Why is this OS so hated/underrated?

Cammygirl192 · Nov 30, 2015

Why has Vista been hated by many people, including Microsoft, since day one?

XP was known to be rubbish at day one because of the bloated system requirements at the time and such, same issues as Vista at the start, but people seem to believe Vista has always sucked and will always suck.

I for one asked to use this old PC from 2008 or so, which runs Vista a charm, so I don't see the issues myself. In fact, the very first time I ever saw the OS, I loved its look and such, dunno it looked really nice and modern for a start which hasn't been replicated in modern Windows, now it looks terrible.

I personally think it's down to change and modern society: people hate on things more now and also people didn't want to switch from dear old XP.

Any other ideas, besides UAC?

Vistaar · Nov 30, 2015

That's what I'd like to know. I was not an early adopter of Vista, but by Christmas 2007 I was in the market for a high-spec computer suitable for video editing. The negative buzz surrounding Vista was so pervasive that I hesitated for a few months, consulting with the geekiest people I was acquainted with. Some told me "buy a PC, then replace Vista with XP." Others told me "buy a Macintosh." What was so bad about Vista? I remember being told more than once, "it has all this stuff running in the background." One of the few criticisms of Vista that I will grant is that it is a resource hog, and typical XP machines were not suitable for upgrading to Vista. Anyway, I decided that the best advice was "wait for SP1," and that's exactly what I did. Was Vista "buggy" prior to SP1? I don't really know or care, because I never ran Vista without SP1.

Vista's poor reception no doubt contributed to making the Great Recession even worse, impacting the earnings of Microsoft, Intel, Dell, HP, etc. And of course the recession made many XP users even less willing to buy an expensive Vista PC. The U.S. economy had actually bottomed out by the time Windows 7 was released in July 2009, and a substantial portion of XP users would move directly to Windows 7 without ever actually running Vista. And yet to this day there are still more XP users than Vista users. In fact it's fair to say that Vista's biggest problem is actually "not enough users," as a result of which some software makers have seen fit to end support for Vista even though support from Microsoft will continue until April 2017. The difficulties of supporting Apple mobile devices now that iTunes no longer supports Vista will no doubt lead to a further decline in Vista installations. I don't use Chrome, but those who prefer it will be dismayed by http://www.vistax64.com/vista-news/304171-chrome-support-xp-vista-ends-april-2016-a.html. All of which would be a lot easier to tolerate if it wasn't for all the Vista-bashing by those who have no idea what they are talking about!

ilikefree · Nov 30, 2015

I think in the earlier days of Vista people tried to run it with underpowered computers
It was a bit buggy before both service packs
I know a few people run it with aero turned off
Services can be controlled and if you don't know much about them Black Viper has a very good tutorial
Black Viper | www.blackviper.com | Have You Tweaked Your OS Lately?

townsbg · Dec 1, 2015

ilikefree said:
I think in the earlier days of Vista people tried to run it with underpowered computers
It was a bit buggy before both service packs
I know a few people run it with aero turned off
Services can be controlled and if you don't know much about them Black Viper has a very good tutorial
Black Viper | www.blackviper.com | Have You Tweaked Your OS Lately?

Good points especially the first. Many so called "Vista capable" computers released during the early days of Vista (or before Vista was released) IMO where barely qualified to run XP and we all know how much more horsepower Vista requires. Combined with the bugs from the RTM it got a bad rap from the XP people for being slow and that bad rap persisted some how.

Josbeph83 · Dec 2, 2015

I think it's just because in the early days of Vista it required at least 512mb of RAM, most people only had about 234mb something like that. It just required alot of umph.

Cammygirl192 · Dec 12, 2015

It's funny how people didn't see it from a technological standpoint: if Vista needed lower requirements, would technology have proceeded further than it has, then?
Maybe if xp hadn't been around for so long before vista then it would have been better received.

LMiller7 · Dec 12, 2015

Operating systems that raise system requirements have always been called bloated. Even Windows 95 was criticized for it's excessive requirement of 4 MB RAM (8 MB recommended) and 40 MB disk space. Sure, it introduced a 32 bit OS to the consumer market but 16 and 32 were just numbers that meant as little to the average computer user of the day as 32 and 64 do now.

Vista raised the system requirements over those of XP, and in a big way. Windows XP RAM requirement was 64 MB and it would run reasonably well with the software of the day. Vista raised that to 1 GB for all but the Home Basic edition. That was a bigger incremental change than for any other Windows OS. And Vista probably introduced more changes in the OS than an other new OS. Note that I am talking about changes in the OS itself, not the superficial changes of the Windows 8 GUI.

Edit: At least that is the way I see it. And I have seen a lot of operating systems come and go, many of them long forgotten.

Of course such changes were to be expected. A great deal had changed since the introduction of XP to Vista in 2006. That was a long time for a new Microsoft OS, or any other OS for that matter. Computer hardware had changed much in that time and Vista requirements were merely keeping pace. Of course that meant little to someone with a 5 year old computer. Security was a much bigger concern in 2006 then 2001. UAC was introduced to help with the long standing issues of running with an admin account. 9 years later UAC is still not understood by the typical home user and is much criticized. Vista was also the first to introduce a 64 bit version when first released. 64 bit XP wasn't introduced until 2005 and never gained much popularity. While the problems with driver availability and software compatibility have largely disappeared now they were a big deal in Vista.

A new and ambitious OS always brings problems for the supplier, OEMs, device driver writers, and consumers. This is inevitable. OEMs often sold underpowered computers in order to keep costs down. This is a highly competitive market and you do what is necessary to stay in business. Consumers installed Vista on older computers that barely met requirements. Many computers of the day had issues with a 64 bit OS and device drivers were often buggy.

There were plenty of opportunities for mistakes and many were made.

Put all of this together and it is not surprising that Vista developed a bad reputation, and one that is hard to overcome. Everybody seems to have heard that Vista was a bad OS and there were conspiracy theories that Microsoft designed it to be. Nobody has a convincing explanation why Microsoft would deliberately introduce a substandard OS that would damage it's reputation. Over time all that matters is the perception of Vista being a bad OS. The facts don't matter anymore, only the perceptions.

Edit: At least that is the way I see it. And I have seen a lot of operating systems come and go, many of them long forgotten.

Cammygirl192 · Dec 13, 2015

If any OS was deliberately designed to be rubbish it was Windows Me and Windows 8.1, seriously marketing one change as a new OS and dropping support for the same thing without a start screen is absolutely stupid on Microsoft's side.

I have to agree about the Vista changes. It's the last NT OS released which was original, I believe Windows 10 is just 'NT 10.0' in user agents and other identifiers so that people stop moaning about them reusing the same thing over and over. XP was a middle step from 2000, Vista was a massive step from XP and the rest are just small steps from each other post-Vista.

XP x64 never existed, though. I heard it was just Server 2003 with a few things slapped on it on a blog or board somewhere and isn't true-64 bit.

The rest of your post I can't say anything to because you've hit the nail, most like the others in this thread, completely well and I agree with you. Perhaps it's like some of the video game industry in fact...

townsbg · Dec 13, 2015

DixieKongJD said:
XP x64 never existed, though. I heard it was just Server 2003 with a few things slapped on it on a blog or board somewhere and isn't true-64 bit.

Not true. It did exist but required a separate license than the 32-bit. I tried it once but without driver support from my manufacturer it wasn't very useful.

Jody Thornton · Dec 16, 2015

DixieKongJD said:
If any OS was deliberately designed to be rubbish it was Windows Me and Windows 8.1, seriously marketing one change as a new OS and dropping support for the same thing without a start screen is absolutely stupid on Microsoft's side.

I have to agree about the Vista changes. It's the last NT OS released which was original, I believe Windows 10 is just 'NT 10.0' in user agents and other identifiers so that people stop moaning about them reusing the same thing over and over. XP was a middle step from 2000, Vista was a massive step from XP and the rest are just small steps from each other post-Vista.

XP x64 never existed, though. I heard it was just Server 2003 with a few things slapped on it on a blog or board somewhere and isn't true-64 bit.

The rest of your post I can't say anything to because you've hit the nail, most like the others in this thread, completely well and I agree with you. Perhaps it's like some of the video game industry in fact...

I don't know about your assessment of Windows 8.1. Aside from the hatred for Metro (there are lots of those that do indeed like it), Windows 8.1 is one of THE MOST STABLE versions of Windows I have ever tried for an extensive basis. After running it for awhile, you'll notice it runs even smoother than Windows 7.

How was Vista the last NT "original" OS? All Windows versions will have borrowed code carried over. And while yes, Server 2003 x64 was used to create the 64-bit release of XP, it was indeed matched up with XP x86 feature for feature. The Welcome Screen, Firewall and other features were put back in. It is no less any truer 64-bit than Vista, 7, 8 or 10. I used it for three years very happily.

ilikefree · Dec 17, 2015

I always thought 7 was Vista with some of the controls hidden away to stop people mucking it up.
A new start page, but if you looked deep enough it was just Vista with new clothes

Cammygirl192 · Dec 22, 2015

Jody Thornton said:
I don't know about your assessment of Windows 8.1. Aside from the hatred for Metro (there are lots of those that do indeed like it), Windows 8.1 is one of THE MOST STABLE versions of Windows I have ever tried for an extensive basis. After running it for awhile, you'll notice it runs even smoother than Windows 7.

How was Vista the last NT "original" OS? All Windows versions will have borrowed code carried over. And while yes, Server 2003 x64 was used to create the 64-bit release of XP, it was indeed matched up with XP x86 feature for feature. The Welcome Screen, Firewall and other features were put back in. It is no less any truer 64-bit than Vista, 7, 8 or 10. I used it for three years very happily.

Windows 8.1 is quite stable, I agree. We have it at school, and I've only ever seen it crash twice on a BSOD. I mostly despise it for having a ribbon interface and a start screen though, it's probably pretty good for other stuff.

(actually, speaking of the trash that are ribbons, can you hack the registry to get rid of them in 8.1)

I was referring to how Vista is NT 6.0, while Windows 8.1 is NT 6.4, basically stating they run the same kernel or use a very close code base. Understood all have code carried over (XP for example has several outdated registry entries for old installations, even dating back to Internet Explorer 4).

Windows 10 a lot of people have said is Windows 8.1 slapped on with some new stuff including forced updates and other stuff even though they've bounced the NT version to 10.0, I've seen several screenshots and it seems VERY similar in operation to 8.1.

@ilikefree I noticed that the first day I saw Windows 7, I knew it was just a built-off in Vista, I bet a few registry hacks/etc could make it operate like Vista with better performance or whatever.

LMiller7 · Dec 22, 2015

DixieKongJD said:
I was referring to how Vista is NT 6.0, while Windows 8.1 is NT 6.4, basically stating they run the same kernel or use a very close code base. Understood all have code carried over (XP for example has several outdated registry entries for old installations, even dating back to Internet Explorer 4).

Don't read too much into the similar version numbers of Vista and Windows 8. Windows 8 was certainly worthy of a new major version number but there was a good reason for not giving it one. It is well known to Microsoft that changing the major version number causes many applications to fail when they do an improper version check. Changing the minor version causes fewer problems so that is what was done in Windows 8. Of course that isn't a long term solution and Windows 10 was given a major version of 10. Don't read too much into that either. Once you decide to change the major version it doesn't matter to compatibility how much. In that case even marketing considerations may become involved.

townsbg · Dec 22, 2015

A minor point but 8.1 is nt version 6.3. Some of the preview builds for 10 where 6.4. I wondered why they did a major version number change-mac hasn't done that in years. I also wonder if they didn't think of program compatibility issues by doing so or if just don't care. I am leaning to the latter. Considering the privacy issues, inflexibility on updates, and since I am currently running 7 only on a virtual machine I've decided not to go with 10 ATM. I wonder hypothetically if I upgrade my virtual machine to 10 and then installed 7 elsewhere after the fact if that would also qualify for a 10 upgrade or cause a licensing issue? Does anyone know? I know that it is tied to the pc it is activated on. My 7 copy is a retail version so I'm not concerned with a licensing issue there as long as I stop using it on a virtual machine.

Jody Thornton · Dec 23, 2015

Well I switched to Windows 8 this week. Even though it is running out of support in January, it will run my current tax software, whereas Vista won't. Funny that DixieKongJD mentioned int, but I always prefer to disable the ribbon on Win8x installations, and I did so on mine.

I only went with 8 as opposed to 8.1, since my PC could be upgraded straight from Vista, and the x64 version works on my xw8200 workstation (it has two Netburst based Xeon CPUs that don't work on Windows 8.1). It really runs well I must say.

Cammygirl192 · Dec 24, 2015

I don't really see the point of them ending support after about three years, that makes it a shorter lifespan than Windows Me, although like XP you could probably perform a registry hack on Windows 8 to get the 8.1 updates after end of support.

Barman58 · Dec 25, 2015

8.1 is not considered a separate OS but an update to 8, call it Windows 8 Service Pack 1 if that makes things clearer, then of course you have windows summer update which I've always known as Windows 8.1.1 although I think Microsoft knows it as Microsoft Windows 8.1 Update 1

It's normal for Microsoft to depreciate service packs after around three years as there should be ISO files of the OS complete with the Service pack for installation purposes by that time. It is difficult for users of Vista of course as when the "service pack ends support the upgrade route to 8.1 and Ten is also cut off.

You can of course still purchase a copy of 8.1 for a fresh install which is always the recommended route

Jody Thornton · Dec 25, 2015

Barman58 said:
8.1 is not considered a separate OS but an update to 8, call it Windows 8 Service Pack 1 if that makes things clearer, then of course you have windows summer update which I've always known as Windows 8.1.1 although I think Microsoft knows it as Microsoft Windows 8.1 Update 1

It's normal for Microsoft to depreciate service packs after around three years as there should be ISO files of the OS complete with the Service pack for installation purposes by that time. It is difficult for users of Vista of course as when the "service pack ends support the upgrade route to 8.1 and Ten is also cut off.

You can of course still purchase a copy of 8.1 for a fresh install which is always the recommended route

Yes but Windows 8.1 has oh-so slight changes in processor requirements, that some earlier x64 processors (hyperthreading P4s and the like) won't always run the x64 version of Windows 8.1. My system blue screens if you try to boot the DVD. Whereas I'm running Windows 8 as we speak.

If you mosey over to the Windows 8 Forums, there are countless stories of those with older, yet fast enough systems that cannot upgrade from 8 to 8.1

Vistaar · Dec 25, 2015

DixieKongJD said:
I don't really see the point of them ending support after about three years...

Support for Windows Vista SP1 ended on July 12, 2011 - slightly more than three years after its release.

Jody Thornton · Dec 26, 2015

And Vista STILL has extended phase support for just over a year longer (April 2017). Whereas next month, Windows 8 update cease completely.

Why is this OS so hated/underrated?

Cammy White FTW

My Computer

My Computer

My Computer

~~тσωηsвg~~

My Computers

Banned

My Computer

Cammy White FTW

My Computer

My Computer

Cammy White FTW

My Computer

~~тσωηsвg~~

My Computers

My Computer

My Computer

Cammy White FTW

My Computer

My Computer

~~тσωηsвg~~

My Computers

My Computer

Cammy White FTW

My Computer

My Computers

My Computer

My Computer

My Computer

тσωηsвg

тσωηsвg

тσωηsвg