Disagreeing with you is not insulting you. You disagreed with me and I didn't accuse you of having poor manners. Saying that's bs means nothing more than I disagree with your statement. If you want to read more into that, it's on you. I know nothing about you. I don't know if you're a guy or a girl. I literally know nothing about you other than your opinion on Vista.
Also, the GUI of the Windows Setup in Boot.wim has been based on Vista (NT 6.0) for years now. I don't think they forgot to revamp it. I guess there must be obstacles to its update. Not important for me. Long live WinNTSetup!
Yeah although it replaces just 4/5 commands it is a way handy timesaver (and space saver given the option to deploy directly using the LZX compression). It's incredible how many (even experienced users) have no idea about how to deploy instead of setup. Just like is incredible how many people have no idea of what a native VHDx is.
I personally found Vista SP2 to run pretty much the same as the first release of Windows 7, which came just a few months later. Early Vista was garbage, and it's reputation irreparably damaged, well before SP2 was released.
Vista SP2 + subsequent updates isn’t that bad. I just tested it on an embedded system that had Windows XP SP2 on it and the user experience was night and day difference. The embedded system (P4, socket 775) is a part of an expensive piece of test equipment with a limited upgraded path due to a custom chassis and PCI slot requirement (i.e., no Win10 or latest HW). One massive improvement of Vista over previous versions of Windows was the WDDM. This eliminated the massive delay in updating the display contents of the main application while quickly dragging one window over another. Basically, the screen would turn white and eventually redraw the affected area after a noticeable delay. And before anyone complains, I had the latest drivers for the graphics card and observed the same issue. Maybe Intel made crap graphics drivers for XP, but with Vista the redrawing was instantaneous and felt smooth. Though after upgrading the PC HW (Core 2 Duo and slightly newer Mobo), I am now planning on putting Win7 on for better software compatibility. Still, Vista, at least for older machines, really isn't as bad as people want to believe it is and was quite the leap from XP. While not exhaustive, I think the key reasons why Vista wasn't commercially successful stemmed from: 1) much greater HW requirements (in regards to graphics, CPU and memory) and OEMs selling trash tier HW that could barely meet the minimum requirements (if even that) 2) buggy drivers (or lack thereof) upon release (particularly for printers and graphics cards) 3) the new user interface (and minor bloatware like the gadget/widget bar) scared people used to using Windows 9x/NT/2000 and their spartan appearance 4) trying to upgrade old PCs that could barely run it and/or crashing when they tried to use XP drivers (mainly for old graphics cards) 5) UAC, while it actually protected you, was pretty annoying--and still is. (Why "dim" the screen and cause huge delays when bringing up the prompt? If it was snappier, less people would be bothered by it.) Otherwise, the user experience was pretty positive from people I've seen who used Vista when it came out. The updated games actually looked good. The transparent UI was neat and the new icons were in dire need for a long time. And the "windows experience index" was an easy way to see how minor HW upgrades improved your system.
Vista SP0 was also using insanely the HDD with WU, Indexing, Swapping and other tasks running practically all the time, w/o any delay since you reached the desktop, and no matter of the system load In that condition installing the SP1 (which was huge by the metrics of the time) on a live system was matter of (many) hours. If your HDD survived to the process, Vista SP1 was way better, frankly was hard to do worse than Vista SP0 Even the "beloved" WinME on selected machines that, for some reasons it liked, worked perfectly.
Maybe i am the only idiot here that didn't had issues with vista LOL. I never understood why people hated it, it worked fine on my machine back in the old days.
Possibly you bought a PC that likely had a good amount of RAM and nice drivers from the beginning, and maybe you got a machine with SP1/SP2 already installed. You're not idiot, just lucky
Back in the day i had made my own desktop with a Gigabyte GA-X48-DQ6 (Intel X48) mainboard, Intel® Core™2 Quad Processor Q9450 and ATI Radeon HD4870 graphic card and a Seagate 7200rpm hard disk drive. I do remember it had Windows XP installed on it, but i am not sure how much memory i had installed (knowing me 16GB DDR2 (2x8GB)). So it was not a brand new machine.
No need to be a brand new machine to have good amount of ram. At the time the HD4870 was a powerful card, hardly you built your machine with a 4870 and 512MB and a single core Duron or Celeron. Instead a crap Intel integrated VGA + a Celeron + 512MB of RAM + a slow 5400 RPM HDD was a pretty common configuration back in the early Vista days. Something that worked very well on XP but turned to a suicide reason once Vista landed. Don't forget also the amount of bloatware that came preinstalled on new branded machines, especially notebooks, that made Vista SP0 even slower than it was by itself.
Great days ... that made me sign up here on the forum to mod my bios for that gigabyte board with slic 2.1.
vista worked great with its latest updates and after couple of uac tweaks... you guys just had garbage hardware to enjoy it. so win11 with some kind of vista features are not bad at all... like it or not you one day you all will have to use win11 or win12 and leave win10 behind... it is already provides better performance and better settings gui or overall gui
I guess I was really lucky with my Vista experience. I got a Toshiba L25-S119 for Christmas of 2005, and it came with an Intel Celeron M 1.5 Ghz, 256MB DDR2 RAM, and an ATI Radeon Xpress 200m integrated graphics. I bumped up the RAM to 1GB not long after and when Vista RC1 was released I started dual-boot it with XP. It worked pretty well for such a low-end machine of the time, it even had Aero Glass support
The sad part of Vista is that every system that had Vista, if you put Win7 on it, performed way better. Every task was way snappier. The OS footprint was smaller. The harddrive chug was gone. Win7 is what Vista could have been. It's why so many people are still fans of Microsoft to this day despite the debacle of ME, Win8, and yes Vista. Vista wasn't the worst OS, but I would say it was about on par with 8 in terms of general dislike.
Wait, so Windows XP vhd is native bootable? How to achieve it with SVbus and Grub4dos? More importantly how to install XP onto the vdh in the first place?