Windows Vista Support Has Officially Ended

[Mr. Man-wai Chang]

Source:
http://www.ubergizmo.com/2017/04/windows-vista-support-officially-ended/

Perhaps no other iteration of Windows has created such a bad reputation
for itself than Windows Vista. Universally loathed, Microsoft was quick
to move on after Vista and didn’t quite look back. However, since it was
a major platform release, the company has had to support it for a very
long time. Now, a decade after it was first launched, Microsoft today
announced that Windows Vista support has officially ended.

What this means is that after April 11th, 2017, Windows Vista users will
no longer get any new security updates, non-security hotfixes,
additional support options, or any other online technical content
updates from Microsoft.

The company says in a post on its website that it has provided support
for Windows Vista for the past 10 years “but the time has come for us,
along with our hardware and software partners, to invest our resources
towards more recent technologies.”

Windows Vista PCs will still work but they will be more vulnerable to
security risks because Microsoft will no longer be providing any
security patches that protect it from the latest threats. Moreover,
software and hardware manufacturers will continue to optimize their
products for more recent versions of Windows, which will result in more
apps and services no longer working properly with Vista.

Microsoft recommends that Vista owners upgrade to Windows 10 but it’s
unlikely that PCs from Vista’s early days will be able to support the
latest iteration. Some customers may have to buy new PCs that come with
Windows 10 installed, fortunately for them, there are tons of options in
all price ranges.

[philo]

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
http://www.ubergizmo.com/2017/04/windows-vista-support-officially-ended/
Perhaps no other iteration of Windows has created such a bad reputation
for itself than Windows Vista. Universally loathed, Microsoft was quick
to move on after Vista and didn’t quite look back. However, since it was
a major platform release, the company has had to support it for a very
long time. Now, a decade after it was first launched, Microsoft today
announced that Windows Vista support has officially ended.
What this means is that after April 11th, 2017, Windows Vista users will
no longer get any new security updates, non-security hotfixes,
additional support options, or any other online technical content
updates from Microsoft.

<snip>

I gave Vista a try shortly after it was released and it was horrible
beyond belief...it took 15 minutes or more just to delete something.


A few years later I tried it and after the updates it seemed to work
quite well but it's reputation was ruined by releasing it too soon.

[T]

Post by philo

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
http://www.ubergizmo.com/2017/04/windows-vista-support-officially-ended/
Perhaps no other iteration of Windows has created such a bad reputation
for itself than Windows Vista. Universally loathed, Microsoft was quick
to move on after Vista and didn’t quite look back. However, since it was
a major platform release, the company has had to support it for a very
long time. Now, a decade after it was first launched, Microsoft today
announced that Windows Vista support has officially ended.
What this means is that after April 11th, 2017, Windows Vista users will
no longer get any new security updates, non-security hotfixes,
additional support options, or any other online technical content
updates from Microsoft.

<snip>
I gave Vista a try shortly after it was released and it was horrible
beyond belief...it took 15 minutes or more just to delete something.
A few years later I tried it and after the updates it seemed to work
quite well but it's reputation was ruined by releasing it too soon.

After Service Pack 2, it settled down. Getting to SP2 was
a gargantuan task. I still see some folks with Vista.
And it is still a pain-in-the-ass to deal with, but not
so bad since SP2. Windows Nein, oops, Ten is a bigger
pain in the ass

[Diesel]

[snip]

Post by T

Post by philo
I gave Vista a try shortly after it was released and it was
horrible beyond belief...it took 15 minutes or more just to
delete something.
A few years later I tried it and after the updates it seemed to
work quite well but it's reputation was ruined by releasing it
too soon.

After Service Pack 2, it settled down. Getting to SP2 was
a gargantuan task. I still see some folks with Vista.
And it is still a pain-in-the-ass to deal with, but not
so bad since SP2. Windows Nein, oops, Ten is a bigger
pain in the ass

Ten is horrid. Cartoony looking too. :(

[Ken Blake]

Post by philo
I gave Vista a try shortly after it was released and it was horrible
beyond belief...it took 15 minutes or more just to delete something.
A few years later I tried it and after the updates it seemed to work
quite well but it's reputation was ruined by releasing it too soon.

Many other people said much the same thing. But my experience with it
was fine. I ran it from RTM to Windows 7 release, and never had any
problems with it.

[Paul]

Post by Ken Blake

Post by philo
I gave Vista a try shortly after it was released and it was horrible
beyond belief...it took 15 minutes or more just to delete something.
A few years later I tried it and after the updates it seemed to work
quite well but it's reputation was ruined by releasing it too soon.

Many other people said much the same thing. But my experience with it
was fine. I ran it from RTM to Windows 7 release, and never had any
problems with it.

I take it you didn't watch what Windows Update
was doing very often :-) Vista is one ugly porker
to get updating. The secret was a hint from the
wsusoffline forums (a list of KBs to install manually).
Microsoft never made any attempt to put the Vista WU
upright.

I've only tested Vista SP2, which was pleasant enough,
with the exception of the *days* I spent researching
WU fixes.

Paul

[T]

Post by Paul

Post by Ken Blake

Post by philo
I gave Vista a try shortly after it was released and it was horrible
beyond belief...it took 15 minutes or more just to delete something.
A few years later I tried it and after the updates it seemed to work
quite well but it's reputation was ruined by releasing it too soon.

Many other people said much the same thing. But my experience with it
was fine. I ran it from RTM to Windows 7 release, and never had any
problems with it.

I take it you didn't watch what Windows Update
was doing very often :-) Vista is one ugly porker
to get updating. The secret was a hint from the
wsusoffline forums (a list of KBs to install manually).
Microsoft never made any attempt to put the Vista WU
upright.
I've only tested Vista SP2, which was pleasant enough,
with the exception of the *days* I spent researching
WU fixes.
Paul

You are now an "Official M$ Alpha Tester". (I won't
soil a "beta's" reputation by calling an "alpha"
a "beta".)

Tears

[philo]

Post by T

Post by Paul

Post by Ken Blake

Post by philo
I gave Vista a try shortly after it was released and it was horrible
beyond belief...it took 15 minutes or more just to delete something.
A few years later I tried it and after the updates it seemed to work
quite well but it's reputation was ruined by releasing it too soon.

Many other people said much the same thing. But my experience with it
was fine. I ran it from RTM to Windows 7 release, and never had any
problems with it.

I take it you didn't watch what Windows Update
was doing very often :-) Vista is one ugly porker
to get updating. The secret was a hint from the
wsusoffline forums (a list of KBs to install manually).
Microsoft never made any attempt to put the Vista WU
upright.
I've only tested Vista SP2, which was pleasant enough,
with the exception of the *days* I spent researching
WU fixes.
Paul

You are now an "Official M$ Alpha Tester". (I won't
soil a "beta's" reputation by calling an "alpha"
a "beta".)
Tears

Before the service packs , Vista was essentially unusable.

When I tried to delete a file it sat there for over 15 minutes
calculating free space. I could not imagine why free space would need to
be calculated for a deletion, much less why it would take 15 minutes.

Actually I don't know how long it would have taken, 15 minutes was when
I shut the machine down

[Ken Blake]

Post by philo
Before the service packs , Vista was essentially unusable.

To *you*. But as I said, not to me. And not to many others I know.

Post by philo
When I tried to delete a file it sat there for over 15 minutes
calculating free space. I could not imagine why free space would need to
be calculated for a deletion, much less why it would take 15 minutes.

I never had such a problem.

[philo]

Post by Ken Blake

Post by philo
Before the service packs , Vista was essentially unusable.

To *you*. But as I said, not to me. And not to many others I know.

Post by philo
When I tried to delete a file it sat there for over 15 minutes
calculating free space. I could not imagine why free space would need to
be calculated for a deletion, much less why it would take 15 minutes.

I never had such a problem.

Then you must have been doing something wrong :) (dumb sarcasm sorry)

[Diesel]

Post by Ken Blake

Post by philo
Before the service packs , Vista was essentially unusable.

To *you*. But as I said, not to me. And not to many others I know.

As a tech in the trenches, I can't agree with your statement. I
didn't encounter many individuals or small businesses who were
pleased with vista prior to the service packs. And even then, the
happiness factor didn't increase by a wide margin. Vista was in the
market place for a short period of time for a reason. It was junk.
Rushed to market far too soon with too many bugs.

Post by Ken Blake

Post by philo
When I tried to delete a file it sat there for over 15 minutes
calculating free space. I could not imagine why free space would need to
be calculated for a deletion, much less why it would take 15
minutes.

I never had such a problem.

The thing with PCs is that they aren't all the same. Various hardware
and software differences can cause issues with poorly written OSes.

So what works for you, specifically, may not work so well for other
system configurations, if, at all.
--
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

An Israeli doctor said, "In Israel, medicine is so advanced that we
cut off a man's testicles, put them on another man, and in 6 weeks,
he is looking for work.
The German doctor said, "That's nothing, in Germany we take part of a
brain, put it in another man and in 4 weeks he is looking for work."
The Russian doctor said, "Gentlemen, we take half a heart from a man,
put it in another man's chest and in 2 weeks he is looking for work."
The Scottish doctor just laughed and commented, "You are all way
behind us. Thirteen months ago, we took a woman with no brains, no
heart, and no balls and made her first minister of Scotland. Now,
the whole of Scotland is looking for work!!"

[Ken Blake]

Post by Diesel

Post by Ken Blake

Post by philo
Before the service packs , Vista was essentially unusable.

To *you*. But as I said, not to me. And not to many others I know.

As a tech in the trenches, I can't agree with your statement.

That's fine. We all have different experiences and different opinions.

Post by Diesel
I
didn't encounter many individuals or small businesses who were
pleased with vista prior to the service packs.

I did.

Post by Diesel
And even then, the
happiness factor didn't increase by a wide margin. Vista was in the
market place for a short period of time for a reason. It was junk.
Rushed to market far too soon with too many bugs.

As I said, I don't agree.

Post by Diesel
The thing with PCs is that they aren't all the same. Various hardware
and software differences can cause issues with poorly written OSes.
So what works for you, specifically, may not work so well for other
system configurations, if, at all.

Absolutely right! I completely agree with you there.

[XS11E]

Post by philo
Before the service packs , Vista was essentially unusable.

Never had a problem with Vista, it worked perfectly from the first RTM
until I replaced it.

Of course I RTFM, that might have something to do with it?

[Ken Blake]

Post by XS11E

Post by philo
Before the service packs , Vista was essentially unusable.

Never had a problem with Vista, it worked perfectly from the first RTM
until I replaced it.

You're not the only one who said something similar here, and I'm glad
to see that I'm not the only one.

[XS11E]

Post by Ken Blake

Post by XS11E

Post by philo
Before the service packs , Vista was essentially unusable.

Never had a problem with Vista, it worked perfectly from the first
RTM until I replaced it.

You're not the only one who said something similar here, and I'm
glad to see that I'm not the only one.

The biggest problem with Vista was MSFT said it required 1/2 the ROM it
actually needed to run at a reasonable speed, HP, Dell, etc. all
delivered systems with insufficient ROM based on MSFTs specs.

The second problem was that some peripherals wouldn't work, I had to
replace my scanner others had to replace printers, etc. to use Vista
and that irked folks.

Personally, I liked it, it was the last OS that allowed classic menus,
etc. w/o needing Classic Shell to make it usable for me.

[Ken Blake]

Post by XS11E

Post by Ken Blake

Post by XS11E

Post by philo
Before the service packs , Vista was essentially unusable.

Never had a problem with Vista, it worked perfectly from the first
RTM until I replaced it.

You're not the only one who said something similar here, and I'm
glad to see that I'm not the only one.

The biggest problem with Vista was MSFT said it required 1/2 the ROM it
actually needed to run at a reasonable speed,

Yes, but that wasn't a particular program with Vista. Microsoft did
the same thing with almost all versions of Windows.

They were basically right: the requirement to run it, and how much RAM
you need to run it at a reasonable speed *are* two different things.
As far as I'm concerned, what they did wrong was not supplying *both*
figures

Post by XS11E
HP, Dell, etc. all
delivered systems with insufficient ROM based on MSFTs specs.
The second problem was that some peripherals wouldn't work, I had to
replace my scanner others had to replace printers, etc. to use Vista
and that irked folks.

Yes, but that wasn't a Vista problem; that was a problem with the
manufacturers not providing Vista drivers.

Post by XS11E
Personally, I liked it,

I did too.

Post by XS11E
it was the last OS that allowed classic menus,
etc. w/o needing Classic Shell to make it usable for me.

?? You thought Windows 7 required Classic Shell. I never did. I never
used Classic Shell until Windows 8, and I quickly replaced it with
Start 8, which I liked (and still like) even better.

[XS11E]

Post by Ken Blake

it was the last OS that allowed classic menus, etc. w/o needing
Classic Shell to make it usable for me.

?? You thought Windows 7 required Classic Shell.

Absolutely! My OS rule is that any OS I run will look and act EXACTLY
like Windows 2000 which was the last version of Windows I actually
liked! I've even got my Windows 2000 desktop wallpaper! <G>

If they made it 64 bit and added USB support I'd still be running it...

Don't like new-fangled stuff, if it was good enough for the cavemen
it's good enough for me... except modern dentistry, I'll accept that...
and flush toilets, those are OK... <G>

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by XS11E

Post by Ken Blake

it was the last OS that allowed classic menus, etc. w/o needing
Classic Shell to make it usable for me.

?? You thought Windows 7 required Classic Shell.

Absolutely! My OS rule is that any OS I run will look and act EXACTLY
like Windows 2000 which was the last version of Windows I actually
liked! I've even got my Windows 2000 desktop wallpaper! <G>

(I still have a soft spot for '98SElite.)

Post by XS11E
If they made it 64 bit and added USB support I'd still be running it...
Don't like new-fangled stuff, if it was good enough for the cavemen
it's good enough for me... except modern dentistry, I'll accept that...
and flush toilets, those are OK... <G>

What did the Romans ever do for us ...

[XS11E]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
What did the Romans ever do for us ...

One of 'em taught me that "All Gaul is divided into 3 parts" ("Gallia
est omnis divisa in partes tres",)

You'd probably be surprised at how seldom that comes up in conversation
and how poorly it works as a pickup line although it worked well for
Julius...

[Ken Blake]

Post by XS11E

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
What did the Romans ever do for us ...

One of 'em taught me that "All Gaul is divided into 3 parts" ("Gallia
est omnis divisa in partes tres",)
You'd probably be surprised at how seldom that comes up in conversation
and how poorly it works as a pickup line although it worked well for
Julius...

I studied Latin in High School. It was 1953, 64 years ago, that I
learned the lines "Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres" and "Que
usque tandem Catalina patientia nostra," but I still remember them.

Unfortunately I remember very little else of Latin. <g>

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Ken Blake

Post by XS11E

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
What did the Romans ever do for us ...

(That was a line from one of the Monty Python films.)

Post by Ken Blake

Post by XS11E
One of 'em taught me that "All Gaul is divided into 3 parts" ("Gallia
est omnis divisa in partes tres",)

(The "omnis" seems in an odd position there - at least if the
translation is correct.)

Post by Ken Blake

Post by XS11E
You'd probably be surprised at how seldom that comes up in conversation
and how poorly it works as a pickup line although it worked well for
Julius...

Ah, Julius - I always think of that line "Infamy, infamy ..."

Post by Ken Blake
I studied Latin in High School. It was 1953, 64 years ago, that I
learned the lines "Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres" and "Que
usque tandem Catalina patientia nostra," but I still remember them.
Unfortunately I remember very little else of Latin. <g>

I've never found any real _practical_ use for it, but I'm glad I did it
(1970s). Well, it helps somewhat in understanding several other
languages, though in my line of work (electronics) that's rarely been of
_much_ practical relevance. But odd bits are fun - such as

age, fac ut gaudeam
(literally: proceed, do [something] that I might rejoice. More freely:
Go ahead, ...)

[Ken Blake]

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 23:26:35 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Ken Blake

Post by XS11E

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
What did the Romans ever do for us ...

(That was a line from one of the Monty Python films.)

Post by Ken Blake

Post by XS11E
One of 'em taught me that "All Gaul is divided into 3 parts" ("Gallia
est omnis divisa in partes tres",)

(The "omnis" seems in an odd position there - at least if the
translation is correct.)

The translation is correct and the position is correct. One of the
hardest things for me about Latin was that almost all the words were
in odd positions. <g>

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Ken Blake

Post by XS11E
You'd probably be surprised at how seldom that comes up in conversation
and how poorly it works as a pickup line although it worked well for
Julius...

Ah, Julius - I always think of that line "Infamy, infamy ..."

Post by Ken Blake
I studied Latin in High School. It was 1953, 64 years ago, that I
learned the lines "Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres" and "Que
usque tandem Catalina patientia nostra," but I still remember them.

Note the typo: that should be Quo usque..." of course.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Ken Blake
Unfortunately I remember very little else of Latin. <g>

I've never found any real _practical_ use for it, but I'm glad I did it
(1970s).

I'm glad I did too. Not only did it help me in learning the small
amounts I know of other languages (Italian, French, Spanish, and
German), but still today, my English grammar is very good (but not
perfect, I hasten to add, before you or someone else points out errors
I've made <g>), largely because of the Latin grammar I learned umpteen
years ago.

[Wolf K]

Post by Ken Blake
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 23:26:35 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by XS11E

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
What did the Romans ever do for us ...

(That was a line from one of the Monty Python films.)

Post by XS11E
One of 'em taught me that "All Gaul is divided into 3 parts" ("Gallia
est omnis divisa in partes tres",)

(The "omnis" seems in an odd position there - at least if the
translation is correct.)

The translation is correct and the position is correct. One of the
hardest things for me about Latin was that almost all the words were
in odd positions. <g>

Latin has synthetic grammar: the words carry the markers that define
their syntactic functions (roles). English has analytic grammar: the
position of the word is its syntactic function. That's why it's easy to
verbalise nouns and nominalise verbs, though if the word is originally
Latin you usually have to add a verb/noun suffix. Regardless, this
aspect of English grammar frenzifies self-anointed guardians of the
English Language.

[...]

English grammar is _not_ Latin, and much confusion arose from the first
grammar written for English. The schoolmaster who wrote it naturally
knew only Latin grammar, so he grafted it onto English. It's a bad fit.
Mind you, a similar thing happened to French, around the same time,
which ossified the grammar of 17th century French, which even the French
have to learn as a foreign language.

Grammar as "the rules and conventions speakers follow to generate
utterances" and grammar as "a description of the rules..." are two
different things. The grammar taught in almost all English speaking
countries is as randomly accurate an account of the language as
Aristotelian science is of physics.

[Ken Blake]

Post by Wolf K

Post by Ken Blake
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 23:26:35 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by XS11E

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
What did the Romans ever do for us ...

(That was a line from one of the Monty Python films.)

Post by XS11E
One of 'em taught me that "All Gaul is divided into 3 parts" ("Gallia
est omnis divisa in partes tres",)

(The "omnis" seems in an odd position there - at least if the
translation is correct.)

The translation is correct and the position is correct. One of the
hardest things for me about Latin was that almost all the words were
in odd positions. <g>

Latin has synthetic grammar: the words carry the markers that define
their syntactic functions (roles). English has analytic grammar: the
position of the word is its syntactic function.

Yes, thanks; I knew that, but I didn't know the terms "synthetic
grammar" and "analytic grammar." I always thought of it as the
difference between morphology and syntax.

Post by Wolf K
English grammar is _not_ Latin,

Right, but much of Latin and English grammar are the same.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

[]

Post by Ken Blake

Post by XS11E
The second problem was that some peripherals wouldn't work, I had to
replace my scanner others had to replace printers, etc. to use Vista
and that irked folks.

Yes, but that wasn't a Vista problem; that was a problem with the
manufacturers not providing Vista drivers.

That's a chicken-and-egg situation/argument (-:.

It is also related to the problem concerning drivers that every new
version of Windows (and other OSs) brings up: why drivers are _needed_
for each separate device, at least for printers and scanners. There
should be a default printer or scanner driver that all printers or
scanners work with, with manufacturers releasing extra - you could call
them "drivers" if you wished - that allowed any special features that a
model might have to be accessed. But there's no incentive to create such
a situation, and plenty of reasons not to (mainly the need to keep
selling hardware).

Post by Ken Blake

Post by XS11E
Personally, I liked it,

I didn't, but probably didn't give it a fair chance.

Post by Ken Blake
I did too.

Post by XS11E
it was the last OS that allowed classic menus,
etc. w/o needing Classic Shell to make it usable for me.

?? You thought Windows 7 required Classic Shell. I never did. I never
used Classic Shell until Windows 8, and I quickly replaced it with
Start 8, which I liked (and still like) even better.

Agreed, I didn't see the need under 7, and did under 8 (for anyone who'd
used earlier Windows, anyway - probably not for anyone who hadn't).

[Ken Blake]

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 01:07:12 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by Ken Blake

Post by XS11E
The second problem was that some peripherals wouldn't work, I had to
replace my scanner others had to replace printers, etc. to use Vista
and that irked folks.

Yes, but that wasn't a Vista problem; that was a problem with the
manufacturers not providing Vista drivers.

That's a chicken-and-egg situation/argument (-:.
It is also related to the problem concerning drivers that every new
version of Windows (and other OSs) brings up: why drivers are _needed_
for each separate device, at least for printers and scanners. There
should be a default printer or scanner driver that all printers or
scanners work with, with manufacturers releasing extra - you could call
them "drivers" if you wished - that allowed any special features that a
model might have to be accessed. But there's no incentive to create such
a situation, and plenty of reasons not to (mainly the need to keep
selling hardware).

A strong ditto for everything in that paragraph!

[Diesel]

Post by XS11E

Post by Ken Blake

Post by XS11E

Post by philo
Before the service packs , Vista was essentially unusable.

Never had a problem with Vista, it worked perfectly from the
first RTM until I replaced it.

You're not the only one who said something similar here, and I'm
glad to see that I'm not the only one.

The biggest problem with Vista was MSFT said it required 1/2 the
ROM it actually needed to run at a reasonable speed, HP, Dell,
etc. all delivered systems with insufficient ROM based on MSFTs
specs.
The second problem was that some peripherals wouldn't work, I had
to replace my scanner others had to replace printers, etc. to use
Vista and that irked folks.

Why wouldn't it irk people. You had perfectly good hardware that
thanks to a single software update (the os itself) either no longer
worked at all, or worked marginally from that point forward. All due
to MS lack of interest in providing drivers for the hardware
components that MS was surely aware many still used. There was no
reason vista couldn't have supported those hardware components. MS
took the lazy way out on this.

Post by XS11E
Personally, I liked it, it was the last OS that allowed classic
menus, etc. w/o needing Classic Shell to make it usable for me.

Did you ever run it in a networked environment? It was a dog there.
And, I don't mean a loyal one.

[XS11E]

Post by Diesel

Post by XS11E
The second problem was that some peripherals wouldn't work, I had
to replace my scanner others had to replace printers, etc. to use
Vista and that irked folks.

Why wouldn't it irk people. You had perfectly good hardware that
thanks to a single software update (the os itself) either no
longer worked at all, or worked marginally from that point
forward. All due to MS lack of interest in providing drivers for
the hardware components that MS was surely aware many still used.
There was no reason vista couldn't have supported those hardware
components. MS took the lazy way out on this.

Totally wrong, of course, MSFT doesn't supply drivers, they make
available drivers supplied by the manufacturers. If your printer or
scanner or ?? doesn't work in a new OS it's because Epson or HP or
whoever has decided to sell you a new one rather than update their
drivers for the old device.

Absolutely nothing to do with MS.

Post by Diesel

Post by XS11E
Personally, I liked it, it was the last OS that allowed classic
menus, etc. w/o needing Classic Shell to make it usable for me.

Did you ever run it in a networked environment? It was a dog
there. And, I don't mean a loyal one.

Yes, it failed miserably for people who didn't RTFM.

[Diesel]

XS11E <***@SPAMyahoo.com> news:XnsA797777756702xs11eyahoocom@
127.0.0.1 Sat, 17 Jun 2017 18:44:38 GMT in alt.windows7.general,

Post by XS11E

Post by Diesel

Post by XS11E
The second problem was that some peripherals wouldn't work, I had
to replace my scanner others had to replace printers, etc. to use
Vista and that irked folks.

Why wouldn't it irk people. You had perfectly good hardware that
thanks to a single software update (the os itself) either no
longer worked at all, or worked marginally from that point
forward. All due to MS lack of interest in providing drivers for
the hardware components that MS was surely aware many still used.
There was no reason vista couldn't have supported those hardware
components. MS took the lazy way out on this.

Totally wrong, of course, MSFT doesn't supply drivers, they make
available drivers supplied by the manufacturers.

Erm, not exactly. MS does supply some drivers, actually. And, had
they not altered the way in which vista chose to use already existing
drivers, and/or added code to support XP legacy drivers, those
hardware devices for the most part, would have worked properly. MS
altered the code base enough to fuxor older NT based drivers. Vista
and XP are both NT kernel. One is slightly 'newer'

Post by XS11E
If your printer or scanner or ?? doesn't work in a new OS it's
because Epson or HP or whoever has decided to sell you a new one
rather than update their drivers for the old device.
Absolutely nothing to do with MS.

See above.

Post by XS11E

Post by Diesel

Post by XS11E
Personally, I liked it, it was the last OS that allowed classic
menus, etc. w/o needing Classic Shell to make it usable for me.

Did you ever run it in a networked environment? It was a dog
there. And, I don't mean a loyal one.

Yes, it failed miserably for people who didn't RTFM.

ROFL. Some of us did read the manual, though...

[Ken Blake]

Post by Diesel
Why wouldn't it irk people. You had perfectly good hardware that
thanks to a single software update (the os itself) either no longer
worked at all, or worked marginally from that point forward. All due
to MS lack of interest in providing drivers for the hardware
components that MS was surely aware many still used. There was no
reason vista couldn't have supported those hardware components. MS
took the lazy way out on this.

Sorry, but that is not at all true. Don't blame Microsoft for this.

Drivers are supplied by the hardware manufacturers, not by Microsoft.
If a driver for an older piece of hardware isn't available for a new
version of Windows, it's because the hardware manufacturer doesn't
want you to continue using older hardware; he wants you buy new
models.

[Diesel]

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Diesel
Why wouldn't it irk people. You had perfectly good hardware that
thanks to a single software update (the os itself) either no
longer worked at all, or worked marginally from that point
forward. All due to MS lack of interest in providing drivers for
the hardware components that MS was surely aware many still used.
There was no reason vista couldn't have supported those hardware
components. MS took the lazy way out on this.

Sorry, but that is not at all true. Don't blame Microsoft for
this.

I'm unfairly placing all of the blame on MS, true enough. The
hardware vendors have an equal share, but, ONLY because MS altered
the code base enough to make the XP drivers no longer compatible.
Vista and XP aren't completely seperate beasts under the hood. They
share *alot* of common code, actually. MS *could have* continued
supporting the older drivers, had they wanted to do so.

Post by Ken Blake
Drivers are supplied by the hardware manufacturers, not by
Microsoft.

*Some* (most) drivers are manufacturer supplied, yes. However, MS
does infact do their own too.

Post by Ken Blake
If a driver for an older piece of hardware isn't available for a
new version of Windows, it's because the hardware manufacturer
doesn't want you to continue using older hardware; he wants you
buy new models.

I don't disagree, but, were not talking about a complete from the
ground up code rewrite here, either. Vista and XP share a shitload
of common code under the hood. Despite the differences in
appearance. Granted, Vista *does* have code that is *not* present in
any flavor of XP, but, I digress. MS *could have* supported that
older hardware by allowing vista to use the previous OS drivers. They
chose not to do so.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Diesel
Why wouldn't it irk people. You had perfectly good hardware that
thanks to a single software update (the os itself) either no longer
worked at all, or worked marginally from that point forward. All due
to MS lack of interest in providing drivers for the hardware
components that MS was surely aware many still used. There was no
reason vista couldn't have supported those hardware components. MS
took the lazy way out on this.

Sorry, but that is not at all true. Don't blame Microsoft for this.
Drivers are supplied by the hardware manufacturers, not by Microsoft.
If a driver for an older piece of hardware isn't available for a new
version of Windows, it's because the hardware manufacturer doesn't
want you to continue using older hardware; he wants you buy new
models.

The majority of hardware so involved is/are printers and scanners.

There should be a standard interface which all such devices work with,
so that each new OS (or whatever) just has to be able to drive the
standard interface. (Special features additional to each model, fair
enough could be only supported by the then-current OS, if the
manufacturer wishes.)

[TWAIN you'd have thought would be the answer (for scanners at least),
but no, that's OS-specific too.]

It'll never happen, though, for the reason you have given.

[T]

Post by philo

Post by T

Post by Paul

Post by Ken Blake

Post by philo
I gave Vista a try shortly after it was released and it was horrible
beyond belief...it took 15 minutes or more just to delete something.
A few years later I tried it and after the updates it seemed to work
quite well but it's reputation was ruined by releasing it too soon.

Many other people said much the same thing. But my experience with it
was fine. I ran it from RTM to Windows 7 release, and never had any
problems with it.

I take it you didn't watch what Windows Update
was doing very often :-) Vista is one ugly porker
to get updating. The secret was a hint from the
wsusoffline forums (a list of KBs to install manually).
Microsoft never made any attempt to put the Vista WU
upright.
I've only tested Vista SP2, which was pleasant enough,
with the exception of the *days* I spent researching
WU fixes.
Paul

You are now an "Official M$ Alpha Tester". (I won't
soil a "beta's" reputation by calling an "alpha"
a "beta".)
Tears

Before the service packs , Vista was essentially unusable.
When I tried to delete a file it sat there for over 15 minutes
calculating free space. I could not imagine why free space would need to
be calculated for a deletion, much less why it would take 15 minutes.
Actually I don't know how long it would have taken, 15 minutes was when
I shut the machine down

1+

Vista SP0 took the wind out of me

[Ken Blake]

Post by Paul

Post by Ken Blake

Post by philo
I gave Vista a try shortly after it was released and it was horrible
beyond belief...it took 15 minutes or more just to delete something.
A few years later I tried it and after the updates it seemed to work
quite well but it's reputation was ruined by releasing it too soon.

Many other people said much the same thing. But my experience with it
was fine. I ran it from RTM to Windows 7 release, and never had any
problems with it.

I take it you didn't watch what Windows Update
was doing very often :-) Vista is one ugly porker
to get updating. The secret was a hint from the
wsusoffline forums (a list of KBs to install manually).

Yes, I'm aware that other people had trouble with that. But as I said,
I had no trouble.

[mechanic]

Post by Ken Blake

Post by philo
I gave Vista a try shortly after it was released and it was horrible
beyond belief...it took 15 minutes or more just to delete something.
A few years later I tried it and after the updates it seemed to work
quite well but it's reputation was ruined by releasing it too soon.

Many other people said much the same thing. But my experience with it
was fine. I ran it from RTM to Windows 7 release, and never had any
problems with it.

Agree, and I ran it from the Customer Preview stage till Win7 came
out.

[Mr. Man-wai Chang]

Post by philo
I gave Vista a try shortly after it was released and it was horrible
beyond belief...it took 15 minutes or more just to delete something.
A few years later I tried it and after the updates it seemed to work
quite well but it's reputation was ruined by releasing it too soon.

It's the first usable 64-bit Windows after 64-bit WinXP. It worked
fairly well for me, and some banks' ATM machines used it as OS.

[sctvguy1]

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang

Post by philo
I gave Vista a try shortly after it was released and it was horrible
beyond belief...it took 15 minutes or more just to delete something.
A few years later I tried it and after the updates it seemed to work
quite well but it's reputation was ruined by releasing it too soon.

It's the first usable 64-bit Windows after 64-bit WinXP. It worked
fairly well for me, and some banks' ATM machines used it as OS.

I have Vista Ultimate and it works very well.

[philo]

Post by sctvguy1

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang

Post by philo
I gave Vista a try shortly after it was released and it was horrible
beyond belief...it took 15 minutes or more just to delete something.
A few years later I tried it and after the updates it seemed to work
quite well but it's reputation was ruined by releasing it too soon.

It's the first usable 64-bit Windows after 64-bit WinXP. It worked
fairly well for me, and some banks' ATM machines used it as OS.

I have Vista Ultimate and it works very well.

yes, I found Vista to be very good once the service packs came out...it
was simply released too soon

[sctvguy1]

Post by philo

Post by sctvguy1
I have Vista Ultimate and it works very well.

yes, I found Vista to be very good once the service packs came out...it
was simply released too soon

Plus, the hardware was not sufficient, or too expensive, to run Aero at
the time. I heard Paul Thurrotte say Wed. on "Windows Weekly" that
Windows 7 was really Vista, SP3!

[Ken Blake]

On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 15:21:55 -0000 (UTC), sctvguy1

Post by sctvguy1
I heard Paul Thurrotte say Wed. on "Windows Weekly" that
Windows 7 was really Vista, SP3!

Yes, but something very similar is true of almost all versions of
Windows. Microsoft's marketing department gets to choose what
something is called, and they choose a name that they think will sell
more copies. For example, Windows 10 could have been called 8.2

[T]

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 15:21:55 -0000 (UTC), sctvguy1

Post by sctvguy1
I heard Paul Thurrotte say Wed. on "Windows Weekly" that
Windows 7 was really Vista, SP3!

Yes, but something very similar is true of almost all versions of
Windows. Microsoft's marketing department gets to choose what
something is called, and they choose a name that they think will sell
more copies. For example, Windows 10 could have been called 8.2

I still call Windows 10, Windows Nein. Some times "Son-of-Frankenstein"
Nein really is a nice clean up of 8. But it is still 8.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <oclig2$47e$***@dont-email.me>, Mr. Man-wai Chang
<***@gmail.com> writes:
[]

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
Windows Vista PCs will still work but they will be more vulnerable to
security risks because Microsoft will no longer be providing any
security patches that protect it from the latest threats. Moreover,
software and hardware manufacturers will continue to optimize their
products for more recent versions of Windows, which will result in more

* new versions of *

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
apps and services no longer working properly with Vista.

[]
(Versions that were already working properly will of course continue to
do so.)