Discuss: Microsoft Vista

May 21, 2010 at 06:12:22
Specs: Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium, 1.9 GHz / 3836 MB
Hi all,

This week's poll question is about Steve Balmer's comments that Microsoft Vista wasted a lot of the company's time. Discuss here if you agree with his analysis, and, if you like, the poll results themselves.

Thanks!
Justin


See More: Discuss: Microsoft Vista

Report •

#1
May 21, 2010 at 07:31:02
Vista reminds me so much of Windows ME it's not funny.

Both were a very bad idea. Both never lived up to expectations and both were quickly replaced with a much improved OS.


Report •

#2
May 21, 2010 at 11:16:03
I liked Vista. Never had a problem with it after nVidia and Creative fixed their drivers. It was reasonably fast, very stable, and had a great looking UI.

I still believe that many of the Vista bashers never even tried it!

Super PIII | Unlocked ES Tualatin @ 1.8GHz (150x12, 1.65v), 512K L2
2GB PC2700 | 500GB | Radeon x1950Pro | Apollo Pro 266T | Win7 Pro


Report •

#3
May 21, 2010 at 16:57:26
I used Vista for years... never had a problem with it, it worked all the time every time. I use disk caddys and I still use Vista from time to time especially when W7 refuses to co-operate with an older application.

Report •

Related Solutions

#4
May 21, 2010 at 19:58:02
I have also used Vista for years and have had few problems. It works well with both desktops. I am doing a dual boot with Win 7 on one of the desktops, but I really haven't used Win 7 much yet.

Report •

#5
May 22, 2010 at 00:23:02
I never had a problem with vista. Never used myself though lol. Some friends did. This is where I did have problems with vista. Trying to keep them up and running. To be honest though by the time I would see their computer they had done attempted to fix whatever they claimed the issue was and made a wreck of their systems. I think most issue were user relaited of what I saw anyway.

Report •

#6
May 22, 2010 at 06:58:10
I still have one laptop I keep as a Vista machine, just so that I
can try out solutions when needed. Even as a clean install
with just basic AV & Office program it runs tediously
compared to a similar spec. Windows 7 machine, and a lower
spec XP machine.

I know that with a lot of tweaking & disabling I could get it
running better - when I was running Vista as my main OS I
was fairly happy but that was after a lot work getting it to run
well. Now I only need a system running 'out of the box' Vista,
just so I can use it as a testbed, I'm stuck with it running
appallingly.

I still come across people running WinME who are quite
happy with it, but it still doesn't mean that either of them were
'good' OSs.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us..."


Report •

#7
May 22, 2010 at 09:54:09
I know it wasn't nearly as secure but I miss 98se.

Report •

#8
May 22, 2010 at 12:40:07
I used Vista for a few months and upgraded to Windows 7. Vista was noticedably slower than Win 7 and WinXP but it never crashed. It was a slow but very reliable OS. Because of that I liked Vista more than XP, but Windows 7 is much better than both of them. Vista was a waste of time only because it took forever to do things.

Report •

#9
May 23, 2010 at 09:38:17
I think I'm one of the few that liked WinME. With a little tweaking & disabling of the stupid System Restore, it works great. I still have it on one of my older machines & prefer it over Win98SE.

I ran the Vista beta for a while but was not thrilled with it so I never bothered with the full blown version (I have a copy of it though). Win7 is basically Vista with all the kinks worked out of it so I guess you could say that without Vista, there would have been no Win7.


Report •

#10
May 23, 2010 at 16:27:47
I agree whole heartedly with jam , I also still have Win Me on an old P4 machine and it still runs .

Perhaps It's not all that safe these days , so I may put Red Hat on soon .

Vista I liked straight from the box , very safe , stable and yes pretty . But that said Win7 is ...........just better and I'll not go back to Vista .


Report •

#11
May 23, 2010 at 20:50:44
I never used Vista but repaired many of them for clients. It was just a resource hog in my books and most clients wanted XP back on (before Windows 7 came along) which I did not blame them in the least. Windows 7 is much faster and better overall OS, at least for the time being.

Some HELP in posting on Computing.net plus free progs and instructions Cheers


Report •

#12
May 24, 2010 at 02:19:55
Vista was ME all over again.

Tried it, hated it, it never ran worth a #*(&$. Had to work on a few Vista machines when it came out, lots of them didn't function because the OEM's installed (or tried to) XP drivers on the systems.

In the end, it didn't work, it was unstable, and if you were lucky enough to get it to work, tomorrow it wouldn't work again.

May Vista and ME be forgotten.

PowerMac 9600(1 ghz G4)
512mb RAM
50gb SCSI
ATi 9200 PCI


Report •

#13
May 25, 2010 at 08:47:06
Win7 is basically Vista with all the kinks worked out of it

Exactly. A much better, more stable, and faster version.

so I guess you could say that without Vista, there would have been no Win7.

I wouldn't say that. MS realized Vista was a turkey and got 7 going using what they'd done with Vista as the basis. Technically speaking, it was 7 they were developing all along. They could have easily dropped Vista and nobody would have been the wiser.

The only reason MS released Vista was $$$. To put more of it in their pocket.

Granted, you could argue they needed to recover monies spent on the development of Vista but since they used all the good parts of Vista as the basis of 7, you could also argue, they recovered that development money from 7.

With windows ME, the filed the serial numbers off of 98 and put the 2000 interface on it. But ME was no real improvement over 98. If you jam, or anybody else, got it running good, kudo's to you. Myself, I prefer to install something that works out of the box and not have to spend a few hours of my precious time tinkering and tweaking to make it do what it should have in the first place.

To be honest, people who were shafted with Vista should have got an equivalent copy of 7 free from MS as an act of good faith. When one considers how quickly 7 was released after Vista you have to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the ONLY reason MS ever released Vista was to make more $$$ and users be damned!

I'm still using XP on my gaming rig at home. I just dropped $2,000 on a new gaming rig for my wife and put 7 Pro on it. I'm actually impressed with it.

The ONLY copy of Vista in my house is her work PC bought by her company.

The ONLY copy of ME in my house is still sitting in my desk with the cellophane on it............LOL. It was given to me by a customer some years back and will likely end up in the garbage can, still in the wrapper.


Report •

#14
May 27, 2010 at 01:25:26
I agree with johnr completely:
"Even as a clean install with just basic AV & Office program it runs tediously compared to a similar spec. Windows 7 machine, and a lower spec XP machine."

I have built 2 machines on the same model motherboard one with Windows 7 and one with Vista Home basic. Both have 2GB of DDR2, X1650Pro AGP cards Win7 has a C2D E6300 @ 1.8GHz and Vista has C2D E4500 @ 2.2GHz, the CPU's are from different lines but shouldent be worlds apart, the Vista machine just sits and thrashes the disk when sitting there doing nothing and uses almost all of the 2GB of RAM. I'm tweaking the Vista machine every week to speed it up and its still so much slower than the Win7 machine which has 5 user accounts and I havent touched once to improve performance. The 7 machine is so much more responsive that I feel bad for "Upgrading" My sisters computer from a 2.2GHz P4 / WinXP system beacuse its just so much slower, in a few months it may be on win 7.

I'm also planning on upgrading my laptop from Vista Home Premium to Win7 soon too. The old P4 system is going to my brother.. I'm even tossing up on what I should intall on that.

Mattwizz3
P35-DS3R
4GB DDR800
E7500


Report •

Ask Question