Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Windows Operating Systems Software It's funny.  Laugh.

The Advantages of Upgrading From Vista To XP 765

An anonymous reader passes us a blog posting, which may be just a bit tongue-in-cheek, about the pros and cons of upgrading from Vista to XP. "...there is only one conclusion to be made; Microsoft have really outdone themselves in delivering a brand new operating system that really excels in all the areas where Vista was sub-optimal. From my testing, discussions with friends and colleagues, and a review of the material out there on the web there seems to be no doubt whatsoever that that upgrade to XP is well worth the money. Microsoft can really pat themselves on the back for a job well done, delivering an operating system which is much faster and far more reliable than its predecessor. Anyone who thinks there are problems in the Microsoft Windows team need only point to this fantastic release and scoff loudly."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Advantages of Upgrading From Vista To XP

Comments Filter:
  • by corsec67 ( 627446 ) on Saturday December 15, 2007 @06:28PM (#21711926) Homepage Journal
    Now if only MS could release a version of XP that didn't have the activation stuff. Get rid of all of the DRM that is in Windows now, aid then they would be "customer friendly".

    Quit trying to make the software stop working, and concentrate on making it work all of the time.

    Of course, if the customer experience is terrible, nobody would bother trying to pirate Windows.
  • by slicenglide ( 735363 ) on Saturday December 15, 2007 @06:29PM (#21711930)
    It's really sad when you see how much power is truly lost on vista. I setup a Mac the other day for a client, and it was also running XP through parallels. It ran both just fine with only one gig of ram. A virtual machine, and two entire operating systems... and most PC's out there that are not quad cores with two gigs of ram run like shit. I used to be a microsoft fanboy... -But sadly the tides are changing.
  • by Zymergy ( 803632 ) * on Saturday December 15, 2007 @06:47PM (#21712080)
    Other than DX10.x in Vista for purposefully DX10.x limited specific games releases (HALO 3, et al), what IS the killer app in Vista?
    (Don't flame me man! I am serious, what is the Real "advantage" to Vista for gamers?) What is the performance advantage? Is it designed to fully take advantage of future generations of multiple quad-core processors with 8+GB of RAM and not really current hardware which is not optimized to utilize it?
    Not intending to get into a flame war at all, I have used Vista and I just don't get it.. why the bloat? Why so much DRM? Why specifically break Direct3d and EAX and force the rapid development of OpenAL sound cards and drivers, etc.. Why completely eliminate the look and feel of the UI users have mastered since Win9x/2k (or at least leave a Classic Win2k option for the UI) I play my games in XP and I love it. Once WINE, etc.. can match the performance in gaming of native XP, this discussion will then be between XP and XP emulation.
  • by eniac42 ( 1144799 ) on Saturday December 15, 2007 @06:54PM (#21712134) Journal
    And upgraded to Windows 2000 NT. Seriously. It runs happily on old hardware, an old laptop with 64 MB RAM, 300 Mhz Pentium 3, 2 gig hard disk. I can run most of the apps I throw at it, the few that dont run I dont need on that machine anyway.

    Message to Microsoft: Less == More. Forget the Candy Floss and concentrate on making core API run faster and leaner.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 15, 2007 @06:54PM (#21712136)
    Have we all forgotten so fast? XP's improvement over Windows 2000 was to bring NT to the home user. Home users were stuck with 98SE or ME up until XP. Windows 2000 was simply not useful for home users.

    Windows XP added better support for DOS applications, better backwards compatibility for Windows 9x applications, and most importantly for home users, better games support.

    Vista goes the opposite direction for all of those. Add in the system requirements, which are literally 10 times OR MORE of that of XP, and you've got a simply worthless OS. Throw in broken DRM that caps network performance at about 10%, and an activation system that randomly locks users out of the system for no reason, and you've got a system that is simply worse than XP.

    XP did manage to improve over Windows 2000. Vista fails to offer any improvement. It's slower, runs fewer applications, and is more likely to lock you out. Literally the only thing Vista has going for it are hardware vendors looking to sell users another computer.
  • by mugenjou ( 912908 ) on Saturday December 15, 2007 @06:55PM (#21712148)

    performing complex tasks such as viewing large images, or updating large spreadsheets, instead of the whole operating system locking down for several seconds, it now just locks down the application I am working on, allowing me to Alt-Tab to another application and work on that. I am thrilled that Microsoft decided to add preemptive multitasking to their operating system,
    wait.. this became even worse in vista? I mean, yes, in wixp you can actually alt+tab to another app most times more or less, but explorer.exe(the taskbar) sure isnt preemptive multitasking capable, it just locks up e.g. when compiling so you cant switch window by using it.
  • by h4rm0ny ( 722443 ) on Saturday December 15, 2007 @07:00PM (#21712176) Journal

    Not to be rude, but what the fuck does that matter if the users don't like Vista?

    Well firstly I'm just curious as for the last five years I've developed exclusively on Linux platforms. Secondly, Vista will inevitably improve as bugs are ironed out and driver and application support improves. (It may never be as good as XP though due to the unacceptable DRM), so I want to know if we will ultimately be left with a better system than XP - is this a necessary step back to go forward further? Presumably if Vista does offer better functionality under the bonnet then it could be progress has been made after all. I feel very sorry for the developers who worked on Vista at the moment. It's not as if I'm suddenly going to install Vista (DRM!) but I actually have some idea of what a major effort it takes to produce a working OS and its received nothing but abuse since [before] it was released.
  • by Zantetsuken ( 935350 ) on Saturday December 15, 2007 @07:10PM (#21712272) Homepage
    I think the GP is thinking about WinFS [wikipedia.org]... I think MS meant to deceive here, because I had previously also thought that it was the actual file-system before reading the Wikipedia page just now, naturally having thought that WinFS would be the successor to NTFS... Instead, it turns out that it was only meant to be a database backend for things such as Outlook contacts or whatnot, usable by most applications - but knowing MS, it would only work for their programs.
  • by garett_spencley ( 193892 ) on Saturday December 15, 2007 @07:34PM (#21712428) Journal
    I remember the "group" who used Win2k and didn't see the point in switching the XP. XP wasn't an upgrade or a downgrade. It was a "new" Desktop-targeted OS that was based on NT instead of DOS/9x. So there was no reason for Win2k users to switch to XP since Win2k was already that.

    But that completely forgets all of the 98 and ME users that XP was made for. XP was definitely "the second coming" for those users. It was a HUGE upgrade. In terms of both stability and features. No more blue screens. No more FAT filesystem etc. Most desktop users didn't use Win2k. It was mostly developers and power users. So yeah, there was probably a lot of /. users using Win2k, myself included, but the average desktop was running 9x/ME and there was huge incentive for those users to upgrade to XP.

    Now everyone is using XP for the most part. I haven't used Vista yet, but from what I've heard it doesn't really offer any reason to "upgrade". I was, and still am, curious and am kind of anxious to try it out. But I'm happy with XP and haven't heard any compelling reasons to feel any kind of need to switch.
  • Ballmer read this! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by h4rm0ny ( 722443 ) on Saturday December 15, 2007 @07:34PM (#21712430) Journal

    much longer development cycles between os releases, like 6,8,10 years

    I'm not disagreeing with you as I've not thought about it enough to say whether my own idea is good or bad, but I think rather than longer development cycles, they might actually need shorter ones. The Linux world seems to make excellent progress with numerous small increments. This of course necessitates a quite modular approach to developing the OS (with the most dramatic example being the separation of OS from Window Manager), but this actually leads to a much greater stability as you aren't suddenly shifting from one system to something very new and different, with all the headaches of testing, driver release, app compatability etc., etc. that this causes.

    If a new release of Linux came out ever five years, I think we'd see massive problems with each new release of that, as well.

    Of course the release schedule is driven by marketing, rather than developers so it might seem academic, but I have a suggestion to Microsoft on the million to one chance that Ballmer is reading through these articles in a dark fit of depression. A better solution would be to take an incremental approach to Windows releases and to make money through a subscription process. We know that customers resent being forced to go through an expensive upgrade cycle. Wouldn't the pill be easier to swallow if so long as they paid their very modest subscription to Microsoft, the updates just kept rolling down. One day it doesn't support a journaling files system, the next day it does - much like Ubuntu updates? Microsoft want to be in a service industry, providing media packages and other options with a steady stream of income, not a risky forecasting of sales for each new OS or version of Office. Wouldn't a subscription model suit that better, enabling lots of services to be rolled into one? And at a stroke you've cut down on vast amounts of piracy of the Windows OS. It's surely better to have a million users paying $24 a year than it is 500,000 maybe paying $80 once every five years. New PCs would as usual just come with a modest 1 year subscription free!

    I know that I'd be happy with this model and a lot less resentful of seeing the big cost of the OS added to the price of the PC as one big extra cost. There are so many things that could be rolled into a subscription model in other areas of Microsoft's business that its almost silly.

    The more I think about this, the more it seems like a good idea for both Microsoft and its customers. They're no longer competing with other proprietary OS's (bar the Macs). They're competing with free. And you can't do that by demanding $100 from people. You can do it by asking for a couple of dollars a month and people feeling that they're getting something good in return. If anyone knows the chair launching one, point him in my direction would you?
  • by Toreo asesino ( 951231 ) on Saturday December 15, 2007 @07:48PM (#21712544) Journal
    Ok, in IT, there's essentially two paradigms. Microsoft and !Microsoft (which that alone is a sign on how succesfull MS are).

    The !Microsoft oriented people seem to have a lot more distaste for Microsoft stuff than the other way round, and article postings such as this one is evidence of that. Being, let's say, heavily based in Microsoft, I have tried and indeed on occasion promote OSS tech over MS tech sometimes, and the same goes for my colleagues. Every time I've asked someone bad-mouthing MS stuff how much time they've given to Vista for instance, and the response is along the lines of "fuck off n00b".

    Now, I don't think for a minute that if Microsoft could wave a magic wand and have OSS disappear they wouldn't (no matter how expensive that wand might be), but you all miss a trick here. For Microsoft people, this war isn't about religion, it's ultimately about money. That means any anti-Linux propaganda they may (or may not) push out is calculated with a cool head.
    On slashdot, anti-microsoft propaganda is often pure bitching and rabid foaming at the mouth by some obscure geek sat at home with an opinion the rest of the world doesn't care about. Sometimes you guys have a point, let's not pretend it's all ranting (not even nearly), but you must realise, school-ground article submissions like this one only serve to make you look like kids, and very unprofessional. That image sticks, and spreads too - all of which is a shame BECAUSE FOSS projects genuinely have thier own niche in the IT universe.

    Remember, IT isn't religion, it's a profession, a skill, a choice, whatever. Microsoft for all you bash them, in my opinion look far more organised and professional than the anti-Microsoft people seeking at all costs and turns, to bash and tarnish them. And Microsoft are winning already; just keep checking that MSFT ticker.

    Bring the mod points, this is an unpopular opinion I know, but to quote a cliché - "I've got karma to burn"
  • by cyber-vandal ( 148830 ) on Saturday December 15, 2007 @08:00PM (#21712634) Homepage
    People are doing that now - not many of them but the numbers will grow.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 15, 2007 @08:36PM (#21712880)
    A nice incremental move forward. Lots of stuff under the hood for SAs (Kerb'd NFS), filesystem based directories (oh, so sweet).

    VNC built-in such that when I see a machine on the network, I can bring up it's desktop. Super for around the house. Bring up a remote dual screen and see a really long screen in the VNC window. No muss, no fuss.

    Some nice subtle changes in the GUI. Where it especially shines is when using it as a media center. Drop links to network shares of movies and music into your movies and music folders and they show up under frontrow, like magic. Login to resources is auto-magic (keychain).

    Drop cover art and it shows up like magic too. DVD rips, mpeg4, what have you. Frontrow's new version makes it so much better. A mini + leopard is Apple TV with a slot loading DVD and an accessible desktop.

    Certainly not revolutionary. Nicely revolutionary.

    (I got rid of my last XP desktop (AMD 64's) and got an 8 core MacPro when Leopard was released. Switching was like curing a dull toothache that had been causing me pain for years.)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 15, 2007 @08:58PM (#21713020)
    I play MP3's all the time in the background on Vista. I have a duel-core 2.6Ghz Intel with 4G of memory, and as the screen changes... menus popping up, heavy disk activity, you can hear little glitches in playback. Almost like a 1/10 of a second cut in the song.

    It's amazing they managed to struggle with all the processor power and memory when Amigas can play MP3's.

    I just don't get it.
  • The stuff you hear about has something to do with playing HD content from their computer over HDMI -- or something -- and nobody does that.
    If there were no black people in America, would segregation laws be a non-issue because no one was affected? How many people have to be screwed by an arbitrary, bullshit restriction on technologically sufficient hardware? The whole point of new hardware and software is that it's supposed to be more capable, not less. My monitor is capable of playing video at 1920x1080, and my CPU is capable of reconstructing a compressed video stream fast enough; the fact that it's a 13w3 cable in between is irrelevant.
  • by Fulcrum of Evil ( 560260 ) on Saturday December 15, 2007 @09:11PM (#21713106)

    And now everyone believes XP is the second coming or something. Just hurts your head sometimes...

    It took something like Vista to make us appreciate XP. That and people aren't allowing stuff to install on win2k (Photoshop, I'm looking at you).

  • by Fulcrum of Evil ( 560260 ) on Saturday December 15, 2007 @09:13PM (#21713124)

    You have failed to demonstrate an actual harm. What precisely is it that Vista does that you are mad about?

    It makes a new laptop feel 5 years old?

  • by zarthrag ( 650912 ) on Saturday December 15, 2007 @09:21PM (#21713164)
    No, I run vista on a second partition - I installed it when I thought Crysis was going to be DX10 only. Turns out, if you don't boot it up for a month or so, it comes up in reduced functionality mode, and wants to re-authenticate/authorize itself by calling home. That's totally, completely, and *utterly* unacceptable. I'm not paying MS a monthly fee here - the don't have the right to cripple my shit just because it hasn't been on the internet for a while. Individual applications shouldn't have this power de-facto either. If I pay for something, I should be able to use it - period. So I'm claiming "actual harm" on the GP's behalf. ...There.
  • DRM has more to do with the content producer. By permitted more restrictive DRM, Vista is probably just enabling more content to be sold over the internet.

    It takes two to tango.

    If Vista didn't support DRM, content providers would have less incentive to produce damaged goods.

  • by smash ( 1351 ) on Saturday December 15, 2007 @10:15PM (#21713518) Homepage Journal
    Killer app for vista? Previous versions. Just two days ago, that would have saved a few thousand dollars worth of data for one of my users - and a few hours of my staff's time checking backups for the data. UAC (like it not, its not that different to entering the root password to run system utilities in Ubuntu or whatever).

    If you lot are bitching about performance, get the fuck over it. In 6 months, it will be irrelevant, just as the performance differences between 95/98/2k and XP are. I currently run games on vista with no performance problems - if you have a machine built with vista in mind, it's all good.

    If you *don't* have a machine built with vista in mind, then why are you shocked and surprised that the user experience sucks? Yes, it's built for new hardware. Given that 90% of the time, all that cpu and memory is sitting idle on most people's machines, it makes sense to try and utilise it for useful purposes - for example, previous versions, search indexing, etc.

    Most of that background crap can be turned off if you're really anal about it, but sooner or later you'll (or rather, perhaps one of your users will) do something stupid, like delete a whole heap of crap you don't need or whatever, and wish you hadn't.

  • by ncryptd ( 1172815 ) on Saturday December 15, 2007 @10:26PM (#21713582)
    Whoa. I'm amazed there hasn't been more of an outcry. That's completely unacceptable. If I put my car in a garage (sorry guys), I don't have to call up Ford. What's next, authorizing each bit of software functionality?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 15, 2007 @10:29PM (#21713608)
    I'm going to try and rationally address your post, and at the same time, try and avoid getting rabies off your foaming at the mouth rant from over the internet.

    Firstly, can I say, people like you do more damage to Linux, than 10, or even 100 Microsoft lawsuits. I don't wish to participate in a community that is so committed religiously to an OS, that they can't even see, let alone admit, the benefits of the rival system. Microsoft has 100's, THOUSANDS of flaws, but they do get some things right.

    Your comparison of 98 with XP just goes to show how ignorant, or blind you are to the difference in Microsoft's products. Windows 98, from a stability perspective, is a deeply flawed, semi-32bit shell running on top of a 16-bit ancient bootloader. Stability? It's crap. XP is NOT (entirely) crap. The base system is entirely different; if you honestly think that XP is comparable to 98 in terms of stability, you need your head checked. In fact, from reading your initial post, you already need to book in for a CAT scan.

    Stating that every Windows problem ever is related to the registry is just further evidence of your complete retardation. The last 4 or 5 problems I've had with Windows have been shit x64 drivers that are causing heap corruption in the kernel (I've been tracking them down with Driver Verifier). These problems have no relation to the registry whatsoever. Technically, they aren't even Microsoft's fault. There's not much they can do about 3rd-parties writing miserable unstable drivers that are getting run in kernel mode. What they CAN do is try and provide some quality checks, and one way they do this is through WHQL. Look it up, most of the respectable brand names are involved in such initiatives.

    Would an OSS model on these drivers increase stability? Almost certainly, so take your problems up with the developers churning out the rubbish drivers. I have, I've been submitting detailed bug reports to them.

    If you can't get a stable XP/2K3 system (I won't say Vista, not because it "sucks" or is "lame", but I've had very limited usage of it, so I'm just not even going to comment about what I don't know), then odds are, you're doing something wrong, and not neccessarily MS. Maybe you're just a shit Windows admin, and should stick to the Linux world? I'll have you know I've got my Windows 2k3 server up running perfectly, acting as the host for 3 virtual machines, one of those a FreeBSD box running all my external (internet facing) services. It has excellent uptime, once properly configured, unnessecary services locked down, etc...

    Could you do this just as well on linux/bsd/solaris/whatever? Probably. But that's not to say you CAN'T under Windows. It comes down to the quality of the admin. Judging by some of the comments you made in your previous rant, I'd say your competence with Microsoft products is minimal at best, and if you can't seem to get things working, maybe you should just get out of the Windows world together, and leave those of us that can get Windows products working well, to do our job.

    Am I calling Linux shit? No, not for a second. I'm informed enough to recognise the strengths of each OS, and mature enough not to slag competing OS's off purely because I can't seem to get one working perfectly. My two cents? You should get in contact Adobe and help get them sorted. MY experience with their products has been sub-optimal at best.

    \\hydra has been up for: 36 day(s), 22 hour(s), 38 minute(s), 57 second(s) - last reboot was a hardware reconfiguration, working perfectly.
  • by Anonymous Brave Guy ( 457657 ) on Saturday December 15, 2007 @10:34PM (#21713640)

    Vista is, clearly, both less reliable and less efficient than XP for a significant proportion of people who have tried it. If it had one bad review, that would be one thing, but the web is full of them and of reports from lab tests confirming it in various contexts, and my personal experience and conversations with friends who have seen it is entirely consistent with those reviews and tests. So I have no problem accepting that Vista is inferior to XP in significant ways.

    Now, it may be that it's not really down to the DRM. I find it credible that it is, given the nature of DRM technology, and I guess most people reading this have read the high profile articles with more technical details that claim so. But in any case, it doesn't really matter a whole lot why the performance is worse than XP, just that it is worse. If DRM is getting the blame and MS is suffering bad press because of some FUD here, I'm not exactly full of sympathy: it's not like they have a history of being whiter than white in their objective criticisms of their competitors' offerings, nor like the claims about poor performance/compatibility/reliability aren't essentially all true.

  • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) * on Saturday December 15, 2007 @10:53PM (#21713762) Journal
    I dislike DRM on philosophical as well as operational grounds. If an operating system incorporates it, even if I don't happen to use that feature, I won't use that operating system.

    Please realize that you are not going to talk people into using Vista, PCM2. You delineate all sorts of things that I can do on Vista. There wasn't one thing on your list that I cannot do in XP, in many cases more easily and in most cases faster. So why exactly would I spend the money on the new OS?

    So if you are going to accuse anyone of not using Vista (or talking about how Vista sucks) because they are a "fanboy", you may call me a fanboy of consumer choice and freedom.
  • by Anonymous Brave Guy ( 457657 ) on Saturday December 15, 2007 @11:01PM (#21713804)

    How many years late was Vista? Three? five? In all that time, nobody managed to grab significant market share off Microsoft.

    On the contrary. In the business world, Linux as a server has been a significant player for a long time now. In the home world, the latest generation of games consoles now command something like 80% of the market, which removes the one really compelling advantage for many home users that a Windows PC has had over alternatives like Mac and Linux boxes until recently. Even if home users haven't started switching in large numbers yet, they are much more able to if gaming is a major factor for them than they used to be.

    Even without all of this, we can see the irony that the biggest competitor to Vista for many users is XP.

    In any free market, being several years late and then coming up with the excrement that is Vista would kill your company.

    I think Microsoft are already on the way out, they just haven't realised yet. With the momentum they have behind them it will take several years for the life support machine to be turned off, but for all practical purposes the lemon that is Vista marks the end of their time as the uncontested leaders of the modern software world.

    It's not clear yet whether the alternatives will come from platform-neutral web services, or from increased take up of alternative platforms like Mac and Linux, or from other technologies like games consoles and more powerful PDA-like devices, or perhaps from some new idea that someone has been developing during the past few years but not yet shown publicly. I suspect the reality will be a balance, and five years from now we will have some genuine diversity (and perhaps a renewed appreciation of the need for compatibility and standards) in the IT market for the first time in years.

  • by cmacb ( 547347 ) on Saturday December 15, 2007 @11:19PM (#21713896) Homepage Journal
    That was an excellent summary. As in the past, most Windows users won't know what they have gotten themselves into until it is too late. At least for those willing to be educated, word is getting out. I'm tempted to cut and paste your post an e-mail it to a few non-Slashdotters I know.

    At least then, in the future when they come whining I can say "You were warned!"
  • Re:Because... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AaronLawrence ( 600990 ) * on Sunday December 16, 2007 @12:59AM (#21714420)
    Yes, but times are changing. Even if it's exactly the same thing, people are no longer so excited about the latest and greatest PC. Instead, the PC has become a fairly standard tool that is expected to work a certain way and there's no point throwing thousands of dollars at it just to be "up to date".
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 16, 2007 @01:40AM (#21714608)
    I have to say that I have only encountered Vista for about ten minutes---and had a DRM problem.

    One of my housemates has a Vista laptop, but doesn't own a printer. When tax season came, he needed his W2 form, which was only available as a download from the ADP website. So, he downloaded the PDF, and tried to email it to me. And failed. Vista refused to let him save a local copy so he could email it. When he tried to save it, a little message popped up saying (paraphrasing here,) "The owner of this document has flagged that it contains sensitive information. Windows cannot save a local copy."

    Seriously.

    I even checked the temp directories---nada. Windows was storing it only in RAM.

    In the end, my housemate had to give me his SSN, date of birth, employee data, and everything needed to log into the website from my computer. I saved a local copy and emailed it to him when I was done printing it.

    When he tried downloading it from gmail, of course, Vista forbade him to save it.

    I'm sure Vista can do all the things you list, but when you can't save a copy of your own goddamn W-2 form? Yeah, the DRM really is a problem.
  • by neostorm ( 462848 ) on Sunday December 16, 2007 @03:26AM (#21715076)
    Yeah, sadly, that's exactly what I thought. After SP3, I was certain it was intentional, but I hate saying things like that on forums because it is just a guess, and people are quick to flame you for guessing.
    Due to Microsofts reputation however, it's too easy to believe they would do something like that. I wish we could get away from this company, because things will only get worse from here on out. I'm certain they have a great deal of little things in their new OS that simply aren't "switched on" yet. Once the adoption rate of Vista nears the majority, I could easily see them flicking a switch that causes a "bug" to erase all copyrighted material, or something similar. I don't know, I just see a huge war going on between consumers, and companies grasping for more control over consumers, and something big has to happen on one side or the other eventually.

    Thanks for posting.
  • by jthill ( 303417 ) on Sunday December 16, 2007 @07:10AM (#21715888)

    Ok, here are multiple legitimate reasons:

    1. I've paid many thousands of dollars for this DVD collection. I want backups.
    2. The house has a media server. I keep *everything* on there.

    What crime, pray tell, am I committing when I do either of those?

    Me. Not the usual "what crime could somebody else commit" question, answer my question: what crime is involved in those two increasingly cheap and easily achievable uses?

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek

Working...