Is windows vista a failure?

Man, back in the flashing cursor days, my computer never crashed (more than twice a day). Those were the times, when programs came on floppy discs the size of your head, computers booted instantaneously, and the minimum requirements were keyboard and monitor. That's what all OS's should be like!

 

Vista has only sold more copies compared to XP at the same point in their life cycle because more people buy computers. Just think about how many people have computers now compared to 7 years ago.

You know it's scary when you start you use "back in the day" and you're actually serious.

 

Actually, despite the fact Vista sold more that XP at the beginning...the big picture is actually worse.

In its first year, XP managed to be sold on 67% of all new computers. That, combined with upgrades, equals a good start.

Vista managed to be sold on 39% of new computers. That, combined with all the upgrades that eventually were downgraded back to XP, equals a bad start.

http://www.dailytech.com/Vista+Fails+to+Improve+on+Windows+XPs+Opening+Act/article10252.htm

Vista will always have a failed start, for the bloat (less gaming performance for me), the driver issues (my scanner still does not work and it claims to be Vista compatible), the WGA bugs (that called me a theif), the DRM (so that my MP3 music legally downloaded and acquired would not work), SuperFetch & ReadyBoost (which actually slowed me down), no WinFS (lost a good way to search through files and do stuff that I was looking forward to), USB & WiFi issues (that made me downgrade back to XP), poor 64bit implementation (drivers anyone), UAC (MS wasted its time with this feature, resources should have been spent making the OS better elsewhere), Windows Defender (any MS security product is a joke), failure to even work with MS's own Zune apparently, incompatibilities with software (two games of mine do not work with Vista and are still on store shelves, and several high value programs of mine still have issues, PDF printer I paid for does not work), and the list goes on.

Does it sound like I'm crabbing? Well, I am...because my experiences with Vista have been consistently poor. If Windows 7 does not save MS's day, I'll be looking into Linux or just recycling my XP install again and again. And once Virtual Machines have CPU and GPU virtualization, MS is in real trouble.

 

I find it hard to read most of the threads and posts hating on Vista. In my experience with it, which has been almost a year now, I have yet to have any issues with it, and it's used heavily on a daily basis.

I just don't understand how people find it to be such a terrible OS.

 

You don't understand because you haven't had major problems. Some of us had.

I can understand you having a positive experience, and I'm glad you are one of the people that are okay with Vista. But some of us (many of us) are not.

 

Yeah, I can appreciate that. I've been very fortunate to not have problems so far.

Do you see my point though? I mean, it's just weird to see some people having major issues with Vista that others seem to not experience at all.

I guess Vista is just hit or miss.

 

MS Sold XP alongside Vista which is the reason for that... They did not sell 2000 alongside XP on its release... If they had XP initial sales would have been FAR FAR worse.

1. Bloat... What does that seem to really mean anymore? Every OS release has more "bloat" than its predecessor and people only seem to complain about the latest iteration. XP has far too much bloat in it, but you are citing that as if it is the holy grail of OSs.

2. I haven't had a single issue with the Vista x64 implementation. I've been running it daily on my laptop since October with no issues. I'm placing it on my Vista 32bit desktop within the next few days to make full use of its 8GB of RAM. There are a lot of people in the Vista x64 thread on this forum who also agree with me that Vista x64 is superb. Have you actually used it or are you just regurgitating junk read elsewhere?

3. UAC is just a pullover from the *nix world... So your claiming to be considering going to Linux means you better get used to it...

4. The rest of your issues seem to be unrelated to MS or even Vista really... If the vendor who made your scanner can't get their act together then maybe you shouldn't be buying their products. If the maker of your PDF software or other apps can't get their act together... Shop elsewhere. I haven't had any issues with Adobe Acrobat Pro 8 on Vista 64...

Yeap sounds like your just crabbing...

If you're waiting for Windows 7 to be lighter on resources you might as well go buy a typewriter. Windows 98 used less than Windows ME which used less than Windows XP which uses less than Vista which will use less than Windows 7. Get used to it! Computer hardware will be n-times faster than it is now in 2009/2010 when Windows 7 is released. There will be no reason to make the OS smaller and more lean...

The same is true in the *nix world... Ubuntu 5.10 uses less than Ubuntu 6.06 which used less than Ubuntu 7.10... That is just the way things evolve in technology...

For me, Vista is a fantastic OS. I'm running it happily and did so within the first year of its release. I didn't budge from Windows 2000 to Windows XP until Windows XP SP2. Before then XP was a piece of trash to me as it offered nothing worth using it for. I can't say the same about Vista.

 

No because I was 8 during that time. But since 2003 (when I start knowing about comuter stuff), I kept re-installing XP each 2 months. I

 

All I know for sure is that the only constant is change. I base this on having earning my living in computing since 1975, having worked on most of the major operating systems (mainframe, mid-sized, micro, server, PC, even some embedded), and realizing long ago that the wheel gets reinvented, over and over.

My point? That the question posed in this thread is moot. The fact remains that once an OS has been released it makes it mark.

I find it immensely humorous that Microsoft now has "legacy systems".