Xp Verses Vista

[dotcom]

Both Operating systems are stable, Vista is more secure out of the box.

In terms of functionality Vista has a clear edge over XP, especially when you purchase Vista Ultimate. That edge isn't only clear in the looks department. New features that Vista brings are (just to name a few):

New improved Media Center

Better security, UAC is only one aspect of this

Windows Sidebar

Integrated search

IE7

Bitlocker

DVD maker

Windows Photo gallery

Aero and Flip 3d in the looks department

Windows Media Player 11

Of course there are plenty of utilities that you can use to add these functions to XP as well, but I'm talking out of the box.

If you would purchase a new PC, then no question, get it with Vista, upgrading is a different story, ask yourself a few simple questions:

Is my hardware recent, ie. will it be able to run Vista

Do I want to spend the money, as in, you might as well wait and when it's time to get a new computer, you can get a vista OEM license on that new machine, as opposed to spending money to upgrade XP to vista.

As for this quote:

"No compelling reason at all to upgrade, waste of time and money."

I have tried to at least list a few enhancements that are in Vista, maybe for some people (myself included), reason enough to upgrade. I'll give you a hint, look at the greenbutton, the main site for Media Center people, here you willl find a lot of people, that found a good enough reason to upgrade, in the improved media center application that comes with Vista.

It's a bit like having a Mercedes or a Lada, they both will get you there, but the Mercedes might have a few optionals, but hey if I would drive the Lada, I probably would say that the Mercedes isn't worth the money either

I hope I'm not being irrational here

Thanks bud. Based upon that list of "upgrades" I know for a fact I neither need nor want VISTA.

Forget the car analogy. This one is better. A rolex & a timex both tell time. If I am using a timex I am not going to tell you it is better than a rolex.

Your car analogy is pure BS.

[wpcoe]

My question to MS would be: Why do you keep cranking out new OS (and any other application software) instead of making finally one flawless version of the existing software?

Would you ask the same question of Apple Inc. or the geeks behind the (free) Linux distros?

[b19bry]

My question to MS would be: Why do you keep cranking out new OS (and any other application software) instead of making finally one flawless version of the existing software?

Would you ask the same question of Apple Inc. or the geeks behind the (free) Linux distros?

Now you're being obtuse, they really couldn't be accused of the same strategy which was the point of the post.

[sjaak327]

^In Apple's case, I think you are dead wrong. Not to mention the fact that Apple doesn't give a damm about backward compatiblity, ironically the main reason for instability and security problems of the Windows platform.

But if Microsoft would do just that, the whinging would be massive.

[b19bry]

^In Apple's case, I think you are dead wrong. Not to mention the fact that Apple doesn't give a damm about backward compatiblity, ironically the main reason for instability and security problems of the Windows platform.

>>>And I think you're dead wrong, at least they bring product to market that works pretty well

But if Microsoft would do just that, the whinging would be massive.

>>>In case you hadn't noticed there's been considerable whingeing already

[sjaak327]

^In Apple's case, I think you are dead wrong. Not to mention the fact that Apple doesn't give a damm about backward compatiblity, ironically the main reason for instability and security problems of the Windows platform.

>>>And I think you're dead wrong, at least they bring product to market that works pretty well

But if Microsoft would do just that, the whinging would be massive.

>>>In case you hadn't noticed there's been considerable whingeing already

Believe me, IF Microsoft drops the backward compatiblity they still offer in Vista (so that your MS word 2002 still works) the whinging would be massive, nothing compared to the whinging now.

Yet, this is what Apple did when they moved from OS9 to OSX. But most apple fanboys, just purchased new software, or needed to run that dreadfull classic OS.

[b19bry]

^In Apple's case, I think you are dead wrong. Not to mention the fact that Apple doesn't give a damm about backward compatiblity, ironically the main reason for instability and security problems of the Windows platform.

>>>And I think you're dead wrong, at least they bring product to market that works pretty well

But if Microsoft would do just that, the whinging would be massive.

>>>In case you hadn't noticed there's been considerable whingeing already

Believe me,

>>>If I did I should be happy with Vista now, which I'm not.

IF Microsoft drops the backward compatiblity they still offer in Vista (so that your MS word 2002 still works) the whinging would be massive, nothing compared to the whinging now.

>>>Now you're using backward's compatibility of application software as an excuse for bringing deficient product to market. In that case, what price backward compatibility ?

Yet, this is what Apple did when they moved from OS9 to OSX. But most apple fanboys, just purchased new software, or needed to run that dreadfull classic OS.

>>>I don't think most people would have issue with upgrading application software with new hardware and o/s, so long as the data is backward compatible.

[slackula]

^In Apple's case, I think you are dead wrong. Not to mention the fact that Apple doesn't give a damm about backward compatiblity, ironically the main reason for instability and security problems of the Windows platform.

>>>And I think you're dead wrong, at least they bring product to market that works pretty well

But if Microsoft would do just that, the whinging would be massive.

>>>In case you hadn't noticed there's been considerable whingeing already

Believe me, IF Microsoft drops the backward compatiblity they still offer in Vista (so that your MS word 2002 still works) the whinging would be massive, nothing compared to the whinging now.

Yet, this is what Apple did when they moved from OS9 to OSX. But most apple fanboys, just purchased new software, or needed to run that dreadfull classic OS.

The 'fanboys' remark undermines your point; I am no Apple expert being a fairly recent new user, but my research suggested that the change-over was fairly well managed by Apple. Having OS X certified as a proper UNIX system must be a plus right?

I think MS needs to release a really new OS, with legacy support for a while and then see how many users (sufferers) are willing to pay the very high prices that MS charges for software.

The sheer volume of anti-Vista comments out there are testimony enough.

[sjaak327]

^In Apple's case, I think you are dead wrong. Not to mention the fact that Apple doesn't give a damm about backward compatiblity, ironically the main reason for instability and security problems of the Windows platform.

>>>And I think you're dead wrong, at least they bring product to market that works pretty well

But if Microsoft would do just that, the whinging would be massive.

>>>In case you hadn't noticed there's been considerable whingeing already

Believe me,

>>>If I did I should be happy with Vista now, which I'm not.

IF Microsoft drops the backward compatiblity they still offer in Vista (so that your MS word 2002 still works) the whinging would be massive, nothing compared to the whinging now.

>>>Now you're using backward's compatibility of application software as an excuse for bringing deficient product to market. In that case, what price backward compatibility ?

Yet, this is what Apple did when they moved from OS9 to OSX. But most apple fanboys, just purchased new software, or needed to run that dreadfull classic OS.

>>>I don't think most people would have issue with upgrading application software with new hardware and o/s, so long as the data is backward compatible.

I don't mind you quoting, but embedding your remarks into the quote and hence the blue background makes it not so easy to read.

Nevertheless I'll try to address your remarks:

"Now you're using backward's compatibility of application software as an excuse for bringing deficient product to market. In that case, what price backward compatibility ? "

I'm not using this as an excuse, it is a fact, Microsoft is still making sure that older programs still work under Vista, I have applications running under vista that are over 10 years old. Sometimes they need a little tweaking, more often they don't and run out of the box. That's pretty impressive, no other way to look at it.

You are mistaken, Vista isn't broken, nor is it in any way a deficient product. You can have a different opinion nevertheless, but I find it impossible to believe that Vista would be broken, if it runs without any problems on so many PC's (including about 10 machines I use). You might have a different experience, but please don't discount the experience of people that are running Vista successfully and with great pleasure. As there are many many people with just that experience.

And to be honest compared to XP, vista offers more features, that was the discussion all along, if these features are not reason enough to consider vista, or to upgrade, so be it, but claiming that Vista doesn't offer new features or that it is deficient, is simply not true. and is not backed up by the experience of many other users.

"And I think you're dead wrong, at least they bring product to market that works pretty well"

I think you are referring to Apple here, well I happen to also be a Leopard users, and like the OS very much. But my preference and main OS is Vista. So I guess maybe Vista works for me as well ?

Again, Vista does work, too bad it didn't for you. Don't claim Vista doesn't work, just because you were either unable to use it, or your hardware wasn't up to standards, or whatever other reason.

[sjaak327]

The 'fanboys' remark undermines your point; I am no Apple expert being a fairly recent new user, but my research suggested that the change-over was fairly well managed by Apple. Having OS X certified as a proper UNIX system must be a plus right?

I think MS needs to release a really new OS, with legacy support for a while and then see how many users (sufferers) are willing to pay the very high prices that MS charges for software.

The sheer volume of anti-Vista comments out there are testimony enough.

I apologize for the fanboys remark, couldn't resist. I'm not a fairly new user to the Mac world, as I have to support these machines as well. I'm sure for home users the classic OS envirorment might have worked pretty well. But for people who use the Mac for DTP, it was an absolute nightmare.

At my company we did try to utilise the classic OS environment for a while, but due to frequent crashes, high system utilitisation, and the inability to properly load fonts, we simply upgraded all core software.

Anyway I don't think Microsoft will ever make such a move, maybe they indeed should do it, and offer the same classic OS envirornment for backwards compatiblity, at least maybe they could do a better job then Apple's programmers.

[b19bry]

I don't mind you addressing my remarks but

1. "You are mistaken, Vista isn't broken"........"I find it impossible to believe that Vista would be broken"

I didn't say Vista was broken

2. "please don't discount the experience of people that are running Vista successfully"

I didn't do that

3. "claiming that Vista doesn't offer new features"

I didn't claim that

4. "Don't claim Vista doesn't work"

I didn't claim that either

[sjaak327]

You did claim it was a deficient product, ie. it lacks something, hence broken, or at the very least lacking features as opposed to XP, otherwise what's your point exactly ?

[b19bry]

You did claim it was a deficient product, ie. it lacks something, hence broken, or at the very least lacking features as opposed to XP, otherwise what's your point exactly ?

Your lack of a grasp on the meaning of the word 'deficient' is pretty unimpressive, no other way to look at it. (a clue, it doesn't mean broken).

Since my 'point' revolved around the meaning of that word I'm not surprised you fail to grasp that either, although others had expressed similar sentiments previously.

This -:

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/oh_my_god.htm

gives a rough approximation of where you stand in regard to my 'point'

Alain de Cadenet (man on the ground) = Your position

Spitfire = Trajectory of my 'point'

[sjaak327]

Sorry English is not my first language. I wonder how many languages you speak, cheap shot to attack someone on language understanding. We should be talking about Operating systems, not language.

But I did lookup the word deficient, and according to dictionary.com it amounts to:

lacking some element or characteristic; defective: deficient in taste.

2. insufficient; inadequate: deficient knowledge.

So please enlighten me, in what you do mean, as I'm at a loss here.

To refresh your memory:

In Apple's case, I think you are dead wrong. Not to mention the fact that Apple doesn't give a damm about backward compatiblity, ironically the main reason for instability and security problems of the Windows platform.

>>>And I think you're dead wrong, at least they bring product to market that works pretty well

So apple brings a product to the marktet that at least works pretty well, as opposed to Vista that doens't work pretty well ?

May I say vista is broken then ? As in doens't work well.

[b19bry]

"Sorry English is not my first language. I wonder how many languages you speak"

>>>No need to be sorry, I speak 3 why, is that important ?

"cheap shot to attack someone on language understanding"

>>>It's hardly a 'cheap shot' when, if you came across a word you didn't fully understand, you could easily check the definition which you have now done. I'm not even attacking you on language understanding, but rather you chose to try and incorrectly rephrase

what I'd said (before checking the definition) and attribute claims to me that I hadn't made as I highlighted in post 41.

>>>A 'cheap shot' would be something along the lines of your earlier 'apple fanboys' remark.

>>>Agreed we should be talking Operating systems, but if you try to distort what's being posted I have to take issue with that.

"So please enlighten me, in what you do mean, as I'm at a loss here"

>>>You've printed out the meaning of 'deficient' do you still not understand ? Posters other than myself have indicated that MS have a history of releasing o/s that take a service pack or two to overcome initial release deficiencies.

"To refresh your memory"

>>>I can remember well what I said thankyou or was that another attempt at a cheap shot by you ? Maybe you need to go over the posts to read and understand what's been posted before you post again.

"May I say vista is broken then ? As in doens't work well"

>>>You're obsession with 'broken' is getting tiresome and NO, you may not if you then go on to infer that's what I'd said or mean't. What I said and mean't was 'deficient', is that so difficult for you to grasp ?

Edited July 16, 2008 by b19bry

[sjaak327]

I will try one more time,

Your remark that Apple AT LEAST makes products that work, to me indicates that you think Vista is broken, pure and simple, your rambling about deficient has nothing to do with that remark. Of course Vista can also not be described as deficient, not in comparison to XP at least (not by a long shot actually).

"No need to be sorry, I speak 3 why, is that important ?"

No it's not important, but in my experience, most people that resort to language technicalities, tend to only be sufficient in one language only, you seem to be an exception, good for you.

"It's hardly a 'cheap shot' when, if you came across a word you didn't fully understand, "

I do understand defiicent, The broken part was in reference to your early remark about Apple making products that work, I did say:

"You did claim it was a deficient product, ie. it lacks something, hence broken, or at the very least lacking features as opposed to XP"

Only the broken part in there is incorrect, I know I should have referred to your earlier quote before writing that there, a technicality on your part it remains IMHO.

"Posters other than myself have indicated that MS have a history of releasing o/s that take a service pack or two to overcome initial release deficiencies."

So, we are discussing Vista, not XP, or other MS products, Vista didn't need a service pack or two, the RTM version was stable and sufficient enough. I'm not even sure what the problem here would be, as Apple has exactly the same history, for your information, Leopard is already on 10.5.4. Linux distributions have constant security fixes. Vista in fact is probably the best OS that Microsoft ever released when it comes to the need to be fixed. (maybe with the exception of Server 2008, which shares the same codebase).

"I can remember well what I said thankyou or was that another attempt at a cheap shot by you ? "

No you seem to be taking an issue of me using the word broken, so I thought it best to point out to you, that your remark to me sounded like you were implying that Vista was broken (see begin of this post). If you weren't then I'm sorry.

"You're obsession with 'broken' is getting tiresome and NO, you may not if you then go on to infer that's what I'd said or mean't. What I said and mean't was 'deficient', is that so difficult for you to grasp ? "

It's not an obsession, your usage of at least, to me indicated that Microsoft doens't make products that work. And since we are talking about Vista, it's fair to assume that was what you were talking about. But I'll humour you, as I couldn't be bothered by your technicalities, so you meant deficient, fair enough. Vista at least cannot be described as deficient either, quite the opposite.

To end this tiresom discussion, I have been trying to be of use to the OP, by pointing out the features that are in Vista as opposed to XP (that's in fact the topic of this thread). I have offered him advice whether or not to upgrade or wait for a new machine, and do the upgrade then.

And to address to the OP and other people, that might still have some interest, Vista is a great OS, and there is no need to wait for any service pack, as it works great out of the box. SP1 indeed didn't really fix a whole lot of things to be honest. If you get a new computer, don't downgrade to XP, you are missing out,'Vista offers a great new UI, with more features the XP, and if you feel that this new UI is not for you, then waiting for Windows 7 will not do the trick, as it's save to say, Windows 7 will be a continuation of Vista not Xp.

[Guest Reimar]

Since when something is perfect and not 'deficient'? We all living in an 'deficient' world together with only 'deficient' other humans as they have to live with us 'deficient' individuals!

sjaak327 is right in many of his points, if not in all!

But as nothing is perfect, everything has it's own weak points. So Vista and OS-X as well! IMHO Microsoft's OS's having a big plus because of it's downward compatibility for existing older software which Mac's OS didn't have!, special OS-X!

May it's not a good test for to compare Vista Ultimate against OS-X 10.5.x on an Intel Computer, even if the used hardware is also used in Apple's Computer, except the Audio hardware. But I had just done that and the main differences is nothing less that quite a bid one!

Used the exact same computer, just two different HDD's which same spec, for each OS one HDD, OS-X is far behind Vista: in start up; in normal working speed; in downward compatibility; in connection speed on the internet; in network connection and speed and so on!

Even just a simple program like Safari is possible to upgrade to the latest version because the DS-X isn't the last, or min. 10.5.4 but 10.5.2 which is just 6 month old! Download of 60 MB took on the OS-X just a little as 2 h 15 min whils on Vista Ultimate on the same computer as long as 6 min!

Anything more to say?

That's just some fairly good experiences with that two OS's!

Cheers.

[sjaak327]

Well Reimar, I have to admit I love both OS. I use Vista as my main OS, but I do love Leopard as well, truly a great OS. At the end I still prefer Vista.

Why, that's simple, the availability of applications and the freedom of hardware choice, something that is much less when running Leopard.

Also I like the UI of vista better, Leopard's dock is clearly not as handy as vista's startmenu, which incidentially is much better the XP's.

What really becomes tyring is the Vista bashing that goes on in the press and on forums. If I unjustly accused B19bry of that, then I'm sorry, but it did seem to me he was trying to do some as well.

Regardless, I have worked with both Windows and Mac OS for years and years (also different distributions of Linux), and both Vista and Leopard (let's not forget, Leopard is under some pressure from the Apple community as well, almost like Vista) are clearly the best in their family.

And I would find it a shame if people actually ask to downgrade to XP when buying a new pc, something that happens, as they are really missing out on a great OS. It's more secure, it offers more features, and aero and the new UI aren't just eyecandy, they really make running a computer a better experience.

[A_Traveller]

However, even Reimar noted that his initial experiences with Vista were problematic, ultimately only being recently solved in one case be 'flattening' the system and installing Vista RTM + SP1 which then provided acceptable performance.

On the 'much better' point, let's just say the overall experience has not been positive. As I've noted before, the business marketplace has little appetite for Vista since much of its proclaimed 'security' comes from the default admin account and the 'sandboxing' of IE 7, which is available for XP, despite not being offered initially, and most professional corporates run a user/admin infrastructure, thereby negating the Vista advantage, whilst leaving them with the resource bill.

Regards

Edited July 16, 2008 by A_Traveller

[Guest Reimar]

However, even Reimar noted that his initial experiences with Vista were problematic, ultimately only being recently solved in one case be 'flattening' the system and installing Vista RTM + SP1 which then provided acceptable performance.

On the 'much better' point, let's just say the overall experience has not been positive. As I've noted before, the business marketplace has little appetite for Vista since much of its proclaimed 'security' comes from the default admin account and the 'sandboxing' of IE 7, which is available for XP, despite not being offered initially, and most professional corporates run a user/admin infrastructure, thereby negating the Vista advantage, whilst leaving them with the resource bill.

Regards

The 'problematic' wasn't mainly about the OS but abut lack od working drivers provides by 3. party manufacturers.

I really do not understand why all bother against Vista and Microsoft but not against that 3. parties?!

Even until today there a lot of the 3, party manu's which refusing for to providing good working drivers for Vista, like Lexmark (I know that while I've bad experiences with that driver I was need for th X215!). And the same happens for many Software Developer as well!

Ok, before SP1 I was need to tweak Vista for my own use but that wasn't problematic for me and I've known how to do that. With SP1 I don't need to do that anymore but if I do it, I even get more out of Vista.

It's for me the most secure and most stable Windows, beside of Windows 3.11 I had used until now!

And Vista provides much more than just an 'acceptable performance' for me and many others I know and work for and with!

Cheers.

[sjaak327]

Yes, but running user/admin inside XP is a bit troublesome, yes it is possible, but for home users, this is not being done on a broad scale.

Under Vista it doesn't matter if you run as user or admin, UAC is the deciding factor here. I agree it can sometimes be a little bit over the top (for instance when trying to make changes to the "all users" start menu) but it does make sense, I mean why would someone want to change the content of system32 for instance. Something to note here, is that Vista receives all the whinging about UAC, but OSX basically does the same thing, but without the critisism.

I think for consumers, Vista offers that better security, without the need to run as normal user. (how many take the trouble to run as user in a home envirorment ?). And of cousre the features that Vista offers like Media Center, and the new UI, dirext X10 would be much more applicable at home then at work. Yet previous versions, is another feature that will benefit home and business users alike (again less so for business, they store files on file servers).

Yet, Vista offers better deployment options over XP, so that would typically be something worthwhile for businesses. Another one would be smb 2.0 which will speed up connections to AD file servers and DC's.

Of cousre a typicall business writes off a pc in three years, I for one would not upgrade an existing PC to Vista, I would wait until those three years are over, and then simply install Vista instead of XP.

The company I work for, would be ready for Vista, (deployment, patch management, network) where it not for the fact that our webdesigners still don't support IE7. I know pretty lousy, but that's the reality.

[A_Traveller]

Reimar, either you had the problems which you claimed before or you didn't, at one stage you said, if memory serves, 'you were ready to give up', and yet AFTER SP1 with a clean install you claimed that everything was much faster than XP, despite the point that anyone who has spent the effort to properly benchmark is only too aware that Vista is not significantly faster than XP.

Now the driver nonsense, despite your desire to parrot the PR machine statements, the reality is, as is usual significantly different. Initially in the dim distant days manufactures were faced with the invidious issue that drivers were needed to match the market leader, and the so called winmark programme was designed to facilitate and manage this, whilst providing MS with key intellectual property. Spin forward to '03, after the decision to reset Vista and to formally place elements of the driver protocol outside the kernel, placing the entire development of this infrastructure upon manufacturers {on the basis of we have the OS market DoJ notwithstanding so you'd better deliver}. However, since the OS techniques were at best in-flux, and secondly unlike the manufactures experience of winmark techniques no intellectual property was leaving Redmond, the issues were how to program to a moving target.

In fact it is to many manufacturers credit that they at least hit the target, but often, not bullseye initially. These ongoing costs were borne by the companies, and they had {and continue to have} their own resource issues to deal with. In some cases there just wasn't the time or possibly the money, let alone people to ensure 100% coverage of products. This of course plays into the hands of MS by placing a barrier to upgrading equipment for XP, because 'the drivers are not available and its nothing to do with us' said a MS spokesperson on condition of anonymity.

Now to the market factors that exist, the ongoing Vista Capable and Vista Ready situation is one which, despite serving Intel's interests {and notably not the customers} did nothing to serve MS' and even worse created an ongoing set of legal issues which dog the OS to this day. By not addressing in a timely manner the concerns at launch and thereafter{remember the unwillingness to even discuss a service pack, the unnecessary FUD re IE7} MS have created a position where, even allowing for Vista now {SP1} being a very different product than RTM, that they are perceived {and the OS} as lacking in clarity. as the PR men should be saying {though the spin cycle has always ruled at MS} is that they have failed to get their POV to the customer base.

By the by I've used Vista, XP, OSX and *nis's in 'anger' consistently over the last few years {yes pre-release of Vista direct from MS} so with respect I have exposure and measurement skill required to support my views.

Regards

PS On development issues, only a fool develops to a browser, develop to standards and ensure compliance from that perspective, since after discussions {read bringing voices down to a scream} IE8 should be more standards compliant 'out of the box'.

[dotcom]

A traveller. All good points. I would like to add that even Intel drivers (intel_inf_9.1.0.1002) None of them are certified by the big gorilla.

I doubt that is a fault with Intel. I can surmise that MS just drags it's feet issuing the certs & charging vendors huge fees.

[b19bry]

"I for one would not upgrade an existing PC to Vista"

I knew we'd have to agree at some point sjaak, kind of answer's the OP too .

[sjaak327]

"I for one would not upgrade an existing PC to Vista"

I knew we'd have to agree at some point sjaak, kind of answer's the OP too .

Yeah

Even though I did say something along those lines a few pages back

But just to ellaborate on that, I was talking about business PC's at my place of work, at home I did upgrade 3 pc's to vista already, and only the old laptop is still running XP, I don't want to torture that old thing with vista

I also have to admit that these upgrades didn't cost me any money, but surely even if I had to pay, I would pay to upgrade my main desktop and my media center pc. Especialy the latter, I'm so happy with that as tv replacement in my bedroom

Incidentially I'm also running Windows 7 (build 6519), it looks just like Vista, with only a few new things. I don't know where it will go, but I'm guessing that it won't be the same upgrade as XP to Vista. I think we will get less feature improvements this time around. Unless of course they are going to give us WinFS but I'm betting they won't.

[b19bry]

"I don't want to torture that old thing with vista"

As the saying goes "If it isn't broken don't fix it"

[b19bry]

A_Traveller, you're observations are spot on !

As for "only a fool develops to a browser, develop to standards and ensure compliance from that perspective"

Amen to that.........unhappily there still seem to be a lot of fools out there

Edited July 16, 2008 by b19bry

[sjaak327]

"PS On development issues, only a fool develops to a browser, develop to standards and ensure compliance from that perspective, since after discussions {read bringing voices down to a scream} IE8 should be more standards compliant 'out of the box'. "

Yep, the reality is, that many designers are developing to browsers, IE8 indeed seems to be more standard compliant, and passes the acid 2 test at least (something that can't be said of IE6 and IE7).

The downside to using IE8 is that some websites won't display correctly, unless you run that IE7 compatiblity mode.