>I was.. misunderstood...

>>106008585 (OP)
Listen, someone had to take the fall when the driver model change. If it wasn't you, it would have been some other version of the OS. It was something that had to happen and it just happened to happen to you.

>>106008585 (OP)
TRVTHNVKE
>>106008604
Pretty much this kek. It's such a shame because it was the best looking version of windows EVER.

>>106008585 (OP)
Vista my beloved...
I loved you, even when others had nothing but hate for you

>>106008888
It was annoying when it became the mindless joke people said, not because they understood anything, but to fit in with everyone else saying the same thing. The "Windows Vista? Oh no! We're all going to die!" joke from 'The IT Crowd' was one of the more egregious examples of this.

>>106008585 (OP)
I always liked Vista and got a free Vista Ultimate copy. Installed the 64-bit version on a E8500 with 4GB of RAM and loved it. It was just too ahead of its time for most.

>>106008862
>It's such a shame because it was the best looking version of windows EVER.
I miss Aero so much bros.

>>106008585 (OP)
>windows
its garbage

it required to much ram when computers shipped with 4gb

>>106008585 (OP)
vista was best
at least i can somehow enjoy vista's vibe on my win10 install

>>106008585 (OP)
Its a pile of shit that was the death of computing, what is there to misunderstand.

>>106008585 (OP)
You were repackaged with a barely-feature pack-tier update, and sold again as Windows 7.
It was when I lost my last shred of faith that users are anything but stupid cattle, and deserve everything Microsoft does to them now.

>>106008585 (OP)
More like "I was sold with potatos that didn't have an ice cube's hope in hell of running me without slowing to a crawl."
This is entirely on Microsoft and their shitty abusive relationship with OEMs.

>>106011353
No redeeming qualities. Everything was made ugly, sluggish and incompatible on purpose.

>>106008585 (OP)
>got a Vista laptop for highschool
>never had a problem and it ran fine
I never understood people bitching on the internet about it, it ran just as smooth as anything else and was alright for gaming at the time. I still liked Windows 7 the best though.

>>106013792
Smooth compared to what? It's technically impossible for Vista to have been as smooth as say XP just by minimum hardware requirements alone.

>>106013792
Look at where you are: retarded NEETs with 10+ yo shitboxes and delusions of persecution.
Do you really think 2025 is different from 2007?

>>106013922
Yeah it was perfectly fine compared to XP, at least in my experience.

>>106013931
So Vista running like shit was just a thirdie issue?

>>106013792
>>106008585 (OP)
Sit around and listen anon. An autistic millennial is speaking.
Time for some history.
Windows XP lasted longer than Microsoft anticipated. Along with hardware at the time got to a point where normal, basic things, became "fast enough." DVD playback, internet, word processing, music playback, all of that was "good enough" for most people on a Intel P4 or Athlon XP processor and 256mb of ram. People didn't have much incentive to upgrade. They really only did so because:
>Game they were playing needed better hardware
>Computer died
>Needed another computer
Since Windows XP lasted so long, manufacturers had no incentive to standardized more system memory or better video cards by default. They were able to keep charging a premium if you wanted more than 512mb of ram or a decent video card that wasn't some shitty integrated one with 32-64mb of allocated system ram.
This resulted that by the time Vista came out, you had troves of people running really crappy computers in comparison to the requirements Vista needed. Vista released needing 2005ish level of hardware, at minimum, while most computers in use were 2001 - 2003 level of hardware. Manufacturers, being so use to Windows XP requirements and coasting off of it for so long, had so much low end hardware in their inventory, they couldn't afford to dump it, so they did the bare minimum to get Vista running and released it. You had so many machines released that couldn't run Vista's graphical affects.

The problem wasn't Vista. The problem was a world that got stuck with XP requirements for so long.

>>106014013
microsoft should have taken that into consideration. they should have designed vista to run well on older hardware.

>>106014072

>>106014013
> Windows XP lasted longer than Microsoft anticipated
The NT release schedule was 3-4 years.
NT3 1993
NT4 1996
2k 2000
2k3 2003
Vista 2006
XP was basically a fucked up early beta of windows 2003 that did not have enough time in the oven. I have a theory Microsoft was forced to release XP early to support Itanium.
When you take into account the proper release schedule XP lasted exactly as long as it should have. Also, XP should have never existed at all. Windows 2000 should have been followed directly by 2003

>>106014103
You ignore non NT release versions of Windows. Windows ME, Windows 98 second edition, Windows 98, and Windows 95.

>>106014013
Explain how Linux was able to do webm on that same "shitty hardware" vista couldn't run on?

Nostalgia taking over people again. In 2 years, some fag will post an image of Windows 8 and say the exact same thing.

>>106014072
That's not even it. Vista offered literally nothing worthy of a hardware upgrade. At least Win7 was surprisingly resilient to improper shutdowns.

>>106014115
They are not relevant, Win9x is a completely separate OS, if you are going to include unrelated operating systems we should include CE for completeness. Maybe throw in MacOS and linux as well.

>>106014157
>I'm just going to hand wave inconvenient things away to make my argument stand
Oh, ok buddy.

>>106014138
People were already saying that when 10 was coming, so many people resisted 10 as long as they could just like they have been with 11.

>>106014123
Compiz did run pretty poorly on low end hardware at the time. If you limited it to transparency effects it was fine with most X11 compositors back then. But if you wanted the fancy Compiz stuff, there were a lot of systems that struggled.

>>106008585 (OP)
Very slow with a good PC of the time, many errors and uncomfortable, worst winDOWNS

>>106008585 (OP)
>Windows Hasta la Vista

Just like Windows ME was misunderstood (Miss Me {With this Shit}).

>>106008585 (OP)
What did /g/ actually think of vista when it released? I refuse to believe it was insanely hated, most normies hated it and this is a contrarian board, wouldn't make sense
I joined the site yesterday so I wouldn't know, I know most anons were born after the release of windows 10 too but maybe some old grandpa can tell me. I hate browsing archives before any of you tell me to check that

If you're into retro geekdom, you could still try using it today. Vista has a kernel extension to get modern apps working. You'll be able to launch a lot of stuff. Though I heard it handles multi-core CPUs poorly.

A lot of Vista hate came from OEMs putting it on PCs that were way too underpowered for it. I had a RTX 5090 equivalent build at the time and Vista was leagues better than XP. And I can prove it because 7 was just a rebranded Vista with more stuff and everyone loved 7.

>>106014157
>win9x is not relevant