3 ms·

My only computer for a long time was old thinkpad, so I actually ended up skipping over windows XP entirely. I finally moved on after the first service pack fo

My only computer for a long time was old thinkpad, so I actually ended up skipping over windows XP entirely. I finally moved on after the first service pack for vista came out (in 2008), which was surprisingly alright in my experience. It ended up being more stable than win2000. The biggest problem with the older windows is that poorly written drivers (which is most of them) had a tendency to bluescreen the entire system when they fucked up. Newer windows is so much more resistant to that now.

bandergirl 3y ago
> [Vista] was surprisingly alright in my experience I never understood the hate for Vista. People were overly complacent and wanted a OS that ran on 128MB of ram like XP did. Vista was not that. When 7 came along, it was pretty much the same core, except now many computers were already Vista-capable. I was using the Vista Beta of my 2GB-RAM computer for 6 months before release and it was vastly better than XP.
- nickweb 3y ago
  The hate came from it being pre installed on massively underpowered computers. The majority of users came to vista with a new PC and it just ruined the experience. I still remember trying to troubleshoot a minor issue and it took half a day just because of the performance on this new PC.
- n8cpdx 3y ago
  Project Mojave was Microsoft’s attempt to correct this issue. It didn’t go well. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ihorvo2tEuA https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ihorvo2tEuA
- serf 3y ago
  I don't remember the specifics, but I do remember that Vista broke a ton of drivers I used for industrial equipment. Serial controllers, that kind of stuff. If I remember right it had something to do with the transition to driver signing beginning around that era. So, it represented a lot of labor. >I was using the Vista Beta of my 2GB-RAM computer for 6 months before release and it was vastly better than XP. you were blessed to have 2gb in 06. a lot of us didn't. [0] [0]: https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/CrYAAOSwpOZgQFm7/s-l1600.jpg https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/CrYAAOSwpOZgQFm7/s-l1600.jpg
- vctrnk 3y ago
  Up to that point, most Windows iterations didn't require (for the time) big upgrades to run fine. Many PCs designed for a given version could run the next, maybe with a little elbow grease, but the bottom line is: the out-of-the-box experience on new AND upgraded PCs was mostly okay. Then it came Vista. An OS designed for at least 1Gb RAM, preinstalled on machines who stubbornly refused to sell with more than 512Mb (even 384Mb, the horror!) for a looong time. I remember that, at least where I live, RAM prices sky rocketed just months afther Vista came out, because almost all people irremediably needed the upgrade. It also didn't help that vendors were happy to fill new systems with their auto-installing crapware. While this wasn't Microsoft fault, it certainly helped to cement Vista's reputation as a very heavy-weight OS. Having said that. I concede the point that Vista was pretty alright, provided your PC had the grunt to run it.

bandergirl 3y ago

> [Vista] was surprisingly alright in my experience I never understood the hate for Vista. People were overly complacent and wanted a OS that ran on 128MB of ram like XP did. Vista was not that. When 7 came along, it was pretty much the same core, except now many computers were already Vista-capable. I was using the Vista Beta of my 2GB-RAM computer for 6 months before release and it was vastly better than XP.

nickweb 3y ago
The hate came from it being pre installed on massively underpowered computers. The majority of users came to vista with a new PC and it just ruined the experience. I still remember trying to troubleshoot a minor issue and it took half a day just because of the performance on this new PC.
n8cpdx 3y ago
Project Mojave was Microsoft’s attempt to correct this issue. It didn’t go well. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ihorvo2tEuA https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ihorvo2tEuA
serf 3y ago
I don't remember the specifics, but I do remember that Vista broke a ton of drivers I used for industrial equipment. Serial controllers, that kind of stuff. If I remember right it had something to do with the transition to driver signing beginning around that era. So, it represented a lot of labor. >I was using the Vista Beta of my 2GB-RAM computer for 6 months before release and it was vastly better than XP. you were blessed to have 2gb in 06. a lot of us didn't. [0] [0]: https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/CrYAAOSwpOZgQFm7/s-l1600.jpg https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/CrYAAOSwpOZgQFm7/s-l1600.jpg
vctrnk 3y ago
Up to that point, most Windows iterations didn't require (for the time) big upgrades to run fine. Many PCs designed for a given version could run the next, maybe with a little elbow grease, but the bottom line is: the out-of-the-box experience on new AND upgraded PCs was mostly okay. Then it came Vista. An OS designed for at least 1Gb RAM, preinstalled on machines who stubbornly refused to sell with more than 512Mb (even 384Mb, the horror!) for a looong time. I remember that, at least where I live, RAM prices sky rocketed just months afther Vista came out, because almost all people irremediably needed the upgrade. It also didn't help that vendors were happy to fill new systems with their auto-installing crapware. While this wasn't Microsoft fault, it certainly helped to cement Vista's reputation as a very heavy-weight OS. Having said that. I concede the point that Vista was pretty alright, provided your PC had the grunt to run it.