What's so bad about Windows Vista?

Calin

Calin

Well-Known Member
I don't get it, I'm running Vista now, and I'll continue using it when my 8350 arrrives
 
Nothing really. It's fine with the service packs.

Poor driver support upon release is what hurt it...
 
linkin said:
Nothing really. It's fine with the service packs.

Poor driver support upon release is what hurt it...
Click to expand...

This. And the fact that it hogs quite a bit of hardware resources compared to XP and 7. OEM's were shipping PC's with crappy specs and Vista installed so a lot of people complained a lot about that. Then you have the people who "hear" Vista sucks and bash it without actually knowing anything about it.
 
voyagerfan99 said:
OEM's were shipping PC's with crappy specs and Vista installed so a lot of people complained a lot about that.
Click to expand...
True, but you have to remember that at the time they were actually average kind of specs. When Vista came out, 2GB of RAM was quite a lot and multi-core processors were still expensive, so of course people bought weaker machines and obviously Vista ran slowly because a) it was demanding (for its time) and b) OEMs tended to install a lot of bloat which most people never removed.
 
I think you're over stating it Spirit. Core 2 Duo's were very common then and 4GB of RAM was standard, but even then Vista ran horribly slow, had a new driver stacks that meant a lot of sound cards, printers and other devices were crippled, was (and still is) slowest in games, had over the top UAC controls, sold a premium version that never came to anything extra and really was just a pig of an OS.
 
^true but I still think that a lot of the negative came from people buying systems that were build for XP and running Vista. My first laptop was a Vista PC with 512mb of RAM. it was terrible. I used Vista full time again in my internship. On better hardware with the updates installed it is way better.
 
salvage-this said:
^true but I still think that a lot of the negative came from people buying systems that were build for XP and running Vista. My first laptop was a Vista PC with 512mb of RAM. it was terrible. I used Vista full time again in my internship. On better hardware with the updates installed it is way better.
Click to expand...

This is true, but it doesn't mean that VIsta doesn't suck. Less hardware would run Win 7 or 8 twice as good.
 
Vista was extremely buggy until SP1, after that it was just poorly written drivers which got updated over time and now you don't really notice. I bought a Dell Inspiron in 2007 for $700 and it only came with 2 GB of RAM, then I bought a HP desktop in 2008 for $800 which came with 3 GB of RAM. 4 GB was not the standard by a long shot as the standard is what the average consumer buys, this is not to say you couldn't get a machine with 4 GB but on average most computer where 3 GB and under.

As stated above by others when I hear someone say Vista sucked and I ask why do they say so most people cannot explain the answer, who cares what people say if they are uneducated. What is funny is the lack of credit given to Vista for it's leap's and bounds better security remodel it received over XP. I personally think most of the development that went into Vista was security purpose and that is why it was so buggy at launch, then they busted butt for SP1 to make it stable. Should have just waited another six months to a year to launch.
 
And also I think, that 64 bit was pretty much still young. I ran Windows XP Pro x64. And when Vista came out, that is when software ad hardware manf. started cranking out x64 bit hardware and software to.
 
Yeah, if you install 7 or 8 in your old vista PC that sucks it will be the same.
I have 4GB RAM too (might upgrade to 8). My FX 8350 will arrive on April 9 and Vista runs very good on the E8400, just like 7 ran.
MyCattMaxx said:
Vista sucks. :D
Click to expand...
Any arguments? :)
 
spirit said:
True, but you have to remember that at the time they were actually average kind of specs. When Vista came out, 2GB of RAM was quite a lot and multi-core processors were still expensive, so of course people bought weaker machines and obviously Vista ran slowly because a) it was demanding (for its time) and b) OEMs tended to install a lot of bloat which most people never removed.
Click to expand...

Hi spirit,I run Vista on an old Toshiba Saellite 355 and it's preety slow booting, can you please tell me what OEM solftware should i remove without disrupting system,i do Defragment and clean frequently, Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Calin said:
Yeah, if you install 7 or 8 in your old vista PC that sucks it will be the same.
I have 4GB RAM too (might upgrade to 8). My FX 8350 will arrive on April 9 and Vista runs very good on the E8400, just like 7 ran.

Any arguments? :)
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Windows 7 and WIndow 8 will run much much better on lower end hardware than Vista. FACT!
 
ivtec said:
Hi spirit,I run Vista on an old Toshiba Saellite 355 and it's preety slow booting, can you please tell me what OEM solftware should i remove without disrupting system,i do Defragment and clean frequently, Thanks.
Click to expand...

I would remove anything that came from the OEM that is not Windows or hardware related, have never owned a Toshiba to know what bloatware they came with exactly.

I would also do a start>run>msconfig>startup and disable everything that is not Windows or hardware. You would be amazed how much software including anything you have installed sets to start with boot.

Okedokey, yes Windows 7 and 8.x will run better on lower end hardware I agree. What I think we are all saying is Windows Vista especially today is no where near as buggy as it use to be and if you already have Vista I don't see a reason to spend the money on a upgrade until Vista reaches end of support. Now if someone was looking to buy a new version of Windows I would agree not to recommend Vista as Windows 7 and 8 are faster, better supported.
 
Last edited:
Okedokey said:
Nonsense. Windows 7 and WIndow 8 will run much much better on lower end hardware than Vista. FACT!
Click to expand...

Thats BS. My D610 ran much better on Vista then W7. Don't know about W8, but I doubt that it's any less resource intensive than 7. Boot was much faster, programs launched faster. Hell, even the Start menu opened faster than 7. On modern lower end hardware (C2D, LGA115x Pentium dual) Windows 7 will run better then Vistsa, I agree. But you shouldn't group up "low end hardware" like that, as it can include a 2003 D610 or a Pentium G3420 which is basically a i3 without HT IIRC.

Calin, I don't think Vista is bad, but nowadays it's quite dated. I recommend upgrading when Windows 9 comes out.
 
Last edited:
PCunicorn said:
Thats BS. My D610 ran much better on Vista then W7. Don't know about W8, but I doubt that it's any less resource intensive than 7. Boot was much faster, programs launched faster. Hell, even the Start menu opened faster than 7. On modern lower end hardware (C2D, LGA115x Pentium dual) Windows 7 will run better then Vistsa, I agree. But you shouldn't group up "low end hardware" like that, as it can include a 2003 D610 or a Pentium G3420 which is basically a i3 without HT IIRC.

Calin, I don't think Vista is bad, but nowadays it's quite dated. I recommend upgrading when Windows 9 comes out.
Click to expand...

You talk garbage. Lets talk nonsense about Vista, say its faster than 7 then recommend an OS that isn't even out yet... well done

...the most noticeable differences show up when you compare Windows 7 and Windows Vista doing everyday operating system operations. Startup, standby, and hibernation are much faster, proving that Microsoft had to turn many things upside down to reach these performance benefits. Given the fact that Windows 7 is more aggressive when it comes to performance versus power saving, considering the tangible performance benefits, and having felt the improved experience when handling Windows 7, our conclusion is rather strong this time: should you want to improve your Windows-based system, now is the time to change up to the next-generation edition—provided that you find driver support for all of your components, which may be particularly tricky for some notebooks.

Our conclusion is not only valid for fast PCs but also for all systems that aren’t top of the line anymore. We’ve installed Windows 7 onto many different systems and found that the new OS is even more favorable if your system hardware isn’t particularly fast. For instance, we noticed significant differences between Windows Vista and Windows 7 on Atom-based netbooks. Windows 7 showed much less stuttering than Windows XP and Vista. Just make sure you have enough RAM for Windows 7, as insufficient memory will slow down any system on every OS.
Click to expand...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-7-performance,2476-10.html

There's a lot to like in Windows 7, and that includes better CPU performance.
Click to expand...

Windows 7 makes a significant improvement over Windows Vista in these scenarios, with large performance gains demonstrated for nearly every class of processor.
Click to expand...
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=2507&page=5

Windows 7, unlike every previous version of Windows, didn't have increased hardware requirements to run smoothly. And on the same hardware, it runs significantly faster than Vista.
Click to expand...

Windows 7 is much more stable out of the starting gate than was Vista.
Click to expand...
http://windows.about.com/od/windowsosversions/a/Win7vsVista_2.htm

boot_up_time.png


stand_by.png


awake_from_stand_by.png


hibernation.png


awake_from_hibernation.png
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top