What vista do that XP can not do

[MGadAllah]

I've not tried vista yet

I've put a lot of time on XP regarding learning, tweaks, ...etc

So does vista deserve a try or on other words What vista do that XP can not do?

[uvmain]

■right click on a network share - map network drive

■idividually change the volume of any app from the audio mixer

■install raid drivers from HDD/USB/Anything during setup!

■process manager shows process's location, description, and has a *much* better resource monitor

■amount of free space etc shown on mapped drives

■*huge* thumbnails.. useful for my photo's folder

■translucent gui - not just the obvious explorer blur - install sisoft sandra to see a good example

■really nice preview icons for avi's.. xp had this, but they're ultra hi-res in vista

■ever seen the 'genie' effect when minimizing in OSX? Vista has something similar, but more toned down. effective, but not over the top.

■seems to boot equally as quick as my xp install, which is nLite'd to the max!

I'm liking it so far, just wish nVidia would release some comparable drivers to xp!

[Deman]

Here's a few more

• Help files actually stepping you through the process (not telling you where to click but showing you)
  
• Able to see what programs you regularly run at particular times and then prepare things so it starts quicker
  
• There's no more sluggishness once it comes out of sleep/hybernation (I'm told anyway)
  
• Dumps graphics management on the graphics card, not the CPU
  
• Finally introduces raise priviledge level linux (and Mac?) users enjoy. Dubbed User Account Control
  
• There's parental control including control over what Games can be played (R16 not allowed or whatever)
  
• Fast User Switching now available for Domain users
  
• ReadyBoost and ReadyDrive (basically speaking enables Windows to dump some cache in Flash instead of the HDD to speed things up)
  
• Internet Explorer 7 runs in protected mode, apparantly it means it has as much rights to the O/S as say Firefox would
  
• Windows Backup has been given a proper overhaul and made much more powerful and easy to use (uses imaging etc)
  
• Instant search, far far quicker than XPs
  

Vista x64 contains

• PatchGuard preventing programs from patching the kernel
  
• Address space layout randomizer, ensures system files load at random memory locations instead of being loaded to the same location (Good defense against attackers)
  

There are loads of changes, this time it really is the biggest release since Windows 95. And so it should be, they took long enough.

You can read more into it here

[MGadAllah]

Actually your answers encourage me to keep using XP for my home computer, here is what I used to remove using nLite. Just check the picture.

Thanks

[jaclaz]

....and all the good, nice and useful enhancement listed above come to you for just a few hundred bucks, and only about 5 or 6 Gigabytes of disk occupation....

jaclaz

[MGadAllah]

about 5 or 6 Gigabytes of disk occupation....

jaclaz

This is another reason that let me stick to XP, I really do want to save space in useful things. Beside for a home or a single user like me I believe in XP till now so far.

Thanks

[Marthax]

Hey, I'm not alone. Vista =

[steviewonder]

Windows Vista Rocks for security reasons, but i had to build

a pc for about 2500 dollars that will run it good.

Unlike XP, which any hacker can modify your files, Vista has file modification protection,

even in Admin mode. Idea derived from Unix command SU.

So if you want to keep letting hackers share your WIndows XP with you,

including uploading your files, keep using XP.

I remember when windows 95 was hated also, and we see now how

dumb that was, as win 95 was the beginnig, but mosty Windows NT 3.51 was the new beginnings.

Get with the new era of software design.

Edited December 14, 2006 by steviewonder

[cluberti]

Win95 was a very hated OS - and now most people will say that Win95 (or Win98) was the best OS produced by Microsoft. How time changes things...

[MGadAllah]

How time changes things...

every thing changed by time, even human

[kartel]

Edited December 15, 2006 by kartel

[Link21]

Win95 was a very hated OS - and now most people will say that Win95 (or Win98) was the best OS produced by Microsoft. How time changes things...

Most people wouldn't say that. The only people who would say that are the Windows 98SE fanatics who blindly believe that Windows 98SE is better than Windows 2000 and Windows XP, when in reality it is significantly worse than Windows 2000 or Windows XP.

The upgrade from Windows XP to Vista I don't think is as big as some people are making it out to be. It is no where near as big as the upgrade from POS Windows 98/ME to good quality XP or at least 2000.

The upgrade from Windows 98/ME to XP for home consumers was as big as an upgrade as it was from MAC OS 9 to MAC OS X. Another words, both weren't just an upgrade, they were a change to a completely different whole new operating system.

Vista is still the next version of Windows NT based operating systems. There are some decent changes to it, but I don't think it is one of the biggest upgrades Microsoft has ever released of all time. It is a bigger change than from 2000 to XP, but no where near the change from NT 4 to 2000, let alone the largest change for home consumers from 98/ME to 2000 /XP.

Edited December 16, 2006 by Link21

[Camarade_Tux]

Maybe but that takes 44% of your 2.2GHz processor.

[cluberti]

Well, x64 by default keeps unsigned drivers from loading, making the system more stable. Patchguard is pretty nice as well.

[dAbReAkA]

Maybe but that takes 44% of your 2.2GHz processor.

that's his memory usage.. it takes 18% of his CPU though..