Windows XP - What you'll miss about Vista

-This post is an extract from article
"-'-http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/xpsp3_02.asp-'
(http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/xpsp3_02.asp)-" appearing on Paul
Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows.-

_______________________________
Paul Thurrott's article basically covers the comparison between XP and
Vista quite nicely, and hopefully will give people a better
understanding of why Vista is better than XP - even if XP SP3 is
installed.
_______________________________

Aside from obvious look and feel issues, the most striking thing about
downgrading from Windows Vista to XP is the sheer number of things that
need to be installed and configured in order to bring the older OS up to
speed with its more recent stablemate. Just some of these issues
include:

*Hardware drivers.*
On three different systems, one a desktop and two portable devices, XP
required me to install a huge number of hardware drivers, most of which
had to be manually downloaded on other PCs because the XP-based PC
initially lacked networking facilities.

*Out of date software applications.*
Even with the very latest version of XP, there are an alarming number
of out of date applications that must be removed and/or updated. I
removed MSN Explorer, Outlook Express, and Windows Messenger using Add
or Remove Programs. Then I manually updated Internet Explorer 6 to 7 and
Windows Media Player 9 to 11 by downloading the latest versions from
Windows Update and the Microsoft Download Center.

*Missing applications. *
Windows XP does not include certain applications, like the
aforementioned IE 7 and WMP 11. But it's more than that. You have to
manually find, download, and install Windows Defender (or the
anti-spyware application of your choice), an application that (like IE 7
and WMP 11) is included in Vista by default. And like Vista, XP doesn't
ship with any form of anti-virus. So you'll have to find some kind of AV
solution on your own as well.

*Microsoft Update. *
Windows XP ships with a lousy Web-based version of Windows Update,
which will not automatically provide updates for non-Windows products.
To gain this functionality, you have to manually install Microsoft
Update, a multi-step and time-consuming process. Once Microsoft Update
is installed, you can't get it to appear in the Start Menu's Most
Recently Used (MRU) list, no matter how frequently you use it. But the
old Windows Update appears in the Start Menu MRU, even when it's been
replaced.

*Start Menu. *
XP's Start Menu, which relies on pop-out menus that never remember how
to stay sorted alphabetically, is demonstrably less useable than
Vista's. As you install more and more applications, the Start Menu grows
and grows, necessitating manual pruning and organization, a process that
isn't required on Vista. And don't get me started on the lack of Start
Menu Search.

*Hidden applications.*
Tied to the lack of Start Menu Search, you simply have to know that
certain utilities exist in order to access them. Device Manager is a
typical example. To find it in XP, open the Start Menu, right-click My
Computer, choose Properties, and then go to Hardware tab. Obviously.

*Desktop.*
Unlike with Vista, XP's desktop icons are too small ... or way too big,
assuming you can find the place in the UI where you can change their
size. Vista's more configurable desktop is easier on the eyes,
especially with the high-resolution screens of today.

*ClearType.*
Microsoft's ClearType sub-pixel rendering system is not enabled by
default on Windows XP and must be manually enabled.

*Windows Search.*
Windows XP's unbelievably annoying Search Companion, which for some
bizarre reason utilizes a cartoon dog, isn't just condecscending to
users, it's also lousy at what it does. To fix this and provide XP with
something approaching the power of Vista's Instant Search functionality,
you need to know about, find, and then manually download Windows Desktop
Search.

*Networking. *
XP's networking functionality is laughably bad compared to Vista's,
which features simple, plain English auto-configuration capabilities
that utilize location concepts like Home, Work, and Public Location. In
XP, you have to enter the WPA network key TWICE to initially configure
wireless networking. There are repeated "Now connected" pop-up balloons:
Yeah, we get it, you're connected. And then there are those annoying
disconnected network adapter icons in the tray. You can't make them go
away unless you disable the connection(s) or connect them to something.

*Power management. *
You have to enable the power management tray icon in Power Options on
portable machines. You also have to manually enable Hibernation,
regardless of the PC type. And then you have to hope that it works,
since power management is so much more dicey in XP than it is in Vista.
Good luck!

*Backup. *
XP's backup utility dates back to the earliest days of NT and it shows.
Not surprisingly, Vista features a completely rewritten backup utility
that really works, and provides both image-based full PC backup and file
backup functionality. Oh, and Previous Versions, which lets you get at
older versions of documents and other data files. XP has none of that.

*Taskbar. *
Seriously, make the Language toolbar go away. Why does it appear? Why
does it appear after I close it?

*User interface. *
I'm not going to harp on XP's out of date user interface too much. But
I will point out that there is a decent XP UI available called Royale
that debuted in XP Media Center Edition 2005. It doesn't come with XP
Home or Pro by default, but you can download it from the Web. Why it's
not just included in XP is beyond me, but anyone stuck using XP should
search for it, download it, and install it.

What makes this list even more daunting is that Windows XP, unlike
Vista, does not include any automatic degunking technology. Over time,
Windows XP simply gets slower and slower, and eventually you have to
reinstall from scratch to recover lost performance. That's not the case
with Windows Vista.

*::Other features I missed from Windows Vista::*
Windows Vista's detractors like to spread the myth that Microsoft's
latest desktop OS doesn't offer enough unique new functionality when
compared to its predecessor, Windows XP. That's not true at all. In
addition to not suffering from most of the many issues listed above,
I've found my time using XP to be quite painful at times because I
missed, among other things, the following Vista features:

*Windows Aero. *
Dismissed as eye candy, Vista's Aero user interface is nicer looking
than anything found on XP. It's also more functional: Aero's glass
effects and taskbar icon previews make it easier to find other windows
when you're multi-tasking. Subtle animations tell you where to look for
minimized windows. And live icons give you previews of document
contents. (One Aero feature I don't care for or use, however, is Flip
3D). Possible solution: Download Royale at the very least or put up with
a potentially buggy UI replacement like WindowBlinds.

*Start Menu Search. *
It doesn't get a lot of press, but this just may be one of Vista's best
and most important features. In my case, it affects my daily workflow in
ways that weren't appreciated until I downgraded to XP and immediately
missed its presense. Possible solution: Download a third party launcher
like Launchy or Enso Launcher

*Windows Sidebar. *
I actually use Windows Sidebar regularly though I wish there were more
quality gadgets available. After initially promising to port Sidebar to
XP, Microsoft eventually gave up on the project. Possible solution:
Download a third party sidebar replacement like Google Desktop or Yahoo!
Widgets.

*Breadcrumb bar. *
The new breadcrumb bar in Windows Vista's Explorer windows is a huge
improvement over the ancient address bars in XP and older Windows
versions. The big advance, however, isn't the simplification of the
location display, it's the ability to quickly jump around in the folder
hierarchy using the breadcrumb bar's node-based navigation scheme. As
with Start Menu Search, this is a feature you don't realize you use so
often until it's gone.

*Disk Defrag. *
Windows XP does include a disk defragmentation utility, but it doesn't
run automatically in the background so you have to remember to run it
regularly.

*ReadyBoost. *
A lot is made about how much better Windows XP runs on older hardware
than does Vista, but then why wouldn't it? A more important potential
market for Vista is those PCs that are less than two years old and on
the edge of meeting realistic Vista hardware requirements. For these
systems--with 1 to 2 GB of RAM and a pre-Core 2 Duo processor--Microsoft
has provided a truly useful performance feature called ReadyBoost that
makes all the difference in the world. Plug in a 512 MB to 2 GB USB
memory fob and suddenly that dog of a PC will run Vista just fine, thank
you very much.

I know, I know. You're looking at this list and you're thinking big
deal. Remember, however, that this isn't a list of unique Vista
features--a list that would include such technologies as BitLocker,
Media Center, and Windows Calendar, among many others. This is a list of
things that impact me, as an individual, on a regular basis. A list that
should be combined with the list of issues from the previous section to
provide a wider overall picture of the real world day to day differences
between using each system. In this light, the advantages of Windows
Vista are very real. Very real indeed.


--
Dzomlija

Peter Alexander Dzomlija
-Do you hear, huh? The Alpha and The Omega? Death and Rebirth? And as
you die, so shall I be Reborn...-

_*Prometheus*_
MOBO: ASUS MB-M3A32-MVP Deluxe/WiFi-AP
CPU: AMD Phenom 9600 Quad
RAM: 2 x A-Data 2GB DDR2-800
GPU: ASUS ATI Radeon HD 2400PRO, 256MB
BOX: Thermaltake Tai-Chi Water Cooled
OS: Windows Vista Ultimate x64
'' (http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=333562)'[image:
http://valid.x86-secret.com/cache/banner/333562.png]'
(http://valid.x86-secret.com/cache/banner/333562.png)

"Dzomlija" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> -This post is an extract from article
> "-'-http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/xpsp3_02.asp-'
> (http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/xpsp3_02.asp)-" appearing on Paul
> Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows.-
>
> _______________________________
> Paul Thurrott's article basically covers the comparison between XP and
> Vista quite nicely, and hopefully will give people a better
> understanding of why Vista is better than XP - even if XP SP3 is
> installed.
> _______________________________
>
> Aside from obvious look and feel issues, the most striking thing about
> downgrading from Windows Vista to XP is the sheer number of things that
> need to be installed and configured in order to bring the older OS up to
> speed with its more recent stablemate. Just some of these issues
> include:
>
> *Hardware drivers.*
> On three different systems, one a desktop and two portable devices, XP
> required me to install a huge number of hardware drivers, most of which
> had to be manually downloaded on other PCs because the XP-based PC
> initially lacked networking facilities.

Only because 1) Vista may not have the drivers to install, and XP wasn't
provisioned very well. In either case, you wouldn't have to in buying a
bundled PC as the OEM did this for you. The OEMs still could do this
differently, making it easy but didn't fit the bundling ideaology.

> *Out of date software applications.*
> Even with the very latest version of XP, there are an alarming number
> of out of date applications that must be removed and/or updated. I
> removed MSN Explorer, Outlook Express, and Windows Messenger using Add
> or Remove Programs. Then I manually updated Internet Explorer 6 to 7 and
> Windows Media Player 9 to 11 by downloading the latest versions from
> Windows Update and the Microsoft Download Center.

I would not doubt right now XP is more compatible than Vista. And you get
to chose how far you want those updates.

> *Missing applications. *
> Windows XP does not include certain applications, like the
> aforementioned IE 7 and WMP 11. But it's more than that. You have to
> manually find, download, and install Windows Defender (or the
> anti-spyware application of your choice), an application that (like IE 7
> and WMP 11) is included in Vista by default. And like Vista, XP doesn't
> ship with any form of anti-virus. So you'll have to find some kind of AV
> solution on your own as well.

Tehy keep changing IE, I never notice, I use Firefox. And for both, they
keep changing it adding less value and more bloat. The music plays, that is
all I need.

> *Microsoft Update. *
> Windows XP ships with a lousy Web-based version of Windows Update,
> which will not automatically provide updates for non-Windows products.
> To gain this functionality, you have to manually install Microsoft
> Update, a multi-step and time-consuming process. Once Microsoft Update
> is installed, you can't get it to appear in the Start Menu's Most
> Recently Used (MRU) list, no matter how frequently you use it. But the
> old Windows Update appears in the Start Menu MRU, even when it's been
> replaced.

How many times has it changed? Lots. How many times will it change?
Probably lots. This is Microsoft (any OS), we are now aclimatized that
updates happen all the time, any version.

> *Start Menu. *
> XP's Start Menu, which relies on pop-out menus that never remember how
> to stay sorted alphabetically, is demonstrably less useable than
> Vista's. As you install more and more applications, the Start Menu grows
> and grows, necessitating manual pruning and organization, a process that
> isn't required on Vista. And don't get me started on the lack of Start
> Menu Search.

Vista confuses me. I like XPs menu better.

> *Hidden applications.*
> Tied to the lack of Start Menu Search, you simply have to know that
> certain utilities exist in order to access them. Device Manager is a
> typical example. To find it in XP, open the Start Menu, right-click My
> Computer, choose Properties, and then go to Hardware tab. Obviously.

I am sure Vista has some well hidden applications. Certainly have to
re-learn and remember the menu system. Just as easy, if not easier to use
Ubuntu.

> *Desktop.*
> Unlike with Vista, XP's desktop icons are too small ... or way too big,
> assuming you can find the place in the UI where you can change their
> size. Vista's more configurable desktop is easier on the eyes,
> especially with the high-resolution screens of today.

I like them small. I don't need a 1" Icon to show a link or file. Exporer
too. Why not use list mode? Infact, that Vista one really annoys me. It
tries to hide where on the disk my files are and just slows me down. Plus
it assumes I am a dolt. Vista agrrivates me here.

> *ClearType.*
> Microsoft's ClearType sub-pixel rendering system is not enabled by
> default on Windows XP and must be manually enabled.

Easy to enable.

> *Windows Search.*
> Windows XP's unbelievably annoying Search Companion, which for some
> bizarre reason utilizes a cartoon dog, isn't just condecscending to
> users, it's also lousy at what it does. To fix this and provide XP with
> something approaching the power of Vista's Instant Search functionality,
> you need to know about, find, and then manually download Windows Desktop
> Search.

Never use search in XP or Vista. It was slow and stupid in XP, and from
other peoples comments I gather it isn't much better in Vista.

> *Networking. *
> XP's networking functionality is laughably bad compared to Vista's,
> which features simple, plain English auto-configuration capabilities
> that utilize location concepts like Home, Work, and Public Location. In
> XP, you have to enter the WPA network key TWICE to initially configure
> wireless networking. There are repeated "Now connected" pop-up balloons:
> Yeah, we get it, you're connected. And then there are those annoying
> disconnected network adapter icons in the tray. You can't make them go
> away unless you disable the connection(s) or connect them to something.

I didn't see much difference other than XP auto install did a better job in
the last 4 years than does Vista. Had a relative call me over to fix their
new Vista, OEM support couldn't help.

Turned out it thought it was on DSL and set the MTU incorrectly. Never seen
XP do that.

> *Power management. *
> You have to enable the power management tray icon in Power Options on
> portable machines. You also have to manually enable Hibernation,
> regardless of the PC type. And then you have to hope that it works,
> since power management is so much more dicey in XP than it is in Vista.
> Good luck!

Yep, with Vsta it goes to sleep and will not wake up. Now before you say
drivers, 1) they are installed and 2) it is an out of the box OEM Vista
install. My XP right beside it, flawless.

> *Backup. *
> XP's backup utility dates back to the earliest days of NT and it shows.
> Not surprisingly, Vista features a completely rewritten backup utility
> that really works, and provides both image-based full PC backup and file
> backup functionality. Oh, and Previous Versions, which lets you get at
> older versions of documents and other data files. XP has none of that.

Never use the Microsoft one, never seen anyone actually use it and not get
into registry hell.

I always use the DVD version and take a periodic copy of my data to DVD or
over the network to my storage device. But with Vista, I can't do it over
the network as Vista will not mount/map the storage device.

> *Taskbar. *
> Seriously, make the Language toolbar go away. Why does it appear? Why
> does it appear after I close it?

Never messed with this.

> *User interface. *
> I'm not going to harp on XP's out of date user interface too much. But
> I will point out that there is a decent XP UI available called Royale
> that debuted in XP Media Center Edition 2005. It doesn't come with XP
> Home or Pro by default, but you can download it from the Web. Why it's
> not just included in XP is beyond me, but anyone stuck using XP should
> search for it, download it, and install it.

While Linux has a very simple interface to XP, Vista...arg. If you want
easy menu, you want Ubuntu or Fedora. Apple had it right putting the tool
bar on the top. Linux puts one on both the top and bottom, very usable.

> What makes this list even more daunting is that Windows XP, unlike
> Vista, does not include any automatic degunking technology. Over time,
> Windows XP simply gets slower and slower, and eventually you have to
> reinstall from scratch to recover lost performance. That's not the case
> with Windows Vista.

Vista isn't old enough and does not have the hours on it yet. So no
comment. But I heard this line going from W2000 to XP, so I suspect more
vapor.

> *::Other features I missed from Windows Vista::*
> Windows Vista's detractors like to spread the myth that Microsoft's
> latest desktop OS doesn't offer enough unique new functionality when
> compared to its predecessor, Windows XP. That's not true at all. In
> addition to not suffering from most of the many issues listed above,
> I've found my time using XP to be quite painful at times because I
> missed, among other things, the following Vista features:
>
> *Windows Aero. *
> Dismissed as eye candy, Vista's Aero user interface is nicer looking
> than anything found on XP. It's also more functional: Aero's glass
> effects and taskbar icon previews make it easier to find other windows
> when you're multi-tasking. Subtle animations tell you where to look for
> minimized windows. And live icons give you previews of document
> contents. (One Aero feature I don't care for or use, however, is Flip
> 3D). Possible solution: Download Royale at the very least or put up with
> a potentially buggy UI replacement like WindowBlinds.

Aero, I actually like it (menus asside). Needs a beefy graphics card with
dedicated memory for a nice experience, but it actually isn't too bad. But
this got me motivated to see what Linux Compiz was like....wow... Microsoft
should look at Compiz....the cube flip, and application tabing...fantastic
and addictive. My UI vote goes Compiz.

> *Start Menu Search. *
> It doesn't get a lot of press, but this just may be one of Vista's best
> and most important features. In my case, it affects my daily workflow in
> ways that weren't appreciated until I downgraded to XP and immediately
> missed its presense. Possible solution: Download a third party launcher
> like Launchy or Enso Launcher

Never used search. Always seems broken.

> *Windows Sidebar. *
> I actually use Windows Sidebar regularly though I wish there were more
> quality gadgets available. After initially promising to port Sidebar to
> XP, Microsoft eventually gave up on the project. Possible solution:
> Download a third party sidebar replacement like Google Desktop or Yahoo!
> Widgets.

Yes, a nice part of Aero. I am sure Linux has or will adopt those now that
wide screens are the norm. Would not want it on a old sized screen.

> *Breadcrumb bar. *
> The new breadcrumb bar in Windows Vista's Explorer windows is a huge
> improvement over the ancient address bars in XP and older Windows
> versions. The big advance, however, isn't the simplification of the
> location display, it's the ability to quickly jump around in the folder
> hierarchy using the breadcrumb bar's node-based navigation scheme. As
> with Start Menu Search, this is a feature you don't realize you use so
> often until it's gone.

Breadcrumb bar? Granola?

> *Disk Defrag. *
> Windows XP does include a disk defragmentation utility, but it doesn't
> run automatically in the background so you have to remember to run it
> regularly.

I like to know why my disk is thrashing thank you. If my PC is idle, and
the disk goes nuts how am I supposed to guess it is defrag or a worm? Next,
if Vista is so advanced, why did they not use a file system that does not
require defrag?

> *ReadyBoost. *
> A lot is made about how much better Windows XP runs on older hardware
> than does Vista, but then why wouldn't it? A more important potential
> market for Vista is those PCs that are less than two years old and on
> the edge of meeting realistic Vista hardware requirements. For these
> systems--with 1 to 2 GB of RAM and a pre-Core 2 Duo processor--Microsoft
> has provided a truly useful performance feature called ReadyBoost that
> makes all the difference in the world. Plug in a 512 MB to 2 GB USB
> memory fob and suddenly that dog of a PC will run Vista just fine, thank
> you very much.

This is a solution to the problems that Vista created, in that Vista is fat.
OSes are supposed to be lean, small, tight and fast code. So instead of
fixing bloat, a laptop has to have a USB drive poking out? Might just as
well get XP.

> I know, I know. You're looking at this list and you're thinking big
> deal. Remember, however, that this isn't a list of unique Vista
> features--a list that would include such technologies as BitLocker,
> Media Center, and Windows Calendar, among many others. This is a list of
> things that impact me, as an individual, on a regular basis. A list that
> should be combined with the list of issues from the previous section to
> provide a wider overall picture of the real world day to day differences
> between using each system. In this light, the advantages of Windows
> Vista are very real. Very real indeed.

Yep, you read my mind. Big deal. Worse yet, didn't discover anything I
will miss from Vista. Vista had one nice background, I copied it over to
Ubuntu. So will not miss that. Can't be network performance or large file
disk copy, Ubuntu is much faster. GNU chess is harder to beat.

Q6600 8GB OCZ RAM, 2 x 500GB SATA, GeForce 8500 GT, OEM Vista Premium
Triple boot: Ubuntu, Fedora, Vista (rarely).
My XP system got a reprive from runing Linux, Q6600 got Linux to replace
Vista.

Dzomlija wrote:
> -This post is an extract from article
> "-'-http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/xpsp3_02.asp-'
> (http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/xpsp3_02.asp)-" appearing on Paul
> Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows.-
>
> _______________________________
> Paul Thurrott's article basically covers the comparison between XP and
> Vista quite nicely, and hopefully will give people a better
> understanding of why Vista is better than XP - even if XP SP3 is
> installed.
> _______________________________
>
> Aside from obvious look and feel issues, the most striking thing about
> downgrading from Windows Vista to XP is the sheer number of things that
> need to be installed and configured in order to bring the older OS up to
> speed with its more recent stablemate. Just some of these issues
> include:
>
> *Hardware drivers.*
> On three different systems, one a desktop and two portable devices, XP
> required me to install a huge number of hardware drivers, most of which
> had to be manually downloaded on other PCs because the XP-based PC
> initially lacked networking facilities.
>
> *Out of date software applications.*
> Even with the very latest version of XP, there are an alarming number
> of out of date applications that must be removed and/or updated. I
> removed MSN Explorer, Outlook Express, and Windows Messenger using Add
> or Remove Programs. Then I manually updated Internet Explorer 6 to 7 and
> Windows Media Player 9 to 11 by downloading the latest versions from
> Windows Update and the Microsoft Download Center.
>
> *Missing applications. *
> Windows XP does not include certain applications, like the
> aforementioned IE 7 and WMP 11. But it's more than that. You have to
> manually find, download, and install Windows Defender (or the
> anti-spyware application of your choice), an application that (like IE 7
> and WMP 11) is included in Vista by default. And like Vista, XP doesn't
> ship with any form of anti-virus. So you'll have to find some kind of AV
> solution on your own as well.
>
> *Microsoft Update. *
> Windows XP ships with a lousy Web-based version of Windows Update,
> which will not automatically provide updates for non-Windows products.
> To gain this functionality, you have to manually install Microsoft
> Update, a multi-step and time-consuming process. Once Microsoft Update
> is installed, you can't get it to appear in the Start Menu's Most
> Recently Used (MRU) list, no matter how frequently you use it. But the
> old Windows Update appears in the Start Menu MRU, even when it's been
> replaced.
>
> *Start Menu. *
> XP's Start Menu, which relies on pop-out menus that never remember how
> to stay sorted alphabetically, is demonstrably less useable than
> Vista's. As you install more and more applications, the Start Menu grows
> and grows, necessitating manual pruning and organization, a process that
> isn't required on Vista. And don't get me started on the lack of Start
> Menu Search.
>
> *Hidden applications.*
> Tied to the lack of Start Menu Search, you simply have to know that
> certain utilities exist in order to access them. Device Manager is a
> typical example. To find it in XP, open the Start Menu, right-click My
> Computer, choose Properties, and then go to Hardware tab. Obviously.
>
> *Desktop.*
> Unlike with Vista, XP's desktop icons are too small ... or way too big,
> assuming you can find the place in the UI where you can change their
> size. Vista's more configurable desktop is easier on the eyes,
> especially with the high-resolution screens of today.
>
> *ClearType.*
> Microsoft's ClearType sub-pixel rendering system is not enabled by
> default on Windows XP and must be manually enabled.
>
> *Windows Search.*
> Windows XP's unbelievably annoying Search Companion, which for some
> bizarre reason utilizes a cartoon dog, isn't just condecscending to
> users, it's also lousy at what it does. To fix this and provide XP with
> something approaching the power of Vista's Instant Search functionality,
> you need to know about, find, and then manually download Windows Desktop
> Search.
>
> *Networking. *
> XP's networking functionality is laughably bad compared to Vista's,
> which features simple, plain English auto-configuration capabilities
> that utilize location concepts like Home, Work, and Public Location. In
> XP, you have to enter the WPA network key TWICE to initially configure
> wireless networking. There are repeated "Now connected" pop-up balloons:
> Yeah, we get it, you're connected. And then there are those annoying
> disconnected network adapter icons in the tray. You can't make them go
> away unless you disable the connection(s) or connect them to something.
>
> *Power management. *
> You have to enable the power management tray icon in Power Options on
> portable machines. You also have to manually enable Hibernation,
> regardless of the PC type. And then you have to hope that it works,
> since power management is so much more dicey in XP than it is in Vista.
> Good luck!
>
> *Backup. *
> XP's backup utility dates back to the earliest days of NT and it shows.
> Not surprisingly, Vista features a completely rewritten backup utility
> that really works, and provides both image-based full PC backup and file
> backup functionality. Oh, and Previous Versions, which lets you get at
> older versions of documents and other data files. XP has none of that.
>
> *Taskbar. *
> Seriously, make the Language toolbar go away. Why does it appear? Why
> does it appear after I close it?
>
> *User interface. *
> I'm not going to harp on XP's out of date user interface too much. But
> I will point out that there is a decent XP UI available called Royale
> that debuted in XP Media Center Edition 2005. It doesn't come with XP
> Home or Pro by default, but you can download it from the Web. Why it's
> not just included in XP is beyond me, but anyone stuck using XP should
> search for it, download it, and install it.
>
> What makes this list even more daunting is that Windows XP, unlike
> Vista, does not include any automatic degunking technology. Over time,
> Windows XP simply gets slower and slower, and eventually you have to
> reinstall from scratch to recover lost performance. That's not the case
> with Windows Vista.
>
> *::Other features I missed from Windows Vista::*
> Windows Vista's detractors like to spread the myth that Microsoft's
> latest desktop OS doesn't offer enough unique new functionality when
> compared to its predecessor, Windows XP. That's not true at all. In
> addition to not suffering from most of the many issues listed above,
> I've found my time using XP to be quite painful at times because I
> missed, among other things, the following Vista features:
>
> *Windows Aero. *
> Dismissed as eye candy, Vista's Aero user interface is nicer looking
> than anything found on XP. It's also more functional: Aero's glass
> effects and taskbar icon previews make it easier to find other windows
> when you're multi-tasking. Subtle animations tell you where to look for
> minimized windows. And live icons give you previews of document
> contents. (One Aero feature I don't care for or use, however, is Flip
> 3D). Possible solution: Download Royale at the very least or put up with
> a potentially buggy UI replacement like WindowBlinds.
>
> *Start Menu Search. *
> It doesn't get a lot of press, but this just may be one of Vista's best
> and most important features. In my case, it affects my daily workflow in
> ways that weren't appreciated until I downgraded to XP and immediately
> missed its presense. Possible solution: Download a third party launcher
> like Launchy or Enso Launcher
>
> *Windows Sidebar. *
> I actually use Windows Sidebar regularly though I wish there were more
> quality gadgets available. After initially promising to port Sidebar to
> XP, Microsoft eventually gave up on the project. Possible solution:
> Download a third party sidebar replacement like Google Desktop or Yahoo!
> Widgets.
>
> *Breadcrumb bar. *
> The new breadcrumb bar in Windows Vista's Explorer windows is a huge
> improvement over the ancient address bars in XP and older Windows
> versions. The big advance, however, isn't the simplification of the
> location display, it's the ability to quickly jump around in the folder
> hierarchy using the breadcrumb bar's node-based navigation scheme. As
> with Start Menu Search, this is a feature you don't realize you use so
> often until it's gone.
>
> *Disk Defrag. *
> Windows XP does include a disk defragmentation utility, but it doesn't
> run automatically in the background so you have to remember to run it
> regularly.
>
> *ReadyBoost. *
> A lot is made about how much better Windows XP runs on older hardware
> than does Vista, but then why wouldn't it? A more important potential
> market for Vista is those PCs that are less than two years old and on
> the edge of meeting realistic Vista hardware requirements. For these
> systems--with 1 to 2 GB of RAM and a pre-Core 2 Duo processor--Microsoft
> has provided a truly useful performance feature called ReadyBoost that
> makes all the difference in the world. Plug in a 512 MB to 2 GB USB
> memory fob and suddenly that dog of a PC will run Vista just fine, thank
> you very much.
>
> I know, I know. You're looking at this list and you're thinking big
> deal. Remember, however, that this isn't a list of unique Vista
> features--a list that would include such technologies as BitLocker,
> Media Center, and Windows Calendar, among many others. This is a list of
> things that impact me, as an individual, on a regular basis. A list that
> should be combined with the list of issues from the previous section to
> provide a wider overall picture of the real world day to day differences
> between using each system. In this light, the advantages of Windows
> Vista are very real. Very real indeed.
>
>

Not very convincing, sorry. Who needs IE7 and Windows DRM Media 11? And
Defenseless? You *must* be kidding! At least the writer didn't complain
that UAC isn't included with XP. I wonder why ...

Alias

Dzomlija wrote:
> -This post is an extract from article
> "-'-http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/xpsp3_02.asp-'
> (http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/xpsp3_02.asp)-" appearing on Paul
> Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows.-
>
> _______________________________
> Paul Thurrott's article basically covers the comparison between XP and
> Vista quite nicely, and hopefully will give people a better
> understanding of why Vista is better than XP - even if XP SP3 is
> installed.
> _______________________________
>
> Aside from obvious look and feel issues, the most striking thing about
> downgrading from Windows Vista to XP is the sheer number of things that
> need to be installed and configured in order to bring the older OS up to
> speed with its more recent stablemate. Just some of these issues
> include:
>
> *Hardware drivers.*
> On three different systems, one a desktop and two portable devices, XP
> required me to install a huge number of hardware drivers, most of which
> had to be manually downloaded on other PCs because the XP-based PC
> initially lacked networking facilities.
>
> *Out of date software applications.*
> Even with the very latest version of XP, there are an alarming number
> of out of date applications that must be removed and/or updated. I
> removed MSN Explorer, Outlook Express, and Windows Messenger using Add
> or Remove Programs. Then I manually updated Internet Explorer 6 to 7 and
> Windows Media Player 9 to 11 by downloading the latest versions from
> Windows Update and the Microsoft Download Center.
>
> *Missing applications. *
> Windows XP does not include certain applications, like the
> aforementioned IE 7 and WMP 11. But it's more than that. You have to
> manually find, download, and install Windows Defender (or the
> anti-spyware application of your choice), an application that (like IE 7
> and WMP 11) is included in Vista by default. And like Vista, XP doesn't
> ship with any form of anti-virus. So you'll have to find some kind of AV
> solution on your own as well.
>
> *Microsoft Update. *
> Windows XP ships with a lousy Web-based version of Windows Update,
> which will not automatically provide updates for non-Windows products.
> To gain this functionality, you have to manually install Microsoft
> Update, a multi-step and time-consuming process. Once Microsoft Update
> is installed, you can't get it to appear in the Start Menu's Most
> Recently Used (MRU) list, no matter how frequently you use it. But the
> old Windows Update appears in the Start Menu MRU, even when it's been
> replaced.
>
> *Start Menu. *
> XP's Start Menu, which relies on pop-out menus that never remember how
> to stay sorted alphabetically, is demonstrably less useable than
> Vista's. As you install more and more applications, the Start Menu grows
> and grows, necessitating manual pruning and organization, a process that
> isn't required on Vista. And don't get me started on the lack of Start
> Menu Search.
>
> *Hidden applications.*
> Tied to the lack of Start Menu Search, you simply have to know that
> certain utilities exist in order to access them. Device Manager is a
> typical example. To find it in XP, open the Start Menu, right-click My
> Computer, choose Properties, and then go to Hardware tab. Obviously.
>
> *Desktop.*
> Unlike with Vista, XP's desktop icons are too small ... or way too big,
> assuming you can find the place in the UI where you can change their
> size. Vista's more configurable desktop is easier on the eyes,
> especially with the high-resolution screens of today.
>
> *ClearType.*
> Microsoft's ClearType sub-pixel rendering system is not enabled by
> default on Windows XP and must be manually enabled.
>
> *Windows Search.*
> Windows XP's unbelievably annoying Search Companion, which for some
> bizarre reason utilizes a cartoon dog, isn't just condecscending to
> users, it's also lousy at what it does. To fix this and provide XP with
> something approaching the power of Vista's Instant Search functionality,
> you need to know about, find, and then manually download Windows Desktop
> Search.
>
> *Networking. *
> XP's networking functionality is laughably bad compared to Vista's,
> which features simple, plain English auto-configuration capabilities
> that utilize location concepts like Home, Work, and Public Location. In
> XP, you have to enter the WPA network key TWICE to initially configure
> wireless networking. There are repeated "Now connected" pop-up balloons:
> Yeah, we get it, you're connected. And then there are those annoying
> disconnected network adapter icons in the tray. You can't make them go
> away unless you disable the connection(s) or connect them to something.
>
> *Power management. *
> You have to enable the power management tray icon in Power Options on
> portable machines. You also have to manually enable Hibernation,
> regardless of the PC type. And then you have to hope that it works,
> since power management is so much more dicey in XP than it is in Vista.
> Good luck!
>
> *Backup. *
> XP's backup utility dates back to the earliest days of NT and it shows.
> Not surprisingly, Vista features a completely rewritten backup utility
> that really works, and provides both image-based full PC backup and file
> backup functionality. Oh, and Previous Versions, which lets you get at
> older versions of documents and other data files. XP has none of that.
>
> *Taskbar. *
> Seriously, make the Language toolbar go away. Why does it appear? Why
> does it appear after I close it?
>
> *User interface. *
> I'm not going to harp on XP's out of date user interface too much. But
> I will point out that there is a decent XP UI available called Royale
> that debuted in XP Media Center Edition 2005. It doesn't come with XP
> Home or Pro by default, but you can download it from the Web. Why it's
> not just included in XP is beyond me, but anyone stuck using XP should
> search for it, download it, and install it.
>
> What makes this list even more daunting is that Windows XP, unlike
> Vista, does not include any automatic degunking technology. Over time,
> Windows XP simply gets slower and slower, and eventually you have to
> reinstall from scratch to recover lost performance. That's not the case
> with Windows Vista.
>
> *::Other features I missed from Windows Vista::*
> Windows Vista's detractors like to spread the myth that Microsoft's
> latest desktop OS doesn't offer enough unique new functionality when
> compared to its predecessor, Windows XP. That's not true at all. In
> addition to not suffering from most of the many issues listed above,
> I've found my time using XP to be quite painful at times because I
> missed, among other things, the following Vista features:
>
> *Windows Aero. *
> Dismissed as eye candy, Vista's Aero user interface is nicer looking
> than anything found on XP. It's also more functional: Aero's glass
> effects and taskbar icon previews make it easier to find other windows
> when you're multi-tasking. Subtle animations tell you where to look for
> minimized windows. And live icons give you previews of document
> contents. (One Aero feature I don't care for or use, however, is Flip
> 3D). Possible solution: Download Royale at the very least or put up with
> a potentially buggy UI replacement like WindowBlinds.
>
> *Start Menu Search. *
> It doesn't get a lot of press, but this just may be one of Vista's best
> and most important features. In my case, it affects my daily workflow in
> ways that weren't appreciated until I downgraded to XP and immediately
> missed its presense. Possible solution: Download a third party launcher
> like Launchy or Enso Launcher
>
> *Windows Sidebar. *
> I actually use Windows Sidebar regularly though I wish there were more
> quality gadgets available. After initially promising to port Sidebar to
> XP, Microsoft eventually gave up on the project. Possible solution:
> Download a third party sidebar replacement like Google Desktop or Yahoo!
> Widgets.
>
> *Breadcrumb bar. *
> The new breadcrumb bar in Windows Vista's Explorer windows is a huge
> improvement over the ancient address bars in XP and older Windows
> versions. The big advance, however, isn't the simplification of the
> location display, it's the ability to quickly jump around in the folder
> hierarchy using the breadcrumb bar's node-based navigation scheme. As
> with Start Menu Search, this is a feature you don't realize you use so
> often until it's gone.
>
> *Disk Defrag. *
> Windows XP does include a disk defragmentation utility, but it doesn't
> run automatically in the background so you have to remember to run it
> regularly.
>
> *ReadyBoost. *
> A lot is made about how much better Windows XP runs on older hardware
> than does Vista, but then why wouldn't it? A more important potential
> market for Vista is those PCs that are less than two years old and on
> the edge of meeting realistic Vista hardware requirements. For these
> systems--with 1 to 2 GB of RAM and a pre-Core 2 Duo processor--Microsoft
> has provided a truly useful performance feature called ReadyBoost that
> makes all the difference in the world. Plug in a 512 MB to 2 GB USB
> memory fob and suddenly that dog of a PC will run Vista just fine, thank
> you very much.
>
> I know, I know. You're looking at this list and you're thinking big
> deal. Remember, however, that this isn't a list of unique Vista
> features--a list that would include such technologies as BitLocker,
> Media Center, and Windows Calendar, among many others. This is a list of
> things that impact me, as an individual, on a regular basis. A list that
> should be combined with the list of issues from the previous section to
> provide a wider overall picture of the real world day to day differences
> between using each system. In this light, the advantages of Windows
> Vista are very real. Very real indeed.
>
>
>
What a crock, regarding how XP "slows down". I've had XP loaded on my
desktop Pavilion for about over 4 years, and its no slower than the day
it was purchased. I haven't had to reload any of my OS's since I got
WIN3.1. I use each PC until i get the urge to buy another one in a few
years and the new PC has another version of Windows on it. I don't
understand why so many people claim they NEED to reinstall windows from
time to time. IMO, if they knew what they were doing they could keep
windows running as well after 2 years as the day they bought it. And
NO, I'm not just unaware of slowdowns--I can tell if somethings wonky.

I've used 3.1, Win 95, Win 98SE, XP, and now Vista. Unless the hard
drive dies on my Vista machines, I anticipate the same longevity with
ONE installation of the OS,. rather then the PC-hobbyist mentality of
reloading it 3 or 4 times a year.

David;732405 Wrote:
> What a crock, regarding how XP "slows down". I've had XP loaded on my
> desktop Pavilion for about over 4 years, and its no slower than the day
> it was purchased. I haven't had to reload any of my OS's since I got
> WIN3.1. I use each PC until i get the urge to buy another one in a few
> years and the new PC has another version of Windows on it. I don't
> understand why so many people claim they NEED to reinstall windows from
> time to time. IMO, if they knew what they were doing they could keep
> windows running as well after 2 years as the day they bought it. And NO,
> I'm not just unaware of slowdowns--I can tell if somethings wonky.

Thats a valid argument, but there ARE scenarios where Windows XP can
and will slow down over time. While I do not doubt your case, perhaps
you should do a test. Clean install Windows XP, and all your usual
applications, then run a benchmark test, and record the results. Then,
after perhaps 6 months or so of genral daily use, run the exact same
benchmark, and compare the results. The second test will likely give a
lower score.

David;732405 Wrote:
> I've used 3.1, Win 95, Win 98SE, XP, and now Vista. Unless the hard
> drive dies on my Vista machines, I anticipate the same longevity with
> ONE installation of the OS,. rather then the PC-hobbyist mentality of
> reloading it 3 or 4 times a year.

I too have been using Windows since 3.1. And I do agree with you that
re-installing a couple of times a year is a bad idea - this is why too
many people never learn how to keep their systems running smoothly. When
something goes wrong, they re-install, instead of figuring out how to
solve the problem and in turn how to prevent it from happening again.
Re-installing to solve a problem is like curing the disease by killing
the patient!

But that still doesn't change the fact that Vista is far more stable
than XP could ever hope to be, and does not *need* to be periodically
reinstalled. As a rule, I always re-loaded all my XP systems once a year
over the December holidays (when I had the time), in preparation for the
new year.

In now close to 15 months of using Vista x64 Ultimate, I've reloaded
once, when the motherboard on my computer was destroyed. But that too
was a choice - because when I plugged the Vista drive into the new
computer, it simply detected the new hardware and continued normally.
But I wanted to start fresh, and formatted and re-installed Vista
anyway. Had that happened with XP, the reload would have been forced,
because the XP installation would not have survived the motherboard
change.


--
Dzomlija

Peter Alexander Dzomlija
-Do you hear, huh? The Alpha and The Omega? Death and Rebirth? And as
you die, so shall I be Reborn...-

_*Prometheus*_
MOBO: ASUS MB-M3A32-MVP Deluxe/WiFi-AP
CPU: AMD Phenom 9600 Quad
RAM: 2 x A-Data 2GB DDR2-800
GPU: ASUS ATI Radeon HD 2400PRO, 256MB
BOX: Thermaltake Tai-Chi Water Cooled
OS: Windows Vista Ultimate x64
'' (http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=333562)'[image:
http://valid.x86-secret.com/cache/banner/333562.png]'
(http://valid.x86-secret.com/cache/banner/333562.png)

Alias wrote:

> Dzomlija wrote:
>
>> -This post is an extract from article
>> "-'-http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/xpsp3_02.asp-'
>> (http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/xpsp3_02.asp)-" appearing on Paul
>> Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows.-
>>
>> _______________________________
>> Paul Thurrott's article basically covers the comparison between XP and
>> Vista quite nicely, and hopefully will give people a better
>> understanding of why Vista is better than XP - even if XP SP3 is
>> installed.
>> _______________________________
>>
>> Aside from obvious look and feel issues, the most striking thing about
>> downgrading from Windows Vista to XP is the sheer number of things that
>> need to be installed and configured in order to bring the older OS up to
>> speed with its more recent stablemate. Just some of these issues
>> include:
>>
>> *Hardware drivers.*
>> On three different systems, one a desktop and two portable devices, XP
>> required me to install a huge number of hardware drivers, most of which
>> had to be manually downloaded on other PCs because the XP-based PC
>> initially lacked networking facilities.
>>
>> *Out of date software applications.*
>> Even with the very latest version of XP, there are an alarming number
>> of out of date applications that must be removed and/or updated. I
>> removed MSN Explorer, Outlook Express, and Windows Messenger using Add
>> or Remove Programs. Then I manually updated Internet Explorer 6 to 7 and
>> Windows Media Player 9 to 11 by downloading the latest versions from
>> Windows Update and the Microsoft Download Center.
>>
>> *Missing applications. *
>> Windows XP does not include certain applications, like the
>> aforementioned IE 7 and WMP 11. But it's more than that. You have to
>> manually find, download, and install Windows Defender (or the
>> anti-spyware application of your choice), an application that (like IE 7
>> and WMP 11) is included in Vista by default. And like Vista, XP doesn't
>> ship with any form of anti-virus. So you'll have to find some kind of AV
>> solution on your own as well.
>>
>> *Microsoft Update. *
>> Windows XP ships with a lousy Web-based version of Windows Update,
>> which will not automatically provide updates for non-Windows products.
>> To gain this functionality, you have to manually install Microsoft
>> Update, a multi-step and time-consuming process. Once Microsoft Update
>> is installed, you can't get it to appear in the Start Menu's Most
>> Recently Used (MRU) list, no matter how frequently you use it. But the
>> old Windows Update appears in the Start Menu MRU, even when it's been
>> replaced.
>>
>> *Start Menu. *
>> XP's Start Menu, which relies on pop-out menus that never remember how
>> to stay sorted alphabetically, is demonstrably less useable than
>> Vista's. As you install more and more applications, the Start Menu grows
>> and grows, necessitating manual pruning and organization, a process that
>> isn't required on Vista. And don't get me started on the lack of Start
>> Menu Search.
>>
>> *Hidden applications.*
>> Tied to the lack of Start Menu Search, you simply have to know that
>> certain utilities exist in order to access them. Device Manager is a
>> typical example. To find it in XP, open the Start Menu, right-click My
>> Computer, choose Properties, and then go to Hardware tab. Obviously.
>>
>> *Desktop.*
>> Unlike with Vista, XP's desktop icons are too small ... or way too big,
>> assuming you can find the place in the UI where you can change their
>> size. Vista's more configurable desktop is easier on the eyes,
>> especially with the high-resolution screens of today.
>>
>> *ClearType.*
>> Microsoft's ClearType sub-pixel rendering system is not enabled by
>> default on Windows XP and must be manually enabled.
>>
>> *Windows Search.*
>> Windows XP's unbelievably annoying Search Companion, which for some
>> bizarre reason utilizes a cartoon dog, isn't just condecscending to
>> users, it's also lousy at what it does. To fix this and provide XP with
>> something approaching the power of Vista's Instant Search functionality,
>> you need to know about, find, and then manually download Windows Desktop
>> Search.
>>
>> *Networking. *
>> XP's networking functionality is laughably bad compared to Vista's,
>> which features simple, plain English auto-configuration capabilities
>> that utilize location concepts like Home, Work, and Public Location. In
>> XP, you have to enter the WPA network key TWICE to initially configure
>> wireless networking. There are repeated "Now connected" pop-up balloons:
>> Yeah, we get it, you're connected. And then there are those annoying
>> disconnected network adapter icons in the tray. You can't make them go
>> away unless you disable the connection(s) or connect them to something.
>>
>> *Power management. *
>> You have to enable the power management tray icon in Power Options on
>> portable machines. You also have to manually enable Hibernation,
>> regardless of the PC type. And then you have to hope that it works,
>> since power management is so much more dicey in XP than it is in Vista.
>> Good luck!
>>
>> *Backup. *
>> XP's backup utility dates back to the earliest days of NT and it shows.
>> Not surprisingly, Vista features a completely rewritten backup utility
>> that really works, and provides both image-based full PC backup and file
>> backup functionality. Oh, and Previous Versions, which lets you get at
>> older versions of documents and other data files. XP has none of that.
>>
>> *Taskbar. *
>> Seriously, make the Language toolbar go away. Why does it appear? Why
>> does it appear after I close it?
>>
>> *User interface. *
>> I'm not going to harp on XP's out of date user interface too much. But
>> I will point out that there is a decent XP UI available called Royale
>> that debuted in XP Media Center Edition 2005. It doesn't come with XP
>> Home or Pro by default, but you can download it from the Web. Why it's
>> not just included in XP is beyond me, but anyone stuck using XP should
>> search for it, download it, and install it.
>>
>> What makes this list even more daunting is that Windows XP, unlike
>> Vista, does not include any automatic degunking technology. Over time,
>> Windows XP simply gets slower and slower, and eventually you have to
>> reinstall from scratch to recover lost performance. That's not the case
>> with Windows Vista.
>>
>> *::Other features I missed from Windows Vista::*
>> Windows Vista's detractors like to spread the myth that Microsoft's
>> latest desktop OS doesn't offer enough unique new functionality when
>> compared to its predecessor, Windows XP. That's not true at all. In
>> addition to not suffering from most of the many issues listed above,
>> I've found my time using XP to be quite painful at times because I
>> missed, among other things, the following Vista features:
>>
>> *Windows Aero. *
>> Dismissed as eye candy, Vista's Aero user interface is nicer looking
>> than anything found on XP. It's also more functional: Aero's glass
>> effects and taskbar icon previews make it easier to find other windows
>> when you're multi-tasking. Subtle animations tell you where to look for
>> minimized windows. And live icons give you previews of document
>> contents. (One Aero feature I don't care for or use, however, is Flip
>> 3D). Possible solution: Download Royale at the very least or put up with
>> a potentially buggy UI replacement like WindowBlinds.
>>
>> *Start Menu Search. *
>> It doesn't get a lot of press, but this just may be one of Vista's best
>> and most important features. In my case, it affects my daily workflow in
>> ways that weren't appreciated until I downgraded to XP and immediately
>> missed its presense. Possible solution: Download a third party launcher
>> like Launchy or Enso Launcher
>>
>> *Windows Sidebar. *
>> I actually use Windows Sidebar regularly though I wish there were more
>> quality gadgets available. After initially promising to port Sidebar to
>> XP, Microsoft eventually gave up on the project. Possible solution:
>> Download a third party sidebar replacement like Google Desktop or Yahoo!
>> Widgets.
>>
>> *Breadcrumb bar. *
>> The new breadcrumb bar in Windows Vista's Explorer windows is a huge
>> improvement over the ancient address bars in XP and older Windows
>> versions. The big advance, however, isn't the simplification of the
>> location display, it's the ability to quickly jump around in the folder
>> hierarchy using the breadcrumb bar's node-based navigation scheme. As
>> with Start Menu Search, this is a feature you don't realize you use so
>> often until it's gone.
>>
>> *Disk Defrag. *
>> Windows XP does include a disk defragmentation utility, but it doesn't
>> run automatically in the background so you have to remember to run it
>> regularly.
>>
>> *ReadyBoost. *
>> A lot is made about how much better Windows XP runs on older hardware
>> than does Vista, but then why wouldn't it? A more important potential
>> market for Vista is those PCs that are less than two years old and on
>> the edge of meeting realistic Vista hardware requirements. For these
>> systems--with 1 to 2 GB of RAM and a pre-Core 2 Duo processor--Microsoft
>> has provided a truly useful performance feature called ReadyBoost that
>> makes all the difference in the world. Plug in a 512 MB to 2 GB USB
>> memory fob and suddenly that dog of a PC will run Vista just fine, thank
>> you very much.
>>
>> I know, I know. You're looking at this list and you're thinking big
>> deal. Remember, however, that this isn't a list of unique Vista
>> features--a list that would include such technologies as BitLocker,
>> Media Center, and Windows Calendar, among many others. This is a list of
>> things that impact me, as an individual, on a regular basis. A list that
>> should be combined with the list of issues from the previous section to
>> provide a wider overall picture of the real world day to day differences
>> between using each system. In this light, the advantages of Windows
>> Vista are very real. Very real indeed.
>>
>>
>
> Not very convincing, sorry. Who needs IE7 and Windows DRM Media 11? And
> Defenseless? You *must* be kidding! At least the writer didn't complain
> that UAC isn't included with XP. I wonder why ...
>
> Alias

Don't worry sheep-fukker...you'll never be able to afford or steal W7.
Best you stick with that POS toy os upyurbuttoo!
Frank

Dzomlija wrote:
> David;732405 Wrote:
>
>> What a crock, regarding how XP "slows down". I've had XP loaded on my
>> desktop Pavilion for about over 4 years, and its no slower than the day
>> it was purchased. I haven't had to reload any of my OS's since I got
>> WIN3.1. I use each PC until i get the urge to buy another one in a few
>> years and the new PC has another version of Windows on it. I don't
>> understand why so many people claim they NEED to reinstall windows from
>> time to time. IMO, if they knew what they were doing they could keep
>> windows running as well after 2 years as the day they bought it. And NO,
>> I'm not just unaware of slowdowns--I can tell if somethings wonky.
>>
>
> Thats a valid argument, but there ARE scenarios where Windows XP can
> and will slow down over time. While I do not doubt your case, perhaps
> you should do a test. Clean install Windows XP, and all your usual
> applications, then run a benchmark test, and record the results. Then,
> after perhaps 6 months or so of genral daily use, run the exact same
> benchmark, and compare the results. The second test will likely give a
> lower score.
>
> David;732405 Wrote:
>
>> I've used 3.1, Win 95, Win 98SE, XP, and now Vista. Unless the hard
>> drive dies on my Vista machines, I anticipate the same longevity with
>> ONE installation of the OS,. rather then the PC-hobbyist mentality of
>> reloading it 3 or 4 times a year.
>>
>
> I too have been using Windows since 3.1. And I do agree with you that
> re-installing a couple of times a year is a bad idea - this is why too
> many people never learn how to keep their systems running smoothly. When
> something goes wrong, they re-install, instead of figuring out how to
> solve the problem and in turn how to prevent it from happening again.
> Re-installing to solve a problem is like curing the disease by killing
> the patient!
>
> But that still doesn't change the fact that Vista is far more stable
> than XP could ever hope to be, and does not *need* to be periodically
> reinstalled. As a rule, I always re-loaded all my XP systems once a year
> over the December holidays (when I had the time), in preparation for the
> new year.
>
> In now close to 15 months of using Vista x64 Ultimate, I've reloaded
> once, when the motherboard on my computer was destroyed. But that too
> was a choice - because when I plugged the Vista drive into the new
> computer, it simply detected the new hardware and continued normally.
> But I wanted to start fresh, and formatted and re-installed Vista
> anyway. Had that happened with XP, the reload would have been forced,
> because the XP installation would not have survived the motherboard
> change.
>
>
>

Yes, no question some Win installations cry out for a do-over, but for
me, it's not been necessary. Also, I have so many programs that it
would literally take more than 2 8 hour days to re-install everything
and even then, it's not likely that I would manage to get all the
patches for each program. I see no point in doing an image, as if a
reload is necessary, I wouldn't want to put everything back, including
the detrius that accumulates. and yes, for those not able to maintain
windows w/o reloading, I understand that for them, it's the only way
they can recover a usable system. I DO have plenty of redundant backups
of all the data, both on CD's and an external drive, so if the HDD takes
a dump, I won't have a nervous breakdown..

Dave

David;732729 Wrote:
> Yes, no question some Win installations cry out for a do-over, but for
> me, it's not been necessary. Also, I have so many programs that it would
> literally take more than 2 8 hour days to re-install everything and even
> then, it's not likely that I would manage to get all the patches for
> each program. I see no point in doing an image, as if a reload is
> necessary, I wouldn't want to put everything back, including the detrius
> that accumulates. and yes, for those not able to maintain windows w/o
> reloading, I understand that for them, it's the only way they can
> recover a usable system. I DO have plenty of redundant backups of all
> the data, both on CD's and an external drive, so if the HDD takes a
> dump, I won't have a nervous breakdown..
>
> Dave

Only 2 days? Then you're one of the lucky ones. On my old systems that
used XP (including "Venus", before I loaded Vista onto her, and before
her motherboard died and was upgraded to "Prometheus"), a reload took
about 2 weeks to get back to the levels of that I liked. When I factor
in all the applications, drivers, settings, tweaks and restoring
backups, it turned out to be a monstrous task. Which is why I usually
left it for the December breaks when I could do it without impacting on
work.


--
Dzomlija

Peter Alexander Dzomlija
-Do you hear, huh? The Alpha and The Omega? Death and Rebirth? And as
you die, so shall I be Reborn...-

_*Prometheus*_
MOBO: ASUS MB-M3A32-MVP Deluxe/WiFi-AP
CPU: AMD Phenom 9600 Quad
RAM: 2 x A-Data 2GB DDR2-800
GPU: ASUS ATI Radeon HD 2400PRO, 256MB
BOX: Thermaltake Tai-Chi Water Cooled
OS: Windows Vista Ultimate x64
'' (http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=333562)'[image:
http://valid.x86-secret.com/cache/banner/333562.png]'
(http://valid.x86-secret.com/cache/banner/333562.png)

Dzomlija wrote:
> David;732729 Wrote:
>
>> Yes, no question some Win installations cry out for a do-over, but for
>> me, it's not been necessary. Also, I have so many programs that it would
>> literally take more than 2 8 hour days to re-install everything and even
>> then, it's not likely that I would manage to get all the patches for
>> each program. I see no point in doing an image, as if a reload is
>> necessary, I wouldn't want to put everything back, including the detrius
>> that accumulates. and yes, for those not able to maintain windows w/o
>> reloading, I understand that for them, it's the only way they can
>> recover a usable system. I DO have plenty of redundant backups of all
>> the data, both on CD's and an external drive, so if the HDD takes a
>> dump, I won't have a nervous breakdown..
>>
>> Dave
>>
>
> Only 2 days? Then you're one of the lucky ones. On my old systems that
> used XP (including "Venus", before I loaded Vista onto her, and before
> her motherboard died and was upgraded to "Prometheus"), a reload took
> about 2 weeks to get back to the levels of that I liked. When I factor
> in all the applications, drivers, settings, tweaks and restoring
> backups, it turned out to be a monstrous task. Which is why I usually
> left it for the December breaks when I could do it without impacting on
> work.
>
>
>
Good point! I guess I should have mentioned that the two days would be
all i'd have patience for reloading--some apps I'd either not reinstall,
or not go hunting down all their updates. The biggest pain by far would
be to recreate my installation of FS2004. It's got many add ons that I
have all safely backed up, but wouldn't care to spend the several hours
it would take to return FS to it's full "glory". I've also got a
tweaked install of BF2 which I could skip, as I got bored with that.
Call of Duty I've also tired of. The main apps I'd reinstall or CS2
(photoshop), itunes, office 2003, Firefox, Thunderbird-- ie the
"mainstream" apps. Those are simple to install, but then there's a
laundry list of minor apps who's names I've not committed to memory.
oh, and the updates from HP that aren't on the recovery disk, of
course. After two days, I'd be about a day and a half past my patience
level.

Dave