New Features Discovered in Windows XP SP3: Is It Better Than Vista?

By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews

October 10, 2007, 11:53 AM

The principal reason given for the tremendous under-the-hood changes to Windows unveiled early this year in Vista was the need to overhaul the security model. Indeed, Vista has proven to be a generally more secure operating system, though some vulnerabilities that apply to ordinary software impact Vista users just as much as any other.

But now, software analysts testing the latest build 3205 of the beta for Windows XP Service Pack 3 are discovering a wealth of genuinely new features - not just patches and security updates (although there are literally over a thousand of those), but services that could substantially improve system security without overhauling the kernel like in Vista.

According to preliminary reports from Neosmart, testers there found evidence that the company is hardening XP's network security with added features.

One of these features had actually been on Microsoft's list for some time, and might actually have caused problems for customers had it been omitted: Network Access Protection (NAP), which is due to be managed by the forthcoming Windows Server 2008. This new service disallows network clients from accessing a WS2K8 server without passing a minimum "health screening," which checks for the presence of updates and service packs (including SP3) and disallows access to failing clients until they upgrade.

When NAP's inclusion in WS2K8 was first confirmed in late August, a Microsoft spokesperson contacted BetaNews to make sure we reported it wasn't just for Windows Server and just for Vista. We assumed that meant it would find its way to XP as well, though the spokesperson declined to be pressed further at that time.

A one-two punch involving a rollout of WS2K8 and XP SP3 in the first half of next year -- which is Microsoft's current plan -- could pave the way for a hardening of endpoint security on Windows networks, at least somewhat. Contributing to that hardening will be the inclusion of new cryptographic algorithms in the kernel, by means of Kernel Mode Cryptographic Module (KMCM). Coupled with access policies provided by NAP, admins could theoretically implement a new, second layer of policies for encrypted communications and authentication between network peers, provided by Triple-DES algorithms accessible through the kernel.

In other words, enterprises that previously have had trouble embracing the idea of deploying across-the-board encryption may feel more comfortable trying it out, now that KMCM is a baseline feature. It premiered in Windows 2000, and its first implementation in a Windows client was for the first edition of Vista.

Neosmart also discovered evidence of hardening of Windows' IP stack, including the inclusion of Microsoft's new "black hole router" detection scheme. Way back in 1990, the IETF implemented a way for routers to detect in advance the shortest path to send a large number of datagrams, without having to fragment them too seriously along the way. The plan was referred to as Path Maximum Transmission Unit (PMTU), with the objective being for sending routers to seek receiving routers that mangle fewer datagrams.

As it turned out, some receiving routers that were pegged by sending ones as PMTU members were responding to datagrams with "do not fragment" messages by simply throwing them out. These were referred to as "black hole routers," and have been a perennial plague to streaming operations. The new router detection scheme enables IP routers along the way to flag misbehaving PMTU candidates in advance and steer around them.

This is a feature that Microsoft has updated just last month, and which it might not have had to include with XP SP3 to please customers. So its inclusion is being treated as an indication there are developers at Microsoft who are still willing to treat XP seriously, perhaps extending its viable lifetime well into 2009.

Add a Comment (220 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By cruizer

edited Jun 10, 2008 - 2:28 PM

Can you explain regarding the advantages of Windows XP SP3 against XP SP2.

Score: 0

By Pc_Tip-Chetandra Puran

edited Jan 7, 2008 - 7:40 PM

I dont know about you guys but i think vista is better.
there are my reason ya i know its expensive and it cause a lot of money to upgrade but i think if you have a lot of memory and a lot of hard drive space it could be fine, for me!

Score: 0

By ZenWarrior

posted Dec 12, 2007 - 4:23 PM

With zero room for doubt, Vista cost me a client yesterday. He literally cursed Vista--then fired me and said I was also cursed. That was after a 3-year support relationship of nothing but love, respect, trust, money, and productivity with XP. Thanks for nothing, Microsoft.

(Microsoft wonders why five of those copies of Vista they brag about selling are just sitting here on a shelf in unopened boxes? Get a clue, Redmond. Vista sucks!)

Score: 0

By JSTUA

posted Nov 24, 2007 - 4:06 PM

I have both vista and XP, I use XP as I gave the machine with Vista on it to my eight year old daughter so that she may play games and DVD's, which is in my opinion about all it is suited for...she also detests the rotten thing !

Score: 0

By mchiwbbr

edited Nov 22, 2007 - 10:43 AM

i agree vista has many new features but most of the time they can't be used because it is very slow and the connection is just as bad and i think that businesses should go back to XP because it is faster and more reliable. i agree with alot of people when they say vista should have never been released because right now the XP SP2 is alot better then vista.

Score: 0

By jhorner44

edited Oct 16, 2007 - 12:34 PM

Vista has caused us much grief at the workplace and we have rolled everything back to XP. Besides compatibility issues, there are permissions issues, poor performance, a plethora of others that really hamstring our business. Yes, security is important, but not at the top of everyones list. The added gadgets, bells and whistles can be fun, but, Vista, at this time, is not worth the hassles.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 16, 2007 - 2:20 PM

You didn't test it on your network with your applications prior to rolling it out?

*laughing my a** off*

I bet you're certified, too. That would totally make my day.

Score: 0

By GRACOMPUTERS

edited Oct 15, 2007 - 11:16 AM

I don't know 'bout you guys, but to date, all of our client/server environments still run XP Pro, so we are desperately waiting for, and looking forward to SP 3.0 for XP.

I also think SP 1 for Vista should make a significant impact for Vista's sales & marketing. After all, its the "out-of-box" experience that effects the end user most. People really get annoyed when things don't work right, regardless of whether its been addressed in a Windows Update or not. Everyone (these days especially) expects instant everything. With Vista SP 1 pre-installed, there may be a heck of a lot less XP rollbacks.

Score: 0

By carlforster

edited Oct 12, 2007 - 11:12 PM

There is NO WAY I WANT VISTA!!!!!

I WILL ONLY HAVE "XP PRO" on my home or business (office systems).

I DONT WANT "VISTA" interfaces or security as part of my XP UPDATE SP3.

VISTA SUCKS and I have made a good business removing VISTA and the user purchases XP HOME or PRO.

VISTA = ME and even a bigger DOG.

Score: 0

By hurricanz

edited Oct 15, 2007 - 7:38 AM

Carl needs to adjust his false teeth as they're slipping. Poor old fella is scared of Vista. Based on your verbage it's safe to say you're a standard end user who still runs Win98. I guarantee you aren't in the business of hardware/software installs or integration.

Poor old fella.. technology is passing you by.

Score: 0

By Paradise-FH-

posted Oct 14, 2007 - 12:28 AM

WHEN YOU TYPE IN CAPS IT MAKES YOUR POINT MORE VALID.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 15, 2007 - 9:20 AM

CAPSLOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL!!

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Oct 15, 2007 - 11:22 AM

It's the equivalent of listening to white noise... extremely annoying. :(

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 15, 2007 - 12:06 PM

Sorry, that was sarcasm. I keep forgetting to point that out when I think it's obvious.

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Oct 15, 2007 - 12:52 PM

No, no... I knew what you meant. I know you better than that. :)

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 15, 2007 - 2:20 PM

Damn. They're catching on. I'll have to change things up again now.

Thanks....jerk.

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Oct 15, 2007 - 3:27 PM

Why you little... !

Oh, I get it. :)

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 15, 2007 - 4:37 PM

Why must you constantly defeat my attempts to appear jaded and elitist?

It must be in your upbringing. Did your parents beat you when you were a child?

Did they not beat you enough??

One way or another, I *will* offend you. I have dropped all prior goals and will focus on this one solely until I have accomplished this task.

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Oct 15, 2007 - 6:13 PM

For what it's worth, I'm honestly trying to be offended, I really am. But your name... it makes me giggle, sir.

I have received regular beatings in the past, as a matter of fact. It has made me the person I am today, and I consider myself a better person because of it. It is one custom that is in dire need of being brought back to the forefront of American society. I have made numerous attempts to contact my Senator to propose legislation to bring back this most effective form of corporal punishment, but to no avail. Perhaps they are still busy mulling over my proposals for abolishing Daylight Savings Time. Alas, my efforts continue...

Oh, what the hell... shove off! Let the records show that you've officially offended me now. Happy??

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Oct 16, 2007 - 9:50 AM

Happy??

Aside from having to read the corp. punishment gibberish (though I agree on DLS), sure.

Blissful, even.

Sadist. ;)

/Thread officially derailed.
//my work here is done.

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Oct 16, 2007 - 2:00 PM

Oh nooooo... you're not taking the credit for derailing this thread, mister!

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 16, 2007 - 2:16 PM

*sigh*

When you're right, you're right.

Carl should get all the credit for that one.

Score: 0

By ritz_nair

posted Oct 15, 2007 - 4:23 AM

simply put there are things i hate about vista, xp and linux. But i use all three at times. the good thing is i like xp for its speed on older machines, i love vista for its speed on machines with atleast 1.5 gigs of mem, and lastly linux because the correct opengl lighting . But i hate linux for having to compile so many programs . for it being a bloated thing and lack of games that i like eg flatout 2, etc.

Score: 0

By yountmj

edited Oct 13, 2007 - 8:27 PM

Good business? Here I thought it was due to your excellent people skills...

Good business, hmm? So in other words, you impose your personal opinions of Vista on your "users" and they are persuaded to purchase XP (from you?) when they most likely do not need to? The fact alone that you say you make a good business removing Vista implies that the PC came with it, is designed for it, and is probably more than capable of running it. However, it seems your own greed is clouding your judgment and your ability to decide what's best for your customers (which is what it's all about, not what's best for your wallet).

Good job of keeping your "valued customers" in the dark. You should offer a free jar of Vaseline with each service call... it's the least you could do. *sigh*

Score: 0

By sweanisse

edited Oct 12, 2007 - 8:36 AM

I have banned Vista :P
i stick to XP

Score: 0

By quackers

edited Oct 12, 2007 - 4:04 AM

I would like Vista if it was actually usable.

On the machines at work we have tested it on, Vista seems to hang accessing network shares(a few good minutes too!), yet on an XP box its instant.

DVD's were just pausing, juddering and hanging a few minutes into play back.

It would just sit there saying "Welcome" on a screen for ages.

This was on PC's that came pre-installed with Vista and PC's we already had upgraded to Vista (clean install).

You would click to open say My Computer and you would have to wait 30 seconds.

How could i roll out such a peice of junk to an end user? I would get non stop complaints.

They are just the things that really matter, never mind all the control panel interfaces they have changed for no reason other than we can. Things just take 10x longer to do in Vista, its not productive. I hope they learn from Vista and make the next Windows better, cause we are not touching Vista anymore.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 13, 2007 - 11:00 AM

Those issues were taken care of by the recent "Performance" and "Compatibility" updates.

A lot of "Early Adopters' got bit by those.

Score: 0

By mcm

posted Oct 12, 2007 - 3:16 PM

Network - try disabling IP6, that can sometimes cause a slowdown when other computers on the network only supports IP4

DVD juddering - try the dvd on windows media player, I know of a few dvd players out there that suffer from this issue and are waiting to be updated for vista. Look at task manager to see if the cpu is maxing out.

Hang on welcome screen - search the net from what I've read vista times how longs things take to load on startup and warn if any take longer than in the past. That information could indicate what causing the hang.

Score: 0

By testman

posted Oct 12, 2007 - 5:56 AM

To be honest, Vista seems fine to me. The only issues I have with it is 1. the UAC (which I don't see anyway unless I'm changing Windows options or moving files outside of the defined user areas) 2. networking options are far more complicated to set and use than in XP.

Otherwise, no problems that you see. Of course, the machine needs to be up to it in the first place and with Vista, you definitely need at least 1GB RAM for it to run smoothly.

Score: 0

By Hollywood__

posted Oct 11, 2007 - 6:08 PM

Sorry, My opinion is the only one that counts.

XP blows.

Score: 0

By Program86

edited Oct 11, 2007 - 3:10 PM

See below for prime example of fagtrolling at its best...lol@testmantool

Score: 0

By testman

posted Oct 11, 2007 - 3:03 PM

Another dumba** comment from program86.

Avoid program86 like the plague.

Score: 0

By GCoder

posted Oct 11, 2007 - 3:19 PM

Just ignore testmanfag, he's a known BN troll. Its just one of his aliases and its not his fault he was born slow and has to ride the short bus everyday...

Score: 0

By Program86

posted Oct 11, 2007 - 4:04 PM

Yeah, everyone just ignores him. His frustrations about life lead him to troll and troll a lot. I get a good laugh at watching the testmanmonkey jump through my hoops though...lol

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Oct 12, 2007 - 2:36 AM

You keep using that word, 'ignoring'...

I don't think it means what you think it means. :)

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 12, 2007 - 9:45 AM

lmao

Score: 0

By Program86

posted Oct 12, 2007 - 10:20 AM

exactly pctool, lmao at testman. You summed it up well.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 12, 2007 - 11:57 AM

No, I was laughing at the comment I replied to.

I'm well aware of who the trolls are Program86.

Score: 0

By ingram091

posted Oct 11, 2007 - 2:06 PM

the ONLY thing that worries me about Network Access Protection is Who maintains the list of what is required to be updated on the client side. We all know that MS loves to push out some "Critical" updates that are nothing of the kind... Simply things that MS feels you should download that only goes to serve them not you... IE WGA modules and DRM pushes... As well as some things like .Net SDKs that some people may not want to download to the next version at times for legitimate reasons...

As long as the W2k8 side of this process is fully customizable by the administrator its a good idea, Short of that with a MS provided list, Its a building block to disaster for a mission critical network when MS suddenly decides you absolutely MUST download updates NOW, or we will disconnect you from your network.

Some of the other things in XP SP3 are going to make XP very very attractive again... Which is why it was delayed so long... basically vista stability and features without the Vista bloat and big brother Call home checkins. This is a long long overdue SP, even if the worst happens with NAP... I know I can modify that in the registry if MS does not allow it to be as it should be, End user friendly. Well ok at least End Admin Friendly...

Score: 0

By toasale

posted Oct 11, 2007 - 11:32 AM

I've got several corporate copies of XP Pro 32/64 bit and Vista Ultimate 32/64 bit and two Alien Ware units each of 32 and 64 bit Intel structure and plenty of ram.

As much as I enjoy playing with new platforms, I will NOT be using any more Vista - at least 'till M-Soft gets its act together on Sp1 and probably SP2!

They know they are screwed with Vista and are working on "7" - hopefully it'll bring REAL relief to users.

Score: 0

By Program86

posted Oct 11, 2007 - 3:21 PM

"perhaps extending its viable lifetime well into 2009"

Well since everyone with a brain doesn't use Vista because its complete garbage, it makes sense to support XP further.

BTW, unless they make a new OS that actually works, we'll be using XP till 2050!

Score: 0

By kurgan2001

edited Oct 11, 2007 - 11:07 AM

I actually used Vista for a while (trial) and my co-worker's laptop has it. I don't think it's bad per say, in fact it looked quite good, but I just can't see the point in switching. I tried many of the apps I normally would use and they just would not work at all. I absolutely hate the UAC crap even though I dual boot Fedora and have to 'su' and perform some stuff. What it came down to me in my decision to stay with XP was #1 - Price, #2 - compatibility (hardware and software), and #3 - ease of use .. Vista IS a bit easy to use, but it has quirks (UAC mostly).

Score: 0

By Secret Agent Man

edited Oct 11, 2007 - 2:52 PM

Holy moly, spam and trolling everywhere I see! Might as well throw my opinion into the ring.

I cannot speak for Vista, as I have never used it at this point.

As for Windows XP, I have used it for six years, and the only trouble I've ever had with it is trying to install older games on it (C&C Red Alert if you were wondering), and yes, I did use the Program Compatability thing. Other than that, however, it's been the most stable operating system that I've ever used.

EDIT: Probably should've mentioned that a patch from C&C's web site fixed the problem.

Score: 0

By ingram091

posted Oct 11, 2007 - 2:14 PM

I use virtual pc and installed a dos shell for my really old stuff. ;) Virtualization is really really cool. I think you will like it. Give that a try for Red Alert... It was a really sweet installation for me, and it runs in a window that way too...

http://www.microsoft.com.../virtualpc/default.mspx

I'm not a fan of MS at times, but I really like what they did with this... I can run a TRUE compatibility mode this way for any software all the way back to a true dos box if necessary... I have also used VMware, but Its not quite as easy to use as VPC seems to be... However I can run a vista emulation inside of Vmware... go figure ;(

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Oct 12, 2007 - 3:33 AM

I run Windows XP Pro x64 on my workstation at our shop, and use Virtual PC with a Windows 2000 Pro guest to use an older DOS-based app on our server that keeps track of where employees are. I also use it for Cisco's VPN client, since I have yet to see a 64-bit version of that (which is sad).

I used to use VMware. It may have more features and customization of virtual machines (not to mention official support for more OSes), but I haven't seen a need for it yet. Virtual PC is very nice... simple, adequate, and free! :)

Score: 0

By Alex Stevens

posted Oct 11, 2007 - 12:22 PM

As far as I know the only thing compatibility modes do is lie to the program and say XP is actually 98 or whatever. This usually fools the installer checks where a Windows 95 game may say it's not compatible with NT. If the game tries to directly access hardware or something like that though I don't think there is much you can do aside from using an emulator or updated game engine.

Score: 0

By hell0

posted Oct 11, 2007 - 6:58 AM

So the new security feature requires Windows Server 2008?

MS is always trying to sell you something you don't want. It's like buying a TV, and the salesman insists you have to pay extra for the extended warranty.

Score: 0

By ingram091

edited Oct 11, 2007 - 2:19 PM

yea if your not using Server 2k8 you basically will see no major difference... NAP is not something you will generally want to mess around with if you do not have a server... What some people worry about is how it will be used against the end user if its sitting in there dormant with no Server addressing it... I'm pretty sure that this will be a optional windows module that can be turned off if not used.

Just like UAC is in Vista, yet most never do it. Course if your turning off UAC then why not just stay with XP?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 11, 2007 - 9:52 AM

The new features are for businesses.

Bah...

Why do I even bother...

Score: 0

By sirron

edited Oct 11, 2007 - 2:45 AM

Why do people think that if you dont like something it means that you haven't tried it? I've tried every M$ OS from 0.97 to 2008, and i've been a M$ beta tester since beta of Windows 98. Personally I run XP on the majority of my computers, except my 2003 server and my testbed running 2008 Server, and I like it better. Runs smoother, less hassle. Sure Vista is flashier, I just love error messages in full 3d :P. Seriously Vista has it's uses and is better in some ways, but personally im my own opinion that in it's current form is not worth the hassle. I can get XP to go from cold boot to everything loaded up fully in 20-25 seconds on my main computer. Try that in Vista. Or you could try 2008, it's looking pretty promising. So far in my use of RC0, it's been fast and stable and of course more secure. Vista has a problem playing World of Warcraft as XP does not, but I can play WOW in 2008 with no problem. I had no problem installing 2008, it installed really fast, faster then it takes me to pick install packages in Linux :). So it's stable like 2000, fast as XP as at least as secure as Vista. I might try Vista again here soon on another testbed, but superflous security prompts is worse, cause it lulls you into a false sense of security while the common person just clicks it off not caring. It's just an annoyance to them. Passive security is friendler. As to the point of malware and virus's, not everything is going to be prompted by Windows. It's always best to have a scanner to make sure, but make sure you have a good one. I got a malware(someone on my network installed a trojan) on my 2003 server and Avast saw and heard no evil, but since I was paying attention I noticed it and switched my antivirus and got rid of it. Pick an OS that you like, secure it best that you can and pay attention and surf safely with it.

Score: 0

By Nick67

edited Oct 22, 2007 - 12:10 PM

I have been using Vista Ultimate since March. UAC is no big deal. Some of the UI changes seem to be window dressing rather than updated functionality, which is a minor annoyance. I am, however, STILL afflicted with the slow-file-copy bug. I had both variants--the slow HDD copy issue and the slow network file copy issue. I seem to have the HDD one conquered, but not the network one. (And yes, the machine is fully patched) That bug absolutely must be fully explained, and fully fixed by MS before any rollout of Vista is going to be contemplated at work. We are big users of MS Access. Access 2007 is a disaster, and our experience with Word 2007 is that it is slower, prone to hanging and just generally not smooth running at all. I had been hoping that Vista would be a sweet out of the box as Windows 2000 was--not. We won't be going there for a while.

Score: 0

By Setian^Stalker

posted Oct 11, 2007 - 6:07 AM

WOW was the one reason i put XP back on. But I'm lead to believe those issues were solved long ago? I assume so too since several guild members use it.

Score: 0

By ingram091

posted Oct 11, 2007 - 2:25 PM

Almost all the game developers with current titles are now vista certified... That means they either run in Vista natively (with DX10) or in compatibility mode with the new DX9 Vista emulation... I don't remember its official DX9 designation, but its slightly different from the XP DX9... Thats why some of the games didnt run in Vista at release...

Its also worth noting that Bungie is releasing the DX10 emulation libraries so that Halo 2 PC will run on XP. They are in beta now, and work... I'm betting once this hits mainstream in combo with SP3 for XP... XP will be stronger then ever in the market share...

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 11, 2007 - 9:51 AM

Yup. WoW works quite well in Vista now. Dunno if Blizzard updated something, The performance and compatibility packs did something, or the drivers have simply matured enough, but it's running hella better than it did when I first installed it.

Score: 0

By alex_sporik

posted Oct 11, 2007 - 3:34 AM

Pretty much bull maaan.

I also betatester for OS products, not only offices. Vista boots FASTER that XP (just keep in mind .Net 2,3,3.5 and mutlitple options that by default is turned on). XP is 6 years old system and obviously bugs are fixed (if you being tester of XP alfa or beta you must remember how bad it was). Security popups have nothing with Vista itself - its all about WRONG WORKING SOFTWARE (you as tester must knew that working under Administrator is bad idea (but alsmost ALL XP application work that way)), access HKLM for write is bad idea also, accessing \System32 bad idea..etc...

All that above ARE BLOCKED by Vista security and this is WHY I LOVE VISTA. It much more secure than XP+All aniviruses and antimalware tools together. Companies enerate that anti-Vista thing because they are so much lazy fat cats and prefer to earn money doing nothing instead develop PROPER WORKING Application for VISTA!

And last thing..WS2008 - IS SERVER platform, for general public - VISTA. Accept it and stop blame Bill and Company for God sake.

Score: 0

By Brewstermax

edited May 10, 2008 - 7:45 PM

I absolutely hate Vista! Although i am currently running it on all of my machines, after SP1, it got worse. Before, there was little compatibilty and tons of bugs and issues, but atleast i could use it. Now after installing SP1, it is just a mess, i cannot access the Documents folder from any application other than those made by Micro$oft(go figure) So i will be switching back to xp or atleast dual booting the two OSes. I personally am waiting for the first public Windows 7 beta, which hopefully will be much faster on the same hardware and Micro$oft will learn from its current mistakes and take a few cues from Apple. XP has 1) a better interface (transperency and Aero or not) 2) is much faster 3) has equal security 4) is more software compatible 5) and most of all has more features and accessories than Vista (if you look in the core of the OS)

Score: 0

By ingram091

posted Oct 11, 2007 - 2:45 PM

Vista boots faster? OK so it boots in 6 secs instead of 10, Big whoop. My main machines are NEVER offline so who cares at that point?

XP is unsecure because of access to registry and system files? OK I'll give you that but implementing good policies on your network will prevent a lot of that...

Running as Admin is bad on any network, and just as dumb on VISTA as it was on XP. And Yes Vista will run in Administrator mode with UAC turned off if you tell it to. And god help me I know there are millions doing just that so they are not annoyed by UAC all the time...

Vista runs fine on a NEW machine, but if your are thinking about upgrading to it for the propaganda on your existing machine. Put that thought out of your mind right now... Why MS sells Vista as an Upgrade IDK. its insane. Just as insane as the upgrade from windows 2000 to XP home was...

Worse XP Pro to Vista home??? why would you upgrade to a downgrade? Which is what most people do when they go to Vista cause of the extreme expense of the Vista OS in comparison.

I have issues with Vista for many reasons, Mostly the Big borther factor. I just do not trust MS to be the end all be all of GOD when it comes to things I want control of. If I want to download somethign I want to use it. I don't want to be told NO NO NO you can't use that cause of whatever reason. (ITS NOT FROM MS) or it will effect your system files in some way MS does not like. IE some tools for removing DRM and WGA call backs... Doing such things in Vista Cripples your OS. doing the same things in XP, it works with some tinkering... Doing such things on Windows 2000, it simply works no questions asked... If it was not for sharepoint I would say Windows 2000 is perfect for most businesses as client machine. Now Windows XP pro is the standard for workstations IMHO. On a newer higher end machine (Dual core with 2GB ram min...) Vista business. Typical businesses short of corporations are not going to spend thousands upon thousands to upgrade all their equipment company wide just to run Vista well... I think that is the reason MS is conceding this point and continuing to develop solutions for XP.

Examples of things that often do not function in Vista Business...

1: payroll software packages. (Like Sage)
2: human resource software packages.
3: Tax Audit packages.
4: Time card / management systems.
5: Inventory Control systems.

Of course MS answer is to get their MS product to do this for you, but even some of the MS packages do not run on Vista yet. IE Great Plains. I know some will say well DUh if its not designed for Vista Of course it will not work. Yea but MS does not tell you that when they pitch their spill about how great Vista is for business. they often do not tell them that a good 90% of their added un planned costs will be in upgrading those systems so it works with Vista. This si why many companies just do not go to that... they are waiting for their software vendors to issue a vista compatibility release. which has yet to happen from many of them, Or if they have it costs thousands more to attain. So it just is not done...

Score: 0

By Setian^Stalker

posted Oct 11, 2007 - 7:43 PM

A good IT administrator will look into a product carefully before purchasing. In the instance of those software programs that do not work, that would have been investigated.
And yeah it was not designed for Vista :) The developers had plenty of time to get their software working under it, if they indeed wanted to.

Score: 0

By ingram091

edited Oct 11, 2007 - 11:05 PM

Yea how many good IT admins you know? NONE. I am a contractor and I see my fair share of the yes monkeys just doing what they are told without testing beforehand... All too often too afraid to stand up to the boss and tell them something will not work when they are told to upgrade something...

Then I get called in to fix the problem they made for themselves... and 90% of the time is a well known compatibility problem and then they do not like my answer... go back to what you had or upgrade your software across the board... OPPS...

Yea, I wouldn't trust most corporate IT departments to know the difference between NTFS 3.0 and 3.1 or other flavors on the 3.1 standard...

You do not know how many admins I had to teach that too. That is like IT 101 crap. But somehow these guys have 40k a year jobs. What a world...

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Oct 12, 2007 - 2:40 AM

Been there, done that. All too familiar.

Score: 0

By Setian^Stalker

posted Oct 12, 2007 - 2:29 AM

Well I work in the mining/oil industry so I have yet to come across a admin that isnt good.

If they are silly enough to go ahead and do something critical without looking into it they have noone to blaim but themselves.

Score: 0

By sirron

edited Oct 11, 2007 - 3:52 AM

Granted older version of XP were bad, of course, they all are. Of course it's bad to run Admin for everything, you might as well post a kick me now sticker on ya. Security popups do have something to do with Vista, they obviously weren't in Windows 1.00, but yes "wrong working software", isn't that like all software? All software is crap, esp. if you compare it to sci-fi, which some people set their expectations to. Software really should be self containted, and only effect just itself if it bombs, but when was the last time you saw that happen in any windows? Linux or apple/mac or OS/2, yes.

There is ways around all forms of security, but yes Vista is a little pickier about it, but they haven't done enough in the right way IN MY OPINON. You say it's better then XP with all it's AV and anti mal/spyware, that's debatable, but I still wouldn't run an OS without them unless it was linux.

I agree everyone needs to develop working software and hardware (espcially in a state together).

You can use server platforms for home use, been doing it for years, though not recomended for the casual user, based on the cost alone :P.

Where did I blame Bill Gates and M$?

Score: 0

By icyten

edited Oct 11, 2007 - 4:19 AM

I am a software developer, I resent that. Anyways, since NT, esp 2k, apps are allocated in their own heaps so when they bomb only their memory space is eliminated by the kernel. for them to access other apps would require them to use an openprocess api call prior to parley. It was much easier making software to run on XP than vista IMO

Score: 0

By morriscox

posted Oct 11, 2007 - 12:40 PM

All software has bugs and shoddy software seems to be the norm.

http://www.networkworld....why-software-sucks.html

Score: 0

By pforbes

edited Oct 11, 2007 - 2:12 AM

It seems the words "help" and "security" do mean "help ourselves" and "our security".

Score: 0

By Hollywood__

edited Oct 11, 2007 - 12:12 AM

I love how certain people fault you for trying two different things and deciding one is better. The fact is that all of you Vista-b****ers have never even tried it or have so much money tied up in a custom built machine that has a bunch of peripherals that wont work with Vista.

It's just like the BD vs HD-DVD debate, I have both and one is cleary better but you can get the people who only own the inferior format to agree.

If XP let's any program install itsef and access the registry with you ever knowing and Vista simply won't allow it, how is XP better?

That single question makes your hardcore XP opinions worthless. I can't stand that stupid O/S, it has been nothing short of disaster on any computer I've ever owned.

You are either angry or have no clue what you ae talking about. Twelve years of s***ty MS O/S's and they finally come up wih something that works, and everybody hates it because it's new and relatively expensive.

You guys remind of the people who buy a particular body style car, and the very next year, an improved, better looking version comes along and all you can do is say how much you hate it without ever driving one because you own the "older" model that is now old news and you feel inferior.

Score: 0

By icyten

posted Oct 11, 2007 - 4:26 AM

"If XP let's any program install itsef and access the registry with you ever knowing and Vista simply won't allow it, how is XP better?
"

now I have to rewrite a zillion apps so their reg stored paths can be recognized in vista, thats why!

Score: 0

By AkumaKuruma

edited Oct 11, 2007 - 10:54 AM

next time write your code correctly and you wont have to go back and edit it again later.

like most UNIX admins know, kernel/system space is for kernel/system stuff only. all user stuff should run in userspace only. Vista is first MS O/S that got that right and also did away with admin rights for normal users by default.

Score: 0

By The MAZZTer

edited Oct 11, 2007 - 1:42 AM

I got Vista for free. If I didn't, I wouldn't have bought it.

I've tried Vista. It's pretty. It has better security. That's about it as far as pros go.

It's slower, the security is annoying and will be ultimately ineffective (just another dialog to click through without reading).

I think I went over the "slower" bit too quickly. My games run from 1/3 to 1/2 the speed I get on XP. I spent $150 on a new graphics card a year ago, and Vista pretty much negates the improvement nicely all by itself.

I'll extend the car analogy for you. The new body is completely transparent, bulletproof glass. Nice. But it's also frickin' heavy, cuts your car's top speed and acceleration (not to mention breaking distance) and halves your car's mpg.

Now let me address some of your other concerns one by one...

"or have so much money tied up in a custom built machine that has a bunch of peripherals that wont work with Vista"

That is a valid reason to complain... although it's not technically Vista's fault if your hardware manufacturer doesn't provide drivers. As a personal example, nVidia doesn't support nForce 2 mobo chipsets on Vista. The included Microsoft drivers give HORRIBLE quality, listening to any sort of audio is impossible. I used to have the same problem to a lesser degree in XP, but with driver updates it disappeared completely. I should also add that Linux has never had a problem with audio for me.. plus I think games run better than in XP (hard to tell, not many native binaries for games I have other than q3a based ones).

As for BR and HD-DVD, I agree that it IS like that debate, but only because it's NOT clear. First we have the bigger format being BR. Ok. But oh wait, Sony's making it, so it'll flop. Ah, and HD-DVD is multilayered now squeezing in 1 more gb than BR... oh wait, now we have dual BR/HD discs hmm interesting OH... now whoever mades HD-DVD bought out this company to put their films on HD-DVD oh now look Sony did the same thing over here...

I'm just going to stick with DVDs for now until the fires die down. Although dual-format discs makes me think we could probably end up stuck with BOTH formats easily enough.

I've found XP to be very stable. The most unstable elements are always third-party in nature.... in short, be careful what you install, especially if it hooks into the OS (it's true for ANY OS). On one install of XP I had such a good uptime that the uptime counter rolled over (42 days, right?). Granted that's nothing near some Linux boxes' uptimes but it's
impressive when you consider it's WINDOWS.

"If XP let's any program install itsef and access the registry with you ever knowing and Vista simply won't allow it, how is XP better?"

Some people simply don't NEED Vista's extra security. I know some guys who turned UAC completely off. UAC also exposes some problems with programs that don't properly support LUA (Least User Access). I would say that XP is better in a circumstance where a user WANTED to install that program... at the very least XP is level with a Vista that has UAC off. If it's malware sure, UAC helps. But like I said, some of us won't even get to the point where we run malware, we're smarter than that.

"You are either angry or have no clue what you ae talking about. Twelve years of s***ty MS O/S's and they finally come up wih something that works, and everybody hates it because it's new and relatively expensive."

My previous comment already addresses most of this, but the expensive bit is a valid complaint. Do you know that all Vista DVDs have the same content, different labels? They basically slap different labels and keys on the SAME discs and sell for different prices, and unless you paid for ULTIMATE you can't get at all the stuff on the disc they sold you. Seems pretty messed up to me. You can verify this yourself... Vista installer includes the option to install without a key for a trial period, and when it does it has to ASK YOU what edition to install (because normally the key provides this information, and all DVD images are the same!).

I don't hate Vista. I just think it was released both too late and too soon. Too late because we've been waiting 6 frickin' years, too early because it needs work. I probably won't seriously use Vista until SP1.

Score: 0

By ingram091

edited Oct 11, 2007 - 2:56 PM

Yep good old DELL Express Upgrade to Windows Vista upgrade kit... I got mine that way too... Home premium, and I upgraded that to ultimate using the OS upgrade system. so I got 2 keys for 1 disc now. Whatever... it sits on a hot swap drive that I rarely use anymore... Why? It runs lousy on the equipment...

I have used it on other machines against the EULA to see if I could get a better Vista installation... has not happened yet even on a Intel Core 2 extreme system with 4GB RAM and a 512mb Video card. So I finally just gave up on it till SP1 is released... XP Pro runs like a dream on these systems and have zero driver problems at install. Lets just hope Vista SP1 will be significantly better at least on this factor.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 12, 2007 - 9:41 AM

I am so confused by this. Hardware issues? Driver issues? I only ask because I genuinely believe you.

as not happened yet even on a Intel Core 2 extreme system with 4GB RAM and a 512mb Video card.

Just blows my mind. I have it (ultimate) running at home on an Athlon 64 X2 4400+ with only 2GB of RAM and a cheap-o 256MB PCI-E (7300) vidcard. Damn thing runs great.

Makes me wonder if it isn't a hard disk issue. The only thing I've done that most home users won't do is RAID-0 two SATA3 250GB's.

You had installed the performance and compatibility packs, right?

I'm not trolling here, I am honestly curious as to what might be causing these widely varying reports.

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Oct 12, 2007 - 2:46 AM

I would not have thought that. It seems like your hardware is more than capable of handling Vista's requirements... admirably, at that.

I know you didn't ask, but on an Athlon 64 X2 3800, 2GB DDR400, 256MB GeForce 7900 GT, the 64-bit version runs like a dream for me.

For what it's worth, I'm sorry you ran into problems with it... unless you simply don't care for it, then congratulations. It all worked out for the best. :)

Score: 0

By yountmj

edited Oct 11, 2007 - 1:47 AM

Umm... either you've changed, or you're an imposter, bud.

Why the hate spray?

As far as Vista's security model versus XP's, yes, I do prefer Vista... 8 days out of the week. However, Vista simply includes a method of monitoring changes that numerous 3rd-party utilities are able to do for XP. Just because Vista has the ability built-in doesn't mean XP cannot have it at all.

Score: 0

By Alex Stevens

edited Oct 11, 2007 - 1:37 AM

That's your opinion, yours is no better than anyone else's here. Oh and I tried Vista for three weeks before going back to XP. It would be stupid to complain about it without even using it.

Score: 0

By Floodland

posted Oct 10, 2007 - 10:11 PM

Well, I think this may translate into 2 possible scenarios:

1) Microsoft will make XP worse than Vista with SP3 just to "help" migration (Poisoning).

2) Microsoft understood Vista is a failure and they will continue supporting good old XP.

I think MS is closer to option 1, but I hope I am wrong. Time will tell....

Score: 0

By cruizer

posted Jun 10, 2008 - 2:54 PM

I am with you Floodland.

Score: 0

By The MAZZTer

posted Oct 11, 2007 - 1:44 AM

I would say it's a slight variant on 2.

MS realizes Vista needs more work. Hence Vista SP1. But they are also going to continue to support XP. Hence XP SP3.

Also I don't think you can sabotage a large percentage of your userbase and get away without them at least considering moving to other OSs. Plus there's the whole they'll-sue-you bit.

Score: 0

By Hocuspokus

posted Oct 10, 2007 - 5:23 PM

I have a Vista premium upgrade for my XP media ed OS and it's sat in it's cellophane wrapping and will continue to do so cos so far I'm hearing nothing that has me thinking moving over to Vista would be a 'good thing'.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 10, 2007 - 5:51 PM

Just as with any other product on the market the majority of the noise you will hear regarding it online is going to be either the fanboys or the flamers, neither of which you can trust.

That said, never install as an upgrade. Period. I don't recall if Vista allows you to do a clean install on an "upgrade" cd or not, but it's worth a shot if, and only if, you have the hardware to support it (2GB RAM, 256MB Discreet Video). Otherwise it will dog your system.

Score: 0

By yountmj

edited Oct 11, 2007 - 1:36 AM

Vista will not allow that as other versions of Windows have in the past (boot from upgrade disc, then insert previous Windows disc when prompted to prove eligibility)... at least my copy of Vista Ultimate Upgrade didn't allow that (to be honest, it was the sole reason I chose upgrade versus full).

64-bit version required a clean install, even though it was an upgrade disc, though.

I have to disagree with your statement about Vista upgrade (32-bit... 64-bit upgrade is not an option) dogging the system down. Upon completion, Vista upgrade left virtually no trace of the overwritten previous installation behind (Windows XP Professional).

Score: 0

By morriscox

posted Oct 11, 2007 - 2:01 AM

Did you notice the links I posted that show how to do a fresh install from an upgrade disk?

Score: 0

By yountmj

edited Oct 12, 2007 - 2:47 AM

Yes, I did.

"The bad news? The workaround's almost as much of a pain in the a** as the original problem, requiring multiple installs..."

Have you compared the times required for installation of Windows XP versus Windows Vista? Vista takes more than twice as long, and the workaround is to install it twice. No thanks...

You are correct though. I should have said that it was indeed possible, and is in fact a documented (albeit internally within Microsoft) method of installing the upgrade version on a blank hard drive. However, in my personal experience, I have installed using both methods in the past, and have seen no degradation in performance or stability issues with upgrading from XP.

With 64-bit it's something that I no longer have to worry about, though, as clean install is required.

Score: 0

By morriscox

edited Oct 11, 2007 - 12:10 AM

My comment got moved (what an irony).

Score: 0

By Hocuspokus

posted Oct 10, 2007 - 9:23 PM

I agree some chatter either way is inevitable but, from compatibility problems to underwhelmed users, for now I'm just not very convinced.

I do have the rig for it tho
(E6700 C2D, 2gb 667MHz, 512mb Nvidia 7950 & 500gb of HDD)
so it's not a performance issue for me.

I really just don't want what appears to be a load of aggravation for little end benefit when my XP is currently so stable & works well with everything I have/use.

I'm sure as time goes by and more and more stuff becomes Vista only it'll push me to move but I'm just not pursuaded yet.

I'm always glad to read these XP/Vista debates tho, besides so silliness there's usually some well informed & interesting comment.

(and yes I do remember when I went to XP 4 years back people giving a lot of similar criticism when XP first appeared)

Score: 0

By dvferret

posted Oct 10, 2007 - 8:17 PM

It is possible to do that. I think I accually read about it at winsupersite awhile back.

Score: 0

By MTrush

posted Oct 10, 2007 - 8:09 PM

vista dogs your system, in any configuration. same programs you run on xp will need more ram and more mhz.
youd want to wait till you can no longer run programs on xp that you need before moving on to vista. id still go with duel boot even then.

Score: 0

By Avion Airplane

posted Oct 10, 2007 - 7:20 PM

na you can not have a clean install on vista up-grade.

Score: 0

By yountmj

edited Oct 11, 2007 - 1:35 AM

Yes, you can... and in some cases it's required.

http://www.microsoft.com...grade/upgradepaths.mspx

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 12, 2007 - 9:36 AM

Thanks guys. Didn't actually know that.

See, some useful information does get posted here on occasion. ;)

Score: 0

By Skawt

posted Oct 12, 2007 - 1:57 PM

The best part about having a clean install of Vista, is that when you install it without performing a hard drive format, it backs up your program files, user data and windows directories. So you don't actually lose anything.

Score: 0