what did you expect from vista before its release?

people every where cursing vista ,
i really don't enjoy vista , but what did you expect vista to be before its release?,
-I really expected it to be faster ( i don't mind if it uses ram as long as it runs faster )
-I expected to miss program crashed ( i know vista experience less crashes then XP ) but i expected no crashes
-I expected to be backward compatible to all the programs and options used to be in xp ( vista removed some options that where in XP and there are a good number of applications that don't work on vista )
-Finally i expected a better User interface ( i know its alot better then XP but i expected better )

 

First of all Vista is not XP. There are numerous debates between the two but in the long run XP will not be supported anymore and if you do you will have to pay for it. Vista wasn't stable when it first came out but after SP1 it works flawlessly. If you recall XP wasn't stable either when it first came out. But now that Windows 7 is on it's way, XP will be farther left behind and will have problems finding drivers for new hardwares and softwares. Can't fight the future.

 

i am not fighting , i am using vista anyway , i just want to know y other ppl hate it , for me any OS without blue screen of death is better than XP

 

XP is forever the king of all OSes, at least for me...

I was pretty angry when I first heard about Vista's system requirements. Windows should be very flexible on any hardware setup. It's so mainstream. Nearly every average PC user has Windows. Some don't know anything else. An uneducated person might buy Vista for their older machine, never even considering a hardware upgrade simply because they aren't tech-savvy. They'd be furious spending so much on Vista only to find out their machine is way too slow for it.

That alone made me hate Vista from the beginning...

Now that I've spent time with it, it's pretty solid. I wouldn't say there's any straight up improvements from XP at all though. It just looks a little prettier. On the surface, nothing has changed. They added some extra bells and whistles but took away compatiability. DirectX 10 is hardly worth it.

 

Isn't there another thread very similar to this?
Well there is the opposite of this...It's the What Do You Hate about Vista...

What did I expect from Vista before it's release? An interesting system coming from working with XP all the time!
Now that I've dealt with both, I don't mind either. I really can't *hate* on either.
Both have it's own aggravations. You just deal and work with what you have.

Cin.

 

While I do agree with you that Windows shouldn't require a super computer, hardware does move forward. Windows has never been known as a great performer. Heck I was watching a video on YouTube on the release of Win95 (I was only 3 then), and people were talking about upgrading their computers to a whopping 8MB of RAM.

Still, that's not an excuse for Windows to be slow. If you're going to push the hardware market ahead, make the software keep up. In Vista's case, I don't think it had anything major enough to make people ignore the fact that they needed some beefy hardware.

OSes are at the point where they do all the basic things they need to do. They manage your hardware well, and make it easy to use your computer. OSes are at the point where it's all about adding included extras. And for MS, that's a bit hard, as Windows is a software selling platform; software companies wouldn't be too happy if MS were eating their sales. A platform like Linux, or even Mac OSX (to a lesser extent), doesn't have to worry about this as much. Though I think that MS is trying, at least with Windows Live Essentials.

As for what I expected from Vista? A fast, visually appealing, secure operating system that would push the computer hardware to the next level. I think it did everything but the first thing.

 

Why do people always create threads like this? (yes, I had to ask!)

 

How long has Vista been out now, and people still go on about how bad it is, when in fact it's a pretty good OS, completely different to XP, and people should get used to it. One day, the beloved XP is going to be gone, no more support and they will be forced to use something else. Change has to happen, otherwise we will never progress.

 

I expected a OS with no registry, a new file system WinFS a file system which did not need defragging. Those plans where shelved in order to get Vista out the door.

 

Oooh boy, I can call you a whipper-snapper, then! When I was three, they were just debuting this bad boy:


In fact, in honor of my third birthday, Intel released the first complete CPU-on-a-chip, the Intel 4004:


At that point, I think the only software so to speak, was custom-written assembler, nothing quite so sophisticated as Win95, or even Win3.1!

 

when i was 3, look at this badboy:

 

I skipped Vista, Windows 7 FTW!

I really like what I see so far with Windows 7. I use Vista on a couple machines I have because I have to due to hardware drivers, but don't care for it much, and won't go into details why to spare everyone another argument.

But I do have Windows 7 on a cheap laptop (my Compaq) and I love it! It's awesome, and can't wait for the final release.

And BTW, this PC is what was available on my third birthday, Altair 8800:

 

enjoing it since longhorn.

did so, too, and got satisfied. it's more snappy.

well, programs can have errors, and then crash. there's NOTHING microsoft can do about it. (but they should look that they don't have explorer crashing, f.e. which was a big downer at the start.)

"a good number" is just not true. most of them where fixable. and i never expected all to work, like they didn't back in xp, 2000, nt, 98, etc..
i expected to be able to get all programs running except maybe some crappy very old app, or something with a strange mini-driver. those need to be rewritten to adapt.

yeah, we all always expect the holy grail. i think the user interface is about the peak of how well windows can be done. i think win7 is a backstep in usability (while i like a lot of it's changes, the taskbar isn't one).

so i got fully satisfied from day one.

oh, and, stability and quality by default. xp never worked for me without tons of tweaking. i expected vista to work out of the box with, maybe, 10min or so tweaking at max to my usage style.

and it works..

 

the first one is essentially true. you can't get rid of the registry without killing about 90% of the app compatibilities. but the registry of today is completely differently implemented to the registry of, say, 98. the current registry has none of the major problems the old one had.

winfs would be interesting.

every file system needs defragging. get an ssd if you want to get rid of that.

and vista at least let users not care about it by doing it all itself.

 

the king is dead, long life the king

I've yet to see the uneducated person going out and buying any os for it's system that isn't the default installed one.
I do hate how oem's installed vista on systems that couldn't perform well with it at the beginning, giving vista a bad image, as the non-tech-savvy people then get this suffering without being their fault.
but i yet have to see people buying vista on their own

bah, compatibility. everyone sais that, no one has real big proof. and it changed much (memory management being my beloved one.., stability in drivers by default, like gpu drivers can nearly not bluescreen anymore, security true uac). on the surface, only the gui changes. and some menues got much better. but there isn't much to change anyways. i like the quality of aero, making tearings, half-white dragging-windows etc impossible finally. i hate to see xp not paint the windows when it hangs somewhere. (we all remember how we could fill the desktop with some error message by moving around that tiny error window those days are finally gone. hated it since 3.1)

 

I expected bloat. And we got it. This is Microsoft, after all.

 

Of course, here we go yet again.

 

Just to be clear, this is not MS bashing. I've used every Windows since 3.1 (even tried to help a relative that had ME on their computer), and the amount of useless apps (to me) keeps growing. The Vista solution of putting everything on the drive and only running what you pay for (the Anytime Upgrade) is worse. I would prefer that Windows allow me to chose which optional apps to install or not. I don't use messenger, movie maker, or a large number of other features. So I would rather not install them at all. Instead, all I can do is "hide" unwanted "features" which just adds bloat. I don't think that these are always bad, and many people want these programs when they buy an OS. I'm fine with that. And I willingly run Windows most of the time, even though I have a full Linux install on my computer as well. I just want a choice in what I put on my computer. Let's face it, if MS had an installer that said "press enter for default install; press shift-delete-esc-f8 for advanced options" most people would take the default, but most people on this board would look at the advanced options.

Vista is not a bad OS. I think the reputation it got was a result of confusion over the number of versions and the decision to install it on low-end computers that can't run it. On any new computer, I'd gladly run Vista, and I am looking forward to Windows 7 from the reports I have read.

 

Agreed. What KimoT said.

I had a bad taste in my mouth from the outset. I was ready to build my new desktop gaming PC when Vista came out, and was excited to be able to use a full 4GB of RAM, so opted for 64-bit. Well we all know how poor support was at launch for Vista, let alone for 64-bit Vista at launch. I know it's better now.

I've been able to run everything I've needed to with XP so far, so I ended up dual booting, and use XP 99% of the time. For my notebooks, use Vista for the most part, because they came with it.

I will probably build my next gaming desktop PC in about a year, and plan on using Windows 7. But this time have had the chance to sample Win7 beta and can say I should have no issue putting that on my new machine.

If Microsoft had a trial period to use Windows, I think it would help alleviate a lot of customer headaches and complaints. Or streamline a dual boot to give customers time to adjust to the new OS.