What really happened with Vista?

[ayiteddybear]

I found this article yesterday and thought it will fit here:

https://blog.usejournal.com/what-really ... 13ee77c239

[r1k1]

Vista was really ahead of its time when many barley met the system requirements to run it. As the article is about all the development hell Vista went through. By the time they got around to fixing holes in Vista with SP1 and SP2, and PC manufactures catching up spec wise, 7 was already well on its way.

[LuLu]

no it wasnt
NeXT and BeOS as well as Linux beat Vista in so many ways

Vista if anything was draging behind

[nixie]

no it wasnt
NeXT and BeOS as well as Linux beat Vista in so many ways

Vista if anything was draging behind

NeXT and BeOS were already dead and forgotten by then and Linux had it's own list of issues. Vista was necessary for Windows to stay relevent and the longer they put it off the harder it would be. Along the way, they definitely made more than their share of very stupid decisions (at least in hindsight..), but it is much more common than companies (or employees..) like to admit. Back in the '90s, Apple wasn't exactly a shining beacon of intelligence, either, and video games tend to have equally rocky development cycles.

tl;dr
It's very easy to ridicule.
It's very hard to do.

[louisw3]

They made the big mistake of having the UI require a 3d accelerator. And with all the project drift, the printed requirements were far far higher.

Between that and the longhorn reset it, and going to 100% machine based testing a lot was simply overlooked, rushed and botched.

Although at the same time, I bought a Sony i7 laptop that came with Vista Ultimate a month prior to the 'official launch', as it was some special at the time, and having stepped up from XP x64 to Vista x64 I loved it. I was using Virtual PC for anything legacy based, and just had Win32/Win64 stuff native, and it all worked fine.

To me the bigger disaster was 8.0/8.1 . I had to use a Windows 8 machine for a consulting gig as I had to use 'supplied equipment'. I can't state over and over how much it sucked. When they finally started to move to Windows 10, I was at the front of the line, to get off of 8. And 10 is so much better than 8. and dare I say 7. The Linux subsystem is really great to have, and honestly if they had showed any interest in the POSIX subsystem in the NT 3.1 days it would have been a contender. SFU/SFA was such a poorly done half gap measure that Microsoft left us all with nothing for Windows 8.

[LuLu]

next wasn't dead at all
it was still being licenced and worked on under "openstep"
which os 10 used as base...

and we all know how that end up...

BeOS may have been in limbo but had some tech that winblows still doesn't
Linux also predated some tech that vista couldn't even produce properly

[nixie]

OS/2, PS/2
Lisa, Apple III, Pink and Blue
Gamegear, PSP
SNES CD, Sega CD, 32X, CD-I
etc, etc, etc

Microsoft is neither the first nor the last to fall head-first into the pit. The important thing is that we learn from their mistakes and learn to recognize them in ourselves before it's too late.

[TL7]

Windows Vista is still being used by some friends and schoolmates of mine.
And it works as fresh as Windows 10.

Windows 10 nearly matches Linux speeds on a low-end netbook, except RAM usage, which causes a warningless crash when exceeded.

[DanielOosterhuis]

Windows Vista is still being used by some friends and schoolmates of mine.
And it works as fresh as Windows 10.

Offtopic Comment

But it doesn't receive any updates anymore, putting your friends' security at risk. Why don't they upgrade to 7? There's still about two years of updates for 7, it looks very similar, and runs as well if not better on the same hardware as Vista.

[Lokkevit]

Let's be honest. Vista's cool, and I still love it's design. But the fact that there was such a long gap from XP, that multiple features which were hyped from Longhorn did not make into Vista and the high system requirements, all coupled with the underwhelming performance compared to XP gave Vista the bad reputation it had for years. Most of these were corrected over time: Vista SP2 is performing better, some features from Longhorn returned in 7, such as Homegroup and Libraries, and PCs in general got better.
I still remember how amazed I was by the Aero design when I first saw it.

[Maza]

Let's be honest. Vista's cool, and I still love it's design. But the fact that there was such a long gap from XP, that multiple features which were hyped from Longhorn did not make into Vista and the high system requirements, all coupled with the underwhelming performance compared to XP gave Vista the bad reputation it had for years. Most of these were corrected over time: Vista SP2 is performing better, some features from Longhorn returned in 7, such as Homegroup and Libraries, and PCs in general got better.
I still remember how amazed I was by the Aero design when I first saw it.

HomeGroup and Libraries are not "Longhorn" features and are not as useful as their pre-reset and post-reset counterparts (for example, Libraries are not as powerful as post-reset Virtual Folders).

[Lokkevit]

HomeGroup and Libraries are not "Longhorn" features and are not as useful as their pre-reset and post-reset counterparts (for example, Libraries are not as powerful as post-reset Virtual Folders).

I've been told that Longhorn was supposed to have something like Homegroup, in the form of "Castle".
Also Libraries, although much more primitive, are still similar to Virtual Folders.

[Maza]

HomeGroup and Libraries are not "Longhorn" features and are not as useful as their pre-reset and post-reset counterparts (for example, Libraries are not as powerful as post-reset Virtual Folders).

I've been told that Longhorn was supposed to have something like Homegroup, in the form of "Castle".
Also Libraries, although much more primitive, are still similar to Virtual Folders.

I am sorry someone told you that. It would seem that bloggers and enthusiasts did not help with this viewpoint, what with their comparisons between Castle and HomeGroup.

Libraries at first glance may seem similar to Virtual Folders but there is a distinct difference(s) with how they display their items, as well as the extent and scope of the two features.

I am aware of tables that compare the four features (Castle and HomeGroup; Virtual Folders and Libraries) but I will have to find them again.

[Maza]

HomeGroup and Libraries are not "Longhorn" features and are not as useful as their pre-reset and post-reset counterparts (for example, Libraries are not as powerful as post-reset Virtual Folders).

I've been told that Longhorn was supposed to have something like Homegroup, in the form of "Castle".
Also Libraries, although much more primitive, are still similar to Virtual Folders.

Here is the table that compares and contrasts Castle with HomeGroup:

[SistemaRayoXP]

Vista in fact was an uncooked OS, even the exCEO of M$ (Steve Ballmer) said that Vista wasn't really a finished product, since in fact, Longhorn was planned as a 'slight' update to XP, and the good stuff would come with BlackComb (Later renamed to Vienna).

But the Windows Devs "lost focus" in what the next Windows was going to be, what to include in Longhorn and what to save for BalckComb. They thought there was such a huge mess with Longhorn that they decided to 'reset' it, that is what the 2004-2005 Vista reset was.

They never fixed completely the memory holes and the bugs, were not completely fixed in RTM, that was fixed with the Service Packs, but the people didn't liked Vista for its bad initial impression, and many people went backwards with XP.

However at the end of Vista, BlackComb ended being better than Longhorn for the great majority, as intended .

But there is one person who hates 7 because it's not so 'atractive' as Vista, Sheldon Cooper

[Maza]

HomeGroup and Libraries are not "Longhorn" features and are not as useful as their pre-reset and post-reset counterparts (for example, Libraries are not as powerful as post-reset Virtual Folders).

I've been told that Longhorn was supposed to have something like Homegroup, in the form of "Castle".
Also Libraries, although much more primitive, are still similar to Virtual Folders.

Here is the table that compares and contrasts Libraries with (pre-release and RTM) Virtual Folders. I regret that the mention of Start menu links replacing the respective Shell folders is not included.

[Benjiman43]

Let's be honest. Vista's cool, and I still love it's design. But the fact that there was such a long gap from [XP, that multiple features which were hyped from Longhorn did not make into Vista and the high system requirements, all coupled with the underwhelming performance compared to upgrade windows xp gave Vista the bad reputation it had for years. Most of these were corrected over time: Vista SP2 is performing better, some features from Longhorn returned in 7, such as Homegroup and Libraries, and PCs in general got better.

[Maza]

Let's be honest. Vista's cool, and I still love it's design. But the fact that there was such a long gap from XP, that multiple features which were hyped from Longhorn did not make into Vista and the high system requirements, all coupled with the underwhelming performance compared to XP gave Vista the bad reputation it had for years. Most of these were corrected over time: Vista SP2 is performing better, some features from Longhorn returned in 7, such as Homegroup and Libraries, and PCs in general got better.

HomeGroup and Libraries are not "Longhorn" features.

[Benjiman43]

Let's be honest. Vista's cool, and I still love it's design. But the fact that there was such a long gap from XP, that multiple features which were hyped from Longhorn did not make into Vista and the high system requirements, all coupled with the underwhelming performance compared to XP gave Vista the bad reputation it had for years. Most of these were corrected over time: Vista SP2 is performing better, some features from Longhorn returned in 7, such as Homegroup and Libraries, and PCs in general got better.

HomeGroup and Libraries are not "Longhorn" features.

hmmm true

[Maza]

Let's be honest. Vista's cool, and I still love it's design. But the fact that there was such a long gap from XP, that multiple features which were hyped from Longhorn did not make into Vista and the high system requirements, all coupled with the underwhelming performance compared to XP gave Vista the bad reputation it had for years. Most of these were corrected over time: Vista SP2 is performing better, some features from Longhorn returned in 7, such as Homegroup and Libraries, and PCs in general got better.

HomeGroup and Libraries are not "Longhorn" features.

hmmm true

It's almost as though...it's almost as though someone (not you) just created or watched a YouTube video making the claim and then it perpetuated like wildfire. The goal with the comments and the tables and the wiki articles is to stamp out such beliefs.

There are major and significant differences between, for instance, Libraries and Virtual Folders—I want a query-oriented item browser, not some thing based on nonsense. With Libraries, if one were to scan a digital image, third-party scanning tools—and even Windows itself—often place these images in a dedicated folder in Documents, meaning that they will appear in one's Documents Library. Similarly, if one intentionally or inadvertently places a file type that does not correspond with a location belonging to a Library (e.g., if one puts music in the same location with videos) the incorrect file type will appear (music in the Videos Library and vice-versa). No such issues exist with pre-release—and even RTM—Virtual Folders; a query for images, for instance, will return only images. Users do not have to care about where items are stored, unlike with Libraries which literally require one to rigidly maintain an individual folder or collections of folders and subfolders to ensure that only relevant items reside in the locations that the Libraries reference.

Other benefits of Virtual Folders over Libraries:

https://i.imgur.com/amrXlBe.gif
Libraries cannot paint metadata, unlike pre-reset "Longhorn" and post-reset Windows Vista Beta Virtual Folders. One cannot drag an image on to a Keyword stack, for instance, to assign that keyword as a metadata property of the image.

https://i.imgur.com/cQF8Efn.png
Libraries do not allow one to drag-and drop other Libraries on the same hard disk or different hard disk to not only copy or move items, but also modify or write metadata properties based on an underlying search query (unlike Virtual Folders). This is huge!

https://i.imgur.com/4Qhidj9.gif
Libraries cannot allow one to navigate into metadata properties or even property trees. With Windows Vista Beta, one could navigate into a property referenced by a Virtual Folder and save that item there (its corresponding folder); not only is this operation completely transparent to the end user—the Virtual Folder abstracts the underlying physical location on disk; it does not appear in the breadcrumb path, and one does not have to care about where it is stored—but this is even designed to write that metadata property to the item during the save process!

https://web.archive.org/web/20061215210 ... earch.aspx
Libraries do not let one build a query ("Query A") and then later reuse that query to create a new one ("Query B"). It is true composition—changing the original criteria of Query A would change the search results of Query B.

I should note that all of these were at one time features of "WinFS."

[xXDasToastXx]

I myself still use Windows Vista on my PC, I keep it alive with Windows Server 2008 updates and Forefront Endpoint 2010 ensures the security. I personally love Windows Vista, I use it since the release. It's true that many operating systems just run more stable (Win7 for example), but that's more the fault of Microsoft as the system itself, everyone knows that the Longhorn project came to a halt over and over again and the release schedule was not even rudimentary implement. :/
If you are familiar with Vista but you can good speed it up, I got it as fast as Windows 7. You can still use it, but it is very time consuming to keep it alive.

PS: Sry for my bad english, im german. :')

[MrBurgerKing]

What I liked most about vista was all of the included applications, how well they all worked, and how they all shared a consistent design language, laid out in ways that made sense. Still, vista suffered from poor resource management, mild instability, and an unattractive >$200 price tag - especially when consumers had the option to stay with XP. Apple's tv ad campaign didn't really help public perception either.
The 'aero' design language, sidebar, and inclusion of basic apps all suggest Vista was supposed to compete with OS X.
Microsoft is mostly concerned with shipping half baked products and services as quickly as possible, no matter how hard most of them fail (Edge, Zune, Windows Phone, Groove, etc.) They had to resort to kneecapping Windows 7 and 8 and virtually forcing 'free upgrades' to 10. If they charged $200 for Windows 10 today, it probably would have performed similarly to Vista.

[superlions16]

I've used an updated version of Vista 6002 with no problems, except for some programs complaining about the fact I have Vista and not XP, but that was fixed quickly. RTM was very slow on my custom-built Pentium 4 (which oddly has a modern-style case because i didn't have another case, but i'll fix that, as I have modded Dell chassis) but I think when I was using SP2, it felt better. But I've had experience with 5840, and surprisingly for me it worked better than RTM. I didn't use it for long though. But still, I think XP and 7 are the best releases made by microsoft.

[XaddaGamer]

Vista was great system for me, beacuse got many new features than XP. At April 11th 2017 support for Vista ended, but it still great, but 7 was greater than Vista, 7 only removed few features than Vista and last Service Packs was created for these operating systems.