this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
489 points (97.5% liked)
Programmer Humor
19557 readers
1207 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The crazy thing was Vista was great with good hardware. The huge problem it had was strong security. Everything was locked down and required admin elevation to change.
You know how Linux requires su for every system change and everyone thinks that's fine? That was Vista but it enraged techies to click an ok box for su.
Iirc, tasks requiring elevated permissions wasn't the main complaint, maybe just one of the most vocal ones.
Even with good hardware, it was not optimized for performance in general. This was amplified by the fact they also marketed Vista as having a wide range of older hardware support, which resulted in many users upgrading from XP only to have their performance absolutely tank. I think there was even a lawsuit because of how they marketed some devices as, "Vista ready."
Regardless, Vista was still better than Windows 8.
I wasn't very old then but the main thing was RAM. Fuckers in Microsoft sales/marketing made 1 GB the minimum requirement for OEMs to install Vista.
So guess what? Every OEM installed Vista with 1 GB of RAM and a 5200 RPM hard drive (the "standard" config for XP which is what most of those SKUs were meant to target). That hard drive would inevitably spend its short life thrashing because if you opened IE it would immediately start swapping. Even worse with OEM bloat, but even a clean Vista install would swap real bad under light web browsing.
It was utterly unusable. Like, everything would be unbearably slow and all you could do was (slowly) open task manager and say "yep, literally nothing running, all nonessential programs killed, only got two tabs open, still swapping like it's the sex party of the century".
"Fixing" those hellspawns by adding a spare DDR2 stick is a big part of how I learned to fix computer hardware. All ya had to do was chuck 30 € of RAM in there and suddenly Vista went from actually unusable to buttery smooth.
By the time the OEMs wised up to Microsoft's bullshit, Seven was around the corner so everyone thought Seven "fixed" the performance issues. It didn't, it's just that 2 GB of RAM had become the bare minimum standard by then.
EDIT: Just installed a Vista VM because I ain't got nothing better to do at 2 am apparently. Not connected to the internet, didn't install a thing, got all of 12 processes listed by task manager, and it already uses 500 MB of RAM. Aero didn't even enable as I didn't configure graphics acceleration.
Can confirm 100%.
During Vista's heyday, I worked in a PC repair shop. All the ones that came in because "Vista sucks" were all Walmart specials with the bare minimum 512 MB RAM and crappy, bottom-of-the-barrel Seagate HDDs.
The thing would start thrashing as soon it booted with the default assortment of bloatware. By the time they brought it in, the HDD was in rough shape which made the thrashing even worse.
Fix was always to upgrade the RAM and, most often, replace the dying Seagate drive with a good one. Removing the bloatware helped as well once the root problems were addressed.
The UAC stuff was also annoying, but those could be tuned.
Yep, I did similar around the time. Can't blame people for being mad that the thing they bought is damn near unusable (and was destined to be, but they didn't understand that part). If someone buys a new bike, even if it's cheap, it shouldn't roll like you're on gravel after a couple weeks and become impossible to pedal within months. But damn, there were a lot of horrible machines sold in those days.
And then of course, the least fun part of that era, the guys who would bring their machines back weekly despite very stern warnings to stop visiting "those sites".
Hey, they were good for business lol
Definitely not wrong! Especially once you've dialed in your routine of anti-malware utilities to run on pretty much everything. It's like an antibiotic cocktail, lol. Or did you prefer the "back up and nuke on sight" approach?
I'd usually start with my suite of cleanup tools, do some manual cleanup if needed, apply all the software and security updates, and then give it a day with some light test usage. Then I'd re-run the tools to see if they picked anything back up. If not, I released it back to the customer. If anything at all came back, I'd backup their data, pull all the product keys I could (Office, Photoshop, etc), nuke the OS, and reinstall what I could as close to the original as possible.
this! i got my first vista experience on a laptop with a Turion and 2GB of RAM and it was really smooth. bit too chunky for my taste ux-wise but it was solid. first bluescreen i got on that machine was after installing W7.
then the GPU melted its own solder after a few years and that machine was relegated to server duty.
I remember defending it online against a bunch of Linux users and I got told that the UAC prompt is overbearing while having to type your password is fine because it’s just “muscle memory”.
Every technology that gets used frequently enough facilitates maladaptation to its faults. 😑
It enraged casual home users, not techies.
I think it enraged everyone, but when you’re already using a more secure system (Linux), the whiplash isn’t so surprising. Speaking as a non-Windows user, so just my outside observation.
The main issue was that Vista asked for admin rights all the time. One of the first things they addressed with SP1 was to require admin privileges for fewer operations, cutting down on the number of UAC prompts.
Was techie. Hated vista with a passion. 7 was waaaay better