Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
LastLast
  1. #41
    Just realized I rambled without answering the question.


    Yes it was bad,

    Why ?

    You needed new hardware to properly run it.
    It was bloated.
    EAX support was gone due to the removal of DirectSound.
    Many of the promised features never appeared.
    DX10 turned out to be hype from a user aspect.

    I don't remember much else, I didn't touch it until Bioshock came out.
    Last edited by MrPaladinGuy; 2017-04-21 at 01:47 PM.

  2. #42
    That's a complicated question. Vista's perception involves not just the OS but a lot of surrounding context.
    1) It had bugs at launch. Every previous OS did. People that remember XP fondly probably weren't there for, or don't remember, XP's launch. Until SP1 they were both really doggy.
    2) Vista was late because it DIDN'T ship with all of its promised features and many half done things needed to be ripped out. So you have a new product that took longer to go gold with not much noticeable user level improvements.
    3) Vista DID ship with a more secure driver layer, but that broke a lot of apps that were use to doing anything it wanted with memory and the OS. A lot of manufactures didn't prioritize having proper working drivers (potentially so people would be forced to buy new products that would work) so a lot of software and hardware that worked under XP suddenly stopped working. And UAC was really aggressive to the point that it pissed people off or drove them to turn it off.
    4) Microsoft was pressured by PC manufactures to keep the stated requirements low. This lead to a lot of underpowered PCs trying to run the OS, often they could only do it by turning off a lot of UI features (ex. Areo) and it looked to many users like they just wasted money for another copy of XP.

    Windows 7 was essentially all that Windows Vista was trying to be. It had the added benefit of having Vista do the hard work and taking it on the chin, and Microsoft not backing down on reasonable requirements to run it. A spectrum of UAC options helped so people could adjust how nannying it was without fully disabling it.

    Was it bad overall? Not really. Like with XP SP1 corrected a lot of issues, and SP2 refined it. It was perfectly serviceable as long as you weren't trying to run it on a potato. Personally I never had a problem with it outside of those early buggy days.
    Last edited by Gamer8585; 2017-04-21 at 01:48 PM.

  3. #43
    Moderator chazus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    13,752
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    Windows 10 isn't literally release 10. It's the 10th from where you started listing, but I used windows long before 95 was a thing.
    It is, though. It's literally Kernel 10. There's a few ways to look at it. Win 10 was originally going to be the 10th main version of windows, given that 8 and 8.1 are effectively totally different versions. 8.1 is not just a service pack. It's a completely (mostly) new kernel. 8 is as different from 8.1 as Vista is from 7. Win 10 was originally going to be 6.4, but they changed it for a number of reasons (one being that it will have multiple revisions. We're on 10.4 now). But it is definitely the 10th release AND it's kernel # is 10 as well. It would be silly for them to have named Windows 10 kernel 7, 7.1, 7.2, etc.

    Win Version Kernel # Market #
    Win 1 1 1
    Win 2 2 2
    Win 3 3 3
    Win 95/98 4.0/4.1 4
    Win 2k/XP 5.0/5.1 5
    Win Vista 6.0 6
    Win 7 6.1 7
    Win 8 6.2 8
    Win 8.1 6.3 9
    Win 10 10.0 10
    Gaming: Dual Intel Pentium III Coppermine @ 1400mhz + Blue Orb | Asus CUV266-D | GeForce 2 Ti + ZF700-Cu | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 | Whistler Build 2267
    Media: Dual Intel Drake Xeon @ 600mhz | Intel Marlinspike MS440GX | Matrox G440 | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 @ 166mhz | Windows 2000 Pro

    IT'S ALWAYS BEEN WANKERSHIM | Did you mean: Fhqwhgads
    "Three days on a tree. Hardly enough time for a prelude. When it came to visiting agony, the Romans were hobbyists." -Mab

  4. #44
    Given that the release was years late, and overhyped, this set the scene for abysmal failure. And yes, for most people, it was truly horrible. Reason wasn't that the core OS sucked. In fact, the core had several improvements over XP. However, out-of-the-box the OS immediately started indexing your entire hard-disk, which made even the faster machines bog down completely, often for several days leading to extremely poor first impressions and reception. Several other processes piled on making it a nightmare unless you knew how and what to turn off (and keep it turned off, which was even more of a challenge). A compounding factor was also that in a run-up to the OS release, due to accidental supply chain shortages in Korea memory prices had skyrocketed. As a result, in the first two years of the OS PC's had way less memory than anticipated, and hence, weren't meeting the sweet-spots for which the workloads had been tuned.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by chazus View Post
    It is, though. It's literally Kernel 10. There's a few ways to look at it. Win 10 was originally going to be the 10th main version of windows, given that 8 and 8.1 are effectively totally different versions. 8.1 is not just a service pack. It's a completely (mostly) new kernel. 8 is as different from 8.1 as Vista is from 7. Win 10 was originally going to be 6.4, but they changed it for a number of reasons (one being that it will have multiple revisions. We're on 10.4 now). But it is definitely the 10th release AND it's kernel # is 10 as well. It would be silly for them to have named Windows 10 kernel 7, 7.1, 7.2, etc.

    Win Version Kernel # Market #
    Win 1 1 1
    Win 2 2 2
    Win 3 3 3
    Win 95/98 4.0/4.1 4
    Win 2k/XP 5.0/5.1 5
    Win Vista 6.0 6
    Win 7 6.1 7
    Win 8 6.2 8
    Win 8.1 6.3 9
    Win 10 10.0 10
    You are combining releases and jumping numbers to suit your narrative. I can find no evidence to support your position and you left out the actual version 4 which was NT 4...
    If it seems like I am acting stupid, there's probably a good reason for that.

  6. #46
    I actually didn't have any issues with Vista. I liked the new UI design, UAC could be turned off so that wasn't really an issue. I never had driver problems because I kept my hardware and said drivers up to date. If I were to say one thing negative, it could be that the transparency for the UI elements was a resource hog. GPU's at the time lacked the muscle and the coding wasn't the cleanest, but in reality I never had an issue.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Fascinate View Post
    Same went from xp to 7 lol.
    unfortunatelly I went from 2000 to vista only used XP years later on a workpc. Although vista was horrible at launch, after service pack 1 it was decent.

  8. #48
    Moderator chazus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    13,752
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    You are combining releases and jumping numbers to suit your narrative. I can find no evidence to support your position and you left out the actual version 4 which was NT 4...
    I'm not combining anything. I'm calling 4.0 and 4.1 "4" because they both have 4 as the main build.

    As for 'left out', do you really want me to include, 3.1, 3.5, 3.51, 4.0.1, 4.1.2, 4.0, and all the others in between for server builds and all that? No, I'm just listing the mainstream consumer versions to show that there was a numbering scheme. No numbers were 'jumped' or 'suited' with the exception of considering "8.1" as 9, which, it effectively is, just as "Vista" is 6.

    And yes, the divide between the DOS shells and Win NT is notable, but the numbering and kernel happened at the same time so is more or less pointless to mention when it comes to how the numbering works, saving for nitpicking.
    Last edited by chazus; 2017-04-21 at 02:19 PM.
    Gaming: Dual Intel Pentium III Coppermine @ 1400mhz + Blue Orb | Asus CUV266-D | GeForce 2 Ti + ZF700-Cu | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 | Whistler Build 2267
    Media: Dual Intel Drake Xeon @ 600mhz | Intel Marlinspike MS440GX | Matrox G440 | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 @ 166mhz | Windows 2000 Pro

    IT'S ALWAYS BEEN WANKERSHIM | Did you mean: Fhqwhgads
    "Three days on a tree. Hardly enough time for a prelude. When it came to visiting agony, the Romans were hobbyists." -Mab

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by chazus View Post
    I'm not combining anything. I'm calling 4.0 and 4.1 "4" because they both have 4 as the main build.

    As for 'left out', do you really want me to include, 3.1, 3.5, 3.51, 4.0.1, 4.1.2, 4.0, and all the others in between for server builds and all that? No, I'm just listing the mainstream consumer versions to show that there was a numbering scheme. No numbers were 'jumped' or 'suited' with the exception of considering "8.1" as 9, which, it effectively is, just as "Vista" is 6.

    And yes, the divide between the DOS shells and Win NT is notable, but the numbering and kernel happened at the same time so is more or less pointless to mention when it comes to how the numbering works, saving for nitpicking.
    8.1 isn't effectively 9, it's 6.3. And if you're going to count each version as an actual release then you have to include every actual version of windows that was released.
    If it seems like I am acting stupid, there's probably a good reason for that.

  10. #50
    Stood in the Fire Exodeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Iceland
    Posts
    425
    All versions of windows suck in their own way and most in the same way.
    What made Vista so infamous was that it was being sold on machines with way to little ram in most cases which made it run like shit no matter the rest of the computers specs.
    Just try running win 7 or win 10 in 2gb ram(which was quite common for budget laptops at that time) see how smooth that goes.

  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by chazus View Post
    I'm not combining anything. I'm calling 4.0 and 4.1 "4" because they both have 4 as the main build.

    As for 'left out', do you really want me to include, 3.1, 3.5, 3.51, 4.0.1, 4.1.2, 4.0, and all the others in between for server builds and all that? No, I'm just listing the mainstream consumer versions to show that there was a numbering scheme. No numbers were 'jumped' or 'suited' with the exception of considering "8.1" as 9, which, it effectively is, just as "Vista" is 6.

    And yes, the divide between the DOS shells and Win NT is notable, but the numbering and kernel happened at the same time so is more or less pointless to mention when it comes to how the numbering works, saving for nitpicking.
    8.1 isn't effectively 9, it's 6.3. And if you're going to count each version as an actual release then you have to include every actual version of windows that was released.

    The only reason it's not called Windows 1(like every other product they have that's got one in it right now) is because they already released Windows 1. And, as you noted with the kernels, it's the 7th not the 10th. And it's not the 10th actual release... soooo.
    If it seems like I am acting stupid, there's probably a good reason for that.

  12. #52
    I am one of the guys who used Vista and it was fine for me, guess I'm a unicorn.

    The only raw thing I remember was Aero.

  13. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by chazus View Post

    Win Version Kernel # Market #
    Win 1 1 1
    Win 2 2 2
    Win 3 3 3
    Win 95/98 4.0/4.1 4
    Win 2k/XP 5.0/5.1 5
    Win Vista 6.0 6
    Win 7 6.1 7
    Win 8 6.2 8
    Win 8.1 6.3 9
    Win 10 10.0 10
    Win 3.11, NT 3, NT 3.1, NT 4, Win 98 SE, Win ME ?

  14. #54
    When it launched, there were big driver issues.
    It improved later.
    The one I had the worst experience with, though rather more limited due to it being someone else's system was ME.

    Reminds me of this.


    https://i.imgur.com/zh4F55R.png
    Last edited by ComputerNerd; 2017-04-21 at 03:09 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by DeadmanWalking View Post
    Your forgot to include the part where we blame casuals for everything because blizzard is catering to casuals when casuals got jack squat for new content the entire expansion, like new dungeons and scenarios.
    Quote Originally Posted by Reinaerd View Post
    T'is good to see there are still people valiantly putting the "Ass" in assumption.

  15. #55
    Moderator chazus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    13,752
    Quote Originally Posted by HuxNeva View Post
    Win 3.11, NT 3, NT 3.1, NT 4, Win 98 SE, Win ME ?
    As I said, I left those out because it doesn't really add to the point. If you really want me to list out every individual one I could, but you already know about it so again, pointless. ME and NT4 is still Win 4 with 95/98, 3.11 is still Win 3, just like 3.5/3.51.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    8.1 isn't effectively 9, it's 6.3. And if you're going to count each version as an actual release then you have to include every actual version of windows that was released.

    The only reason it's not called Windows 1(like every other product they have that's got one in it right now) is because they already released Windows 1. And, as you noted with the kernels, it's the 7th not the 10th. And it's not the 10th actual release... soooo.
    Again, that's largely just nitpicking.

    If 8.1 isn't "9" then 7 isn't "7" either. I was just pointing out the major releases.
    Gaming: Dual Intel Pentium III Coppermine @ 1400mhz + Blue Orb | Asus CUV266-D | GeForce 2 Ti + ZF700-Cu | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 | Whistler Build 2267
    Media: Dual Intel Drake Xeon @ 600mhz | Intel Marlinspike MS440GX | Matrox G440 | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 @ 166mhz | Windows 2000 Pro

    IT'S ALWAYS BEEN WANKERSHIM | Did you mean: Fhqwhgads
    "Three days on a tree. Hardly enough time for a prelude. When it came to visiting agony, the Romans were hobbyists." -Mab

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Tonus View Post
    Yes, but not nearly as bad as Windows 8. Windows 8 was a historic disaster... so bad that they named the next system "10" to distance themselves from it. The operating system is named Windows, and you have applications that take up the whole screen, can't be run in windowed mode, and continue running in the background with no evidence of them on the main screen? Are you fucking serious?

    I'm curious to see if Microsoft can break the trend of Bad OS > Good OS that's been going on for some time now...
    Windows 8 was pretty much a straight improvement on 7, the formerly-known-as-Metro apps were totally separate to the desktop experience and were supposed to provide a mobile-like experience for people with the right hardware, but if you ignored them they had zero effect on the experience.

    Mostly in Win8 I noticed the changes to File Explorer and various system utilities (like the Task Manager,) and those were all massive improvements.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaidax View Post
    I am one of the guys who used Vista and it was fine for me, guess I'm a unicorn.

    The only raw thing I remember was Aero.
    Ah man I forgot about Aero. It was kinda cute how you could be running a fairly high-requirement game and Windows would interrupt because it thought the transparent windows were slowing down your machine.

  17. #57
    The Insane apepi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Mostly harmless
    Posts
    18,803
    I had zero problems with Windows 7. Everyone bitched about it but it worked perfectly for me. Going Windows Vista to 7 was pretty much the same OS to me.
    Time...line? Time isn't made out of lines. It is made out of circles. That is why clocks are round. ~ Caboose

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by chazus View Post
    As I said, I left those out because it doesn't really add to the point. If you really want me to list out every individual one I could, but you already know about it so again, pointless. ME and NT4 is still Win 4 with 95/98, 3.11 is still Win 3, just like 3.5/3.51.

    - - - Updated - - -


    Again, that's largely just nitpicking.

    If 8.1 isn't "9" then 7 isn't "7" either. I was just pointing out the major releases.
    8.1 is exactly what it's purported to be. The only reason they replaced the standard discs with it in stores is because of the massive number of fixes required to get to 8.1. 8 was released as an extremely buggy version. And, again, you're leaving out a number of releases to fit your narrative. NT was fundamentally different than Win 95 in the same way 8.1 is fundamentally different than 8. Likewise for 98 and 95. I understand that there are a lot of people that have adopted this view to help them understand the weird numbering MS did by skipping 9(after switching back to a numbering system for "7"). The numbering system as you're defining it doesn't line up for the kernel in the slightest as they didn't magically skip generations 7, 8, and 9. And, again, you're missing things like Windows ME which was the successor to 98(for market #). If you're going make the 6's their own thing the 5's and 4's and whatnot are all their own thing. You're forcing the data to fit your narrative and it just doesn't work.
    If it seems like I am acting stupid, there's probably a good reason for that.

  19. #59
    When it launched? Absolutely.

    It was usable once they fixed it via service packs and updates though.

  20. #60
    The Insane DeltrusDisc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    17,662
    Quote Originally Posted by Tonus View Post
    8.1 still had the Windows 8 start menu which was a no go.

    I just found this gem:

    https://xkcd.com/528/
    Uhhh... So?

    I turned off the tile crap and the start menu was great in 8.1 when you put it on Desktop mode.

    Really still don't understand why people hated 8.1 when it literally fixed everything they complained about with 8. I found almost everyone who hated 8.1 never tried it, and pretty much the same with 8, however 8 made more sense to hate, but 8.1 literally took away all the things to hate.

    So yeah, I don't get it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Dhrizzle View Post
    Ah man I forgot about Aero. It was kinda cute how you could be running a fairly high-requirement game and Windows would interrupt because it thought the transparent windows were slowing down your machine.
    rofl I hated that bullshit.

    Turned off Aero for some time just to not have to deal with it. x)
    [email protected] | Noctua NH-D15 | GTX 1970 | 32GB DDR4 | 256GB NVMe | 775GB SSD | 7TB HDD | SeaSonic 750w 80+ Titanium PRIME | Fractal Design Define R4
    Samsung 34" 3440x1440 Curved | Schiit MODI 2 + ASGARD 2 | Schiit WYRD | Sennheiser HD 598 | Presonus Eris E5x2 | KRK 10S Subwoofer | Shure BETA 58A Microphone

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •