much longer with XP than with Vista. Vista’s heavy graphics apparently drain more energy than the simpler XP graphics.

Icons and Tumbnails

XPs static icons have now gone six feet under with the introduction of Vista’s live icons and thumbnails. This is good right? Some users feel though that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the unresponsive icons

This is not about to turn out as an article on Ten Things I Hate About Vista. There is already a great number of technically enlightening pieces that will do that for anyone. This article will instead focus on what basic common user observations point out as unfortunate Vista innovations from old XP features. Some of the items are humorously simple and superficial. They should not be ignored though because a great majority of people around the world are not technology experts and can only make basic observations. Sometimes though, basic observations are what can make or break a product simply because there are more average people than computer geniuses.

XML

Shockingly, some user tests show that .net applications simply run faster in XP than in Vista. If you have to process great amounts of data on .net applications, you may get frustrated with Vista. Users feel that in this respect, Vista only beats XP in the “looks” category. XP is still on top on the aspect of performance.

Shell

XPs Luna shell has now been dethroned by Vista’s Aero. The elegant 3D look and feel of Aero is probably an effective marketing strategy for average users. Experts point out however that a shell is still a shell and does not show real system capabilities. The Luna shell may have looked plain but it did not point to XPs real performance ability.

Battery Life

In another user comparative test, the battery life of laptops seemed to have held on much longer with XP than with Vista. Vista’s heavy graphics apparently drain more energy than the simpler XP graphics.

Icons and Tumbnails

XPs static icons have now gone six feet under with the introduction of Vista’s live icons and thumbnails. This is good right? Some users feel though that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the unresponsive icons

They should not be ignored though because a great majority of people around the world are not technology experts and can only make basic observations. Sometimes though, basic observations are what can make or break a product simply because there are more average people than computer geniuses.

XML

Shockingly, some user tests show that .net applications simply run faster in XP than in Vista. If you have to process great amounts of data on .net applications, you may get frustrated with Vista. Users feel that in this respect, Vista only beats XP in the “looks” category. XP is still on top on the aspect of performance.

Shell

XPs Luna shell has now been dethroned by Vista’s Aero. The elegant 3D look and feel of Aero is probably an effective marketing strategy for average users. Experts point out however that a shell is still a shell and does not show real system capabilities. The Luna shell may have looked plain but it did not point to XPs real performance ability.

Battery Life

In another user comparative test, the battery life of laptops seemed to have held on much longer with XP than with Vista. Vista’s heavy graphics apparently drain more energy than the simpler XP graphics.

Icons and Tumbnails

XPs static icons have now gone six feet under with the introduction of Vista’s live icons and thumbnails. This is good right? Some users feel though that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the unresponsive icons

ply run faster in XP than in Vista. If you have to process great amounts of data on .net applications, you may get frustrated with Vista. Users feel that in this respect, Vista only beats XP in the “looks” category. XP is still on top on the aspect of performance.

Shell

XPs Luna shell has now been dethroned by Vista’s Aero. The elegant 3D look and feel of Aero is probably an effective marketing strategy for average users. Experts point out however that a shell is still a shell and does not show real system capabilities. The Luna shell may have looked plain but it did not point to XPs real performance ability.

Battery Life

In another user comparative test, the battery life of laptops seemed to have held on much longer with XP than with Vista. Vista’s heavy graphics apparently drain more energy than the simpler XP graphics.

Icons and Tumbnails

XPs static icons have now gone six feet under with the introduction of Vista’s live icons and thumbnails. This is good right? Some users feel though that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the unresponsive icons

Aero is probably an effective marketing strategy for average users. Experts point out however that a shell is still a shell and does not show real system capabilities. The Luna shell may have looked plain but it did not point to XPs real performance ability.

Battery Life

In another user comparative test, the battery life of laptops seemed to have held on much longer with XP than with Vista. Vista’s heavy graphics apparently drain more energy than the simpler XP graphics.

Icons and Tumbnails

XPs static icons have now gone six feet under with the introduction of Vista’s live icons and thumbnails. This is good right? Some users feel though that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the unresponsive icons

much longer with XP than with Vista. Vista’s heavy graphics apparently drain more energy than the simpler XP graphics.

Icons and Tumbnails

XPs static icons have now gone six feet under with the introduction of Vista’s live icons and thumbnails. This is good right? Some users feel though that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the unresponsive icons of XP. Again, this is more an issue of superficiality. Live icons and thumbnails don’t mean anything on the performance arena.

Sounds

Users apparently put a lot of thought on system sounds. This is because some feel that sounds can better communicate computer generated messages like battery low or log on or off. XPs grand, booming sound is no longer around. It ha been replaced by more soft and subtle sounds that some users do not find indicative of whatever the system wants to say.

Boot

It is surprising to note that XP seems to boot faster than Vista in some cases. People, of course, want to know why and are wondering if there are also other things that are slower in Vista.

Hardware Requirements

The best thing that is in XP that is not in Vista is that it has lower hardware requirements. Vista is simply too high end in everything. This means that if you have a unit that cannot live up to what is required then you should just forget Vista unless you like having headaches. Users therefore who use their units for basic actions do not need to replace XP at all.

Mail

XPs Outlook Express is no longer around. It is still questionable however, if Windows Mail can really do any better as some claim it should.

Photos

The Picture and Fax Viewer of XP are no longer around. Vista now has Photo Gallery. For ordinary users however, there seems to be no sense in improving the Picture Viewer if all you wanted