Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
The problem was not with Vista. Vista was absolutely fine. The issue was that many applications "broke the rules", and didn't work correctly under Vista - eg by trying to save files in the program's installation directory rather than under "Documents and Settings", despite Microsoft having told developers right from the days of Windows 95 "don't do that".
Programs that were correctly written according to Microsoft's programming guidelines worked absolutely fine under Vista. I write and sell an astronomy program, for example, whose Windows 95 version worked "out of the box" on Vista and continues to work perfectly under Windows 7. There are a lot of rather unprofessional software developers out there who thought that just because a particular "rule" wasn't enforced in earlier versions of Windows that it was OK to break it. They (and their customers) got bitten hard by Vista, which DID enforce the rules.
The fault lay entirely with the developers - people had been asking for a version of Windows with much more stringent security - in Vista that's exactly what they got.
|
I bought a new laptop because mine was sluggish. It came preloaded with Vista. I added nothing to the laptop and it was still churning slower than my older laptop. If the problem was other software, it would've all come preloaded.
I'm not a tech person. I do vanilla stuff with my computers. I stripped Vista and loaded whatever version of Windows I had at the time and the laptop suddenly worked. Before I stripped Vista, I went online to try to figure out what was wrong. Lots of people were bitching. I read about Microsoft execs who'd run into the same problems. One of 'em actually said that Vista had turned his pricey computer into a nearly useless machine. His wording was something like "a $2,000 e-mail machine" or such. (This was years ago, so the wording is as close as I can remember.)