Re: Windows XP - What you'll miss about Vista
"Dzomlija" <guest@unknown-email.com> wrote in message
news:b082036aa35dc31ab69eb66e7504f3b5@nntp-gateway.com...
>
> -This post is an extract from article
> "-'-http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/xpsp3_02.asp-'
> (http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/xpsp3_02.asp)-" appearing on Paul
> Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows.-
>
> _______________________________
> Paul Thurrott's article basically covers the comparison between XP and
> Vista quite nicely, and hopefully will give people a better
> understanding of why Vista is better than XP - even if XP SP3 is
> installed.
> _______________________________
>
> Aside from obvious look and feel issues, the most striking thing about
> downgrading from Windows Vista to XP is the sheer number of things that
> need to be installed and configured in order to bring the older OS up to
> speed with its more recent stablemate. Just some of these issues
> include:
>
> *Hardware drivers.*
> On three different systems, one a desktop and two portable devices, XP
> required me to install a huge number of hardware drivers, most of which
> had to be manually downloaded on other PCs because the XP-based PC
> initially lacked networking facilities.
Only because 1) Vista may not have the drivers to install, and XP wasn't
provisioned very well. In either case, you wouldn't have to in buying a
bundled PC as the OEM did this for you. The OEMs still could do this
differently, making it easy but didn't fit the bundling ideaology.
> *Out of date software applications.*
> Even with the very latest version of XP, there are an alarming number
> of out of date applications that must be removed and/or updated. I
> removed MSN Explorer, Outlook Express, and Windows Messenger using Add
> or Remove Programs. Then I manually updated Internet Explorer 6 to 7 and
> Windows Media Player 9 to 11 by downloading the latest versions from
> Windows Update and the Microsoft Download Center.
I would not doubt right now XP is more compatible than Vista. And you get
to chose how far you want those updates.
> *Missing applications. *
> Windows XP does not include certain applications, like the
> aforementioned IE 7 and WMP 11. But it's more than that. You have to
> manually find, download, and install Windows Defender (or the
> anti-spyware application of your choice), an application that (like IE 7
> and WMP 11) is included in Vista by default. And like Vista, XP doesn't
> ship with any form of anti-virus. So you'll have to find some kind of AV
> solution on your own as well.
Tehy keep changing IE, I never notice, I use Firefox. And for both, they
keep changing it adding less value and more bloat. The music plays, that is
all I need.
> *Microsoft Update. *
> Windows XP ships with a lousy Web-based version of Windows Update,
> which will not automatically provide updates for non-Windows products.
> To gain this functionality, you have to manually install Microsoft
> Update, a multi-step and time-consuming process. Once Microsoft Update
> is installed, you can't get it to appear in the Start Menu's Most
> Recently Used (MRU) list, no matter how frequently you use it. But the
> old Windows Update appears in the Start Menu MRU, even when it's been
> replaced.
How many times has it changed? Lots. How many times will it change?
Probably lots. This is Microsoft (any OS), we are now aclimatized that
updates happen all the time, any version.
> *Start Menu. *
> XP's Start Menu, which relies on pop-out menus that never remember how
> to stay sorted alphabetically, is demonstrably less useable than
> Vista's. As you install more and more applications, the Start Menu grows
> and grows, necessitating manual pruning and organization, a process that
> isn't required on Vista. And don't get me started on the lack of Start
> Menu Search.
Vista confuses me. I like XPs menu better.
> *Hidden applications.*
> Tied to the lack of Start Menu Search, you simply have to know that
> certain utilities exist in order to access them. Device Manager is a
> typical example. To find it in XP, open the Start Menu, right-click My
> Computer, choose Properties, and then go to Hardware tab. Obviously.
I am sure Vista has some well hidden applications. Certainly have to
re-learn and remember the menu system. Just as easy, if not easier to use
Ubuntu.
> *Desktop.*
> Unlike with Vista, XP's desktop icons are too small ... or way too big,
> assuming you can find the place in the UI where you can change their
> size. Vista's more configurable desktop is easier on the eyes,
> especially with the high-resolution screens of today.
I like them small. I don't need a 1" Icon to show a link or file. Exporer
too. Why not use list mode? Infact, that Vista one really annoys me. It
tries to hide where on the disk my files are and just slows me down. Plus
it assumes I am a dolt. Vista agrrivates me here.
> *ClearType.*
> Microsoft's ClearType sub-pixel rendering system is not enabled by
> default on Windows XP and must be manually enabled.
Easy to enable.
> *Windows Search.*
> Windows XP's unbelievably annoying Search Companion, which for some
> bizarre reason utilizes a cartoon dog, isn't just condecscending to
> users, it's also lousy at what it does. To fix this and provide XP with
> something approaching the power of Vista's Instant Search functionality,
> you need to know about, find, and then manually download Windows Desktop
> Search.
Never use search in XP or Vista. It was slow and stupid in XP, and from
other peoples comments I gather it isn't much better in Vista.
> *Networking. *
> XP's networking functionality is laughably bad compared to Vista's,
> which features simple, plain English auto-configuration capabilities
> that utilize location concepts like Home, Work, and Public Location. In
> XP, you have to enter the WPA network key TWICE to initially configure
> wireless networking. There are repeated "Now connected" pop-up balloons:
> Yeah, we get it, you're connected. And then there are those annoying
> disconnected network adapter icons in the tray. You can't make them go
> away unless you disable the connection(s) or connect them to something.
I didn't see much difference other than XP auto install did a better job in
the last 4 years than does Vista. Had a relative call me over to fix their
new Vista, OEM support couldn't help.
Turned out it thought it was on DSL and set the MTU incorrectly. Never seen
XP do that.
> *Power management. *
> You have to enable the power management tray icon in Power Options on
> portable machines. You also have to manually enable Hibernation,
> regardless of the PC type. And then you have to hope that it works,
> since power management is so much more dicey in XP than it is in Vista.
> Good luck!
Yep, with Vsta it goes to sleep and will not wake up. Now before you say
drivers, 1) they are installed and 2) it is an out of the box OEM Vista
install. My XP right beside it, flawless.
> *Backup. *
> XP's backup utility dates back to the earliest days of NT and it shows.
> Not surprisingly, Vista features a completely rewritten backup utility
> that really works, and provides both image-based full PC backup and file
> backup functionality. Oh, and Previous Versions, which lets you get at
> older versions of documents and other data files. XP has none of that.
Never use the Microsoft one, never seen anyone actually use it and not get
into registry hell.
I always use the DVD version and take a periodic copy of my data to DVD or
over the network to my storage device. But with Vista, I can't do it over
the network as Vista will not mount/map the storage device.
> *Taskbar. *
> Seriously, make the Language toolbar go away. Why does it appear? Why
> does it appear after I close it?
Never messed with this.
> *User interface. *
> I'm not going to harp on XP's out of date user interface too much. But
> I will point out that there is a decent XP UI available called Royale
> that debuted in XP Media Center Edition 2005. It doesn't come with XP
> Home or Pro by default, but you can download it from the Web. Why it's
> not just included in XP is beyond me, but anyone stuck using XP should
> search for it, download it, and install it.
While Linux has a very simple interface to XP, Vista...arg. If you want
easy menu, you want Ubuntu or Fedora. Apple had it right putting the tool
bar on the top. Linux puts one on both the top and bottom, very usable.
> What makes this list even more daunting is that Windows XP, unlike
> Vista, does not include any automatic degunking technology. Over time,
> Windows XP simply gets slower and slower, and eventually you have to
> reinstall from scratch to recover lost performance. That's not the case
> with Windows Vista.
Vista isn't old enough and does not have the hours on it yet. So no
comment. But I heard this line going from W2000 to XP, so I suspect more
vapor.
> *::Other features I missed from Windows Vista::*
> Windows Vista's detractors like to spread the myth that Microsoft's
> latest desktop OS doesn't offer enough unique new functionality when
> compared to its predecessor, Windows XP. That's not true at all. In
> addition to not suffering from most of the many issues listed above,
> I've found my time using XP to be quite painful at times because I
> missed, among other things, the following Vista features:
>
> *Windows Aero. *
> Dismissed as eye candy, Vista's Aero user interface is nicer looking
> than anything found on XP. It's also more functional: Aero's glass
> effects and taskbar icon previews make it easier to find other windows
> when you're multi-tasking. Subtle animations tell you where to look for
> minimized windows. And live icons give you previews of document
> contents. (One Aero feature I don't care for or use, however, is Flip
> 3D). Possible solution: Download Royale at the very least or put up with
> a potentially buggy UI replacement like WindowBlinds.
Aero, I actually like it (menus asside). Needs a beefy graphics card with
dedicated memory for a nice experience, but it actually isn't too bad. But
this got me motivated to see what Linux Compiz was like....wow... Microsoft
should look at Compiz....the cube flip, and application tabing...fantastic
and addictive. My UI vote goes Compiz.
> *Start Menu Search. *
> It doesn't get a lot of press, but this just may be one of Vista's best
> and most important features. In my case, it affects my daily workflow in
> ways that weren't appreciated until I downgraded to XP and immediately
> missed its presense. Possible solution: Download a third party launcher
> like Launchy or Enso Launcher
Never used search. Always seems broken.
> *Windows Sidebar. *
> I actually use Windows Sidebar regularly though I wish there were more
> quality gadgets available. After initially promising to port Sidebar to
> XP, Microsoft eventually gave up on the project. Possible solution:
> Download a third party sidebar replacement like Google Desktop or Yahoo!
> Widgets.
Yes, a nice part of Aero. I am sure Linux has or will adopt those now that
wide screens are the norm. Would not want it on a old sized screen.
> *Breadcrumb bar. *
> The new breadcrumb bar in Windows Vista's Explorer windows is a huge
> improvement over the ancient address bars in XP and older Windows
> versions. The big advance, however, isn't the simplification of the
> location display, it's the ability to quickly jump around in the folder
> hierarchy using the breadcrumb bar's node-based navigation scheme. As
> with Start Menu Search, this is a feature you don't realize you use so
> often until it's gone.
Breadcrumb bar? Granola?
> *Disk Defrag. *
> Windows XP does include a disk defragmentation utility, but it doesn't
> run automatically in the background so you have to remember to run it
> regularly.
I like to know why my disk is thrashing thank you. If my PC is idle, and
the disk goes nuts how am I supposed to guess it is defrag or a worm? Next,
if Vista is so advanced, why did they not use a file system that does not
require defrag?
> *ReadyBoost. *
> A lot is made about how much better Windows XP runs on older hardware
> than does Vista, but then why wouldn't it? A more important potential
> market for Vista is those PCs that are less than two years old and on
> the edge of meeting realistic Vista hardware requirements. For these
> systems--with 1 to 2 GB of RAM and a pre-Core 2 Duo processor--Microsoft
> has provided a truly useful performance feature called ReadyBoost that
> makes all the difference in the world. Plug in a 512 MB to 2 GB USB
> memory fob and suddenly that dog of a PC will run Vista just fine, thank
> you very much.
This is a solution to the problems that Vista created, in that Vista is fat.
OSes are supposed to be lean, small, tight and fast code. So instead of
fixing bloat, a laptop has to have a USB drive poking out? Might just as
well get XP.
> I know, I know. You're looking at this list and you're thinking big
> deal. Remember, however, that this isn't a list of unique Vista
> features--a list that would include such technologies as BitLocker,
> Media Center, and Windows Calendar, among many others. This is a list of
> things that impact me, as an individual, on a regular basis. A list that
> should be combined with the list of issues from the previous section to
> provide a wider overall picture of the real world day to day differences
> between using each system. In this light, the advantages of Windows
> Vista are very real. Very real indeed.
Yep, you read my mind. Big deal. Worse yet, didn't discover anything I
will miss from Vista. Vista had one nice background, I copied it over to
Ubuntu. So will not miss that. Can't be network performance or large file
disk copy, Ubuntu is much faster. GNU chess is harder to beat.
Q6600 8GB OCZ RAM, 2 x 500GB SATA, GeForce 8500 GT, OEM Vista Premium
Triple boot: Ubuntu, Fedora, Vista (rarely).
My XP system got a reprive from runing Linux, Q6600 got Linux to replace
Vista.