Why isn't Vista loved as much as XP?

Lately there are a lot of articles bashing Windows Vista for its lack of driver support, stability or poor performance. All of these concerns are true just like all previous Windows versions.

I remember sites cropping up left and right back in 2001 that were dedicated to showing consumers how to get hold of Windows XP drivers and if your hardware was even compatible! At the time Windows XP was completely new, Windows 98/ME drivers didn't work on this new OS - you needed either new hardware or hope that the manufacturer would code (beta) drivers for your devices. In my case I had a very expensive 10/100MBit Ethernet card from HP (the name escapes me, it's 7 years ago!) and I emailed customer service about lack of driver support and they told me they would never release one and it was being discontinued, despite the driver being included in all "Whistler" builds right up until about the 24xx releases.

I had to install the older 24xx build and then "upgrade" to the latest beta releases. I think I did that until the RC's and finally swapped out the card for something else.

In all fairness Windows XP for Windows users was a huge upgrade of an OS compared to Windows 95/98 and that sad excuse for an update Windows Millennium. Multi tasking was simply impossible without risking a blue screen of death and all of a sudden after its initial teething problems, became a very stable and reliable OS incomparable to the Windows 9x platform.

We forget all the ranting that went on here on Neowin when certain bits of hardware suddenly didn't work, or 3D acceleration was simply terrible up until shortly before its release and even then a lot of cards suddenly weren't supported under the new driver model.

I'd go as far as to say that XP really didn't cut it until SP2 was released, that is when Windows XP came of age and was finally something to write home about. There will always be the users (like me) that will use the latest and greatest despite lack of driver support and obvious performance related issues and we will go on complaining, writing and informing about those short comings until the appropriate people fix those issues. it is believe it or not part of my job

The OS costs money, it's my right as a consumer and hey, I am using it at work so it is also tied into my productivity, lets also not forget all those friends I have helped because they simply don't understand why their printer no longer works when they loaded a Vista upgrade over XP.

They will say: "Hey it worked on XP! Why not Vista?" and I simply respond, "It will eventually, when those OEM's and hardware manufacturers get off their lazy asses and support it properly.

So while it may look like a few of those articles on Neowin and around the Internet appear to crucify Vista, please remember that we are not the only ones doing that, real world average Joes are, and even big companies like Dell decided to back pedal by offering XP on their newer business line PC's and laptops (but not for the general consumer) when they are supposed to have some sort of influence on the hardware industry.

Just goes to show that Microsoft may not have much of a say in that sector as we all thought it did. I know first hand by speaking with Microsoft developers how unhappy they are at failed promises by certain hardware vendors to deliver good drivers. Given time Vista will rock as much as XP did and still does for many today.

Hang in there.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Dragon Ball Z Goes Next-Gen with Burst Limit

Next Story

Savage 2 Released

142 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

There is a lot more wrong with vista that hardware driver compatability. How about :-

changed gui which I cannot get my head round most things need more clicks to do.
worser desktop theme model.
crippled sound hardware, what I mean by this is that creative cards are crippled due to the way the dirver model has changed and new drivers cant fix this.
superfetch - this supposed to be a selling point but its actually horrific causing unneeded disk thrashing.
drm - slows down windows media player amongst other things.
networking configuration and the break up of the control panel

few things I like

uac - although its perhaps integrated badly overall it is a good thing to have
automatic tcp tuning
better windows firewall

overall my main fripe with vista is not driver problems they are what I would call a minor annoyance but rather the gui layout changes eg. it took me 20 minutes to find the menu in windows media player, the replacement for windows explorer is horrible I am not sure what was wrong with it. If MS kept the gui the same, added uac, added tcp auto tuning and left it at that then would have been worth using and had higher takeup. The only issue I remember is the infinite loop bug.

The last few hours I sent reading all this posts and I think that the interesting question isn't wether or why we love or not vista, but: what kind of sistem you - the vista fans - build up to have an equal or better performing sistem as you have had for xp, and I think we can agree that "equal performing sistem" is more a personal feeling than a measurable chart comparision.

How many of us here use XP with the very basic interface? You know, how much of us here use the 98-like interface instead of the crap Luna theme? ... Ok, nowadays we have some decent cpu power and decent graphics, sometimes even on integrated chipstes, to run that crappy Luna Theme... but come on... Let's face it, a clean XP is like a clear sky, it's pleasant to look at. It doesn't make you eyes want to run away from the orbits after 3 hours of working. Having the Luna Theme on XP is like having to share your notebook (remember that little paper device?) with a Transformer's teenager fan... blue, curvy, might, big, and there goes my eyes running away.

That I want to mean is, well, Win98 give us an interface that was useful and was pleasant because it was simple. From the standing point we are nowadays, XP, it got, well, a little better. On top of it, we got all the new features XP brought us, a new stability standart, network features... ok, we got security issues, sure, but the new features made it worth it.

Microsoft should get it in account... It put a lot of effort on Vista to make a super-duper-mega-wopper eye-candy OS... I think MS was targeting OS X when it made it. It was a really nice feature that XP was keeping the old 98 interface, it helped us saving performance back on these days, and we still could use all the new OS features that mattered.

Why couldn't Microsoft learn from that past experience? Even a dog learn that when someone is kind to you, it's because you are making things the right way... It could really pick up on the strong points in XP and make then better, on top of the cream, the yummi cherry: new features. But, please, USEFUL ones.


But that's not what Microsoft did. No, I don't want an Ipod-like player with a stupid name (Zune), I don't want a Iphone step-brother with an MS logo, as much as I don't want an candy-shop OS named Vista.
I want performance. I want speed, with useful new features, better security and stabillity. Eye-candy.... eye-candy... I think my eyes are getting diabetes.

Tell you what i miss on vista is the toolbar functions ie. the Copy, Paste, move to, copy to, Delete, and the move up one level, all though the copy paste deltete is on right click or in the edit tab, and the move up one level is in the veiw/Goto tab,
would like to see this back on tool bar options, They say Vista is supposed to be more user friendly what more simple they keeping them on the tool bar,
Using sp1 at the mo hoping this would be back but no! hopfully it will be on the finished version,
Although you can have clasic veiw what do you think of having a XP like view,
This is my first use of Vista only because it came with the Laptop Vista home premium already put another gig of ram to make 2gig just seems slower to.

Three reasons why I deleted Vista:

- the file copy can be extremely slow on some conditions - known bug
- the removal of the toolbar in the file explorer - to this day I still don't get it
- the lost of hardware-accelerated sound for games

And now I am getting excited about the 2009 new OS so I won't have to deal with Vista at all.

ITS BETTER TO KEEP TWO SEPERATE SYSTEMS & INTERCONNECT WITH ROUTER, LIKE PERSONAL HOME SYSTEM. GET NEW VISTA COMPATIBLE DISPLAYED ON PACKAGE, UNLESS YOU OLD STUFF HAS UPDATED SOFTWARE DOWNLOADABLE NOW & DON'T NEED ONE FOR EACH O/S, ANYWAY.

Signed:PHYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART VON DRASHEK M.D.

You could script this as an HTA and take it with you on a flash drive wherever you went. You wouldn't need active deskop. I think they removed active deskop because most people do not use it.

i remember people stayed away from XP when SP1 was released, there were so many things wrong with it, even that blaster flaw that scared everyone (despite it being easilly patched) still, you just didn't want to go near the thing. Then the updates rolled on out and now lotsa spaghetti, people like XP.

Vista on the other hand, didn't have anything scary about it except people wanting their drivers to work, nothing like bad security. From day 1, there hasn't been a single infection from Virus to Spyware/Malware ETC I'm starting to believe it has built in blockage to keep the garbage out, my detectors aren't catching anything except those blasted cookies.

I had some early adopting issues with vista but in my personal opnion i think microsoft is maturing vista from its infancy. Im running ultimate x64 on my desktop and premiun 32 on my laptop and im into music creation on the 32 bit system. Vista performs imo the way it needs too and i can remember how many times i would reinstall xp becuase it got bugged down. Vista i hardly ever reboot due to laggy issues seems solid to me

People always say XP was crap before SP2. Ok so the firewall was turned on by default and the messenger service was turned off by default after that. And we got a new security center. We ago got a new looking automatic update icon. Other than that after installing SP2 it didn't work any better or worse than Sp1.

warwagon said,
People always say XP was crap before SP2. Ok so the firewall was turned on by default and the messenger service was turned off by default after that. And we got a new security center. We ago got a new looking automatic update icon. Other than that after installing SP2 it didn't work any better or worse than Sp1.

Don't forget about the TCP/IP stack modification that left the max. half-open connections at 10. That did cause some performance problems...

it's 7 years ago!

Unix has almost 40 and still kickin ases. I dont buy the icon and stupid graphics interface. Thats for the kiddos nowday, ala John tard Connor.

ThePitt said,
Unix has almost 40 and still kickin ases. I dont buy the icon and stupid graphics interface. Thats for the kiddos nowday, ala John tard Connor.

Unix is like the Yoda of operating systems... All the other's are just in training!

At the time Windows XP was completely new, Windows 98/ME drivers didn't work on this new OS

No, but the Windows 2000 drivers worked most of the time.
I know, not all the hardware had W2k drivers, but that is besides the point now.
Some companies were almost 2 OS's late with their drivers.

I'm always in Firefox, Dopus, Photoshop or some other app so the xp to vista comparison isn't that big of a deal.

I do like the updated open/save dialog boxes, the look and feel but the poor performance, drivers, and memory use in Vista really make it hard to recommend.

I Love Vista!

For the average joe like me, it does wonders! (if you can afford a little hardware upgrade)...

using it now for more than a year... not a single CRASH or BSOD (some BSOD's with CS, sXe injected was the culprit in it)

overall a very nice eye candy OS with a little more features than XP... love it... (k)

Tight Lines...

IMHO, it's simply that Vista offers too few new and truly useful features while at the same time adding higher system requirements to run smoothly. On Vista, you have all sorts of services running in the background compared to in XP. Some are ironically to improve the performance, but at least to me, it seems like XP doesn't need them in the first place to keep the performance decent, and same for Ubuntu. *shrug* Vista is the black sheep among those at least. I can't say I've noticed much difference with SuperFetch for example, besides that it works on the hard drive more to guesstimate what I am to use (which is usually wrong).

Then there are of course complete train wrecks like the "new and improved" backup feature of Vista too.

Also, keep in mind that the majority of news to Vista is updated versions of Microsoft-bundled applications. New Windows Explorer, IE 7, Windows Media Player, games, etc. However, it's very easy to on XP just run an Explorer replacement, Firefox 2/3, and something like VLC or Media Player Classic... Often, even FREEWARE for XP is better than what the new software in Vista supports.

And WHEN will Windows get truly useful features like: undelete support, ability to read+write cross-platform volumes (Linux, MacOS), multiple desktop support, etc.

Actually Vista makes it very easy to change the default applications. Like XP, it has a default programs control panel. Unlike XP, this panel is user friendly.

With the exception of IE7, the updates to the default programs are a minor but welcome change (IE7 still has that horrible interface). The new Windows Calendar is a nice addition. Are these default programs alone worth the upgrade? No. They are minor updates. Besides, upgrading your OS for an update to a default application is a stupid reason to upgrade. Regardless of your OS, there will always be third-party programs that are better than what's included with the OS.

Keep in mind that Vista's changes are primarily "under the hood". Microsoft rewrote almost every subsystem. There are some performance issues, and these should be addressed in SP1.

I remeber when XP came out and to be honest I don't remeber having anywhere near as much "beef" with it than I do with Vista. Face it - Vista is a let down, whichever way you try and sugar coat it.

Exactly, XP offered tremendous benefits in that it was the first NT kernel geared for home use. Windows 2000 was also very nice since it offered an amazing number of improvements over NT4 without becoming too much of a beast in terms of added system requirements. But XP did what 2000 still didn't do -- support the home segment well in a kernel light years beyond that of Windows 9x.

Jugalator said,
Exactly, XP offered tremendous benefits in that it was the first NT kernel geared for home use. Windows 2000 was also very nice since it offered an amazing number of improvements over NT4 without becoming too much of a beast in terms of added system requirements. But XP did what 2000 still didn't do -- support the home segment well in a kernel light years beyond that of Windows 9x.


In the deep, XP is just a 2000 osr2, specially since xp is nt 5.1 and 2k is nt 5.0.

Vista in other aspect is almost a brand new os (nt 6.0). The sad parts is that Vista was created and thinking on many users request and this was a wrong, if a users is too stupid of lazy to run a hideous executable downloaded from the net, then he must blame themself and not the OS.

What ironic is in a few years when Vista is the standard and we can't recall life before the great change over how no matter how hard you try XP will be phased out as applications and upgrades come out. XP is superior for now-just like 2000pro was to XP before the world changed over. I dont think it helps that there is 8 different Vista versions to contend with but enuff with this lame whining. Either u know how to move over to a new OS or u don't. nuff said.

DATmafia said,
What ironic is in a few years when Vista is the standard and we can't recall life before the great change over how no matter how hard you try XP will be phased out as applications and upgrades come out. XP is superior for now-just like 2000pro was to XP before the world changed over. I dont think it helps that there is 8 different Vista versions to contend with but enuff with this lame whining. Either u know how to move over to a new OS or u don't. nuff said.

Well, if Windows 7 is truly coming out in 2009 like some reports are now starting to tell, it seems like many will simply skip the Vista generation of Windows like they did with Windows Me.

Jugalator said,
Well, if Windows 7 is truly coming out in 2009 like some reports are now starting to tell, it seems like many will simply skip the Vista generation of Windows like they did with Windows Me.

oh thats low, you cant compare anything to ME, hell that was the biggest pile of doggy doo i have EVER seen in my life......and MS even admitted it was not worth the disk it came on

whocares78 said,

oh thats low, you cant compare anything to ME, hell that was the biggest pile of doggy doo i have EVER seen in my life......and MS even admitted it was not worth the disk it came on

Yeah and Bill Gates admitted Vista is a dissapointment as well.

I think that Vista is to Windows 7 what ME is to XP. ME was the transition OS and many people don't even remember it because they steered away. I don't remember it as the only time I have to touch it was when people ask me to repair their system... 9 times out of 10 it's ME and all I did was ask them to go to 98 SE which, at its time, like XP SP2. Vista won't last, with such lame features. But like ME, it's a market test. They'll repair the problems, address user concern, and come up with something better like XP after ME... hmm.. that means Windows 7 would probably have worst color scheme...
Many people won't remember Vista too, one day. Because it's already 2008 and next year is Windows 7. 90% of people I know is still on XP SP2. The remaining 10%, I know they use Vista because they complain a lot.

Bottom Line XP wins! Vista is the loser! With my rig below I run Vista maybe 5% of the time.

eVga nForce 680i SLI 775 A1 Version, Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 Conroe OC'ed @ 3.20GHz 4M shared L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor
PC Power & Cooling Turbo-Cool 1KW-SR EPS12V 1000W Continuous @ 50°C Powersupply
CORSAIR XMS2 4GB Dominator (4 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 1066 (PC2 8500)
Four Seagate 750GB SATA's Running Raid 0
Two eVga-GeForce 8800GTX 768MB Superclocked
X-Fi Platinum
Two Dell 3007WFP 30" Monitor Running 2560x1600 On Each Panel
Saitek Blue Backlit Eclipse Keyboard|Logitech G5 Laser Mouse
Quad Boot - Windows XP Pro/Windows Vista Ultimate x64/Ubuntu 7.10/OSX 10.4.9

Mikee4fun said,
Bottom Line XP wins! Vista is the loser! With my rig below I run Vista maybe 5% of the time.

eVga nForce 680i SLI 775 A1 Version, Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 Conroe OC'ed @ 3.20GHz 4M shared L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor
PC Power & Cooling Turbo-Cool 1KW-SR EPS12V 1000W Continuous @ 50°C Powersupply
CORSAIR XMS2 4GB Dominator (4 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 1066 (PC2 8500)
Four Seagate 750GB SATA's Running Raid 0
Two eVga-GeForce 8800GTX 768MB Superclocked
X-Fi Platinum
Two Dell 3007WFP 30" Monitor Running 2560x1600 On Each Panel
Saitek Blue Backlit Eclipse Keyboard|Logitech G5 Laser Mouse
Quad Boot - Windows XP Pro/Windows Vista Ultimate x64/Ubuntu 7.10/OSX 10.4.9

I'd like to just ask why you are Quad booting. Are you a developer? I can only see 2 or 3 professions demanding this sort of wide spread net of OS's.

With that System....you are obviously either a hardcore gamer, a CAR or 3D gfx designer, or a Developer with stupid GFX clarity for your needs. Either way this post is nothing more than attempt to enlarge your penis by bragging about your hardware.

Fail ^^

Mikee4fun said,
Bottom Line XP wins! Vista is the loser! With my rig below I run Vista maybe 5% of the time.

eVga nForce 680i SLI 775 A1 Version, Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 Conroe OC'ed @ 3.20GHz 4M shared L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor
PC Power & Cooling Turbo-Cool 1KW-SR EPS12V 1000W Continuous @ 50°C Powersupply
CORSAIR XMS2 4GB Dominator (4 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 1066 (PC2 8500)
Four Seagate 750GB SATA's Running Raid 0
Two eVga-GeForce 8800GTX 768MB Superclocked
X-Fi Platinum
Two Dell 3007WFP 30" Monitor Running 2560x1600 On Each Panel
Saitek Blue Backlit Eclipse Keyboard|Logitech G5 Laser Mouse
Quad Boot - Windows XP Pro/Windows Vista Ultimate x64/Ubuntu 7.10/OSX 10.4.9

Well, at least one of those is illegal to run on your machine, so I'd suspect possibly more, and your opinion slides down the "care" scale rapidly...

Wiggz said,

I'd like to just ask why you are Quad booting. Are you a developer? I can only see 2 or 3 professions demanding this sort of wide spread net of OS's.

With that System....you are obviously either a hardcore gamer, a CAR or 3D gfx designer, or a Developer with stupid GFX clarity for your needs. Either way this post is nothing more than attempt to enlarge your penis by bragging about your hardware.

Fail ^^


Hey wigz to reply to your comment, I am a gamer, but I also work with several platforms and software for different clients. I am not a developer =) and nor do I want to be. But for troubleshooting software/hardware issues its nice to use one box, not four.

Cheers,

Mikee

GreyWolfSC said,
Well, at least one of those is illegal to run on your machine, so I'd suspect possibly more, and your opinion slides down the "care" scale rapidly... :rolleyes:

Who the hell cares if OSX is "illegal." It's not like you can buy it. Besides, what point does that make about the topic being discussed?

Maybe you should go back to admiring legal rule books.

Sorry but I call BS on that. I loved XP when it came out, most people I know did. There were complaints about the fisher price theme but that's about it, and that was easily remedied. The only other complaints I heard were about product activation. Vista on the other hand...major letdown.

TRC said,
Sorry but I call BS on that. I loved XP when it came out, most people I know did. There were complaints about the fisher price theme but that's about it, and that was easily remedied. The only other complaints I heard were about product activation. Vista on the other hand...major letdown.

I thought XP was a total piece of crap when it came out. I got my free copy from the beta program and put it on the shelf for almost a year while continuing to use 2000... Sound familiar?

GreyWolfSC said,

I thought XP was a total piece of crap when it came out. I got my free copy from the beta program and put it on the shelf for almost a year while continuing to use 2000... Sound familiar?

im wityh the wolf on this one, XP was crap when it was first released.

whocares78 said,

im wityh the wolf on this one, XP was crap when it was first released.

Ok, care to explain why though?

I remember migrating from 98SE to XP and thought it was a huge improvement. I didn't like XP's new theme but just dropped back to classic and never again thought about 98. When I moved to Vista, I hated it after 10 minutes of use; slow, buggy, extra bs activation and annoying unintuitive design. I still have vista installed as a dual boot but haven't used it for the last five months.

yup me to BS on that i went from ME to XP and thought where were you a year befor infact the only issues i've ever had in XP were my own fault tinkering in the registry and the odd ATI driver problem but thats not XP's fault

For God sakes, can we stop posting this type of fodder?! I am getting so sick of hearing about how Vista rocks/sucks, or how much XP rocks/sucks. I am tired of logging in to find another x amount of posts about Vista's problems.

again... why bother upgrading to vista if Windows 7 coming out soon? I get the feeling Window 7 is the next-gen OS not Vista

but whatever people have there taste, vista is not my cup of tea even when gets sp1/sp2 I'll skip to next OS hopefully would be next-gen......

if you consider 2009 to be soon, and if MS releases on time. and then once they fix all the bugs.. so lets just say around 2010... thats 2 years away

whocares78 said,
if you consider 2009 to be soon, and if MS releases on time. and then once they fix all the bugs.. so lets just say around 2010... thats 2 years away

Two years away for a fixed up OS, according to your guesses, isn't that much, since they still haven't got Vista fixed.

Maybe they will have in... two years? :-p

vista is not my cup of tea even when gets sp1/sp2 I'll skip to next OS hopefully would be next-gen......

No you won't, because you'll be too busy complaining about how bad Windows 7 is compared to Vista and you'll wait at least until Windows 7 SP1 or SP2 is released, when all of the new problems have been ironed out.

Jugalator said,

Two years away for a fixed up OS, according to your guesses, isn't that much, since they still haven't got Vista fixed.

Maybe they will have in... two years? :-p

i was being generous to MS, assumign they didnt release too far behind schedule, and didnt havea lot of major issues to fix. no idea why, it is more likely 3 or 4 years till the next version is stable enough for corporate use, i do agree though in 2 years i will be running Vista as i am sure it will be at the point XP is now.. then i'll wait a few more years till they fix up the next version

Its almost like the world forgot the problems that XP had, which were eventually ironed out with SP1 and then much more-so with SP2. Its like all these people who bash vista are pampered with SP2 and forget the issues that XP had before the service packs. Then you have the people who said "Oh I will wait till SP1 for vista comes out", and they purchased it, and bash it for its problems..

I personally have had a few issues with my Vista box, but they are minor and I fixed them (becides the point), and the point im making is, I haven't formatted it since I bought Vista (well except for the original clean install). I Which is a hell of a lot better than my XP installs.

i dont think they forgot, i think they dont care... does the fact that XP had the same issues make Vista any better, no it doesn't, all people care about is NOW, right now XP is better than vista, it is that simple, i didnt upgrade to XP until SP1, and i wont do the same for vista.

haha very timely post, my boss is about to reinstall vista as it has crapped out on him, and this is on a lapto that came with vista, i told him to go back to XP becasue i am sick of hearing him complain about this and that in vista, and he has had it for quite a while now...

once vista sorts out its issues it may be worth installing but until then i am not going to install it on any important machine.

It's really quite simple: People know what happened in the early days of XP, and in their minds they think that, given 5 1/2 years of prep time, Microsoft and the driver vendors should have learned from the mistakes made in the launch of XP.

I was installing Windows 2000 on all the PCs I built until XP was given it's second service pack. It's good now... back then before SP2... not so much.

I'd bet the SP1 for Vista will help a lot with many things.

justlooking said,
Vista's shell seems to crash WAY more than XP.

sounds like you need a codec pack update.
Something you've installed to integrate with the shell, or a drive you've migrated forward with invalid security permissions is causing a problem.

If you look at your "Problem Reports and Solutions" tool in the control panel, you might be able to diagnose and resolve your issue.

Something I couldn't do on..... XP

Guess which camp I'm in :P

Really? It shouldn't, unless you've got some crappy shell extentions installed. Probably a crappy context menu handler or video codec.

Ahhh. Enough already.

What's ironic is that I don't like Vista - am sticking with XP.

Still - we've been through millions of similiar posts. Move on already. Let people decide for themselves.

I love Vista.

I wouldn't expect people to install it on their existing Xp computers, but you'd be a fool to buy a new computer and favour Xp over Vista.

Agreed. While Vista is far from perfect, I already like it more than XP. A few games run slower, some others run faster. I'm sure that difference will balance itself as new drivers are released.

I do agree that the file browser is still terrible. It's a piece of **** in XP and is very much so in Vista too. I wish they'd just license Directory Opus.

dont like vista don't use it, like it, use it and deal with it ... i have dual boot as not all my hardware is supporte (and never will) ... but is fun to use a new os ... not my main os tho ... cant stand the new office ... i just cannot use it

"They will say: "Hey it worked on XP! Why not Vista?" and I simply respond, "It will eventually, when those OEM's and hardware manufacturers get off their lazy asses and support it properly."

WTF????????

Isn't it the job of the software (os) to support the hardware rather than the other way about?... THAT'S the problem with Vista.. the hardware has to do it VISTA'S way instead of Vista doing it the hardware's way.... which has caused endless problems for us all.

The OS needs drivers to communicate with the hardware. If it was the job of the OS then why would we need to download drivers from a company's website (ATI, Nvidia, HP,...).

They did to a point, but Vista have a totally different driver model. So it's all up to the manufacturers to make drivers that works, not MS.

Well Vista Ultimate x64 rocks IMO

Been using it since late 2006 and had no major issues.....a canon scanner didn't work but the scanner was a 2002 model so that was ok i expected that and besides thats Canon's fault not MS Vista.


Been running vista ultimate x64 on my wifes quad core machine for the last 6mths and she think your all idiots....she says what problems....when she reads articles like this.


Today i get my new quad core system with 4gig ddr2 and 8800 GTS 512meg and iwill be installing dual boot only for legacy support....but Vista ultimate x64 will be the deafult OS on it for sure.

XP is OLD......(its almost 8yrs old now, if u think thats not olod why dont u guys run 98 then lmao)

XP is OLD......(its almost 8yrs old now, if u think thats not olod why dont u guys run 98 then lmao)

So? XP still works perfectly, and it still being updated. It's not like people are using XP retail with no service packs.

Oh and if you can't tell the difference between XP and 98 then lmao at you.

TRC said,

So? XP still works perfectly, and it still being updated. It's not like people are using XP retail with no service packs.

Oh and if you can't tell the difference between XP and 98 then lmao at you.

No i can tell how old fashioned, and behind the times 98 is compared to XP.....

And its exactly the same with XP compared to Vista.....XP = old and behind the times on features.

And its exactly the same with XP compared to Vista.....XP = old and behind the times on features.

Name some. I've used Vista, I saw very few features worth upgrading to. Many of them were a step backwards. The new defrag, completely dumbed down and useless. At least in SP1 you can finally select drives again, how revolutionary. The scanner and camera wizard, in XP you can choose which pictures you want to download from your camera. With Vista it just downloads them all and if you don't like it tough. The new Windows Explorer is a cluttered mess imo. Ooh, a shiny new version of Solitaire. Nope, sorry I'm not buying it. Having seperate audio controls is nice, too bad they yanked out DirectSound support. From my experience I found Vista to be a very minor update to XP, and in many ways a downgrade. I'm glad you like it, but I'll pass.

Baked said,
And its exactly the same with XP compared to Vista.....XP = old and behind the times on features.

Comparing the 98-XP jump to the XP-Vista jump is like comparing Batman to Orgazmo.

Been using it since late 2006 and had no major issues.....a canon scanner didn't work but the scanner was a 2002 model so that was ok i expected that and besides thats Canon's fault not MS Vista.

It would have worked in XP out of the box. This is the point many try to make. You may point fingers at Canon, but does that make the scanner install on Vista? No.
Baked said,
And its exactly the same with XP compared to Vista.....XP = old and behind the times on features.

There aren't too many Vista features that XP users can't get from even open source or freeware and save a lot of money in the process. You'll likely even get better software doing it that way, since many of the new Vista bundles were hastily put together due to their development problems and project reset during Longhorn. Doing it this way, the foundation will then also remain a slimmer OS.

Although I could post all the many fine features that I enjoy using in Vista, I will have to agree with you on that one. As for me, I'm a real sucker when it comes to fancy packaging.

No issues with Vista here. I like all the new features and the new look too :P. Vista Aero > XP Luna...but 3rd party Styles > Vista Aero :).

me personally, i think main reason 'Vista aint as loved as XP' is cause all the major improvements from OS to OS are now gone as with XP everything was stable... and generally speaking OS's before XP (not counting windows 2000) where generally unstable.

Exactly, XP is perfectly stable and does everything most people need. I don't care about eye candy, it's an operating system not a game. I still use the classic theme on XP, to me an OS should be almost transparent. Sitting obediently in the background unseen, not getting in my face with transparent flashy gizmos and goth black themes. I know you can turn on classic in Vista but it seems very unfinished, it definately wasn't meant for Vista's new design.

So I can "upgrade" to a new OS that requires me to upgrade my hardware to run anywhere close to XP's speed, and really offers me nothing that I don't already have aside from a cluttered unintuitive interface or I can just keep using XP. Not really a touch decision.

TRC said,
Exactly, XP is perfectly stable and does everything most people need. I don't care about eye candy, it's an operating system not a game. I still use the classic theme on XP, to me an OS should be almost transparent. Sitting obediently in the background unseen, not getting in my face with transparent flashy gizmos and goth black themes. I know you can turn on classic in Vista but it seems very unfinished, it definately wasn't meant for Vista's new design.

So I can "upgrade" to a new OS that requires me to upgrade my hardware to run anywhere close to XP's speed, and really offers me nothing that I don't already have aside from a cluttered unintuitive interface or I can just keep using XP. Not really a touch decision. :)

same here! ... cause i dont like XP's default bloated look. i still prefer the old school menu's etc more myself.

vista rocks on my system
feels faster thanxp and handles everything w/o an issue
few bugs..but hey..sp1 is comin..and lets not forget the horror xp was upon release

most of the haters seem like they musth ave outdated hardware
my old 4800x2 2gigs of ram 1950pro agp cudnt handle vista
my new system handles it like a dream..and its grown on me
when i had xp on here i just cudnt stand it
stability on vista is not an issue..no crashes yet..the bugs i was havinissues with are gone in sp1

I had Vista RC1 on my Shuttle ( Athlon XP 3000, 1.5 GB DDR-333, ATi 9600 A-I-W, and 2x120Gb HDDs in RAID 0 ) and it ran a little slow, but it was still fast enough to use and not be constantly ****ed. Vista x64 Ultimate with all updates, on my friends quad core with 4 gigs RAM and 8800 GTX... that's a different story. It hauls ass on his PC. Like.. really really fast it is.

Yep, I agree that XP was a dog until at least SP1. If I had $100 for every blue screen, repair install, or total reformat and reinstall in the first 12 months of XP I would be living next door to Bill Gates. I have been using Vista since release and have not had to do a single reinstall and could count blue screens on one hand - so I would say much more stable than XP was initially in that regard.

On the other hand, Vista is definitely slower with games (FPS) and boot time.

I have two identical raid 0 setups with Vista and XP running off partition 1 on each.

From the time I choose OS at boot:

XP = useable in under 30 seconds
Vista = about 60-70 seconds

As far as general usage goes, I am finding Vista (latest SP1 RC) is now just as snappy as XP for most stuff.

Mick

Try using hibernate instead of shutdown. It's a ton more reliable than it ever was in Windows 2000-2003, and usually gets you from "press the power button" to "everything loaded except the Superfetch cache" in 30 seconds or less. You can also reassign the power buttons on your hardware and on the start menu to hibernate by default.

Nothing to be done about the framerate, though.

I think I'm the only person on the planet that's had no driver problems with Vista. I don't understand the problem, it's compatible with XP drivers as well as Vista drivers, so if a Vista certified one doesn't exist, you can still use your hardware. Even graphics cards work fine with standard XP drivers (Although you do lose Aero).

Kushan said,
I think I'm the only person on the planet that's had no driver problems with Vista. I don't understand the problem, it's compatible with XP drivers as well as Vista drivers, so if a Vista certified one doesn't exist, you can still use your hardware. Even graphics cards work fine with standard XP drivers (Although you do lose Aero).

I must be the 2nd person on the planet that hasn't had problems with Vista. There are a bunch of us on this forum running Vista without issue. Most of the problems stem from users who upgrade to Vista but who haven't taken the time to find out if their existing hardware is supported. People who got a new PC with Vista aren't having problems.

hewitt s. said,
People who got a new PC with Vista aren't having problems.

Think again. I own a computer store. Not a week goes by where I don't have 2 or 3 people bringing their PC in for a retrofit to XP. I'm doing so many, I'm now an expert at it. I can do one in my sleep.

Just go on the HP (Compaq) or Acer support forum and go look at post. 90% of the request for support are people looking for drivers to retrofit their PCs to XP.

I don't agree with this article at all.

Install a vanilla Windows XP install, and a vanilla Vista install. Without any service packs or updates, XP is far superior.

I used a (Admittedly dodgy - but im legal now) copy of XP RC2 for ages, and it was perfectly stable. Vista is just a bad O/S

The new features are nice, the security is nice, the fact it wont run correctly, hangs, is slow, won't play games correctly and ***AND THIS IS THE BIGGY*** is not as intuative as XP.

I'm not a microsoft basher - an everytime there is a new build of SP1, or a new update, I dig out my copy of Vista Ultimate (Which MS gave me free btw, so I'm unbiased), within a week I'm begging for XP back - and then I format and do just that - put XP back.

I just cant't live with vista, and I originally thought one day I'd have to. Now I'm not so sure I will.

***AND THIS IS THE BIGGY*** is not as intuative as XP.

Microsoft marketing calls it a "streamlined user interface" or some such nonsense. I call it cluttered and completely illogical. Getting rid of the tabbed applets and sticking things all over the place using hyperlinks was a huge mistake.

I have people calling me over the recycle bin.
They deleted it somehow (sometimes they say it disappeared!) and call to know how to put it back on, because it's different from what they did in XP.
I tried to navigate on Vista's Explorer once, and hated it.

tiagosilva29 said,
I have people calling me over the recycle bin.
They deleted it somehow (sometimes they say it disappeared!) and call to know how to put it back on, because it's different from what they did in XP.
I tried to navigate on Vista's Explorer once, and hated it.

yes, lets go back to windows 3.1 because change is bad.

tiagosilva29 said,
I have people calling me over the recycle bin.
They deleted it somehow (sometimes they say it disappeared!) and call to know how to put it back on, because it's different from what they did in XP.
I tried to navigate on Vista's Explorer once, and hated it.

As a Vista user I can assure you that they DID NOT remove the recycle bin. It still sits on the desktop, and you still empty it the same way. They did make one really really stupid change though -- the Recycle Bin folder info does not show you how much disk space the files in the bin use.

Here is something I posted in another forum, but the performance in Vista compared to XP isn't that different...

Test Setup (Tried to keep the hardware similar to what a typical person would use)
Pentium 4 (not dual core) 2.4Ghz
Intel p865 chipset
2GB DDR 400
80 Gig Maxtor HDD
Nvidia 7800 GS XP/Vista Driver 169.25
XP SP2 w/ current drivers and updates, and the same w/ Vista SP1 RC refresh

Startup time:
XP - 37 sec
Vista - 47 sec

3D Mark 2001:
XP - 9805
Vista - 11122

PC Mark 2005:
XP-3198
Vista - 2665

HDD XP startup: XP - 7.2MB/s Vista - 7.18
Physics: XP - 98fps Vista - 75.53
Transparent Windows: XP - 1040 windows/sec Vista 474
3D: XP - 189fps Vista - 180
Web Page Loading: XP - 1.82/s Vista - .94
File Decryption: XP - 48.27Mb/s Vista - 48.1
Graphics Memory: XP - 1352.59fps Vista - 1165.21
HDD - General usage: XP - 5Mb/s Vista - 4.97
Multi app test:
1 Audio: XP - 785.2kb/s Vista - 739.8
1 Video: XP - 106.14kb/s Vista - 97.75
2 Text: XP - 46.5 Vista - 37
2 Image: XP - 9Mb/s Vista - 8
3 File Compression: XP - 1.62/? Vista - 1.43
3 File Encryption: XP - 13.3Mb/s Vista - 12.14
3 Virus Scan: XP - 26.47Mb/s Vista - 20.48
3 Latency: XP - 6.47 Vista - 6.35

nonick said,
Uhh, good job comparing useless things? FPS what matters. XP delivers Vista does not.

the end

Yes I agree, if you are a gamer. This comparison was to show that the transfer rates are fairly close. If it is fps that is the main issue, then this is nothing to do with Vista, it is the drivers for your graphics card. I run a ton of things on my home pc, ranging from graphic editing programs, to video editing, and I have not found any problems encoding or decoding anything, and everything is just as fast as XP. But of course, this is my PC, and may be different with someones else.

nonick said,
Uhh, good job comparing useless things? FPS what matters. XP delivers Vista does not.

the end

I'm sorry, but in the real world, outside of your bedroom, most people use their PCs for things other than games, so all of his points are extremely relevant.
I'm a PC gamer myself and I still use my PC for things other than playing games, probably more than I actually PLAY games.

Kushan said,

I'm sorry, but in the real world, outside of your bedroom, most people use their PCs for things other than games, so all of his points are extremely relevant.
I'm a PC gamer myself and I still use my PC for things other than playing games, probably more than I actually PLAY games.

Because all he showed are really important for all those people who purchased laptops with vista and home pcs with vista installed.

So, I'm sorry, but in the real world, where the majority of customers are tech-ignorant don't give a crap about the minimal difference between transferring two files or encoding a music file. They care when they run a game that they play and end up with 10 fps instead of 30 and whine left and right about why the performance is so crappy or when they have a laptop with 512 mb of ram and vista keeps on hanging(YES plenty have those) go on public and say how much vista sucks.

So no, maybe in your world where everyone is so tech savvy they give a rats ass but in real world.. they don't.

nonick said,

Because all he showed are really important for all those people who purchased laptops with vista and home pcs with vista installed.

So, I'm sorry, but in the real world, where the majority of customers are tech-ignorant don't give a crap about the minimal difference between transferring two files or encoding a music file. They care when they run a game that they play and end up with 10 fps instead of 30 and whine left and right about why the performance is so crappy or when they have a laptop with 512 mb of ram and vista keeps on hanging(YES plenty have those) go on public and say how much vista sucks.

So no, maybe in your world where everyone is so tech savvy they give a rats ass but in real world.. they don't.

Heheh, "I'm sorry, but" the "Majority of customers" do not play games, they use thier PCs to surf a few websites, send e-mail and use Office.

I'm just going to skip to the point now, if you're going to troll, try to not to make it so blatantly obvious, and do it in a topic where your "arguement" dosen't make you look like a clueless basement-dwelling 13 year-old.

In summary: Lurk Moar.

This test measures only the performances of a single task at time, once this task is started, but it doesn't measure how the task is loaded, it doesn't measure how the other tasks perform all together.
The most important thing is evaluating the performance of the whole system that's a multitask enviroment: vista improves cpu scheduling, memory managment, I/O managment, I/O scheduling, all things that improve the responsiveness of all daily activities, smoother desktop loading, smoother application loading, smoother application closing, system stability improved after a video crash (driver is automatically restarted, no BSOD), less reboots (SP1 will also enable the hot patching = less less reboots), improved the windows's redraw with desktop composition (aero), etc.

Most PCs are not use at home, most PCs are use in a business setting.

Reseachers for Devil Mountain Software using a Dell XPS M1710, ran test using MS Office 2007. The results showed that XP was twice as fast as Vista.

That's real life.

The article ran in late december, google it and find it.

So are you suggesting we wait 3 years for a SP2 to get a decent OS release? Or that Microsoft needs to release a dud like Windows Me for the Windows release AFTER that to eventually be considered good? I'm confused?

dagamer34 said,
So are you suggesting we wait 3 years for a SP2 to get a decent OS release? Or that Microsoft needs to release a dud like Windows Me for the Windows release AFTER that to eventually be considered good? I'm confused?

Neobond is suggesting that questioning his authority will get you banned.

I had to fix a problem with Vista mail for about 10 minutes on a Dell laptop and I wanted to die so bad. I had it on my secondary rig once though and it wasn't *too* bad after a bit of taming. I still prefer XP's lite feel compared to Vista though and I DEFINATELY think Mac OS X is a better OS solution for the noobs who keep the preloaded junk they get from PC World on their machines.

hotdog963al said,
I had to fix a problem with Vista mail for about 10 minutes on a Dell laptop and I wanted to die so bad. I had it on my secondary rig once though and it wasn't *too* bad after a bit of taming. I still prefer XP's lite feel compared to Vista though and I DEFINATELY think Mac OS X is a better OS solution for the noobs who keep the preloaded junk they get from PC World on their machines.

Vista is perfectly fine for a newbie if it's pre-loaded. A newbie should never attempt to upgrade any OS.

God article; finally a decent read to remind those Vista-bashing noobs what their beloved XP went through

and yes, i am running Vista on 3 desktops and 5 laptops = no issues with performance and stability

With all of its problems XP STILL wasn't nearly as bad as Vista is. XP didn't force me to go back to an older version and to eventually leave Windows altogether either. BTW, SP2 for XP was mostly to do with security matters and a roll up of previous updates as well. And I'm far from being a noob.

Foub said,
With all of its problems XP STILL wasn't nearly as bad as Vista is. XP didn't force me to go back to an older version and to eventually leave Windows altogether either. BTW, SP2 for XP was mostly to do with security matters and a roll up of previous updates as well. And I'm far from being a noob.

XP did it for me actually... all because of drivers from Nvidia. It took 3 months to get stable drivers. Sounds simular?

This article is to the point. It's time to end this silly spreading of myths. I still see post in forums asking if this game works in Vista, why does Vista eat my RAM etc. I guess ignorance isn't always bliss...

Well I can only give personal opinions but: I think Vista is really ugly, I think the new layout is horrible (replacing tabbed windows with scattered hyperlinks, wtf?), I think it's too slow and I'm not interested in buying more RAM just to run it. Most important of all though is the fact that I simply do not need it. Vista offers absolutely nothing I need that can't be done in XP. That is why I'm not the least bit interested in Vista.

He has a point why would anyone that wants performance care anything about how the OS looks? My personal opinion is that the layout of the OS is made for dummies (mostly) I do enjoy a few things from the OS and that is pretty much the only thing that keeps me interested in the product. I felt they should of left a XP like GUI to the system until you felt comfortable to move over. Like they did with XP with Classic look. Now I don't mind the default theme in XP after I've had some time and interest to change over. Still many people use the classic look. Good part it's a matter of taste just like different distro's of Linux. I choose XP but you choose Vista and that is

I'm not sure what you mean about replacing tabs with hyperlinks. Vista uses tabs all over the place...

If your happy with XP then STFU and don't upgrade.

2 articles by Neobond that I've read today, 2 articles by Neobond considered flame bait (not by me, I don't care - bring on the discussion ). Good going, why not try for the hat-trick?

The 3rdone could be "Why American girls didn't put out when I was in the states last week" but Tom Warren would probably resign and that wouldn't make me happy

Neobond said,
The 3rdone could be "Why American girls didn't put out when I was in the states last week" but Tom Warren would probably resign and that wouldn't make me happy :(

But if you asked that one, and seeing as we have seen the photos, you may get some answers that you do not want

But then if Froggy had let you loose in his car, who knows what could have happened.

Neobond said,
The 3rdone could be "Why American girls didn't put out when I was in the states last week" but Tom Warren would probably resign and that wouldn't make me happy :(

you musn't have an aussie accent, they all put out when they hear our good old aussie accent

"despite the driver being included in all "Whistler" builds right up until about the 24xx releases" I hated that so much, like why did they drop the drivers at 24xx, my etnernet at the time was dropped too then and I agree XP wasn't great until SP2, SP1 helped but after trying many computers with no SP, SP1 and SP2 (which I use) I must say SP2 is better. Can't wait for SP3 for XP

I agree 100%. XP had it's problems and I wouldn't consider XP a good OS without SP2. It will take the application developers and the hardware manufacturers time but they will catch up and Vista will be better then XP.

but unfortunately buy the time they do catch up windows 7 will be out and the whole process will start all over again why because M$ like to reinvent the wheel

Never encountered any problems with Vista HP on my Vaio, despite all badmouthing on the internet..
Only thing that could be improved is ofcourse the game support, however that's not a big issue personally.

Markus-J said,
Never encountered any problems with Vista HP on my Vaio, despite all badmouthing on the internet..
Only thing that could be improved is ofcourse the game support, however that's not a big issue personally.

You must not have run into Vista's continuing networking bugs, which drive IT people crazy. Or had driver problems with professional audio and video/3D hardware, which makes Vista unsuitable for many creative types. Or with Vista deactivating after BIOS or driver updates, which annoys OC types and modders. There's also the applications that don't work as well in Vista as in XP, or work at all, which makes noobs think that Vista is "broken." Lastly, as everyone knows, Vista has on average an extra 200-500MB of overhead for games, which brought up the whole x64 vs. x32 debate because Vista gamers--unlike XP gamers--were running out of RAM.

XP was a mess when it was released, but it was noticeably better than Win9x for stability and some features (not quite as much compared to Win2K though!). Vista doesn't have any significant improvements that are apparent when using XP-compatible apps. Comparing Vista to XP is like comparing XP to Win2K, not to Win9x. There's very little improvement, and quite a few drawbacks.

For Vista to be a noticeable improvement in something other than eye candy and Microsoft's self-serving "features," apps have to be optimized for Vista. What all this means is that Vista's performance isn't going to noticeably improve this year, no matter what MS does. People in 2008 are going to continue to ask "Why the hell should I bother with Vista when it doesn't improve anything?"

toadeater said,
You must not have run into Vista's continuing networking bugs, which drive IT people crazy. Or had driver problems with professional audio and video/3D hardware, which makes Vista unsuitable for many creative types. Or with Vista deactivating after BIOS or driver updates, which annoys OC types and modders. There's also the applications that don't work as well in Vista as in XP, or work at all, which makes noobs think that Vista is "broken." Lastly, as everyone knows, Vista has on average an extra 200-500MB of overhead for games, which brought up the whole x64 vs. x32 debate because Vista gamers--unlike XP gamers--were running out of RAM.

XP was a mess when it was released, but it was noticeably better than Win9x for stability and some features (not quite as much compared to Win2K though!). Vista doesn't have any significant improvements that are apparent when using XP-compatible apps. Comparing Vista to XP is like comparing XP to Win2K, not to Win9x. There's very little improvement, and quite a few drawbacks.

For Vista to be a noticeable improvement in something other than eye candy and Microsoft's self-serving "features," apps have to be optimized for Vista. What all this means is that Vista's performance isn't going to noticeably improve this year, no matter what MS does. People in 2008 are going to continue to ask "Why the hell should I bother with Vista when it doesn't improve anything?"

I'm a creative type and a gamer. I run Vista Home Premium. I've had zero problems. Never seen it crash. I play 3D intensive games like Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas without issue (plays flawlessly). I use all the Adobe Creative Suite applications without issue. I've updated my PC BIOS and Vista didn't de-activate. I've only had one of my applications not work properly under Vista, and the company has since released an upgrade. There are some performance issues when compared to XP, but those will be addressed in SP1.

Think again Hewitt. Test show that SP1 will give a 2% increase in performance which will leave XP still twice as fast as Vista. Not a little bit, twice as fast.

(hewitt s. said @ #1)
... I play 3D intensive games like Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas without issue ...

INTENSIVE? Lord... San Andreas was 3D intensive some time from now... Ok, getting real now, let's face that on the best case scenarios Vista 3D Performance is, at best, on par with XP. BTW, Vista performance is 98% XP Performance in ANY case best scenario... Plus the fact that Vista don't give any meaningful feature, why get thru the hurdles of a fresh OS, with all the driver mess and backward compatibility issues if I can keep my 8 years old XP working flawlessly?

I really hope that Windows 7 give us some really exciting new features. I really want that the MinWin make Windows 7 faster than XP - ok, I think I'm getting delirious on that, but I'm a man of faith. Well, frankly, I really want something that make me JUMP Vista at all, and make me happy as XP made me.

+1 Anyone would think this was a Microsoft Viral campaign in order to keep Vista's name "out there". Vista is a decent operating system. There is no getting around it.

Similarly however there is no way of getting around the fact that it's not up to XP's standard in a lot of ways, and provides little or not genuine reason to adopt if people are happy with their office environment now.

Simple as that. You can do the same job on both...just a little slower on Vista currently.

I seem to recall that XP was hated as much when it first came out and everyone was whining that it was no where as good as Windows 98. The trend goes on and on and on.......

briangw said,
I seem to recall that XP was hated as much when it first came out and everyone was whining that it was no where as good as Windows 98. The trend goes on and on and on.......

This is the same bs argument that people keep claiming ad nauseum. XP was a huge improvement over 95/98/ME and even 2k right when it came out aside from the obvious lack of driver support.

The situation is very different with Vista which suffers from pretty severe performance and compatibility issues as well as bugs and little to offer over XP.

The war will be very short.

Fact: MS has extended their deadline for providing OEM license for XP to computer builder up to January 2009. They will extend it again.

Fact: MS has committed in supporting XP, i.e. produce monthly patches, until 2014.

Fact: XP SP3 is right around the corner. (Beta right now)

Fact: Vienna beta will be release very soon. They already announce possible release for H2 2009 for that next Windows.

IMHO Vista will soon be an after tought. It will be shelved.

Now lets hope that MS will show us that they have learn from the Vista mess.

The problem with Vista is they went too far from XP. You can change stuff, you can add stuff, but it has to stay backward compatible. Yes, there was problem when XP came out, but at least you could connect it to a network and have it communicate with a 2000 or a 98. You can't transfer file from an XP to a Vista. How stupid is that ?