Windows Vista Just Had Bad Luck
When Vista was released, it was a buggy mess, but so was XP! The only reason Vista never got off the ground was Microsoft releasing Windows 7 two years later, so people could just migrate from Windows XP directly to Windows 7, skipping over Vista. I've used Windows Vista Service Pack 2, and after a week with it, I now use it as my main OS. I hope I'm not the only one who agrees that Windows Vista should deserve more recognition than it gets. At the very least, it's UI is very pleasing.
Windows Vista is like the cult classic of operating systems to me. What do you think?
Windows Vista is like the cult classic of operating systems to me. What do you think?
Comments
I mean seriously, how can you "lose focus" when making an OS after you've filled it with eye-candy and useless nonsense? What were QA and production teams doing at that time? Secondly, you can't release a glitchy RTM build without intense testing, especially after what's happened to Windows Me.
Vista did bring some good stuff to the table, but its problems overshadowed its innovations at release. As you said, service packs were irrelevant when people had XP and later 7. Windows 7 was probably the best solution, though, as it took MS too long to fix Vista, so it will forever be remembered as a buggy piece of crap, even though it's probably no longer the case.
In addition to that, there were many computers being sold as "Vista Capable" that were really only barely capable of running Vista Basic but people tried to run the full Vista on them anyway and thus increasing public perception of slow performance with Vista. There was even a lawsuit about it. Not only that, but the system requirements for decent performance were pretty beefy at the time and gaming rigs were the only ones that could do a decent job of running it.
Plus, as already mentioned, there were actual bugs with Vista RTM and later service packs addressed these issues... but unfortunately, by the time the service packs were released, Microsoft had already lost the public.
So when 7 came out, Microsoft had ironed out the bugs in Vista and hardware had caught up to the point where Average Joe PCs could easily run it. Software developers had worked out the bugs in their software and released Vista / 7 compatible versions. Hardware vendors had released compatible drivers. It was in a much better position than Vista had been.
With 8, they had really trimmed the fat and tweaked performance... the problem is, relying on usage metrics, they made major missteps in the UI design. Stats told them no one really uses the start button... so they removed it... but it turns out people use it... a lot. 8.1 fixed this, but as with Vista, it was too late and they had lost the public's approval.
So 10 does the same thing 7 did. Builds on the previous version and addresses the public's concerns... the problem is, once again, they've fucked up by implementing several privacy violating features... but unfortunately, the public doesn't seem to care that much about their privacy... so 10 will likely do fine.
I really wish they were handling the release of 10 better... currently on my 8.1 system, it is listed as an optional update but it remains pre-selected and is unable to be hidden through normal means. Not only that, but they're also pre-downloading it to 7 / 8.x PCs... They had a real opportunity to turn things around for their public image and they blew it. It's not like Vista or ME, but it's also not like, "Hey, Microsoft is actually doing a good job"
Also on the subject, wouldn't it be better if Vista came in the form of its early Longhorn builds before Microsoft decided to say "screw it" with its development and then give us this as a result? That's just what I think but I can't really get my head round of how Microsoft would fuck this up so badly, especially when it came to ME. I mean, it took them years to assemble it and at one point they were more or less jealous of Apple for introducing fast file-searching for Mac OS X Tiger when that was out.
Vista's release also coincided with the beginning of a massive decline in Microsoft's influence in the Operating System arena, and indeed in the tech world more generally. Now it's all Android, iOS and even OS X. The loss of overall marketshare for Windows has been massive.
Vista was the perfect exemplar of an OS that was overly bloated with tacky effects and other assorted useless rubbish for no good reason.
All that said, I found it to be very stable and usable on the laptop I used to run it on. It was also my last Windows OS. Then I wiped it and instead put on Ubuntu (was not a great fan), and after that I chucked it and got a Macbook Air
um... what?
https://www.netmarketshare.com/operatin ... pcustomd=0
Yes, but this pie chart is titled **Desktop Operating System Market Share**. People are using their tablets and phones now for tasks once very much solely reserved for laptops and desktops. The total influence of Microsoft on the consumer electronics field has reduced ENORMOUSLY.
If you made a pie chart titled 'Operating system use (hours per week) for PC, tablet or smart phone' in say 2007 and then now in 2015 the difference would be remarkable.
You never mentioned anything about mobile devices, or even the consumer area. The sheer amount of Windows boxes in businesses alone will vastly outweigh mobile usage in "hours per day".
Moreover, if you included consoles in there it would push them much higher.
Hi gairry,
I politely disagree. I did allude to non-desktop systems in my original comment (I mentioned Android and iOS). Furthermore, I don't think you can draw a solid, distinct line anymore between the laptops/desktops segment and tablets / similar devices. They are all sophisticated computing devices with screens and operating systems, whether that OS be Windows, OS X, iOS, or Android.
The fact is that tablets/mobile devices for many people are the 'modern-day' PCs, and the newest iPad is probably at least as powerful (likely a lot more) as say a top of the line Dell laptop manufactured in 2007. Everyday tasks people once used their PCs for, people now largely use tablets and phones.
On top of this, Mac OS X has made gains too (albeit modest in comparison).
I see this all as a huge shift that has occurred. There is no doubt that Microsoft's influence in the IT arena is not like it used to be.
Good point with business, although I've noticed businesses are hanging on to old version of windows as long as possible (they don't want Win Vista, 7, 8 or 10).
Good point with consoles too. I'm not a gamer so they're not at the forefront of my mind.
Nonetheless, the overall picture is that, as according to my previous comment above, Microsoft has never been as weak as they are today. More people than ever are using computing devices that are NOT running a Microsoft operating system, and often are running no MS software *at all*. Unthinkable even 7 years ago.
Unfortunately, netmarketshare.com requires a subscription to see the overall OS marketshare in terms of web usage. The only chart I found was from 3 years ago. I'm sure the usage has changed a bit, but not as drastically as you claim. If I have time I'll try to source a newer chart.
Also, it's not necessarily that businesses don't *want* to upgrade, but rather that they *can't* upgrade because some super critical line of business application they use won't run on the new versions.
I know I'm one of those individuals who would hold on to Windows 7 as much as I can.
Anyway, talking about Vista again, once support for it gets cut off in two years, I can guarantee it will be largely forgotten about as right now, it's market share is only above 1%. Wouldn't you all agree?
I actually have Vista installed in a virtual machine right now.
XP had been around forever and hardware manufacturers were getting cranky that users were no longer upgrading to new machines. They got in the ear of MS and in response we got a really pretty but resource-hungry OS. They thought consumers would idiotically drool at the shiny new OS and run out and by expensive hardware.
Unfortunately for MS, they went too far. Vista ran like a dog on a good chunk of machines that shipped with the OS, let alone all of those 'Vista ready' machines that shipped with 512 MB RAM. Vista, on 512? It doesn't even run well on 1 GB for goodness sake.
Anyways it's a slight shame. Because with enough RAM (2GB MINIMUM) Vista is a very smooth, slick looking OS. It is also quite stable on the right hardware. But it's horridly inefficient. It's the most aesthetically pleasing MS OS ever released (perhaps to the point of being gaudy), but I understand why MS moved in the direction they have with 8 and 10.
**EDIT** also UAC is f**king annoying, so intrusive, especially on a machine with lower RAM waiting for it to do its thing.