Windows Vista Why Windows Vista failed (or so people say)

[john3347]

"Let me get this straight you are I think asking will Vista run on a 486 with 16 megs of memory ? Well I would say no
the rest looks kinda confused ."


No, actually I was just being facetious with my post. What I was suggesting was that if the Vista software incompatability problem with legacy applications was that users didn't have enough "horsepower" to run them on their Vista machine, then these applications CERTAINLY would not have run on Windows 3.11 and subsequent OSs. I am speaking strictly of software incompatability here. I am totally satisfied that the reason that older programs didn't run in Vista was due to Microsoft's policy of planned obsolence and not due to any computer hardware shortcomings. And I am not being facetious about that.

 

[whoosh]

"Let me get this straight you are I think asking will Vista run on a 486 with 16 megs of memory ? Well I would say no
the rest looks kinda confused ."


No, actually I was just being facetious with my post. What I was suggesting was that if the Vista software incompatability problem with legacy applications was that users didn't have enough "horsepower" to run them on their Vista machine, then these applications CERTAINLY would not have run on Windows 3.11 and subsequent OSs. I am speaking strictly of software incompatability here. I am totally satisfied that the reason that older programs didn't run in Vista was due to Microsoft's policy of planned obsolence and not due to any computer hardware shortcomings. And I am not being facetious about that.

Yes its all upward ! In order to run windows you need the latest hardware and software Must say windows 7 is a slight step backward

 

[Totenglocke]

Havoxx, you completely don't get it. No one is saying that MS can't add new features to their OS or that companies can't release new versions of software. What they're arguing against is this: If I buy Awesome Program 1.0 that runs on Vista and it does EVERY thing I want and I'll never want it to do more, why should I be forced to buy Awesome Program 2.0 just because MS decided to not support it any more when they release Windows 10? Google the broken window fallacy. Sure, you can say that it's "good" that software companies make all these extra sales of Awesome Program 2.0 due to Windows 10 not supporting Awesome Program 1.0, but that money could've been put to better use by being spent on other things, as opposed to spending it on a program that the user didn't want, but was pretty much forced to buy since MS caused their old program to stop working.

Now, on another point. Vista is NOT a great OS. Sorry to crush your dreams, but it's not. If all you do is word processing and email, then Vista is great. However, if you want to play games on it, Vista is HORRIBLE. I'm not talking an original instal of Vista, I'm talking fully updated with SP1. I have games that are not that old that either don't run under Vista or run so poorly that they're downright unplayable. However, on the same exact system running them on Win 7 RC they run perfectly.

I have every intention of buying Win 7 when it comes out, but I may hold out a long time if MS insists on charging a ridiculous amount for it.

 

[Havoxx]

Havoxx, you completely don't get it. No one is saying that MS can't add new features to their OS or that companies can't release new versions of software. What they're arguing against is this: If I buy Awesome Program 1.0 that runs on Vista and it does EVERY thing I want and I'll never want it to do more, why should I be forced to buy Awesome Program 2.0 just because MS decided to not support it any more when they release Windows 10? Google the broken window fallacy. Sure, you can say that it's "good" that software companies make all these extra sales of Awesome Program 2.0 due to Windows 10 not supporting Awesome Program 1.0, but that money could've been put to better use by being spent on other things, as opposed to spending it on a program that the user didn't want, but was pretty much forced to buy since MS caused their old program to stop working.

Now, on another point. Vista is NOT a great OS. Sorry to crush your dreams, but it's not. If all you do is word processing and email, then Vista is great. However, if you want to play games on it, Vista is HORRIBLE. I'm not talking an original instal of Vista, I'm talking fully updated with SP1. I have games that are not that old that either don't run under Vista or run so poorly that they're downright unplayable. However, on the same exact system running them on Win 7 RC they run perfectly.

I have every intention of buying Win 7 when it comes out, but I may hold out a long time if MS insists on charging a ridiculous amount for it.

honestly, I've played almost all my old games without issue, the only one I had an issue with was Starcraft, and that wasn't Vista's fault, it was Xfire's fault, Everyone I talk to that bashes vista tries to run it on either outdated hardware, or inadequate hardware.

I'm not saying you are one of those, however, I must have great luck with vista, because honestly, I've never had an issue with it, not even when it was longhorn, I also beta test all of microsoft's OS's, so I have experience with them before they release, and I know how to tweak and modify them. I know Average Joe consumer usually doesn't have that experience, but I firmly believe that doesn't lie with Vista, it lies within companies like Dell and HP, that put vista on machines that can barely run Xp.

 

[Totenglocke]

The worst game out there to try was running Diablo II on Vista. This is machine that has several times the power necessary and in single player (which no one uses to play Diablo II) the game works great. However, as soon as you go online to play, the game screeches to a halt and the frame rate drops so low that you can't play the game at all. That is purely a matter of Vista not being any good.

Up until that point I'd thought "Ok, I tried Vista when it was brand new and it wasn't great, but this new system I just bought with Vista SP1 is actually pretty good". I'd had some minor complaints, but nothing too bad. However, that Diablo II flaw with Vista was just completely unexcusable. There's no reason that a 9 year old game won't run fast enough on a brand new system. I went out and patched together a set of XP drivers for my system, and surprise! Everything worked fine in XP. Heck, it all runs perfectly in Win 7. WoW had wonderful little bits of lag every so often in Vista (so you'd get this nice stutter every 10 seconds or so), but again, in XP or Win 7, nothing.

Like I said before, if you're just doing basic things, Vista is fine. But for gaming it's ridiculous. Also, Vista tends to give you about a 30% drop in performance over XP -- with Win 7, I only get about a 10% drop in performance. Yes, Vista does have some really good features that got carried over into Win 7, like superfetch. However, Vista also still has a lot of extra bloat that does nothing but slow things down.

We've all read stories or had personal experience with systems that met the minimum requirements to run Vista and the system was slow as molasses. However, I've known people who put the Win 7 RC on that same system and it flies.

 

[john3347]

honestly, I've played almost all my old games without issue, the only one I had an issue with was Starcraft, and that wasn't Vista's fault, it was Xfire's fault, Everyone I talk to that bashes vista tries to run it on either outdated hardware, or inadequate hardware.

I'm not saying you are one of those, however, I must have great luck with vista, because honestly, I've never had an issue with it, not even when it was longhorn, I also beta test all of microsoft's OS's, so I have experience with them before they release, and I know how to tweak and modify them. I know Average Joe consumer usually doesn't have that experience, but I firmly believe that doesn't lie with Vista, it lies within companies like Dell and HP, that put vista on machines that can barely run Xp.

Havoxx, without naming any particular offender, if a software producer (whether OS or application) states that certain minimum hardware specifications are required to run their software and further offers minimum recommended specs and the software actually requires 3 times the recommended minimum to run --------THAT AIN'T DELL OR HP's FAULT!!!!!!!!! That is gross misrepresentation by the software producer! That is where the blame lies. Nowhere else.

Now some names: If Microsoft grossly misrepresented the hardware required to run the train wreck called Vista in order to sell the trash product to people that could not afford (or desire) to spend considerable more money on additional hardware, the problem lies solidly in Microsoft's lap. If they had done the ethical thing and represented the product accurately in the first place, it would have been better accepted. They deserve to take a beating on this issue.

 

[Havoxx]

Havoxx, without naming any particular offender, if a software producer (whether OS or application) states that certain minimum hardware specifications are required to run their software and further offers minimum recommended specs and the software actually requires 3 times the recommended minimum to run --------THAT AIN'T DELL OR HP's FAULT!!!!!!!!! That is gross misrepresentation by the software producer! That is where the blame lies. Nowhere else.

Now some names: If Microsoft grossly misrepresented the hardware required to run the train wreck called Vista in order to sell the trash product to people that could not afford (or desire) to spend considerable more money on additional hardware, the problem lies solidly in Microsoft's lap. If they had done the ethical thing and represented the product accurately in the first place, it would have been better accepted. They deserve to take a beating on this issue.

I have no doubt that's how it works, this is after all, the greediest country in the world, it will continue to be so, and these are side-effects, however, I'm not arguing business practices, Toten goes on about games that don't work properly, I played WoW, and Diablo 2 on Vista, I never had issues. I'm not saying he didn't, but I really do believe this is a case by case issue, and it isn't always caused by the OS.

How many of us with creative cards were screwed for at least 3 months before any half-decent driver was released? To this day, those cards still have nasty issues. Should old hardware work perfectly on a new machine? Maybe, I believe it shouldn't, because then we wouldn't go forward, this is my personal opinion.

Toten, you obviously had issues with Vista, I'm not going to call you a liar, but fact remains, I and a lot of others, didn't, simple as that, and I still don't, this is just how everything works, there are millions of combinations for hardware on a PC, not everyone will work perfectly. Is Windows 7 better? By a long shot, but that doesn't mean Vista failed, or it was a peice of crap.

 

[Totenglocke]

It depends on how old the "old" hardware is. Processors, sure, those "age" fast because that's where most innovation takes place at. Same with video cards. However, since anyone who's not a gamer (which actually only a small percentage of computer users are actual hardcore gamers) doesn't need to upgrade their video card normally, any video card made within the last 10 years should work with a new OS. Same with printers / scanners / network devices. Those are all things that people buy expecting them to last for many years.

It's kind of like with a car. You expect the engine to last for many years, but you realize that the brakes and tires will have to be replaced every few years. While it IS the responsibility of manufacturers to provide drivers, as large as MS is and with as big of an install base as they have, they SHOULD provide drivers that at least let old devices do their basic functions if the manufacturer doesn't provide drivers for the new OS.

Yes, SOME people will always want the best, top of the line technology. However, those who buy a system that does what they need it to do shouldn't be forced to spend money on a new system just because companies want to extort more money.

On another note, my issue with Diablo II is fairly well documented to be a rampant issue with Vista. I was far from the only person to experience that.

 

[yehuda2001]

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.

if you think that about apple, you're using the apple computer incorrectly. apple computers are far superior to any pc, and that's what you're paying for. microsoft will never beat apple, but people like to complain about apple because they're used to microsoft. i have been a staunch windows user for 10 years+, and spent most of that time complaining. for the last 2 years i've been using both apple and windows computers, and i've only had one complaint about apples. that complaing was about the material the older laptops aremade of. the hardwareand software are amazing!

 

[catilley1092]

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, in 2009 when Windows 7 was released, I bought a HP Pavilion MS214 AIO, it only has a 1.5GHz CPU, shipped with 2GB RAM (that I upgraded to 4GB). Windows 7 Pro x64 runs fine on it, but XP Mode makes it scream.

Windows 8 CP runs perfectly on it, using half the resources that 7 does. But if I had it to do over again, I would have went with one with an Intel Core2Quad, which was available at the time.

Cat

 

[poorguy]

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.

hey all i don't totally agree. i am running dual hard drives with vista home premium and windows 7 pro and have no complaints at all. dell dimension p4 2.8ghz @ 800mhz fsb H/T processor, 3.0gb ddr ram, nvidia geforce 6600gt 128mb hard drives are 80gb @ 7200 rpm. this pc is from 2003 and everyone told me that this would not run these OS but yet my WEI is 4.2 on vista and 4.0 on windows 7. this pc runs as good as some peoples new machines, yeah it ain't no game pc but for most standard stuff it runs fine. and besides not having anything but time it i did it just to prove that it would run vista. i have never had any problems with vista and have owned it since it came out. just thought i would add my opinion. poorguy

 

[Buzi Nguy]

Re: Its not Vistas fault...

I currently have my main computer programs set up on a drive with XP [FONT=inherit !important][FONT=inherit !important]Service [/FONT][FONT=inherit !important]Pack[/FONT][/FONT] 3, and that works perfectly for me. If I can get that kind of performance with Windows 7, which at this time I think I can, will be switching over to W7 when it comes out.