Microsoft to Allow Win 7 Downgrades to Vista, XP

[hairycat101]

[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]What you say is dictatorship.Allowing the use of a 10 year old OS will NOT stiumlate the innovative minds of programmers. Why program better things when there's that old clunky OS that people alway go for, and seem to ignore the latest?By your logic, we should still be selling analog phones. And vacuum tube computers. Not to mention Window 95, because hey, it runs fast!Let XP die. It has outlived itself.[/citation]
Ok… First of all, go kiss a fat baby’s ass.

Second. I was arguing against making people upgrade to a new OS if it is not their will. I’m fine with MS giving a product a certain life cycle in which it will continue to produce and support a given product. If they decide to eliminate production of XP, that is their choice. If you can read, please feel free to look at the comment that sparked my comment. You would find that I was questioning the logic of not supporting legacy OS’s as new as XP and Vista. I was also putting in a jab about forcing the consumer to do what the big business wants them to do in light of offering continued support for businesses but not for consumers.

 

[Guest]

I want to just go against what everyone just said,
I have XP,and think the OS can easily outlast another 5 to 6 years! Easily!
Heck, there are still computers I use with Win98;pentium 3 350 Mhz, and perhaps on system response,and boottime they could outperform most modern dualcores and quadcores running XP or Vista.

 

[seboj]

[citation][nom]A Stoner[/nom]I have a coherent group of complaints about what Microsoft did with their software, and I will or will not buy it based on it's qualities. The fact that XP will be an option in the future assures that my copy will remain an effective tool for at least another two years, and likely closer to three, when Microsoft will once again be putting out a new version of it's operating system. Once again, at that time, or maybe even by the time they release Windows 7 or it's first service pack, it will have been modified to be more user friendly and I will give them some of my money for their valuable to me product. It has nothing to do with my ability to use a computer, it has everything to do with how much I am willing to invest in learning the tricks and hacks of the new operating system, in the case of Vista and it seems Windows 7, how much I am willing to suffer though multiple questions of whether I am sure I want to do what I want to do. These are ligitimate concerns I have with the software, none of your trash talk is going to convince me otherwise, nor is anyone elses trash talk going to. What would be usefull though was if you put up or shut up on your statements. If, I supposedly do not know how to use a computer, then maybe you could give me some of those tricks, hacks and other missing ingredients I am missing that would turn the worthless to me software into a gem I can use simply and with much less frustration. Since none of you Vista/7 fan bois are going to do so, or even more to the point able to provide this information because it does not exist, I kindly ask that you just shut up and stop defending the undefensable.[/citation]

Learn to use more paragraphs? LOL.

I'd like to thank eddieroolz for saving me some typing:

[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]If you can't do something as simple as turn the UAC off, or take the Vista skin off, or do a simple Start > Computer > Properties > Advanced > Settings and optimize for performance, you shouldn't be on this board. Not at all.[/citation]

Just replace "shouldn't be on this board" with "can't use a computer".

 

[eddieroolz]

Ok… First of all, go kiss a fat baby’s ass.

Second. I was arguing against making people upgrade to a new OS if it is not their will. I’m fine with MS giving a product a certain life cycle in which it will continue to produce and support a given product. If they decide to eliminate production of XP, that is their choice. If you can read, please feel free to look at the comment that sparked my comment. You would find that I was questioning the logic of not supporting legacy OS’s as new as XP and Vista. I was also putting in a jab about forcing the consumer to do what the big business wants them to do in light of offering continued support for businesses but not for consumers.

First of all, degrading your arguments to a flame against the other person is not mature and will not earn you points from onlookers. Respect is earned, not given. Even if given, you won't get any, because apparently anyone who disagrees should go kiss a fat baby's ass.

Now, with that out of the way, let's get to the topic.

Why should MS have to continue supporting a legacy software that has outlived its usefulness? They discontinue support because it is simply too old, and unfeasible to continue to cater to a small number of users. Now, I do realize XP still has a huge user base, but large number of users do not justify stalling innovation for speed.

Let's compare MS to Apple.

Apple discontinued support for Panther completely, with only security updates for Tiger. Tiger was released in 2005. They have stopped supporting a 2005 OS that is pretty much same underneath as the Leopard.

I don't see you taking jabs at Apple for forcing users to migrate to their latest OS X to receive updates and support.

Please do not give a half-assed reply and tack on a verbal attack in the opening to impress onlookers. It doesn't work on the interwebz.

 

[hairycat101]

@ eddieroolz

First: I am surprised that you found a fat baby so quickly. Good for you.

Second: I have to ask if you are literate. Are you? If so, are you insane? Are you too lazy to read my posts before responding? Anyways, my main point was about forcing anyone to do anything. I would much prefer we all act of our own volition. That said, I don’t think it stifles anything for MS to continue support for a product as recent as Windows XP. If anything it gives consumers confidence that they won’t be let out in the cold if MS moves to a newer product. That confidence figures into our buying habits… thus our patronage of MS… thus new development. I don’t want anyone to force anyone into anything. I have an old computer that runs windows 98 SE behind me (runs an old bit of engineering software that I am too cheap to upgrade). If MS moves on, it would do well by its base to continue support. That is it that is all.

P.S. why would I take jabs at Apple for anything? Are they really relevant? Not yet...

 

[megamanx00]

First of all I think that Microsoft should stop supporting older programs with Windows 7. One of the nice things about windows is being able to run programs written in Visual C++ 6.0, but that's also one of the bad things. Yeah windows 9x was bugg, and sometimes programmers took advantage of that buggy behavior. Instead of coding patches into windows to replicate buggy behavior in certain programs it would make more sense to run them in a sandbox that replicates an older operating system. Yeah it would run slower but it would have more compatibility. Really do you think a slight slowdown on Quickbooks 2004 matters much on a modern dual core?

Second, just continue to sell XP. People want it, and Microsoft doesn't really have to try to add new features for it. They are charging $100 for an OS that's long since been paid for so why not? People want it, so people buy it. When sales of it slow down, just charge users for updates like a subscription cost. Gotta pay for that bandwidth after all. Eventually users will have to upgrade to the new OS because that's what Microsoft will be placing development resources for. Let's face it, alot of modern software developers are tied to Visual studio. If programs compiled with the default settings run on Win 7 and Vista, but not XP, well then the program goes on Vista and Win 7. If it's difficult enough that port to XP that a measurable amount of coding hours has to be devoted to it, the accountants at the software dev company are less likely to approve hours for those changes. If the users really want to run that new program then, they will have to upgrade their OS.

 

[A Stoner]

[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]If you can't do something as simple as turn the UAC off, or take the Vista skin off, or do a simple Start > Computer > Properties > Advanced > Settings and optimize for performance, you shouldn't be on this board.[/citation]
Turned the UAC off and it did nothing to prevent three instead of four specific requests to continue each and every time I tried to install a new program or run a program, even a MICROSOFT PROGRAM.
I could care less about the SKIN. I am INSIDE PROGRAMS, not looking at the pretty windows. I play games, I share my files across 5 computers, my wife converts music and videos for her PMPs and surf the internet. The skin has nothing at all to do with the problem. The problem is the fact that nothing works as it used to. Not that I do not want invation and change, but i do want to NOT LOSE OLD CAPABILITIES.
What exactly does "optomise for performance" do for anything I have complained about? Does it lower the number of "continue?" prompts? Does it make it so that my shared hard disk space is visible to another computer without a doctorate degree in screwing around in Vista network settings while still keeping your private data safe? In a nominally normal english worded method that lets you know what the hell the radial buttons mean? No, it does not. You see, when I go to network settings in XP, it is pretty simple, easy and concisely worded so I know what is going to happen. When I go into the Vista one, I have no clue what is going to happen. I tell it to connect to the internet, it shuts down file sharing. I turn on file sharing, somehow my printer sharing is lost. I turn on printer sharing and it is now asking for freaking passwords to connect to my fileshare when I did not explicity tell it to turn on password protection, it just enabled it for no reason. I turn off password protection, and I am disconnected from the internet. All the while, for each and every time it decides what I want, instead of doing what I wanted, I have to click 2 to 3 times a "Continue?" prompt.

So, did your education teach me anything? Yes, that you have no real solution for what causes me to not like Vista. UAC does not stop the god forsaken "continue?" prompts as it only gets rid of one of the three to four depending on if it was downloaded from the internet or not. Changing the background does not fix the crappy way they did network settings page where hitting one button changes two or three other not even remotely related buttons. Sorry but Vista = fail in my book. Windows 7 still = Vista.

Get rid of the nagging nanny "continue?". Revamp completely the networks settings page. Is that so much to ask for? I mean seriously, now I have to absolutely positively use a setup disk to get my computers to talk to eachother? Why can I not just have a simple to use workgroup like before? Why is is automatically required to have a password, I do not want one. Why can Vista not talk with XP but XP can talk with Vista? VISTA= FAIL, 7 = VISTA, 7 = FAIL. That is simple.

 

[seboj]

[citation][nom]A Stoner[/nom]So, did your education teach me anything? Yes, that you have no real solution for what causes me to not like Vista.[/citation]

Never said we could fix user stupidity.

[citation][nom]megamanx00[/nom]When sales of it slow down, just charge users for updates like a subscription cost.[/citation]

First of all, I agree with your points. However, there would be a huge backlash if they tried to charge for updates. The PC world, like it or not, revolves around Windows. People would swing from the rafters to have MS burned at the stake if they charged to do something like this, even though it's a legitimate business move.

You have to remember that Windows isn't just adopted by household consumers. XP runs on government workstations, hospital computers, in doctor's offices, train stations, airports. Government decrees would rain down, saying that MS has a 'requirement to the people of this country to provide free updates', or some such nonsense.

/my2cents

 

[apache_lives]

OH FFS now we gotta support across 3 OS's of microsoft? DITCH 32 BIT AND GIVE FREE UPGRADES FROM VISTA TO WINDOWS 7

XP IS IN THE GRAVE

 

[eddieroolz]

[citation][nom]A Stoner[/nom]Turned the UAC off and it did nothing to prevent three instead of four specific requests to continue each and every time I tried to install a new program or run a program, even a MICROSOFT PROGRAM.I could care less about the SKIN. I am INSIDE PROGRAMS, not looking at the pretty windows. I play games, I share my files across 5 computers, my wife converts music and videos for her PMPs and surf the internet. The skin has nothing at all to do with the problem. The problem is the fact that nothing works as it used to. Not that I do not want invation and change, but i do want to NOT LOSE OLD CAPABILITIES.What exactly does "optomise for performance" do for anything I have complained about? Does it lower the number of "continue?" prompts? Does it make it so that my shared hard disk space is visible to another computer without a doctorate degree in screwing around in Vista network settings while still keeping your private data safe? In a nominally normal english worded method that lets you know what the hell the radial buttons mean? No, it does not. You see, when I go to network settings in XP, it is pretty simple, easy and concisely worded so I know what is going to happen. When I go into the Vista one, I have no clue what is going to happen. I tell it to connect to the internet, it shuts down file sharing. I turn on file sharing, somehow my printer sharing is lost. I turn on printer sharing and it is now asking for freaking passwords to connect to my fileshare when I did not explicity tell it to turn on password protection, it just enabled it for no reason. I turn off password protection, and I am disconnected from the internet. All the while, for each and every time it decides what I want, instead of doing what I wanted, I have to click 2 to 3 times a "Continue?" prompt. So, did your education teach me anything? Yes, that you have no real solution for what causes me to not like Vista. UAC does not stop the god forsaken "continue?" prompts as it only gets rid of one of the three to four depending on if it was downloaded from the internet or not. Changing the background does not fix the crappy way they did network settings page where hitting one button changes two or three other not even remotely related buttons. Sorry but Vista = fail in my book. Windows 7 still = Vista.Get rid of the nagging nanny "continue?". Revamp completely the networks settings page. Is that so much to ask for? I mean seriously, now I have to absolutely positively use a setup disk to get my computers to talk to eachother? Why can I not just have a simple to use workgroup like before? Why is is automatically required to have a password, I do not want one. Why can Vista not talk with XP but XP can talk with Vista? VISTA= FAIL, 7 = VISTA, 7 = FAIL. That is simple.[/citation]

I have nothing to say to you, Stoner. Go continue use Windows 95, where nothing will ask for prompts and anything will infect you instantly.

Users like you are what the PC support industry are made of. This site does not need ignorant users who can't handle more than a few clicks of the mouse.

 

[eddieroolz]

[citation][nom]hairycat101[/nom]

@ eddieroolzFirst: I am surprised that you found a fat baby so quickly. Good for you.

I didn't find it. It was right in front of me, in form of this post.

Second: I have to ask if you are literate. Are you? If so, are you insane?

You should answer that first. Are you literate? If so, are you insane?

Are you too lazy to read my posts before responding?

I do not read incompetence. Nor do I speak it. Your post was slightly confusing to say the least.

Anyways, my main point was about forcing anyone to do anything. I would much prefer we all act of our own volition.

Of course, who doesn't?

That said, I don’t think it stifles anything for MS to continue support for a product as recent as Windows XP.

Please tell me 10 years is recent in computer software industry, everyone will laugh at you. Please do start using Mac OS 9 again and tell me you can do everything you do today, like convert music, take advantage of anything other than a sub-GHz processor, etc.

If anything it gives consumers confidence that they won’t be let out in the cold if MS moves to a newer product. That confidence figures into our buying habits… thus our patronage of MS… thus new development.

Uh, at some point the support's gotta end. In the tech industry, it's >5 and

 

[mrmez]

LOL!
They have so much faith in W7 that they allow downgrades to XP???

Thats like allowing Win 98 users to downgrade to 3.11

XP released in 2001. Its now 8 years old. 8 years ago we were running single core Pentium 4's. If Intel gave us the option of switching back to a Pentium 4 today, what would you do? Probably shoot the lot of them.

Months after XP's release, Nvidia released the Gforce 4. Since then, there has been the 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 200 series cards.

Would you use a Gforce 4 and P4 today? Hell no. So why does MS expect us to use software from the same era?

And people wonder why 'rip off' Mac's continue doing so well in these tough economic times.


Epic fail Microsoft. You have essentially released nothing new in 8 years.

 

[jsloan]

[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]What you say is dictatorship.Allowing the use of a 10 year old OS will NOT stiumlate the innovative minds of programmers. Why program better things when there's that old clunky OS that people alway go for, and seem to ignore the latest?By your logic, we should still be selling analog phones. And vacuum tube computers. Not to mention Window 95, because hey, it runs fast!Let XP die. It has outlived itself.[/citation]

im not sure what this thing is about 10 uear old os. sure windows xp is almost 8 years old, but its a read os, all the software that i use runs great. its fast, efficient, uses little cpu, memory, ect. vista is no improvement, it's a step back, it's slower, less efficient, uses more cpu and memory, ect. i like the windows xp kernel better, so why would i want to upgrade. dont get me wrong i run windows xp, vista, windows 7, and many more os, but i prefer windows xp. sure vista and windows 7 added some ui tweaks, but i can get much better for xp for free, look at windows blinds software if you want tweaks.plus i have lots of free software that makes it look like linux, osx, windows vista and even windows 7. so why would people want an os that makes their computer run slower and force them to buy more hardware and doesnt do anything different. i mean both os manager resources well enough. ive had more crashes, bos, with windows vista than windows xp, the drivers for vista have been the problem, not as good as the windows xp ones. im surprised since sp1 vista has improved, and windows 7 is yet another improvement to vista, but its still vista and i dont think companies will rush to it. if microsoft wants people to switch they have to give them a better reason than slower, fatter, buggier and some eye candy, let them create a new nano kernel, or even micro kernel, let them rewrite the ui in .net, but that will take lots of money and some time. they have some research projects in this direction, but they are long ways away. i guess they need to hire those dec guys who did nt again... ;-)

 

[jsloan]

[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]I have nothing to say to you, Stoner. Go continue use Windows 95, where nothing will ask for prompts and anything will infect you instantly.Users like you are what the PC support industry are made of. This site does not need ignorant users who can't handle more than a few clicks of the mouse.[/citation]

dude there is no reason to be rude to creative criticism, maybe microsoft should have listened better to it's customer's needs, feedback, instead of shoving people the foul smelling dog food. apple commercial's did have a point... first vista kernel is not that more secue, it's an illusion, if you play at the kernel level you would see. if you want to be secure have an up to date security suite and be vigilant. there is no vista miracle, it's an marketing illusion for novice, gullible customers, like yourself it seems.

 

[jsloan]

[citation][nom]mrmez[/nom]LOL!They have so much faith in W7 that they allow downgrades to XP???Thats like allowing Win 98 users to downgrade to 3.11XP released in 2001. Its now 8 years old. 8 years ago we were running single core Pentium 4's. If Intel gave us the option of switching back to a Pentium 4 today, what would you do? Probably shoot the lot of them. Months after XP's release, Nvidia released the Gforce 4. Since then, there has been the 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 200 series cards.Would you use a Gforce 4 and P4 today? Hell no. So why does MS expect us to use software from the same era?And people wonder why 'rip off' Mac's continue doing so well in these tough economic times.Epic fail Microsoft. You have essentially released nothing new in 8 years.[/citation]

software is different than hardware, you can't create a new os every year, think how long ms-dos lasted, sure they kept tweaking it and adding things, same with windows, but it's still windows. its evolved. the problem is that there is not replacement and microsoft needs to make money, cant keep releasing patches for free. so they get out some tweaks.

vista was and is a disaster. everyone should have been fired. it's as bad as it gets. its worse than windows me. and windows 7 is just re-arranging the chairs on the vista titanic.

there is no windows 9x to xp like release yet. i guess since we all will have 8 core 3 ghz cpu /w 24 gb memory we soon wont care or notice just how bad vista is, i'm not beating on aero, hey i have it fully turned on. the kernel is the problem, its a big step off the cliff. the more i read about it's internals the more i want to puke. uac is a joke

notice that the windows conflicter virus has not problem finding its way into windows vista...

the problem is not the os alone, its the users using it, they often install the viruses, spyware, ect. so when vista prompts them they will say sure. go ahead, because they want to use the software. when the email arives they will open it because they want to read it, it's intertaining.

in fact i would think windows vista is less secure, because it makes it harder on programmers, makes users feel, like apple osx, false sense of security, more likely not to have an internet security suite,

after about the 3rd prompt for the same request users are more likely to disable uac... norton and friends just does a better job.

that's what microsoft should have done, thrown out windows vista, replaced it with windows xp and norton or mcafee security suites, bundled. microsoft has the money to have bought them. any algorithmic improvements to the kernel they could have made to xp, there is not real reason that directx 10 needs vista, they could have done a windows xp one...

 

[seboj]

[citation][nom]jsloan[/nom]vista was and is a disaster. everyone should have been fired. it's as bad as it gets. its worse than windows me. and windows 7 is just re-arranging the chairs on the vista titanic.[/citation]

[citation][nom]jsloan[/nom]i would think windows vista[/citation]

Those 2 statements are exactly why Vista was a media failure. The OS is fine. Lots of people following each other, spouting off unsupported woe-is-me complaints.

If you were around back then, you'd remember that these exact same complaints were wagered against XP when it was released. Now it's somehow the 'golden-child'.

 

[eddieroolz]

[citation][nom]jsloan[/nom]dude there is no reason to be rude to creative criticism, maybe microsoft should have listened better to it's customer's needs, feedback, instead of shoving people the foul smelling dog food. apple commercial's did have a point... first vista kernel is not that more secue, it's an illusion, if you play at the kernel level you would see. if you want to be secure have an up to date security suite and be vigilant. there is no vista miracle, it's an marketing illusion for novice, gullible customers, like yourself it seems.[/citation]

He was being direspectful by flaming me first. I have nothing against you, but please don't be selective.

 

[mrmez]

[citation][nom]jsloan[/nom]software is different than hardware...[/citation]

Yeah, i know its a different game. But lets get real here... its been 8 years, and most savvy pc users prefer XP hands down. Tell me the biggest name in s/ware couldn't make a better OS in 8 years?

Anyway, a bunch of monkeys at typewriters vs R&D labs and Fabs... i think its a far more complicated process to design, engineer and fabricate a gpu or cpu that it is to write a new OS.

MS should ditch this "Im a cheap $999 laptop! Look how cheap i am! Hello, im cheap!!!" attitude, grow a set of balls. I dont care if its cheap. If it doesnt work its not worth it if its FREE. Hate to hit the Mac example again, but its why suckers like me are more than happy to spend more on a Mac Mini box only than the other guys spend on a complete system.

 

[sonofliberty08]

downgrade to vista is not a good move ... but xp are ......

 

[Hanin33]

could someone point out any reason to 'upgrade' to vista/win7? all the defenders seem to just be trolling and not giving any reason why we should 'upgrade'. they claim xp fans stifle innovation... how so? some of you seem to imply vista is somehow impervious to viral/malware infections... really? the fact of the matter is, if YOU don't like xp, so be it. but to claim it's inferior simply because it's old is lame. when did an OS stop being something that was supposed to be totally transparent and just something that ran your applications and games? the defenders of the new way keep claiming the old guard can't get with a few new options but simply can't accept the idea that they simply are NOT NEEDED. if your arguement is that we can't learn something new or that xp is just so bad, then maybe it is you that can not learn how to make a decent OS run without having your hand held by the OS itself. the only upgrade vista/win7 offer is 64bit support and not much else. the rest of the options are easily attainable with 3rd party software that any well educated computer user would be able to install and implement in a fashion that's far superior to anything microsoft could provide. you call us a stumbling block... maybe you should learn how to walk.

 

[A Stoner]

[citation][nom]mrmez[/nom]LOL!They have so much faith in W7 that they allow downgrades to XP???Thats like allowing Win 98 users to downgrade to 3.11XP released in 2001. Its now 8 years old. 8 years ago we were running single core Pentium 4's. If Intel gave us the option of switching back to a Pentium 4 today, what would you do? Probably shoot the lot of them. Months after XP's release, Nvidia released the Gforce 4. Since then, there has been the 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 200 series cards.Would you use a Gforce 4 and P4 today? Hell no. So why does MS expect us to use software from the same era?And people wonder why 'rip off' Mac's continue doing so well in these tough economic times.Epic fail Microsoft. You have essentially released nothing new in 8 years.[/citation]
The fact of the matter is, if you are using a CORE product in your computer, then you are using a processor that was primarily designed before the P4. The Core processor is a dirivative of the laptop processor intel came out with before P4. Sure, it was optimized, and it's tansistor counts went through the roof, but the internals of it all were basically a laptop chip moved to a desktop configuration. P4 in many ways was far inferior to prior chips, and no amount of increasing clock speeds was going to overcome those inferiorities, because the achilles heel of the whole house of cards was the heat which came from the higher clock speeds.
So, what does this tell you? That newer is not always better. Vista is newer, but it is not superior to XP to a large number of people, and one of them is me. I have two fully paid for full Ultimate Vista user packs, and I use neither of them. The software proved to be entirely too stressful and offered not one bit of improvement in any single task that I do on my personal computer. Virtually every company in America agrees with me, VISTA=FAIL.

 

[Neog2]

[citation][nom]A Stoner[/nom]I fail to understand why people like you have to think that one size fits all. Why do we have trucks when people can drive cars, why have cars when people can use motorcycles, why have motorcycle when people can simply walk around? Sorry, but Windows Vista does not in any way shape or form benifit me as a customer. I do not want alot of stress from using my computer, and I have to say, the nagging nanny software that Microsoft put together called Windows Vista is just that, a nagging nanny that stresses me out for any and all tasks. Setting up network, a pain the the ass. Installing programs, a pain in the ass. Finding the simplest of task programs, a pain in the ass. The search, another pain. UAC, do not even get me started on how much a LOATHE that feature. Windows 7, no matter how much your devotion to your releigion of loving it is, does not much improve on Vista. UAC still there, same search feature, same layout for trying to configure your network settings. Same nagging nanny questions everytime you try to install a program, run a program or change any setting on the computer that marginally affects the "system". Go buy your copy of Vista and Windows 7 and stop your moaning about how, because you are happy with it, everyone MUST comply.[/citation]

I really dont understand from a consumer stand point the frustation over
the interface. Or better yet finding where products are at.
The search feature that you call horrible works very well out the box
and if you tweak it to index the locations that you wish then it gets crazy
awesome.

For example out the box in xp it takes a total of 4 left clicks to
bring up calculator, plus you have to make sure you actually clicking
the start button, the programs button, the accessories, then calc.

In vista out the box you click the windows key on your keyboard
(between alt and ctrl) and type calc then hit enter.
(Holy crap there's calculator?) Whats so hard about that
one can even say as long as you can type and spell to bring up
all of the standard programs on vista you dont even need to have
your screen on. Windows keep, and just type then hit enter.
No need to click or search with the mouse.

By default programs folder is indexed, internet favorites or indexed.
On my computer I can type in any one of my hundreds of website favorites
names and hit enter and bring up the main webpage of my favorite.

Ill challenge anybody in a xp vs vista opening and finding programs
with a newbie user. A person who has never used xp or vista. You train
both on how to do the basic search and how to double click programs
when you find them and vista will win out every time.

You take a long time xp fan and do the same and it gets to complex because
they are used to how things where and cant evolve don't want change.
If Microsoft would have stuck to schedule and released an operating
system three years after xp came out there wouldn't have been a problem.

I find it funny how alot of MAC users actually kinda like alot of the
features vista have but hated XP its hilarious really.

I dont know alot of power users in xp never really used the start menu
anyways cause it sucked with all of its windows that slide across the
screen. People who really utilized xp didnt use start menu accept for
the basic of things. The Explorer window is where it was at in XP.
Right click on your XP start menu and click explore oh yeah. NOW
THATS A START MENU LOL. Having access to everything at one time is
a nice feature and that's how i liked my xp.

The start menu in vista isn't any different than xp with the exception
of a few added shortcuts, and no slide over menus. Everything drops
down like in explorer.

Now as far as networking in vista I can only speak of Ultimate and business
because i have read that vista home basic and premium dont have the
networking features i used so i never really bothered playing around
with them much.
But as far as ultimate goes again if your a new user setting up
a network in vista almost becomes fun if you use there walk through's.

Oh and dont get me started on the connecting to wireless by clicking
Connect To, then selecting your network. Literally two clicks still
and it makes since now instead of looking for the goofy computer icon
with the little heat waves.

And setting up domain's and finding and sharing files and folders is
super simple once you understand that there is a whole section
in networking called managing your network. Then its like damn
I can see everything thats on my router and switches wether its in
the same workgroup or not nice.

Drivers to me are vista's really only short coming for me.
And its not one i can blame microsoft for because the dont
make drivers. But they could have explained to the normal consumer
that doesnt know what a driver is that hey just becuase your disc
dosent work. Does not mean that your hardware or software wont work.

They should have explained that you could go the manafactuers websites
and look for driver updates, firmware updates, and patches that could
have potentially saved a lot of people money and headaches.

But to Microsoft defense. WHY SHOULD THEY. They don't make the drivers
they dont make the hardware. Why should they do the job of a greedy
manufacture that could make an update, but chooses not to simply because
they already have a new product out and they want you to buy that?

Microsoft didnt do anything differently than they always do. And actually
companies had ample and i mean several beta's of vista where they could
have got drivers made, but chose not too. Win 95 to 98-98se. Alot of
stuff didnt work program wise. 98se to Me well scratch me Win2k same deal
microsoft makes the operating systems. Everybody else makes patches, updates
and new stuff to be compatible with microsoft. 2k to XP I had a crap
ton of stuff from 98 that wasnt working and never worked. And as far as
secure XP was not very for a very long time.

The process continues, and it will keep continuing.
It doesnt bother me I build all my own machines i install what operating
systems I like I have several. I like them all for different reasons.
I still have a win98se machine simply because there was games that
i couldnt get to work in xp so i kept that machine. I have an xp machine
because I have some industrial hardware that doesnt work in vista.


Last thing on my ten pages lol.

I find it really funny though how its always VISTA's fault. I know people
who have bought new machines, then bought a full version copy of XP PRO
$299 and reformatted and installed XP PRO, lol and couldn't get Ethernet
drivers, nor a few other drivers for things on the motherboard.
And there like MAN VISTA SUCKS IT WONT LET YOU DOWNGRADE LOL

Im out Vista isnt bad, and it isnt great, but nothing is not XP, not Linux
Not Mac OSX, win-nt was close lol, but you catch my drift.
Use what you like if you like XP buy a full version copy to install
and do as you wish with it. If you like mac buy cant afford it give
PYSTAR a call lol. If you do nothing but web based stuff and type
get linux its some of the newer updated gui's are pretty simplistic
and you will save a ton of money because linux runs very fast on
the processors they have in smart phones now. ATOMS. (or as i like to
call them the mini P3's)

 

[g-thor]

So, how many software companies are going to want to support three (or maybe just two, if we say Vista and 7 are basically the same) OSs? But wait, there are also the 64bit versions, so double that. I would like to see software that runs in native 64bit, to take full advantage of what the system can do. The change to 64 will happen.
Microsoft isn't "forcing" anyone to buy their OS. However, if ABC software makes a program that you just have to have, and it is only supportted by Windows 7 64bit, that is the pressure pushing you to change. If that must have program only runs on Linux and you don't understand Linux and don't want the learning curve that takes, you won't get your software. If it only runs on OS X then you'll be getting a Mac.
Currently I am running Vista (32 & 64), 7 beta (64) and XP (32). The only reason I am using XP is because I have a program I need that only runs in XP. It wasn't MS that "forced" me to do that - it was the software company that has chosen not to make a Vista compatible version. I'm somewhat ticked off at them for that, as it may eventually force me to buy a new program and that may mean going to their competitor, whom I would prefer not to support, but I will still use their other programs.
Also, someone mentioned that they don't like the new Office suite. I would suggest looking at WordPerfect as an alternative. It can be set up to run in MS mode and can emulate Office 2003 very well. Plus, it has very little problem converting Word docs, etc.
Bottom line, change will happen as software, from OSes to programs, strive to keep up with the hardware underneath.
Choose your flavour and go with it. If you choose old, don't be surprised to be left in the dust. If you choose new, don't be surprised that you may have to learn new skiils. Heck, I know some people who drive cars that are older than me - they call them classics. (so how come I'm not called a classic when I am the same age as some of those cars?)

 

[cracklint]

What people fail to realize, is that many businesses have hundreds and even thousands of computers over 4 years old. These pc's were good for xp, but not vista. Adopting vista would not only incur cost for hardware upgrades, but also software that isn't compatible with vista. Most just can't justify the added expense. This is why industry and government offices fight Vista. It's not that Vista is bad, it just that it doesn't add any value during rough economic times for businesses.

 

[Neog2]

[citation][nom]cracklint[/nom]What people fail to realize, is that many businesses have hundreds and even thousands of computers over 4 years old. These pc's were good for xp, but not vista. Adopting vista would not only incur cost for hardware upgrades, but also software that isn't compatible with vista. Most just can't justify the added expense. This is why industry and government offices fight Vista. It's not that Vista is bad, it just that it doesn't add any value during rough economic times for businesses.[/citation]

I agree with what you said but there is no reason to fight vista unless
your looking at upgrading. And keeping a machine thats older than 4 years
really just how much longer are you going to milk those machines.

What companies fail to realize you can upgrade without full price.
Sale your old machines to someone who needs/wants xp.

I work for a company that was/is in the top 10 on the fortune 500 list.
Tens of thousands computers out there. And we are slowly but surely
upgrading computers as need be to vista. We are increasingly running more
and more propitiatory software that is coded to be native 64 bit.

The old machines we sold after wiping to off set the cost. But then
again the majority of the machines that are being replaced are only
2 years old and mainly laptops.