Do You Think That Windows Vista is as bad as a lot of people claimed?

[chennyalan]

ive used vista from about 2007 to about 2010. Virus caught me. Then reinstalled. Then when i installed updates i turned it off. Broke it. My fault.
Well I think Vista is good but definitle not as good as win7
XP is better for compatibility but vista has better features

 

[boohbah]

the first computer i owned had vista pre installed, i really liked it as i had seen how ugly xp was.
Though i prefer 7 over vista i had no issues with vista.

 

[chennyalan]

XP looks bad but if you use older programs, you can't use Vista, only XP or 7(I know it's obvious but I repeat it to make my point). XP doesn't look too bad but compared 2 Vista and 7 it does.

 

[Tekno Venus]

The issue I had with vista was SPEED. I think it was just my computer but boot up time took forever and a day. I timed it once and it ended up at being over 5 minutes!! When I got this new PC I booted them up at the same time and I was on this once browsing the web and listening to music before I could even see the desktop on the old one!

Admittedly, I had never got around to clean installing vista as
a) I really couldn't be bothered to go through all the hassle and
b) By the time I knew how to do a clean install properly I was almost ready to by this. So I didn't clean reinstall vista.

And before you say anything, I went through every method of speeding it up and none worked on it.

In comparison, I can open firefox in less than 15 seconds from a cold boot. On the old one, it took about 1-2 mins! I know it probably wasn't all vista's fault, probably mainly the PC but from that I have just not enjoyed using vista. That is why I rate it as bad

 

[chennyalan]

well definitly ur pcs fault not vistas, Techo Venus. My computer on Vista only took like 2 min 2 boot(slow but not too slow) and 7 min 30 secs.Firefox about 20 secs 7 dunno never used it since upgrading. My system specs are in my sig.

 

[Tekno Venus]

Yeah, I have to agree. Can't work out why it was so slow though. Specs weren't too bad.
Dell Inspiron 1545
Intel Core2Duo @2.00GHz
3GB RAM
320GB HDD (5400rpm seagate)
Intergrated Intel Graphics

 

[chennyalan]

that like better than mine! so maybe if u did a clean install it would solve problem but not worth it if u have 7 now

 

[pparks1]

well definitly ur pcs fault not vistas, Techo Venus. My computer on Vista only took like 2 min 2 boot(slow but not too slow) and 7 min 30 secs.Firefox about 20 secs 7 dunno never used it since upgrading. My system specs are in my sig.

Only sort of true. Many machines which booted and ran slowly on Windows Vista, when installed with Windows 7 were quicker. Vista had a fair amount of bloat with it that was trimmed down and streamlined with Windows 7.

 

[linnemeyerhere]

Vista was the learning curve or shocking update needed from XP which was crap in 64bit regarding available drivers. Vista to me only began to perform well when loaded with at least 3gb-4gb of ram and of course it loved more and even ready boost worked some magic. We shouldn't really complain as we've come so far and things look so bright ahead but Vista is a good OS ! IMHO.

 

[windude99]

Vista was the learning curve or shocking update needed from XP which was crap in 64bit regarding available drivers. Vista to me only began to perform well when loaded with at least 3gb-4gb of ram and of course it loved more and even ready boost worked some magic. We shouldn't really complain as we've come so far and things look so bright ahead but Vista is a good OS ! IMHO.

Yea. Service pack 2 is great! If you run 32 bit Vista, it won't use that much memory and will be relatively fast.

 

[Sardonicus]

When I used it with 4Gb of RAM it seemed sluggish. Now that I have 8Gb and use the x64 bit version, it works fine.
I still use it in a quad boot, with XP, Seven and Eight. I mostly use Seven, though.
With 1Tb of disk space, why not.

 

[pparks1]

When I used it with 4Gb of RAM it seemed sluggish. Now that I have 8Gb and use the x64 bit version, it works fine.
I still use it in a quad boot, with XP, Seven and Eight. I mostly use Seven, though.
With 1Tb of disk space, why not.

Why not? Because they all cost money....with exception of 8 which is currently free for those who are looking at it and testing it.

 

[Sardonicus]

When I used it with 4Gb of RAM it seemed sluggish. Now that I have 8Gb and use the x64 bit version, it works fine.
I still use it in a quad boot, with XP, Seven and Eight. I mostly use Seven, though.
With 1Tb of disk space, why not.

Why not? Because they all cost money....with exception of 8 which is currently free for those who are looking at it and testing it.

Well, I meant why not quad boot, if I have all the operating systems and the space.
Granted, no one needs four operating systems on one machine, but people have a mixture of Windows and non-Windows operating systems on their computers.

I buy the system builder OEM's, which cost about $100.00. So spending $200.00 over the last 6 years for Vista and Seven wasn't a deal breaker, for me. It costs more for the retail versions, but with 3 years between purchases, I don't think too many people give it a second thought.

I'll eventually go back to a dual boot configuration. I'm leaning towards ditching Windows 8, as I don't see a reason to keep it over Windows 7, and Vista will eventually go.

 

[M1GU31]

XP looks bad but if you use older programs, you can't use Vista, only XP or 7(I know it's obvious but I repeat it to make my point). XP doesn't look too bad but compared 2 Vista and 7 it does.

xp looks good once you apply some themes,I still use it as my secondary OS and still find it very useful especially with some programs that bug up on 7 but not on xp or don't run on 7. Xp was and is a very good OS despite it being outdated.

 

[pillainp]

I have never had a single problem with Vista either, and neither has anyone that I have either built a system for or advised on their builds.

Most cases I have heard of came from expecting the OS to run on old, incompatible or insufficient hardware, mostly RAM and CPU.

I have always believed in planning ahead hardware-wise, so I will always be at least middle-of-the-road for a new OS.

 

[Dave76]

Agree.

Never had any problems with Vista, ran great for me, was very happy to leave XP. Too many viruses, crashes, lost lots of data with it.

 

[Borg 386]

I never had it on any of my PC's, although I do have experience with it. It seems to run fine, from what I have seen. I know it got a bad rap from all the warning pop-ups that suddenly presented themselves. It was billed as being "overcautious", something people weren't used to.

 

[pillainp]

The last great crash I had was, surprisingly enough, on Windows 2000. It was so bad that it rendered my user account inaccessible and unrecoverable. Coincidentally, that was my last build where I installed a new OS on existing hardware (98SE to 2000).

Since then, I have made it a point, when a new OS comes out, to upgrade my system to a point that is at least mid-level for the new OS, and then only to upgrade the OS itself. This also gives the new OS a few months to a year to mature.

Consequently, I have had immaculate runs on XP, Vista and 7 so far. It looks like I am staying 7 for the near future, as I have not upgraded hardware much in about 2 years, and priorities have changed. Plus 7 is so solid and 8 not compelling enough that I am tempted to upgrade to the latter.

 

[MattRainier]

Never had a problem with Vista. Used Ultimate for 5 years straight - nary a problem. I never understood all the complaining about it.

 

[SIW2]

I used Vista x64 on a machine with 2gb ram.

Ran beautifully - loved the os.

Just reinstalled a copy the other day and was surprised how fast it boots.