Why do people think vista is bad

Given that Microsoft is willing to dip into its dark past and invoke Vista's name once more, it's time to take a look back ourselves. Was Windows Vista really as bad as we remember, or is its hate well-justified? With Windows XP, Microsoft pulled off something many considered impossible: merging their consumer and professional lines of their Windows OS into one.

Windows XP proved a tremendous success, eventually becoming a rock-steady OS, with relatively light demands on resources. It supported the latest tech but was also compatible with older software. Plus, with the next version of Windows perpetually postponed, Windows XP enjoyed over five years of continuous support from software and hardware makers.

Microsoft's next major Windows version after XP was originally called Longhorn. It was a highly ambitious project that would drastically revamp how Windows worked. Unfortunately, project Longhorn proved too ambitious for its sake. Many of its bits and pieces took longer than anticipated to develop, with no end in sight.

After many delays, Microsoft decided to reboot the project, salvage the parts that worked, and reshape them into Windows Vista. Despite Microsoft not including everything originally envisioned for Windows Vista, Windows XP's successor still had a lot to offer.

With many updated or outright new features and modern aesthetics, Vista initially looked like a winner. However, the word "successor" begins with "success," so it probably wasn't the proper word to use for this particular version of Windows. Windows Vista dragged the desktop paradigm kicking and screaming into the era of hardware graphics acceleration. Buttons and Progress Bars presented glossy graphics with smooth animations. Elements like windows and menus employed transparency and shadows to give the illusion of depth.

Many loved those aesthetics and still do, as evidenced by the popularity of our articles about how to make windows transparent on Windows 10 and how to make the taskbar transparent on Windows And yet, the base desktop experience remained largely the same as Windows XP, making many people wonder: why is Vista so much slower?

Apart from the glassy aesthetics, the second thing you noticed when you first laid eyes on the Windows Vista desktop was a flock of small floating windows. Popularized on other platforms, here they were denominated as "widgets. The initial idea was that those small windows could tap into larger sources of information and display only relevant tidbits throughout the day. Or work as standalone mini-apps, like stopwatches and notepads. However, with dozens of potentially helpful widgets available, using them all could have the opposite result: on-screen chaos.

Theoretically, they might interest fans of desktop customization, but most of them were already using specialized and better tools for that. Such tools might be a bit more complicated, but they're also much more versatile, as we saw in our simple guide to Rainmeter.

Another significantly updated feature of Windows Vista, Search, could now present results almost instantly. For many, it was a must and a true lifesaver.

That's not because it helped most people locate their files. It's because, without it, you couldn't find the options you needed in Vista's maze of menus and needlessly convoluted Control Panel.

Still, even back then, you could find better search solutions, and today there are even more available—many, many more. For example, check out our article on no less than the 17 best free search tools for Windows With CDs and DVDs being the premier formats for audio and video, respectively, Windows Vista came with features that could take advantage of them. Security and "digital well-being," although that wasn't a term back then, were Microsoft's top priorities with Windows Vista.

Microsoft expanded on Windows' built-in productivity tools with remixes of what already came with past versions of the OS. Some folks were raving fans of XP; others just grudgingly tolerated it.

Some reported nightmares with Windows Vista; others said they were happy Vista campers. More than a few said that the prospect of an XP-less world was prompting them to consider dumping Microsoft operating systems altogether in favor of Linux or Mac OS X. If they inspire you to share your own thoughts, we're still listening--just leave a comment on this article. It's better then Leopard or Tiger from Apple.

It's more convinient than Linux and it has gone to a point that I feel it is very secure. The performance is much better than Vista and right now there are more compartible programs to XP than Vista.

What would had me jump into Vista, a new file system and a faster seach engine, it's not being deliver. So why switch? Vista is a XP with a fancy look, nothing more. XP has become as secure as Vista, without the slowdown. I like XP, it's stable, and it works with all of my hardware and software -- why should I switch? They should have improved on it and called it Vista. I use both OS I can run any hardware on XP. Vista is still problematic. Vista is all beauty Even the performance of new PC's quad core etc being introduced on the market run poorly when using Vista operating system most laptops even with a minimum of 2Gig memory run slow , and this is just unacceptable.

In this day and age, a PC which is watch while you wait groaning under the strain of Vista is pathetic. On the other hand, 2Gig with XP results in a very fast and responsive operating system. Until 64bit PCs become mainstream, then perhaps it might be about time to think about a new operating system such as Vista.

In the meantime, XP should definitely stay. Microsoft have miscalculated the views of many in the industry as well as end-users just for the sake of boosting their bottom line. Vista is a resource hog anyone remember Windows 95? I myself, love XP, and hate Vista. I will continue to use XP as my primary OS as long as possible. I think Microsoft should continue the sales, and support of XP to give the people choice, which is what people really do want.

XP has all the features most people need and is very reliable. Vista has been difficult and does not offer anything new I need. Vista -- makes the simple tasks done in XP i. An insult to everyone's intelligence and not customizeable -- it's either full "on" or full "off". Much like Apple's iTunes inability to sort playlists by track number AND year, Microsoft has adopted the approach that THEIR way is better, and we'll tell you how the programs will work, what they can do, what they won't do.

Please leave it alone. Note to Bill, if you must continue to develop, develop a perfect XP. Or a perfect ME or or 98 or 3. That would be quite a vista. I'm not resistant to change, but change should be positive and advance the technology - I don't see much of that with Vista. WXP should be supported until MS gets it right. Vista is just -slow- and has a gigantic footprint. And that doesn't mention the lack of compatibility with everything I've had with Vista.

XP's time is not over. The system restore does not work at all on my Vista machine. The tech support guys sent me XP as a replacement. It is simply much faster, smaller and reliable. Why did Microsoft have to change small things like icons when it just increases the learning curve? Why does there have to be so many different versions of Vista, when a module-orented approach would be much more effective? The only thing I've liked more about Vista is the way the networking utilities are conveniently grouped together.

I immediately greeted a new Vista notebook with a dual-boot Ubuntu Linux install. I am being forced to work at getting choices. Given the option, I would have chosen XP and probably not bothered with Linux. Vista assumes you are a cretin and constantly nags you with endless annoying prompts. Oh and did I mention in runs like a dead hamster? I want an OS that: doesn't take longer to calculate time to copy a file than it does to do the copy. I don't want to be told I'm not allowed to do something on my OWN pc.

I don't want several dialogues asking permission to do what i just told it to. If vista had a switch off all the annoying crap and bloat off and do what it tell it to button, I'd be happy.

Instead I'm an XP user. Vista is useless on lower priced computers even in basic mode. I never see any of the fancy graphics as I haven't got time. My new Vista laptop continually crashes and things often don't work properly. My laptop has few applications on it. My older cheap XP desktop is much faster and rarely crashes despite being loaded with many applications. Long live XP! I can't believe how my laptop now responds to tasks and boots up and shuts down. In the week since I downgraded, I've accomplished far more that I did in 4 months of using Vista.

Unless they can overhaul it to make it more use-resondent, I will avoid Vista as long as possible! Windows 8 suffered from a split personality. The traditional desktop, almost copied and pasted from Windows 7 minus the Start Menu , was still present.

However, it was clear that Microsoft wanted you to get invested in the new Modern apps. These Modern or Metro apps were aggravating. Apps on smartphones make sense because they're more efficient than mobile websites. Websites are already built to cater to desktop and laptop browsers, though, so apps really weren't necessary. Changing basic options required figuring out whether your desired setting was in the new Settings app or in the old Control Panel.

Opening a picture on your desktop could send you into the Photos app, totally breaking what you intended to do. Though nobody wanted it, Windows 8 also prioritized touchscreens over sensible user interface design built for mouse users.

Features like the Charms Bar activated by swiping in from the side of a touchscreen, but with a mouse, this required awkward gestures. When the OS launched, people panicked because they couldn't even figure out how to shut down their computer. This is a clear failure on Microsoft's part. In the end, Windows 8 shows that mobile and desktop user needs are quite different. We can't ever be sure how Microsoft thought that Windows 8 was a good idea.

The company did release Windows 8. We've looked back at the three worst Windows operating systems that most people hated. Thankfully, we're in a pretty good time for Windows versions now. While Windows 7 is no longer in support, Windows 10 is better than ever and receives free updates so you don't have to pay to stay current. If you use Windows 10, make sure you know what version of Windows 10 you have so you can enjoy the latest features.

What version of Windows do you have? Here's how to check your Windows 10 version, find the most recent Windows 10 release, and more. He left his IT job to write full-time in and has never looked back. He's been covering tech tutorials, video game recommendations, and more as a professional writer for over seven years.

Windows ME This edition of Windows, officially known as Windows Millennium Edition but often nicknamed the Mistake Edition, launched in late and was the last entry in the Windows 9x line. Windows ME's Background. Share Share Tweet Email. Ben Stegner Articles Published. Subscribe to our newsletter Join our newsletter for tech tips, reviews, free ebooks, and exclusive deals! Click here to subscribe.