What exactly went wrong?

Mojave proved there's literally nothing wrong with it except bad PR and clickbait journos.

non-free
closed-source
proprietary
botnet
malware
spyware
adware
bloat

Are those all the buzzwords you could think of?

People with shit hardware tried installing Vista on their decade old shitboxes and whined when it was slow. That's pretty much what happened.

Ran just as well as XP on my system at the time, but I had built it a month prior to launch.

because it replaced a very minimalist OS.

XP was simple as fuck and meant for computers made in 2000.
vista was made for computers made in 2006 and up.

I installed it in a not so great computer at that time and even from the start it worked fine. I never ever had any issues. People made it out to be some kind of unusable piece of shit which it wasnt.

I was a very basic user at the time. But it did it for me.

I installed it on my tablet PC (remember those) with dogshit specs and while slower than XP it still performed satisfactorily. My C2D desktop I bought just after launch was fucking amazing tho.

it kept asking me to confirm everything twice

Because you were too brainlet to tweak the prompts. Even if you disabled UAC it still would've been more secure than XP.

how about keeping that off by default so users won't be annoyed

I only remember having some driver issues, in the sense that I couldn't find Vista drivers for all my shit at first. Other than that it ran fine on modern hardware of that era, but was fairly heavy on stuff which was older at the time.

It demanded too much for the time in which it was released.

>What exactly went wrong?
Vista was fine, except that Microsoft did an inadequate job of preparing users for the differences in the new OS.
The problem was that everyone had legacy applications that were pre-UAC.
Those applications were written by fucking idiots who assumed that every user had administrative privileges all the time.
As a result, a lot of shit didn't work with the new security model.

Anyway, applications eventually got updated, but the damage to its reputation was already done by people frustrated with incompatibility issues, and amplified by the unwashed masses who didn't understand why they couldn't get XP anymore all of a sudden on new computers who only cared about using their existing programs.

By the time 7 was released, most people applications had finally been updated to handle the new security model, but it didn't matter, Vistas reputation was established.

Because it was put in place to protect the users, or do you not fucking realize that everybody runs as admin?

annoying users is why it has a bad reputation

Microsoft didn't do enough to train the monkies.

>buzzwords
pajeet defence mechanism

Dumbass OEMs putting it on decade old hardware

Windows Vista is unironically the best looking Windows

>defence

That is how it is spelt, mutt.

>spelt

Amerifats really can't spell any words properly.

Flat material design.
Windows 8 and 10 fucking suck tehy are the worst looking windows ever
I miss skew morphism and that weird 00s glassy look it just felt so much more fluid than this boring flat shit
2000 was the minimalist one xp was the fuck ugly fisherpryce looking motherfucker.

>spelt

Wow...

Attached: 1521637627052.jpg (720x724, 33K)

Vista was the best looking OS ever.

I had a dual core opteron 170 and 2gb of ram it was fine.
I saw morons at the time trying to run it with 512-1gb
It really needed 4-8gb but by thr time I got a i7 920 and 6gb in 08 it ran like a dream and was identical to Windows 7 in all but ui

these.

At least I have nice teeth.

>At least I have nice teeth.
How well do they fit in your misshapen face?

>misshapen
You wish.

Nothing was wrong with Vista. It was just a bunch of basement dwellers who didn't know the difference between 32 and 64 bit.

All mutts have misshapen faces.

>Those applications were written by fucking idiots who assumed that every user had administrative privileges all the time.
what a load of fucking garbage. you don't need to make up bullshit stories, faggot.

seriously doubt it, ameritard. i bet they look like a fucking piano keyboard.

My teeth are straight and white, just like me.

>American
>white
lmao

Attached: 1541387498877.jpg (207x193, 46K)

>straight and white, just like me
top kek. ok. now you're not convincing anybody. ;)

what are you, retarded?
i'm absolutely right. I challenge you to prove me wrong.

> As a result, a lot of shit didn't work with the new security model.
fuck off, retard.

looks like you cant explain shit

Imagine being this insecure about your nationality.

>y-y-y-you're insecure
Okay, mutt. Everyone but you is insecure.

Are you trying to look underage? You're doing a good job.

Not everyone, just you Nigel.

Okay, Juan.

Stay salty Ahmed.

Stay brown, Jamarquias.

What's on with Mojave?

Attached: Dtnl6h-UcAEX90l.jpg (960x950, 102K)

>Win95
>why can people bypass login window by pressing close button on win95
>OK 21st Century Windows shill

see

It’s Vista.

aero is so fucking ugly

Vista really turned my Prescott Pentium 4 into a housefire

10/10, those were the days

Attached: 1492201544468.png (801x1500, 973K)

>minimalist
Primitive

>skew morphism
>skew

>It really needed 4-8gb
No.

Only if you're mixed (aka a literal mutt)

>comparing dos trash with nt

see

DOS was better.

almost everything, i dont remember a single thing that was good about it

Imagine 2006. San Andreas just went out in 2005, playable with 256 MB RAM, silky smooth with 512 MB RAM. Imagine having a gaming PC with 512 MB of RAM, Vista releases and WHALJCFBHJABVF WHY SO SLOW? It required a whole 1 gigabyte! Gigabyte! to just work and render windows without looking retarded. Hell, Crysis (2007) didn't lag at all with 1 GB of RAM on XP. I remember CoD Modern Warfare box featuring two system requirements, for XP and Vista, Vista one required 512 MB more.
On top of that, tons of bugs as usual, SP1 fixed the most crucial part. Plus annoying UAC after Vista, plus incompabilities in software.

Everyone's said it better than me. But first, the dishonourable mentions:
Put a cork in it, freetards. The grown-ups are talking.

But he's right.

Because you never used it. See - anyone who actually used it liked it.

Now the shoutouts:
This.

>xp was the fuck ugly fisherpryce looking motherfucker
Correct.

Also correct.

You can't be proven wrong, because you're right.

> the dishonourable mentions
> Now the shoutouts
Get a load of this guy.

>Imagine 2006
>gaming PC
>with 512 MB of RAM

Attached: 1543781687158.jpg (389x597, 37K)

>im in the former group

Attached: 1288367321063.jpg (450x571, 49K)

Even getting closer to 2007, 1 GB was enough for XP and all the hit games and barely enough to run Vista.
I didn't get a (You) at all, I just wonder what should happen with a person so he starts typing like this.

>What went wrong
You using Vista in the goddamn first place, but mostly as one thread said here below.
With Mojave, it proved Vista wasn't terrible, but at the very few mis-steps Microsoft made at the time.. Those were crucial mis-steps, leading to the inevitable downfall of Vista. Hell, I wanted to wipe off that sucker off my old Intel Q8200 PC and replace it with 7. Vista is a cautionary tale, of too much ambition and so many chances to backfire on itself.

It tried, but sadly, it just wasn't as good as what soon came out.. Our glorious haven known as Windows 7..

>not using 7800GTX
RIP kid.

windows vista was a demo for windows 7.

> using 7800GTX when 8800 was just around the corner
Nah bruh.

>8800GTX
Man that was a madlad of a card back in the day. Hell, it's still like a workhorse with even some games like Marvel Vs. Capcom 3 running buttery fuckin' smooth.

>1 GB was enough
I bought an "upgrade kit" in 2004 consisting of an Athlon, motherboard, and 1GB of RAM for 300 kiwibux. Only utter poorfags, grandmas, and losers holding onto their socket 7 dumpster-dives had less when Vista dropped. If you want to talk about the "Vista Ready" certification debacle (only the latest onboard graphics could run Aero), you'd have a point - but you didn't, so you don't.

> "upgrade kit" in 2004
> laptops in 2006 still had 512 to 1 GB
Check your dates.

>1GB of RAM
Shoulda' got 6 GB if you had a desktop. That's what I had.

>poorfag laptops had 512MB
FTFY. You're welcome.

Nah, cheapie motherboard with only two RAM slots, populated with two 512MB sticks. Yes, I was once a poorfag too.

Ha, I had a C2Q 8200 ready to roll, with 4 RAM SLOTS BITCHES. It was quite top of the line, using onboard graphics.

This. It was around then that sub $1000 cheapshit laptops started flooding the market. Tons had vista, and were shit at it. Smart people reformatted and installed xp.

Noice. I used that Athlon until 2009, when a C2D beckoned me with its price drop after the Core i* shockwave hit.

I'm planning on selling whatever's left of it. It's just the motherboard, RAM, CPU, cooler, PSU, and Case.

It's going for $105 rn, so just lemme know.

Bugged disk subsystem which made vista extremely slow. It was fixed only in sp1 or 2. I used vista sp2 for couple of years and it wasn't any worse than 7.

Vista was released too early, and released on prebuilt PC's with too low of specs. It was eventually patched and ran much better on the proper hardware

>Bugged disk subsystem
Never happened. I watched the "network file copies are slow" - which wasn't a meme, but WAS mostly shitty XP network drivers - morph into "ALL file copies are slow" (which was a meme), morph into "bugged disk subsystem" (which is a flat-out lie).

Stupid fucking zoomer, people were bitching about windows XP being a bloated piece of shit when it came out.