Why Windows Vista failed (or so people say)

Matt

Senior Member
#1
Here is an interesting article: http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1599

So, 1.6GHz CPU with 2GB of RAM is pokey? Vista runs fine on that, I've run it on a 1.6GHz Celeron D with 512MB of RAM, and it was decent. So, most people get Leopard with a new, fast PC, while people that get Vista, may upgrade, or buy a cheep PC, which has specs much worst than MacBook Air.
 


Kyle

New Member
#2
They shouldn't ship any computer with less than a 2 GHz processor anymore unless it's running legacy software or Linux. They're trying to do too much with too little, and it's just not going to work. The MBA is a decent machine, other than the price, and doing that to it just hurts the people who're paying for it. Good job Apple, another pile of sh!t you're shoveling out to us consumers.
 


#3
Kyle said:
They shouldn't ship any computer with less than a 2 GHz processor anymore unless it's running legacy software or Linux. They're trying to do too much with too little, and it's just not going to work. The MBA is a decent machine, other than the price, and doing that to it just hurts the people who're paying for it. Good job Apple, another pile of sh!t you're shoveling out to us consumers.
Well my laptop has a 1.73 Ghz processor, but I think 2 GB should now be the recommend amount of RAM for Vista.

But you can optimize Vista's performance without modifying your hardware. You can gain some performance by disabling Aero, for example.
 


#4
Im running Windows 7 M1 R2 (Close to Vista) And it goes fast on my 1.6ghz and 512mb ram..
 


Matt

Senior Member
#5
OS Master said:
Kyle said:
They shouldn't ship any computer with less than a 2 GHz processor anymore unless it's running legacy software or Linux. They're trying to do too much with too little, and it's just not going to work. The MBA is a decent machine, other than the price, and doing that to it just hurts the people who're paying for it. Good job Apple, another pile of sh!t you're shoveling out to us consumers.
Well my laptop has a 1.73 Ghz processor, but I think 2 GB should now be the recommend amount of RAM for Vista.

But you can optimize Vista's performance without modifying your hardware. You can gain some performance by disabling Aero, for example.
I got 2GB on my desktop, and 1GB in my dad's laptop (which I brought), and vista runs fine on both of them. But yeah, more ram, better experience. That's why people like macs, because they don't ship their bloated OS on underpowered machines. I tried running Leopard on a PC with a Celeron D 2.4GHz and 1GB of RAM, and vista is fine, but leopard is super slow.
 


#6
Again, Thats true..
 


#7
ViennaX said:
Im running Windows 7 M1 R2 (Close to Vista) And it goes fast on my 1.6ghz and 512mb ram..
That's good, well about Windows 7 M1 R2 looks they reduce some bloat.
IMO one of the prob in vista is the backward compatibility on older hardwares and unsupported older drivers, but I think vista is not really a worst OS as I experience it. I recommend 2GB or more RAM for vista too, at least 1GB, especially if your running AERO.
 


#8
Ok enough with the Vista whining already... if you want to make Vista look good, there's one simple trick.... remember Windows ME! ;) (And yes I know people have compared Vista to ME and although Vista did suck pretty bad when it was first released, MS did manage to redeem themselves slightly with Vista whereas with ME there was absolutely no hope... and 7 will be the icing on the cake.. but in a very good way :)
 


iroken22

Extraordinary Member
Premium Supporter
#9
Ok enough with the Vista whining already... if you want to make Vista look good, there's one simple trick.... remember Windows ME! ;) (And yes I know people have compared Vista to ME and although Vista did suck pretty bad when it was first released, MS did manage to redeem themselves slightly with Vista whereas with ME there was absolutely no hope... and 7 will be the icing on the cake.. but in a very good way :)
Agreed ME was a complete disaster that no cover story, blanket, service pack could repair. People that think Windows XP is the greatest OS have to look back to when it was first released. There were serious problems with the OS that people did not like. In the case of XP though the software engineers from various companies actually FOLLOWED the directions set forth by Microsoft. Oh and with VISTA most companies did not and still have not followed the complete guidelines set forth by them. So literally VISTA and XP are merely the same disaster the only difference is in the fact that in XP other people helped by following the rules while in VISTA they didnt
 


#10
Agreed ME was a complete disaster that no cover story, blanket, service pack could repair. People that think Windows XP is the greatest OS have to look back to when it was first released. There were serious problems with the OS that people did not like. In the case of XP though the software engineers from various companies actually FOLLOWED the directions set forth by Microsoft. Oh and with VISTA most companies did not and still have not followed the complete guidelines set forth by them. So literally VISTA and XP are merely the same disaster the only difference is in the fact that in XP other people helped by following the rules while in VISTA they didnt

Very well said.
 


#11
windows 7 will probably be the first OS i don't wait for SP1.

every other OS since then, i've usually waited until SP1.

Vista is fine, if you have hardware that was designed within the last 2 years. if you don't you should probably upgrade. if you can't afford to or are too cheap to... then wait to buy Vista until you can.

some people just need to learn to optimize an OS if they insist on running it with old hardware. learn to disable unwanted services, defrag, temp file clean-up, clean the registry, and disable all auto startup programs except AV software.
 


#12
windows 7 will probably be the first OS i don't wait for SP1.


some people just need to learn to optimize an OS if they insist on running it with old hardware. learn to disable unwanted services, defrag, temp file clean-up, clean the registry, and disable all auto startup programs except AV software.
That's just the point -- people shouldn't have to do anything to get Acceptable performance. It should work passably STRAIGHT FROM THE BOX. Most people don't have any particular interest in computers. They just want to switch them on and run the applications they are interested in.

So we have these problems with Vista straight from the box.

1) The ultra mega mega annoying whole UAC experience.
2) Vista would regularly for no apparent reason just stop for a while due to hard disk(s) thrashing -- often for up to 10 - 15 minutes a time --not a pleasant user experience even if there are ways to fix this.
3) Networking Vista into an XP mix was a real pain --most people at home want to share things like printers or disks but for a lot of people getting XP and Vista to co-operate was a real pain - especially X64 Vista with X32 Windows XP.
4) zillions of unnecessary services would be continually running making the whole OS really sluggish at times - even on a 2Gb core duo laptop running an application like Photoshop was a nightmare.
5) The number of different versions etc was totally confusing to the user -- for example what does Ultimate really deliveer to a home user that Home Premium doesn't apart from Remote Desktop.

Fixing some of these problems especially in optimising services requires computer knowledge way beyond the average users level of competance.

Windows 7 just "Loads and Go" even on a 1Gb lowly specced laptop. This can even run Photoshop acceptably as well.

I doubt that you'll get many users wanting to revert back to Vista after using Windows 7.

There's always ONE somewhere so I'll probably expct to see a whole set of threads about "Why I prefer Vista" -- well if they do that's their priviledge. Reality however shows that Microsoft so far has come out with a Winner in Windows 7 and it's only a BETA remember.

Cheers
jimbo
 


#13
That's just the point -- people shouldn't have to do anything to get Acceptable performance. It should work passably STRAIGHT FROM THE BOX. Most people don't have any particular interest in computers. They just want to switch them on and run the applications they are interested in.

So we have these problems with Vista straight from the box.

1) The ultra mega mega annoying whole UAC experience.
2) Vista would regularly for no apparent reason just stop for a while due to hard disk(s) thrashing -- often for up to 10 - 15 minutes a time --not a pleasant user experience even if there are ways to fix this.
3) Networking Vista into an XP mix was a real pain --most people at home want to share things like printers or disks but for a lot of people getting XP and Vista to co-operate was a real pain - especially X64 Vista with X32 Windows XP.
4) zillions of unnecessary services would be continually running making the whole OS really sluggish at times - even on a 2Gb core duo laptop running an application like Photoshop was a nightmare.
5) The number of different versions etc was totally confusing to the user -- for example what does Ultimate really deliveer to a home user that Home Premium doesn't apart from Remote Desktop.

Fixing some of these problems especially in optimising services requires computer knowledge way beyond the average users level of competance.

Windows 7 just "Loads and Go" even on a 1Gb lowly specced laptop. This can even run Photoshop acceptably as well.

I doubt that you'll get many users wanting to revert back to Vista after using Windows 7.

There's always ONE somewhere so I'll probably expct to see a whole set of threads about "Why I prefer Vista" -- well if they do that's their priviledge. Reality however shows that Microsoft so far has come out with a Winner in Windows 7 and it's only a BETA remember.

Cheers
jimbo
1. UAC is very easily disabled choice. there is a simple Help feature is windows, which had anyone complaining about it, taken the time to type.... "Disable UAC" in help, could have easily found a solution. all these people you talk about, who just want the system to up and go without any computer knowledge... that's exactly the people UAC is aimed at protecting.

2. i've never had an issue with thrashing in Vista, i had 2GB in my system when i ran Vista. my general multi-tasking consisted of anywhere from 2-6 applications at a time. if your HD is using that much Page Filing, then you obviously need more RAM. memory usage is based on the individual application, not the operating system. *see #4 for even further detail about programs being to blame for lack of memory*

3. i've never had an issue with networking, but if theres issues with XP and Vista compatibility... fair enough.

4. again, not the fault of microsoft. microsoft doesn't go out and tell all these programmers, to create applications that run background services. these companies do that themselves... and if your using Norton Anti-Virus or some bloatware like that... then i really have no sympathy for you. learn to disable the services or go complain to the software company that made the services that are slowing your system down... not microsoft.

5. i'll admit the versions are confusing. that's why Windows 7 doesn't have as many versions, it's already being fixed.

no one is saying Vista couldn't be optimized to use less memory, but if Vista slows down when you start installing applications, then it should be extremely obvious what's causing the bulk of your problem. i agree with you on #5, and i'm not going to split hairs about #3.... but the rest of your post is easily avoidable. it's just a matter of, whether you choose to know what your doing, or keep dishing out money to Geek Squad.
 


#14
It should also be noted that there is speculation of a Netbook edition of 7... System spec wise, if you are not willing or cannot upgrade an older system, you could run that version with no issues? (bearing in mind netbooks range from 600mhz to 1.6GB and rarely have more than 1GB RAM)
 


#15
It failed cause...

A) peoples perception of there high tech system that truly belonged in a museum, or there printer that is nothing more than a over glorified boat anchor couldn't handle it, so they bitched and bitched and bitched..

B) Not savvy enough to understand how to fix an issue and instead of seeking out advice, or my god learning more, they bitched and bitched and bitched......

C) Again, people not savvy enough and believe everything they read saw the people in A and B bitching and bitching and bitching and said " OMG, so much bitching, that it must be a bad OS" and never gave it a chance.....

D) And of course, the final set of people, who just like to bitch just to hear themselves bitch. Like all previous OS's before, its all about bitching about something on each and everyone.

Do i come off a bit on the edgy side? You bet i do, Vista is a great OS, in its days of release were FAR more stable than XP or any OS was before it...... Yet the people who voice dissension and hate won out over the ones who actually new better. it's truly a shame. Now we are onto windows 7, now let A) B) and C) begin the circle all over again.
 


Last edited by a moderator:
#16
Why did Vista fail ?? I had to wait a year for M-Audio to develop new Vista compatible drivers for my very expensive sound card. By that time, I was already back with XP.

So I would say compatibility problems switching from XP to Vista, even my printer needed new drivers.

Here's the deal, Windows 7 needs to be compatible with as many programs and as much hardware as possible, so we don't have a repeat of "driver hell." We don't like being forced into buying new programs and hardware every couple of years, to keep up with the latest OS.

Another problem is Vista just works slower than XP, so it was refreshing to go back to XP.

So far my experience with Windows 7 is very good. Looks good like Vista, but performs like XP or better. The compatibility program in W7 seems to be working better this time. And I really like the new taskbar.
 


#17
Why did Vista Fail?

Same reason alot of OS's fail for alot of people.

Some people can't tell the difference between a computer and a microwave.

Ok maybe I'm being unfair, I know there were problems at first, actually no there never was a problem just an opportunity.

So that is why it failed people only saw problems not opportunities.
 


#18
Ya right....I had the "opportunity" to wait a year for Vista compatible drivers for my sound card.

I also had the "opportunity" to spend a couple of days messing with printer drivers that were supposedly Vista compatible, that wouldn't work for anything.

It was amazing that as soon as I went back to XP, all my stuff worked !!
 


#19
Ya right....I had the "opportunity" to wait a year for Vista compatible drivers for my sound card.

I also had the "opportunity" to spend a couple of days messing with printer drivers that were supposedly Vista compatible, that wouldn't work for anything.

It was amazing that as soon as I went back to XP, all my stuff worked !!
why would you find it amazing, that your old drivers work better with the old operating system? cmon dude if that's not common sense, i really don't know what is.

the fact of the matter is, every peice of hardware in your sig (aside from the m-audio card) has Vista compatible drivers. i own an M-Audio Delta 1010 system, and considering the fact that M-audio still has yet to release a 64-bit Vista driver... i mean who's fault do you really think that is?

vista has been around for how long, and their Delta series drivers are still in beta? i use my Delta card on a seperate computer dedicated to recording, with XP loaded. i won't to windows 7, until i know M-Audio releases drivers for it. everything else in my system will work just fine.

if you chose not to do a little research before upgrading an OS, that is entirely your fault. Microsoft didn't tell M-Audio to delay the release of their drivers. you are aware the Delta series of PCI cards and interfaces are like.... over 4 years old? go write M-Audio an e-mail... it's their job to keep up with the times.
 


#20
(Please reference A & B Above) to understand the below Quoted mind......

Ya right....I had the "opportunity" to wait a year for Vista compatible drivers for my sound card.

I also had the "opportunity" to spend a couple of days messing with printer drivers that were supposedly Vista compatible, that wouldn't work for anything.

It was amazing that as soon as I went back to XP, all my stuff worked !!
Yea its simply amazing that something older would have more updated drivers than something right out of the gate. This is the kind of statements and mentality that drove Vista to an early death. Sad, fracken truly sad!!!! Thank God there are people like mightymilk above who can rise up and see through the proverbial BS.


Oh, by the way, now the above Quoted mind also falls into the esteemed D) Category as explained above....
 


Last edited by a moderator:
This website is not affiliated, owned, or endorsed by Microsoft Corporation. It is a member of the Microsoft Partner Program.
Top