Vista's stability

In its final state, how robust is Windows Vista?

Attached: vista.jpg (970x400, 66K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=bsStHxtVr_w
youtube.com/watch?v=m2e4W8-Paqk
ghacks.net/2017/06/24/windows-vista-server-2008-updates/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

bump for a friend. Being seen using it would be pretty edgy.

It's final state is Windows 7.

Thanks, friend.

It was alright. I was using it on a laptop for a long time, and it's really just Windows. It wasn't too different from 7.

Did you ever have any problems with it?

After SP2 and on decent hardware (aka not Intcel release hardware), it’s just a slower 7.

>using an 11 year old os unironically
almost the same timespan (minus about 4 or 5 years?) as between the release of the IBM PC and windows xp

SP2 its much better than Windows 7, the only issue is that newer hardware doesn't support it and no security updates.

Just as good as 7, minus the security updates and might be slightly slower.

You think that's bad, I recently just upgraded to 8.1 from XP

Better in what ways?

no longer updated, stop being a hipster

At no point did I state that I wanted to use it for anything. All I want to know is how likely it was to shit itself after Microsoft was done with it in 2009.

>Windows 7
You misspelled Windows Vista.

You mean Windows Vista Second Edition

Better user interface
Beautiful Aero compared to the cut down garbage from 7
Just as fast in any decent hardware
Better retrocompatibility with Win9x/XP software

I really miss it, but can't use an unsupported OS, that's absolutely suicidal if you have any important information.

That was a downgrade

Robustness? Can be thermonuked from orbit. All that will be left is cockroaches and Vista. All the people who bitched about Vista either used it at gold code level (which was pretty nasty, but certainly not unusable - Windows 10-level stability), or never used it at all. Frankly, you it was very useable and performant at SP1.

So, not objectively better.

It's just Windows 7 on a less sophisticated service pack.

It was never a bad OS, just had high hardware requirements.

This, the OS was written around core 2 chips and modern computing, 512MB corelets and IDEfags couldn't handle it.

That was the kind of response I was hoping for. Thanks.

better user interface is a fact
better aero is a matter of good taste, but point taken
and better retrocompatibility is also a fact

>Beautiful Aero
Show me a comparison of Aero for Windows Vista vs Windows 7

Vista has always been more robust then XP.

The problem is that drivers at launch weren't ready (*cough* Nvidia DX10 *cough*)

Vista got most of its irate from OEM bundling the OS with laptops that could barely run XP let alone Vista.

Just install it on a VM and see for yourself. If not, you clearly don't care about an answer. It's all the same to me.

your an idiot

Tim Cook is a traitor that once worked for HP (a Microsoft Windows computer manufacturer)

youtube.com/watch?v=bsStHxtVr_w

It's fair to shit on it nowadays, but when it first came out it was kind of a revelation for me, coming off of WinXP. It looked so modern at the time. Not to mention that they actually bothered to enforce a single design language across the UI, unlike 10.

The Vista beta sounds are so much better than the release build and Windows 7 sounds.

youtube.com/watch?v=m2e4W8-Paqk

>better user interface is a fact

How?

Try again: ghacks.net/2017/06/24/windows-vista-server-2008-updates/

I still run server 2008 and a couple of vista clients in production. Aside from being slow as balls, they are stable and function ok. Wouldn't recommend them in any way though.

Everybody look out, it's mister g hacker