Cable Forum - View Single Post

qasdfdsaq · 05-02-2011, 23:12

Not heard it from you but heard it from a lot of people. Vista remains a steaming pile of you know what in a most people's opinions. Never said mine though, I used it happily for many years too, both on my desktop and laptop.

I know very well about the early days of XP and the requirements and reputation it had back then, I was an early adopter of XP as well. That said, having 3 sevice packs isn't particualrly notable. The two immediate predecessors to XP in it's line (NT5 and NT4) had 4 and 6 service packs respectively. XP however, was a minor revision of a major version, in the same way that Windows 7 was to Vista. Driver support was actually quite widespread, as most Windows 2000 drivers were compatible. People mainly slagged it off due to gaming support (loss of DOS, NT architecture) and increased hardware requirements. It did however succeed in the end as the user experience was good, and the platform was stable once hardware caught up.

Vista had a lot of underlying enhancements in the kernel, and was a technically good operating system. However most people do not measure how good their operating system is based on the efficiency of new kernel code. For them, what matters is how the system responds and behaves in day to day use on their average consumer laptop, and in that respect Vista's user experience failed, badly. Even on high end hardware it had a considerable number of bugs and bad behaviours some of which remain to this day. XP and 7 on the other hand, run a lot more efficiently on the same hardware. Some of us build our own machines and custom install 64-bit copies of Vista and plonk in a ton of RAM; great. The average consumer has neither the option or desire for that stuff, they buy what is provided for them in a shop and that was inevitably underpowered laptops with 32-bit OS' limiting upgrade possibilities without full reinstallations which were beyond the capabilites of your typical home user. That said, the ability of Win 7 to do more on lesser hardware pretty much proves Vista was terribly inefficient.

Oh as for the caching system, Vista's caching system was just a bad "improvement" of the same found in XP, it's neither new or innovative. It's still there in Windows 7 as well, it's certainly not been removed. It just works a lot better because, well, Vista sucked.

05-02-2011, 23:12	#17
qasdfdsaq cf.mega poster Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 11,207	Re: Major laptop problem Not heard it from you but heard it from a lot of people. Vista remains a steaming pile of you know what in a most people's opinions. Never said mine though, I used it happily for many years too, both on my desktop and laptop. I know very well about the early days of XP and the requirements and reputation it had back then, I was an early adopter of XP as well. That said, having 3 sevice packs isn't particualrly notable. The two immediate predecessors to XP in it's line (NT5 and NT4) had 4 and 6 service packs respectively. XP however, was a minor revision of a major version, in the same way that Windows 7 was to Vista. Driver support was actually quite widespread, as most Windows 2000 drivers were compatible. People mainly slagged it off due to gaming support (loss of DOS, NT architecture) and increased hardware requirements. It did however succeed in the end as the user experience was good, and the platform was stable once hardware caught up. Vista had a lot of underlying enhancements in the kernel, and was a technically good operating system. However most people do not measure how good their operating system is based on the efficiency of new kernel code. For them, what matters is how the system responds and behaves in day to day use on their average consumer laptop, and in that respect Vista's user experience failed, badly. Even on high end hardware it had a considerable number of bugs and bad behaviours some of which remain to this day. XP and 7 on the other hand, run a lot more efficiently on the same hardware. Some of us build our own machines and custom install 64-bit copies of Vista and plonk in a ton of RAM; great. The average consumer has neither the option or desire for that stuff, they buy what is provided for them in a shop and that was inevitably underpowered laptops with 32-bit OS' limiting upgrade possibilities without full reinstallations which were beyond the capabilites of your typical home user. That said, the ability of Win 7 to do more on lesser hardware pretty much proves Vista was terribly inefficient. Oh as for the caching system, Vista's caching system was just a bad "improvement" of the same found in XP, it's neither new or innovative. It's still there in Windows 7 as well, it's certainly not been removed. It just works a lot better because, well, Vista sucked.