Why is Windows Vista bad?

[Pacheko17]

You're a linux user so what does that have to do with windows vista or win10? your statement is irrelevant.

Linux users have a habit of hating anything Microsoft does, and I have that too.
Windows 10 is undeniably a better product than Vista. Doesn't mean it's any good, it's just better.

 

[MaxiBash]

I’ve only read the title, but it’s simple:

Vista is slow, it wasn’t ahead of it’s time and during development, it promised a lot.
Remember Longhorn, the codename for Vista? From what I’ve heard, it was cancelled and the team had a little time to get things together, so they took thing from Longhorn, but not long as all the features that we’re promised. What we ended up with was a rushed and slow version of Windows, that everyone hates.

Edit: Also, I've heard that the mockup-Longhorn SFX is real. I went past a video on YouTube and I found a this comment which seems trustful:

For THOSE people who says that sounds are fake or fan made, then you're WRONG. These sounds were about to be launch by Microsoft for Windows Longhorn back in 2003 but it ended up being scrapped after the development reset in 2004. I've checked the date of the Vista Beta sounds and it seems to be created on Friday, 22 August 2003. The year where Longhorn was in development and were about to be launch until Jim Allchin stepped in and scrapped the entire OS.

So for those who are searching, go search up on Google "The Collection Book" and find the date "Friday 22, August 2003".

 

[Taleweaver]

Those who say vista is the worst clearly have never tried millennium. Now THAT was a bad operating system.

Most of the things on vista have been mentioned (slow and buggy on release), but there's another factor. A few years before XP, the internet exploded in popularity. This lead to a whole new clientele of computer owners who had no clue how to actually use the system. And in turn, this lead to an industry of malware, adware, online virusses and so on (I think I was the only one in my family who had heard of "computer virus" before XP, and IIRC, the other terms were coined during XP's lifecycle). From the foundation, XP had lacking security.
Vista had the unfortunate (but necessary) reputation of stopping that party. You weren't always an administrator anymore, and quite some people were annoyed at the operating system that they had to provide credentials all the time for e.g. allowing a program to write to the root drive (which programs shouldn't be using in the first place). 7 tuned down the "nazi security regime" a bit, but really: at that time most programs were updated to not do the sort of shenanigans that older programs sometimes did.

If you compare Vista to Win10, Vista is a masterpiece. lol

I'm a windows user and I think that statement is ridiculous.

 

[comput3rus3r]

Those who say vista is the worst clearly have never tried millennium. Now THAT was a bad operating system.

Most of the things on vista have been mentioned (slow and buggy on release), but there's another factor. A few years before XP, the internet exploded in popularity. This lead to a whole new clientele of computer owners who had no clue how to actually use the system. And in turn, this lead to an industry of malware, adware, online virusses and so on (I think I was the only one in my family who had heard of "computer virus" before XP, and IIRC, the other terms were coined during XP's lifecycle). From the foundation, XP had lacking security.
Vista had the unfortunate (but necessary) reputation of stopping that party. You weren't always an administrator anymore, and quite some people were annoyed at the operating system that they had to provide credentials all the time for e.g. allowing a program to write to the root drive (which programs shouldn't be using in the first place). 7 tuned down the "nazi security regime" a bit, but really: at that time most programs were updated to not do the sort of shenanigans that older programs sometimes did.




I'm a windows user and I think that statement is ridiculous.

what's ridiculous is an OS that updates itself whether you want it or not.

 

[Taleweaver]

what's ridiculous is an OS that updates itself whether you want it or not.

...

Okay, I can't argue with that logic. If you find that ridiculous, then by all means: be my guest.

For the record, though, I'd like to mention that I'm a technician for a firm that...doesn't exactly have ICT on high priority. As such, it's not too uncommon to check users' computers and find that they've been ignoring the "updates are available: click here to install" mention from windows 7 FOR A WHOLE FREAKING YEAR. At least the ones on 10 don't have these sorts of vulnerabilities (those same persons usually don't go the extra mile of simply turning automatic updates off).

 

[comput3rus3r]

...

Okay, I can't argue with that logic. If you find that ridiculous, then by all means: be my guest.

For the record, though, I'd like to mention that I'm a technician for a firm that...doesn't exactly have ICT on high priority. As such, it's not too uncommon to check users' computers and find that they've been ignoring the "updates are available: click here to install" mention from windows 7 FOR A WHOLE FREAKING YEAR. At least the ones on 10 don't have these sorts of vulnerabilities (those same persons usually don't go the extra mile of simply turning automatic updates off).

Why do you think users are ignoring the updates? could it be that often times the updates are breaking things instead of fixing them? as the old adage says "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

I'm using windows 7 sp1 with updates off, defender off. no anti-virus. I install drivers,net framework ect. in a per need basis and my windows pc runs flawlessly. In contrast to my win10 laptop that I went out of my way to try to block the updates using video guides with multi step methods and low and behold nothing worked to turn off the updates which has interrupted my workflow many times including system crashes etc.. yes I find it ridiculous that the user has no control over the way the OS behaves. I've been using computers since about 1989 so I grew up using windows. The only good thing about windows 10 is that it's not OSX even though it's trying to be.

 

[sarkwalvein]

In the one hand the first versions were not so good.
In the other hand it was a technological transition period, most people still used old 32bits computers with not much more than 2GB of RAM, and compatibility with old software wasn't so good, driver support also wasn't as good as it could be, and generally XP and the old applications performed better on the old hardware of the day... with the transition completed all of that doesn't really matter anymore.

Why do you think users are ignoring the updates? could it be that often times the updates are breaking things instead of fixing them? as the old adage says "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

I'm using windows 7 sp1 with updates off, defender off. no anti-virus. I install drivers,net framework ect. in a per need basis and my windows pc runs flawlessly. In contrast to my win10 laptop that I went out of my way to try to block the updates using video guides with multi step methods and low and behold nothing worked to turn off the updates which has interrupted my workflow many times including system crashes etc.. yes I find it ridiculous that the user has no control over the way the OS behaves. I've been using computers since about 1989 so I grew up using windows. The only good thing about windows 10 is that it's not OSX even though it's trying to be.

Congrats. Good for you buddy. /s

 

[ryguy2010]

Want to know the real reason Vista was a bust. You can blame XP SP2. They pulled all the resources from the Longhorn team, to get that patch out.

 

[x65943]

You're a linux user so what does that have to do with windows vista or win10? your statement is irrelevant.

I think he is saying that, as a Linux user, he is super out of the loop on Windows BUT even he knows windows 10 is better than Vista.

 

[comput3rus3r]

In the one hand the first versions were not so good.
In the other hand it was a technological transition period, most people still used old 32bits computers with not much more than 2GB of RAM, and compatibility with old software wasn't so good, driver support also wasn't as good as it could be, and generally XP and the old applications performed better on the old hardware of the day... with the transition completed all of that doesn't really matter anymore.


Congrats. Good for you buddy. /s

thanks. /s

 

[Taleweaver]

Why do you think users are ignoring the updates? could it be that often times the updates are breaking things instead of fixing them? as the old adage says "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

I'm using windows 7 sp1 with updates off, defender off. no anti-virus. I install drivers,net framework ect. in a per need basis and my windows pc runs flawlessly. In contrast to my win10 laptop that I went out of my way to try to block the updates using video guides with multi step methods and low and behold nothing worked to turn off the updates which has interrupted my workflow many times including system crashes etc.. yes I find it ridiculous that the user has no control over the way the OS behaves. I've been using computers since about 1989 so I grew up using windows. The only good thing about windows 10 is that it's not OSX even though it's trying to be.

Can't speak on behalf of users outside the ones I know, but over here it's always "I was going to, but I had a job to do". Which is kind of obvious, as that is what they're getting payed for.

A windows update breaking anything has only happened once in my life. I'm very willing to admit it was a large one (it broke network, keyboard, USB and mousepad support for some reason), but compared to the literally hundreds of PC's I've updated (if I count individual windows update processes, it's far over the thousand) that's pretty weak.

My father used to be one of those "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Then he became a "when it's broke, let my son fix it". The reason: his refusal to update the free virusscanner I installed for him or clicking 'accept' to download updates netted him two or three hundred kinds of malware on a single PC (yes, they were mostly clones of the same one. It was still a huge-ass number). That refusal to interrupt his workflow for...maybe 5 minutes all months of using it total cost me two or three hours to properly clean.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not attacking you nor your choice (okay...maybe a bit. I wouldn't dare keeping a shred of data I might need later on your PC). If you grew up using computers, you probably know - like me - what to avoid and what to use. However, considering that we're talking about an operating system - which should be usable to the average user* - then there are different standards.



*meaning: downright dolts

 

[comput3rus3r]

Can't speak on behalf of users outside the ones I know, but over here it's always "I was going to, but I had a job to do". Which is kind of obvious, as that is what they're getting payed for.

A windows update breaking anything has only happened once in my life. I'm very willing to admit it was a large one (it broke network, keyboard, USB and mousepad support for some reason), but compared to the literally hundreds of PC's I've updated (if I count individual windows update processes, it's far over the thousand) that's pretty weak.

My father used to be one of those "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Then he became a "when it's broke, let my son fix it". The reason: his refusal to update the free virusscanner I installed for him or clicking 'accept' to download updates netted him two or three hundred kinds of malware on a single PC (yes, they were mostly clones of the same one. It was still a huge-ass number). That refusal to interrupt his workflow for...maybe 5 minutes all months of using it total cost me two or three hours to properly clean.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not attacking you nor your choice (okay...maybe a bit. I wouldn't dare keeping a shred of data I might need later on your PC). If you grew up using computers, you probably know - like me - what to avoid and what to use. However, considering that we're talking about an operating system - which should be usable to the average user* - then there are different standards.



*meaning: downright dolts

I agree and I must admit that my method works for me because I know how to do things safely, where the average user would probably end up with viruses.

 

[The Catboy]

Vista is actually the reason why I use Linux today. When I got my first Vista computer it was labeled "Vista-compatible," it was actually an XP computer that HP had hastily repurposed to have Vista instead of XP. This actually resulted in a lot of issues because it was obvious that hardware was just barely above the requirements for Vista and that they should have updated the parts as well as the OS. This is something I could easily fixed now, but back then I really didn't have the money (being too young to have a job and all) and I was stuck with a computer not running as good as it should have. Instead of downgrading to XP, I instead installed Ubuntu and I've been using Linux ever since. I know once hardware and software caught up to Vista that it wasn't a bad OS, in fact I heard good things about it after the rocky start. The major issue with Vista wasn't Vista, it was Microsoft being too far ahead of the curve and rushing it out before anyone else could catch up. But I honestly don't use Windows anymore and my reason is no longer related to Vista, it's just that I don't like Windows.

 

[Deleted User]

Vista is actually the reason why I use Linux today. When I got my first Vista computer it was labeled "Vista-compatible," it was actually an XP computer that HP had hastily repurposed to have Vista instead of XP. This actually resulted in a lot of issues because it was obvious that hardware was just barely above the requirements for Vista and that they should have updated the parts as well as the OS. This is something I could easily fixed now, but back then I really didn't have the money (being too young to have a job and all) and I was stuck with a computer not running as good as it should have. Instead of downgrading to XP, I instead installed Ubuntu and I've been using Linux ever since. I know once hardware and software caught up to Vista that it wasn't a bad OS, in fact I heard good things about it after the rocky start. The major issue with Vista wasn't Vista, it was Microsoft being too far ahead of the curve and rushing it out before anyone else could catch up. But I honestly don't use Windows anymore and my reason is no longer related to Vista, it's just that I don't like Windows.

I can relate to this. Thanks for posting, guys. Never would have thought I would have gotten this many replies.

 

[Song of storms]

I'm using windows 7 sp1 with updates off, defender off. no anti-virus. I install drivers,net framework ect. in a per need basis and my windows pc runs flawlessly. In contrast to my win10 laptop that I went out of my way to try to block the updates using video guides with multi step methods and low and behold nothing worked to turn off the updates

Your computer has AIDS. As long as you never connect it to the internet it's fine, I guess. Just don't join any group network with your thing or you might infect them too.

 

[comput3rus3r]

Your computer has AIDS. As long as you never connect it to the internet it's fine, I guess. Just don't join any group network with your thing or you might infect them too.

just stay in Antarctica please

 

[sarkwalvein]

just stay in Antarctica please

But AFAIK they have Internet on the research and military bases in Antarctica... Hmmm... not fail-safe.