Windows 8 and 8.1 Forums


Here's why Windows 8 will never approach Vista's awfulnes

  1. #1

    Here's why Windows 8 will never approach Vista's awfulnes


    Let's start out with the most basic reason Windows 8 isn't as bad as Vista: Windows 8 will likely gain a greater market share than Vista ever did. According to Net Applications figures, Vista's greatest market share for a year was only 17.73%, in 2009. Windows 7 very quickly eclipsed Vista after it was released.
    All this doesn't mean that I've suddenly become a fan of Windows 8. I still think it was a mistake to build a single operating system for tablets and traditional computers. And saying that it's better than Vista isn't much more than damning it with faint praise. Ultimately I expect that the next major version of Windows may well fix many of Windows 8's problems, the same way that Windows 7 did for Vista.

    Here's why Windows 8 will never approach Vista's awfulness | Computerworld Blogs

      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  2. #2


    Sloe Deth, Californicatia
    Posts : 3,908
    Windows 8 Pro with Media Center/Windows 7


    Windows 8 is in NO WAY the memory hog dog that Vista was. Face it, Vista was/is unusable. I delete it or update it to 7 every time I encounter it. I just did this as a matter of fact- When a 3 GHz Celeron Socket 775, runs worse than a Pentium III on a system with 128MB of Ram - You KNOW something is rotten in the state of Denmark. It took SIX (6!) Hours to update it to Windows 7 and now it is blazing fast.

    If I were to put Windows 8 into it, it would be even faster. The Desktop in Windows 8 is a superior Desktop - And when Modified with an Orb replacement it becomes friendlier to the users who are used to XP and 7.
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  3. #3


    Posts : 168
    Windows 8.1 Pro x64


    I have a question about Vista being a memory hog ... my understanding was that with Vista, memory management was handled in a new way such that if the memory was there -- it got allocated and cached, in order to speed up the system. If something else needed it, it was assigned to programs and tasks as necessary on a dynamic basis. I recall at that time some people asking, "Why are you upset that your memory is being allocated? You have it, so use it!" So people misinterpreted the fact that Vista was using all the memory to mean that it was wasting it, when in fact, it was just allocating it based on the needs of the system. Not to mention they changed the way the operating system reports such things since then.

    I used Vista for a couple years on my main desktop system, and I don't recall it being terribly slow, although I admit 7 and 8 are noticeably faster in some ways.

    Am I under the wrong impression with Vista's memory allocation methods?
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  4. #4


    Sloe Deth, Californicatia
    Posts : 3,908
    Windows 8 Pro with Media Center/Windows 7


    I just had a hands on demonstration of how slow it was! 3 GHz Processor and 2 GB of Ram, It should have been hauling arse. IN XP it would have been hauling arse, in 7 it does. I got the machine 3 weeks ago, a small emachines eTower, not great machines but made well and usually fast, the cases are superior and I use them to make new machines once the MB's fry.

    It's not that Vista is WASTING your Ram, of course it is using all of it all the time. And therein lies the problem. I've only ever seen Vista run quick when there was maybe 4 Gigs of memory on an original core duo. That was the ideal machine for it, and when SP1 was released it made the OS run adequately. But Adequately is not great, like Windows 7 and 8.

    Remember, Vista was Microsoft's OS to comply with the then-new Core Duo CPUs- Microsoft had been poised to release a 64 bit version of XP on a huge scale, they were expecting Intel's new CPU to be a 64 bit CPU. But those original Core Duos were only 32 bit, So they made Vista to explicitly run on those. I remember, all of the new machines had XP MCE in them, until December of 2006. Vista was developed and introduced in very short order.

    I had a Dell Inspiron with one of those in it, an original Core Duo. I kept XP Media Center in it, and it was pretty rapid for 1.7 GHz. Later I stuck Windows 7 in it, and it was very fast, and Aero worked great cos it had a dedicated video card. But the machine was designed for Vista, it said so on it. It did have Vista on it, which I wiped and stuck MCE in.

    I've seen Vista running well on very few machines, perhaps you were lucky, you had just the right configuration for it. But if you recall, Vista was being put into PCs with Celerons and only 512 Ram. The machine I just got, it's a celeron, it had 512 in it and Vista Home Basic. It took hours to do copy and rendering jobs that I do with 7 in 45 minutes. I stuck 2 Gigs of 533 Ram in it, upgraded it to Vista Ultimate, and it was still a dog.

    The MOMENT it booted to the forst Windows 7 Screen - It was a way noticeable difference in speed. The system went from taking 5 whole minutes to boot, to 1, and right now it is a very nice usable system, despite the crippled Celeron CPU in it. I was considering even sticking my other Core Duo into it.

    I swear - Even my Dell precision 370 workstation, with Pentium D running XP was faster than that emachine running Vista.
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  5. #5


    Posts : 168
    Windows 8.1 Pro x64


    That's fair, I mean, yeah, maybe I was one of the fortunate few. I was running it on a Core 2 Duo with (at first) 2 GB of RAM, and it was basically okay, but sure, with Windows 7 and 8, for the first time a new version of Windows has less hardware requirements than the version it replaces. Yes, I believe that systems that were sluggish before can have a new lease on life with the newer OS.

    But I guess my original point is still kind of there -- people thought Vista was sucking up all the RAM for no reason, and it just doesn't appear that was the case, at least the way I see it. I still could be wrong. Whether or not the OS as a whole performed well is a different issue to me (although perhaps somewhat related, I admit).
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  6. #6


    Sloe Deth, Californicatia
    Posts : 3,908
    Windows 8 Pro with Media Center/Windows 7


    You had the ideal system then- That's the configuration the first versions of Vista were intended for. But I understand, well, I've always understood, that the SYSTEM was using the Ram. It's just stingy in releasing it to the programs that are requesting to use it.

    I don't know if 7 or 8 do it the same way, but I have seen that both of my main Windows 8 systems use the ram more efficiently. I've run every benchmark imaginable and they all say that I've got way more speed compared to 7. If I could run Windows 8 on a Pentium D system, then it MUST have less strict requirements.
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  7. #7


    Posts : 5,360
    7/8/ubuntu/Linux Deepin


    Vista always worked great for me.

    Used x64 on machine with 2gb ram

    Fast, stable - decent os all round.

    Quote Originally Posted by msdos622wasfun View Post
    I have a question about Vista being a memory hog ... my understanding was that with Vista, memory management was handled in a new way such that if the memory was there -- it got allocated and cached, in order to speed up the system. If something else needed it, it was assigned to programs and tasks as necessary on a dynamic basis. I recall at that time some people asking, "Why are you upset that your memory is being allocated? You have it, so use it!" So people misinterpreted the fact that Vista was using all the memory to mean that it was wasting it, when in fact, it was just allocating it based on the needs of the system. Not to mention they changed the way the operating system reports such things since then.

    I used Vista for a couple years on my main desktop system, and I don't recall it being terribly slow, although I admit 7 and 8 are noticeably faster in some ways.

    Am I under the wrong impression with Vista's memory allocation methods?
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  8. #8


    Posts : 168
    Windows 8.1 Pro x64


    UAC.

    AUGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGH!

    I guess it's good that we can fine-tune this particular feature now.
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  9. #9


    Posts : 5,360
    7/8/ubuntu/Linux Deepin


    Yes, that was a nuisance - not for me, though. I always turn it off.
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  10. #10


    I have a question about Vista being a memory hog ... my understanding was that with Vista, memory management was handled in a new way such that if the memory was there -- it got allocated and cached, in order to speed up the system. If something else needed it, it was assigned to programs and tasks as necessary on a dynamic basis. I recall at that time some people asking, "Why are you upset that your memory is being allocated? You have it, so use it!" So people misinterpreted the fact that Vista was using all the memory to mean that it was wasting it, when in fact, it was just allocating it based on the needs of the system. Not to mention they changed the way the operating system reports such things since then.
    There is nothing fundamentally new in the way Vista manages memory. In fact, the basic fundamentals of how Windows 8 manages memory hasn't changed since NT was first introduced in 1993. The goal has always been to use memory to the fullest possible extent. It is just that later versions have found more ways (such as superfetch) to accomplish that goal.

    Much of the confusion comes from the way memory statistics were shown in XP and earlier versions. Vista and later show values for "Available" and "Free" memory, emphasizing that they are not the same thing while XP and earlier versions showed only "Available". It was widely believed that XP available memory was all free. That is not the case. Available memory in NT has always been the sum of Standby and Free memory, just as in Vista. Unfortunately, to see these values in XP and older you needed some pretty sophisticated and difficult to use tools. Standby memory is usually the bulk of available memory with free memory being much smaller, but not as small as Vista.

    Unlike XP which has only one, Vista has 8 prioritized standby lists. Vista was also the first to show Standby memory in Resource monitor, leading many people to believe this was something new. But it has been in NT since the very beginning.
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Here's why Windows 8 will never approach Vista's awfulnes
Related Threads
The other day we were struck by some heavy bolts and the house literally shattered. Thor seemed pretty pissed at my neighborhood and I considered shutting down all the comps. Even if the house has surge protection and I also have (I do not know what it is called in English, surge protection...
Ed Bott has always shown a very balanced view of the Microsoft products. This article is an excellent summary of the Windows 8 problems and the challenges ahead. Microsoft's Windows 8 approach: Bold, arrogant, or both? | ZDNet
Proposed Win8 Upgrade approach in Installation & Setup
Apologize if this has been answered already, but I looked through the threads and didn't see it. I recently purchased the $38 Win8 Pro Upgrade from Microcenter (supposed, marked down from $199). From what I've read here, if I use that to "upgrade" my current Win7 pro install, that invalidated...
More...
Eight Forums Android App Eight Forums IOS App Follow us on Facebook