Nostalgia

The aero interface was a really good addition, in the early days of it, it sucked because it required alpha blending which wasn't very optimized in graphics cards of the era. So even if it was supported, it ran like shit and ate performance.

I liked Vista. I can still point to examples of stuff in Windows 7 which were broken that worked perfectly fine in Vista. AFAIK, that stuff was never fixed because it was a niche item that most people didn't bother with.

I've been up, down, inside and out of all of these OSes throughout my time in IT, and I can see all the problems. The sidebar/widgets in Vista were a mistake, poorly implemented fluff that consumed too many resources for what they could realistically do. If they were a lot lighter in terms of performance demands, then they would have been fine. Beyond that 7 was basically a reskinned Windows Vista, with some "updates". You could get the same updates for Vista by the time 7 came out, and it made Vista quite reasonable.

IMO, the biggest problem Vista faced wasn't that it was bloated or slow or buggy (though it was very buggy at the beginning - again, mostly fixed with patches by the time 7 landed), it was that Vista was built for the best computers at the time, with the idea that everything would improve to the point where the best computers "today" would become the minimum standard tomorrow. They were right of course, but most people were buying the cheapest HP, Dell, Acer, etc computers they could find with Intel Celeron processors and basically no graphics hardware worth a damn.... They came shipped with Vista and it sucked because you bought a shit PC. The industry was going through a bargain basement type of phase where there were a lot of "discount" CPUs coming out. Before Celeron, you bought an Intel Pentium something or other, and they were all the same. You couldn't get a premium Pentium processor, or a discount Pentium processor.... Celeron was the first foray into what would become Intel atom, or at most the core i3. Intel was looking to expand into the budget households at a time when Microsoft put out their most demanding version of Windows. So people snapped up these Celeron shit boxes pre-installed with Vista and to nobody's surprise, it sucked.

So Microsoft cobbled together a new, somewhat less demanding UI, threw away the widgets, and released the same thing as Windows 7. By the time it hit shelves, most people had figured out (specifically OEMs) that the Celeron wasn't just a cheaper Intel CPU, it was handicapped. So the focus was turned to the core series of CPUs, and away from the hobbled Celeron line.

Look, Celeron had a place, just like Intel Atom. In consumer desktops, is not that place. Something like a point of sale, yeah, that's fine. A glorified web browser or kiosk, sure. All good. A multitasking desktop? Not so much. But OEMs put that shit in everything, and they stopped doing that pretty quickly.

I very successfully ran a core 2 duo system on Vista for a long time in my younger years. 4G of RAM, Nvidia GPU... It worked really well, and I used it for many years. It was even a laptop. I still have it, it still works, but I have more powerful systems, so it's sitting in a protective case and has been untouched for many years at this point. That system was my daily driver for pretty much the entirety of college. I also had a core 2 duo at home, but I spent most of my days on campus with my laptop.

It was excellent.

Yet, everyone praises Windows 7, despite it having features that were non-functional for its entire lifespan, which people either didn't notice, or didn't care that those things didn't work. I don't hate 7. I still think that it's UI and everything was superior over 8/8.1, and that it was a really good OS for average use. As an administrator and a power user, I'm happy on 10. I also used 8/8.1 for a while and though it was functional, it was pretty painful overall. Especially compared to 10.

Don't get me started on W11.