Microsoft To End Support For Windows Vista In Less Than a Month (pcworld.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft To End Support For Windows Vista In Less Than a Month (pcworld.com)

Posted by msmash on Thursday March 16, 2017 @02:40AM from the move-on,-already dept.

In less than a month's time, Microsoft will put Windows Vista to rest once and for all. If you're one of the few people still using it, you have just a few weeks to find another option before time runs out. (I mean, nobody will uninstall it from your computer, but.) From a report on PCWorld: After April 11, 2017, Microsoft will no longer support Windows Vista: no new security updates, non-security hotfixes, free or paid assisted support options, or online technical content updates, Microsoft says. (Mainstream Vista support expired in 2012.) Like it did for Windows XP, Microsoft has moved on to better things after a decade of supporting Vista. As Microsoft notes, however, running an older operating system means taking risks -- and those risks will become far worse after the deadline. Vista's Internet Explorer 9 has long since expired, and the lack of any further updates means that any existing vulnerabilities will never be patched -- ever. Even if you have Microsoft's Security Essentials installed -- Vista's own antivirus program -- you'll only receive new signatures for a limited time.

167 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by jellomizer · 2017-03-16 02:43 · Score: 1

Much like how When Windows XP was released it was a hated OS with its FisherPrice Interface, All its problems from moving the Home PC to the NT kernel vs the DOS based Windowed Shell that use to be Windows. When went out of support we had a bunch of lover saying why get rid of it because it is so good.
I would love to see what love letters are coming out from Vista (one of the most hated WIndows Versions (besides ME) to be released)

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
1. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 02:54 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Except that Vista market share is far below XP, even today. So no, there probably won't be many rants.
  Windows 7's end will make the end of XP look like a formal tea party, however. The last decent desktop version of Windows ever.
2. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 03:05 · Score: 0
  
  All its problems from moving the Home PC to the NT kernel
  Windows 2000 did that home skillet. XP was just a reskin.
3. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by sims+2 · 2017-03-16 03:09 · Score: 2
  
  Not really I still think vista was a worthless POS.
  XP had a lot of updates that significantly improved it and added features.
  Vista at launch was slow as hell because microsoft didn't hike the minimum requirements enough for it to run decent this was never fixed they jumped to windows 7 and promptly gave up on trying to fix it.
  IME windows 7 actually runs faster than Vista on the same hardware.
  I noticed a lot of vendors actually dropped support for Vista long before they dropped support for XP I think that says something about how bad vista was considering the age difference between the two.
  I still hate they dropped IP over firewire 400Mbps back when ethernet only did 100Mbps. Everythings usb3 now tho but you can't run an IP connection over that (well i've never found a way to do it in windows anyway no usb>ethernet>usb is ridiculously stupid)
  
  --
  Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
4. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by Opportunist · 2017-03-16 03:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This is actually going to be the real problem here.
  Retiring Vista is no biggie. I don't know anyone who didn't immediately replace Vista with Seven as soon as it became available. On the other hand, I can also not name that many people who replaced 7 with 8 once that hit the market. Even with 8.1, the amount of people who made the switch is rather low. And I know a lot of people and companies, myself and my company included, that rely heavily on Win7 even today. On the other hand, I do not know any large companies that embraced Win8/8.1 in any way and the acceptance of Win10 so far is, at best, lukewarm, at worst hostile with a big "when hell freezes over" stamp from the CISO.
  More recently our development department even started to look around for a replacement of VS15, with the Telemetry blunder in VS15SP2 the switch to VS17 is not a given as it was in the years before from 10 to 13 and to 15. And I dare say we're not alone. CISOs talk. And I'm not the only one who is very unhappy with the direction Microsoft is heading. A simple Win10 rollout as it had been in the past with MS systems where the main concern was whether the key applications will run on the new platform will certainly not happen. This will at the very least include a lengthy and probably quite costly security audit as well. And not even whether it's secure against someone breaking in, more concerning the data that leaves the machine towards Redmond.
  You can see that reflected in changes in bidding catalogs as well. More and more you find demands that software development has to be "OS agnostic" or they demand outright that a client has to be provided for Windows and Linux. My guess is that quite a few companies that I have to deal with are at the very least pondering whether it might be possible to think about considering leaving the Windows platform.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
5. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by Sporkinum · 2017-03-16 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  I went from Vista to 8 and the 8.1. Was able to get 8 for $20. No such cheap deals for 7, and besides that, Vista worked fine for me.
  
  --
  "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
6. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 03:46 · Score: 0
  
  Well, when it was first released it was utter shit. Eventually, the fish price colors went away, almost everyone went back to the basic theme, and I think that is the default on SP2/3 installs.
  In fact, XP was utter shit until service pack 2(SP2), after which it became the work horse that everyone demanded. hence typical MS, beta testing in production.
  SP3, further refined SP2, and ran like a dream. By this time, however, it was near obsolete, and its UI/UX was lacking. Windows XP Service Pack 3 ran extremely well.
  Windows XP, prior to Service Pack 2, was utter shit. It was unreliable, and slow.
  As far as Windows goes, Win7 is the new XP, it will be here forever. Vista is pretty crappy, and it was never really adopted, because it didn't stick around long enough to get a user base.
7. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 03:48 · Score: 0
  
  I've run every version of Windows for 30 years. No way was Vista or ME the most "hated" versions. They might have been half baked, but far better than the gooey mess that was Windows 1.0 or Windows 386.
8. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 03:51 · Score: 0
  
  i have a desktop vista on it. one of the very first models available before general availability and retail release. so over 10 years ago, since november 2006.
  it gets used nearly every day
  it never gets shutdown.
  it always hibernates and sleeps and wakes up properly.
  it's never crashed. hardware or windows.. or any of my installed (and it's a LOT) software.
  it's never needed a reinstall. still the original factory load.
  it's never had a driver issue other than my old printer didn't work with xp or newer (but it needed to be replaced anyway)
  it never installs updates without my knowledge.
  it never even *downloads* updates without my knowledge.
  it's never lost a network or network share.
  the entire available throughput of the local network is available, anytime, the entire one gigabit per second.
  it never, ever reboots on its own.
  it would always allow me to run a third-party OS. separately or dual booted.
  it would always allow me access to startup menu.
  it came with real reinstall media (never used, but nice to know you have).
  it doesn't require a successful boot to start in safe mode.
  it always shuts down like it's supposed to without an active hibernate file getting in the way when using another OS to access files
  it would never think of stuffing advertisements on its user interface.
  updates have never reconfigured my user-made preferences and settings.
  it never tried to ram windows 10 up my ass. never. not once. ever.
  in over ten years of using that computer i have only one minor gripe... ONE: the notification that it's now 'safe' to remove a USB device requires a click to dismiss.
  what will replace it... at some point? windows 8.. yup. windows 8. not 10, not 7 (too little support life left).. but 8. i figure 2023 gives me enough time to migrate to linux as i will never personally use windows 10... never.
9. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by Solandri · 2017-03-16 04:03 · Score: 2
  
  All its problems from moving the Home PC to the NT kernel vs the DOS based Windowed Shell that use to be Windows.
  
  Windows moved to the NT kernel with Windows 2000. Windows ME was the last version based on DOS.
  
  Vista had the ignominy of being the first version where Microsoft tried to enforce the admin vs user privilege model that Unix had from its inception. Prior to Vista, Win32 app makers would just program assuming they had root privileges (as if they were writing a DOS program). This had the unfortunate side-effect that any bug in any program that was running became a potential root escalation vulnerability. The proper way to make programs is to run them with user privileges unless they need root privileges. Vista was the first time Microsoft required Windows programs to behave this way, resulting in a huge number of legacy Windows app breaking. That's why so many businesses stuck with XP - because apps specific to their business wouldn't run in Vista, and the programmer(s) they'd hired to write it were long gone and hadn't left source code, or said programmers wanted to charge thousands of dollars for an updated version that would run on Vista.
  
  If you didn't run apps with this problem, Vista was actually fairly decent - very similar to Win 7. The main problem then was that XP's hardware requirements were very low. I'd say 400 MHz and 256 MB to run comfortably. Used to be 128 MB - the published minimum - but over the years anti-virus programs got big enough (about 50-60 MB by 2007) that you needed 256 MB. In order not to scare customers, Microsoft published Vista's minimum requirements as 800 MHz and 512 MB to trick people with newer XP boxes into upgrading. Vista would run on that hardware, but it would make for a miserable experience. A realistic minimum was around 1.6 GHz and 1 GB, with a comfortable minimum being 2 GHz 2 GB. Very close to Windows 7's minimum requirements.
10. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by SScorpio · 2017-03-16 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  The issue was this was the move for the majority of people from the 9x to NT kernel which impacted drivers.
  Vista had the exact same issue as 64-bit was now a thing and new drivers for old hardware had to be written. The drivers were created and working when Windows 7 was released so suddenly all the issues with Vista went away even though 7 was mostly just a reskinned service pack.
11. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by Khyber · 2017-03-16 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  "Windows ME was the last version based on DOS."
  ME was more of a mix of NT and DOS (.VXD and .DLL driver hell was rampant) and real-time DOS mode was heavily restricted (which made a bunch of my older disk utilities no longer work.)
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
12. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by Nchantim · 2017-03-16 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  All its problems from moving the Home PC to the NT kernel vs the DOS based Windowed Shell that use to be Windows.
  Sorry, not right. XP used the NT Kernel. Windows 2000 used the NT Kernel (which is why NT 4.0 was the last "NT" version)
13. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by Wdomburg · 2017-03-16 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  Windows 2000 was never released for the consumer market. Windows 98 Second Edition and Windows Millennium Edition were released to that segment until Windows XP finally unified their product line-up.
14. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 04:28 · Score: 0
  
  How many people actually used Windows 1.0 though? Probably not even a million. Nowhere near enough to make it "most hated", at least in terms of the number of people who had cause to hate it. By the time Vista came along, Windows dominated the PC market, and zillions of PCs were sold with it on, so the number of people who got to experience the pain dwarfs the handful that experienced 1.0.
15. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  Not sure it's a rant, but... Vista was a very necessary update.
  Vista represented a lot of under the hood improvements. Mac OS X, with it's OpenGL-based GUI, made Windows' GDI+ look like some relic of the 1980s. You also saw the rise of multi-CORE CPUs, whereas Windows had always been written with multi-CPU systems in mind. There are some subtle, but important, differences between the two.
  So not only did Vista replace the old GDI+ graphics subsystem with a more modern DirectX-based Aero, but the process scheduler was reworked to take into account dual and quad core CPUs. There was significant hardening of the driver model, and major improvements in security overall over XP.
  As with every major advance, there were some teething pains. All the old IGPs that could barely handle XP's Luna skinning system would choke on Aero, it took some time for the quality of hardware drivers to catch up, especially from the more fly-by-night vendors, and all the people with single core CPUs got left behind in large part.
  As much as the Windows 7 fans will try and deny it, it's basically just a warmed over Vista. A great deal of 7's success was that by the time it came out, most IGPs had caught up to Aero, most computers being sold were at least dual core, and hardware makers had largely gotten their act together with regards to drivers. From an objective standpoint, Windows 7 brought very little to the table that was new compared to Vista, it was mostly just minor refinements to existing features. I'm all for those under the hood improvements, one of the biggest unsung heroes of the software world, but all of those improvements wouldn't have amounted for much of anything if the hardware hadn't caught up. The number of people complaining about actual issues they personally were experiencing with Vista, as opposed to "My sister's, friend's, counsin's, brother's, barber's customer said he heard some guy who claimed to know someone who was drinking coffee at a coffee shop when Bill Gate's assistant came in, who told the barista they overheard someone in the elevator at Microsoft talking about how bad Vista was," went down significantly by the time Windows 7 rolled out.
  Vista may go down in history as the redheaded stepchild of the Windows family, but those who take an objective look will appreciate it for the important role it played in laying the foundations that Windows 7, 8, and 10 were built upon.
16. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by WaffleMonster · 2017-03-16 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  Much like how When Windows XP was released it was a hated OS with its FisherPrice Interface, All its problems from moving the Home PC to the NT
  I don't remember anyone hating Windows XP for this reason. It would be strange considering you could easily go back to spitting image of Win95 by adjusting a couple of settings in windows control panel.
  
  kernel vs the DOS based Windowed Shell that use to be Windows. When went out of support we had a bunch of lover saying why get rid of it because it is so good.
  The problem was software interoperability not a love of DOS. People just wanted their existing software to work.
  
  I would love to see what love letters are coming out from Vista (one of the most hated WIndows Versions (besides ME) to be released)
  There were a couple of real issues with Vista. It was less stable than XP at the time due to immature hardware drivers out of the gate and it used more ram than people had at the time. What people hated was waiting forever as more and more of the system was being paged out to disk. If you had XP and it worked alright for you and then went and installed Vista only to have it run like crap you would be pissed too. This quickly snowballed into "Vista sucks". On top of all that MS royally fucked up min spec for Vista so we had people buying new machines in swap hell out of the box.
17. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 04:46 · Score: 0
  
  Sure it was. Just never really pushed. I got a copy when I bought a new motherboard bundled with it.
18. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by no1nose · 2017-03-16 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  I really hope Windows 11 goes back to the Windows 7 look and feel. Otherwise I am switching to a Mac or Linux desktop. Windows 8 and 10 have terrible interfaces. Classic Shell helps a lot, but it isn't as good as an actual Windows 7 interface.
19. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 04:52 · Score: 0
  
  Partly. Vista had a 32-bit version as well, just as hated. The bigger problem is PC makers released under-powered computers as Vista capable, when they were just barely so. I bought a beefy machine about a year after Vista was released and had a great experience with it.
20. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 04:58 · Score: 0
  
  Vista at launch was slow as hell because microsoft didn't hike the minimum requirements enough for it to run decent this was never fixed they jumped to windows 7 and promptly gave up on trying to fix it.
  IME windows 7 actually runs faster than Vista on the same hardware.
  This. If you had a beefy enough machine, Vista ran great. I still use the same machine with Win10 and it's fast. Can't compare tho, because I upgraded to SSD after Vista, which didn't support them well.
21. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by jellomizer · 2017-03-16 05:00 · Score: 2
  
  Windows 2000 wasn't marketed as a Home Operating System. It was a business Workstation OS to Replace NT 4.0
  XP was marketed to Replace Windows 98 and ME. When 2000 was released a lot of people did use it for their home PC. But that wasn't MS Intent. But seeing its popularity probably urged XP development toward the NT kernel.
  But when 2000 was released when you got your standard Compaq, eMachine, Gateway 2000 or Dell PC. It came with 98 or ME standard. Unless you were going with a business account.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
22. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 05:27 · Score: 0
  
  >Hates the Windows UI
  >Threatens to switch to the even worse UI of Mac (seriously, Finder sucks and you get even less control over the system through the UI) or Linux
  Go for it, sport. You should totally do it. *snicker*
23. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 05:51 · Score: 0
  
  Windows 2000 was never released for the consumer market....
  Not quite true, it was bundled with a fair number of home machines I remember having to look at back then, and my home DAW box at the time was also a Win 2k beastie 'out of the box'..
24. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by lgw · 2017-03-16 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  Sure it was - I had it. It was the blatantly obvious better choice over the end-of-life 98/ME trash. The big problem was that it didn't support many games, as it was very early days for DirectX. I played the Hell out of Starcraft though.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
25. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by silverkniveshotmail. · 2017-03-16 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  I paid about $40 for 7, I had to provide a .edu email address but it's a full, normal license.
26. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by WheezyJoe · 2017-03-16 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  Much like how When Windows XP was released it was a hated OS with its FisherPrice Interface
  XP was hated because, when it was released, it sucked resources and it crashed. The FisherPrice Interface was collateral damage. It was hated because it ran slow on PC's that ran Windows 98 fine, and it disappointed Windows 2000 users because it ran slow and crashed where 2K ran solid.
  XP earned its love after many painful Service Packs, but not before people figured out how to write malware that ripped through XP's (and 2000's) lousy security model. I mean, NT and NTFS offered file permissions, but using them in XP to protect the OS from malware caused applications written for Win16 and Win32 (including Office) to break. So, XP was left wide open so that people's old apps would run, but just as Microsoft got the bugs squashed a malware revolution took over, every free "bubble" game and download site rife with malware to cause ads to pop up endlessly all over your screen. XP didn't turn real until SP3 came out and Firefox became a workable alternative to malware-prone IE, by which time affordable PC's finally had the 1-2 GB of RAM that XP really needed to run well.
  Vista suffered from the same "too early" problem that XP had when it was released: it ran shitty on affordable machines at the time, particularly because luckless Microsoft released Vista when tiny, underpowered subnotebooks had become a big thing. Couple that with an upgrade-or-else ad campaign, Vista generated a lot of hate from people satisfied with by-then solid-running XP. Windows 7 was basically Vista version 1.1, but when it was released, the bugs had been squashed and affordable PC's had caught up to its operating requirements. That's why 7 was embraced where Vista was despised. Vista was a victim of its timing and consumer-blind marketing. If Microsoft had waited a year for bug-testing and for hardware to catch up, Vista might have had a better day.
  
  --
  Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
27. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by UnknownSoldier · 2017-03-16 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  > Windows 2000 was never released for the consumer market.
  Incorrect for two reasons:
  * It WAS sold in consumer stores.
  * Why is DirectX 8 and 9 even available for it if it isn't a "consumer" market?
  A lot of us game devs used Windows 2000 to do game development back in ~2000, including myself. Windows 2000 was the stepping stone between Windows 98/ME and Windows XP. Windows NT 4.0 was the start of the migration path when it adopted the Win95 Shell.
28. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by UnknownSoldier · 2017-03-16 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  > Windows moved to the NT kernel with Windows 2000.
  That's misleading. The Windows 9x kernel was killed off with Windows ME.
  * Windows NT 3.1
  * Windows NT 3.5
  * Windows NT 4.0
  * Windows NT 2000
  * Windows XP
  * Windows Vista
  * Windows 7
  * Windows 8
  * Windows
  ALL of these use the NT kernel.
29. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 09:07 · Score: 0
  
  Vista only started the decline of Microsoft UIs, so it is much more usable than anything they have available now. Death of Vista is really unfortunate for my father in law, who has a memory disease and is not able to learn anything new anymore. I wonder if I have to just remove the network cable from his Vista PC so at least he can use it to play solitaire.
30. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by TangoMargarine · 2017-03-16 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  Supposedly there isn't going to be a Windows 11. Instead, 10 will turn into some sort of bastardized rolling release thing that you'll be tricked into paying for eventually. After you've gotten used to the phone-home privacy invasion and anal probes.
  
  --
  Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
31. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by luis_a_espinal · 2017-03-16 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  This is actually going to be the real problem here.
  Retiring Vista is no biggie. I don't know anyone who didn't immediately replace Vista with Seven as soon as it became available.
  * Raises hand *. Me.
  I have an old HP laptop that could not upgrade to Windows 7, and it's been running Vista since I bought it in 2008. My wife uses it for e-mail, photography, web browsing, google docs, and stuff. As it is, it is a good media consumption machine for her needs. It is also the laptop where my daughter does her computer-assigned work.
  For what it is being used, we'd never had a reason to spend money in upgrading.
  I know that this day was going to come, but it still sucks. I need to find a new laptop for her since 1) using it after the *doomsday date* will surely get compromised the moment my wife or my daughter connects to the web, and 2) not having a laptop is going to affect their day-to-day activities.
  Ugh, not the expense I was planning to do anytime soon. A few hundred bucks is still a few hundred bucks. Oh well.
32. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by david_thornley · 2017-03-16 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  When Vista came out, it was crap. It improved as time went on, and became quite usable by the time 7 came out.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
33. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 16:06 · Score: 0
  
  Same here - we have 1 laptop running Vista (only Windows system in the house, generally secure network, and it doesn't leave the house typically - IOW, security risks are minimal). We missed the upgrade to Win7 - in part b/c we had Vista Ultimate and there was no equivalent upgrade any Win7 product. However, now I'd like to swap the HDD for an SSD but Vista makes that impossible (Vista could use a flash for some things, but not the primary OS; the optimizations for that didn't hit until Win7, so if you do use an SSD with Vista you're chewing up the disk life.).
  The laptop, however, is near EOL entirely (2006/2007 purchase IIRC). It might get a new life with Linux but as it needs a new battery and only has 4 GB RAM total (max'd out) that is not likely.
  Unfortunately, I really don't want to give my wife Win10 on any new system we buy. I'd much prefer giving her Win7 but we won't likely have a choice.
34. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 18:14 · Score: 0
  
  It was called Windows 2000 Workstation. It worked great and was the best way to manage a mixed Windows NT 4.0/Windows 2000 environment. It was a good way to run AD as an admin. I know, I did it.
35. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by TheRaven64 · 2017-03-16 21:58 · Score: 1
  
  Windows 2000 was a lot more expensive than ME and only had Pro, Server, and Advanced Server variants, no Home edition. The XP Home Edition was the same price as 95/98/ME had been. A few higher-end machines and motherboards came with 2K Pro OEM edition, which was a bit cheaper than retail.
  The majority of home users of 2000 were likely to have been students. Microsoft's student licensing had a single price for an OS, which bought you either Windows 95 or NT, later Windows 2K or ME. Given the choice between 2K or ME for the same price, anyone sane would have picked 2K.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
36. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by luis_a_espinal · 2017-03-16 22:00 · Score: 1
  
  Same here - we have 1 laptop running Vista (only Windows system in the house, generally secure network, and it doesn't leave the house typically - IOW, security risks are minimal). We missed the upgrade to Win7 - in part b/c we had Vista Ultimate and there was no equivalent upgrade any Win7 product. However, now I'd like to swap the HDD for an SSD but Vista makes that impossible (Vista could use a flash for some things, but not the primary OS; the optimizations for that didn't hit until Win7, so if you do use an SSD with Vista you're chewing up the disk life.).
  The laptop, however, is near EOL entirely (2006/2007 purchase IIRC). It might get a new life with Linux but as it needs a new battery and only has 4 GB RAM total (max'd out) that is not likely.
  Unfortunately, I really don't want to give my wife Win10 on any new system we buy. I'd much prefer giving her Win7 but we won't likely have a choice.
  One option would be to find a used Win7, Win8.x laptop somewhere, and buy it for cheap. As a media consumption, it'd be perfectly fine. That's what I'm looking right now.
37. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-17 01:19 · Score: 0
  
  Why not just keep using it? Whatever has kept it safe all of this time was certainly NOT Microsoft's updates.
38. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by Wdomburg · 2017-03-17 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  Just because some vendors sold into the consumer market does not mean it was released /for/ the consumer market. I can go out and buy an F-750 as a daily driver, too, but that does not reflect on Ford's market segmentation.
  There was a consumer version planned at one point, called Microsoft Neptune, but that was canned after one alpha release.
39. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by Wdomburg · 2017-03-17 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  A workstation edition is not the same as a consumer edition. Home users had little call to run a directory server for a heterogeneous network back then.
40. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by Wdomburg · 2017-03-17 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  There is a difference between market segmentation and what retail outlets choose to carry. Microsoft's own internal roadmaps reflect that a consumer edition was planned and scrapped.
  You give one very likely explanation of why they would include DirectX in Windows 2000 (and before it Windows NT, for that matter) - as a workstation platform for developers.
41. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by Wdomburg · 2017-03-17 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  As noted in other replies, just because someone CAN be bought by a consumer (or more to the point, typically prosumers, as in the DAW market; thanks for the example) doesn't mean they were the primary market.
42. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by Opportunist · 2017-03-18 00:05 · Score: 1
  
  Let's hope the same is true for 10 when 11 is about to surface...
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
43. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by toddestan · 2017-03-18 17:54 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. It's not difficult to a keep an out of date Windows machine secure as long as you are smart about it. I've run Windows XP past the expiration date, and if you don't want Microsoft's telemetry in Windows 7/8 you've basically been running unpatched as of last October when they started the monthly update rollups.
  Otherwise, I'd try Linux.
  Besides, why won't it run a newer version of Windows? I have an old laptop running Windows 10, despite some of hardware only having Vista drivers available. I was actually a bit surprised, but the Vista drivers actually installed in Windows 10 and worked without issue. If the 64-bit version gives you grief, try the 32-bit version, which I have seen accept drivers originally written for Windows 2000.
44. Re:And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters... by toddestan · 2017-03-18 18:06 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure he meant the "Home" market. Windows 2000 was the predecessor to Windows XP Pro. Windows ME was the predecessor to Windows XP Home.
  You could certainly buy Windows 2000 and run it at home, and running Windows 2000 had huge advantages over 98/ME, unlike in XP where the Home edition is basically the same as the Pro edition except for a handful of features most home users never miss like being able to join a domain. On the other hand, Windows 2000 was expensive (most people I knew running it weren't legit) and the requirements were also much higher. If you had 64MB of ram, Windows 2000 will still run but you'd be better off sticking with 98.
If you can't say anything good about Vista... by Jhon · 2017-03-16 02:44 · Score: 1

...say nothing at all.
Let the silence begin!
1. Re:If you can't say anything good about Vista... by Opportunist · 2017-03-16 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  Well, to Vista's defense, it was equally easy to replace it with Win7 as it was to replace it with Ubuntu Linux.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
2. Re:If you can't say anything good about Vista... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 02:57 · Score: 0
  
  On the whole, Vista was buggy and forgettable.
  What's interesting, though, is that Vista is the first "modern" Windows version (Revised interface, UAC-enabled, etc.) to be put out to pasture. That's a fairly big landmark -- especially since Windows 7 (which is basically Vista "done right") is next in line but still a very dominant OS.
3. Re:If you can't say anything good about Vista... by LordWabbit2 · 2017-03-16 03:32 · Score: 2
  
  I liked Vista *ducks*
  Seriously, I liked it, where MS shot themselves in the foot was changing the driver model, most peoples biggest gripe about Vista was performance, and bad driver support. I was running it on a gaming rig, so I did not notice the performance issues, and I could understand about the lack of drivers due to the change in driver model, so I kept a VM with XP installed for the odd occasion I needed it, otherwise I made sure that any new hardware that I bought had Vista support BEFORE buying it. Actually now that I think about it, it's the only Windows OS I ever actually paid for. That being said, Windows 7 was/is much better and I doubt there are many Vista boxes around anymore (I'm sure there are some, but there can't be that many). People just like bashing shit that changes, I mean look at poor Windows 8.1, never had a chance once they changed the start menu.
  
  --
  There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
4. Re:If you can't say anything good about Vista... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 03:39 · Score: 0
  
  Vista was not good for what it was, but what it brought to the table.
  There was a whole host of under the hood improvements and core technologies that we take for granted in 7 that were originally part of windows vista. Windows 7 is pretty much vista with the really awful UI choices and end user responsiveness fixed.
  Windows Vista brought:
  Solid 64bit support - Really, it was the first time a desktop windows had solid 64 bit support and it was the foundation going forward. 64bit XP (Not talking about the itanium version) was a bastard child of server 2003 and was never well supported. You NEEDED 64 bit windows if you wanted to use more than 3.5GB of memory on a PCI express based system. - There were stories from the Crysis devs about going to 64 bit vista just so they could get a usable dev environment. Microsoft also forced vendors and game makers and driver makers to include 64 bit support in order to get a logo.
  Image based installation - Only useful if you manage a lot of windows systems for a living, but it's basically the start of the next-gen installation and imaging system that's the basis for all windows versions going forard
  Huge, huge, huge improvements in enterprise manageability. All those new useful GPOs and enterprisy things you use to make workstations configured properly and safe. All those tools started in vista.
  Which was the problem. Vista was a HUGE jump and.. Did too much. Microsoft dropped the ball in a lot of ways
  What it did wrong:
  Really, really, really, really bad end-user experience. Sluggish. Laggy. Confusing UI that moved everything around.
  SP0 was based on the XP codebase. SP1 actually re-installed the whole OS and unified the codebase with server '08 (Increasing memory requirements in the process) - This was a massive clusterfuck that was a nightmare to deal with on the end-user and IT management sides alike (And one that Microsoft did not learn with the windows 8->8.1->8.1u1 boondoggle)
  Last minute changes, broken promises about new technologies, caving to Intel on min system requirements that made essentially broken and un-usable system ship from retailers.
  Vista was really, really bad on low end systems. So bad that windows 7, a much newer OS, would run wonderfully on systems that Vista was unusable on. I remember running 7 on an atom based netbook with 2 gigs of ram. It ran GREAT.
5. Re:If you can't say anything good about Vista... by AmiMoJo · 2017-03-16 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't matter how fast your PC is, Vista will be slow on it. The delays are not because it is doing heavy processing or disk access, they are because it waits for stuff far too often. A lot of it was compatibility stuff, some dev finds that if he inserts a 5 second delay that old DLL has a chance to get going or that slow 2x CD-ROM drive has time to spin up.
  The reason Windows 7 is fast is because Microsoft used their newly developed game performance tools for the XBOX on it, and figured out which delays were causing the noticeable slowness. Some compatibility was sacrificed in the process.
  The new driver model was actually one of the best things about Vista. Instead of every crappy driver causing a blue screen, most of them were moved to user space and could no longer bring down the machine.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
6. Re:If you can't say anything good about Vista... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 07:14 · Score: 0
  
  Nonsense. Microsoft's licensing and DRM make that statement false.
7. Re: If you can't say anything good about Vista... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 09:39 · Score: 0
  
  It is patently false that 7 is intrinsically faster, Vista wakes from sleep faster, and boots cold and runs faster on laptop/desktops that sold with it.
  Win 7 runs well on win 7 or newer hardware, but I have worked on alot of HP systems that were super snappy fast with Vista installed, as a matter of fact I just bought a used laptop $30 that I intend to use for older games, it's running Vista and is as snappy and fast as my main rig which has easily 10 times the hardware.
  I just replaced this year a machine at my uncles car lot that had been running Vista since 2007 and has had zero downtime ever and was used every single day with 100 programs and 5 user accounts.
  Sounds like you are butt hurt because YOU had a bad experience on YOUR hardware.
8. Re: If you can't say anything good about Vista... by LordWabbit2 · 2017-03-16 22:22 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed.
  
  --
  There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
9. Re:If you can't say anything good about Vista... by LordWabbit2 · 2017-03-16 22:25 · Score: 1
  
  I think the change in driver model was a good move, it's just that it caused a lot of hardware to no longer work. That unfortunately could not be helped, since the onus was on third party vendors to make new drivers available (which a lot didn't do for legacy hardware). I disagree with your assessment of Vista's speed. I was running XP and / or Win 2000 (depending) at the time and Vista was more responsive than either.
  
  --
  There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
10. Re:If you can't say anything good about Vista... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-17 07:44 · Score: 0
  
  I think Vista's server version, Windows Server 2008 R1, is good as a desktop OS. Looks and acts like Win2k by default, without needing a dozen registry stabs.
  2008 R1 is incidentally the last server Windows that supports 32-bit CPUs.
taking risks by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 02:47 · Score: 0

more scare tactics from M$. I'm still running XP, with NO security problems.
1. Re:taking risks by Opportunist · 2017-03-16 02:56 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I agree, your computer looks clean.
  Though I would change that background image, every time I use it as a jump host to do my ... work I get kinda distracted by the babe.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
2. Re:taking risks by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 02:57 · Score: 0
  
  more scare tactics from M$. I'm still running XP, with NO security problems.
  Me too. In a VM, behind a firewall, when I have to.
  It was the last one I could find a keygen for.
3. Re:taking risks by Wulf2k · 2017-03-16 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  What attack surface do you imagine he's exposing that would make his choice of OS the greatest contributor to security?
4. Re: taking risks by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 03:53 · Score: 0
  
  There are robust all-version Windows 7 torrents that don't need a key and install activated. If you use an offline update downloader you can even keep it updated without it deactivating. Look at all the used Latitudes at flea markets with 7 installed.
5. Re: taking risks by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 03:58 · Score: 0
  
  Also, you can download time limited VMs of all Windows OS's directly from Microsoft for free. They're for compatibility testing. I use the Windows 10 VM so I can get onto my company VPN. It lasts for a couple of months before I need to delete it and start over again.
I Can See Clearly Now That Vista Is Gone by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 02:50 · Score: 0

I can see all obstacles in my way
Gone are the dark clouds that had me blind
It's gonna be a bright, bright, bright
Sun shiny day!
I think I can make it now the pain is gone
All of the bad feelings have disappeared
Here is the rainbow I've been praying for
It's gonna be a bright, bright, bright
Sun shiny day!
Boston at least and the plane's touching down
Look all around there's nothing but blue skies
Look straight ahead nothing but blue skies
Obligatory by n4f · 2017-03-16 02:52 · Score: 2

... and nothing of value was lost.
1. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  also, obligatory XKCD
More secure than Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 02:52 · Score: 5, Funny

It was more secure than Linux. Literally every time I tried anything on the standard Vista install on my brand new Dell, it froze or crash. No way an attacker could take that over.
1. Re:More secure than Linux by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2017-03-16 02:58 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  It was more secure than Linux. Literally every time I tried anything on the standard Vista install on my brand new Dell, it froze or crash. No way an attacker could take that over.
  Ahh security through inoperability.
  
  --
  Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
2. Re:More secure than Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 03:24 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry. Another post suggests saying nothing. And the poster is right, but I couldn't resist. I was very sceptical about Vista when it came out. 15-20 years of empty promises made me wonder why Vista would suddenly be the saviour of us all. When I got my new PC it had Vista on it. It looked really slick so I thought let's give it a chance.
  That was until I tried to use it for stuff. Anything. Games really either crashed or froze the system solid. Ditto for most things. And I did not mess with the system apart from installing these games. So I went back to XP.
  Fortunately Linux was my main OS by then so it was no great loss. Not that I think Linux is all that wonderful either. What disappoints me most about Linux is lost opportunities. But that is a rant for another day :).
3. Re:More secure than Linux by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2017-03-16 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  We never did get the SQL Based File System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  
  --
  Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
4. Re:More secure than Linux by Khyber · 2017-03-16 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  A database-based file system? Funny, KirbyCMS went without a database and uses the pure file system for RAW PERFORMANCE.
  Who the fuck would add a secondary layer to make shit run slower? (Besides Oracle?)
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
5. Re:More secure than Linux by darkain · 2017-03-16 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  As a user of Adobe's Lightroom and someone who wanted WinFS, this actually makes me quite sad that nothing like it ever came to be system-wide. Lightroom is basically what WinFS was trying to be, it uses a Sqlite database to tag metadata to photos, but it is just a proprietary solution just for images and nothing more.
6. Re:More secure than Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 05:52 · Score: 0
  
  You joke, but a friend of mine in college ran Windows 95 on a PC and used it for sharing the Internet connection. A ping of death would cause the OS to blue screen. The network card still forwarded packets with the BSOD so whenever he turned on the computer he would ping it, causing the BSOD to keep people from using his computer.
7. Re:More secure than Linux by ausekilis · 2017-03-16 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  I have my own Vista anecdote that isn't too far off... One time I signed on and got the following (almost) infinite loop:
  1) Login
  2) (unresponsive for ~5 minutes)
  3) Dialog pops up with "The following program is forcing explorer to crash: explorer.exe. Do you wish to restart it?"
  4) Click okay
  4) GOTO 2
  It was a Toshiba laptop, so that could also be the reason...
8. Re:More secure than Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 08:17 · Score: 0
  
  Umm you may not remember, but MS courted a LOT of open source employees to develop Vista. It has Linux written all over it, especially in how its file trees were laid out, obligatory user accounts under a main, warning/overrides for security, etc. Vista was Linux with MS code.
  So yes it was 'better' than any previous version of limux distros because it practically WAS the next Linux distro- and by default would be the latest & greatest. Naturally, it therefore was eclipsed by another generation of Linux, and so on...
9. Re:More secure than Linux by TangoMargarine · 2017-03-16 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  Still nothing compared to our ME machine. Whenever it didn't shut down properly you'd get ScanDisk which would run the next time you booted it up. But if you let ScanDisk run past 10% completion or so, it would just hang. So of course you powercycled it, which would result in a dirty shutdown...then next time you hit Cancel before the progress bar got too far.
  In a few instances it actually booted directly to a BSOD. Impressive.
  
  --
  Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
10. Re:More secure than Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 17:10 · Score: 0
  
  Not necessarily. I use a database to hold metadata and the data itself (photos, document scans, text documents, spreadsheets, postscript markups, you name it - if it's got a MIMEtype, it's in there) is held in blobs on a flat filesystem spanning several tens of Terabytes. If I need to find a specific version of a specific file like YESTERDAY, I refer to the database, enter a freeform text search string, and I pretty much INSTANTLY get what I'm looking for. As opposed to poring through a hierarchical tree of folders only to find myself in the wrong place and having to manually navigate my way around...
Speaking of risk by thegarbz · 2017-03-16 02:57 · Score: 1

I just heard today from a control system vendor in a passing conversation that they expect to exhaust their Windows 7 licenses sometime mid year given how pre-installed sales were ended last year.
If their goal was to get a sudden surge in sales it worked. We're trying to buy up a few new operator stations for a very large chemical plant before the only thing left with which we can control the plant is ... Windows 10.
1. Re:Speaking of risk by MightyMartian · 2017-03-16 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  Apart from refurbs, it's getting harder to buy machines with Windows 7 on them. We saw the writing on the wall last year, and, with a great deal of trepidation and no small amount of regret, bumped up to Win10. While Windows 10 does run better on older hardware (we've got eight year old Dell towers with 2gb to 3gb of RAM which run it fine), I still simply do not like Windows 10 at all. But seeing as we are in an Office/Backoffice ecosystem there doesn't seem to be any real escape.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
2. Re:Speaking of risk by thegarbz · 2017-03-16 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  it's getting harder to buy machines with Windows 7 on them
  As of October 2016 Windows 7 (all versions) preloads were withdrawn from sales. If you're buying a Windows 7 machine now it's either a large reseller with existing licenses, or (not all that unlikely) it comes pre-loaded with a pirate copy.
  I actually like Windows 10 as a desktop, it just doesn't have any upside and a hell of a lot of downsides on industrial equipment.
3. Re:Speaking of risk by Waffle+Iron · 2017-03-16 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  We're trying to buy up a few new operator stations for a very large chemical plant before the only thing left with which we can control the plant is ... Windows 10.
  You should make the migration now. Then you would get informative pop-ups that could help you improve your manufacturing process:
  
  It looks like you're synthesizing "polycaprolactone". Users of that compound were also interested in: polybutadiene, polymer initiators, reaction vessels, and industrial tubing. Click [here] to shop now.
4. Re:Speaking of risk by thegarbz · 2017-03-16 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  I'm more worried about:
  Click here and pay 100BTC to not send your entire control system code to Bayer.
5. Re:Speaking of risk by Billly+Gates · 2017-03-16 12:57 · Score: 1
  
  You have to switch to 10 anyway. Perhaps your IT department should be spending this time preparing for a migration strategy instead of panicking and waiting until the last minute.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
6. Re:Speaking of risk by Billly+Gates · 2017-03-16 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  Did any IT department learned any lessons from XP?
  The Enterprise edition has no spyware and is a lot more secure and quicker with SMB file sharing than 7. Go make a GPO with custom looks if you don't like UI?
  This can go very smooth if you plan and migrate and not be that costly if you start TODAY. A large enterprise should take a year to gradually migrate with little additional costs compared to wait and hire ontractors and 3rd party PM's
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
7. Re:Speaking of risk by Billly+Gates · 2017-03-16 13:06 · Score: 1
  
  What downsides? Yes the upside is you are compliant now for security and insurance purposes. Machines break man. That is life. You can't keep expecting them and PCs to work forever.
  Reminds me of stories about a VP freaking out that the IBM 1981 hard disk went out on that mission critical machine or that 1978 digital PDP robot failing. The tech almost gets a write-up and raises hell that these things need to be upgraded !
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
8. Re:Speaking of risk by thegarbz · 2017-03-17 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  Err PCs breaking had nothing to do with anything. Windows licenses are transferable. The only issue is vendor support and that won't change in the next 5 years for the equipment we have. We will be compliant until then. As for insurance, well if they don't complain about the ancient videospec system that predates the pc running in one side of the plant they won't complain about Windows 7 either.
  Downsides? Lack of a proven reliability track record and the shortest period to market from vendors for any major OS change. Reduction in configurability, and I'm sure there's others i need a coffee first.
9. Re:Speaking of risk by thegarbz · 2017-03-17 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  If samba file sharing is a critical feature of an industrial control system... You're doing it wrong. Actually if IT are touching it you're doing it wrong too.
  These things don't come with enterprise licenses.
10. Re:Speaking of risk by thegarbz · 2017-03-17 01:03 · Score: 1
  
  We don't have a choice and the IT department doesn't get a say.
  But I'll let you come up with a business case for our management. I'll put some figures in to get you started:
  1. Upgrade 6 control stations with Windows 10 and current vendor: $90k, 2 weeks
  2. Migrate away: $30m 5 years.
11. Re:Speaking of risk by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-17 06:36 · Score: 0
  
  For security purposes all machines must be audited by an insurance or credit card company in an office building to make sure they PCI meaning up to date with lockdown procedures.
  This means yes you need to keep your OS secure and up to date.
12. Re:Speaking of risk by thegarbz · 2017-03-17 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  WTF does this have to do with an industrial control system.
Oblig by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 02:57 · Score: 2, Funny

Hasta la Vista, Baby!
What bugs? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 03:00 · Score: 0

It worked fine for me. I never had to reinstall in 8 years. Any crashes were application related.
1. Re:What bugs? by toddestan · 2017-03-18 18:21 · Score: 1
  
  The biggest "bug" I can think of is the whole Superfetch algorithm is way too aggressive. It's not technically a bug - it's likely working as designed, but it's also responsible for a lot of the performance complaints in Vista. Microsoft turned it way down in Windows 7, and could have pushed out a patch to Vista to do the same, but never did.
  The other big bug is Windows Explorer will randomly hang and shit itself, but it does the same thing in Windows 7.
  I guess the other bug is the 497 day bug, which kills the network stack after 497 days of uptime (for reasons much like the 49.7 day bug in Windows 95), forcing a reboot. I've actually hit that one in Vista - yes, my all time personal Windows uptime record is currently held by a Vista box.
You missed the point. It's about relativity. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 03:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

What you're ignoring is that everything is temporally relative. When you factor that in, there's perfect consistency between what people said when Windows XP was first released, and when support for it was terminated.
In the early days of Windows XP, it was being compared against Windows 98 and Windows 2000. Yes, it did have a childish and inferior default UI relative to what it was being compared against, and people disliked it for that reason. But when support for it was ended some years later, it wasn't being compared against its predecessors. It was being compared against its successor, Windows Vista. Compared to the debacle that Vista was, XP looked amazing.
Windows isn't the only software to exhibit this pattern. Look at Firefox. When Firefox 4 was released, there was almost universal displeasure with the UI changes that had been made relative to Firefox 3.6. But then a few years later the Australis changes to Firefox's UI were released, which were even more disliked. People wished for the return of the earlier UI, not because they liked it, but just because it wasn't as awful as the latest version.
It's a simple ordering, really. For example, Firefox 52's UI is worse than Firefox 4's UI, which in turn is worse than Firefox 3.6's UI. People hate Firefox 4's UI when compared to the much better Firefox 3.6 UI, but they love it when compared to the much worse Firefox 52 UI. The sentiment all depends on the two versions being compared.
It's the same for Windows. XP's UI is inferior compared to Windows 98's and Windows 2000's. But it's much better than Windows Vista's.
1. Re:You missed the point. It's about relativity. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 03:17 · Score: 0
  
  I liked Windows XP's UI. It gave me the possibility to switch it to classic mode and get back the screen area that the new look stole.
  When support for Windows 7 ends there will be a whole other problem since there is the whole "rent a OS" thing going on with Windows 10.
2. Re: You missed the point. It's about relativity. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 03:47 · Score: 0
  
  I predict there may be enough market for third party support to continue for Windows 7. Or soon enough, perimeter control support to render Windows 7 long term durable.
3. Re:You missed the point. It's about relativity. by EndlessNameless · 2017-03-16 04:05 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I sincerely doubt the UIs are getting worse year after year. If that were the case, we would have unusable devices by now.
  What is really happening is that people are resisting change. The new thing is different---unfamiliar and possibly confusing. That doesn't mean it's worse, but it does mean people will react negatively.
  A good UI is difficult. It needs to meet a lot of goals:
  *It must expose typical functions with a minimal number of key presses or mouse clicks, yet not overwhelm the user with too many options or unclear organization.
  *It should be reasonably configurable, yet it should be consistent enough that developers can rely on some essential elements.
  *It should be simple enough for a basic user to grasp intuitively, but it must accommodate a wide range of users and tasks.
  Each of those goals is a balancing act, and any change pushes that balance in a way that demands adaptation from either users, administrators, or developers. Of course people are going to be upset.
  The initial round of upset, ranting, and whining is virtually irrelevant. If complaints remain after sustained use of the new UI, then it's time to reevaluate. The real measure of a UI is how upset people are when it comes vs when it goes.
  
  --
  
  ---
  According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
4. Re:You missed the point. It's about relativity. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  It's not about disliking change. People are perfectly fine with good change. We just haven't seen much of that at all lately.
  That's because UI designs had pretty much been perfected by 2000. The UI of Windows 2000 was clean, it was consistent, it was intuitive, and it was easy to use.
  Just about every UI change since then has been a huge regression. When something is nearly perfect it's hard to make it better, but it's very easy to totally ruin it.
  The Gedit text editor is one of the best examples of how once-sensible UIs have gone to hell.
  This is what Gedit used to look like, and this is Gedit's newer UI.
  The earlier UI has sensible menus and toolbars. It makes efficient use of the space that's provided. It's an efficient UI to learn and to use.
  The newer UI is totally inconsistent. The menus and toolbar have been mashed together in an unusable mess. It's hard to tell what's a tab, what's a button, what can be clicked, and what might happen when something is clicked. Overall, it's a real disaster.
  And the Gedit UI disaster is similar to what we're seeing across the board. Sensible UI conventions that had years of study, thought and evaluation put into them were thrown away for no good reason at all. This is affecting closed source software, open source software, and web design.
  Newer UIs are subjectively and objectively worse than older UI designs.
5. Re:You missed the point. It's about relativity. by iampiti · 2017-03-16 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  Of course making UIs is a balancing act. I'm with you there. The problem is. IMO, that recently UIs have swinged too much towards being good for touch use. That makes some sense since mobile is where the growth is but such an UI is problematic in certaing settings. e.g.: Windows 10. We know that Microsoft wanted to make it suitable for tablets and convertible devices but Windows is still used by a lot of people (I'd wager a big majority) with a keyboard and mouse. You can certainly use a touch oriented UI with a mouse but a lot of real estate is wasted by making the targets big enough for touch use.
  That's one of the reasons I hate Win 10 so much. And Microsoft have stated its UI will change more and more towards a touch one. All I want is a checkbox that lets me use the UI of 7 ...but no, that would be way too respectul for users.
6. Re:You missed the point. It's about relativity. by UnknowingFool · 2017-03-16 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  With Vista it wasn't just UI changes. Like most new versions of Windows, Vista had problems during the initial release with stability and driver support, etc. However, Vista development was troubled. Most companies didn't release new drivers partly because they didn't think MS would release it on time. Also the drivers infrastructure was so new.
  Adding to Vista's problems was the artificially lowering of hardware requirements so that the lowest computer models could advertise that they were Vista Capable* (*meaning they could only run Vista Home Basic only) and more expensive models were Vista Ready. This led to consumer confusion with even a MS VP complaining that he had purchased a "$2,000 email machine" not knowing it could not really run Vista.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
7. Re:You missed the point. It's about relativity. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 05:49 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think your comments about UI are accurate. I remember when Windows XP first came out and almost everyone seemed to think the UI was much improved over Windows 98/2000. There was a vocal minority of power users who didn't like the change, but the XP UI was better in almost every aspect to those that came before.
  Same goes with most interfaces. Applications like Firefox or Unity or Windows are not necessarily getting worse with each year, some people just hate change and cling to whatever they are accustomed to using.
8. Re:You missed the point. It's about relativity. by swm · 2017-03-16 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  I sincerely doubt the UIs are getting worse year after year. If that were the case, we would have unusable devices by now.
  Star Trek Actor's Death Inspires Class Action Against Car Manufacturer
  
  Anton Yelchin, who played Chekov in the new Star Trek movies, was killed Sunday when his own vehicle rolled backwards.
  It has recently emerged that his vehicle was a Jeep. As discussed on Slashdot previously consumers are having a hard time knowing if the vehicle is in "Park."
  Jeep/Chrysler's New Gearshift Appears To Be Causing Accidents
  
  The new gearshift design for the Jeep Grand Cherokee appears to be causing rollaway accidents: 121 crashes and 30 injuries so far. The gear shifter is designed to look and feel similar to a traditional automatic gear shift lever but it is meant to cycle through the gears rather than move directly to a certain gear. A driver who is used to placing their vehicle in park by pressing the shifter all the way forward may instead be setting it to neutral before exiting the vehicle. The NHTSA is investigating.
  I'm going to call this an unusable device.
9. Re:You missed the point. It's about relativity. by lgw · 2017-03-16 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  I sincerely doubt the UIs are getting worse year after year. If that were the case, we would have unusable devices by now.
  I couldn't use Windows 8 until I found classic shell. I seriously could discover how to do anything as far as box admin. BUt in think geek consensus is that 10 is better than 8, just still (much) worse than 7.
  
  A good UI is difficult. It needs to meet a lot of goals:
  But we had UIs that met those goals, and lost them due to "designers" seeking fashion over function. Heck, just last month some update pushed to my Android moved its UI from tolerable to unusable. I now cant guess what the icons on the lock screen mean, and I cant read the light-grey-on-white alerts screen. Can we just kill all the "designers" and start over?
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
10. Re:You missed the point. It's about relativity. by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2017-03-16 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  I sincerely doubt the UIs are getting worse year after year. If that were the case, we would have unusable devices by now.
  Lately, we are sometimes coming awfully close to that. The lack of affordances in modern flat, touch-friendly, most-things-hidden UIs is horrible for usability compared to the explicit menus and toolbars and consistent conventions we had before. The things some UI designers seem to think people understand or want and the comments you hear and behaviour you see if you observe real users trying to operate the UI seem to be in different universes at times.
  
  What is really happening is that people are resisting change.
  That is also true, but there is a good reason for that. In most cases, UIs are not starting from a blank slate. If you take two UIs for something that the user has never done before, maybe one of them will work a bit better than the other one. But if you take those exact same UIs for something the user has done before but only using one of them, the other one needs to be much better to be worth the time and effort to learn it given that the user could already do what they needed to.
  Also, obviously not all change is necessarily good change, and bad changes will naturally be resisted.
  
  --
  If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
11. Re:You missed the point. It's about relativity. by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2017-03-16 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Can we just kill all the "designers" and start over?
  Or just hire some real ones. I'm sure they can afford it, and it's not like no-one in the design industry has criticised the modern generation of UIs for the same reasons many of us are here.
  
  --
  If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
12. Re:You missed the point. It's about relativity. by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2017-03-16 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  IMO, that recently UIs have swinged too much towards being good for touch use.
  I agree with almost everything you wrote, but I think the above overlooks the real problem, which is that it is almost impossible to design a good UI for some tasks when you're constraining yourself to what works on small touchscreen devices. You can do OK if your presentation and interaction requirements are simple, and that's where those kinds of devices are useful: share a photo, write a short message, log a site visit. However, for more complicated systems, we have big screens with multiple information displays and space for direct controls, and we have keyboards and mice for relatively fast and precise input. Asking a UI designer to ignore all of that is like giving a painter nothing but thick, black paint and an inch-wide brush that they can only hold at the other end of its foot-long stem, and then asking them to create the next Mona Lisa.
  
  --
  If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
13. Re:You missed the point. It's about relativity. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 06:44 · Score: 0
  
  Use Windows 7 for a month, then try Windows 10. Change for the sake of change to call it something new.
  Windows 7 UI on a desktop is quite hard to improve on because its so damn good in the first place.
  Vista, funny that should come up, just logged into a Server 2008 (not R2) box (which is the "Vista" version of Server) and its amazing how light and snappy the UI is.
14. Re:You missed the point. It's about relativity. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 07:47 · Score: 0
  
  I really hate the "resisting change" comment ... its not about resisting, its about not needing it !
  I haven't really changed the way I use a PC since windows 7 (since win XP even!) ... I code web-pages, surf the web, configure IOT devices, watch movies... that's about it, WIN7 works just perfectly for that, why do I need to change it ? there is absolutely nothing new in modern OS's that interests me, so why should I change ?
  the same phenomenon is starting to happen with cars now, vehicles are starting to last longer and longer, and there is just so many features you can have in a car, and most cars have them now, so why change it in 5, 8 , 10 years ? when you can just put a small amount of money to keep it running and it will easily last 15 years if not more !
15. Re:You missed the point. It's about relativity. by jwhyche · 2017-03-16 08:03 · Score: 2
  
  When support for Windows 7 ends there will be a whole other problem since there is the whole "rent a OS" thing going on with Windows 10
  I've been wondering about this "rent a OS" thing myself. I've been running windows 10 for almost two years, on several machines. I have yet to have it stick out a change pan.
  Personally, I would rather pay a reasonable fee every year than get hit with a enormous upgrade cost every 4 years. I would rather have a gradual change over a period of time instead of huge change with a reinstall every few years.
  
  --
  I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
16. Re:You missed the point. It's about relativity. by iampiti · 2017-03-16 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, I think it's impossible to design an UI that works well for both touch and mouse and that's why my proposal for this kinds of situations would be to make 2 different UIs, one for every input method and make them the best they can be for the input method. Microsoft clearly disagrees and so we get the lowest common denominator
17. Re:You missed the point. It's about relativity. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 08:25 · Score: 0
  
  >What is really happening is that people are resisting change. The new thing is different---unfamiliar and possibly confusing. That doesn't mean it's worse, but it does mean people will react negatively.
  EndlessNameless, really this is an old trope. People sure did adapt to 'swiping' on touch tablets easily & no one ever complained about bringing back the previous menu/touch selections of PalmPilots and Handsprings, etc.
  When a design is good people will say "Ahh finally!". When a design is bad people will say "Yuk why did they change what was working?". And the SMART designer will bring the previous working way back. This is not 'resistance to change' or negative association out of tradition's sake. And labeling fans of the working system as old timers or something is really putting useability back.
  I mean they've tried to reinvent how to handle & drive a car many times. From stick levers, to joysticks, to pilot styled controls, to even foot pedals only. The steering wheel works. (baring physical handicaps of course, which a lot of these experiemnts were trying to solve).
18. Re:You missed the point. It's about relativity. by Killall+-9+Bash · 2017-03-16 08:48 · Score: 2
  
  I sincerely doubt the UIs are getting worse year after year. If that were the case, we would have unusable devices by now. What is really happening is that people are resisting change. The new thing is different---unfamiliar and possibly confusing. That doesn't mean it's worse, but it does mean people will react negatively.
  I highly suspect you of being a microsoft employee.
  
  No, really. This is what they believe is going on in people's heads.
  
  YES, the windows UI has been getting worse over time. 98 was an improvement over 95, and 2K was an improvement over 98, but it's all downhill from there.
  
  That being said, the CORE of the operating system has gotten consistently better, with caveats. Vista was more stable, but fucked gaming performance, and performance overall (my HDD light stayed on so constantly I'm surprised it didn't burn out).
  
  Windows 7, our favorite fucking hero, was an unplanned response to Vista hate. It was basically a fixed version of Vista. Vista SP3. UI was good, but bloated, slow, and candy-coated compared to XP.
  
  Windows 8-- more improvements to the core, which users don't see or care about.... and more dookie UI choices. And how many users got tricked into updating to 8.1 by hearing the rumor that 8.1 "fixed" the start menu...?
  
  Windows 10: This is the Idiocracy version of Vista. Shit performance, it spies on you, and puts ads in the start menu. Installs updates whenever it wants (often when you're working).
  
  --
  "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
19. Re:You missed the point. It's about relativity. by TangoMargarine · 2017-03-16 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with almost everything you wrote, but I think the above overlooks the real problem, which is that it is almost impossible to design a good UI for some tasks when you're constraining yourself to what works on small touchscreen devices.
  I wish somebody would go give Microsoft and Mozilla noogies (substitute knee to the groin for larger values of disapproval) until they agreed to stop fucking around with their perfectly alright UIs.
  Software projects seem universally doomed to achieve all their major goals, then suddenly realize they don't have an excuse to continue development and start fixing things that aren't broken.
  
  --
  Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
20. Re:You missed the point. It's about relativity. by thegarbz · 2017-03-16 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  *It must expose typical functions with a minimal number of key presses or mouse clicks, yet not overwhelm the user with too many options or unclear organization
  This part of a UI change is almost self defeating. A lot of "too many / unclear options" are not considered too many or unclear by veterans who have used the software for years. A UI change that therefore makes the software much more accessible to new consumers or a wider audience therefor appears as a jaring stupidification by the existing users. i.e. All new UI = bad.
21. Re:You missed the point. It's about relativity. by citylivin · 2017-03-16 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  "What is really happening is that people are resisting change."
  No, whats happening is that UI's are all being dumbed down for fucking phones. And more so, all new interfaces are designed first and formost for the web and fucking phones. (look at the new v centre for instance, where it was perfectly acceptable to have a thick client and that really didn't bother anyone. But no, vmware wants more people using their shitty unfinished web interfaces, so they obsolete the client thats better, and you got no choice but to comply)
  If "the future" is every software being firstly designed for smartphones, which track you, market to you, cost and cost more, and allow features to be changed, or outright switched off at developers wills and whims - your damn right I will resist that!
  Flat design, with its lack of proper definitions between elements, elements that change and display differently based on context, are even more infuriating as my eyes and brain get worse with age.
  Win2k will always be the best OS microsoft ever did. Embracing new for the sake of it being new is only for fanbois and early adopters, both classes of people whom I abhor and always have. Most people just want a tool that works, and stays working. Designer trends are the opposite of what software UI design should be focusing on. It should be universal accessibility and tried and true menus and interfaces. Instead we get "the pretty" and designers fucking up everything with the embrace of the latest fads.
  
  --
  As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
22. Re:You missed the point. It's about relativity. by Teckla · 2017-03-16 11:03 · Score: 2
  
  Personally, I would rather pay a reasonable fee every year than get hit with a enormous upgrade cost every 4 years.
  Windows 10 (retail version) costs about $130. Over 4 years, that works out to $2.71 per month. Maybe you can just drop $3 in your piggy bank the 1st of each month, to help soften the terrible economic blow.
  I'd leave Windows if it went to a rental-only model. (For what it's worth, I'm only on Windows because...games. Otherwise, I'd be just as happy on macOS or desktop Linux.)
23. Re:You missed the point. It's about relativity. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 14:56 · Score: 0
  
  I just swapped the gas and brake pedals in your car, and moved the clutch to the center of the dashboard.
  Stop resisting change! It may be unfamiliar but that doesn't mean it's worse!
24. Re:You missed the point. It's about relativity. by TheRaven64 · 2017-03-16 21:50 · Score: 1
  
  I think I'd rather pay them a $2/month subscription for security updates, so that they have a revenue stream for keeping the old version supported, rather than requiring them to push new stuff out to keep their income.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
25. Re:You missed the point. It's about relativity. by TheRaven64 · 2017-03-16 21:54 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that the term 'designer' has been subverted to mean 'failed artist', rather than 'person who has studied human-machine interaction and has a solid background in cognitive psychology'. It's often easy to spot the bad ones, because they self-identify as UX people, rather than HCI people. They're far more concerned about making something distinctive than making something useful. Part of the problem is that users rarely notice when they're using a good UI, but they immediately notice a bad one.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
26. Re:You missed the point. It's about relativity. by Teckla · 2017-03-17 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  I think I'd rather pay them a $2/month subscription for security updates, so that they have a revenue stream for keeping the old version supported, rather than requiring them to push new stuff out to keep their income.
  How come?
27. Re:You missed the point. It's about relativity. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-17 15:01 · Score: 0
  
  I'd rather Microsoft start pulling their own weight. They are charging users money to provide them with free QA, to harvest their data and to thrust ads in their faces. Microsoft needs to get a CEO in place who understand what it means to be a responsible adult.
  Rehire the QA team, remove all spyware and ads. Give users control over their updates and computers in general again. Microsoft was started by Bill Gates because he enjoyed tinkering with computers, writing software and controlling them, so why is Microsoft trying to take away that same control now? Don't they want to encourage learning and education? Don't they respect their own founder?
next up on the chopping block by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 03:03 · Score: 0

Windows 7, you're next,
We're still trying to get our users off XP by jfdavis668 · 2017-03-16 03:10 · Score: 1

Only one of our user groups is running Vista, don't even know why. We have quite a few running XP. Most have 7, some finally moving to Windows 10. Don't remember any of them using 8 or 8.1. It is very hard to get businesses to change once they get everything working.
1. Re:We're still trying to get our users off XP by kevinT · 2017-03-16 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  I saw a recent article about the United States Navy spending MILLIONS of dollars for Microsoft XP support. Sad and most likely a waste of money, but they (the Navy) have applications that will not run on anything else and instead of spending the Millions of dollars to rewrite or replace, they spend Millions of dollars getting XP support.
  Sigh - government contracts make me cry
2. Re:We're still trying to get our users off XP by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  I wish Microsoft would keep support for XP and Vista, it'd make my job easier. We have quite a few computers that live off the net and run XP software to get things done. Windows 7 will see it's support end in 2020 but I expect to see it used beyond that time as well. People will claim that XP, Vista, and 7 were superseded by Windows 8 and 10 but backward compatibility only goes so far. We've got a lot of computer equipment around here that's more than ten years old, and so long as it keeps running we shouldn't have to replace it just because Microsoft tells us to.
  Perhaps I'm not up on all the legalese here but I'm pretty sure that our license agreement with Microsoft will not allow us to keep running old versions of their OS past their expire date. Someone might claim that Microsoft gains nothing from keeping support on old OSes if we've already got a site license. I'll counter with this, if we have to pay to replace working computers just because it does not please the Microsoft royalty then we may simply decide to no longer pay our vigorish to them. We are a Microsoft shop here but that can change if Microsoft makes it more trouble than its worth.
  We've been slowly updating desktop systems from XP and 7 to 10, and servers from 2003 to 2012, but there was nothing really wrong with most of them. This is doubly so for the servers which were made virtual some time ago. Upgrading the hardware on a virtual server, without having to change the VM OS, is one of the big reasons to run virtual servers. If Microsoft demands we do an upgrade, and charge us money for this "privilege" then it becomes much easier to make a switch to a different OS and tell Microsoft to take a hike.
  This may explain why Microsoft wants to offer software as a service but that doesn't work for us. We keep systems separate from the internet for security reasons. If Microsoft cannot provide an OS and/of office productivity suite that can operate while disconnected from the internet then it becomes easier to switch all of our computers, including the ones that are on the internet, to a different OS.
3. Re:We're still trying to get our users off XP by UnknownSoldier · 2017-03-16 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  > but I'm pretty sure that our license agreement with Microsoft will not allow us to keep running old versions of their OS past their expire date.
  Why do you allow yourself to be held hostage by Microsoft ??
  I don't see anything in the Windows 7 Terms of Service PDF that says anything about not running after the expiration date. Just that _support_ is terminated.
4. Re:We're still trying to get our users off XP by Billly+Gates · 2017-03-16 13:09 · Score: 1
  
  That's because they use IE 7 and hired an Indian contractor to writethe software with quirks in all just to get the CSS to work. The thought process was it was more future proof being web based
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
Windows 8.1 good through 2023 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 03:14 · Score: 0

I have a full 6 years of security updates remaining before I butt out of the Windows ecosystem for good. captcha: demerit
The Sky Is Falling! by kackle · 2017-03-16 03:21 · Score: 1, Insightful

Still on XP at home and haven't had malware after 15 years without antivirus software... Of course, I block web ads and know not to click on email linkies. (And, my 11-year old XP machine at work out-boots the modern Windows 7 laptop sitting next to it. Sigh.)
1. Re:The Sky Is Falling! by darkain · 2017-03-16 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  Serious question: How do you KNOW you don't have malware? Modern malware is designed to be invisible, not the virus style of the '90s that would pop up a skull and cross bones telling you "OMGZ UR H@X0R3D"
2. Re:The Sky Is Falling! by Desler · 2017-03-16 05:33 · Score: 0
  
  Of course, I block web ads and know not to click on email linkies.
  
  How cute. You think you have to actually click stuff to get malware infections.
3. Re:The Sky Is Falling! by lgw · 2017-03-16 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  No, he did say he blocked web ads, which is 95% or so of the attack surface these days.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
4. Re:The Sky Is Falling! by thegarbz · 2017-03-16 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  Modern malware is designed to be invisible
  Modern malware is designed to be invisible yet not ineffective. It must show up somewhere or it will have no effect. The last time our house had malware I was informed by my ISP. The time before that by poor network performance. Ransomware by its nature will show up front and centre. Background mining will grind your computer or decimate your battery life (if on mobile). In the good old days of email viruses your friends will start shouting at you to stop spamming them. But it was nothing compared to the good old add another bar to your browser days.
  There are very few if any malware that remain completely undetected. The few that are lie dormant waiting for a C&C signal to do something, and then you have a window in which you may notice a problem.
  Malware is designed to do stuff. Stuff doesn't go unnoticed.
Blah by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 03:32 · Score: 0

Unsupported Windows is just as secure as supported Windows. That is, not at all.
If you're not a gamer, and don't want to upgrade to a *nix, then there is really no reason to upgrade your Vista. Just be sure to practice safe browsing practices. (Adblock/noscript/keep software updated.)
Goodbye, Vista... *sniff* by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-03-16 03:33 · Score: 1

Windows Vista wasn't a bad OS if you threw adequate hardware at it. When I decided to upgrade from Windows XP, I built a new AMD system with a Vista-compatible motherboard, quad-core processor and 4GB. I've never had a problem running Vista, 7, 8 and 10 for nine years. I retire that motherboard combo last year for a newer Windows 7-compatible motherboard, eight-core processor and 8GB.
1. Re:Goodbye, Vista... *sniff* by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  I usually turned off the prefetcher, sysindexer, and security esentials on vista as those are what made it run like crap. They mostly had it fixed by the time 7 came out so I could leave them alone. 7 finished fixing what they had broken.
  There is little difference between vista and 7. 7 is basically vista sp2. Even version number wise win7 is 6.1.
2. Re:Goodbye, Vista... *sniff* by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 07:40 · Score: 0
  
  "Windows Vista wasn't a bad OS if you threw adequate hardware at it."
  If that is your metric for a "not bad" OS then what does a "bad" OS look like? It should not take a computer with a quad core processor and 4GB of RAM to surf the web but that is what seems to be the case with any Windows OS beyond XP. Any other OS made in the last 15 years seems to be able to do fine with a dual core processor and 1.5GB of RAM for web browsing except Windows.
  I'm forced to use Windows at work and university because people can't seem to write proper web based code. I thought the whole point of using web based apps was that the OS should not matter. Instead I have to deal with a bloated Windows OS, as do the people I support at work. I guess I can't complain too much, I was hired because computer support tasked got to be more than one guy could handle. If it wasn't for this company imposing Microsoft on everyone I might still be looking for work.
  Last semester I was able to get away with running Ubuntu on my laptop and get stuff done. Now I have to run Windows only software and, on the same hardware, web browsing has become slow and difficult. I'm no dummy when it comes to computers so I fixed what I could to speed things up. My brother, who has been using Windows more than me, tried to optimize things further when I mentioned my problems when he came to visit me. I'd like to revert to Windows XP, which is what that laptop came with, but the software I need won't run under that OS.
  One might say that it's just time for me to buy a new laptop, which I might agree with. I've owned three different Apple laptops and four different Windows laptops (roughly alternating between the two OSes through the years) and my recent troubles with Windows being so slow reminded me why I bought the Apples to begin with. The university charges a "Microsoft tax" and offers "free" downloads of Microsoft products for students. This should allow me to buy a new Apple laptop and still run the Windows stuff in a virtual machine when its required. Once I graduate the license for those Microsoft products becomes void and, legally speaking, I can't run it any more. I don't think I'll miss it though.
  I've been getting a lot of years out of my hardware. I've been getting five or six years out of a computer before I feel a need to "retire" a laptop to secondary duties. The problem has been mostly the battery won't hold a charge and that makes a good excuse to get a faster computer. This time though it seems I'll have to retire my laptop early because it's getting real hard to get work done. Certainly a new Windows laptop would fix my current problems but Microsoft has been abusing me and my hardware for years, why should I give them more of my money so they can abuse me longer?
3. Re:Goodbye, Vista... *sniff* by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-03-16 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  If that is your metric for a "not bad" OS then what does a "bad" OS look like?
  Running the OS on minimum hardware spec and then discovering that it runs slow with Minesweeper. Minimum hardware spec is a marketing department lie. Always go for the recommended hardware spec or better.
  
  Any other OS made in the last 15 years seems to be able to do fine with a dual core processor and 1.5GB of RAM for web browsing except Windows.
  Hardware is cheap. Live a little. I got a new motherboard for $50, an AMD eight-core processor for $100, and 8GB RAM for $50. On the opposite extreme, I got an Intel dual-core Dell laptop for $200, SSD for $50 and 8GB RAM for $50. Both runs Windows 10 just fine.
Well It's now time... by bobbied · 2017-03-16 03:38 · Score: 1

To install Linux on that old laptop and be done with that vista thing once and for all... I feel better.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re: And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 03:38 · Score: 1, Informative

Did you even read his post? He isn't talking about normal everyday people and their home computers. He's talking about businesses and companies that are kind of in limbo stuck on 7 because everything else up is questionable in a business setting.
Re: And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters.. by spongman · 2017-03-16 03:41 · Score: 1

Jet brains is doing a resharper/IntelliJ thing soon, apparently.
Re: And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 03:42 · Score: 0

Geez, if you're that ornery and contrary, why aren't you running an Amiga 30000?
The Beta Test Ends by BrendaEM · 2017-03-16 03:48 · Score: 1

It was really never ready, was it?

--
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
1. Re:The Beta Test Ends by freeze128 · 2017-03-16 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft even wrote it TWICE! The first time (Longhorn), it had some strange database file system embedded in it. I understand the whole OS was written in Microsoft's .NET to showcase it's programming language. However, the performance was terrible, so they had to re-write the code in C++ just so it would be acceptable. By this time, users were fed-up with waiting, so Microsoft ditched the database filesystem.
2. Re:The Beta Test Ends by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 17:24 · Score: 0
  
  um... Windows Update relies on TxF. As does System Restore. TxF has a database at its core to keep track of atomic transactions which allow a complete series of transactions to flag success IF the entire series of transactions completes, otherwise the option is there for a complete rollback and a failure report can be produced showing just precisely where the process failed.
  The Microsoft Distributed Transaction Coordinator is the core component of the .NET framework and various other components (including the NTFS filesystem and the TxF layer), and has been part of the kernel suite since Windows 2000.
Nice to have an SP3 or SP2 rollup ISO or installer by Joe_Dragon · 2017-03-16 03:56 · Score: 2

Nice to have an SP3 or SP2 rollup ISO or installer. If just to have install for older systems that have a vista key.
How to Install Windows 7 on Kaby Lake/Cannon Lake by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 03:56 · Score: 0

Never give into Windows 10.
New Intel CPUs do support Windows 7, all you need is:
1. A PCIe USB3 expansion card (to get the USB mouse/keyboard working, or use a PS/2 keyboard/mouse)
For Intel graphics support:
1. Download the latest Intel video driver
2. Unpack the driver zip, edit the igdlh64.inf file.
3. Find the latest w7_ line (iSKLD_w7 for skylake, iBXTD_W7 for brasswell, etc)
4. Replace the DEV_XXXX with device ID of your system's GPU (look it up in control panel > display adapter > properties > hardware id)
5. If the latest driver doesn't work, try the second latest, then third latest, so on.
6. Install the video driver, you'll get a unsigned driver warning, ignore it, install it, reboot.
7. Enter BIOS, play with the "Legacy/Compatibility" video setting, the wrong setting will get you a blank or blue screen, the right setting will get you to windows normally.
The problem with Vista by Cro+Magnon · 2017-03-16 03:57 · Score: 1

Vista hit what I call the sour spot in memory. If you had less than 2 GB, it was slow. If you had more than 2 GB, it only saw the first 2 GB and was still slow.

--
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
..for various values of the world 'better' by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 04:01 · Score: 1

Microsoft has moved on to better things..
You mean like installing spyware, malware, and adware on your computer, shoving ads in your face all day every day, not giving you a choice about 'updates', installing 'updates' that spy on you even more, and generally taking away your choices when it comes to hardware YOU purchased with YOUR money? Miscreant-o-soft needs to be burned to the ground along with it's malware platform and overall fascist bullshit. Uninstall Vista and install Mint Linux, you'll be happy you did.
I'm thinking about a petition to Microsoft. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 04:03 · Score: 0

Perhaps they could consider, as a benefit for Vista users, to change the expiration date to like past month.
1. Re:I'm thinking about a petition to Microsoft. by Jetstream · 2017-03-16 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  Here's an idea: Just end support for Vista right now and put those developers to work sending out new security updates for XP!
2. Re:I'm thinking about a petition to Microsoft. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-20 00:15 · Score: 0
  
  That's making a lemonade out of a lemon!
  Damn, not only F/OSS is better because you get the source -- with closed software, you don't even get the binaries!
I used Vista for years by puddingebola · 2017-03-16 04:19 · Score: 1

I used Vista for years on my laptop. It came with it. I think now, looking back, we did not fight the enemy, we fought ourselves, and the enemy was in us. The war is over for me now, but it will always be there, the rest of my days. As I'm sure Eric S Raymond will be, fighting with Steve Ballmer for what Linus calls "possession of my soul." There are times since, I've felt like a child, born of those two fathers. But be that as it may, those of us who did make it have an obligation to build again. To teach to others what we know, and to try with what's left of our lives to find a goodness and a meaning to this life.
1. Re:I used Vista for years by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 05:55 · Score: 0
  
  I am reality. There's the way it ought to be. And there's the way it is. Linus was full of shit. Linus was a crusader. Now, I got no fight with any man who does what he's told, but when he don't, the machine breaks down. And when the machine breaks down, we break down. And I ain't gonna allow that in any of you. Not one.
No new security updates by Psicopatico · 2017-03-16 04:42 · Score: 1

"No new security updates"
I'm fine with that: I'll keep reinstalling the old ones over and over until everything will be OK.

--
Mastering the English language is fucking easy: all you have to do is to put an f* word in every fucking sentence.
Talking of Expiry by lobiusmoop · 2017-03-16 05:09 · Score: 1

Last of the US MP3 patents expires a month from today.

--
"I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
May it rest in peace by QuietLagoon · 2017-03-16 05:09 · Score: 1

I remember when Vista was first released. The teenagers around here would say that someone had "Vista'd" if they screwed up completely.
Re: And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters.. by Richard_at_work · 2017-03-16 05:33 · Score: 1

Jetbrains Rider (their .Net IDE) has been in beta now for about a year, and is coming along nicely, but still not a VS replacement.
Re: And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 05:50 · Score: 0

Geez, if you're that conformist and mindless, no wonder software is shit nowadays.
Time to by raind · 2017-03-16 06:09 · Score: 1

install 7 I guess

--
Get up!
Thank you, Microsoft by OneHundredAndTen · 2017-03-16 06:44 · Score: 1

Kudos to you for providing, with Windows Vista, the experience that we all expect from the reputation inextricably associated with this company.
1. Re:Thank you, Microsoft by vandamme · 2017-03-17 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  And a big thank you from the Linux community!
Re: And now a Rant from all the Vista Supporters.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 06:51 · Score: 0

Vista is the best and most important OS MS released since Win95.
Sure, the new display driver model caused some issues but that is not MIcrosofts fault. It can even survive a full graphics subsystem crash. UAC caused some issues but it was very important, without it people would still be running as full admin today. ...but but, 7 is even better! Yes in many ways but Vista added more new apps than any other version since 95. Calendar, Mail etc. and these are gone again in 7, replaced by the similar Live apps bundle that MS has now removed from the net. Also a lot of new APIs that supports this new stuff. Sensors, cardspace (never took off) and a new full filtering platform (WFP) so 3rd-party stuff does not have to hook the kernel in dirty ways anymore. We also got better DPI support and a lot of new shell stuff (known folders, games "center"). It is also the last version where the task bar can be configured to work like win95.
The worst parts we are still left with today in 10, component based servicing is horrible and makes Windows update slow and bloats winsxs.
Linux... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 08:39 · Score: 0

...I bet someone's posting that Vista users would be better off switching to Linux. Probably would and maybe one or two will. The rest will use whatever's installed on the next computer they buy.
As it just so happens... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 09:08 · Score: 0

I terminated support for Microsoft years ago! XD I only support GNU/Linux now... with occasional financial donations to, for example, linuxmint.org, and evangelism to any who'll listen. I'd consider a BSD, but... meh.
vista sp2 was not bad by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 10:47 · Score: 0

in my opinion vista with latest service pack was a good os. vista was so hated that people didn't see that sp2 was really stable - just like windows 7.
1. Re:vista sp2 was not bad by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 15:29 · Score: 0
  
  Vista SP2 is basically Windows 7 anyway.
Vista Sucked by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-17 06:02 · Score: 0

It was a horrible operating system. You would have to be a masochist to have continued using it after Windows 7 came out so, you'll likely enjoy any pain you experience as a result of its demise.