The Windows.old folder

Hi, Now i am going to describe Windows.old folder. When you install Windows Vista, the Windows.old folder is created. The Windows Vista installation program creates this folder to store the files from the Windows XP installation. To locate the Windows.old folder in Windows Vista, click Start Collapse this image Expand this Start button

type drive:\windows.old in the Start Search box, and then click Windows.old in the Programs list.

If you are prompted for an administrator password or confirmation, type the password or click Continue.
The Windows.old folder contains the following folders from the Windows XP installation:

1. drive:\Windows.old\Windows
2. drive:\Windows.old\Documents and Settings
3. drive:\Windows.old\Program Files

The "Documents and Settings" folder Most programs store a user's personal files in the Documents and Settings" folder.

Generally, you do not find personal files in the Windows folder or in the Program Files folder.

The "Documents and Settings" folder contains one folder for each user who logged on to the computer in Windows XP. For example, the following folders appear in the "drive:\Windows.old\Documents and Settings" folder:

* drive:\Windows.old\Documents and Settings\Administrator

If you did not use the Administrator account to log on to Windows XP, this folder may not contain any personal files.
* drive:\Windows.old\Documents and Settings\All Users

If you used the Shared Files feature in Windows XP, the shared files are located in the All Users folder. For example, this folder contains recorded television shows on computers that are running Windows Media Center Edition 2005. Open the folders in the All Users folder to locate any files you may want to preserve. Then, copy these files to a new location that is outside the Windows.old folder structure.
* drive:\Windows.old\Documents and Settings\UserName

Most personal files are located in folders that are labeled for each user who logged on to the computer in Windows XP.

User folders
Most personal files are located in the following location:
drive:\Windows.old\Documents and Settings\UserName
This folder contains the following three folders:

* drive:\Windows.old\Documents and Settings\UserName\Cookies
* drive:\Windows.old\Documents and Settings\UserName\Start Menu
* drive:\Windows.old\Documents and Settings\UserName\UserData

Typically, these three folders do not contain important user data. The following three folders are also located in the "drive:\Windows.old\Documents and Settings\UserName" folder:

* drive:\Windows.old\Documents and Settings\UserName\Desktop
* drive:\Windows.old\Documents and Settings\UserName\Favorites
* drive:\Windows.old\Documents and Settings\UserName\My Documents

Typically, these three folders contain most of the important personal files from the Windows XP installation.

Hey, Microsoft: Keep Windows 7 simple

When Microsoft announced that it will keep the Windows 7 moniker for Vista's follow-up, I was happy to hear it. After years of trying to be clever with names like XP or Vista (not to mention Longhorn), Microsoft has finally realized that keeping it simple is the best idea in the operating-system market.

And then, just as the company tried to lay the groundwork for simplicity, it blew up in its convoluted justification for naming Windows 7.

It starts out simple enough: the first Windows was Windows 1.0, the second, 2.0, and so on. But then Microsoft revealed that Windows 95 was Windows 4.0 and "Windows 98, Windows 98 SE, and Windows Millennium each shipped as 4.0.1998, 4.10.2222, and 4.90.3000, respectively."

Oh, and don't forget that Windows XP, although a major release, was actually Windows 5.1, since Windows 2000 was Windows 5.0. And thanks to Vista being dubbed Windows 6.0, we arrive at Windows 7.

Yuck!

Is it even possible for Microsoft to make sense anymore? Why couldn't the company have just said, "uh, we named it Windows 7 because, well, we wanted to"? Wouldn't that have been much simpler?

See, when Microsoft first told us that it wouldn't change Windows 7's name, I was happy. I figured that the company had finally seen the light, and for once, it would try to take complexity out of the equation and start bringing a culture of simplicity to Windows.

I'm starting to think that I was wrong.

The problems with Windows Vista canada go far beyond incompatibility. The real problems with Vista revolve around the complexity and downright absurdity of the operating system's bloated code. Some say Microsoft is a victim of its own success and that it has no other options, but I think that's ludicrous. There's no reason why Microsoft can't simplify the code and create a more robust operating system.

Granted, many of Vista's issues were fixed after SP1, but a slew of issues still remain. User Account Control is annoying (to say the least) and it's obvious every step of the way that Microsoft tried to do too much and address too many problems when it only really needs to do two things: eliminate the bloat, and develop a front end that doesn't try to copy Mac OS X but rather stays true to Windows.

What do I mean by that? Microsoft needs to stop believing that the operating-system business is a beauty pageant and start realizing that what most users want is a simple system that gives them access to what they want as quickly as possible, without exposing them to all the security issues currently plaguing Windows. Granted, many of those security issues are created by the users, but it doesn't matter; Microsoft can do more to protect them.

Maybe it's only a name, but Microsoft's decision to keep it simple made me hope for something more out of Windows 7. I thought that Microsoft was finally drawing a line in the sand by saying it won't simply put a fresh coat of paint on the same problems, but rather finally gut the operating system and make it far more appealing to users by making it easier to use.

When I use Mac OS X, I can't help but think that Apple did something right with Leopard. It didn't try to do too much, but it made all the applications I use readily available, and in the process, it reduced the number of headaches I experience when using Windows.

There's no secret formula to making a fantastic operating system, but I think there is a way to make one that's almost perfect. That operating system would be lightweight and secure. It would offer high usability and deliver an experience that isn't nearly as concerned about beauty as it is quality.

And if we look at Vista, Microsoft didn't do anything of the sort. Instead, it created an operating system that was too resource-intensive, had low usability, thanks to an odd menu structure and annoying pop-ups, and it coveted design over security.

source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10066739-17.html

Windows OS gets another reprieve

Microsoft Corp. has thrown another lifeline to Windows XP users, extending by six months its cutoff date for stopping shipments of the seven-year-old operating system to PC vendors.

Hardware makers that offer "downgrades" from Windows Vista support or Vista Ultimate will now be able to get copies of XP Professional through the end of next July, Microsoft said. Previously, it had planned to halt XP shipments Jan. 31.

Microsoft stopped retail sales and regular licensing of XP on June 30. But it maintained the downgrade option, which lets PC vendors install XP Professional and give users copies of Vista for possible future use.

XP may be available long past next July if vendors stockpile it. "Downgrade rights do not expire," a Microsoft spokeswoman said.

source: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=327935

Two Free Tools for Optimizing Windows Vista

While users and non-users alike do a fair amount of grumbling about Windows Vista, many of us use it. Those of us who do have also typically learned that customizing Vista is essential for everything from how the interface behaves to improving battery life on portable computers. In this post, I’ll cover a couple of free ways to exhaustively optimize Vista.

Tweakguides offers a couple of really exhaustive guides to optimizing both Vista and Windows XP. Dubbed Tweaking Companions, even if you’re already familiar with these guides, the Vista Tweaking Companion has been steadily updated since and is worth getting in its new version. There is also now a paid Deluxe Edition, which I haven’t yet tried, but the free version is very good.

The Vista Tweaking Companion walks you through categorized ways to optimize Vista. The tips include optimizing drivers, adding useful freeware to Windows Vista, shutting down unnecessary features, and more. In particular, Vista is a resource hog, and especially if you are using it on a portable computer with limited resources, getting rid of components you don’t need and use can give you much better performance and fewer headaches.

For a free software utility that allows you to choose Vista optimizations you want, look into Don’t let the name fool you. This is a very easy utility that lets you shut off parts of Vista that you don’t need and may be bogging you down, and more. You can use it to get rid of many of the more annoying scans and notifications that Vista does by default.

source: http://webworkerdaily.com/2008/09/29/two-free-tools-for-optimizing-windows-vista/

Truth in advertising: New Microsoft Windows ad about “nothing”

Microsoft’s first commercial in a campaign intended to reinvigorate the public’s perception of its Windows operating system debuted Thursday night. In it comedian Jerry Seinfeld helps recently retired Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates pick out a pair of shoes at a discount shoe store in an ordinary mall.

Don’t you feel better about using Windows now?

Apparently a belated answer to Apple’s two-year “Get a Mac” campaign starring John Hodgman (PC) and Justin Long (Mac), the Seinfeld-Gates ad left many viewers scratching their heads.

Reaction from both the tech and ad worlds ranged from bewilderment to outright ridicule.

Unabashed, Microsoft claimed the campaign’s first ad achieved its goal. Bill Veghte, senior vice president of Microsoft's Windows and online services business, told the Wall Street Journal on Friday the ad is merely a "conversation starter, an ice breaker.”

Another Microsoft spokesman also spun the widespread negative reaction to the ad as part of the plan, telling the Journal its intent was to “drive buzz.”

Both promised more substantive ads in the future. No doubt future ads will be better; one almost couldn’t do any worse.

A press release even references the “classic Seinfeld sense of the word” nothing in describing the ad.

As a huge fan of Seinfeld’s TV show, I was shocked at how flat and unfunny Seinfeld was. And Gates, who has shown he can poke fun at himself successfully, looked too self-conscious.

There’s zero chemistry between the two men. That doesn’t bode well for subsequent installments.

Microsoft isn’t talking specifics about future ads in this campaign, but a press release it issued Thursday offered a mind-numbing overview:

“The new campaign will highlight how Windows has become an indispensible part of the lives of a billion people around the globe -- not only on PCs but also now online and via mobile devices. It will illustrate how Windows integrates consumer experiences across PCs, online and on mobile phones through Windows Vista, Windows Live and Windows Mobile. “

Did that whet your appetite for what future ads might bring? Try reading the entire release, which manages to inflate a few thin paragraphs of information into a three-page screed. It appears the operating system isn't the only thing at Microsoft that suffers from bloat. Must be company policy.

From the hints Microsoft is giving, future ads will give consumers few if any concrete reasons to prefer Windows. Each of Apple’s ads, on the other hand, portrays a specific reason why consumers should choose a Mac over a Windows PC. That’s why they’ve worked so well.

And that’s why Microsoft can’t get too specific. What sort of advantages could they talk about with Vista?

Despite six years of development, Vista brought few compelling new features. But its steep system requirements and early troubles with driver incompatibilities persuaded many Windows users to stick with XP.

This campaign shows Microsoft is looking over its shoulder, even though Apple’s share of the U.S. computer market is just in the 8 percent range. But that share grows every year, and shows no signs of slowing.

Microsoft’s history reveals it as the sort of company that takes all competition seriously, and hates to lose even a tiny portion of market share (remember its attacks on Linux a few years ago?)

Think about it: Even with Vista’s launch more than 18 months behind us, and the next version (tentatively Windows 7) at least two years away, Microsoft felt the need to blow $300 million on an ad campaign to shore up consumer confidence in an operating system that runs 95 percent of world’s PCs.

source: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/business/appleaday/blog/2008/09/truth_in_advertising_new_micro.html

The main problem with Windows Vista

The New York Times published an article today about Windows Vista that included this: "The main problem with Vista, Microsoft said, was that given the delays, uncertainty and significant changes in the software, the rest of the industry was not ready when Vista finally arrived."

This is, of course, self-serving, companies rarely admit their mistakes. How convenient that the fault lies with the "rest of the industry".

In fact, Microsoft released Vista prematurely. One can only assume that there was pent-up pressure stemming from the delay in getting it out the door. But few Windows users care about the delay. What made an impression, to the non-techies of the world, were the initial problems people had using it.

In the quote above Microsoft was referring to the lack of hardware drivers. They have to shoulder some of the blame for this, both in terms of not working sufficiently with hardware vendors and for releasing Vista knowing full well that driver problems awaited early adopters. Then too, they signed off on calling under-powered computers "Vista capable".

On top of this, Vista wasn't fully baked when it was released. The huge number of articles that suggested waiting for the first service pack is a testament to that.

In fairness, the same can be said of Apple. Leopard (Mac OS X 10.5) too, was far from fully baked when it was released. In this regard at least, Linux shines. There is no marketing department or sales department at Linux headquarters pushing the operating system out the door before the programmers say it's ready. In fact, there are no Linux headquarters at all.

Hassle Factor

The Times article goes on to say "By now, Microsoft insists that most of the frustrating technical problems with Vista .... have been resolved -- and many industry executives and analysts agree." Assuming, for arguments sake, that's true, the out-of-the-gate problems aren't the end of the story.

Vista has to be better than Windows XP. And the judgment of whether it's better or not varies with the audience. While techies may write blogs and articles, nerds are the minority, most Windows users are normal people with lives focused elsewhere. And for many normal people, Vista just ain't worth it.

For example, I can drive a car with an automatic transmission, but not a stick shift. Assuming, for arguments sake, that stick shifts offered an advantage (perhaps better mileage), I have to weigh the advantage against the cost and hassle of making the switch.

For many computer users Windows XP works just fine. It's familiar, it's what they know, it's not a problem waiting to be solved. Some can barely use Windows XP and may not have the ability to adapt to anything new. Technical change is fun and easy for techies, but the same change is hard and/or distracting for others. I deal with many non-techies with jobs in other fields who could care less about operating systems. Their computer is a tool to get their work done and any change is a nuisance. Perhaps one they don't have time for.

They keyboard on your computer uses a layout that was chosen for reasons that no longer apply. Yet, who knows how many better layouts have failed to take off because they couldn't overcome the hassle involved in changing. Once someone learns to type on an existing keyboard, the benefit has to be huge to switch to a new layout.

Against this background, Vista has to be better than Windows XP. Much better. Noticeably better.

I don't see it.

I don't see Vista offering sufficient benefit in the way of must-have features to make it worth the changeover hassle. On top of this, despite whatever strides Microsoft may cite, Windows XP will be more compatible with existing hardware and software for the immediate future. Thus, XP is still the right decision for many Windows users.

Businesses choose which version of Windows to use and most chose XP (see Intel and General Motors). Consumers, by and large, don't chose, they are force-fed Vista. That's a shame. In part it has led to the resurgent interest in Macs (along with the commercials of course) and may well lead to the rise of Linux on Netbook computers. We'll see.