MS increases win7 / vista lifespan

[russ18uk]

Anyone remember how hard XP sucked when it was released? I was just like Vista, but worse. It wasn't until SP1 that became good enough to use.

IMO it wasn't until SP2 came out when XP was worthy of replacing W2000 fully.

[terrannova]

Anyone remember how hard XP sucked when it was released? I was just like Vista, but worse. It wasn't until SP1 that became good enough to use.

Very true. There were plenty of bugs and the firewall was inadequate, it was actually disabled by default. SP1 and SP1a had plenty of issues too. Eventually games began to run faster on XP than 98SE/Me. SP2 in 2004 was one of the best service packs Microsoft has ever released for an OS.

[CrAwL]

Vista isn't really bad at all anymore especially after its third service pack. Works just fine, I use it on my secondary PC.

[terrannova]

Vista only has SP1 and SP2 (2009) I would imagine they'd release a third eventually, but yeah I've seen some machines handle Vista really well, even those with not so good hardware, some systems it just struggles with. Security-wise it's seems to be very similar to Windows 7, but a more in-your-face UAC, making it even harder to install spyware.

I'd actually like to see it run on an SSD, my friend has his Vista system on an SSD at his work and it runs faster than his Windows 7 system at home. As long as it's not constantly thrashing the drive that should be ok, lol.

[User_3D]

Windows 7 I can understand. It's been a good OS. But Vista? They need to take every last cd copy they have out to the shooting range and have some target practice.

Oh come on Vista was not THAT bad.

Well, they do seem to keep to their pattern.

Win95= Bad

WTF?

[dracom_ma]

Oh come on Vista was not THAT bad.

Yes, it was. And why extend support for it when there is already a better, more reliable OS already out.

WTF?

What? Windows 95 had numerous issues. It was the first OS of it's kind (start menu and such) so naturally there was a lot of room for improvement. Now granted it wasn't as bad as ME or Vista.

[Murderklok]

Yes, it was. And why extend support for it when there is already a better, more reliable OS already out.

If Vista was truly bad, they would end support for it quite quickly, just as they did ME. But it's not that bad. Especially now, fully updated. It's absolutely fine. Maybe there's a particular thing it didn't do well for your use, but I've used it across many systems and still to this day on a few. It's very solid.

[dracom_ma]

If Vista was truly bad, they would end support for it quite quickly, just as they did ME. But it's not that bad. Especially now, fully updated. It's absolutely fine. Maybe there's a particular thing it didn't do well for your use, but I've used it across many systems and still to this day on a few. It's very solid.

You guys are just like the people who defended WindowME. I'm not going to bother to argue anymore.

[blackstar]

You guys are just like the people who defended WindowME. I'm not going to bother to argue anymore.

i never had much of a prob using vista for a year in an office; it was better then XP (more stable, more secure). it did feel more sluggish then XP, not so bad on a modern box though - not quite as fast as 7.
i grudgingly grew to like it.

i know early adopters that installed it on old XP boxes and hated it rightaway - thats the vista experience on 512MB of RAM while hardware manufacturers couldnt figure out drivers for it. but i didnt touch it once until it had been out for a year.

i think if 7 had launched instead of vista, it would have an awful rep too - loads of instability came from crap drivers when it launched.

[Murderklok]

i think if 7 had launched instead of vista, it would have an awful rep too - loads of instability came from crap drivers when it launched.

Exactly. Vista set the standard for system hardware. Everyone was riding along with 512-1GB RAM with XP. Vista also setup the new DirectX and driver changes which made 7 an easy transition. Vista had be done or else nothing was going to move forward.