Was Vista a sucky OS?

[Erous]

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.

[Denpepe]

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.

[chazus]

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.

[Exodeus]

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.

[Gaidax]

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.

[HuxNeva]

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 ?

[ComputerNerd]

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

[chazus]

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 - - -

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.

[Dhrizzle]

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 - - -

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.

[apepi]

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.

[Riistov]

When it launched? Absolutely.

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

[DeltrusDisc]

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 - - -

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)

[chazus]

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.

I... I feel like either I'm not communicating something correctly, or you aren't understanding. I'm not sure which.

NT 4, 95, 98, 98 SE, ME are literally Version 4 (4.0, 4.0, 4.1, 4.1, 4.9 respectively, ignoring DOS/NT divide)
2k/XP are literally 5, as in Kernel 5.0 and 5.1
Vista is literally 6, as in Kernel 6.0.
7 is technically 7, because that's literally it's name. Even though it's kernel is 6.1.
8 is technically 8, because that's literally it's name. Even though it's kernel is 6.2

8.1 is really the only odd duck out. It's 6.3. it could have just as easily been called "9", or "8+", or "Future Potato". It's the major OS upgrade that came after 8, but before 10. As naming schemes go, they called it 8.1 largely (from what I understand) because they wanted it to seem that they were 'fixing' 8, rather than trashing it and starting over.

All those OS' have a number they apply to. Unless you want to literally call Windows 7 "Vista 2" and Windows 8 "Vista 3" and 8.1 "Vista 4"

[chazus]

And none of that lines up with windows 10 being the 10th release or the 10th kernel. Its name is Windows 10 because, as you said with others, that's its name. It has nothing to do with your original supposition that it was somehow the 10th release or 10th kernel.

Buuuuut it IS kernel 10.

It's literally called Windows 10, it's kernel 10. My point was that it is, in theory (but not any actual notated or documented thing), in a way the 10th release. I know there's been like 25 different operating systems, but it still lines up mostly correct.

Though, I imagine they made it kernel 10 because of its name, not the other way around, as opposed to making it kernel 7 and on.

[Artorius]

It technically was still 6.4 before they magically changed it to 10 to line with its name in one of the preview builds. In essence it's still the same base as anything that came up from Vista until today. @chazus

That's not the only weird thing they did during Windows 10 development, they also changed the naming scheme of the builds once, making it go from ~10K to ~14K in a single snapshot... Seeing it go from literally Windows 8.1 with WinRT apps on normal windows to what it is today was definitely kind of fun though.

[Vash The Stampede]

Vista eventually got patched and most of the problems were gone, but when it was released it was a nightmare. File copying was super slow for some reason, and most games tanked in FPS. I remember playing TBC on Vista and was constantly switching back and forth between XP and Vista. Vista's performance was so bad that some dungeons were like slide shows.

Of course the OS was patched and the drivers matured but by the time Windows 7 was released, Vista was working fine. Windows 7 and Vista are the same OS, just Windows 7 was a new name and had some extra goodies.

[Heavens Night]

VISTA was almost as bad as Millennium.

I say almost because Millennium was the most dysfunctional shower of shit I've ever seen, and although VISTA was bad, it was never THAT bad.

[oplawlz]

Every other windows OS is hot garbage, I suspect that's why mickeysoft decided to upgrade 10 perpetually. ME, Vista, 8 - all terrible compared to the OS they replaced.

[HuxNeva]

You are stretching this beyond reason. There is no rational sensible way to come up with 'it is the 10th release'. Are you seriously going to talk about 'kernels' and then put Win95 and NT4 in the same basket? The only way to make that statement is to look at the major version number, and by that count Win 10 is the 7th. If you include the minor version number, then Win 10 is the 16th. If you branch out after 3.11 into a NT lineage, then Win 10 is the 13th. '10' is just a commercial name dude, get over it.

[Flame6]

You have no clue.
I used it for like a weeks and went straight back to xp.

- - - Updated - - -



No 10char? How?

Yes followed by 6 spaces and a . The forum moves the dot over automatically. Quote my post and look at the quote before submitting. Yes .