentium Dual Core, 32-bit Vista)

 

One other question: how is the Pentium D not a true dual core?

[PorkishPig]

1 minute ago, OldNewComputers said:

What's wrong with the Windows Vista Explorer?

The client I had liked to see larger icons using in Explorer or she had trouble finding things. Vista seemed to like to reset it whenever it felt like it. You know, this.

[GoodBytes]

1 minute ago, OldNewComputers said:

I challenge that. While I agree with your last statement of what Vista needs and pretty much everything else, but I disagree with the other three "what you need to run Vista well" items.

 

- 2GB of RAM runs Vista fine

- 32-bit Vista is fine

CASE STUDY: Dell Inspiron 1525 (2GB RAM, Pentium Dual Core, 32-bit Vista)

They were far more Vista 64-bit testers during the public beta testing of the OS than 32-bit. The end result, is that the focus from MS was shifted on that version than the 32-bit, not to mention that the OS was developed first for 64-bit CPUs, as the whole OS architecture was designed to be the foundations of future versions of Windows (and it was), resulted in a less buggy OS version.

 

1 minute ago, OldNewComputers said:

One other question: how is the Pentium D not a true dual core?

Pentium D, at least at the start, was a quick patch job from Intel, rushed released to compete against AMD dual core Athlon 64 surprise.

The Pentium D first gen at least, was 2x Pentium 4, stuck together, with a hope that they communicate to some level.. didn't do well, making parallelism be weak.

[OldNewComputers]

1 minute ago, GoodBytes said:

They were far more Vista 64-bit testers during the public beta testing of the OS than 32-bit. The end result, is that the focus from MS was shifted on that version than the 32-bit, not to mention that the OS was developed first for 64-bit CPUs, as the whole OS architecture was designed to be the foundations of future versions of Windows (and it was), resulted in a less buggy OS version.

 

Pentium D, at least at the start, was a quick patch job from Intel, rushed released to compete against AMD dual core Athlon 64 surprise.

The Pentium D first gen at least, was 2x Pentium 4, stuck together, with a hope that they communicate to some level.. didn't do well, making parallelism be weak.

Yes, there were more 64-bit Vista beta testers because 64-bit was new for client Windows at the time, but 32-bit Vista is still usable.

 

Also, the Intel Core Duo/Pentium Dual Core is nothing but two Pentium M processors on a single die, just like the Pentium D.

[PlayStation 2]

Once you get Vista all patched up, it's basically a slightly buggier Windows 7, at least from what I've seen.

[Nocte]

1 hour ago, OldNewComputers said:

It was a mistake (sorry!) - I meant XP to 7!

And what was so bad about your Vista experience. And if it were the slowness of the OS, what were your system specs when you ran Vista.

Ah that's a lot you are asking for. I was around 10 when I had it! I researched the laptop I was using online and if I am not mistaken it had these specs:

- Core Duo

- 1GB RAM

 

I guess the culprit was my RAM

[GoodBytes]

21 minutes ago, Eibe said:

Ah that's a lot you are asking for. I was around 10 when I had it! I researched the laptop I was using online and if I am not mistaken it had these specs:

- Core Duo

- 1GB RAM

 

I guess the culprit was my RAM

And probably the GPU... as I doubt you had a high-end 2008'ish laptop with one mid-low range one (with dedicated memory, another requirement. So a GeForce 9300 which was popular back then, is a no go) or a gaming laptop.

 

[GoodBytes]

1 hour ago, OldNewComputers said:

Yes, there were more 64-bit Vista beta testers because 64-bit was new for client Windows at the time, but 32-bit Vista is still usable.

Never said it wasn't usable, just that the Vista 64-bit would have been more polished

[Nocte]

1 minute ago, GoodBytes said:

And probably the GPU... as I doubt you had a high-end 2008'ish laptop with one mid-low range one (with dedicated memory, another requirement. So a GeForce 9300 which was popular back then, is a no go) or a gaming laptop.

The games I played ran fine to be fair, but we are talking about the likes of RuneScape... So not much workload.

The real issues were the system responsiveness... Back then I thought it was registry problems.

[GoodBytes]

4 minutes ago, Eibe said:

The games I played ran fine to be fair, but we are talking about the likes of RuneScape... So not much workload.

The real issues were the system responsiveness... Back then I thought it was registry problems.

Actually, it is not about gaming, it is really about how good the GPU is at doing alpha blending (ie: glass/transparency). This was quite taxing back in the day, hence why, even later Intel graphic solutions which could handle Aero, still hurt laptop battery life as it was under constant load, and the more window you had, the worst it got. You also needed dedicated 256MB memory for the GPU to ensure the best experience. Back then GPU cache was low, and system RAM wasn't as fast as now either.