4 ms·
The way I understood it (not having touched Vista very much), the problem was that performance was kind of unpredictable. It could run very well on modest hardw
by krylon 9y ago
The way I understood it (not having touched Vista very much), the problem was that performance was kind of unpredictable. It could run very well on modest hardware, but it could also crawl along like a very lazy snail on top-shelf machines.
I think SP1 fixed that significantly. In my current job, I had to install Vista twice, and I clearly remember that after installing SP1, performance became much better.
- wink 9y agoYeah, Vista was mostly hit or miss. For some people it wasn't a step down in usability and stability from XP, but for a good chunk it absolutely was. Drivers not being published, drivers crashing, slow, bloated. In no way better than XP, just "newer". My own experience was basically this: * 95 a - nearly unusable with the wrong kind of hardware (e.g. SCSI) * 95 b - pretty solid * 95 c - too few differences to b * 98 - kinda meh, but usable * 98 SE - finally fixed most of the 98 quirks * 2000 - first time I felt Windows could be called "very stable" * XP - pretty decent as well * Vista - horrible mess on ~10 machines, worked ok on ~2 * 7 - second time I am actually ok with using it (just still greatly prefer Linux for work as a developer)
- bonzini 9y agoI noticed you skipped ME... :-)
- quintushoratius 9y agoEven Microsoft skips ME nowadays.
- krylon 9y agoWhen I first started using GNU/Linux as my desktop system, I kept a Windows installation around for watching DVDs - back then, CPUs were not powerful enough for that, so I had bought a PCI card that did the decoding in hardware, but drivers were available only for Windows (IIRC), so I to boot into Windows to watch DVDs. In retrospect it is rather funny, but I did use Windows ME for that, and it never gave me the slightest trouble. (Of course, one might say, I hardly used it. True enough.)
- wink 9y agoHa, you got me there. I was actually thinking "am I missing something? Why does a good one (2000) follow after another good one (98SE)...
- Joeri 9y agoFor me the standout versions were 95 osr 2, which had tiny system reqs but was comparable to 98 in ability, and NT4, which was the smoothest modern multi-tasking computing experience I've ever used. I was sad when hardware and software upgrades forced me to w2k, because it seemed like a big step back.