Ask some people why Windows Vista failed and they will tell you that most of the problem came from hardware compatibility. I don’t remember ever having problems with Vista back when I used it. Then again I was running it on a brand new computer with the OS in question preinstalled.

And that’s another thing, I think you’re pretty much expected to upgrade your hardware at least every few years. I’d like to think that the people who had problems with Vista kept the same white-box PC they’ve had since 98SE, or even 95. Vista ran great if you had the right hardware. Maybe if Microsoft had optimized their OS even for XP-era machines it would have seen greater adoption.

I also really liked the Aero glass theme, it made younger me feel like I was in the future. Those gadgets at the side of the desktop were pretty cool too. Overall I think it was definitely ahead of its time, and with support for current software and hardware, would have been a solid choice for average computer users today.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
28 points

Yeah, I’m no MS fanboy at all, but Vista really wasn’t that bad.

Most of the complaints were because of crappy hardware manufacturers putting out systems that were only meeting the minimum specs to run Vista. Those “Walmart special” PCs usually had 512 MB RAM and a low-quality Seagate drive. That, and hardware vendors with crappy driver support.

Once it booted to the desktop, your 512 MB was gone. As soon as you try to launch an application, it would start swapping nonstop to disk and everything just crawled. That put a lot of wear and tear on the disk which eventually failed because it was low quality to start with.

I worked in a repair shop back in Vista’s heyday, and the fix was always the same: Give it at least a GB of memory, replace the failing Seagate drive, reinstall, and it ran like it should have when it was new.

permalink
report
reply
6 points

This one. Most systems in the spec didn’t have the RAM to run aero effectively, and ran like shit. If you had 1-2GB of RAM, it worked fine; just you had less of that RAM available to allocate to the same apps that worked great under XP. If you were lucky enough to have a 64-bit processor, Vista was actually pretty nice, compared to the XP 64-bit edition and the driver nightmare that entailed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

All that. I ran the Saturn pre-release and it was a damned nightmare for resource hogging.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Unpopular Opinion

!unpopularopinion@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!


How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.

If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it’s something that’s widely accepted, give it an arrow down.



Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)
  • If your post is a “General” unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
  • If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].


Rules:

1. NO POLITICS

Politics is everywhere. Let’s make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.


2. Be civil.

Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others’ opinions.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...

Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.


5. No trolling.

This shouldn’t need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.



Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

Community stats

  • 2.6K

    Monthly active users

  • 505

    Posts

  • 19K

    Comments