Warning! Do not download before hiding your IP with a VPN!
Your IP Address is .   Location is
Your Internet Provider can see what you are downloading!  Hide your IP ADDRESS with a VPN!
We strongly recommend using a reliable VPN client to hide yourself on the Internet. It's FREE!
Hide me now!

Windows Vista: the least popular OS in history

Once upon a time, Microsoft crowed that Windows Vista would be twice as popular as XP. Research firm Ovum, Ltd., predicted a more modest 15 percent switchover in the first year, but gushed that Vista would be “the fastest-moving operating system ever.” IDC forecast 10 percent, relatively anemic compared to XP’s 14 percent in the first year, but a decent showing. And now? More than two years after its launch Vista has managed a penetration of just 9 percent, according to a Forrester Research report released last week, giving it the dubious distinction of being the least popular new Windows OS out of the gate, ever. But things are looking up for Vista. This year finally will be the big one, says Forrester. Really. Thirty-one percent of the 962 North American and European IT decision makers interviewed for the report have already begun migrating to Vista; another 26 percent plan to start in 2009 or later.

On the other hand, “IT decision makers don’t have an entirely rosy outlook for Windows Vista,” wrote analyst Benjamin Gray. Some 28 percent of respondents have not yet decided about whether or not to migrate, and 15 percent plan on skipping Vista altogether and going straight to Windows 7 when a final version is released in 2010. Here’s how enterprises currently break out, according to the report: 71 percent still use Windows XP, 10 percent use Windows 2000, 9 percent use Vista, Apple’s Mac OS X and “other” each garner 3 percent, and 2 percent use Linux.

Source: PC World


Feel free to post your Windows Vista: the least popular OS in history torrent, subtitles, samples, free download, quality, NFO, rapidshare, depositfiles, uploaded.net, rapidgator, filefactory, netload, crack, serial, keygen, requirements or whatever-related comments here. Don't be rude (permban), use only English, don't go offtopic and read FAQ before asking a question. Owners of this website aren't responsible for content of comments.
  1. JonJon
    February 6th, 2009 | 11:08

    Well, I still love Vista!

  2. flufsor
    February 6th, 2009 | 11:09

    Hah, its still beats mac :)

  3. baddab
    February 6th, 2009 | 11:17

    in history? really? ever heard of OS/2?

  4. dco
    February 6th, 2009 | 12:04

    ever heard of Windows ME? :p

    I <3 Vista!

  5. RSA-Ace
    February 6th, 2009 | 12:11

    @dco – thats exactly what i was gonna say… as a previous owner of windows ME (well it came with the pc), i have to say that that is definitely the least popular OS. i actually like Vista so it can't be that bad

  6. Steve0
    February 6th, 2009 | 12:19

    #5 You beat me to it.

  7. Panos
    February 6th, 2009 | 12:24

    Definitely Windows ME was the crappiest OS in history and of course the least popular, since nearly all notebooks have been coming with windows vista for a couple of years now.
    That makes them popular enough don't you think?
    The title of the article is definitely wrong
    There must be plenty of OS systems out there that didn't even make it to people's ears.

    For the record : I use vista, they don't mind me.

  8. r0ck
    February 6th, 2009 | 12:28

    I still believe Vista is part of the $300m ad project "Mojave". Not what they told us. They released Vista to intentionally disappoint people's expectations because they knew they, again, wouldn't innovate. So they released Vista, drew all the attention and aggro (if I may) and now that they announce Win7 everything is back to sugarpuffs and fairies. Ruin disappoint someone's expectations and then come up with a mediocre product. From the consumer point of view that's "better" than Vista and doesn't have to live up to the expectations that you had of a modern OS.

    Smart move, I call that.

  9. ost
    February 6th, 2009 | 12:38

    this is mad stupid. as other users have pointed out if your machine is not up 4 vista why put it on your machine. if u used to rock windows 98se on your machine then how in the h3ll can u expect in 2 run vista. wake up people. btw Duel Core 3.14ghz, 4 gig of ram, ati radeon hd 3800 and have NEVER had a problem i would even consider minor in 6 months of VISTA ULT. install. I'll end by saying would u install xp on your old pentium 2 and expect it 2 run as smooth as it does on say a 1ghz 512mb RAM. Well why do u expect Vista 2 do the same. Wake up and spend some $$$ @ your local computer store then come back and talk smack about VISTA

  10. trell
    February 6th, 2009 | 12:42

    I agree. I reckon that the statisticians are leaving ME out, and trying to fix the report to make Vista look bad.

    I have Vista. It does take a bit of getting used to, and it's not a major improvement over XP, apart from having better indexing DX10, and a few pretty bells & whistles, Vista with SP1 is definitely an improvement on the godawful original Vista release which had little/no driver support, BSOD tantrums, and little compatability with the software/hardware market.

    Windows ME on the other hand was truly terrible. Exactly the same as Windows 98, just prettier, and with only one trick up its sleeve (the restore function). Even then, the crashes, hang-ups and pitiful performance issues rendered it dead in the water within a few months.

    r0ck's comments are interesting too. He could be onto something there. XP was in the shops about 1 year after ME got discontinued, and it has been the most popular OS ever. Now that Windows 7 is on the horizon and beta testers are giving (mostly) good reports on it, I think Microsoft might well have big plans for Win7

  11. dosguy
    February 6th, 2009 | 12:47

    Who's got the inclination or money to buy a new operating system every couple of years, especially in THIS economy? If XP is doing everything you want, why switch?

  12. mrflibble
    February 6th, 2009 | 12:50

    What's mad stupid is spending $$$ on your PC so you can run an OS that has no significant improvements over it's predecessor. I use Vista, mainly because I like having shiny things on my screen – but the fact that it's using 1GB+ of RAM when idle and requires 2 processors to run smoothly is a joke.

  13. Bertus
    February 6th, 2009 | 12:51

    I don't see why I should use Vista. I got XP now, and that works perfect. I don't need a fancy looking desktop, I just need an OS to run programs.
    It's just ridiculous that an OS uses 2 GB of RAM, while it should be used to run programs. Most ppl got 64-bit now so they can use enough RAM to run Vista with some heavy programs. That's just principally wrong imo.

  14. TenthManIn
    February 6th, 2009 | 12:54

    Windows 7 damn well better be worth it, I thought I would like XP forever, but its getting very old. I am looking to upgrade to windows 7 64-bit.

  15. xenover
    February 6th, 2009 | 13:07

    I like Vista too, I dunno what everybody's whining about… -_-

  16. RU
    February 6th, 2009 | 13:12

    Vista is a pig and MS knows it. There is no reason an OS should require that much space to install or that much memory unless they were rushing it out the door. They admitted it by proving W7 is leaner. Try working in IT management and dealing with 1000's of PC's and then tell us that's perfect. For playing games and reading e-mail at home it's fine. But then so is XP. If you're a pirate and you don't have to buy squat then the price doesn't bother you, but what about all those people who shelled-out $500 for the Ultimate edition who were taken in by MS's lies. MS decides they're not going to deliver on the promises. What about people who have XP and they're told the only way to get DirectX 10 for new games is to get Vista. There is no technical reason for this other than they want you to spend money for Vista. It's typical dishonesty by this company.
    Most of the people who see Vista for what it is, a cash cow under a nice looking new interface, have quite a bit of experience with previous OS's.

  17. gene
    February 6th, 2009 | 13:20

    I use vista because I can.

  18. Piccy
    February 6th, 2009 | 13:25

    These people who love Vista have probably never tried using it in the enterprise.

    Vista might be Ok an a home PC, but where I work, we evaluated it and gave up. The problems

    Software compatibility
    Migration of user policies
    UAC was a big pain in UAT
    Drivers Drivers Drivers
    Damn slow networking

    Plus many other problems with joining multi domains and issues with Active Directory authentication

    I have no plans EVER to move to Vista and my home PC can handle it if it wanted to. It left a bad taste in my mouth

  19. -jr-
    February 6th, 2009 | 13:29

    Windows7 is coming fall 2009 not in 2010 if no major bugs are found.

  20. kok
    February 6th, 2009 | 13:32

    Don't you every forget about Windows ME !!!

  21. Bob
    February 6th, 2009 | 13:40

    The Mojave experiment proved that it's not the actual OS that is unpopular… but the name "Vista", and that's because of bad publicity by reviewers and critics everywhere.

    Also notice that the same idi0ts of critics try to "make" out of 7 a "better Vista"… just cause it has the same interface and set of features it doesn't mean it's the actual Windows NT ver. 6.0 codename Vista!

    Still, there's nothing stopping them from trashing another OS because some fossils don't want to learn a something new!

  22. LOL losers
    February 6th, 2009 | 13:48

    LOL at all the cheap a$$es who are complaining about needing more than 1GB of RAM, its 2009 wake the fsck up. RAM is dirt cheap, I've seen deals with 4GB (4 1GB sticks) for 29.99.

    If XP works fine for you and you dont mind using 10+ year old hardware and software thats fine, but dont hate on Vista just because you are still stuck in the year 2000.

  23. Pirate Windows 7
    February 6th, 2009 | 14:13

    Look at all the editions of windows 7 and their limited availability.

    windows 7 is next in line for the most hated title.
    Don't be surprized when customers go postal with an AK in Washington.
    and that's just microsoft's insult.

    Pirate Windows 7, do whatever you can to steal the profits from microsoft.

  24. wilzzon
    February 6th, 2009 | 14:48

    I bought a PC with a dual core processor and 4 gigs of RAM so that there would be ample resources to run my programs. Why would I upgrade the OS only to have it consume twice as much as the old one leaving less resources for my programs. This would make then run slower. Why? To get shiny new interface? The first thing I do is turn that off anyway.

  25. d
    February 6th, 2009 | 15:05

    i am trying vista again and it is ok. biggest problem i have is constant hd usage and slow network recognition. it does seem like a bloated hog compared to xp.

    i don't know why everyone is bashing win me? they must have never run windows 95'.

  26. x3mer
    February 6th, 2009 | 15:08

    Vista sucks big time, so don't compromise your selves by claiming the opposite. Vista might work for some lame homePC use, but not for anything more advanced than that.
    …and just for a record, i've got Q6600, 8GB RAM and 8800GT with 1GB – so it CAN properly run stupid Vista, but Vista can't properly run IT.
    Looking forward to Win7.


  27. Respect Nothing
    February 6th, 2009 | 15:19


    Dude, Vista Sucks regardless of your system, i would go with windows 200 before i even touch Vista with a stick.

    Go sit on a pin.

  28. jiggaboo
    February 6th, 2009 | 15:25

    Of course the Vista f4gs will have to defend their os, like a Captain going down with his ship, even after the numbers and vast majority of consumers say it sucks ass big time. They'll never learn.

  29. xyz zyx
    February 6th, 2009 | 15:32

    Vista and W7 are almost identical… I`m using Yamicsoft Vista manager to get W7 up with the rest…. My point is that if you have to turn off all new features with your latest OS to get it running OK, than what`s the point… It`s not like these features are critical, they are just idiotic… Stick with WXPRO64BIT…

  30. XP is slower
    February 6th, 2009 | 15:33

    @ 27

    I have the same exact specs as you for my PC(running Vista x64), and it is considerably faster than when I had XP on the same machine. Games are faster, programs are faster and responsive, much quicker startup than XP etc, etc. I havent found a single area that XP is better at.

    So, what are these advanced programs you claim run bad in vista because I sure haven't found any?

  31. Jim
    February 6th, 2009 | 15:43

    r0ck: "So they released Vista, drew all the attention and aggro…"

    So Microsoft is pulling the old tank-and-spank on us? :-)

    Windows XP: For people who just need to get sh1t done.

  32. TempPD
    February 6th, 2009 | 15:57

    "Windows XP: For people who just need to get sh1t done."

    That is what they were saying about Win98 when XP came out!

  33. hackerwdpi800
    February 6th, 2009 | 16:07

    Windows Vista = Windows ME 2.0

  34. Linux is KING
    February 6th, 2009 | 16:22

    I Love watching M$ fanboys fight over which one of their overpriced, bloated, useless products works better. Here's a little secret: They both run like sh!t.

    Linux is still King of OS's, no questions about it. Uses less resources than even Win95 which means it's much faster in EVERY aspectno matter how you try and spin it.

  35. Mr. Perv
    February 6th, 2009 | 16:28

    I think the title should say, Windows Vista: The Least Popular NT-based OS in History.

  36. RU
    February 6th, 2009 | 16:31

    Bob, you're an idiot.

    Mojave was stupid. It asked a bunch of non-technical people to evaluate Vista. That's how you base your argument for Vista, a blind taste-test from people off the street instead of experienced and qualified professionals? Do you buy everything like that? Sure it looks nice, but what do those people know? Linux's Beryl looks better, does that mean everyone is going to switch? The whole reason Vista is a failure is because actual technical people honestly evaluated Vista and said:

    No to their new tiered price structure
    No to their hardware requirements which would cost millions in hardware upgrades for all businesses.
    No to new bullsh-t technologies that cause administrators problems like UAC, drivers, or crap like Readyboost which has been proven to be a gimmick.

    Sure new PC's have improved so now they can run Vista better, but at the time it was released over a year ago their bloated code was anything but fast. XP is still faster because of that reason. If you've been to MS seminars and watched MS play their little faux benchmark games for years you would see it as well.
    The customer is always right and they got the message. Lets hope W7 sees more improvements since right now it's still just Vista SE.
    If all you need it for is to play games and read your e-mail then enjoy your Vista. Don't talk about knowing crap like using the Mojave bait-and-switch on regular people. That was only to get home buyers to buy computers with Vista from Dell, HP, IBM, etc.

    Look at their $300 million sales pitch with Gates and Seinfeld – it didn't make sense. Then the "I'm a PC" BS ads which were stupid since they were selling Vista but never mentioned it. Don't you see? They don't understand why Apple and Google are doing so well. No one uses MS Live Search so they want Yahoo to give them credibility, but they can't pull the trigger. This company is lost like IBM of the 80's, and they've got more money than brains right now.

  37. mex
    February 6th, 2009 | 16:33

    "Windows Vista: the least popular OS in history "

    OF courssee no money to buy quad cores or dual core and great graphics cards!! lolol I love vista by the way.

  38. name (required) email ( will not be shown ) (required) Spam protection: Sum of 3 + 5 ?
    February 6th, 2009 | 16:37

    # 35 linix is king

    And OSX runs faster more eficient speeds, better than XP, VISTA, or LINUX so wats your point?

  39. chris
    February 6th, 2009 | 16:38

    Vista is the best OS I've ever had. Period.

  40. Player_1
    February 6th, 2009 | 17:28

    There are MAJOR differances between ME & XP.. as someone said earlier ME/w98/w95 weren't based on the NT core like XP and Vista. Add to that a new file system in XP (NTFS) and much better stability. You just couldn't have a program running and surfing at the same time on w98/ME the multitasking just wasn't there and if some app. hang there was only a reboot option. My obvious point is that the is no real need to upgrade from XP to Vista like it was with ME/w98 to XP.

  41. Gug
    February 6th, 2009 | 17:33

    And I like my Mac.

  42. MorbidGod
    February 6th, 2009 | 17:39

    I have Vista because i can too. Best OS since Floppys Windows 3.1. Stop winning and go buy hardware. Period.

  43. fred
    February 6th, 2009 | 17:40

    win xp pro x64
    8gb ram
    quad core (I can't trust vista with video encoding)

    i tried them all and vista doesn't work with everything still
    and runs slower.
    i want all my apps to run at max speed
    i don't care how my desktop looks its all about the apps

    win 7 i tried and it's just like vista but I do hope it gets better
    Vista to me is WORSE then Windows Me.
    I even tried Vista lite versions and they still suck.

    I have a friend that bought a brand new laptop with vista and it kept deleting NEW printer.
    but here 10 year old Pentium 3 desktop with xp the printer works fine all the time.



  44. dghgfh
    February 6th, 2009 | 17:41

    People proclaiming love for Vista,
    the only appreciable improvement over XP is the GUI and even that can be replicated in XP extremely easily. So, there is no reason to have Vista. Fack it. I personally love OS X. Mac OS for the win!

  45. mbdc
    February 6th, 2009 | 17:51

    OS X All the way, faster and has as many apps for it. Been saying Vista was crap for two years as I have it on my partitioned drive for college but the fanboys will still argue.

  46. jeffy!!!
    February 6th, 2009 | 18:53

    XP still rocks. I think i'll skip vista to get windows 7 when stable.

  47. Vista questions
    February 6th, 2009 | 18:54

    To all the people bashing vista, Im not trying to flame but I have a few questions. I installed Vista x64 SP1 after using XP 64 on the same machine. If vista is so bad then:

    1. Why do my games run faster? Like 10-15 more FPS in every game?

    2. Why do all my programs open quicker, and programs like photoshop, when I apply filters they apply almost instantly, where in XP they took about 20 seconds.

    Also, Vista found every driver for me automatically, when I installed XP I had to manually install almost every one of them.

    I just don't see any valid complaints about vista, I almost didn't install it because of those type of comments but am glad I tried it it seems to run much more stable than XP 64.

  48. lfc
    February 6th, 2009 | 18:58

    Yep,everybody should ditch their trojan riddled pc's and invest in a mac,i've had an imac for over a year now and not once had to do a format or system restore.

  49. sudo nihm
    February 6th, 2009 | 19:08

    @48 – yeah right, there's nothing wrong with Vista – keep telling yourself that. Even though every informed opinion states the opposite – even though Microsoft themselves have admitted it was a bad mistake – even though they are doing their best to correct it, not by trying a new advertising campaign, but by bringing out Windows 7 – a rehash designed to correct the problems.

    You sound just like a reddit fanboy.

  50. Charlieboy28
    February 6th, 2009 | 19:22

    I agree, Vista is my fav operating system and i have tried them all coz im old, its fast stable reliable, etc etc and its not that much different from XP anayway.
    I think if you have a decent rig Vista rocks, but if your poor smelly and you mum stinks then go with XP, hey thats my opinion, its a free country, deal with it coz you know im right, and dont give me none of that geeky technical stuff either.

  51. XP fanbois lose
    February 6th, 2009 | 19:27


    Then you are a complete 'tard that will never be able to afford a box capable of running Vista.

    What a stupid comment, its always those who parrot other naysayer's BS that are lost in the wind and go on and on with absolutely no substance to their comments.

    I'd use a fricking shoebox and crayons if you paid me to, moron!

  52. Charlieboy28
    February 6th, 2009 | 19:28

    Hey can someone hurry up and revive this boring old stale ongoing debate about which OS is better please, also could someone please take offence to my last stated opinion, or do all you XP nonces really accept that your poor smelly and your mums stink??

  53. crunchbang
    February 6th, 2009 | 19:29

    @39 – yes, it may be faster, but linux it's FREE. huge word,eh?

  54. Mono
    February 6th, 2009 | 19:36

    I have never had a problem with vista! Ok i'll admit its not Brilliant but its not bad either but at the mo im running windows 7 beta with out any problems its fast, looks pretty, and dont hog ram and can not wait for the release of the full version! windows 7 FTW yay

  55. charlieboy282002
    February 6th, 2009 | 19:51

    Hey nobody , i like your arguement, a nice balanced sensible opinion, but could you tell me one thing, are you poor, smelly, and does your mother have a strange odour eminating from here???

  56. Nobody
    February 6th, 2009 | 20:06

    @57 – Thanks, I'm not a clueless fangirl, I keep my options open. And to answer your questions, no, no, and probably as she died about 10 years ago; I didn't go with the anti-stink spray option.

    If Vista works for you, then use it. You'll notice that I didn't bash anyone who uses it; if you choose your OS based on the opinion of some random person on a web site you've got bigger issues. But if anything, stop with the odor remarks.. you're overcompensating, go take a shower.

  57. Vista
    February 6th, 2009 | 20:17

    Vista isn't too bad but can't wait for 7 to be out of beta

  58. John
    February 6th, 2009 | 20:20


  59. Johney 666
    February 6th, 2009 | 20:22

    U love vista=U R A n00b

    @Piccy, my words. Only a n00b home user will support vista.

    BTW, ever heard of QNX?

  60. McBain
    February 6th, 2009 | 20:28

    Vista it´s a big slow crap,they can be more than happy that 9% of people are brave and dumb enough to install and actually work whit this crap.

    Hope windows 7 do something really revolutionary like run more fast and stable.

  61. charlieboy282002
    February 6th, 2009 | 20:33

    Ok Ok , now will you stop being reasonable Mr Nobody as your are seriousley letting down the rest of the small minded XPers out there.Tis true,

    Vista, i tried it i likes it i stuck with it, i tried all the other OS as and when they came out too, your opinion is slightly questionable however as you seem to be a bit of an OS whore and wil go with anything that it available. My pint really was that it is completely subjective, there is no right or wrong, unless you was to go to a great deal of time and effort and research and benchmarking etc, its a waste of tiem, this XP vista thing is so stale and it seems someone on this site likes to raise the same old arguement again and again,
    Its opinion and we are all entitled to our opinions ,even when like XP people they are wrong.

  62. SQrL
    February 6th, 2009 | 21:15

    Vista 64bit SP1 r0x0rz

  63. AHW
    February 6th, 2009 | 21:20

    I've used a lot of OS's; 95, 98, 2000, ME, XP, Vista, and some apple OS's that I cannot remember (some new, some old). I gotta say on the Microsoft side that I like XP > the other Windows' OS'. Though, Vista is cool, but I think it has too many bugs and we should just jump to 7. But hey what do I know lol

  64. Wizard
    February 6th, 2009 | 21:38

    Just installed Windows 7 Ultimate…Really cool. Looks like Vista with a bit different theme. Not all the drivers worked, but its still in Beta so that's to be expected. Anyways I have 4 gigs of ram running Vista 64 ultimate, and I am more than happy with it. Sticking With VISTA for now. My favorite OS so far.

  65. thrashie
    February 6th, 2009 | 21:38

    this is like a AA meeting for OS's
    something like OSA i guess

  66. null
    February 6th, 2009 | 21:42

    The compatibility issues present with the OS when it first released coupled with Microsoft's trying to force it down our throats—either for the software or DX10 support—was enough to turn me away from the OS indefinitely. Sorry, I'm not going to let someone try to tell me that I should be paying full price for one of their products over another when making the switch doesn't suit me in the least. Managed to get it working reasonably well after a year and a half of fixes? And yet I still have to jump through hoops to install games from the Win98 era? Again, sorry. I'm not convinced this OS is in the best interest for anyone fond of playing games on their PC.

  67. john
    February 6th, 2009 | 22:08

    x360 ftw!

  68. me
    February 6th, 2009 | 22:10

    Windows ME is definitely the wors OS ever, even MS Windows3.1 is beter than that one.

  69. uhhhhuh
    February 6th, 2009 | 22:34

    Vista x64 Ultimate SP1
    8GB Ram
    Quad @ 3.0ghz
    ATI-4850×2 (9.1 drivers)

    …everything runs fine. Whats the issue?

    Honestly, I use vista for gaming, its the dx10. And the x64 as I have more than 4GB ram. I suppose I could downgrade to 4gb of 1066, and just use xp x64 and risk having WAY more problems.

    if you like all the newest games, and run apps that require more than 4gb ram (rendering, etc)…vista x64 FTW. Sorry, kids.

  70. f
    February 6th, 2009 | 22:46

    vista has 2 many problems and uses too much memory

  71. ost
    February 6th, 2009 | 23:37

    hi my name is ost and it been 6 months since my last clean install.

  72. drgnx
    February 7th, 2009 | 03:50

    "according to a Forrester Research report released last week, giving it the dubious distinction of being the least popular new Windows OS out of the gate, ever."

    There is no way it could be the least popular OS in history, in terms of quantity, as has more users then OSX and Linux combined. It is, though, highly unpopular in terms of public opinion.

  73. Weeee
    February 7th, 2009 | 04:01

    Yeah, summarizing all from above.

    Vista with SP1 is great if
    1) U have a decent computer and graphic card dedicated to at least 128 MB, 2 GB in RAM and a core 2 duo, and 100 GB and above hard drive.
    2) You turn off User Access Control (UAC) that is the main thing that made the freakin Vista so incompatible, and of course is the responsible for cracks not working.

    3) Once that sh*t is turned off, do regular updates.

    Mine works like a charm.

    Is the people that don't know how to use it. Vista is for folks with decent computer skills.


  74. jun
    February 7th, 2009 | 05:13

    I am a 3D graphic artist and I work on high end Boxx machines. Between vista 64bit and xp 64bit I prefer xp. I have had more headaches with random crashing and useless interface changes with Vista then XP. The new interface is useless. Mac did it better. Whats with the huge clock and junk on the sidebar? Explorer got worse somehow, rearranged control panel, useless crash pop up, some weird bug with saving files (always wants to save over other files) anyways I can go on. Ill wait for windows 7 for my home pc.

  75. Sybull
    February 7th, 2009 | 07:12

    "this is like a AA meeting for OS's
    something like OSA i guess"

    Hi, my name is Stephen and I use Vista Home premium….(sits down)

  76. rkl
    February 7th, 2009 | 12:26

    Surely the title should be "Vista: The least popular Windows OS in history"? Heck, even with it barely reaching 9% of the desktop market, it's still more popular than Mac OS X and Linux combined on the desktop!

    IMHO, the only thing any version of Windows has going for it compared to other desktop OS'es is the large number of games available for it. I suspect "problems" with games in Vista didn't help.

    Heck, I bought a copy of Far Cry after Vista was released, it had a "Vista compatible" sticker on it and it did *not* run properly in Vista! If you don't play games, I'd recommend trying a Linux distro instead – it's actually easier to install than Windows is and generally a better destkop environment for non-gamers.

  77. Frost
    February 7th, 2009 | 13:01

    I read some of the comments on here and had to put some in. Me being an IT Professional and working in the field i have a clue unlike some people.

    Vista is crap simple put, it is the next gen of crap os, just like ME was with the XP generation, Even the Beat of Windows 7 works faster and with less problems than Vista does with service packs.

    At my work we buy exclusive HP funny thing is Microsoft demand that HP only sell PC's with Windows Vista licence, if you want XP on it then you have to pay for a rollback licence on top, which is stated on the licence sticker on the machine when they arrive at work. We dont care but on the books it is classed as a vista machine, so when it comes to audits like this Microsoft Windows Vista Sales look Great which more than likely boosts those amazing BS figures in the "Research Reports"

    Anyways that is my 2 cents worth… oh wait we dont have 2 cents anymore, ok 5 cents worth :P

    Like it? or you dont, Me dont care i am going to bed.

  78. Stinky
    February 7th, 2009 | 14:24

    @75 – Vista is for folks with decent computer skills? Are you kidding me? It takes nearly zero skill to effectively use *any* version of Windows, at least the desktop builds; if anything they're getting easier with each latest release. Get a Gentoo desktop up and running without consulting a manual once, then you can talk to me about skills.

    And please.. "Doesn't crash that much" "Only 10 times in two years"? Zero times in two years with XP; once XP got into SP2 it was rock solid. Hopefully Vista SP2 matches that once it goes gold. It's no WinMe, but it's got a ways to go yet in the reliability department.

  79. Kamui
    February 7th, 2009 | 14:43

    VISTA SUCKS!!! Resource hungry and you must do hundrend of moves to do something. Change ip or create a network, monitor settings all are pain in the ass.

    If it wasn't for DirectX10 i think noone will have installed them

  80. common sense
    February 7th, 2009 | 15:26

    While I am not defending Windows 7, I DO find all the buttboys complaining about it to be very amusing. Let me say this for these people slowly…IT IS A BETA RELEASE SO THERE WILL STILL BE SOME BUGS IN IT! Christ! I have never seen such a whiney bunch of ignorant people in my life! If you run it after it is finished and have problems, ok. But to whine and b*&ch like a little girl over a BETA not running right on your machine…do you really want to know how damn stupid that makes you look?? And as for the Vista fanboys, PUH-LEAZE! I am running a quad set of 4GHz cpus with over 2 TB of hd space and 6GB of memory in my server (and my motherboard alone cost three times what your Vista machines did completed, close to $5000 because it had to be special made to use 4 cpu's). I ran Vista on this machine once…and could not yank it off fast enough. Vista is just as crappy as everyone says it is. Why in God's name would I want to pay $1200 for Adobe and have it work flawless on XP, but then have to turn right around and BUY a new version of Adobe just because they are cheap ba^%$rds and wont give a patch or a free upgrade to their customers! I can wait for Windows 7 and run my purchased copy of Adobe on it because it includes a stripped down virtual copy of XP coded in it so I can run BOTH any Vista program I choose as well as ALL my XP programs! SO whatcha goin do Vista fanboys, when MS drops Vista from support three months after Windows 7 hits the market according to Redmond Washington? They have already annouced this is what they plan on doing so you will either upgrade or join your hated WinMe in the dustbins. What is funny is that most of the world already calls Vista by another name, VistaMe. And since you cannot say ALL of them dont know how to use it, that leaves you looking stupid and having egg on your face when you are trying to tell people how good this crappy thing is.

  81. RU
    February 7th, 2009 | 15:36


    1) you don't know how to optimize XP or I would bet your comparing your old XP install to a fresh install of Vista. Who knows what kind of trash you have installed on your XP PC. Fill Vista with spyware and garbage and lets see how slow it gets. Unless you can install a fresh XP and benchmark it against a fresh Vista, your person opinion doesn't give us anything but a subjective opinion.
    You know, the art of keeping your system clean and lean is dying when people don't even want to try. They subscribe to reinstalling their OS every month or two, and they never learn anything.

    2) Same reason.

    As for finding drivers, MS has had driver issues right from the beginning. They've had to be more proactive just to keep Vista afloat. Plus it's completely on third party companies to submit updates so that's not a plus or minus for MS.
    MS seems to be working really hard with Realtek so updates are timely available, where my Intel drivers just sit and get older unless I do something about it.

    Dude, you really have to ask these questions when everyone that's respected in computers is saying the same thing? I mean it's good to make your own mind up, but do we have to spell everything out?

  82. RU
    February 7th, 2009 | 15:45


    The only reason Vista has 9% is regular people for the last year can't go into Best Buy or wherever and buy a PC without Vista. They have to go through hoops, hurdles and the best deals aren't on the remaining XP installed PC's. I have recommended to coworkers so many deals over the the year and people have had to settle for Vista every single time except one. One guy liked it for a ratio of 12:1. Seriously.
    Plus, MS always fudges the numbers. Do you know how many Vista licensed PC's my company has? 1000's. Do you know how many Vista installed PC's we have? Zero. MS count's licenses sold and not actual copies in use. This is widely known. Only non industry people would take those numbers literally.

  83. meetoo
    February 7th, 2009 | 22:28

    @27 x3mer

    …Just for the record… your hardware is faulty or your config is bad and THATS only the minimum requirements. It runs IT just fine.

    @28 Respect Nothing

    … what are you talking about? its obvious you haven't even tried vista so how can you say it sucks? try it for yourself instead of being judgmental on everyone else's opinion… regardless.

    @79 Frost

    …Yes you go to bed… for an IT Pro you sure don't have the pro outlook… why not post helpful tips to those that dont "have a clue" it seems that your opinion is based around the research of others, who cares about licensing and any IT man would fine detail the technicalities of an operating systems flaws and not just on how a service pack would run on it.

    @82 common sense

    … looks like you wasted all your money on a toy that can't even do a simple task… operate vista, PHU-PLEAZE! if your $5000 machine can't even run a simple OS like vista then its truly obvious your investment is in failed components. How is it that people with a lesser spec PC can run vista smoothly and your machine cant? your post is just purely to blow about your PC.

    Yes vista does have its flaws but what OS doesn't? none are perfect and you are kidding yourself if you think you have the best out there, all it takes is a little person config be it hardware/software to get it running stable like any OS, vista has its moments good and bad but thats to be expected with any OS.

  84. Bob
    February 8th, 2009 | 03:47

    RU, kid… the Mojave experiment was done to prove something else… but since you neuron can't process it, leave it at that!

  85. angel9
    February 8th, 2009 | 04:03

    dam I was barely loving VISTA x64 ultimate, its blazing fast, loads up in 8-15 secs and shuts down as fast, apps as well. Dual boot with xp/vista, don't know why people cry for, just cause its resource hog???? can't tell me you can't spare <<<500*800mb memory>>>>> out of 8GB or 4GB lols, now come on. Most of the time people are running slow ass pcs, barely meeting requirements .

    I get the same fps in games xp/vista 64.

    My system doesn't even cost much ge8800+ phenom940(160$ ish new good deal) + 4gb ram, all under 400$ -_-,built myself. Srsly get a job update your guys pc,if you're crying over 1gb worth of ram. Upgraded my system again had cheapy +5200 amd( worked great to in vista).

    I don't get why people emulate windows on their mac or whatever other os they have, why didnt they buy windows in the first lol. Going through all the trouble to buy a overpriced Mac, just to emulate windows ;( .

    All I know they did vista x64 just fine, compared to xp pro x64. Still like xp pro, not to flashy.

  86. bojangles
    February 10th, 2009 | 06:47

    While we're celebrating what a bloated piece of crap Vista is, anyone have some links to a good late copy of an updated/slipstreamed version of XP SP3 ?

  87. que
    June 8th, 2009 | 19:22

    i had vista for a day and deleted it. unlike obama, i wasn't ready for a change.

Leave a reply


rent this ad space