Differences between Vista and XP

  • Thread starter Thread starter GRL
  • Start date Start date
G

GRL

Are there faqs concerning (as much as complete it's possible) the
differences between Vista and XP?
Thanks.
Giovanni
 
Vista has been re-written from the ground up.
sorry, not true, not at all
Click to expand...

Well that depends on exactly what you're disagreeing with.

I was trying to provide a simplistic one sentence reply to a very broad one
sentence question. There's obviously far more to the issue than that.

If you could advise, in brief, why you are disagreeing with that assertion
is in more detail, perhaps there could be some meaningful dialogue here.

Something more than six words and two commas would be helpful.
 
John Waller said:
Well that depends on exactly what you're disagreeing with.

I was trying to provide a simplistic one sentence reply to a very broad
one sentence question. There's obviously far more to the issue than that.

If you could advise, in brief, why you are disagreeing with that assertion
is in more detail, perhaps there could be some meaningful dialogue here.

Something more than six words and two commas would be helpful.
Click to expand...


Here's one example: There is a dialog in Windows that hasn't changed since
the Windows 3.x generation. If you're in the Fonts folder, the context menu
has an option to "Install a new font...". Clicking this option provides the
old dialog box from Windows 3.x.
Every "new" OS out of MS lately has just been a rehash of previous OS's with
a few new "features" added - Vista's no exception.
--
=======================================
"To create a new standard, it takes something that's not just a little bit
different; it takes something that's really new and really captures people's
imagination — and the Macintosh, of all the machines I've ever seen, is the
only one that meets that standard."
- Bill Gates
=======================================
 
My answer also for John Waller: I'm looking for faqs (or white papers)
concerning mainly the differences in the use of the most common
commands/utilities.
But I'd like also something more technical.
Thanks.
Giovanni
 
Every "new" OS out of MS lately has just been a rehash of previous OS's
with a few new "features" added - Vista's no exception.
Click to expand...

To me, that's a gross oversimplification of the development work that's gone
into Vista.

Wikipedia gives a good overview of the enormous engineering effort that's
gone into Vista:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista

Sure Vista has a legacy and it's part of the Windows family i.e. it's not a
completely new way of doing things.
But much of the kernel has not been simply revised or cosmetically
retouched - they've started again from scratch e.g. TCP/IP stack, audio
stack, Aero (love it or loathe it) etc
 
They put XP in the food processor, chopped it up & vacuum packed it.
I wish they had at least tried to get some of the pieces back in the right
place.
Having the gas & brake pedals reversed & the ignition switch in the trunk is
a pain!
 
Not Me said:
They put XP in the food processor, chopped it up & vacuum packed it.
I wish they had at least tried to get some of the pieces back in the right
place.
Having the gas & brake pedals reversed & the ignition switch in the trunk
is a pain!
Click to expand...

All the changes, including widespread renaming of "default" folders and
apps, rearranging of menus with no rhyme or reason, and apparently for no
real purpose, confusing new graphic interface, are all necessary to make
Vista --look-- sufficiently different from previous versions of Windows.
This
only serves one purpose; to create the illusion that Vista is a new OS.

Consider, no one will ever offer an explanation as to WHY all these
system-wide changes were implemented, much less needed. This is just another
example of the Marketing Dept. at work.
 
* john:
All the changes, including widespread renaming of "default" folders and
apps, rearranging of menus with no rhyme or reason, and apparently for no
real purpose, confusing new graphic interface, are all necessary to make
Vista --look-- sufficiently different from previous versions of Windows.
This
only serves one purpose; to create the illusion that Vista is a new OS.

Consider, no one will ever offer an explanation as to WHY all these
system-wide changes were implemented, much less needed. This is just another
example of the Marketing Dept. at work.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of your points. However, I think some of the decisions came
down to just a couple of people or one. For instance, we had an MVP in this group
talking about how *one* particular person at Microsoft insisted that "Delete"
remain part of the context menu for the "Recycle" bin. Even though so many
were complaining during the betas this would cause problems, confusion for
a lot of users once they accidentally delete the recycle bin from the desktop, and
unnecessary support questions. But, it was not removed.

Reminds me of the idiotic decision to remove Windows Explorer toolbar customization.
That was just plain ignorant. Folks *want* the ability to customize *their* toolbars, I can't
believe such a basic function was removed. Now, they've done the same to Windows Live
Mail, it has become Vistatized. Windows Mail even had toolbar customization, but they
took that out of WLM. Just dumb. Two of the biggest complaints/suggestions at the
WLM Connect feedback site are the same- bring back toolbar customization.

Take care,

Michael
 
* John Waller:
To me, that's a gross oversimplification of the development work that's gone
into Vista.

Wikipedia gives a good overview of the enormous engineering effort that's
gone into Vista:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista

Sure Vista has a legacy and it's part of the Windows family i.e. it's not a
completely new way of doing things.
But much of the kernel has not been simply revised or cosmetically
retouched - they've started again from scratch e.g. TCP/IP stack, audio
stack, Aero (love it or loathe it) etc
Click to expand...

WinXP wasn't a completely new way of doing things, but it was a completely
news OS in comparison to Win95 and Win98. Yes, there were issues in the
beginning, it was an entirely new code base that was aimed at the masses
and that should be expected. However, XP was fundamentally a *much* better
OS than anything that preceded it for the masses. Period.
It wasn't "just as good as", "almost as fast", "compares well to"- no, it was obviously
better. Can the same be said about Vista in relation to XP? Honestly?

I've been using Vista for at least a year and I've gotten used to it. I like it, for
the most part. I have it installed on three machines, and they work well.
IMO, XP was almost revolutionary... just in terms of stability alone.
Vista is more evolutionary, and it was a dragged out evolution. For many,
I think that is the core of the "problem". So long in development, and this is
all there is? This is the "wow"? Yawn.

Take care,

Michael
 
Hi Giovanni,

Commands and Utilities are virtually the same. It is the core engine that
has been rebuilt and the implementation of system protection (UAC and
permissions, as well as how software runs in the user environment instead of
the system). One notable exception to this is the boot files use of bcdedit
for command line work.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com
 
XP was almost revolutionary... just in terms of stability alone.

Many coming from Win 2K did not think that.
Vista is more evolutionary, and it was a dragged out evolution. For
many,
I think that is the core of the "problem". So long in development, and
this is
all there is? This is the "wow"? Yawn.
Click to expand...

I must admit, despite the massive engineering effort and all the changes,
I'm still looking for the Wow.

I'm happy with XP Pro for now.

If I upgrade to Vista, I have to upgrade to Adobe CS3 (I use CS2 daily) and
QuickBooks 2007/2008 too (that's for starters).
 
Back
Top