I am currently using Vista right now. The gaming is trash on Vista. It is also very memory heavy. Vista takes the longest to boot up on any pc compared to XP and Windows 7...Windows 7 being the fastest. Aero on Vista is also trash. Its just a pretty version of XP (bulked down of course) with no new features except navigation in the Start Menu. Vista isn't horrible, but it isn't XP or Win 7.

I'm sure you can find some comparisons if you google it lol

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by xconstaud;13497714
I am currently using Vista right now. The gaming is trash on Vista. It is also very memory heavy. Vista takes the longest to boot up on any pc compared to XP and Windows 7...Windows 7 being the fastest. Aero on Vista is also trash. Its just a pretty version of XP (bulked down of course) with no new features except navigation in the Start Menu. Vista isn't horrible, but it isn't XP or Win 7.

I'm sure you can find some comparisons if you google it lol

7 uses just as much (if not more) memory than Vista.

Also, yes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Vista nothing new compared to XP, right?

OP: Vista is fine. It got a bad rep when it debuted and never recovered. It's a fine OS. I use it on one machine just because I don't see the point in spending another $100 dollars to get it running on 7.

 

what really pissed me off about vista was that I needed to deal with UAC just to access the freaking device manager.

What am I a child Microsoft?

It was things like that that I just didn't like. And yes I am aware you can disable UAC but still it shouldn't ask me for permission for such a common task.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by pursuinginsanity;13497761
7 uses just as much (if not more) memory than Vista.

Also, yes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Vista nothing new compared to XP, right?

OP: Vista is fine. It got a bad rep when it debuted and never recovered. It's a fine OS. I use it on one machine just because I don't see the point in spending another $100 dollars to get it running on 7.

My opinion is pretty much summed up in this post. Usually a new windows means a new directX but M$ updated vista to DX11 anyways so if you have vista I don't really see a good reason to spend the money to upgrade.

 

It's okay at the moment.

On the realease it was plauged with driver issues and crashes.

 

IMHO Its because the world was running older Hardware like Pentium 4's and old Athlons when Vista launched and it ran like Poo lol. To me, Win 7 is just a tweaked Vista but tweaked in all the right places. Like Win 95 to 98. 95 was good but 98 was Great

 

why you cant use dx11 on xp?

 

I like Vista except for one thing.

UAC is either On or Off, not in the middle like with W7

 

They just haven't given it a chance. It's a great OS ever since SP1 came out.

 

I think of vista as an inferior version of seven.Seven fixed everything wrong with vista.

 

I kind of like how Vista + SP2 is a "hybrid" between XP and Win7. The Quick Launch Bar is kinda nice to have, but you can get DirectX 11 support with the right windows updates.

S'all good, IMV.

Now if Vista would be a little less heavy on the TurboCache-like feature for graphics cards things would be a lil nicer IMO.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by pursuinginsanity;13497761
7 uses just as much (if not more) memory than Vista.

Also, yes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Vista nothing new compared to XP, right?

OP: Vista is fine. It got a bad rep when it debuted and never recovered. It's a fine OS. I use it on one machine just because I don't see the point in spending another $100 dollars to get it running on 7.

I am comparing the shell. Vista brought what...flip, new icons, a pretty windows explorer and a different layout? Thats all looks. Now the organization in vista was pretty nice. I do believe that is a plus.

Windows 7 brought the Taskbar that can be used for touch screens, Libraries, pinned apps, mouse gestures, Multi-touch...etc. I mean its not a huge enhancement.

But yes, Windows 7 takes the most memory out of the 3 I listed. You can disable Aero in both Vista and 7...but once you disable it in 7, the memory difference is huge compared to Vista which has a bunch of useless services running non-stop.

 

The Vista Platform update was a major overhaul on the GUI and DX. Also after the first major hotfixes came out that fixed gaming issues I ever had trouble with Vista. Once SP1 came out it was as stable as XP and is as stable as my Windows 7 setup now.

As someone else mentioned - Vista was VERY hardware dependent and most people didn't have the best hardware when Vista came out, it was one of the first major Windows releases that really forced people to upgrade their machines to run properly. Windows 7 builds on what Vista already had. There is very little difference between a Vista OS running SP2 + Platform updates and Windows 7. One of the few things that the Platform update did not give Vista was hardware accelerated 2D GUI - it's GUI was overhauled MAJORLY BUT still relies on software rendering of 2D graphic GUI.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by sexybastard;13497775
what really pissed me off about vista was that I needed to deal with UAC just to access the freaking device manager.

What am I a child Microsoft?

It was things like that that I just didn't like. And yes I am aware you can disable UAC but still it shouldn't ask me for permission for such a common task.

a kid could do a lot of bad stuff with access to control panel

 

Generally a lot of people frown on Vista because of how stressful it is to game on it. For example, while it would take XP/7 1GB of RAM to play a game on recommended settings, it would take Vista 2GB of RAM. Or perhaps a couple more tenths of a ghz or even more than that to run a game in contrast to XP/7.

Also, it's a little slower than Windows 7, therefore people are speed demons. No matter what.

I ran Vista for awhile and I had no problems with it, I only upgraded because I'm a PC gamer and Windows 7 was eagerly anticipated by me.

edit: I was ninja'd

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyrilmak;13497976
The Vista Platform update was a major overhaul on the GUI and DX. Also after the first major hotfixes came out that fixed gaming issues I ever had trouble with Vista. Once SP1 came out it was as stable as XP and is as stable as my Windows 7 setup now.

As someone else mentioned - Vista was VERY hardware dependent and most people didn't have the best hardware when Vista came out, it was one of the first major Windows releases that really forced people to upgrade their machines to run properly. Windows 7 builds on what Vista already had. There is very little difference between a Vista OS running SP2 + Platform updates and Windows 7. One of the few things that the Platform update did not give Vista was hardware accelerated 2D GUI - it's GUI was overhauled MAJORLY BUT still relies on software rendering of 2D graphic GUI.

OEMs were selling Vista system with 1GB of RAM....

Intel forced MS to allow their IGP to pass requirements....

 

I have no problem with Vista. If I didn't get Windows7 for free as a student, I'd still be on Vista. Please note I play 0 DX11-only games.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Guitar;13498006
a kid could do a lot of bad stuff with access to control panel

a kid can also click "yes" to the prompt so it was there for no reason at all except to piss me off lol

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by onoz;13498046
Please note I play 0 DX11-only games.

Vista has DX11.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by sexybastard;13497775
what really pissed me off about vista was that I needed to deal with UAC just to access the freaking device manager.

What am I a child Microsoft?

It was things like that that I just didn't like. And yes I am aware you can disable UAC but still it shouldn't ask me for permission for such a common task.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sexybastard;13498063
a kid can also click "yes" to the prompt so it was there for no reason at all except to piss me off lol

Dude your avatar suits the anger coming from your posts.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComradeNF;13497646
It seems almost exactly the same as Windows 7 to me, except the taskbar is different. The majority of the OS runs the same. There are a couple of differences, but that is it.

What's with all the hate?

You are very, very incorrect. Windows 7 was completely recoded. Just because they look similar does not mean the guts inside it are the same. It was very processor and ram heavy and it took up more space. It was also less customizable and less "Operational". Besides you most likely have not ever had a corrupt installation of Vista. I have had two laptops with "Pre-Installed" vista that has been corrupted out the balls..

 

The only thing I was I could do with Vista but can't is Snap.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuckieHo;13498043
OEMs were selling Vista system with 1GB of RAM....

Intel forced MS to allow their IGP to pass requirements....

This

My buddy had a gateway lappy with a 1.6 celeron and 1g of ram, needless to say it ran like poo with vista on it.

Sure vista had some issues upon release but the majority of the bad rep it got was because of it being installed on machines that had no business running it.

 

OP really needs to use his brains before he posts

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by trulsrohk;13498167
This

My buddy had a gateway lappy with a 1.6 celeron and 1g of ram, needless to say it ran like poo with vista on it.

Sure vista had some issues upon release but the majority of the bad rep it got was because of it being installed on machines that had no business running it.

I had a Pentium Dual Core T2370, IIRC, and once I put in another gig (for 2 gigs total) it ran pretty decently. I'd still have it today if it hadn't been for needing the money so I sold it. :\