For God's sake I hope to Christ they get XP SP3 right. It seems to me that far less attention has been paid to the XP SPs than was ever paid to the W2K SPS. I definitely won't be buying Vista (or whatever it's called then) so pleeeaase get it right with XP SP3 Microsoft - pleeeaase.

here's my thoughts...

why bothere buying vista right away? I made that mistake with xp 64bit and a year later I am STILL waiting for decent driver and 3rd party apps that run in 64 bits (sorry, IMO using 32 bit compatibility mode is like telling a man to chop himself in half and continue to work that way... if he could, yes then he could work but when he has the ability to work at full potential, why cripple himself?

here's my thought... know why each new windows version is more bloated and problematic than the oine before? because all they (micrtosoft) are doing is layering more and more bs over the same basic base code... I am sure that the computer community at large would gladly wait a few years that they already do, for ms to create a totally from the groundf up NEW os, now THAT would be innovation :)

Why on earth did you buy x64?

I run it, before I made the jump, I made sure all my apps worked, and I had drivers for all the hardware...

It's a robust, fast OS, but it's not for everyone...

Mark, I made the same mistake. I wanted to run statistical software and crunch numbers at blazing speed. Plus I was also hoping to multi-task and work on other projects while crunching away. My problem - I couldn't find a print driver. Also, (don't flame me) Novell wouldn't provide a client. So I blew out the OS and installed XP. I know this is off topic.

So, on topic... I would like to see MS come out with SPs more regularly to slipstream and facilitate end user installations.

http://news.com.com/Wind...28275.html?tag=nefd.top
wifi patch over a year and a half??!!!

What I find incredibly annoying with Windows XP (even with SP2) is that the installer still does not have built-in support for SATA drive recognition. This makes it VERY difficult to install XP SP2 on a new machine, especially if you do not have a floppy drive (I just went through this with a new desktop with WD SATA drive).

I was HOPING XP with SP3 would remedy this, especially considering how most Linux Live-CDs can recognize the SATA drive without any problem at all (e.g., Kanotix saw the drive immediatly). So, please MS, put SATA support in the SP3 release (though, I suspect they will not do so and force me to get Vista for such support).

You can slipstream the SATA driver (and other updated drivers and patches) into a new install CD. There's a utility called nLite that makes it easier.

Yeah, I read about doing such a thing. I just didn't quite feel like I had the experience to do it, and was hoping not to waste time on it. My short-term "fix" was canibalizing a floppy from another computer and placing SATA drivers on there. XP still had issues with recognizing the drive until I unplugged a few USB devies (removable media card thing).

If I need to ever do again, I'll consider the slipstream solution. I guess I could then put all the NVidia drivers, Sound Card, etc. on there along with SATA drivers. Just need to learn how. Here's hoping it is "easy".

I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about. All I have are SATA drives, and I've never had a problem installing XP.

EDIT:
Just thought of something: My SATA connectors are integrated into the motherboard though. Do you have an add-in card for yours? That might be why XP doesn't pick it up right away.

Only time I can remember having problems like this is having to load third party raid drivers during Windows setup.

EDIT:
Now that I think of it I had this problem with my old Nforce2 motherboard. It had onboard SATA but it wasn't natively supported and required 3rd party drivers.

No add in card. The SATA is integrated as far as I know. It is a new Dell Dimension 9150, with a 160GB WD SATA (WD1600JS).

Even with the drivers from Dell's site, WinXP would not recognize during install (after using F6 option) UNLESS I set the BIOS for SATA to "SATA/ATA" instead of the "SATA/AHCI" setting the Dell shipped with. The system DID work with AHCI setting under XP Home (that pre-install setup Dell uses), but XP Pro install did not work without changing. I found it QUITE frustrating.

It is. You download 7-Zip, right-click your driver exe's(downloaded off nVidia's site, your SATA controller's site, etc.) and extract the files.

Then you move them all over somewhere you can find them, and from nLite browse and locate them.

The big thing is just looking through it though, since nLite has a dozen different feature pages, and it sounds like you only need one.

If you can't figure something out though, there's always the helpful forums.

Ahh, welcome to my world. I have an nForce2, and I had to slipstream the drivers to get it to work.

Hmmm... that's odd.

I can understand your frustration.

Dell's factory CD's probably have the necessary driver slipstreamed into the Windows installer process, and Dell uses a newer SATA driver than what Windows XP offers.

Actually the newer motherboards do not have this problem. I know what your talking about because I had that problem once, and it is a pain. But my latest motherboard does not cause this problem with my Sata drive. It requires no driver disk during the install.

I have the "ASRock 939Dual-SATA2 ATX AMD Motherboard".

If your SATA controler is native, ie not a promise or silicon image interface, then you shouldn't have any problem. I was able to install winXP (original cd) on to a SATA drive who's controler was in the Via K8t800.
Also, if you are able to see the drive from within the BIOS, then you can be sure that your interface is native.

I do not have any problem with SATA either.
I have th ASUS A8N-SLI Deluxe mobo.

Hey. They could be like Mac and make you pay for your service pack as a whole new operating system.

Let's hope they never decide to.

I heard that Vista is the sister of OSX (Mac), kind of the Window's answer to what OSX actually is.

I use XP, and I really don't see a problem, infact true gamers tone down all the effects for better game-play, so if Vista is going to have transparency (spelling) and a tweaked UI... It will be toned down by them, and novices will just gawk at it... I agree with rijp though, because it is a fad... "It's new, it's better!", remember Windows ME? Fads can prove wrong, and I think rijp has proved Vista and SP3 to be, pretty much, un-needed.

They hit it with XP, but as a business they must say "this is new and better" with a new OS, to keep up on the market, to make money, and to get any possible new things out that XP can't handle (doubted). Besides, Vista could have been something great, until about 80% of the "new features" were taken off by the final beta release. I have to agree here and stick with XP, never did me wrong, other then the defrag system...

Actually Vista has a much faster graphics engine than Windows XP. Vista can use all of its special graphics effects AND run games with no slowdown at all. Plus Vista is finally every bit as secure as Unix and Mac OS X. Spyware can only affect the current user, not the entire computer under Vista. This means if an user gets spyware you can just delete that user and creat a new user account to remove the spyware.

What a joke.So unless you purchase Vista, you are, in effect, vulnerable, until 2007, if you decide that your Operating System of choice is Windows XP ? That to me constitutes blackmail at it's worst.

Uh, Windows Update. Just because they don't roll everything up in a service pack doesn't mean the patches aren't available.

I don't think anyone said vulnerable. Compatibility may be some issue, but not vulnerability. MS isn't helped if their systems can be attacked easily.

As anyone with an ounce of logical reasoning will tell you:

"No Service Pack" does not equal "no updates."

I think the others are basically telling you to read the article better.

Why can't MS just say, "Buy Vista or just operate your computer with critical flaws until 2008".

Because the PR would be terrible, and people would switch to Mac at a higher rate.

Hardly, XP is nearly 5 years old... I think it's perfectly acceptable for MS to force users to move to Vista, or accept security updates for a 5 year old product....

As others state elsewhere, nowhere does it say that a delayed service pack release will result in an absolute absence of updates from Windows Update.

I have a little more insight into this... the thinking is that they need to do a compatibility release and/or fixes for a final "synch" between XP and LongHorn. After Vista ships, they'll do a final assessment on what their corporate customers require with compatibility and framework to keep them happy. If Vista doesn't sell well, or they don't find significant amounts of updates, they'll cancel SP3.

Remember, they're a company, and they want to sell the most copies possible. They also have a lot of contracts that blanketly license to companies at a discount, and those companies have a lot of input into final OS service. If a fix or additional protocols or backwards compatibility would get more companies to sign contracts, it'll be in there. If it's not needed, and companies are willing to do the upgrades, don't expect much.

Also, don't forget who the biggest Microsoft customers are... US Military and US and foreign governments.

Longhorn doesn't exist, its "Vista". You are confusing the readers..

There is no "synch". Windows 2000 and XP are virtually the same, and you can make an argument that Windows 2003 Server is the same, except it has additional support for services, but the core for all 3 is the same, they are ALL built on NT technlogy, which is bascially an upgrade/enhancement to Windows NT 4.0.

Windows 2000 didn't have to synch with XP. XP has things which it supports, that 2000 does not, like WMP 10. It has new DLL's and OCX libraries, but its just an upgrade, its not radically different from previous versions.

Vista, has even less enhancment and upgrade potential, because I have yet to see ANYTHING that sets it apart. Gamers are just NOW making games compatible for XP. XP supports 64-bit, new drives, new drivers, and it will have another patch in the summer of 2007, a full year after Vista, so what do you think Vista will do?

Corporate customers will not upgrade to Vista for 2 years, that was the trend to move away from Windows NT, same with Windows 2000, and the same with XP. Except with each new OS there is less and less revolutionary and device restriction. I keep up with OS technology daily, and XP is the best OS since Windows was started. Its very solid.

I really am straining to see why anyone NEEDS Vista. Yeah it has visual elements that looks cool, so what? Stardock, Windows Blinds, can give you the same thing for 20 bucks, big whoop.

And that last statement couldn't be further from the truth. Consumers are the biggest customer, period. The largest segment in ANY os are end users, they are forgotten because they aren't represented by a large moniker. just because the heading Military, and Gonverment embodies a large majority of people, don't count single users out EVER.

MS has more single customers, than businnesses world wide, and you can call MS Sales and verify that. Sure, IBM, Mililary may buy 3 or 4 million copies at once, but there are 300 million people in the US, 100 million are PC users, I can guarantee at least 60% of those are end users, and don't belong to a larger organization. You may have Windows at work, chances are you also have a household PC. Small businesses are also forgotten. Don't ever count out the individuals. That's where companies make their mistake.

Beta testers are not corporations, they are also invididuals, a corporate environment is also pretty much the same across the board, that's why companies standardize on the same OS, business apps, machines, etc.. so that wouldn't be a good test. Inviduals provide the vast majority of feedback on drivers, protocols, compatibility..

Corporations may have some influence, but hearing from millions of screaming customers one at a time, makes a much larger dent than a single HUGE client proclaiming their organization is having problems. 1 patch, could fix that client at ONCE.

Excuse me if I assume readers are "in the know"...

Why did anyone NEED Windows 2000? NT4 was just bueno.

Just because you haven't personally "seen" anything that makes Vista stand out doesn't mean that your opinion is ultimately correct. If corporate customers don't NEED Vista, why will they bother in 2 years? Why not 6?

Now let me ask you about individual customers... do you think that all of the esoteric network protocols and permissions settings were put into XP so Little Johnny wouldn't crack your HomeNet? There's a reason the OS isn't 100MB.

Finally, maybe you think Windows Blinds is good enough, but the Avalon performance gains are incredible, particularly to games and graphics apps. If you want to live with WB, go ahead. You can live with your veil to cover up the old stuff. This isn't upgrading for the sake of paying Microsoft alone; end users do get something out of Vista. Otherwise, why isn't Microsoft in the business of making Windows Blinds themes?

"Longhorn doesn't exist, its "Vista". You are confusing the readers.."

Vista is the product name for the client version of Longhorn.

I believe the server version is still referred to as just Longhorn.

Longhorn is a code name, like Whistler was for XP. The server version is not going to be called Longhorn, no version is.

Yes, I read that. Thanks. They originally were naming Vista Longhorn, so I didn't realize the server was now Longhorn.

Well all I am seeing is rhetoric, your point is what? That NT4 was good enough until Windows 2000 came along? I didn't say I was ultimately correct, but still no one has yet to mention one iota about a feature in Vista that will driver users to buy it...

It will come pre-installed on new machines this summer, that's it. People will not be upgrading in droves, to switch to what, something that Windows Blinds already does? I don't think so.

Its not a veil, as you so blithely put it, MS is touting the visual effects as a feature. I don't work in their marketing department, but even they are having a hard time point out something, so they are making it seem like an attractive quality. Vista has no substance. And I am going to ask the question one more time..

End users get something out of Vista? WHAT?!?!?! Tell me what they get out of it? You STILL are eluding the question. I think, because YOU don't know either. MS actually is in the business of Windows Blinds, but they call it "Themes". Stardock does the same thing, but they made it better.

Couple of things:

1) GDI was completely rewritten. I've personally seen improvements in response times and framerates between XP and Vista.

2) TCP stack was redesigned, and has much better file tranfer speeds, as well as internet download speeds

3) Group policy has around 4-5 times as many settings, making corporate management easier. Also the design of it allows to basically have group policies work like a domain style in a workgroup environment

4) It now has a quarentine network setup, so a corporate environment can prevent a machine from using their network if it doesn't meet their requirements (Virus scanners, patch level, security settings)

Now the first 2 major improvements are more aimed at home users, while the last 2 are more for buisnesses.

You can descide for yourself, but I personally think most of those are major improvements-- technical, not just some WinBlinds layer on top of XP.

Longhorn Server will also build on top of those, and with some major improvements on Active Directory and other server areas, it should be an excelent value add for administrators.

late 2007? why don't they just say that this will be the last set of windows updates for this OS. Windows Vista will probly be out long enough to do that by then.

AutoPatcher XP is a godsend to anyone that needs to update multiple pc's with post-SP2 hotfixes and updates. I use it every month when they release new versions. You can deploy the entire updates on a large number of lan pc's, no sweat.

Yeah, and I wonder how many people are using Autopatcher to update pirated copies of xp...heh-heh?

You beat me to it.

The problem I have with this is from the administrative side. This is what happened with SP5 for Windows 2000.

Microsoft announced it at one point in time, and then pushed it back and pushed it back until cancelling it in favor of a half-baked rollup.

I'm afraid that this is what will happen for XP. There are currently over 50 hotfixes and updates for a Post-SP2 install, despite the analysis by rijp that SP2 is fine and SP3 is not needed. Between now and 2nd Half of 2007, I can see at least another 50+ updates being released.

From an administrator's standpoint, that's a LOT to manage for new installs, client maintenance, and whatnot. And you still have to either download them onto a CD and hope you have them all... or take for-bloody-ever to download them from Microsoft Update.

I've always been of the opinion that Service Packs should be annual releases, Rollups should be quarterly, and hotfixes and IE/OE Cumulative Updates should be monthly and as needed.

Or you can update your images quarterly or however often you wish and you are good to go in minutes. YOu could also complain about how hardware changes so much, that would be fun to listen to.

Very True. SP3 would roll up inclusively all the fixes that were needed post SP2. I stand corrected.

I guess I didn't mean to discount the fixes, I was speaking in terms of I think we already do SP2 with hotfixes and post-SP2 updates, and I was assuming that was good enough. SP3 would be a more manageable way to patch everyting at once, rather than SP2, post fixes, and any security updates (which will never stop)

In some ways, Vista is probably going to be XP SP2 with some gui enhancement, and some upgrade.

I adminstrate a lot of PC's myself. So I feel your pain, but we do SMS rollouts, and ad hoc updates on machines as needed, and I maintain constant vigilance on computers to ensure they are updated. When people call, and say they have a problem, my first question is "Have you updated to ALL the recent cricital updates?". Then there is a pause, and I tell them when they make sure they are up to date, call me back. Rarely do I hear from them, once they update.

If they have Windows 2000, and they need support, I also tell them we need to ugprade them to Windows XP. I am not going to support 2 different environments, that makes no sense. So I force them to update. Its a corporate machine, and we are standardized on XP. Period.

Except for developers which have server, but don't get me started on that....

I agree with Service Packs, rollups, and hotfixes and updates. I like to do them more frequently, but I agree they should be performed regularly.

Of course I can spend an spend additional time updating all of my images... my point, I thought, clearly confessed that it was an annoying and unpractical approach in many instances.

Does it bother anyone else that MS already looks at XP as a legacy OS before they have even finished it's replacement?

If all SP3 is is a cumulative update, then I'm really not concerned with when it gets released. MS is faithful with their monthly security updates, and I faithfully install them.

Vista, on the other hand, has yet to prove to me it's really worth the cash to upgrade, I'll likely wait until my computers are out of date and then have it forced down my throat by Dell. :P

Well, I'd say XP is a legacy, since it is just a pretty face for Windows NT, I forget what version of NT it actually is, though.

5.1

Windows XP is Windows NT 5.1. Thus, it's Windows 2000 (5.0) with a pretty face (and that's debatable...). XP is a point release, basically. :P

Thanks. For some reason I was thinking 4, but I knew it was higher than that.

Pretty much right there. Xp was pointless. All they did was introduce the toy themes and dumb windows down some more. Real big leap forward there.

+ remote desktop
+ system restore
+ firewall
+ gobs of internal changes to the security infrastructure (not that that has done much good ;)
+ W2K3 tools
+ System reporting tool
+ etc
Isn't that worth $99?

It is not a quote from Microsoft but a part of the story from Beta news dude.

And why would you knock Vista you haven't even seen or tried it WOW!

+ remote desktop
Pick your version of VNC and oh look a free alternative (some even have file-transfering abilities)
+ system restore
Hardly works properly, works well to revive viruses on a cleaned PC (I've also seen it eat up over 50% of hard drive space for no reason, had to disable to prevent this)
+ firewall
Added VERY recently.

Isn't that worth $99?

Maybe if I didn't have to activate it every time I reinstalled or changed my hardware to a degree that Microsoft considers "significant". Maybe if I was actually buying a piece of software instead of licensing the right to run it on a particular machine as long as Microsoft says I can.

But this is not the case.

We don't need to try Vista to see that there are no features worth mentioning...

Give me one, just one feature that you can say it would encourage you to go out and get Vista when it comes out..

When you struggle to see that Vista doesn't give us much to look forward to, then you can see what we mean.

That's been my point all along.. I couldn't word it like you did, it is a point release..

So Vista 5.2?

No, not pointless. On the surface it may appear that way, but if you actually use XP SP2 updated, there is a HUGE difference in performance and stability. So whatever they did, it works great.

Do you use XP or is this your simplistic view of how you perceive Windows XP?

OK, anyone that does remote support daily, and thinks that VNC is sufficient, hasn't tried Terminal Services (Remote Desktop). VNC is slow, it doesn't refresh, its kludgy, and slower response time.. and its flaky. TS is much smoother and is much more robust, remote desktop is worth the price of adminission right there..

Although, you can install Remote Desktop in Windows 2000.

System restore works fine. The virus issue isn't windows fault, that's like saying your car doesn't drive the same on old tires.. You need a good virus checker to protect your machine, and the virus won't be stored in the restore in the first place. and yes it does take up drive space, what do you think system restore means? Where is it supposed to keep the backup of restore points? On a CD? That's not easily managed.. The Hard disk the most accessible and quickest way to do it.. you can delete restore points.. Besides its only for emergencies, not as a daily task. I think you have problems due to deframentation, another tool that's needed. The defrag in Windows XP and 2000 is a joke, and I am well aware is a dumb down version of disk keeper 5.0, it still sucks. Everyone should use either OO Defrag or buy Disk Keeper 9.0...

firwall, this too is better left to hardware. I disuade people from using internal firewall, for one, its ALWAYS on... and yes that is the point. But, a router is much better for this purpose. How good would security be at a bank, if the bank vault were sitting right next to the front door? The idea of a firewall is to setup a perimeter, AWAY from the protected data. Hence the bank vault inside the bank, and the firewall should be elsewhere protecting your machine. Wireless.. its non-encyrypted data, once it leaves the protection of the firewall and its broadcast to the world, that firewall isn't going to do much good is it? Plus you are sending data on an unprotect router.. you should never send/receive sensitive material or data over unsecured wireless, that's a big no-no. Use a VPN.. that's better than a firewall.

When was the last time you changed out your machine? If you have a legitimate key, don't worry about. I switched my motherboard, video card, and hard drive.. I had to activate, so what, it took 10 seconds to verify it was the same machine, I have a real Key, works fine. That was 6 months ago.. significant.. are you buying new hardware that would constitute significant change to warrant a reactivation? Sounds a little suspcious to me...

I work in an environment that we use images for our machines, we have 3 distinctly different machines, we never have to reactivate windows.. So that's a weak argument to NOT buy XP..

Considering XP SP2 is very stable and its very resilient to problems.

Go to a gamer board, read what they say, XP gets very high marks, tweaking, installing, loading, executing, installing.. XP is very well accepted.

Oh I use it, I just have yet to see where it was worth it for me to upgrade from 2K

Well, then you are not using it, or perhaps your machine is out dated. Bring up 2 machines, side by side, run identical applications. 2000 on one side, XP on the other, if you can't see a difference in 5 minutes, you are obviously blind.

There are so many differences in behaviour, memory, speed, performance, and visual aspects, anyone still using 2000 is just lazy or doesn't know how to upgrade to XP. XP is way better than 2K. So, how can you use XP and not upgrade to it?

Everything I have runs just as well on 2k as it does XP. As far as identical apps go, some work better on XP than 2K and some work better on 2K than XP. XP does start faster and is definately prettier than 2K. Things are better organized.

I'll agree that reactivation isn't really a problem. I can recall to occasions when I had to reactivate (1) A recent motherboard replacement (2)When I transferred my windows license over to my current computer and installed linux on the old pc.

Are you kidding me? I work in a PC shop as a tech and I've seen XP ask to reactivate for replacing video cards, DVD-ROMs, tons of irrelevant changes triggering reactivation.

Oh well just another delay. Microsoft is always delaying their crap, nothing new here.

OK, here is a question, what's wrong with SP2? Is anything missing? The answer is NO! WE don't need SP3, SP2 is solid. IT shops and computer companies around the world are reporting that SP2 is everything they need. There is no reason to patch it. If it aint broke, don't fix it. Do SP2, post SP2 fixes and hotfixes, everything is good.

I don't have ANY problems, my company has no problems, and I don't see reports of ANY problems, ANYwhere else, so why do we need SP3?

SP3 is convienient fir new installs. It should possess all the SP2 fixes/features, plus all of those released since - including IE7.

Is it needed? No.
Would it be nice to have? Yes!

With SP2 you still need to download tons of fixes including the WMF patch before it's even safe to use. For dial up users that's a major pain to do each time. When SP3 comes out every one of those fixes can be slipstreamed into a new CD and you have a fresh up to date installation right from the start.

XP is a 2001 OS. All of the MS resources are devoted to shipping Vista. Patches will continue to be free and released every month as they are now.

Hard to believe that the OS is that old and still relevant. If any of you have used Server 2003 then you know how smooth, stable, and quick it is. If this is truly a pre-coursor to Vista, then the product will be worth the wait.

2003 is no "smoother quicker, or more stable" than Windows XP. It depends on what you do with each, the software, drivers, and administration that determines that.

Server 2003 is more stable than XP - even with SP2. It is rock solid.

Well if you disabled audio support, DirectX and a ton of other things and locked it down like 2003 XP would be just as stable.

Not sure how you can compare the two since XP's HAL compatibility list is miles longer than Server 2003's. They are different technologies and HAL's and comparison would be rather difficult. It's like asking which are tastier, apples or oranges?

Just because their "list" says something isn't supported, that doesn't mean it won't work. I've yet to find anything that works in XP that won't work in 2003, even if it requires special effort to trick the installer. XP = NT 5.1, 2K3 = NT 5.2

Apples and oranges, I think not.

"Windows Server 2003 may not use multiple processors with some Intel Pentium Pro or Pentium II processors."

Get around that, bub. It's a very real concern as the PPro was a very popular and powerful Server back in the day.

Dude, you are way wrong.. There is even evidence that PROVES XP is indentical to Windows 2003 server. For one thing, Server doesn't have power management like XP nor does it support usability features that are automatic in XP.. like laptop resolution switching..

So, your reasoning that Server 2003 is more stable, is false. Sorry dude, you would be WRONG! Just because its server, doesn't automatically mean better security or more stable.. you still need to update.

Not true, I leave that stuff on, my XP is fine.

Registry is the key. Get a good registry fix program, and maintain the registry at least 3 or 4 times a week, XP runs great. OS require routine maintence, just like an automobile. You can buy a Ferrari, if you don't maintain it, I could beat your Ferrari to the next light with a well maintained Kia.

No, but that's why the list is there. The HAL is designed to support devices for that OS. If you use something that ISN'T on the list, not supported means it hasn't been tested, which means you are on your own. So If it works, great... if you start having problems, then that list can help you point the finger at the culprit.

He is right, the list says it all.. XP has been tested with more hardware than server. Server is specifically designed for certain environments, SATA, DirectX, WMP, Games, tweaks, aren't part of the equation. Dual processor, SCSI, XEON processors and SERVER class machines are what Server 2003 is designed for, not home desktops, period.

It may work, but its not suited for that.. use XP for what its designed, home users and gamers...

mjm... evidently we are the only ones concerned that MS post this list for a reason. Kinda like speed limit signs, they are just there for your reading enjoyment.. until something goes wrong, like a speeding ticket. The next time, they will read those signs...

and neither is tastier, Chocolate!!!

LOL, a Pentium Pro? Pentium II? Who would be installing it on either of those? I bet it won't install on a 386 either. Who cares. Also we are talking about home users here, hello. Which brings up another point; why would a home user be using 2003 in the first place? How would they afford it? Most of the people bragging about using it as a workstation pirated it.

Identical? Ok, since you didn't seem to be able to determine what the interal version number is on 2003 Server, it lists as Windows NT 5.2.

Also, I have it running on my laptop, and have no problems switching resolutions on it at all. Power management is also there, as I hibernate my system multiple times a day.

Many of the features you state are missing (Power management/DirectX) are there, but turned off. Try the control panel, and there is a Power Options item in it. DirectX doesn't work by default since the hardware acceleration is disabled by default since a large amount of unstability in Windows is caused by flaky video drivers (Goto the advanced video options, select the Troubleshoot tab, and turn the slider all the way to the right).

As for out of the box defaults, I would disagree that XP is as secure as Server 2003. IE is in lockdown mode, and until you configure the server, no imbound network connections are allowed. Also, the base ACL's and Restrict Anonymous options are set tighter.

Can someone configure XP to have the same security as 2003? Yes...

It's odd that someone who says they manage desktops wouldn't know half of this, but you should really take a look at the system before making broad claims on it.

If there is anything that you can list that an XP machine can do that 2003 cant, I would be interested in hearing it.

That really sucks. Why would it possibly take that long other than they want everyone to run out and buy Vista.

You nailed it… That’s how Microsoft does business. Thank god I have a Mac. For those that think Macs are slow, after using a Mac for about a year I don’t see any difference between a windows xp pc and the mac. I can actually burn DVDs faster on a mac. Unfortunately, I need the windows pc to do work…, but for fun and play I only use a Mac.

Well, firstly of course they want everyone to run out and buy Vista.

Secondly I would imagine that now that Vista is 6 months from going gold many more programmers are working on it and not so many on adding features to XP. This will of course only get worse after the release of Vista as XP becomes a legacy product and the focus is on the successor to Vista and enhancing Vista.

The same thing happens everytime MS releases a new OS and shouldn't be suprising at all.

You mean to tell me that if I put my 8x DVD burner in a Mac it will magically turn into a 16x? So you need to run Windows to get work done? HAHAHAHA.. Sorry, I couldn't help myself, I had to.

Sorry not every upgrade is greed. You are wrong there. This is a perpetuation of more lies. MS is in the business of making money, just like every other business. You think car companies take a break? They don't need to come out with new models every year, OTHER software companies come out with updates, its called new sales. If you don't NEED to upgrade don't worry about it.

I am not even going to run out and buy Vista, and I dont' even recommend it. What does Vista have, or do that XP-SP2 does not? I think you would have to really dig to find anything worth while, and even then, its not really revolutionary, its only a mediocre update.

XP is still being updated. Evidently you forgot about using Windows 2000, when XP came out, it was still being updated until XP was mature.. Vista will be the same way, until SP3 which will probably be the final update to XP. Until I see Vista that works, and it has features I CAN'T live without, I am keeping XP. You will have an extremely hard time finding ANYONE that's using Vista that says "OH, you have to get this now!!".

Its a fad, because its new, but Vista has nothing that is even getting the attention of computer companies. Yes, its a successor, but XP will be around for at least 2 more years. It always takes 2 years to adopt a new OS, which is why XP was released in '01, and in '03 it FINALLY was well received, then in '04 we got SP2, and people started upgrading to it..

Realisitically, XP is only 2 years old, since SP2, and its been rock solid since then, no problems. I see no reason for Vista, unless you get a new machine that comes pre-installed with Vista.

Still running OSX 10.1? Oh that's right, apple charges for "performance" updates to their OS's.G

That's not what I meant... If you burn a DVD using roxio it will take about 2 hours to create the DVD files and burn the disc. On a mac it takes less than that. They will probably be the same time to burn, but the creation process runs faster.

The time between service packs of win2k severly slowed down after XP's release. Perhaps you have forgoten that. Also your entire point that MS is out to make money is completely contradictory to your argument.

Vista will have a lot of new features. Are some of them really important? It would depend on who you are and what kind of user you are. Personaly I think that the virtual folders are fantastic as is the implementation of LAU. To many people those two things are worth the upgrade alone.

Of course there are trivial improvements as well like the GUI which many people can live without.

And your Mac - will it run your legacy software from way back when???

What kind of noob would use roxio to master DVDs?
Roxio/Adaptec had their day back in ez cd creator 3.x.
Anyway, mastering and burning DVDs is different. There are a lot more options to master DVDs (videos I am assuming) in windows and most likely faster given the same source file. Just compare the highend mac to the highend pc. Or... compare similarly priced systems.

The problem is you are using a crappy burning program, not because you're using a PC.

Average folks who visit a mall usually would buy a really nice shirt for a few dozen bucks. Likewise, simply the eyecandy Vista will bring will convince many to upgrade, I think. The 3D video card usage maximizing at the OS level means new apps will look much sexier on Vista. The GUI will suddenly come to life.

Add to that updates on the most heavily used apps such as email, browsing, calendaring, and media playing, and some extremely business-useful tools such as cost-saving headache-saving backup, bidirectional-firewall, rapid bootup & GOOD synchronization, and you've got a winner, especially once it hits SP1 which is expected to include the infinitely useful WinFS.

The updates are available now. You can install SP2, and post fixes. When Vista comes out, there will be updates and fixes for that. XP and Vista will be alligned so that the updates coincide.. a year or so from now, everything will be fine. Once Vista has had sufficient time to be accepted as the new official OS from MS, then it will supplant XP. Until then, I am not switching.

ok, again.. backup, firewall (which isn't neccessarily a good asset, considering there are better alternatives), rapid bootup, synchronization.. you still haven't convinced me that Vista is anything better than what XP offers. I can get all that via other tools in XP, and its fast and reliable NOW!

WinFS.. that's going to be another complication. All the defrag tools, backup software, system tools, and anything that deals with the OS will have to updated and designed to support that new File system. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to be supported anytime in the next 2 years.. kinda like blue tooth, its here, now what? They hyped it and it just another glorified wireless.. WinFs, sounds good, but will it be an uprgrade to NTFS? Hardly..

Do you think corporations are going to upgrade each and every server to WinFS, on an untested platform? You are living in a dream world. *IF* WinFS (and I doubt it will) become popular, it will take 3 or 4 years, before we will see ANY significant use of it.

So, you have 1 point (weak at best) for reasons to switch to Vista... If that's all you have, you are putting me to sleep.

There is a lot of misunderstanding of things in this thread, but I will just point out one.

WinFS is not a filesystem like NTFS. It is not designed to replace NTFS and disk tools will not be affected by it. In a long time it may come to be where WinFS is directly integrated into the actual filesystem (NTFS etc.) but this is not what is planned currently. WinFS is effectivly a database stored in an existing filesystem that will be mapped to appear like a smart file system. If it is designed correctly and the actual files are stored in the database, it will actually reduce the problem of fragmentation as databases are designed to organize themselves for optimum access times etc.

Well, its not just the users... Apple is claiming a 4x increase in speed going to an Intel chip