Jamez wrote:What is the point in spending £300
I personally remember it costing £70 for Home Premium. Naturally you, being of the willy waving sort, would shell out for Ultimate but that is still only about £180 OEM.
XP does not have stupid, unnecessary 'glass-like' themes which slow down the system
No but it has stupid unnecessary blue taskbars and what not which are run using software rendering as opposed to hardware rendering. Newer machines designed scratch for Vista are less sluggish than the equivalent XP machine upgraded. Plus the glass effects are stunning, I can't stand the blocky style of XP when I have to go back and use it. Of course if you do prefer it its easy to turn off, as t was in XP too/
XP has a nice, clean and uncluttered inferface. Who wants to have stupid 'gadgets' cluttering up the desktop and taskbar?!
those would be the gadgets that you can turn off with one click and have cluttered up the desktop of thousands who installed konfabulator before vista?
Also the interface of the windows explorer windows is vastly improved with the breadcrumb style address bar and the vastly more appropriate buttons compared to that dodgy web link pane down the side of XP windows. The start menu with the search box is a work of genius and I'm lost without it. Although of course you're right, having the start menu folders drop down in the manner of a folder tree is far more "cluttered" than XP's manner of having about 3 pop out of one another.
XP SP3 is very stable and powerful
Yes it is. But since changing my soundcard that disagreed with vista I've not had a single crash. The automatic defragmenter also does its job at keeping the system running nice and snappily.
XP is not jam-packed with DRM
which bits of DRM in particular are you focusing on? Because the WMP11 ones are shared for starters.
tsk @ grindon for beating me to it. Perhaps now you could pick apart Office 2007 for us James.
