"Apptech" wrote in message news:010101c8aa42$1fa83560$e701a8c0@y2k... > I'm not a Vista apologist BUT that is in fact exactly what > has happened since time immemorial. As features are added > speed generally drops. Sometimes it drops more than is > bearable for what you feel you get. Moore's law generally > saves u$oft and others. But, as Moore's law tends to be > somewhat broken at present Vista is in deeper than usual > problems. While true, what's new in Vista that is really needed? I've personally found XP SP2 to be more stable than Win98 SE, so I'm glad that my newer PC's have XP. Also, I find driver support in XP, especially USB support, to be a lot better. There is a lot of hardware I've bought that works well with XP without the need to install a device specific driver. > If you want really fast Word Processing performance with > minimal memory requirements and small file sizes you should > try Word 2 :-). Runs well on Windows 3.1. And so, alas, it > goes. While true, there was a lot you could not do with Windows 3.1 that Win95 and Win98 could do. Windows 3.1 was still stuck with short 8.3 character filenames, which was a fundamental restriction of the older DOS/Windows architecture that was very "in your face" to users. So the question to Microsoft is *why* is Vista better than XP? I don't think that this question has truly been answered. We're still running 32 bit XP here at work. XP 64 and Vista are both noticably slower when run on the same hardware. Jeff -- A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist