locked
Stop comparing Windows 8 to Vista RRS feed

  • General discussion

  • Vista is NOT comparable to Win 8!

    Vista's problems were the following:

    1. Buggy third party drivers
    2. Wrongly labeled system requirements
    3. Massive unjustified FUD

    1: I ran Vista since May 2007 on a Core 2 Duo with an ATI card and had no crashes of any kind. But I've read more than enough complaints from nVidia customers where the drivers did send the system to blue screen land. Creative drivers weren't exactly stellar either. But the fact was: If the drivers were solid, Vista was rock solid also. nVidia and Creative were more responsible for a bad experiences than MS (Sure, MS should have put more pressure on the OEMs regarding the driver situation).

    2: Microsoft is completely at fault here. The "Vista Ready" stuff was disastrous. 1 GB RAM and a 800 MHZ processor was not enough. BUT, it was fluid on a Core 2 Duo with 2 GB RAM (my config), even pre SP1.

    3: Remember Peter FUDma.. eh Gutmann's DRM article? It spread like wild fire on the net and was full of complete nonsense. It went even as far to claim that Vista would cause floods! (due to global warming, because all the new Vista PCs would be taking so much power to handle all the DRM load and thus would considerable increase carbon output). I actually wish such a FUD avalanche would hit Win 8, because this one actually deserves it.

    Verdict: If you had a sufficient system (C2D, 2 GB RAM) and stable drivers, Vista didn't give you any problems.

    Win 7 isn't magic, if you would put Vista SP2 and Win 7 SP1 on the same machine and would switch between them using dual boot, you wouldn't tell much difference. It's like an R2 release. Windows 7's strength was just the fact that it was released after Vista, and by that point, all the OEMs had stable drivers already, and the average system in consumer's hands was also more powerful. That's all.

    Vista's faults were mistakes and accidents, while Windows 8's faults are all there ON PURPOSE. So Win 8 is far worse.

    Also, Win 7 is not all roses either, it is after all Sinofky's baby. There is a pretty severe UAC hole in it on default:

    UAC security hole

    It's only dumb luck that this is not widely exploited. It wasn't there with Vista, Sinofsky baked in this one into Win 7. He opened a hole into the OS for show and flash. Signs of the things to come...


    Wednesday, August 1, 2012 8:15 AM

All replies

  • Vista is NOT comparable to Win 8!

    Vista's problems were the following:

    1. Buggy third party drivers
    2. Wrongly labeled system requirements
    3. Massive unjustified FUD

    1: I ran Vista since May 2007 on a Core 2 Duo with an ATI card and had no crashes of any kind. But I've read more than enough complaints from nVidia customers where the drivers did send the system to blue screen land. Creative drivers weren't exactly stellar either. But the fact was: If the drivers were solid, Vista was rock solid also. nVidia and Creative were more responsible for a bad experiences than MS (Sure, MS should have put more pressure on the OEMs regarding the driver situation).

    2: Microsoft is completely at fault here. The "Vista Ready" stuff was disastrous. 1 GB RAM and a 800 MHZ processor was not enough. BUT, it was fluid on a Core 2 Duo with 2 GB RAM (my config), even pre SP1.

    3: Remember Peter FUDma.. eh Gutmann's DRM article? It spread like wild fire on the net and was full of complete nonsense. It went even as far to claim that Vista would cause floods! (due to global warming, because all the new Vista PCs would be taking so much power to handle all the DRM load and thus would considerable increase carbon output). I actually wish such a FUD avalanche would hit Win 8, because this one actually deserves it.

    Verdict: If you had a sufficient system (C2D, 2 GB RAM) and stable drivers, Vista didn't give you any problems.

    Win 7 isn't magic, if you would put Vista SP2 and Win 7 SP1 on the same machine and would switch between them using dual boot, you wouldn't tell much difference. It's like an R2 release. Windows 7's strength was just the fact that it was released after Vista, and by that point, all the OEMs had stable drivers already, and the average system in consumer's hands was also more powerful. That's all.

    Vista's faults were mistakes and accidents, while Windows 8's faults are all there ON PURPOSE. So Win 8 is far worse.

    Also, Win 7 is not all roses either, it is after all Sinofky's baby. There is a pretty severe UAC hole in it on default:

    UAC security hole

    It's only dumb luck that this is not widely exploited. It wasn't there with Vista, Sinofsky baked in this one into Win 7. He opened a hole into the OS for show and flash. Signs of the things to come...


    you my friend are in a severe minority.   I had no shortage of issues with vista.  32bit was far worse than 64bit, but it was still problematic.  Windows 7 beta was way more stable on the same hardware.  My favorite was rolling the dice to see if i could reboot without registry corruption.  About 80% of the time, i had to restore the registry to boot.  I was able to reproduce this on several systems.  Quit blaming 3rd party drivers.  That was true the first 5-6mo, however both Nvidia and ATI both got their act together quickly.  

    As for the Vista sp2 and Win7 sp1 comparison, do you do anything with your computer?  If you were reading email, then yea.. they are close.  But if you actually use your system for real work or heaven forbid games, vista fell down very hard.  

    I cannot comment on UAC.  I turn it off first thing when i install windows.  With Win8, if you turn off UAC, then you cannot use metro apps. So I just dont use Metro apps.  I prefer windows anyways, not a tablet screen on my dual 28" displays.

    Wednesday, August 1, 2012 3:54 PM
  • I cannot comment on UAC.  I turn it off first thing when i install windows.  With Win8, if you turn off UAC, then you cannot use metro apps. So I just dont use Metro apps.  I prefer windows anyways, not a tablet screen on my dual 28" displays.

    Turning off UAC is a bad idea. I would suggest you rethink your setting. You are asking for trouble when there's no need to turn off UAC to begin with. Rarely does it prompt anymore and when it does it because it should be. Users that want to run around as "administrators" will get p@wned. Especially if they are running crappy 3rd party software that won't run unless it's off. That should be your first clue that they are doing something wrong.
    Wednesday, August 1, 2012 4:43 PM
  • As long as I don't go around downloading random crap, then I'm pretty safe, even without UAC.  If I do download something dangerous, UAC would probably not help, because I would just click allow.

    Vista really isn't that bad.  Fully patched vista with solid drivers is solid.  Maybe it's not quite as good as 7, but it's still solid.

    Wednesday, August 1, 2012 6:10 PM
  • I cannot comment on UAC.  I turn it off first thing when i install windows.  With Win8, if you turn off UAC, then you cannot use metro apps. So I just dont use Metro apps.  I prefer windows anyways, not a tablet screen on my dual 28" displays.

    Turning off UAC is a bad idea. I would suggest you rethink your setting. You are asking for trouble when there's no need to turn off UAC to begin with. Rarely does it prompt anymore and when it does it because it should be. Users that want to run around as "administrators" will get p@wned. Especially if they are running crappy 3rd party software that won't run unless it's off. That should be your first clue that they are doing something wrong.
    Completely agree, turning off UAC and running users as Admin? Might as well install Windows 98.
    Thursday, August 2, 2012 1:58 PM
  • Windows 8 = VISTA . <--- Period
    Thursday, August 2, 2012 3:55 PM
  • Windows 8 = VISTA . <--- Period

    Your right there is a period at the end. However Windows 8 will do just fine. I have no problem with Vista but I prefer 7 and 8 over it. Saying 8 = Vista just isn't true. I know there are people like you that don't like it and that's fine. To each his own right? I use it full time at work and home with no issues. I had a few slow downs when I started using it but I have it figured out now.
    Thursday, August 2, 2012 4:11 PM

  • He didn't say he doesn't like it.

    You did.


    He merely equated Windows 8 = VISTA.     A marketing failure.

    A loser.  <--- period


    My mistake. I interpreted it wrong. Sorry.

    How is it a marketing failure?

    Thursday, August 2, 2012 4:45 PM
  • I see nothing wrong with Windows 8 Release Preview. I don't know how u guys got your hands on RTM (considering only the OEM's like Dell and HP should have it right now)! It does NOT hit MSDN and Tech Net until August 15th (My Birth Day) it does NOT hit Volume Licencing (With Software Assurance) until August 16th (The day Elvis Presley Died). It does NOT hit Volume Licencing With Out Software Assurance until some time in September. The only other way u could have gotten it is from a Torrent which is a Major Violation of USA Copy Right Law, Just FYI. U could be sued by MSFT if u are caught illegally downloading Windows 8 RTM from a Torrent.
    Friday, August 3, 2012 7:10 AM
  • Well aren't you a ray of sunshine - Mr. ThreatenThatMicrosoftWillSueYouforCopyRightViolation. 
    Saturday, August 4, 2012 5:25 AM
  • I think most of the people downloading this RTM off of a torrent site realize that it's kind of illegal, and understand the risks involved.  For the rest of us, we can enjoy the information that the law-breakers have gained.  It has given confirmation on a lot of things that have been suspected for a while.
    Sunday, August 5, 2012 1:34 PM
  • Vista is NOT comparable to Win 8!

    Vista's problems were the following:

    1. Buggy third party drivers
    2. Wrongly labeled system requirements
    3. Massive unjustified FUD

    1: I ran Vista since May 2007 on a Core 2 Duo with an ATI card and had no crashes of any kind. But I've read more than enough complaints from nVidia customers where the drivers did send the system to blue screen land. Creative drivers weren't exactly stellar either. But the fact was: If the drivers were solid, Vista was rock solid also. nVidia and Creative were more responsible for a bad experiences than MS (Sure, MS should have put more pressure on the OEMs regarding the driver situation).

    2: Microsoft is completely at fault here. The "Vista Ready" stuff was disastrous. 1 GB RAM and a 800 MHZ processor was not enough. BUT, it was fluid on a Core 2 Duo with 2 GB RAM (my config), even pre SP1.

    3: Remember Peter FUDma.. eh Gutmann's DRM article? It spread like wild fire on the net and was full of complete nonsense. It went even as far to claim that Vista would cause floods! (due to global warming, because all the new Vista PCs would be taking so much power to handle all the DRM load and thus would considerable increase carbon output). I actually wish such a FUD avalanche would hit Win 8, because this one actually deserves it.

    Verdict: If you had a sufficient system (C2D, 2 GB RAM) and stable drivers, Vista didn't give you any problems.

    Win 7 isn't magic, if you would put Vista SP2 and Win 7 SP1 on the same machine and would switch between them using dual boot, you wouldn't tell much difference. It's like an R2 release. Windows 7's strength was just the fact that it was released after Vista, and by that point, all the OEMs had stable drivers already, and the average system in consumer's hands was also more powerful. That's all.

    Vista's faults were mistakes and accidents, while Windows 8's faults are all there ON PURPOSE. So Win 8 is far worse.

    Also, Win 7 is not all roses either, it is after all Sinofky's baby. There is a pretty severe UAC hole in it on default:

    UAC security hole

    It's only dumb luck that this is not widely exploited. It wasn't there with Vista, Sinofsky baked in this one into Win 7. He opened a hole into the OS for show and flash. Signs of the things to come...


    At least someone else doesn't feel that Vista is bad. I too, feel that the bad reputation it received was without merit. I know some people have had issues with it, but I haven't had any, even with Windows Vista RTM.
    I love that operating system; it breaks my heart that Microsoft isn't supporting it.

    They really aren't very different, in fact, I can only think of approximately six features in Windows 7 that end-users truly care about. I refer to Windows 7 as "Windows Vista R2".

    The article you mentioned is nice. I decided that since I am writing this post...
    ...It appears that Windows 7 only has one new User Account Control option, the default "Notify me only when programs try to make changes to my computer".

    I will post an in-depth analysis elsewhere.

    • Edited by MazaG20 Monday, August 13, 2012 5:31 AM
    Monday, August 13, 2012 5:30 AM
  • I cannot comment on UAC.  I turn it off first thing when i install windows.  With Win8, if you turn off UAC, then you cannot use metro apps. So I just dont use Metro apps.  I prefer windows anyways, not a tablet screen on my dual 28" displays.

    Turning off UAC is a bad idea. I would suggest you rethink your setting. You are asking for trouble when there's no need to turn off UAC to begin with. Rarely does it prompt anymore and when it does it because it should be. Users that want to run around as "administrators" will get p@wned. Especially if they are running crappy 3rd party software that won't run unless it's off. That should be your first clue that they are doing something wrong.

    Completely agree, turning off UAC and running users as Admin? Might as well install Windows 98.

    Again, for the last time... UAC does not make the system more secure.  It will not reduce the chances of getting viruses or trojans or worms or whatnot.... UAC is not anything like su in linux or administrator in osx.  UAC is easy to hack and get around and script.  This has been proven time and time again.  Otherwise, why all the AV software including MSE?   Quit with the mirage of security using UAC.  It just breaks stuff without actually increasing security.

    How was this abusive?  If you participated in the windows 7 beta, you know this.  Please actually read what i wrote

    • Edited by DrX69 Sunday, January 6, 2013 7:12 PM why was this marked as abusive?
    Sunday, August 19, 2012 4:02 PM
  • I know your comment is old, but I would like to prevent others from believing your factually incorrect garbage.

    From Robert Downey's, The FUDing of Windows Vista.

    "Administrators in Vista are treated like regular users in every way (in fact, they are regular users) except that they don't have to type in credentials in UAC prompts. If you run as a non-admin user, you have to type in the credentials of an admin complete the UAC prompt, just like the Mac. Unlike the Mac, however, Vista displays these prompts on a secure desktop. This prevents malware from fooling you into authorizing something you didn't want to authorize by simply displaying a fake dialog over the real one. The Mac has nothing like this and is theoretically open to all sorts of spoofing malware attacks. Is that security? If the Cnet team had spent any time researching Vista they would know this."

    You however, might want to read this article before writing about User Account Control again.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_safety_features_of_Windows_Vista#User_Account_Control

    And as for UAC being easy to "hack around and script", and that "being proven time and time again", why didn't you cite one example of such an occurance in your post? Surely that should have been an easy task for you, since it has happened so often.

    • Edited by MazaG20 Friday, January 4, 2013 12:11 AM
    Friday, January 4, 2013 12:08 AM
  • Well, during the beta phase of windows 7, there was a exploit published by a white hat that showed how to basically turn uac off without user input.  There has been numerous malware that have exploited uac.  I am not going to defend these comments with your abusive comments.  
    Sunday, January 6, 2013 7:15 PM
  • set the UAC slider to top and it is safe again ;)

    "A programmer is just a tool which converts caffeine into code"

    Monday, January 7, 2013 5:21 AM
    Answerer
  • Well, during the beta phase of windows 7, there was a exploit published by a white hat that showed how to basically turn uac off without user input.  There has been numerous malware that have exploited uac.  I am not going to defend these comments with your abusive comments.  
    That is precisely what VeryBoringNickname referenced to in the introductory post. Raising the bar to its highest setting (Vista-like) prevents the exploit...

    I do apologize for the scathing post. I was a bit irritated because you stated that the feature didn't make the OS more secure, which is wrong.
    Tuesday, January 8, 2013 1:54 AM