4 ms·
They broke that streak at the turn of the century. 95 was bad, 98 was good, 2000 was good, XP was good, and then Vista was bad.
by grishka 3y ago
They broke that streak at the turn of the century. 95 was bad, 98 was good, 2000 was good, XP was good, and then Vista was bad.
- geraldcombs 3y agoApparently ME was so bad it's been memory-holed.
- steve1977 3y agoWe don’t talk about Window Me
- legitster 3y agoExtremely hot take: Vista was not actually that bad. It was just too many new things at once and required such a massive hardware upgrade. Windows 7 was not that fundamentally different, but by the time it came out the bandaid had been ripped off.
- grishka 3y agoActually, I used Vista myself for around a year, and for me subjectively it was okay. I later upgraded that installation to 7 and used it several more years on the same hardware.
- steve1977 3y agoPretty much what I have been saying. Windows 7 was in many aspects Vista SE, they just had to give it a new name because Vista was so „tainted“. I mean it even reported as Windows NT 6.1 (Vista was 6.0)
- plorkyeran 3y agoVista had two major problems: Microsoft understated its minimum requirements and allowed it to be shipped preinstalled on machines that were far short of what it actually required, and UAC was specifically designed to make poorly behaved software unpleasant to use, which was a major problem when every Windows program was poorly behaved. The first could have been easily avoided, but I genuinely don't know how MS could have avoided burning a version on UAC. Maybe if they had shipped it in a service pack first so that XP SP4 was the thing that got a miserable reputation? That clearly wasn't a reasonable option after the Longhorn disaster, though. There were also a lot of small problems that got fixed on the way to Windows 7. 7 did feel a lot like Vista SP2 with some visual tweaks, but it would have been a really impressive SP.
- legitster 3y agoOh man, I totally forgot about the UAC! That's a great callout.