Oh dear Microsoft, please stop embarrasing Yourself. First few days ago was this:

http://www.osnews.com/story/19765/Microsof...n_Windows_Vista

and now this list with several ommited facts, like IE7 is available for XP, bitlocker is not available in all Vista editions...etc.

Oh dear Microsoft, please stop embarrasing Yourself. First few days ago was this:

http://www.osnews.com/story/19765/Microsof...n_Windows_Vista

and now this list with several ommited facts, like IE7 is available for XP, bitlocker is not available in all Vista editions...etc.

If your going to bash Microsoft make sure you actually read what your bashing.

It states IE7 Protected mode is not in xp sp3 which is true.

Also it states what editions bit locker is for.

"Windows Vista Enterprise and Windows Vista Ultimate operating systems." thats right from the pdf.

DISCLAIMER: speaking as a semi-layman.

Is this Microsoft attempting to have the final word on the XP / Vista debate, essentially pointing out that Vista is pretty much better all round?

Seems like marketing to me.

Or am I an idiot?

Its just a comparison article. I dont think its marketing. ITs the kind of thing microsoft should publish to help system admins decide on what to do os wise.

They've convaince me. I'm sticking with XP.

Microsoft needs a better marketing department. Goto Apple's website, and they have Leopard very well advertised in a very easy to read page. Microsoft needs to make Vista more appealing to users. It's not a bad OS, and it has so much potential. They just need to advertise it better...

Microsoft needs a better marketing department. Goto Apple's website, and they have Leopard very well advertised in a very easy to read page. Microsoft needs to make Vista more appealing to users. It's not a bad OS, and it has so much potential. They just need to advertise it better...

Now 3rd party software, drivers and ignorant media/journalists is whats makes an OS bad.

Now 3rd party software, drivers and ignorant media/journalists is whats makes an OS bad.

And system requirements, I'm not talking Vista "capable" here, because those machines barely are.

It's an important aspect as people don't really need to buy new computers as often as they once used to -- Windows XP SP3 is a very powerful OS to do everyday work in, and it runs on old hardware a person may already own as well. That's a major advantage.

Wow, that was a lot of features haha. I'm going to rest my wrists now.

They have quite a lengthy list there, but I think this list is geared towards System Administrators rather than a typical user.

They have quite a lengthy list there, but I think this list is geared towards System Administrators rather than a typical user. Most of these features I would never use:

SDL - present on both systems - a weak argument for why its better on Vista.
Microsoft have a set method of development which is what the SDL is based on. The purpose of SDL is that security is written into the OS / Application instead of just adding it on as an after thought. Your comment makes no sense as the SDL framework wasn't even present when XP was coded.

Malicious code execution prevention - technically on both systems but Vista has a couple more defenses in there. Altogether, not incredibly useful, at least for me. I'm smart enough to know what would be safe and what wouldn't, and I'm pretty careful with my browsing (noscript in FF).
Whilst you may know what is safe and what isn't, I can assure you that you are wrong. You think Neowin is safe? You think Google is safe? You do know how wholesale ad brokers work don't you.... NoScript is great. Until you want to view a site that works better with scripting. I prefer both worlds - viewing the sites I want whilst the browser is in a security sandbox

Bitlocker - useless, I don't need encryption, and I'd hazard a guess that most home users don't either.
Your statement is false, regarding not needing encryption. Heard of SSL or TLS? But I understand that i'm taking it out of context. Whilst you may not want to encrypt your HD, some people do. Sole traders who use laptops prehaps? Home users that have Ultimate and keep financial data on their HD's. You think I'm really going to send my PC away to Dell for repair with my personal data sitting there...? I've fixed PC's for a living - I KNOW you really want encryption! ;-)
But for average Joe Bloggs, you're probably right. Which is why it's a feature in Vista Enterprise (volume licence only) and Ultimate which most people won't buy due to the cost.

Windows Firewall - Both XP and Vista have this feature, but Vista uses outbound filtering as well (I don't know how useful that is though). There are also a couple more convenience features built in, but to be honest I don't use it. Router firewall works just fine for me. Useful for laptops though.
Again, you're completely missing the point about security. How you think botnets and spam actually work? Infected PC's speak out to control servers filling your inbox with crap. If everyone had a outbound firewall then the net would be a much safer place. You got a home network? 2 or 3 machines on wifi? What happens if you have a worm on your PC? Under XP it can replicate to your other machines. In Vista it can't*.

IE7 protected mode - I don't use IE, I'll stick with FF and noscript thanks
See above. NoScript lowers what you can do on the net. It's a fantastic tool for secure browsing, but if you want functionality then look elsewhere. Whilst IE has it's bugs, the Vista version (IE7+) will limit any security issues to the browser. FF cannot currently do this as it runs under the context of the local user. IE7+ doesn't.

ActiveX installer - haven't really had issues with that as I am admin on my XP install. All vista seems to do is modify permissions for regular users a bit.
Right.... we're getting to it now. You think your secure on XP yet you run as an admin whilst browsing the net and opening emails. I'm getting the picture. Vista ensures that no matter who you are and what permissions you have, you are running all processes under the single user context of a normal user. E.G. when you open up FF in XP as an admin, anything that gets executed by FF will be done as an administrator. That gives websites access to your whole machine with the only thing limiting it being FF itself. Whilst it's a good browser, security isn't perfect in any application. Google it.
Vista will open apps as a limited user - even when logged on as an administrator. If you need to run an application with admin rights to make a system change you'll need to confirm it using a "secure desktop" which stops all processes (sorta) and waits for human only interaction to confirm the task.
Anyway, the ActiveX installer is really aimed more at corporates. I'll give you that one! :-)

Group policies - not so useful in a home environment, claims it has a ton more options (500) in Vista. zzzzzzzzzzzz
Try it on your home PC. You'll be amazed at the power you actually have on your system. Take a peek - you want to change almost ANYTHING you can do it with a GPO.

User accounts - basically they actually properly implement accounts in Vista as opposed to XP, but not so useful if you're the only user. Would definitely be useful if this was a shared PC.
Goes back to the point about running everything under the admin context. Just because you don't take your security seriously doesn't mean MS shouldn't try to implement security best practice in their latest OS. (credit due to Linux! )

Diagnostics - not incredibly useful. If you're knowledgeable enough to build a PC from scratch, you'll be knowledgeable enough to diagnose the PC yourself, or at the very least be able to research it. a typical user would just bring in the PC to whoever they bought it from and get it fixed.
Yeah, that's a great idea. What if Dell never put the error codes on hardware errors? Or Office never gave you errors on a web page? More diagnostics is great no matter if your working on a car or working on a PC. I'd rather the PC TELL ME that the RAM in slot 0 is knackered and I need to replace it, instead of going through the motions. You'll also find that if your PC crashes under Vista, the system will optionally (off by default but it prompts you) send anon data to MS about the crash. About 2 mins later you get a reply stating that it's due to a Creative driver or a HD error. Your telling me that this information isn't useful? Generally speaking I can't tell what filename from what vendor caused a crash on my system in under 2 mins. Well done you.

Event management - Not so sure what this is, but I don't use it. Do you?
This sort of negates your point above. How the hell do you diagnose faults with your system if you don't even know what event viewer is. Yeah I use it. It tells me if there's a problem with an application, records security and gives DIAGNOSTIC info about crashes.

Task Scheduling - Task scheduler is more advanced in Vista, but do you use it? I don't.
I don't at home, but do at work.

Image-based setup - not useful for home users
True - although personally I'll be slipstreaming in patches and using the imaging features to ensure I get a Norton Ghost like backup of my system without having to purchase Ghost.

Deployment - also not useful for home users
True

Setup - Not really a purchase deciding feature. Not really useful for home users either (i usually use nLite/vLite to do these sort of things anyway)
The article isn't about purchasing decisions, it's a comparision between operating systems. And a better setup is useful for everyone. Ask anyone in the Linux crowd what they think about setup experiences. Have you seen what it used to be like 5 - 8 years ago? Now it's much better so that the average Joe can pretty much install it.

Worldwide single image deployment - again, not for home users
True

Mobility center - centralizes mobility options (power settings, etc) useful for laptops. But XP has the same thing, just not in one location (have to go to different areas to reach every option). I have a desktop so, not so useful
XP doesn't have the same thing. It's not just power options, it's network based projectors, brightness, bluetooth, presentation mode, wifi, display rotation and wallpaper. Now I maybe wrong, but XP doesn't have brightness, network projector, presentation mode or native bluetooth support. You install all those 3rd party apps if you want, but I'd rather do without the OEM junk and have all those options a single click away thanks. Oh - and just because you don't have a laptop doesn't mean that a huge amount of HOME and business users do.

Sync Center - I don't use this, do you?
I do with my phone, yeah. Businesses will use this with offline files and such too.

Offline files - also, don't use this
Business feature

Network projection - possible through XP (basically its connecting to a networked projector) but might be easier in Vista - useful for laptops and those who give presentations using them.
Network projectors hardly worked in XP. Vista overhauls it with built-in drivers including generic abilities as well as wizard based configuration.

Secure Socket Tunnel Protocol - useful in Vista if you plan on using VPN's, makes them more secure
Yep

Power management - works fine in XP, just a bunch of fluff here as to why Vista is better
[Sigh]... Vista reduces power consumed in various ways (including the sleep mode.) Also, Vista reports power status a lot more accurately than XP, as well as allowing non-admins to modify power settings which is great for businesses too. The power reduction itself is a good thing regarding the environment surely?

Wireless networking - more convenience options with a bit of protection against connecting to "malicious wireless networks".. what? heres an idea - don't connect to random wireless networks?
Seriously, your starting to irritate me now. HAVE YOU HEARD OF A PUBLIC WIFI?! Starbucks, hotels, McDonnalds, airports. Or do you just not go out? With XP your network settings are static. Vista realises that it's public and increases security so you are nearly invisible to other devices on the network. Gheesh.....

Search - Vista has a much improved search engine with plenty of bells and whistles. I'm fine with basic file search, in fact i usually disable file indexing, so, not all that useful for me.
Good for you. Most people like to press a single key and type in a query with Google like responses covering emails, web history and applications as well as files. You don't, and that's fine.

User interface - apparently they don't say a thing about XP's interface. I'm fine with XP, in fact I prefer it over vista. I don't like the IE7 look that they put in Vista, and I do miss the "Go Up" button (now you have to click on the folder you want to visit on the address bar, which admittedly is somewhat useful but I had no idea that feature existed for some time). I really dislike the Vista start bar, I was fine with XP style start bar, but Vista likes to hide previous menus once you enter a submenu, and i find that annoying. I'd like to see everything, I'm not shallow enough to need to occupy as little desktop space as possible with my start menu.. and what was even more annoying is that they didn't allow you to switch to the XP style bar. You can only use the classic start bar from 95/98. No thanks.
Um, what's the difference between Vista's start menu and XP's? Nothing that can't be modified in the customise option. In fact the difference is the icon at the top, and search replacing run. (but they do the same thing.) Other than that it's just that Vista opens 'All programs' over the top of the "recently used". If you want something from recently used then use that menu instead of all programs maybe?!
To be fair though, GUI is subjective and if it's not for you then you can skin Vista in the XP format if you really want to.

Wow, that was a lot of features haha. I'm going to rest my wrists now.

I hope you're sticking with XP then, because it sounds like you'd choose not to take advantage of most of Vista's features. Oh, btw, Alt+Up arrow takes you up a directory in Vista. Quick and easy shortcut if you're used to Alt+Back arrow/Alt+Forward arrow shortcuts. The search also makes things quite easy, I don't actually use the links in the start menu anymore, I just type in the first few letters of what I want to launch or open, and hit Enter.

Understandably, some people are a bit slow on the uptake, and don't readily pick up new ways of doing things. I think part of the reason was that XP was around for seven years prior to Vista, allowing basically a computing generation to learn a certain way of going about tasks. Now that Vista is here, some of the older, clunkier methods have vanished, and people complain that they're gone rather than seeing what has replaced them.

They have quite a lengthy list there, but I think this list is geared towards System Administrators rather than a typical user. Most of these features I would never use:

SDL - present on both systems - a weak argument for why its better on Vista.

Malicious code execution prevention - technically on both systems but Vista has a couple more defenses in there. Altogether, not incredibly useful, at least for me. I'm smart enough to know what would be safe and what wouldn't, and I'm pretty careful with my browsing (noscript in FF).

Bitlocker - useless, I don't need encryption, and I'd hazard a guess that most home users don't either.

Windows Firewall - Both XP and Vista have this feature, but Vista uses outbound filtering as well (I don't know how useful that is though). There are also a couple more convenience features built in, but to be honest I don't use it. Router firewall works just fine for me. Useful for laptops though.

IE7 protected mode - I don't use IE, I'll stick with FF and noscript thanks

ActiveX installer - haven't really had issues with that as I am admin on my XP install. All vista seems to do is modify permissions for regular users a bit.

Group policies - not so useful in a home environment, claims it has a ton more options (500) in Vista. zzzzzzzzzzzz

User accounts - basically they actually properly implement accounts in Vista as opposed to XP, but not so useful if you're the only user. Would definitely be useful if this was a shared PC.

Diagnostics - not incredibly useful. If you're knowledgeable enough to build a PC from scratch, you'll be knowledgeable enough to diagnose the PC yourself, or at the very least be able to research it. a typical user would just bring in the PC to whoever they bought it from and get it fixed.

Event management - Not so sure what this is, but I don't use it. Do you?

Task Scheduling - Task scheduler is more advanced in Vista, but do you use it? I don't.

Image-based setup - not useful for home users

Deployment - also not useful for home users

Setup - Not really a purchase deciding feature. Not really useful for home users either (i usually use nLite/vLite to do these sort of things anyway)

Worldwide single image deployment - again, not for home users

Mobility center - centralizes mobility options (power settings, etc) useful for laptops. But XP has the same thing, just not in one location (have to go to different areas to reach every option). I have a desktop so, not so useful

Sync Center - I don't use this, do you?

Offline files - also, don't use this

Network projection - possible through XP (basically its connecting to a networked projector) but might be easier in Vista - useful for laptops and those who give presentations using them.

Secure Socket Tunnel Protocol - useful in Vista if you plan on using VPN's, makes them more secure

Power management - works fine in XP, just a bunch of fluff here as to why Vista is better

Wireless networking - more convenience options with a bit of protection against connecting to "malicious wireless networks".. what? heres an idea - don't connect to random wireless networks?

Search - Vista has a much improved search engine with plenty of bells and whistles. I'm fine with basic file search, in fact i usually disable file indexing, so, not all that useful for me.

User interface - apparently they don't say a thing about XP's interface. I'm fine with XP, in fact I prefer it over vista. I don't like the IE7 look that they put in Vista, and I do miss the "Go Up" button (now you have to click on the folder you want to visit on the address bar, which admittedly is somewhat useful but I had no idea that feature existed for some time). I really dislike the Vista start bar, I was fine with XP style start bar, but Vista likes to hide previous menus once you enter a submenu, and i find that annoying. I'd like to see everything, I'm not shallow enough to need to occupy as little desktop space as possible with my start menu.. and what was even more annoying is that they didn't allow you to switch to the XP style bar. You can only use the classic start bar from 95/98. No thanks.

Wow, that was a lot of features haha. I'm going to rest my wrists now.

I'm not going to say which is better, but how the heck do you pretend that all us use or don't use the things that you do. Everyone's needs are different. As for home users, you seem like the description of one, but there are many of us that are also home users (despite working on IT or knowing more than the average about it) that MAY use those features at home also.

People should stick with what they like the best. There is no need to rant about the other OS.

Just want to point out that I agree stevehoot's comment about NoScript. I used NoScript for about 6 months and finally just uninstalled it. I just got tired of it getting in the way of my browsing. And honestly, I don't feel any safer with it. A lot of the times, when it pops up a script prompt, I really have no idea what I'm allowing or not allowing. So it's a guessing game. And I feel most users will feel the same frustrations.

They have quite a lengthy list there, but I think this list is geared towards System
Malicious code execution prevention - technically on both systems but Vista has a couple more defenses in there. Altogether, not incredibly useful, at least for me. I'm smart enough to know what would be safe and what wouldn't, and I'm pretty careful with my browsing (noscript in FF).

This is a white-paper for IT departments, with little to nothing to do with home users. Why you clowns are even bringing up features in context of a home environment is beyond me, but apparently reading comprehension is at a premium on this site.

If statements like this;



factor anywhere into the point you're going to make, you are not the intended target of this comparison. Move along.

No it isn't.