By the way, when you do get stuck with an msconfig menu that you can't access to stop programs from starting at boot up with XP when a trojan installs itself on your XP machine without your permission or knowledge:

Create a new user, copy / paste your current "My Documents" folder to the newly created users desktop, then delete the infected users profile.

At least you will be able to get into msconfig and turn off some of the programs in the startup tab and fix what your lovely O/S allowed to happen.

Some trojans like to delete access to the control panel as well. This will fix that problem too. Have fun XP users.

2002 called, they want their technology back.....

Google Glary Utilities.

It's not the greatest at the other stuff it does, but for start-up program meddling, it truly kicks ass.

Works in XP/Vista/etc..

A single script and that's fixed. No need for any moving of your docs etc... Also access isn't "deleted" just toggled for a "no show" in the registry oh VISTA guru.

You're right Hollywood_, for the tech-challenged masses who can't cross the street without getting run over by a virus or some spyware, Vista may be a move forward. It gives them a nice solid iron suit of armour to wear while crossing that street.... it may slow them down, but will protect them from getting run over.

For those of us who don't even bother running AV (I use a command line scanner to check new files on demand only when necessary), but have never once had any virus or spyware infection - i.e. clued-up users - those Vista protective "features" are superfluous.

And the rest of it's features? Virtually all of them are available as open source or freeware utilities that are small, light, and don't tie you into the "MUST UPGRADE MY HARDWARE!" con perpetrated by the corps.

I look at XP as a platform. I use it's basics, which will run on virtually any hardware very fast, and then us the lightest free utilities possible - about 20 or 30 of them - to bring it up to being the best OS possible that does everything I want in the WAY I want at zero financial cost.

Upgrade to Vista? It adds nothing I need at the cost of running slower on the same hardware. I'd be a fool to "upgrade".

You shouldn't upgrade to Vista from XP. In fact, no one should unless the computer was built for it from day one. I've said this all along.

It's all the people with three year old PC's that were built for XP that are complaining, trying to convince themselves that XP is somehow superior because they are stuck with an old O/S and upgrading that machine to Vista is suicide.

The only way out is to buy a new PC made to run Vista, which they won't do because they have so much tied up in an older machine.

I was pissed when I bought my Vista notebook, I waited a full day to open it up and turn it on dreading how Vista was going to work. I drank the Kool-Aid just like the rest of the idiots thining I was getting screwed with some terrible O/S that nobody wanted.

Then after about a week of getting used to seeing how things work and noticing the built in protection that doesn't let a single thing edit a registry key or install itself without your permission works, I was hooked.

It is so much faster at doing everything than my 2.8 Ghz P4 with XP. Boot up, shut down, starting programs, launching PS plugins, you name it. You start to see very quickly where XP really sucks.

I reformatted many of my XP machines a half dozen times each for various reasons because it would take 15 minutes to boot up after some web page altered my registry keys for some trojan install which XP wouldn't detect or warn you about.

Vista has been an absolute pleasure for almost two years now. No slow down what so ever since day one, no viruses, no trojans, nothing.

At least HP notebooks and desktops all come with XP restore discs. Too bad all you suckers who bought from Dell. "Device drivers, restore discs? You don't need that stuff with Dell, it would cost to much to include those".

The only way out is to buy a new PC made to run Vista

...or add a dedicated GPU and more RAM. ;)

...or wait it out until Win7 comes out.

And FWIW, HP isn't shipping restore discs anymore either (or at least not on a regular basis). The desktop I bought 6+ months ago did not come with them, but instead prompted you to create them after the first boot.

I love all you retards clinging to XP and the comments you left after my rant. You made my day.

Doesn't XP let any program (and some web pages)change registry keys whenever it likes without your permission? Great O/S though .....

How are those nice virus protection icons in your taskbar (that are viruses themselves) that won't go away? What about the disabled msconfig you can't get to anymore?

XP is laughable and all the people who defend it are in major denial. Good luck suckers.

It's too bad you feel that much animosity for people who prefer to stick with XP.

Why not live and let live? Nobody is hurting you by sticking with XP, after all.

For many, 32 bit XP is working very well. It runs games great, runs productivity apps well and fits their current hardware nicely.

Not all can afford the very latest in hardware, let alone an entire configuration where each component has full-on 64 bit support.

XP took some time to mature, but it's a pretty stable and workable setup - finally. Why not let people enjoy the fact that after all those years, the platform now works for them and meets their needs?

It doesn't have to be all or nothing, you know.

Since Windows XP will be fully supported until 2014, that should give businesses in particular enough time to start updating their inventories of PC's in preparation for a full-on move to a 64 bit client platform. At least I hope it will.

I figure that people spent a long, long time waiting as Microsoft and other vendors worked on making XP closer to what it was said to be when it was first released.

I would not expect all of that hard work that consumers put into XP to help make it become the platform it is today to simply be discarded in a single sweep of the broom in favor of a 64 bit platform.

By way of example, it's not everybody who can afford the outlay of cash for the purchase and maintenance of high end, high performance cars such as Porche or BMW. For some, a 2008 Ford Mustang GT can bring them just as much joy and since it costs a lot less to purchase and maintain, it may be well within their grasp financially.

Not every business or home user can afford to update their existing platforms to ones that are 100% 64 Bit certified in terms of Driver and OS support.

XP is still very viable. 64 Bit Windows 7 may well be the obvious future in many minds, but I think it is good that people have another 5 years to let that platform mature and to prepare for the transition, especially given the current economic realities both for Business and for Consumers.

@ Hollywood:

Suckers? People who don't know how to use their PC are suckers. Since the era of Windows 2000 it is possible to lock down any and all apps via NTFS filesystem permissions and registry permissions.

XP came with a reasonable set of default permissions for Limited Users (despite allowing users to create files in the root of C:\ which IMO is a bad idea). However, Windows 2000 (NT 5.0) came with the ability to lock everything down rather well.

Even IF you don't have a locked down account it is still possible to restrict specific software in a generic way, it's as simple as Right Click -> Run As.. -> Choosing to restrict the application (the checkbox which is oh so obvious..)

XP (NT 5.1) was laughable when it first came out, I agree. Windows 2000 is still more stable and better under load than XP, and Windows Server 2003 (NT 5.2) has and always will provide a better desktop than XP due to an improved version of IIS (needed for Virtualisation products) and other core improvements.

However, Vista (NT 6.0) is too bloated. XP was slightly bloated (who needs that System Restore garbage and cartoony GUI?) but Vista takes this too far. The average consumer has started to realise this.

As far as buggyness goes, Vista is just as buggy as XP was when that was the "new OS".

I think i've said enough here really.

-- Unconfined

P.S. I'm a GNU/Linux user.. not a sucker ;-)

[EDIT: Paragraphs in the wrong order O_O]

Suckers? Let me guess, you're some college kid nes pas? Some of us use our outdated XP machines to run our own inventory control software and generating wealth. You know, that thing your parents have and keep feeding you while you go about saving the gay unborn baby whales from global warming.

WHY NOT MICROSOFT GIVE US XP TRANSFORMATION THEMES TO VISTA LOOK FOR XP'S?

XP and Vista are both good... I like Vista more these days. Either way Microsoft wins.

Agreed :)
Windows 7 will be the best!! I am running it's pre-beta and I just love it. It's much better than XP and Vista in every thing.

really, most interesting, we shall see. I have found that anything new people like at first. The reason is and Microsoft knows this and then of course plays on it. That most people want something new quite often and when they do not get it, they start complaining, even if there is nothing wrong. I like Windows XP and always have, but am willing to try another if it is as good or better and that sure is not VISTA, we will see about Windows 7

If you like XP then you might wanna see this: http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3187

Enjoy :P

In this economic downturn, those thinking of updating to Vista will be thinking twice about it, now.

Microsoft need to think about that and develop some way both businesses and private individuals can spread the cost of updating.

I fought against XP for over 3 years but eventually took the plunge, it was a learning curve I don't wish to indulge in too often. I'm slowly learning Vista on someone elses computer whilst retaining XP on my own computer until I feel confident enough (and finacially stable enough) to invest in a newer OS......I'm sure by then I'll have to learn Windows 7 too but hopefully it won't be too different to Vista so it'll just be an slightly extended learning period.

Don't forget, there are a few of us out here that are getting on in age and it takes us a little longer to grasp new things.

You youngster (...and I say that with tongue in cheek :P), will learn, as you get older, you like change less and less........and we ALL get old eventually, lol.

Vista is a confusing product.

During development it was like waiting for Duke Nukem Forever.

And for the life of me, it seems that their arrogance was a bigger factor during development than focusing on what would be the best solution for consumers.

There was absolutely no reason to rip out the audio code and make it software ONLY by default. They surely could have provided legacy support for hardware acceleration as an option beside the software rendering for audio.

It's the same type of thing that happened when they went from MIDI samples in hardware (ie - Turtle Beach Maui Wavetable Synthesis) to also supporting Yamaha software samples. By providing the OPTION to use software, users could decide if they wanted the consistency of the software synth or the performance of the hardware synth.

Problem was that so many MIDI wavetable setups sounded different from each other that MIDI in games and other applications might sound great on one machine but cruddy on another.

By offering software based wavetable synth, all users had to do was download the stuff and install it and it would sound exactly the same on every other installation where the Yamaha sample set was installed.

It is preferable in the consumer market to ADD features to a system than to REMOVE and REPLACE features, don't you think?

I wish Microsoft had thought of that. But arrogantly moving forward with their particular "Vision" of how things should work seemed more important to them than doing what would best serve their customers.

Because they are a monopoly, they can often get away with stuff like that. But I guess with Vista, both the Business AND Consumer markets had finally had enough.

Good riddance to bad rubbish. I wish XP and all of it's mornic follwers would **** off once and for all.

An idiot that can't spell moronic telling others which OS they should use. How appropriate.

As much as I love and prefer Windows Vista, I believe you are in the minority when you consider Windows XP "bad rubbish".

I agree with your sentiment.

Windows XP Service Pack 1 was a major step forward, and after years, video drivers in particular matured and became more reliable.

I cannot fathom people calling XP "rubbish" in comparison to Vista, which is indeed closer to being "rubbish" than XP ever was.

XP better than Vista? LOL what a joke
It might be better than Vista on your stone age hardware but Vista x64 is the best if you have the right hardware. I use Vista ultimate x64 in my home and have business x64 installed in our office and they rock. We have never faced any problems till now. Microsoft shouldn't have released it's x86 versions, but there are def. more x86 users than x64 so they were compelled to do so. x64 versions of Vista are more stable and faster than their x86 versions. XP is much easier to crash than Vista and is prone to virus too. What else should I say? Features like bitlocker, shadow copy, better UI etc will blow XP away.

And windows 7 will kick CrApple's @ss too right now even in it's pre-beta stage, it's more stable than Vista. :)

Dude, you are totally off base.

First, my primary machine (I have 4) is as follows:

Win XP Pro SP2 on Velocity Micro 1500 w/ Asus P5N-E SLI, Core2 E6850 3ghz 1333fsb CPU , 4x1024 Samsung 6400 DDR2, eVGA 8800GT 512, Realtek HD MB Audio, 2 WD 120g SE IDE, 1 Hitachi 232g SATA II, 1 Lite-On 16x DVD-R in a GX-Silver Classic Aluminum with 2 120mm fans & a 500w PSU. Runs a Viewsonic 20.1" VP2030b LCD at 1600x1200 in DVI-D, all plugged in an APC RS 1200va UPS w/boost & trim AVR.

So, with that out of the way, I bought that rig when you could still request it with Windows XP Pro, which is exactly what I did. I even got it with a floppy drive. :)

As for x64, I'm all for that - but the driver support is just not there yet.

Your opinion that they should not even bother to run x86 32 bit versions is absurd. Businesses need time to make that transition, especially since the list of supported hardware in Vista is so freakin' narrow.

You're just wrong. It's pathetic. And thankfully, most of the rest of the computing world disagrees with you as well.

Moron...

There's nothing wrong with Vista, but to say XP is "bad rubbish" or the people that use it are "mornic followers" just proves that you are a total idiot FANBOY who feels personally insulted because someone doesn't use the same (insert anything here) as you. Grow up and quit acting stupid. It's just an operating system.

"As for x64, I'm all for that - but the driver support is just not there yet."

LOL moron, all the recently released hardware do support Vista x64. And if you wanna stick with the latest OS you gotta stick with the latest hardware too for example to take advantage of cool Bit Locker drive encryption, you gotta buy a machine with support for TPM 1.2. By the way am using Intel Core i7 extreme with NVIDIA GeForce 9800s SLIed. So my machine comes no where near to your out dated machine :P

Hey, if 64 bit works for you, more power to you.

But most folks don't seem in a hurry to go from 32 bit to 64 bit, and I'm one of those.

I'm also pleased with the machine I have. It's not a chew toy - it's a nice rig, and it works great for me.

Enjoy what ya got while ya got it. :)

Try Vista x64 it's more stable, faster and secure than it's x86 version. As you mentioned drivers might not be available for older hardware and Vista x64 won't allow unsigned drivers to be installed. Nevertheless it's much better than it's x86 version.

Dude you gotta see this, see how Windows 7 pre-beta beats your beloved and outdated XP SP3: http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3187

Remember that's Windows 7 pre-beta and from what I think it's a debug version.

Thankfully, because AMD started that 32 bit / 64 bit on a single chip thing, and Intel later adopted it, many of us will be able to migrate to 64 bit without losing much in terms of speed for legacy apps.

I'm not saying that 64 bit is junk, but I am saying that right now, gaming and working on a 32 bit platform works well, and it is enough for most of us.

I'm still waiting for games to be programmed to take full advantage of multiple cores.

At least WinRAR does... heh.

OL moron, all the recently released hardware do support Vista x64. And if you wanna stick with the latest OS you gotta stick with the latest hardware too for example to take advantage of cool Bit Locker drive encryption, you gotta buy a machine with support for TPM 1.2."

Embracing TPM is like Bambi's friend showing off the new necklace he got from the humans. When Intel/MS/(MP|RI)AA/USGov decides they don't like what's running on your PC, we'll find out who's the real moron.

x64 Stable? I had Server 2003 x86_64 and XP x86_64, both were less stable than their x86 (IA-32) versions due to driver immaturity. Vista is no different in how it handles things.

It has a pityful system for 32-bit compatibility (WoW64) which in my experience causes instability on 32-bit applications; which constitute the majority (there are some small bugs in how it manipulates/redirects things). Also, Windows on 64-bit no longer supports 16-bit software, which makes many 32-bit applications fail to install as many still use 16-bit installers.

I am not saying x86_64 is a bad architecture, it's been supported on most open source systems in a rock-solid way for quite a while with full backwards compatibility and both Apple and Sun have moved to support 64-bit on the x86_64 architecture quite gracefully.

By the way.. Shadow Copy was around before Vista. It's not a "new feature", it's just one they have chosen to promote all of a sudden.

-- Unconfined

Screw the distributers. People will have the OS of choice (whatever it may be).

IDK about XP Pro being the best. Certainly not the worst, And bay all accounts its better then Vista Home anything on ANY machine in existence.

Windows Vista Business IMHO is passable now. It can be significantly configured to run in a business environment extremely well.

The Key thing that hurt Vista was Microsoft allowing vendors to tell the public Oh ya our piece of crap will work great on Vista when it comes out. Only to find out BUZZZ!!!! Wrongo, you been Lemoned!!!

So XP Pro is still king of the hill for business for that reason alone.

Nearly all the companies I do service for have the vista option, But Not a 1 of them have seen the need to trouble themselves on the budget or technology fronts.

Its only we few Technopiles that seems ot get off on Vista at all. Like my Boss LOVE Microsoft. He made us switch to SBS2008 with Vista everything, and he paid for it in the long run cause after I said to him several times this was a bad idea, he did it anyway, and it cost him tens of Thousands in equipment upgrade throughout the company to get stuff working with it. New servers, New printers, new routers, New workstations, Cause these towers essentially crumbled on Vista 64bit.

IN the end our action pack was worth while as we used Vista business on most of the machines an sbs 2008 worked out OK. though it too has some dumb quirks in it that sbs2003 never had.

Anyways, Lesson to Microsoft, One hopes they learn NOT to allow OEM vendors make the decisions. MS tells them what they need to run Windows 7 and the Vendors accept that their existing product line has to be scraped or melted down and not pawned off on an unsuspecting public.

Windows XP is the best operating system made by Microsoft

I still think Windows 2000 Pro was the best BUSINESS operating system though.

Spoken like someone who has never owned a Vista machine ....... spew nonsense because you don't like feeling left behind.

No! Canoro
The best OS is Micro2003 v0.8 Special Edition, built on on Windows Server 2003 Enterprise SP2.
Nuff said!

eXPerience made that one. It fails to include some very basic functionality.

It's a good n-lite hack, but it's hardly comparable.

This is why I use Open Source operating systems like Linux. I will not be a slave to knee jerk decisions that are designed to keep me broke. Aside from killing O.S.es that are fine, the whole licensing thing is totally appalling. Once you own your Windows software you really don't own it. There's always some additional license or software you need to buy extra for Windows.

And don't get me started on the viruses and spyware Windows has and Linux does not have these malware things. I spend more time enjoying and using my PC with Ubuntu Linux and hardly ever any time cleaning, repairing or buying licenses.

Try a Linux based O.S. @

http://www.distrowatch.com/

I will not be a slave to knee jerk decisions that are designed to keep me broke.

*yawn*

Have fun with that...

"*yawn*

You better get some sleep

Have fun with that... "

Actually I am. It puzzles me on how so many complain but are to imprisoned and locked down to do anything about it.

Yes there are many viruses and spy wares for Windows and that's because of Windows market share. Too sad Linux doesn't have even 1% market share so why would any hacker be interested in attacking Linux? What about too many applications, games for Windows? I wanna play Crysis Warhead, GTA 4 on my PC, so should I use Linux? fortunately I often play those games on my Windows Vista x64 PC. LOL
Windows can be configured to make it more secure but if you know how to use it.

So, like always PCTool-moron gives us a very comprehensive observation dug up from his single working neuron. The best this neuron could do was process a "yawn" command just to prove Toolie is on the verge to the Total Vegetable stage.

Well, watching him becoming what he chose to be (although a vegetable might not be that interesting at all to common people) is fun.

The only thing I'm afraid of is that the fresh vegetable PCCrap could be eaten by the monkey kept in a cage by scientists... You know, the one that after a lifetime of effort could only yell "Developers, Developers, Developers" :-)

Well, anyway, this is neither the story of the vegetable, nor the one of the monkey. This is about an OS, it's competition, lots of PR and USERS.

Yeap, users. Users, not poor, not stupid, not fans of anything else than the software that works best to suit THEIR needs.

So, as a long (and I mean VERY long) term computer user, I just happen to use Windows, Linux and Mac altogether, at home and work.
I'm happy I had this chance. Not everybody gets to use all those OS's on a daily basis.

The point is I never get to "yawn" when someone asks me about some OS or particular piece of software. In most cases I try to show the options, the pros and cons of every choice and let the man choose for himself.

"Yawning" doesn't help people choose , nor make a comprehensive opinion on a product. But since we cannot expect that much from a vegetable, well...

So here's my advice to the BetaNews readers:
- if you are not a yawning vegetable and really want to help people choose something to fit their needs, DO IT. Help those people in the most professional way possible. Yes, it's perfectly ok to say that you prefer one thing versus another. But never forget that your needs are not everybody's needs.

- if you are not a yawning vegetable and need an opinion from someone more experienced, try filtering the answers, simply set an "ignore-that-yawning-moron-for-good" in your minds, and finally choose according to YOUR needs. I am pretty sure most of you are much smarter than you think and that after finding out the pros and cons of the products/options you get into, you will be able to choose wisely.

Oh, some extra: if you are still not totally happy with your choice but you feel strong enough to improve it, make a stand. Contribute.
Unfortunately in the OS market there is only one product that encompasses this small detail ;-)

I was referencing the tired "slave" troll.

I really expected you to get that.

I guess I need to lower my expectations...

"Yawning" doesn't help people choose , nor make a comprehensive opinion on a product.

But calling one's self a "slave" in an open market does? Get a clue, you egotistical prick; He was trolling. It's an *old* troll. And yes, it's getting tiring.

Thanks for the pointless insults, though. Way to "Help those people in the most professional way possible.".

Choke on your own hypocrisy. :)

Q: "What about too many applications, games for Windows?"

A: There are over 10,000 free software applications available on the GNU/Linux platform; and many games have GNU/Linux versions. Recently, Valve announced a port of the Steam client to GNU/Linux, Epic Games write Linux versions of their games, ID Software release for Linux and Windows to the same time and even open source their game engines. Also, many proprietary applications like Nero Burning ROM, Adobe Acrobat etc. now fully support Linux. Finally, Wine and LUKS (Linux Unified Kernel Project) provide a compatibility layer for running applications and games designed for Windows on GNU/Linux, OS X and other UNIX-like systems - allowing the "other" apps not yet ported to often run just as they did on Windows.

Q: "Too sad Linux doesn't have even 1% market share so why would any hacker be interested in attacking Linux?"

A: In the server market Windows does not dominate. Most web servers for example use GNU/Linux, FreeBSD or a proprietary UNIX variant. As Apache HTTPd for example is more popular than IIS and is multiplatform, I could see more "hackers" interested in that than the Windows-orientated technology. However, unlike in the Windows realm where "fame" is gathered through attacking users maliciously or releasing zero-day exploits, in the GNU/Linux world "fame" is gathered by releasing patches and advisories, helping users and being a good community player.

---

"Windows can be configured to make it more secure but if you know how to use it. "

Indeed, many people overrate the malware issues with Windows. Also as you mention, x86_64 Windows is generally unaffected by the legacy viruses that affect x86 due to WoW64 not completely providing a suitable environment and the lack of 16-bit support (as many viruses were designed to affect both NT and 9x back in the day).

There are over 10,000 free software applications available on the GNU/Linux platform; and many games have GNU/Linux versions.

True, but there's a limited selection in comparison, and the "compatibility" layer leaves much to be desired. (This coming from one who has played a few "Windows" games in Ubuntu).

I could see more "hackers" interested in that than the Windows-orientated technology.

"Back in the day", this was also true. Now it's about money. Server admins don't sit at their server desktops and click ads. Those using Windows, unfortunately, tend to be much easier to fool into clicking those ads. Malware follows the money now.

I'm not saying Linux doesn't have it's uses or benefits, but these aren't they. Gamers and malware writers are both going to stick to Windows for the foreseeable future it seems...(which, depending on how you look at it, may not be a bad thing...)

The whole concept that Microsoft can force distributers to sell one version of Windows or another with their PCs is what's wrong here.

It's all about corporate profiteering as usual, and nothing about customer choice.

It's just One More Reason why I smile every time I see an illegally installed copy of corporate software like Windows.

I like what DudeBoyz said as he is correct. I will never use Vista and if Windows 7 is like Vista with no improvements I will not use that either. I am convinced that Windows XP is much better than Vista shall ever be. In my estimation, Windows Vista is nothing more than sloppy work like Windows ME was. Microsoft needs to wake up but then we been saying that for years now.

Microsoft is like the auto industry. They make what they want people to buy.

*laughing*

Yeah... That's why they have more metrics regarding how computers are used and what they are used for than anyone else combined.

That's why spend millions analyzing the data and the trends they represent.

*laughing*

You are such a joke...

People (including me) held on to Windows 98 SE with a near death-grip, and only abandoned it when Microsoft stopped providing WHQL driver support/approval and vendors stopped updating drivers that worked under the Windows 98 SE environment. Plus, many new peripherals did not even come with 9x support at all, requiring Windows 2000 or later.

It took a LONG time for XP to really establish itself as a "Pretty Stable Platform", but after years and years, it finally became pretty well regarded as a gaming platform, among other things.

Instead of simply extending XP with improved file systems, improved efficiency, improved compatibility and other spiffy optimizations, they opted to make some fundamental changes to the core structure of the OS.

I think THAT is where they made a wrong turn.

At the very least, they should have tried to support as many peripherals / devices as they could, including pretty much everything XP supports.

Instead, they actually redesigned the audio model and suddenly hardware accelerated audio was not there for a lot of users. The software based driver model perhaps should have been an alternative to the existing hardware based driver functionality instead of being forced as the only option.

I understand the desire to move the graphics coding to a ring farther away from the core kernel, since that could theoretically make the core much less vulnerable to video-card crashes that could bring an entire system down.

But I think that they way they went about it was just a mess.

They first indicated that they were moving 100% to DirectX and would run OpenGL in a DirectX wrapper. Well, hardware vendors and consumers went nuts, and OpenGL somehow was allowed to work independantly of a DirectX wrapper.

Then, they announce DX10 is Vista Only. As it turned out, the original release of DX10 offers NOTHING in terms of visual quality or effects that is superior to DX9. Yes, it has a unified shader architecture, which theoretically can provide a more efficient way to process shader objects, but given that the graphics were moved away from the core kernel, any speed advantage due to such efficiencies was negated.

So, you have DirectX 10. Visually, it offers NO improvement over DirectX 9. And because of the relocation of the graphics to an outer ring, it actually ends up performing SLOWER than DirectX 9.

Then you start looking at the reorganization of the user interface, default file locations, etc. and you end up with users who are used to Windows working one way, but if they move to Vista they are going to have to spend some time re-learning some of the menus, locations, processes, etc.

Who wants to have their own employees actually become LESS EFFICIENT as the result of an upgrade?

I really don't think it was necessary to just go off on a tangent and start changing things. The Vista dialogs are noticeably different than XP's. The navigation / folder changes don't seem to be an improvement in most cases. If anything, it's a step backwards.

So, why do people want to cling on to XP?

Because after all the years they put in to learning the platform and watching as the platform finally matured enough to be considered "pretty stable", they get thrown this scaled-down (no WinFS for example) Vista thing, which may be incompatible with many components of your system and run like a dog on the same hardware platform.

Vista on brand-new systems has been more successful, but the upgrade market has had a very tough landing.

I really do think that Vista sucks. At least as it is today.

XP with SP2 (and for some, SP3) is so well entrenched and now much better regarded thanks to improved stability, that there seems little incentive to move.

If XP is working well for you, why would you want to change that?

All the little shortcuts, tweaks, settings and what not you learned over the years has helped you really get to know the ins and outs of XP.

Why throw out all that hard-earned knowledge to transition to a pretty lame OS that will require you to go through the same growing pains and re-learning that you did with XP when you first got it?

If Windows 7 is based completely on the Vista architecture, I think that will be a major let-down initially.

I think they should be FIXING all the crap they goofed in Vista and help make Windows 7 a much more efficient, compatible and stable platform.

Take the good stuff that was in Windows 2000 Pro and Windows XP and make sure Windows 7 benefits from that. Rip out all the junk that's in Vista and make the thing modular.

Pull Media Center, Movie Maker, Photo whatever and all of those tacked-on "services" and let Windows 7 come together without all of that.

Sort of like how Firefox does with Extensions/Add-ons.

Provide that character-based command-line interface as a truly usable option. Allow users to boot into a command-line interface like you can in Linux and tweak and fix things until you're hearts content, then boot into the full GUI mode for everyday operation.

That way (as with Linux) if your GUI gets borked, you can recover much easier. You could boot to the command-line and do disk imaging, file management and other critical operations without having to worry about conflicts with open processes, locked files, etc.

I guess I could rant all day. I'm like that sometimes. :)

But, I do honestly believe that Vista was and still is an inferior product to Windows XP, especially for businesses.

I want Windows 7 to be much, much Leaner, Cleaner, Efficient and Optimized. Think Windows 2000 Pro, perhaps, and that may be a decent example of what I'm wishing.

I also want Windows to SUCCEED. I like using Windows. It is a pretty nice platform with a lot of excellent software out there. It's so ubiquitous that is the DEFACTO standard, and as far as actual operating system platforms, I want that to be the case. I want people to have Windows on all their rigs, because it's a common platform for developers and users to embrace. You don't have to worry about the type of forking that you get with Linux or some other OS's.

Windows could sorta be compared to the Interstate Highway system. Everybody can use it and all of the vehicles are made to perform on it. The lane width is pretty standard, many of the signs and markings are the same (or nearly so), etc.

All you have to worry about is finding the vehicle(s) that are right for you and you can be off and running. The highway system is standard and you don't even have to worry about that foundation. It's there for you, and almost every automobile driver knows how to use it.

Windows can be that core foundation. So pervasive that as long as you use it, you may never have to worry about different platforms and the confusion that can bring. You end up taking Windows for granted. Everybody has it and everybody wants it to work.

It would be great if it was the SOFTWARE that makes the difference, not the OS itself.

Get developers to focus on a standardized platform and crank out their apps by the thousands. Stop changing the OS in ways that will cause it to break things. Just maintain it, optimize it, make it more efficient, but always try to leave it compatible and consistent.

The one saving grace is that XP will be fully supported in terms of patches for security, drivers, etc. until 2014. That means you can hang on to XP and ride out the storm.

Hopefully, by that time, Microsoft will have this Windows thing all figured out. But in the meantime, you can continue to be productive on the system and platform you are on.

Rant over. Thanks for letting me vent. :)

Heh.. No problem. :p

Check out the 6956 build of Win7. It's on it's way to hopefully being what you've asked for there.

Yes, Win7 is based on vista. That's pretty much the only thing about it that people can still latch onto to gripe about it.

They've changed the dev process. Vista was released with bugs because they put code into the main branch prior to testing it. Obviously, this caused problems. Any code going into the Win7 branch (and they pulled *everything* out) is tested and optimized prior to being added. This is why the pre-beta's have been so rock-solid. A few missing features here and there still, but stable as rock. ...and already beating Vista in many benchmarks to boot.

This should also help improve the quality of Vista (Sp2) as they've done the same process with this SP.

A wonderful rant indeed! ;)

However I don't support your opinion that Windows should become a DEFACTO standard. After all there are too many areas where Windows just suck immensely like registry, no (linux/unix like) package manager with unified installation (MSI is far from being efficient and still filled with bugs), still defaults to Administrator for new user accounts, has gazillion of compatibility hacks and so on and so forth.

In two words, Windows has to rewritten from the scratch.

Windows 7 will be to Vista what 98se was to 95. IMHO.

Basically the same kernel as vista just reworked and speced out for equipment that its designed to work on. Not the lowest common denominator.

Less HOME vendor skus, more Performance vendor skus.

IF Microsoft learns Anything from Vista it will be this. Windows 7 will not Ship on equipment its not specifically designed to work on. AT ALL. Nor will there be a so called UPGRADE path for it. If you want it you have to get a new machine to get it, OR order a full version and have TRUE specifications listed clearly on the packaging Not a propaganda lie to allow it to work in reduced functionality on old equipment its not designed for.

The other thing I think they learned from this fiasco is that the bells and whistles and flash and sparkles only go so far with the public. People want that yes, but not at a cost of performance. Its like getting in a Lamborghini and having a Studebaker engine in it. It looks great but it don't do crap.

That's Vista in most cases. Which is why the whole Mohave thing is so laughable to most of us. cause they are not allowing any hands on experience with a working machine. no its a little demo movie running on a shell computer, I'm sure from a real power house machine. the Users going WOW, get zero hands on time with the thing, they just watch the little video and Yea even I will say Wow. But the real question is How does it perform on my machine. and the answer is so far from anything like WOW, that its pathetic.

Anyone with a brain can see what MS has been doing here.

Vista will soon be the 2nd string OS, to windows 7. With the Value OS rating going to XP for the lowend legacy stuff. Not Vista Home. No way... Anything below Home premium should not exist at all in the Vista line.

Legacy= XP Pro (the new one they released for the under $100 PCs)

Modern Home equipment, Vista Home premium, or Windows 7 Home.

Modern Power user(IE gamers Home business)= Windows 7 Premium

Small Business (Vista Business, Windows 7 Workstation)

Servers = SBS 2008, Server 2008

That SHOULD be Microsoft's business model through 2009.

ingram091 - Windows 7 will be to Vista what 98se was to 95. IMHO.

I like that comparison, and I sincerely hope that you are right.

Windows 98 SE, for me, was a very, very good platform. Much better than Win 95 and Win ME.

I was sad to see Windows 98 SE be left behind, but when hardware finally caught up with the demands of the software (XP's increased resource requirements) and Windows XP matured somewhat (SP1), many 98 SE users could finally migrate to XP and have a productive environment that did not feel as sluggish and buggy as XP did when it was first released.

I would VERY much like to see massively improved hardware support within Windows 7, including strong support for legacy hardware.

If they can streamline Windows and drastically improve hardware support, they may just have a decent product on their hands.

Who would have thought that people would have wanted XP for so long. I certainly didn't when it first came out. I prefer XP over Vista anyday. Vista is good for newbies, but thats about it. It requires so much more in hardware and little else in return for it. Thats my biggest gripe, among driver issues, which isn't MS's fault, but still, you can't expect consumers to write drivers for modem hardware. The ergodex keyboard comes to mind, with no driver available for Vista yet!

Good for newbies? I can do everything in vista that I could do in XP and more. I am running on the same dell XPS 400 that I bought almost four years ago and the only thing that I upgraded was the RAM and hard drives. That doesn't sound like a huge hardware requirement to me. My GeForce 6800 runs the system well and still allows me to play the games I enjoy. Yes, you require a higher end graphics card to play higher end games, but I do not and as such this video card issue is not a VISTA issue but a GAMING issue.

Drivers are also not an issue. I have not had a single device I could not get a driver for in Vista. If you have an issue with a driver not being available, as you said, blame the manufacturer. Microsoft went through a lot to isolate what is the major cause of issues in the OS, POORLY WRITTEN DRIVERS, and as such is requiring developers to actually code properly now and I commend MS for this.

confirmation of Vista's continued lukewarm reception.

And MS adds a skin change for Windows 7? how odd.

yeah, i do not get it either. Microsoft has more money than most countries do yet they fail time and time again at everything. Building an OS, the Zune, Plays for Sure, Plays for Sure Part 2, XBox, XBox360, MSN, Internet Search, Bob, MS-OOXML, DRM infested Windows Media, Silverturd, IE, Windows Media Player, i could go all day...

Still with the "skin change" eh?

You're still somehow under the impression skin changes affect the kernel..

Troll much?

I troll quite a bit... but in this case I've not seen too much difference other than a skin change that would really impact how people feel about Vista.

So the fact that it is faster, more stable, has lower requirements regarding hardware, isn't changing the drivers model, makes UAC easier to use, adds functionality, allows access to more configurations options....

None of this amounts to anything other than a skin change to you?

Well, at least we know reality isn't getting in your way...

Could they have done this all in Vista? Hell, they *could* have done it all with Windows NT. That's not the point, and you know it.

That is until they decide to remove stuff at launch like they did to Vista.....

I get a big laugh at the blind worship those, like you, have towards Microsoft. You'll justify just about anything they do. You truly are their tool.

"faster, "
We don't know. It isn't released nor even alpha. But I never found a complaint with Vista SP1 speed, either. I can recall RC1 through gold of Vista, and they were abysmal.

"more stable, "
You can't possibly know this, it hasn't seen wide distribution. I typically let the users decide that for me. After all, them, not testers, are the ultimate judge. Since it is built on code after Vista, I have little doubt it is less compatible for applications users wish to use.

"Has lower requirements regarding hardware, "
How adorable? Too little, too late. What about the huge gap of hardware that couldn't run vista between 2007 and 7's release?

"isn't changing the drivers model, "
My point made for me?

"makes UAC easier to use, "
So a "skin" change. You are changing the appearance of a core feature, not the actual functionality.

Why not make Vista's easier to use? sounds like a fundamental admittance of design flaw?

Besides, it still has UAC, a fundamental Vista feature. Again, maybe a tweak but hardly more than a skin change.

"adds functionality,"
Yeah a new skin to click my icons differently. I know, I know. You keep making my point for me.

"allows access to more configurations options...."
wow, just what we need! A control panel with hundreds of options! And I do not exaggerate!

My Vista control panel is so large that it has a scroll button off the start menu, and I'm running 1920x1200!

Let's hope they move the networking features around *again* like they did in Vista to make it feel like a WHOLE NEW OS!

"None of this amounts to anything other than a skin change to you?"
Nope. Vista SkinPack2, pretty much.

"Could they have done this all in Vista? Hell, they *could* have done it all with Windows NT. "

Nice distraction. stay on subject!

What I was looking for with a new OS was say the functionality you had when you went from W2K to Windows XP. Better fonts, remote desktop, system restore, etc. Significant feature differences that ENHANCED using the computer, but *didn't necessarily get in the way* of using it, like Vista does.

And I am growing on Vista. But Windows 7 is little more than a skin.

"they fail time and time again at everything"

Let's see:

"Building an OS" - they are the market leader
"Zune" - I guess. Seems good tech but bad marketing
"Plays for Sure, Plays for Sure Part 2" - A problem that hasn't been solved yet by anyone
"XBox, XBox360" - seems to be doing fine
"MSN" - Not my thing but successful
"Internet Search" - indeed
"Bob" - ok...
"MS-OOXML" - Looks like they won
"DRM infested Windows Media" - DRM is a general problem
"Silverturd" - the best RIA platform if you ask anyone with any clue
"IE" - the market leader
"Windows Media Player" - why? It's great.

"i could go all day..." - without a doubt... Hey, you forgot Office or is that wrapped into OOXML?

*laughing*

"Why not make Vista's easier to use?"

How about giving the user more options to configure it to work the way they want it to?

"just what we need! A control panel with hundreds of options!"

Oh, right. Of course. Catch 22. They take away options, they're limiting the user and dumbing down the itnerface. They give you more options and you b**** about that as well. YHow cute...

"We don't know. It isn't released nor even alpha. "

One only needs read a little into what you've written to see you are utterly clueless.

Don't have an alpha? The Beta 1 release is scheduled for Jan 13th, genius. One needs only compare the *existing* pre-beta builds to *any* Vista pre-release build to see the difference in speed/stability.

but you know what you're talking about, right? When you claim they haven't even released alphas yet. Hell, what have I been using in my home desktop the past few months, a hallucination?

How cute, indeed.

What I was looking for with a new OS was say the functionality you had when you went from W2K to Windows XP. Better fonts, remote desktop, system restore, etc. Significant feature differences that ENHANCED using the computer, but *didn't necessarily get in the way* of using it, like Vista does.

I laugh again.

Fonts? That's *not* a skin element? Talk about sticking with your original arguments... :p

Seriously, we can go back and forth here forever. Try the beta when it comes out. Let's talk then. This is pointless other than as an exercise in wasting time...

Whatever, jackass.

I hate IE, Vista is better than XP, but not by much. Windows ME sucked. The list truly does go on, but yeah...

I'm their tool.

You're such a complete gibbering idiot. Play in traffic, will ya?

"We don't know. It isn't released nor even alpha. "

What? There have been many releases of Windows 7 already and Beta 1 is already finished and will be available next month.

"makes UAC easier to use, "
So a "skin" change. You are changing the appearance of a core feature, not the actual functionality.

Uh no, it is indeed changing the functionality. I mean you've already admitted you had no idea it was even being tested yet, so you really know nothing at all about it. How can you make such claims?

since you enjoy insulting people, here i go:
stupid, moron, a**hole, motherf**ker, dumb, retard, idiot, jackass, loser. :)

(menacing look at entire sub-thread) COAL. STOCKING. WATCH IT. ALL Y'ALL.

End of transmission, but don't make me send over Bad Santa. I don't mean the Billy Bob version either; that guy is an actor in a movie. This would be the real Bad Santa -- straight from the North Pole (and resultant hassles from TSA when entering the country), frostbitten, able to enter any domicile with absolute stealth, possessed of heaven-knows-what in the bag, judgmental re your behavior, and very hostile.

He also smells like curdled nog. Just saying. Think this through, y'all.

Billy from school said that his sister heard it from a friend of hers from band camp that Santa wasn't real...

Wow, for once I agree with you. The XBOX with all it's problems keeps people coming back after three RROD's. You can solve the disc scratching by loading new games to the hard drive and playing them from there. You still need the disc in the tray, but only to verify you own it. It spins up for a couple seconds to read the iso title.

The Zune is a great player, just badly launched & marketed and no good direct connect devices like the iPod (I have seven iPod DC devices so far). I don't use download or convert any music to WMA, only MP3.

Even Vista hasn't "failed", the viral marketing got everyone hating it before they even tried it. Every moron I know who says they hate it doesn't know s*** about computers and has never once tried it. It's too bad people are such brain dead sheep.

I didn't want a Vista machine either, until I had to replace my notebook and didn't have a choice. I wouldn't go back to XP for any reason.

@ss clown, you should go to a circus to entertain people. You forgot to mention office as a failure too. IDIOT

You mean Bad Santa from Futurama, clearly.

You've got the power.

If you want to fix the posts, delete the comments from folks like:

shellcodes_coder

If you all aren't willing to step up and stop the trolling and abuse, I don't think it's fair to start throwing out warnings at everybody else.

How cute.

If you had a clue, you'd know sjc001 and I have long been trading barbs and insults. We disagree, and yes, we're oft-times insulting to each-other.

Get over it?

Vista sucks. I don't enjoy, waiting for a mouse click response on my DVD player software. I click to pause the DVD and a wait about 10 seconds. Gets annoying after awhile. Winzip doesn't work in vista. Computer crashes. I don't need anti virus software, my vista never get to see the internet, so it slower even with defender off. I miss msconfig. I got crap from software install that like to start up in the background. Try shutting it off in vista. I have older software that works fine on xp, it gets expensive to up date software because the new os wont run it. I could on and on how vista just sucks and the next computer will be Linux or Mac.