Windows Vista – People have realy short memories

Someone told a person at the office who asked for advice on a new laptop to just ask for Windows XP, because Vista is junk. I asked him then, when did he try Windows Vista? His answer, I was suspecting was either launch or shortly after the launch. It turned out that he got a free upgrade with his computer that be bought close to launch of Vista.

Well, here is the honest truth…there is nothing wrong today with Windows Vista. Yes, at launch, it was a different story…but today, it runs smoothly, it works! Does it use more memory than Windows XP, yes it does. But so did XP over 2000 and 2000 over 98 and 98 over 95…Seeing a pattern…it is called progress! Besides, 2 Gb of RAM cost the same as 512 megs RAM that you needed to get XP to fly back in 2001 compared to the 256 needed for 98…

My point is this, Windows Vista got a lot of flak, some deserved, some severely undeserved. Let’s look back and let’s compare notes shall we? As a friend pointed out, I am getting old…so I can remember that far back…

When Windows 2000 launched in early 2000, Microsoft had trouble to sell it to business. They just added plug and play to the NT stack and things was not so rosy at launch. All drivers had to be rewritten to work with Windows 2000. It was buggy and it had issues. (Windows 2000 got 4 service packs.) Yet it became the defacto standard for business computing in the early 2000’s. 18 months later, enter Windows XP. The successor to 2000, aimed at business and home users.

Windows XP was horrible. I told a friend over my dead body! I am sticking to Windows 98. Windows XP RAM requirement was too high for games plus the drivers was just too lacking. Plus most of my games and older hardware was not working. Does this sound familiar?

When SP1 for XP rolled out and they have fixed compatibility, I dual booted. Truth is; I never looked back. I upgraded memory, because it got cheaper and the games at that time needed it.

By 2004, SP2 rolls out. Let’s face it, if Microsoft was Apple it was a new Operating system, and it cost money. People tend to forget how big a change SP2 was. It added a truckload of features to an already 3 year old operating system…gave it a second live.

It is also in 2004 that the world plus dog started to move in the business world to Windows XP.

I just want to point out here that the drivers of Windows 2000, worked in some circumstances in Windows XP, but in general new drivers was required…also that Windows 2000 was NT 5.0 and Windows XP was 5.1 and later 5.2…

Windows Vista, NT 6.0, was a big change, as big as between NT4.0 and Windows 2000. Huge! Microsoft did fairly well, some drivers of Windows XP actually worked in Vista and others needed a rewrite. But my point being here is that Vista was in no worst shape that Windows XP was on launch.

You see, you have to compare the move to Vista from Windows XP to the move from Windows 98 to XP. A lot of old hardware that worked in Windows 98 was not working in Windows XP, the drivers was slower under Windows XP. The OS used twice the amount of RAM…

Was Vista thus truly so bad? Remember the compatibility issues of Windows XP compared to Windows 98 before SP1? Remember the RAM requirement and the fact that some hardware never did work in Windows XP?

My question today is what about now? On the eve of the already very popular successor’s launch, how well does it actually stack up against Windows XP? If you gave me a copy of Vista today with SP2 loaded and current drivers and you give me Windows XP, same hardware, same programs, I will probably pick Vista. It is just a fact, period.

Microsoft operating systems is like a good pasta sauce, it gets better with time…

My final words to Windows Vista is sonny, you are not as bad as everyone is saying, in fact, you come from a good family tree, you added to the gene pool in a positive way. Just look to your offspring, Windows Server 2008 and Windows 7… Nothing wrong with that gene pool or blood line!

Viva Windows Vista, you are dead long before you had a change to truly shine, but take solace in the fact that your successor is off to a solid start thanks mainly to your efforts and pioneer work.


2 Responses to Windows Vista – People have realy short memories

  1. simon jones says:

    some people might have short memories but some others are too easily satisfied. if i was recommending an OS to a new laptop buyer, i can’t think of a reason i’d suggest vista rather than xp. yes, you’re correct – it does work but i find it to more intrusive with the security features like uac. there’s just more stuff that i have to figure out how to turn off to get in into a state that i’m at ease with. it’s a slower OS with no great advancements over xp. it’s widely seen as a failure for good reason.

    • MadMan Writing says:

      Your comments are duly noted. I will be honest with you, UAC is a mess. I just don’t see the point at all.

      For notebooks I will have to agree with you on Windows XP. I use Vista on my desktop and I am a gamer too, so from that point of view it works pretty well.

      I will tell you this, and I will have to write something about Windows 7 soon, it is awesome…

%d bloggers like this: