Even complaining about Vista raises eyebrows. It had two huge issues: overactive UAC, and Microsoft handing "Vista Certified" to basically anybody who asked. (Frequently to machines that would barely run XP pre-SP1.)

Most of the complaints can be reduced to one of those.

Yes- I hand wave away a lot of other things: because they were required for a huge step towards a decently secure and stable OS.

▲

samplatt 3 days ago | parent [-]

>a huge step towards a decently secure and stable OS

It absolutely was an important (and required) step towards a more secure and stable OS. What it was not, though, was a secure and stable OS.

Windows ME was the same. A required step on the path towards something better, and ALSO something that had the "Windows XX-ready" badge slapped on anything that asked. But no one is lining up to try Vista again apart from technical challenges.

	▲	privatelypublic 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		ME is... not comparable? There's no security boundaries ME could implement- it was still DOS and fat32. The list of changes Vista made were never going to go off without a hitch. When you put new boundaries in place in the kernel, and a driver violates them because it was recompiled not updated to handle a separation and handle errors from it: there's no choice but to Kernel Panic. Compatibility Shims were introduced for userland changes. Despite the hate, DWM handled the most frequent crashes: graphics. Microsoft is STILL working on pulling graphics code out of the kernel and into userland.

▲

3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

Delphiza 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I agree. You have to be a certain age to remember that a big part of Microsoft "Longhorn" was WinFS (Windows File System), which was intended to completely rework storage into a relational file system (or object-oriented depending on your view). "Longhorn" was supposed to do away with NTFS and failed miserably at that objective. I believe that WinFS delayed things considerably and eventually didn't ship with Vista.

Microsoft Longhorn's failure to be the next big thing was largely due to the bad implementation of a storage subsystem. The result was Windows Vista, which was derided as a bad OS (at least until Windows 8). Due to that history, I would not name any file system 'Longhorn'. It may not be the same as naming a cruise ship 'Titanic', but you wouldn't name it 'Iceberg' either.

▲

gdbsjjdn 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I did this was going to be about the Vista and how some of the FS stuff that got cut was prescient. "This old thing that didn't work was ahead of its' time" is a whole genre of post (ex. Itanium)

▲

antod 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Could've been worse eg Cairo or Blackcomb.

▲

tracker1 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I remembered the Windows Vista reference as soon as I saw the name. That said, I don't think it's a big deal.

▲

pjmlp 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Indeed, does it uses .NET in its implementation, or are they already rewriting it into COM?