Image Map Image Map
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28

Thread: Was Vista sp2 not bad vs Windows 7?

  1. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Orange View Post
    Vista had several little 'gotchas' like when you attempted to in install a game in the 'game folder'.
    Please tell me more about this. Are there any more "gotchas" you remember too?

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SE MI
    Posts
    5,061
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by computerdude92 View Post
    Please tell me more about this. Are there any more "gotchas" you remember too?
    It's been a long while since I've run Vista on anything, but IIRC, the OS itself is solid and looks pretty good. The exception, at least for me (and some others) was that some '.exe's' get 'lost' or misplaced during the install. All XP games are supposed to install and work correctly, according to MS, but sometimes don't. It may take some tinkering to get you game to show up in the game folder.

    Examples:

    QUESTION:
    After installing, I can't find the.exe file to start the game.
    There was no shortcut added to desktop, and there is no
    executable file in the Start -> Programs menu. How do I
    start the game?

    ANSWER:
    If you are using Windows Vista, game icons are placed in
    the "Games" folder of your start menu. This is not a problem
    with the game and is intentional.

    https://wiki.nexusmods.com/index.php...ndows_Vista%2B

    Don't be intimidated by a few shortcomings within the Vista system. I've found it to
    be a solid as a rock but has a few idiosyncrasies which can be put aside with a little research.
    Surely not everyone was Kung-fu fighting

  3. #13

    Default

    Mainly, I just can't fathom why you'd bother. Anything that can run Vista acceptably can run 7 just as well, AFAIK, and anything that can't is better suited for XP anyway.
    Computers: Amiga 1200, DEC VAXStation 4000/60, DEC MicroPDP-11/73
    Synthesizers: Roland JX-10/SH-09/MT-32/D-50, Yamaha DX7-II/V50/TX7/TG33/FB-01, Korg MS-20 Mini/ARP Odyssey/DW-8000/X5DR, Ensoniq SQ-80, E-mu Proteus/2, Moog Satellite, Oberheim SEM
    "'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling." - Bjarne Stroustrup

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dublin, CA USA
    Posts
    2,961
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    The main reason why most people at the time (and continue till today) believe that it was not a good OS was because it introduced some serious game changes along the lines of security and stability, they introduced UAC (something other OSes had being doing for sometime) and started to enforce driver signing. This broke compatibility with a very large number of software titles and various hardware devices. Most vendors had ample time to patch and release updates, but more than a few simply did not (Symantec being one example, did not patch their A/V and security products till well after Vista's release). This left a very bad taste in most people mouths and most companies were realizing that the cost to upgrade went far beyond just the licence fee.

    Couple all of that with the fact that the OS was very heavy on resources, especially RAM, so most people were forced to upgrade their RAM in order to get Vista working on their older machines (yet another "hidden cost"). And then you also had the fact that "vista sucks" tech articles were far more attractive to readers that the opposite. It was the perfect storm that amounted to a what was way more of a PR disaster for MS than a tech failure. Heck at one point they used a marketing company to to bring in people to use an un-named OS and then asked them what they thought after, and almost everyone loved the OS, and were genuinely surprised that it was in fact Vista.

    Was Vista the "perfect OS" without any issues at launch? Not at all, it had it's issues, just like XP had at it's release (XP SP1's list of fixes was a dozen pages long IIRC), and the services packs they released went a long way to making Vista pretty decently stable on the right hardware.

    Ultimately, Microsoft abandoned Vista because there was no repairing the bad PR, but not because the OS was a technological failure. But they did actually learn from some of the mistakes, and allowed them to come up with some really great goals for the next OS (Windows 7) of these being making it as lean as possible on the resource standpoint, improving UAC and generally making the OS much more streamlined (they focused on under the hood improvements, the UI between Vista and 7 are almost identical). Because of this, it was easy to say "Any computer that can run Vista, can run Windows 7" and this was completely true, also by the time 7 came out almost all of the vendors that matters had updated their software and drivers to work with the new security requirements of the OS.

    So without Vista, we would not have had Windows 7, which is one of the best OS's MS has ever released IMO.

    At any rate, back to OP's question about SP2, it won't make Vista seem like Win7, but it will solve some issues, and provided you have enough RAM and a decent CPU, then I'd say Vista SP2 would be reasonably comparable to 7 on the machine, though I personally would go with Win7 over Vista in most cases.

    As commodorejohn so eloquently said (nailed it right on the head):
    Quote Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post
    Anything that can run Vista acceptably can run 7 just as well, AFAIK, and anything that can't is better suited for XP

    IBM 5160 - 360k, 1.44Mb Floppies, NEC V20, 8087-3, 45MB MFM Hard Drive, Vega 7 Graphics, IBM 5154 Monitor running MS-DOS 5.00
    IBM PCJr Model 48360 640kb RAM, NEC V20,, jrIDE Side Cart, 360kb Floppy drives running MS-DOS 5.00
    Evergreen Am5x86-133 64Mb Ram, 8gb HDD, SB16 in a modified ATX case running IBM PC-DOS 7.10

  5. #15

    Default

    I have 2 vista machines in my collection, and while Windows Update was working I took the opportunity to apply all the updates I could get hold of. In my opinion Vista is OK, but noticeably slower than Win7.

    Around August Microsoft killed off automatic updates for Vista, now you only get a red error message. So if you missed out, too bad.

    At the end of the day, Win7 is superior, even though Vista does look very nice.

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Timo W. View Post
    Vista was only unstable in the beginning due to poor drivers. And as for being a resource hog, that's not relevant unless you want to use it on pre-2008 hardware.
    IMO, Vista and later need to run from an SSD to be as responsive as 2K/XP. There is just a lot more disk activity going on and having an HDD that's a little newer isn't enough to make up for it. I'm not saying that they run BAD from disk, but it's a noticable difference when doing a back-to-back comparison.

  7. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bakemono View Post
    IMO, Vista and later need to run from an SSD to be as responsive as 2K/XP. There is just a lot more disk activity going on and having an HDD that's a little newer isn't enough to make up for it. I'm not saying that they run BAD from disk, but it's a noticable difference when doing a back-to-back comparison.
    You can improve that by disabling search indexing and other unnecessary services, but generally, yeah.
    Computers: Amiga 1200, DEC VAXStation 4000/60, DEC MicroPDP-11/73
    Synthesizers: Roland JX-10/SH-09/MT-32/D-50, Yamaha DX7-II/V50/TX7/TG33/FB-01, Korg MS-20 Mini/ARP Odyssey/DW-8000/X5DR, Ensoniq SQ-80, E-mu Proteus/2, Moog Satellite, Oberheim SEM
    "'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling." - Bjarne Stroustrup

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SE MI
    Posts
    5,061
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post
    Mainly, I just can't fathom why you'd bother. Anything that can run Vista acceptably can run 7 just as well, AFAIK, and anything that can't is better suited for XP anyway.
    One reason may be that legit W7 is hard to come by these days. If you already have it, then that's a different story.
    Surely not everyone was Kung-fu fighting

  9. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post
    Mainly, I just can't fathom why you'd bother. Anything that can run Vista acceptably can run 7 just as well, AFAIK, and anything that can't is better suited for XP anyway.
    Because this is a forum about retro-computing? You could also not bother at all and just run your stuff on Windows 10. If it runs on Vista/7, it will in 99.9% of all cases run on 10 as well. But that wasn't his question.

  10. #20

    Default

    One weird thing I noticed is that some software, like from Adobe, actually dropped support for Vista before they dropped support for XP. And many others dropped support for XP and Vista at the same time, even though there was no real technical reason to do so, since Vista and 7 are so similar under the hood.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •