Whose fault was it that this ran bad on most pcs at the time?

Whose fault was it that this ran bad on most pcs at the time?

Poor people

Users installing the OS on potato PCs. It ran fine on my laptop then.

microsoft's, they rushed the product. it was fine after SP1 and rock solid after SP2, unfortunately, the damage was done and Win7 was released, so most people went there. Win7 was basically Vista with SP2 and aero

WinXP was the same thing, came out with a bunch of issues, stabilized with SP1 and SP2

Why didn't the same happen with XP at the time? I'm pretty sure 256MB or less was the standard RAM then, and with that amount of RAM, a Windows XP with browser/AV/MSN/other basic shit was UNUSABLE.

It was fine with me with 128MB because I had a minimal installation, most people always had their computers bloated.

Not to mention plenty of people on older Pentiums/K6 that were slow and shit, it was with the Pentium III that I first got a decent performance on that OS.

Same shit than Vista, except it didn't require a special card to enable Luna like Vista required for Aero.

>Microsoft duh
I remember using it on a HP desktop, fucking never used such a garbage computer os in my life.
>Implying most users install their own OS
It ran horribly on any pre-installed computer, that's how most people experience it's awfulness and that's how it's remembered.

This

Intel's pentium 4 garbage.

>Vista comes out before most people's hardware was ready
>people bitch and moan
>7 comes out when people's hardware is ready
>7 is praised and worshiped
Vista did nothing wrong.

>microsoft's, they rushed the product.
on the contrary, Vista was released much too late and everyone (i.e. users as well as OEMs) got used to XP too much

XP also had not the best reputation right after release, many people were reinstalling 98SE and 2K because lol Pentium II's with

Fag.

thing is, even a mendocino celeron with 192mb ram and integrated AGP graphics (like a 8mb sis626) could run XP with no issue on that age resolutions (1024x768), and even if you used it for web browsing you could pull a bit, remember it was early 2007 and everything on the internet wasn't as bloated as now, plus streaming/youtube wasn't that common yet, i mean i remember having 5 tabs on opera with 70mb and all fully loaded.

Now, if you installed Vista in the same pc you would be lucky if it even loaded the start menu as aero raped almost every gpu pre-2004, and the ram use skyrocketed from running the whole XP system in 128mb to idle at 400~500mb thanks to prefetch and some random background shit, so obviously even those 1gb ram systems got raped by constantly needing the pagefile swap because windows itself used 70~80% of the available ram.

That plus two things, first that everything you did in Vista could be done on XP so there was reason to upgrade, and the other that by the time that old hardware was out and replaced by 2gb+ ram, dual cores, Dx9.0c with WDDM 1.1 hardware Win7 was already out and kind of stable.

On top of the fact that the two years of Vista before Windows 7 was released gave time for developers to fix drivers/software that would end up also being compatible with Windows 7.

If Windows 7 was released byte for byte in 2007 instead of Vista, it would have got shat on the same way Vista did.

I loved vista. It run fine on my shit laptop.

Woah how do i hack like you user?

It ran fine on my single core 3200+ amd and 1 gig of ram. The 36 gig raptor hard drive probably helped more than anything else though

Released too early. 2006 single cores and less than 1 GB RAM were common. Vista wasn't bad. I personally liked it. Basically, Windows 7 early access.
XP runs on a 4 MHz CPU. Vista would probably not install.
Windows 7 was nothing but enhanced Vista. Many parts are the same in both OS.
Exactly this. Aero was resource intensive. It killed low-spec PCs. I was running it on this, initially with 2 GB RAM and a HD2400 Pro.

>Why didn't the same happen with XP at the time
It did. XP's launch was an absolute disaster.

Intel's shit was too weak to run Vista so Intel bullied Microsoft to officially certify Intel's shit and then Microsoft took the blame when Vista ran like ass on Intel laptops

It did. The people who complained about Vista were too young to remember XP. It had a 64mb RAM minimum system requirement, and it ran like a dog on that much RAM.

>it ran like a dog
dogs are fast though

>Whose fault was it that this ran bad on most pcs at the time?
Everybody's really. PC manufacturers were used to charging people a fat premium for the ram upgrade that made the system usable, and people at the time got sick of it and stopped buying it. Microsoft OEM certification wasn't holding them responsible. Microsoft's OS division is responsible for Vista being a sluggish pig on release even with recommended specs. Their clean room attempt with Project Longhorn didn't pan out and they needed something to ship. There were a few speed issues with Explorer and the file system that weren't really resolved until 7.

I would have liked to have seen something interesting like Project Longhorn or at least a real attempt at a modern, clean OS rather than Windows as a service.

Does anyone have a clean ISO of Vista ultimate x64? I can only find clean W7 ISOs.

this
My mom had a compaq pasario with 512mb of ram and a 2ghz single core processor and the sales women told her it would run vista fine.
Oh it ran fine, after sticking a dual core cpu, maxing out he ram to 2gb and installing a graphics card, power supply and cutting a hole on the case and spot welding a desk fan in there that ran off its own power.
My sister wrote "Frankensteins Monster" in nail polish on the top of the case.
Good times.

it wasn't even ram really, explorer was just a buggy piece of shit before sp1 that would get stuck "calculating" for 10 minutes for no reason

It was a perfect storm of shit

>New driver model which broke compatibility with most devices
>Microsoft introducing 64bit to consumers which meant new drivers there anyway
>"New" security features like UAC to better separate out user permissions were seen as annoying and at times useless
>At least 4x as resource intensive
>Microsoft's lax certification process allowing OEMs to take shitty XP machines and re-purpose them to be sold as Vista machines (which had all of the aforementioned problems)

not so. Win7 was the product they were actually working on, it still had bugs, but the world was clamoring for an update from XP, so microsoft released their unfinished OS.

and instead of learning their lesson, they did it again with windows 8.0 and 8.1 :\

This, there was so much more wrong with Vista than resource usage

Tentacles that wormed their way into Microsoft from the likes of G***le

Yes, I remember sticking with windows 2000 sp4 back then, it took me a long time to finally install xp, that I used until 7 came out (Tested Vista on other pcs , hated it but was often bloated as shit, also)

Now, makes me think about windows millenium... but that's another story ^^

Because OEMs were selling "Vista ready" computers with single core processors, three year old (2003) graphics cards, and only 1GB of RAM. Vista RTM needs at least 2GB, a 2005+ GPU card, and dual core to run adequately.

It took most OEMs a year to catch up with new hardware. And, of course, that new hardware was 2-3x more expensive than the old "XP ready" machines. So normies revolted since they didn't want to pay more than $400 for a web browsing/homework machine.

I remember installing XP on my Pentium II with 256MB RAM. Still ran like shit.

It was Microsoft's fault for lowering the hardware requirements to be Vista certified right before it was launched.

But beyond that there were so many architectural changes to Vista that it was bound to run like a dog until got any major patches.

Either way it was Microsoft's fault.