Why did Windows Vista suck?

[insanedown58]

Why did the no-service-pack version of Windows Vista suck? Last thing I heard about Vista being bad is the fact that it got annoying pretty fast with all the UAC Notifications. Other than that, why did Windows Vista suck?

[dcs18]

An old lady went out shopping for a nice dog and received a werewolf, in the bargain - that's a wolverine Windows 8.

Author,

DKT27

An old lady went out shopping for a nice dog and received Alex Jones, in the bargain - that was Vista.

Author unknown.

BTW, why are we wanting to discuss an old hag that's been used-n-discarded like a sanitary napkin. :s

[davmil]

Vista sucked because neither the s/ware nor the market was ready. It was rushed out the door and held up as compatible with the hardware of the day. Further, there were a lot of changes "under the hood," whereas Win2000 and XP were more closely related. In reality the hardware requirements were significantly increased and MSFT hadn't worked closely enough with vendors to assure proper drivers were ready and compatible - therefore there was a lot of heartache; some deserved, most relieved as time and SP2 came along with newer more capable hardware. In hindsight, while it sucked to go through it, Vista was necessary for us to get to Win 7 IMO.

[rudrax]

Vista sucks because it was made only for that purpose.

[UnderShadow]

Worst of all, it was freaking slow!

i had it running on a 2-core cpu 2 Gb RAM notebook. i was about to dump it thinkig the hardware was outdated/obsolete. Then, just for testing, upgraded it to win8, and voila! it came back to life again!

[Rockstar_26]

Vista was nothing more than just "eye candy" due to that, performance was plain awful.

[Dodel]

Vista was a rushed piece of software (like Windows ME), as a stop gap as consumers were vaying for a newer operating system, and as Windows 7 and (Windows XP) were no where near release stage, actually neither was Vista but hey ho.

As already mentioned whilst Vista was essentially a pile of dross, it was part of the OS evolution process to get to where we are today, unfortuanately this was at the expense of consumers. I always saw Win ME and Vista as beta operating systems which should never have been released as commercial.

Windows 2k on the other hand was a solid piece of kit, and it's core kernal is still be used today (albeit updated), but still fundamentally solid.

I've not really tested / tried Windows 8 so I cannot comment on it's useability, however from reading posts on here and other respected sites, it seems to me anyway that M$ are doing it again (hence the Windows blue leak.)

If I honestly had the time I'd switch to Suse / Redhat, but last time I tried Suse it took me two days and shed loads of googling to work out how to get my Nvidia drivers installed. It's not that I'm a n00b when it comes to this type of environemtn (I've lived most of my computer time, in DOS, Pascal, command line environemts), I just find that Linux is a steep learning curve which unfortunately, right now I don't have the time nor inclination to sit down and work out).

[dcs18]

On a more serious note, there were a variety of reasons why it sucked - here's just a few.

Vista was a major changeover in workflow from any other previous Windows, hungry for CPU, thirsty for RAM, demanded a higher-end hardware, was yet drastically slower than XP, was incompatible with most of the applications that XP accepted, broke a lot of stuff (not limited to pride & ego) as it was the alpha version of Windows 8, was released in a confusing variety of editions, had an activation regime that pissed people off.

So, the people said, "Hasta la vista, baby."

[truemate]

Vista was an experiment'ng operating system with all those lovely looking icons,screen-savers,Aero...UI.

But it eat lots of memory & make mostly all pc slow..that why its sucks.. but from mistake only people learn..

and then win 7 comes up with mostly same UI like vista but gud speed like xp.

In short Vista was the start/base in the revolution of good UI in windows.

[DKT27]

Personally, I never got a proper chance to put my hands on Vista. And I knew it needed a new PC, so never installed it.

However, Vista was a great idea, executed poorly. Windows 7 was the same/similar idea, executed excellently. And Windows 8 (Metro specifically) is a poor idea executed extremely poorly.

If I honestly had the time I'd switch to Suse / Redhat, but last time I tried Suse it took me two days and shed loads of googling to work out how to get my Nvidia drivers installed. It's not that I'm a n00b when it comes to this type of environemtn (I've lived most of my computer time, in DOS, Pascal, command line environemts), I just find that Linux is a steep learning curve which unfortunately, right now I don't have the time nor inclination to sit down and work out).

Things have said to have changed a lot after Steam (Gabe Newell FTW) stepped in with Linux support, he has made all the driver companies take Linux seriously, have more support for Linux, etc.

[dcs18]

There was also one advantage of Vista that very soon grew into it's drawback - it had lots of security (more stringent that of Windows 7 - not limited to UAC.) The Microsoft signed driver saga started with Vista.

The ISO size, too blew up - from a CD to a DVD and made Users shriek bloatware.

[SnakeMasteR]

I won't judge about Vista because i never used it, never tried it or installed it. I jumped directly from XP Pro to 7, a small diagram should speak for itself.

Dunno who made it but seems to be a genius. :P

[lurch234]

hungry for CPU, thirsty for RAM, demanded a higher-end hardware

Yup! I remember retailers slapping Vista ready stickers on almost every computer in their stores.

If you ran the machines bare bones they would operate fine for the most part. Troubled started when you installed more apps and peripherals.