Why Windows Vista was more like Windows 2000 than Windows Me (RAM, high end)

[Pink Jazz]

I know that many people seem to like to compare Windows Vista to Windows Me, however, this isn't a fair comparison, as Windows Me was based on the old Windows 9x DOS platform, and was never intended to be a major release.

Vista, on the other hand, was a complete overhaul of the Windows XP code, similar to how Windows 2000 was an overhaul of Windows NT 4.0. Some people may not remember, however, in the early days of Windows 2000, it did face a few driver issues similar to what Vista faced.

If you ever looked at the version numbers of all Windows NT versions since 2000, notice that Windows 2000 and Vista are NT 5.0 and 6.0, respectively, while Windows XP and 7 are NT 5.1 and 6.1, respectively. Basically, this indicates that Windows 2000 and Vista were intended as major upgrades, while XP and 7 were intended as refinements to 2000 and Vista, respectively.

Also, a little fact about Windows Me, it actually wasn't supposed to exist originally. Microsoft originally intended on releasing a consumer version of Windows 2000 (codenamed Neptune), however, that idea was scrapped, and Microsoft decided to release Windows Me as a stopgap until XP was released. Microsoft NEVER intended Windows Me to be a major release, unlike Vista.

I hope this clears up some facts.

[EscapeCalifornia]

I've been saying this for years but its easier for ignorant people to simply blame Vista for HP's unwillingness to make a driver for their 7 year old all-in-one printer/scanner.

[Tek_Freek]

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

I've been saying this for years but its easier for ignorant people to simply blame Vista for HP's unwillingness to make a driver for their 7 year old all-in-one printer/scanner.

What? Enlighten me, I'm confused. (Normal)

[Jesse69]

Manufacturers made Vista unpopular by not making updated driver for their old printers & etc.

I use Vista 64 and I like it.

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by Jesse69

Manufacturers made Vista unpopular by not making updated driver for their old printers & etc.

Also by putting it on machines that had no business running it. I've seen it on brand new PCs with 512MB of RAM and integrated graphics that couldn't even do aero. Of course the computers were slow and unstable and people blamed Vista, not themselves for buying a $300 PC.

[revelated]

Yes and no. And I speak from extensive experience not only as a user, but also as an MCSA and a MCTS.

Vista WAS terrible, when it first launched. Even with 1GB of RAM and a decent video card it still ran dog slow, was unstable and just not worth its weight. SP1 didn't improve much, but Vista Service Pack 2 is superior in many ways to Windows 7 and XP.

- Application compatibility
- Driver compatibility
- Speed (general)
- Interface speed (navigating windows, scrolling, etc)
- Security (obviously, given it's the second service pack)

In effect, it's Windows XP improved, which is really what people want, but the negative press that Vista got has killed the OS before it had a chance to redeem itself. Now, Microsoft has positioned Windows 7 as "Vista done right" when all they had to do was push Vista SP 2 forward as what Vista should have been all along.

The thing about Windows 7 that most don't realize, is that its core is designed to optimize performance on lower spec PCs. Whether you have a small low end netbook or a high end gaming PC, the performance difference is marginal at best. Whereas Vista Service Pack 2 screams on higher end machines, Windows 7 just doesn't feel "snappy" like Vista does on a beast of a machine. Great for those on limited budgets of course.