Talk:List of features removed in Windows Vista/Archive 1

Program Manager

I couldn't find an explicit mention of the Program Manager being removed. While it may fall under one of the categories already mentioned, it shouldn't hurt to give it explicit mention. The Behnam 01:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Program Manager was removed in XP SP2... these articles generally follow a pattern of reporting a comparison with that particular version of the OS. -/- Warren 11:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This artical should therefore have an explicit link to features removed in SP2, as this could cause a possible 'downgrade' for SP1 users, XP Tablet PC edition, XP Tablet edition 2005, Windows ME users, Windows 2000 users, windows 98 users, etc.

Professional to Home

Although this may require a seperate article, there should be a mention of features lost when moving from XP to a non-equivilent edition of Vista. Examples of this include the loss of networking features when moving from XP Professional to any of the home or starter editions, the loss of features and inability to upgrade from any of the Tablet PC editions to any edition other than ultimate... etc. This is vital information- for example, it is imposible to upgrade from Tablet PC Edition 2005 of XP To Vista Home Basic or Vista Home Premium, despite the statement of inclusion of "Windows Tablet and Touch Technology" on Home premium. Also, the Fax module has disappeared even in Home Premium, rendering the modem card stuck in Home-Premium computers available at most retail outlets highly deceiving. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.31.147.83 (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Reorg

This page is terribly badly organised. Specially compared to Features new to Windows Vista. I was going to do some grouping of the points. Any ideas from anyone before I start? peterl 01:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking sections of:

• Internal changes
• File system changes
• Removed programs
• Removed shell-related features
• Features removed from Windows Explorer
• Features removed from Internet Explorer
• Features removed from
• Changes to networking
• Other minor changes

Anyone else have any ideas on this? peterl 10:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You might start working on it. But I think that File System changes can be merged into Internal changes, Features removed from Windows Explorer can be to the shell changes. Sections for individual program may be warranted when the list of changes is large (Internet Exlorer fits the bill).

Also, the GDI stuff should be removed. Nothing was removed, but a lot has changed (the paragraph does not make everything clear and is wrong in certain places). I think it should be removed from here. I will exlain it in detail in the Technical features... article. --soum (0_o) 10:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Media Player plug in

This bit has been deleted:

A Windows Media Plugin is not included, presenting a barrier for alternative web browsers such as Firefox to play embedded Windows Media content.

Looks to me like it it's valid; anyone got any other info?peterl 01:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That the plugin s not included may be said, but the criticism is no more valid. --soum (0_o) 01:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but this page is not about criticisms of Vista. There are clear work arounds to the missing plugin on the Firefox page as well. But as far as a comprehensive treatment of the topic, surely this item should stay? peterl 02:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats what I was saying - the first part ("A Windows Media Plugin is not included") may be said with a better description of what it missing, rather than using the FF example. --soum (0_o) 07:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I added the bit back, and updated it to include the new downloadable plugin and the development with Microsoft Silverlight. Quasar2112 18:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Phone Dialer

Phone dialer is still in vista, but its not in the start menu. I found it by search for phonedialer.exe or somehting like that. This is amrykid but not signned in

Some things are quite questionable!

I recently used the file type dialog on vista for changing the default app for some video file types so that's just garbage sorry. And of course are IExplore 7 and the Windows Shell as tightly integrated to each other as ever. Install IExplore 7 on XP and with some experience you will see where the small differences are.

And I am not a fan of some "features" of vista as the terrible DRM stuff and the possibility for MS to disable your operating system from out the internet, so don't get me wrong.

IE7 is not integrated with Explorer on Vista. Something that I see as a step backwards. DRM and your other concerns are not related to features removed from Vista.

^- if this is as you say then please give some hints to proove your actual finding. I can mine: shlapi and consorts are as ever bound to IE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.226.32.17 (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

The file association app is indeed garbage, but that is mentioned in the article.

--Anss123 15:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I see so here is no interest in good journalism and information but just to wine about Vista .. whatever :s —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.226.32.17 (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

WP:NOR is a show stopper for good journalism (whatever that is), less you have a published source.

In any case, shlwapi is a library used to parse URI paths. It is not unusual for separate applications to link up to the same library. Almost any app on Windows use the shell32 library, for instance, but that does not mean the applications are integrated with Windows or each other.

--Anss123 00:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay I can follow your argumentation .. but shlwapi and friends are implementing public api function calls, and are installed/updated with IE, and are fundamental to it, so I fail to see where the integration was removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.226.17.51 (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

We're veering of topic here. But the way I see it, if the applications run in different processes and keep ipc to a minimum they're separate applications.

Keep in mind that The exact delineation between the operating system and application software is not precise.

--Anss123 19:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

In This case IE has never been integrated with the shell. So .. I think you are right this is just absurd ;) xxx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.226.17.51 (talk • contribs)

Thats not quite the case. Up until the latest version, Windows Explorer was an OLE host for the IE COM control. So, it hosted the IE ActiveX control in its own process. IE7 on, it runs in its own process. --soum (0_o) 02:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

And IE being a COM component, has its DLLs shared between all processes that use it, though. But that is true of every other COM component. But each process has its own execution stack. Earlier, this was in Explorer's process, now in IE's process. --soum (0_o) 02:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Features Removed from Windows Explorer

It IS possible to remove the "favourite links" pane on the left of windows in Vista - just go to Organise > Layout and uncheck "navigation pane". Then apply this to all Explorer windows using Organise > Folder and search options, View, Apply to Folders. 131.111.243.37 02:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The "up one level" button has been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.141.30 (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Autosorting

Regarding the autosort on the rename of a file. Previously it didn't re-sort. I don't think the 'removal' of 'don't sort' qualifies as a 'feature removed'. So I've taken that out.

Sure Vista has plenty of annoyances, but I don't think they qualify as 'feature removed'. peterl 23:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

DWM

"all Windows applications including GDI and GDI+ applications run in the new Compositing window manager, Desktop Window Manager."

What about when DWM isn't running? Josh 19:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"undo, DWM might be optional but using it turns off h/w accln for GDI"

What? The article makes it clear that GDI is NOT hardware accelerated, ever. Josh 13:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Several GDI(+) operations, such as blitting ARE hardware accelerated, given hardware support. --soum ^talk 14:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand how a new optional program disabling something while it's running constitutes a removed feature. Josh (talk | contribs) 19:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

File Sync

Should this article include features that were planned for Windows Vista but didn't make it, one example being the file synchronization that Microsoft wanted to put into Windows Vista? --Cumbiagermen 01:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont think so. The main Windows Vista article itself lists the things which were planned but eventually dropped. The Development of Windows Vista article also contains stuff which did not make it. Adding them here will cause confusion. This article focusses on stuff which was there in PREVIOUS Windows versions (for years) and which was removed/changed in Vista. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.128.181.26 (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested Move

Are these really featured removed "from" Vista, if Vista was never to have them to begin with? They're obviously features removed from Windows. But they weren't removed from Vista.

So, perhaps the article should be renamed to "Features removed in Windows Vista"?216.6.128.244 (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Filesystems

Please stop changing the article to say Vista can only be installed on FAT32 and not NTFS when Microsoft has stated that it's the other way around and I "somehow" have Vista installed on NTFS. - Josh (talk | contribs) 01:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Internet Explorer

Many of the items listed under Internet Explorer are true of all versions of Internet Explorer 7, and therefore really don't belong in this article, as they aren't specific to vista. BThetford (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Vista removes the option to not upgrade to IE7. - Josh (talk | contribs) 23:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not very good logic. For that matter, XP removes the ability to not upgrade to IE6. No ability was removed. It is simply the software that came with the system, and older software is incompatible. Internet Explorer changes are pretty much irrelevant to Vista, itself, and should be discussed in an IE article - not here. BThetford (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What comes out of the box - whether that causes loss of functionality or gain compared to the previous version is the relevant aspect and accordingly, IE7 removals are appropriate. : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xpclient (talk • contribs)

The point reading "The maximum size for the "Temporary Internet Files" folder (downloaded files cache) is limited to 1024 MB in Internet Explorer 7. This is also true for versions of Windows other than Windows Vista." Is ambiguous - If it is true of other versions other than vista then it was either recently added in which case the second sentence should be removed; or it was removed in XP in which case it shouldn't be listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.227.8 (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

They imposed the 1 GB cache limit in IE7. XP never shipped with IE7 but what it means is IE7 for XP & 2003 has the same limit. Anyways, I've reworded it to be clear. As such, everything under the IE section applies to IE7 so that last line can be removed as well if there is any objection. :) - xpclient ^Talk 18:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Slipstreaming

It is possible to slipstream SP1 into Vista via vLite. The article claims otherwise. BThetford (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

vLite is a "hack" and not a Microsoft-supported tool. Socrates2008 (Talk) 14:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

SP1 can be slipstreamed using an administrative installation. No "hack" involved. --soum ^talk 15:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Drive mappings

Windows has always allowed a network UNC to mapped without a local drive letter being assigned. At the console, this is "Net use \\server\share" while in Explorer, you chose "(none)" as the drive letter. The latter has been removed from Vista. Socrates2008 (Talk) 14:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that functionality, but simply connecting with a UNC path is not called "drive mapping". -/- Warren 14:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

So what's it called then? (It uses the "drive mapping" dialog box). Any any event, the point is that this functionality has been removed. Socrates2008 (Talk) 14:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Deprecated Features

After the xcopy bit, I wanted to raise the issue - This article seems the best place to put a list of features that have been deprecated from windows vista, in their own section. So the question is a) Is this the right place, and b) would it be a useful list - I think it would, as it was only by looking at the xcopy article I saw that it had been deprecated - If I was lokking for info, I would have started here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.182.210 (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Windows Explorer

The Windows Explorer section has a bullet saying:

The "Status" bar no longer shows the total space used by a folder when displaying a folder's contents or free space remaining on the disk.

This is not correct. By default, Windows Explorer in Windows Vista displays a Details Pane at the bottom and not a Status Bar. The Details Pane displays different data to the Status Bar. To show the Status Bar, one must press ALT, and then click View -> Status Bar. This shows the normal Status Bar underneath the Details Pane. As far as I am aware, this Status Bar displays the same data it did in Windows XP. I don't have a copy of Windows XP to verify this though, but I can verify that it displays the remaining space on the disk and the combined size of the current file selection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcelvr (talk • contribs) 14:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course it displays a Details Pane but we're still talking about the status bar. Get access to Windows XP and you'll know the difference. Vista does NOT show the size on the status bar when nothing is selected, it only shows the size when at least 1 item is selected. :) - xpclient ^Talk 18:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The line I just removed regarding opening a new window through control-double-clicking is a fairly basic mistake and was easily verifiable. Has this page been subtly vandalised? - Random digg reader

Ultimate CAN run dynamic content as wallpaper

There is an Ultimate Extra called "Dreamscene" that can run dynamic content, despite what the first bullet says.Bettering the Wiki 23:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

TELNET

has also been removed.

it can still be accessed through third party tools etc, but actual telnet cannot.

Explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.191.28 (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Just not installed by default.124.170.0.150 (talk) 05:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

HyperTerminal has been removed, but the Telnet command-line application still exists. -Trevor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevorsg (talk • contribs) 13:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Title of Article

These features were never a part of Windows Vista and therefore were not removed from Windows Vista. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foraneagle2 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - this article needs a better name, something like "Legacy Windows features removed in Windows Vista". --Mwongozi (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"Legacy Windows features not present in Windows Vista" -- Random digg reader

I agree, and came to this talk page for this very reason. Perhaps a better name would be "Windows XP features not in Windows Vista", or something similar. Gh5046 (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Digg vandalism

This page has been linked from Digg, a high traffic website with many immature people. Something needs to be done.  Dooga  ^Talk 05:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have requested semi-protection  Dooga  ^Talk 05:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Highspeed firewire

The article about IEEE 1394 details vista as not providing support for >100mbps firewire, but this page does not. 80.6.204.97 (talk) 07:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

RunAs

Please read this http://blogs.msdn.com/uac/archive/2006/10/12/uac-bug-empty-user-name-field.aspx it also works on the retail version, you just need to use the Group Policy Editor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.137.75.134 (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Windows Explorer and seeing the full path

"It is not possible to display the full path in the title bar when Windows Aero is enabled. When Aero is disabled (Classic folder view), the full path can be displayed in the title bar."

This statement is wrong. Clicking on a whitespace area to the right of the breadcrumbs will bring up the full path in Windows Explorer. I don't think there is any way to do this directly with the keyboard, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.198.194 (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a way using the keyboard: press Alt + D (for aDdress bar) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevorsg (talk • contribs) 13:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hurrah for learning new shortcuts!

However, in addition I should learn to read as the original statement is actually correct (the path isn't in the title bar); when I read "title bar", I imagined the original text was referring to the address bar for some reason. Anyway, fixed 90.209.196.195 (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is indeed correct: The path is not shown in Windows Explorer's title bar with the Aero visual style. That said, it's hard to say that this is a "feature removed from Vista", considering that the path is displayed directly underneath the title bar. This is information more suitable for the Windows Explorer article... Warren -talk- 23:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Installing Vista with Upgrade License

It is no longer possible to install Windows on a formatted drive by using the CD of a qualifying version of Windows to validate your install. The user will have to install the qualifying version of Windows and perform an in-place upgrade from the qualifying operating system.

It is indeed possible to install Windows Vista on a formatted drive using the CD of a qualifying version of Windows to validate your install, or even the Windows Vista Upgrade DVD itself. For the details see: More on the Vista upgrade secret and Microsoft Confirms Vista Upgrade Limitations. AvitarTech (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

multiple network adapters cannot have same IP

nerver used wikipedia so i wrote here, please remove if not correct information, or move to proper place. multiple network adapters cannot have same IP, in windows XP, if ethernet adapter is unplugged, you could still use the same IP of ethernet adapter in wireless adapter. in Vista this is not possible, even if etherhet adapter is disconnected, wireless adapter cannot have the same IP of ethernet adapter, if you continue anyway, one of the adapter's IP will be blank. is this correct ?, if not please tell me how to configure same IP on both interfaces, obaid onaogh@gmail.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.150.206.114 (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hyper Term

HyperTerm is also missing from Vista. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.186.47.43 (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean HyperTerminal? It's already listed. - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Reason of "fact" next to ref

I put "fact" next to a ref, as the ref does not verify the bullet.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

AutoPlay

I have happily been suppressing AutoPlay with the shift-key on my Vista laptop, so I'd say the part about that not being possible is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.66.161.122 (talk) 07:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? AutoPlay must have been disable in your control panel. Bcoz MS themselves state so and it has been verified too. Don't write off the article by calling it incorrect. There are plenty of references and "proofs" provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.128.201.89 (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Is Silverlight required for MSN Games?

Internet Backgammon, Internet Hearts (not to be confused with Hearts), Internet Reversi, Internet Spades, and Internet Checkers have been removed. They are freely playable online on MSN Games; however they require signing in to a Windows Live ID.

Is the Silverlight required in order to play MSN Games? If yes, should it be added to the article?Junkcops (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Those games have been around since the days of Windows 9x, even before Silverlight's grandfather was born. The online versions use ActiveX and are tied to a Live ID, not executables that painlessly sign in. - 221.128.201.89 (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The Recycle Bin Bug

It is not possible to view the collective Properties of multiple selected items in the Recycle Bin.

I strongly disagree with it belonging here. Its not a "removed feature", its just a bug that has gone unfixed. If the feature were consciously removed, then the UI entry points to invoke the feature would not have been left dangling. This article is to document the design decisions that directly remove a feature, not documents bugs that result in denial of some service. Its the same situation as the automatic font color bug in Excel (set font color of one cell to automatic, and background to black; repeat the same experiment with one cell in a table in Word). Its not that the feature is gone, its just that the invoke path has a bug which is preventing it from being successfully invoked. I suggest removing this till a source confirms its removal. --soum^talk 12:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate Title

"Features removed from Windows Vista" would refer to Windows 7, meaning its features removed from Windows Vista.

What actually would be accurate would be to say "Windows XP features removed IN Vista" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.156.214.1 (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Windows features removed in Vista? --HappyDog (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This has always annoyed me. How about "Features removed in Windows Vista"? It would fit in nicely with Features removed in Windows 7. Jvd897 (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Features removed from Windows Vista → List of features removed in Windows Vista — article is in list, not prose; name ambiguity as above. --Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done ZooFari 03:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well no, not quite - you've not used the name proposed above. Also, shouldn't you have waited for some consensus first? Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. And no, this does not require consensus. If it's a controversial move, and you believe consensus is required, please do not use this tag. ZooFari 22:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What's the point?

I guess I have 2 questions that may seem stupid... or at least naive...

Firstly why have these previous (useful) features not been included in Vista & W7?

And secondly, won't anything be done about pages like these where people bemoan their loss? - ie. any chance of them being reinstated in a future update? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuyocksol (talk • contribs) 01:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

KeepRasConnections

Networking

---

...

• Changing the KeepRasConnections registry key to remain connected after logging off from a RAS client is not supported in Windows Vista.

...

Microsoft have a hotfix that re-introduces the KeepRasConnections value (though they've changed the key it goes in). Also works on Windows Server 2008 (and I suspect it's more targeted to the Server crowd): http://support.microsoft.com/kb/950918 - 114.72.230.144 (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Start menu section issue

The statement regarding the classic Start menu has repeatedly been removed. It belongs here because it refers to the removal of the option to combine old and new features that was available in Windows XP. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is the removed text that I believe you were referring to (emphasis mine). "Many of the above features function as expected when using the classic style start menu, however the classic style start menu emulates older versions of Windows, so new features from Windows Vista and Windows XP, such as the search box or most recent start menu items, are not available."

There are no equivalent Instant Search or MFU item options for the classic Start menu in Windows XP (or in previous versions of Windows). Therefore, these features were not removed from the classic Start menu in Windows Vista. (72.251.172.228 (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC))

Reverted good faith edits by 192.87.10.101 (talk): This article is about removed features, not behavior changes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_features_removed_in_Windows_Vista&diff=647594676&oldid=647436894

Total arbitrary distinction.

The first mentioned feature:

"Grouping items by name in Explorer no longer groups them under each individual letter of the alphabet. Items are always combined into two or more groups."

is also basically a change in behaviour.

If I define it as "Being able to select files and then still have them selected after changing the sort order", that is a feature, not a change in behaviour.

Sorry, but adding valuable information should have precedence over nitpicking about definitions.

Hi.

Let me make position very clear: I used the context explanation for my revert, not because it is the most relevant, but because it is the most polite. However, there actually more serious problems with your contribution. First and foremost, it lacks source. Without source, the value is zero, and deletion is the right of the first person who find it of dubious accuracy. Now, if it had source, I would have probably moved it to another proper article to solve the problem. But for all I know, this could be (a) a bug of a third-party Shell Extension for Windows Vista, (b) a feature added by third-party Shell Extension in Windows XP (c) actually something that Microsoft or users consider an improvement (and hence must be added to new features of Windows Vista).

Last but not least, taken alone, I don't think these items are "valuable information" at all. On the contrary, I think these items lack due weight and only serve to crowd the article. Using an arbitrary form of the hated "other stuff exists" argument does not improve your POV.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Lacks source! Don't make me laugh, the only reason you didn't accept it is because YOU didn't write it, the criteria you lay down here are all applicable to at least half of the original document (which I assume you wrote a significant part of?). If you're so knowledgeable you would have tried what I wrote on a Windows XP and a post-windows XP system and would have discovered that it was true, without your so called extensions or other nonsense.

But go ahead, enjoy being "admin" in your own created tiny small dictatorship world with their so called rules (etiquette, whatever) without thinking or investigating yourself. I don't care and will go own leading a meaningful real life as a sys admin, solving real problems. I was so naive as to think that people here would appreciate a valuable contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.87.10.101 (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I was so naive as to think that people here would appreciate a valuable contribution. We do. Only you will be surprised how different the opinion on a good contribution is. But you sure despair very quickly.

If you're so knowledgeable you would have tried what I wrote on a Windows XP and a post-windows XP system and would have discovered that it was true. This is called original research and is forbidden on Wikipedia.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)