Vista

What was wrong with it? other than poor people trying to run it on single core computers with 512mb of memory. Always worked fine for me up until I switched to linux

Attached: windows_vista_by_simplexdesignsart-d8wgw0m.png (1920x1080, 1.01M)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=11NOblvuEpU
twitter.com/AnonBabble

I'd still be using it if it were supported, even.

I used XP til 7 was released. Never used Vista. I figure it's probably just a less bother version of 7. I think vistas biggest problem was OEM's shipping it with dogshit machines.

You pretty much needed 4GB of RAM for a smooth experience, when on XP at the time could get by with 512MB.

Honestly one of the most underrated OS's ever

Mainly this.

I also noticed that Vista was the absolute worst at taking forever to run Windows Update. The process is slow for any edition of Windows, but holy fucking shit Vista was slow at it. I remember helping someone who needed to re-install Vista (viruses of course) and I knew updating from the stock/gold version to the latest one would take a while, but god damn I didn't imagine it would take a full 48 hours. I couldn't just walk away and leave it either because Vista required far more reboots. With XP and 7, you could batch a bunch of updates together and reboot once or twice. Vista seemed like a fucking toddler that I had to care for and couldn't install more than a couple of updates at a time and needed rebooting between each small set.

That's a massive exaggeration. 1 GB was fine, especially if you were using the 32-bit version. The issue arose because OEMs were selling 512 MB systems as "Vista ready" when that was clearly inadequate for a decent experience.

Vista was hated mainly because of bugs and driver issues on release, plus some annoyances related to UAC. By SP1 those things had largely been worked out. Win7 was pretty much Vista SP1 with some minor tweaks.

I put an ssd in a Vista machine that had 512MB once. It was a really, really weird experience.

Wasn't mine, the drive was just laying in their cabinet unused. I tested it for a while and it did okay, but did strange stutters? I guess you would describe them as? Every few minutes

I had a nice laptop that ran Vista, had a graphics card and 4gb of ram.
Was my first 'actual' laptop.

I never understood why people hated Vista until I got a pretty wicked virus, at this point tho I had disabled updates and was probably a year or two behind.
I was a stupid kid lol.
Dad used 7 and thought it seemed like Vista with a larger bottom bar. The change happened so quick I didn't even realize where Vista went. Seemed like a proto 7, and I just happened to be using the proto version.
That is also around the time I got into the "install gentoo" cult, so once I installed my first distro on that machine, Vista was dead

they released it too early, even after cutting features, it took 2 service packs to get gud

werks for me op

>"Vista ready" when that was clearly inadequate for a decent experience.
blame Windows, they were the ones who advertised vista was OK with 512 MB in ram

>somthing is amiss

>that flag
>that windows 8 logo
>tasks for taskbar buttons

this is not vista

My mom's vista laptop got adware (I don't know how) but I ended up factory resetting it and installing windows 7. It still works to this day.

Entirely new driver model meant next to nothing worked with it. Most people on this site are probably too young to remember when DOS-based Windows was replaced by the NT kernel and nothing worked so people stated on 98 and ME until XP.

It's also worth noting that even XP had a lot of the same issues as Vista at first. Bugs, driver issues, broken applications that relied on DOS/Win16-specific stuff, relatively "heavy" system requirements compared to its predecessor (which was 98 for most people), etc.

Uses a lot of ram. The aesthetic of it is amazing in my opinion though, it looks nicer than any other version of Windows.

It doesn't make any more money after you buy a license, user.

I bought a new laptop in 07 with a gig of ram for $750. I was so pissed off that it ran slower than my 3 year old athlon desktop with xp.

Vista needed 2 gigs to feel like an xp machine with 512

middle child between XP and 7 sold on XP-specced machines

It had any tiem upgrade to leverage the license as 7 does

Between Vista SP2 + Directx11 / 7, I've never noticed much difference.

XP also sucked ass until SP1 came out and fixed a lot of the problems.
SP2 made it an actual good OS.

A whole new driver model meant that device manufacturers had to write new drivers for literally everything. This made Vista incompatible with a lot of devices.
It was also very resource intensive compared to XP. You must realize that dual core computers were nowhere near the norm at that time. It ran fine on a single core though, given enough RAM, which is where most people fell flat. Your 2003 Pentium 4 HT with 512 Mb of RAM *could* run Vista, but it would be an awful experience.

I built a core 2 quad machine in 2008, installed Vista on it, and it was just fine. In fact, I didn't install Windows 7 until about 2012.

My experience was, Vista on a i7-920, 12GB RAM. Absolutely no difference going to 7 as you would expect.

I fucking loved Vista.Problem were people trying to run it on XP machines.

The wish the blurry transparencies came back. Luckily Win10 has a few.
Win7 was just a Vista 2.

Vista was the true chad OS. Really liked it and it was a huge jump from XP. Stayed with it on my main PC until the day the support ended and went straight to W10.
W7 was really just a more polished version of Vista but imo uglier and I can't think of any feature that my other PCs with Windows 7 had that I couldn't have or didn't have in Vista.
Actually come to think of it 7 had less features iirc, at least the media center didn't come as standard and I used that quite a lot.

>it gets better after 50 updates bro

It was buggy until Service Pack 2 and was poorly supported on older GPUs, even in machines which had 2-3GB of RAM, and was also new and unfamiliar. Practically anyone that could install XP on their Vista machine did. The difference in performance was night and day, and the advancements introduced in Vista were of little or no benefit at the time.

Pretty much the only reasons people deliberately chose Vista were for Aero Glass or to keep on the bleeding edge.

It's been almost two years since end of life. It didn't even get paid security updates. Vista is deader than the dodo.

I still don't understand what this ad tries to convey.
youtube.com/watch?v=11NOblvuEpU

It's the kind of humour computer people like. I've never understood it.

The pajeets who made Windows were used to slow computers.

People were trying to run it on Walmart-tier eMachine hardware.

Vista is fine, Vista SP2 is excellent. Especially if you strip it down.

Stop with this 512MB of RAM meme. Nobody was running Vista on machines like that for anything other than a joke.

ahead of it's time
desu

Attached: 1550280515272.jpg (223x227, 8K)

They were selling them as Vista ready because microshaft allowed them to do that.

>office 2016 preview
>adobe photoshop cs5.1
>start screen
nigga you blind

Not quite true, manufacturers actually made Vista computers with that amount of RAM, it was bullshit. I remember getting my grandfather a new computer with 512MB not long after Vista came out, got him some budget Toshiba laptop because all he did was email and internet. Basically unusable, had to upgrade to 1GB right off the bat. I can guarantee tons of people got screwed buying these shitty laptops - don't really see manufacturers preinstalling inadequate amounts of RAM in computers anymore.

Yep, Vista SP2 ran like butter on my Athlon II X3 4GB PC

Who remembers the early betas with Plex?

Attached: Microsoft-Windows-Longhorn-Review.jpg (1024x768, 156K)

I tried it on a pc with Intel E8400, 4GB Ram and HD4870. It still ran like shit.

Nothing, Vista was objectively good. Its people with really old hardware and npc's who repeat the it's bad thing.

>could
I had 3 GB ram originally 2, it was perfectly fine. The 64 bit version.

>DOS-based Windows was replaced by the NT kernel and nothing worked so people stated on 98 and ME until XP.
2000 was never meant for standard home users, it was marketed and sold as a bussiness/server OS. Why would anyone run it on their regular machine?

Because it didn't crash every five minutes.

After SP2 it is literally as good as 7. It's also the best looking OS Microsoft has made.

Same here, jumped from XP to 7.

Royale themed (media center) XP ranked close for its release imo.

Attached: winxp_royaletheme_3.jpg (1280x736, 138K)

Nothing, I used vista in 2008-2009 and it was fine.
The problem was that it required more resources and driver compatibility was an issue, causing many crashes in some situations.

the fact that the average computer in a store had a single core and 512mb ram, it was to bloated for its time

can someone tell me what mods are installed on this?

mine don't look like that

Ran Vista on a Vaio NS135E back in 2008 and really enjoyed it. Really liked the colorful folder icons at the time.

embedded was better

Looks like a flamboyant cocktail served at a carribean island.

have they ever fixed winsxs problem? i was using Vista for like 6 years non-stop and it crawled to a standstill at some point on me old Toshiba x205. the windows update folder got bloated as fuck, like 70gb (updates took forever too), and the internet told me it was highly inadvisable to delete it manually. file explorer would block me from doing it anyway, and some update-related process was running all the time clogging resources.

win7 apparently got a full refactoring for that whole mess. dunno if they ever pushed it to Vista, tho.

installing xp after all those years breathed into the laptop a new life.

>click windows update
>disable updates
>reboot machine
>turn then on every 3 or 6 months, update, disable again
retard

flash demo plex > actual plex

Attached: Screenshot_20190315.png (1024x768, 673K)

>put MSN Explorer team in charge of new OS interface

Attached: 1518210235580.png (633x758, 37K)

Well to be fair they never finished it in the betas.

Really looks like shit nowadays.

Sorry pham, but you are wrong. My father's first PC was literally a very shitty prebuilt with a single core AMD Sempron and 512 MBs of RAM with Windows Vista installed.
Poor bastard ran that literal piece of garbage until like, 2015 or 2016 lmao.

microsoft has always done that
ever tried running windows 95 on 4MB ram? technically supported "without networking", though you wouldn't really want to run it with less than 16MB ram
how about XP with 64MB ram? into swap before you've even logged in. wouldn't want to use it with less than 256MB ram
by comparison. vista's 512MB was actually more reasonable than these examples, since vista doesn't use that much ram just to get to the desktop, but it does use over half of it
i've run vista on 512MB ram, and it's far more usable than XP on 64MB ram, even 128MB ram, honestly. but in 2006 there was no reason to bother with vista over XP, unless you needed dx10 (why? halo2? shit doesn't even use dx10 features) or 64bit (you probably have more ram)

most people who could had those machines downgraded to XP, i know i helped several people with that around that time

I just discovered it and dont get it all
maybe the dressed showering and go bqck to work thing its reference to Vista development / weird software development decisiona?
a normal process done at the same time of the next one in order to save time, spunds good on paper but horrible at set up

VIsta was /comfy/, and I also found it to be more stable than XP believe it or not. You'd never know it given how many bluescreen jokes it used to get.

Mine ran fine on 2GB, and looking back, in the beginning one would have been enough.

But remember that it has a second service pack, which made re-installation ultimately go faster.

Windows had done this with every other previous version of Windows. XP had a minimum of 64, but 128 was recommended. 2000 had a minimum of 32, but 64 was recommended, etc... Everyone knew long before that you NEVER run on the minimum, but in 2006 the prospect of selling low-end machines with 1 GB was unrealistic for a lot of chinky computer companies.

Hahaha, were you even walking then, zoomer?

Nothing. I still use it.

Attached: Capture.jpg (1439x899, 299K)

Please tell me you don't use IE 8 on a regular basis, though.

Of course not.

Oh wow, you've got classic Chrome there. I haven't seen that in forever!

Even in 2006, 512 MB was pathetic. The really shitty OEMs kept selling machines with anemic amounts of RAM because it was (just barely) acceptable for Windows XP and they could get away with it, but 1 GB really should have been standard even for low-end machines. 2 GB was typical for mid-range builds at the time.

See I agree with that, but we're talking about chinabooks from Walmart. It just wasn't feasible for them to sell computers with that much ram while profiting. By 2008 they probably could have, but they wanted to stay on the gravy train as long as they could.

Wtf is that "start screen" shit? You installed wth win8 metro tiles shit?
Fun fact im still using vista
Its better than 7 if you have service pack 2.
Too many "Designed for Windows XP; Windows Vista Capable" machines were shipped out on dogshit
512mb was the problem here
WANGBLOWS COLUMBO STRIKES AGAIN
>USING WIN10
>CALLING VISTA THE CHAD OS YET DOWNGRADING TO 10
THIS BUT UNIRONICALLY
IF YOU DONT LAUGH WHEN HE SAYS "LEATHER" YOU ARENT HUMAN, BEST AD EVER
IF YOU DONT LAUGH AT SHOE CIRCUS PLATINUM MEMBER

If you hire Seinfield to whore for your product 10 years from last time he was relevant, you're a moron.

Fun fact
More than half the issues were caused by nvidia drivers