I'm still an XP user, what am I missing out on?

so, you're now in my lovely signatur-list of things that people always get wrong..

 

Unless you are a complete buffoon you dont need UAC.

Clever people dont access sites likely to compromise their system or use keygens and other files likely to be infected. The AV and Firewall are there to protect you aswell

 

...this becomes problematic when your trusted sites are getting infected.

...I think some bitish sites were amongst them, government owned too...

 

Agreed but that's a rare occurrence.


I've always said this the best Anti-Virus/security is to think.

I've never experienced any problems with UAC turned off.

The other thing that annoys me about UAC is when install something like a game, you run setup.exe and then it can take up to 1 minute for the UAC prompt to appear.

With UAC off the setup just runs straight away

 

if it takes up to a minute to pop up the uac, then you have a problem, sir. it takes less than 1 sec here, all the time.

even if it's a rare occurence to get something on the system that shouldn't be, the moment it does, you're completely lost, even with AV software. UAC at this point simply blocks everything, and costs nothing.

so if you disable it, you're a moron. but if it doesn't work as it should, you should fix it. and a 1minute wait for a UAC never occured for me. and i work with vista on 2.4ghz p4, years old. there, it takes up to .. omg 3 seconds to popup, if the pc is at work besides it. so if your system takes longer, then your system has a problem.

 

My system doesn't have a problem that's the thing its only when installing certain games and the odd few programs otherwise it pops up in a second or less.

The fact of the matter is, UAC is nothing but a nuisence to anyone who knows what they are doing.

 

wrong....

You can bring in a virus via a flash drive for example - UAC is supposed to stop programmes being exectured when they shouldn't be.

Yes, UAC isn't perfect - but it has its uses.

And by the way, I never ad a virus on my computer so far - neither on XP nor in Vista.

 

that's not a fact of matter, that's your impression as you never got hurt yet. yes, it matters that one should know what one is doing. still, your favourite page could get compromised by some hacker, and get some nasty virus in that silently installs. and that can only happen with UAC disabled.

and YES this happened to one of my favourite sites, gamedev.net it is. where a lot of gamedevelopers and hobby programmers meet and share info. and it didn't happen on their page, but on an ad on their page.

so everyone, everytime CAN get attacked. and you never want your system to get hurt, then, now, do you?

without UAC even a failing or crashing application can whipe your system files while crashing. with UAC, it just can't happen, ever.

 

It's clear neither of us is going to win this arguement. I'll carry on without UAC and you carry on with it.

 

Just don't cary on promoting your way? Because it's wrong for anyone except the people stupid enough to do so?

I'm still interested how you can so ..... to not understand my statements. anyways, have fun your way.

 

Unfortunately, not as rare as you might think.

It has happend multiple times in the past, as has accidential spreading of malicious software via magazine's CDs and DVDs, via files that had been compromised before they were put online on otherwise trustworthy websites (even more than once sometimes, the driver downloads at Asus' download site are one example) or intentional spreading of malicious code within opensource projects. And the amount of malicious software spread by drive-by downloads increases.

You can never say that for sure! Just like while you can prove that a particular animal species exists, you can not prove that a particular species does not exist somewhere.

Malicious software has become (and still continues to be) more and more professional. They're trying to make money with it by, stealing or manipulating your online banking data, taking any of your data as a hostage, even by stealing your "World of Warcraft" account or similar things. Therefore, Viruses more and more try to hide from you, while 10 years ago they were made to damage your system or do "jokes".

It's not that easy anymore - they're hard to notice, hard to find on the internet (for anti-virus vendors to include them in their databases), being created for particular attacks so that the security systems in use won't detect them; And more and more malicious software is being created each year. In 2008, " (...) the era of epidemics was already history."

This is a common thing nowadays!

Imagine someone buying some cheap USB sticks, putting malicious software on them which will simply copy itself and scattering these USB sticks on some company's parking areas.

Even the ISS get Viruses from time to time, sounds as if in the beginning they though it wouldn't ever happen which in the end was what resulted in compromised systems.

Is that off the optical drive? UAC invokes checking the files that are about to be executed for digital signatures, which means checksum creating.

Seems like this is how it will be in the end...

 

and the sad thing is: the ones without UAC are the minority => they are not really an attack vector anymore => they are save while they don't even get how stupid they are..

 

I think you should wait some minutes before actually hitting "Submit Reply" next time...

 

no. it's the same as the apple-are-so-secure syndrom.

they are a minority => they are no attack vector => don't get attacked => no matter if they have a secure os or not, they are secure.

same for uac-disablers. they can always bring the argument that they don't get attacked. but the reason is not because UAC is bad. but because they are a minority => they are no attack vector => don't get attacked.

while it's rather easy to compromize a vista with uac disabled, with a big chance it won't ever happen. so the ones that disabled it don't get how stupid their move really is.

hope that makes sence.

 

You've got mail (read: an IM). I completely agree with the attack-vector part. Does Safari still run with root privileges on the iPhone?

 

I'm sorry, but I still don't "get" what it is about UAC that gets so many peoples' undies so badly twisted up - I've been running a standard OEM installation of _Vista premium for two weeks now, no tweaking or anything, and UAC has only popped up a few times - the "right" times as far as I'm concerned - and generally does so almost immediately. It strikes me that if it's taking more than a minute for the UAC prompt to pop up, then you do have something else under the hood that's kludging up your system, and it ain't UAC.

 

I think my only gripe is that it pops up for RMClock (every startup) and when I update my AV which those two things happen every day. I still won't turn it off, just a little annoying...

 

You might be able to configure UAC using the options described in this MSDN article to set RMClock and your AV updates to run with elevated privileges each time, which might solve the constant UAC pop-ups.

 

Edit:

Unfortunately, the "Scenario 2: Configure an application to always run elevated" section of that site seems to only explain how to force an application to ask for credentials each time you start it, in case an application does not automatically do so.

I can remember that someone on NBR said you could use the taskmanager to run applications at logon with full privileges. Sorry, but I can't remember who it was.


Edit: Wingsbr, do you mind sharing what Antivirus you're using? Be aware that disclosing this information might be security relevant. You don't have to, but I'd be interested.

 

Is there any point in this thread if the OP actually read the 'other' Vista v XP threads, the answer is the same. A long list of arguments.

Just try everything and find out for yourself. Just dual boot.

And no even on modern machines Vista is not faster than XP, providing the hardware still works in XP. Its faster in some areas and slower in others.

 

Simple conclusion: XP is a bit faster, Vista is more secure and a bit more reliable.
Most likely, Windows 7 will replace both operating systems for many people.

I hope everyone is satisfied with this now, it's basically how it is - for most people, at least...

 

Even more to the point - there is no point in throwing away a good license to one (XP or _Vista) and spending extra money to get another license for the other (_Vista or XP). If you've got XP, there's no real point in buying a separate _Vista license at this point unless you really feel a personal need to do so and conversely, if you've got _Vista on the brand-new notebook you just bought, you'd be a dunderhead to throw it away and go drop $150 or more on an XP license (even putting aside the headaches you'll have trying to get all of the necessary XP-based drivers you'll need).

 

Superior operating systems, like OSX and Linux?

 

Oh no! You have no idea what you just did!

I'm a heavy Linux user myself, but this thread is exclusively about XP compared to Vista I guess.

 

Hmmmm, yeah - depending on what you want to do, and what you're capable of doing; otherwise, not really.

 

I turn it off first thing after a fresh install. Not that I'm saying it's worthless, but I can't think of any reason why I would want it, and I remember it popping enough to be bothersome. I guess I do change "protected" options a lot and install/uninstall tons of apps and stuff. IDK.

BTW, I've never had a virus in XP or Vista.

 

I remember getting a driveby trojan while using Firefox on XP. That sucked. It was from a trusted site as well, a lot like this one, in fact.

I'm not arrogant enough to presume that I know everything and can therefore avoid every single attack out there. That's why I run with UAC on. Its like riding your bike with a helmet, if you're good, sure, you won't deliberately crash your bike and knock your head on something, but sometimes circumstances are not completely under your control.

 

so i figured id give my 2 cents in for no reason other than ... is 1am and im bored.


I WAS a vista user when it first came out, and being a "must have the newest technology" kind of person i bough it and tested it out. Now please note that I used vista for 5 months. At first i was super impressed and rather shocked at the difference between vsita and xp. Many features had me ecstatic. Like the ability to reformat a cd into a rewritable flash stick. That was awesome. There were more features dont get me wrong vista did have some amazing new stuff.

UAC:
But after a while things started becoming aggravating and annoying. The first thing that i noticed was the UAC. Oh god that thing was more annoying then the paper clip from MS office. "Are you sure you want to install this?" or " are you really sure u want to run this program?" No freaking , i clicked on the damn thing for a reason, why do i need a damned "confirmation" All that UAC had to do was alert me when it ACTUALLY detected a problem, but instead it popped up every time i clicked on something. Why would it think that me putting in a disc, then clicking on setup was an accident and thus required a "confirmation". I do have to say that the number of people who disable the UAC is not a minority, almost anyone who knows how to use a PC has disabled the damn thing as soon as they find out how.

PowerHogging:
There is no reason why this OS needs to be such a power hog. There is no excuse for that. The shear audacity for an OS to require a separate list of minimum requirements in order for it to run is a disgrace. There is no excuse as to why a new OS is less optimized than xp to run the same program. Just take a look, some games now have separate list of min and recommended requirements, one for vista and one for xp. This is unacceptable.

BSOD:
I dont now what cruddy pc's you guys had prior to vista but BSOD's are not normal. For some reason it seems that our acceptance of bad code has allowed us to accept a BSOD on occasions. But have you forgotten XP? I have NEVER NEVER NEVER gotten a BSOD in XP, via something that was not a direct mistake by myself. Vista was a BSOD magnet. BSOD's are not normal and should never happen "sometimes" or "occasionally" they should happen rarely to never. And the fact that you are all saying that Vista has less BSOD's only goes to show me that A) you never used XP, B) you have forgot XP or c) you had a cruddy computer and are now comparing an old xp machine to a new, high end machiene with vista on it.

Security:
I have yet to see any hard proof that vista is more secure than xp. Don't forget that up until a few months ago, xp and vista would both receive the same security updates that would increase the total security. Only now can you say that the security is different and really, your anti-virus and anti-spyware should be your first line of defense and not your firewall. Also, MS sometimes even gives out security updates when major "backdoors" have been discovered and exploited. Don't believe me, when conficker was in the news MS released a few updates for XP (even though they had redused to further support the OS) to help prevent conficker from hurting your pc.

Compatibility:
There is no reason why we need to run everything as an Administer! This was a stupid move by MS and should have been fixed by day 1. Dont get me wrong , Win7 is also privy to some of these issues stated here and above, but this is a vista and xp comparison post. Why did it take weeks for everything to work properly on peoples computer. large numbers of people abandoned old games and programs that they enjoyed, all because vista could not play them. Why is that, why did they do that, why make a new OS if it cant run some of the older stuff. Drivers too, why did it take so long for hardware drivers to become available for vista. Go into any store and look at any hardware and it says"compatible with vista" you never say this thing for xp, thats because prior to vista you would expect it to work in the OS currently on the market, why would you think it wouldn't. These messages are to point out to users that this hardware will work in your system. Theses messages should have never been required and drivers should have been compatible from day 1 or release. Now i understand that there was a new kernel and all that. But normally a company give anothercompany what it needs to make the hardware work so it is ready for release day, why this did not happen is beyond me.


Im willing to bet there are a lot of people who will say *mockingly* "oh but vista has fixed all of those things that you mentioned above", well that may be true but really, think about it, should those problems really have existed in the first place? And the fact that it took them more than 5 months (because i had given up on it by then) to "fix" these issues. Face it if your OS still is having compatibility issues and a powerhog after 5 moths, the OS is FUBAR.

So thats my speech. If you agree with me then let me know. If you dont agree with me, then calmly (like an intelligent being and not a flaming lunatic) explain to me what u disagree with and we can have a civilized thread. This thread is not to point fingers at anyone who supports vista or a direct response to anyone who has posted in this thread.

-Cheers and have a Happy Summer

 

I am arrogant enough to not run any Microsoft security measure outside of a hotfix. I've only had viruses after doing something experimental or just plain stupid (knowing what may happen). Relying on microsoft for security? After they brought us the most security problematic software bar none. There is no accountability.

And I'm doing pro audio and media center, and XP is running on 4 machines in my home 24/ 7. There was ONE issue of BSOD and that turned out to be ram that went south on an old Vaio laptop. Vista, I tried, I tweaked, I just got more and more frustrated with a product that if were going to be honest is a disaster for MOST. I know there are some things it does that XP can not. But for the most part that is not the case. I have to say, XP has been pulled off shelves already, been victimized by it's own makers in an attempt to thwart the public away from it, and yet it STILL holds around 65% market share world wide. Vista goes on the cnet list of top tech disasters of all time, plays most valuable player for the apple team, and has more than 200,000 pros sign a "keep xp petition". I don't think I'm the only one.


EDIT - thanks to blueman for I see his post after putting mine up, and now I feel free. The main Vista fan statements I keep hearing -

1. Vista is more stable, and has no BSOD compared to XP.
2. Vista is able to utilize more ram.
3. Vista is easy to use once it's "set up properly"

My off the top of the head reply-

1. Vista is not more stable, this is documented since it's release, and I personally have observed this on each and every Vista machine I have setup or used, including the Air Force machines they so foolishly just upgraded to Vista. There are some 65 processes running now at my desk, with a startup time over a minute longer than the XP on the same machine.

2. This on paper looks great, and it's like a political talking point. The fact is that no group of apps runs faster because of a new OS. On the contrary, the new features always included in the new OS zap out any gains made by the advances in hardware. Most users are still going on firefox, and typing on Word, which all happens faster on XP. What good is a larger bank of memory if the new OS is using, or should I say confusing, an additional 20 + processes. To see the advantage you must be running particular apps exclusively. In general use I have yet to see a gain. And here is the funny thing. Windows7 is the first OS that will provide the end application faster to the user than it's predecessor. I can't wait to see how they intend on pricing it.

3. This is my favorite, "it works great when "properly set up". This is in reference to tweaking Vista for decent behavior. This OS was pushed by some folks who decided they were the smartest people in the room, and they would give us what they thought we needed. For the record anytime a user must modify settings to get to a basic starting point of comfort Microsoft has dropped the ball. It is supposed to be the other way around.

And before the vista nuts get all defensive, let's let history prove this one. I happen to believe the Windows7 release will cause Vista to drop off the map faster than WindowsME. Just wait till the mainstream media starts announcing things mid september. Vista will grow mold on the shelves of staples.

 

@petermichealw, i think we just became pals,lolz

anyway, i think im gonna represent Vista's horrible performance with an analogy. Lets say that Xp is any laptop with a 8800m gt. Then we have Vista which is a nvidia 280m gtx. Now how much would it bother you if the 8800(XP) ran games better than the more expensive 280(vista).

Would you feel bad, mad and really pissed?

Then why have we allowed MS to do this but with software? Why are we supporting a product that so blatantly ripped you off and did not perform up to the value. Hell, i would have demanded a refund if i had known that these problems would still not have been fixed after 3 years!

-Cheers and have a Great Summer

 

yes sir, keep a grip on that pistol, as the Vista minions will be arriving at their "work"place in a few hours.

 

Does anybody actually consider that Vista outperforms XP on modern PCs?

 

UAC has more roles than just confirming whether you really want to perform an action. For example, UAC enables IE7(+) to run in Protected Mode, i.e. sandboxed. One of the primary purposes of UAC is to make sure that an authorized end user allows a program to perform an action that affects all users of the computer, i.e. if a rootkit wants to install a driver in C:\Windows\System32\Drivers\etc, a UAC dialog will pop up, because the rootkit will affect everyone. The same situation occurs when you install a program to something like Program Files, where all users of the computer will have access to it. For instances where a program only does stuff in Userland, no UAC prompt will be shown. Typically, users will see a large amount of UAC prompts when they first install Vista, and are consequently installing many programs. The number of dialogs decreases after this initial setup is done, because most users won't need to constantly modify system directories.

Some programs require UAC prompts needlessly, however, change is coming slowly. I think many people, end-users alongside developers, got too used to assuming administrative privileges on all computers. This resulted in the stereotypical "Windows XP End User", i.e. the idiot between the chair and the keyboard, using a dog-slow machine infested with malware. UAC changes this situation by making it that much harder for younger siblings or clueless parents to install programs without administrator privileges, and ensures that power users have the option of not always running with admin powers. Yes, the process is bumpy because of the aforementioned assumptions and habituation that has plagued Windows users since the days of '95, but things are changing:
http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2008/10/08/user-account-control.aspx

As you can see, the number of UAC prompts is decreasing, showing that some programs out there do needlessly initiate prompts, and are being rewritten so that they don't do so anymore. I'm curious to see the data you have suggesting that the majority of users turn UAC off.

Thanks for that last bit of completely incorrect conjecture, but I'd rather you didn't try and dictate how reality is for me. I'll have to paraphrase from another forum: your individual experiences mean virtually nothing, especially given how much detail you've given here. Vista has been known to be less forgiving to failing hardware, and many people have found failing hard drives and failing RAM while unsuccessfully trying to install and use Vista. Why this is, I'm not certain. Windows Vista supports many hardware configurations, but it really is up to hardware manufacturers to provide bug-free drivers. In many cases, BSODs are caused by bad drivers. Perhaps if you posted the STOP messages, we could help you diagnose the issue.

Microsoft will continue to release security updates for Windows XP all the way till 2014. This has always been the plan, and nothing has changed. You'll no doubt be interested to know that Microsoft does support its products for a really long time. Windows 3.11, however, has recently become officially unsupported. Vista seems to have a better security track record than XP. Though a number of exploits do affect both XP and Vista, typically, UAC helps mitigate the severity of the exploit. You'll commonly see that a particular vulnerability is rated Critical on XP, and something less on Vista.
I've dug up vulnerability ratings for XP Pro:
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/22/
And for Vista:
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/13223/
It seems that XP is afflicted by more vulnerabilities, higher rated vulnerabilities, and more unpatched vulnerabilities (eight times more) than Vista.

You don't. As stated above, only programs that modify system-related files, or invoke system-wide changes, are required to be authenticated. This is to protect people (not just the one end-user) from drive-by installations that many XP end-users know and loathe. I've already discussed the poor assumptions that people have grown used to - the end-user should never run with admin privileges, and unfortunately, too many Windows programs assume such. These programs are being rewritten to provide a more secure and annoyance-free experience, however, Microsoft isn't in charge of that process. It is up to the individual developers to complete that portion of this step in the right direction.

Yes, it is continually getting better, both thanks to efforts on the part of Microsoft, and on the part of hard-working third party developers.

Thank you for that title, why the term minion?

 

The strange thing is, many people are abandoning Vista and installing Windows 7 which is still an RC

 

If you followed the Longhorn/Vista development process, I'll remind you that just as many people foamed at the mouth at hearing about a new Vista build, as are now rabid over Win7.

 

This is because:
a) Vista got a bad name
b) They get a shiny new OS which feels lighter and works on low end laptops.

At the very start, weren't people enthusiastic about Vista at first too? I think htey were.

Is Win7 better than Vista? - No, except if you have a valid problem on Vista.

 

Personalleh, 0 problems with V!$T4, it's just that Windows 7 is snappier.

It's weird, a newer OS should make your PC perform slower coz of teh new features, but Win 7 does teh opposite! any pc will feel faster in comparison than when used with Vista

Downloading build 7201 of Windows 7 64-bit now

 

I would assume that is because people are willing to try it, and they tend to say with it because they enjoy it more than the previous OS's.

No its just an annoying software that most of the people disable, regardless of weather it is useful, if a large majority of your clients are disabling it then you have a bad product.

When I used Vista I had more BSOD's than the number of days that i had used it. And no i did not have a bad computer.

This kind of goes with the whole mac virus's thing. If your gonna make a virus for a pc, are you gonna effect the 20% percent of people who use vista or the 80% who have XP. Plus Vista doesn't need any more help to fail all the time.

No, almost all programs do not work without using it as an admin. Which then brings you to the UAC.

No no, i understand that things are getting better. But they never should have been as bad they were in the beginning, especially for as long as they were bad.

No thats just how Vista is, it is supposed to get better and better each time, we have just been so accustomed and accepting of how vista does it that we are in this hole.

 

That is true.
We have gotten used to newer OSes being slower/needing more resources - why - because newer features, better graphics need more resources.

But this is partially also due to bad coding - some people have found tons of commented out code in some Vista files...

So they possibly cleaned up Windows 7.

But there is something else - what they did for Vista was a new start - a break from old code - so it had its glitches.
Also, Vista drivers are much better, so due to better efficency you get more perormance out of the same hardware - and this will be partially true.

I mean, why do gamers wait for the newest graphics drivers? To get 1 odd extra frame out of their games.
Now these drivers exist - so you can optimize the OS to use them better.

Why do so many people say Win7 is what Vista SP2 should be?

 

Ok....
Win7 is maybe a bit more optimzed than Vista from the start - but not necessarily better than Vista SP1 or even SP2.

Annoying software because most of the people switch it off...

Guess what, the seatbelt is pointless, people find it annoying (they did when they were introduced).
Only once you paid a penalty for not wearing one did people accept it, and nowadays people think its a natural thing to do.

If you switch it off and catch a virus - don't come here crying your computer doesn't work.

Vista does not fail all the time - in fact, as Vista Vista didn't fail once.
The only problems I had were down to me - registry cleaners and such...
At the same time I was reinstalling XP every few months... and had a few BSOD....

What programmes are you using? I only have one programme that brings up UAC - that's CCleaner.
Neither MS Office nor Adobe does - or anything else I run.

I think some people fail to realize that Vista was a fresh start - they started from scratch rather than build on XP - and the bad name - that's due to bad drivers and the OS sold on far too weak hardware.

 

are u suggesting MS penalize me to get me to use their UAC? Most games require Admin status, Teamspeak does not work behind games without admin status, PB does not work the list goes on and on. Showing that MS office and one adobe program does not bring up the UAC does not prove that it does not pop up too often. Thats what antivirus and anti spyware is for i dont need another useless system to check every thing that happens in my pc (UAC).

 

Again, where is the data supporting your statement that a large majority is disabling UAC? According to an ongoing poll at Neowin, the majority of users keep UAC on (four out of every seven respondents). Keep in mind as well that tech-inclined people are more likely to know how to disable UAC in Vista.

Did you ever try and diagnose the cause of the errors?

Uhm. You've lost me. It seems like what you're saying here is, so what if Vista is less vulnerable than XP, it is bad anyway. What is your evidence for such a statement?

Can you give a list of programs that don't work? I'll just toss in the fact that I'm running IE8, Windows Live Mail, WMP, Google Talk, Firefox, Word 2007, Calculator, Gimp, Inkscape, and Adobe Reader right now. They all work fine, and don't seem to require UAC prompts to launch.
Or, if you're not even able to provide examples of what programs don't work, would you be so kind as to give a ratio of how many programs work compared to how many don't?

 

This thread needs to be close, locked and deleted it has turned into a "polite" flame war and has been thrown from the original purpose. I apologize for any fuel i put to this fire. Vista has wronged me and a lot of other people who have posted in this thread. I seriously suggest this thread be locked.

 

No, not one Adobe programme - the whole Web Development Suite.

Also, Games - hmm, I palyed World In Conflict on my lappy a year ago - worked fine, recently Anno 1701 - works fine and recently trid Rome Total War - works fine too - the last two definitively with UAC - and the first one I think with UAC too.

Then there is plenty of other software - for Music etc.

No, if your software is constantly playing around with system files then something is wrong with your software.

 

While I do agree it has turned into a heated debate, shall I consider this as your acceptance that you are wrong?

Clearly you cannot proove your point through a valid argument.

 

lol, no it is a respectful draw or a to be continued if you will, before things turn ugly, i certainly dont need to make enemies in this forum because of some stupid debate based strictly on personal experience and personal preferences.

 

Phrasing it like this - you don't want to make enemies based on this debate is true and good.

This wasn't obvious from your original post though.

PS: I disliked Vista until I had it on my Vaio - and there is at least one other member here on NBR who converted from XP to Vista.

 

Are you threatening to make things ugly if we continue to disagree? It doesn't sound like anyone here is approaching this with flaming in mind, we're simply providing counterexamples to your statements, and/or asking for clarification on certain points.

And just to be perfectly clear, we are not disagreeing with you, but it seems like we are challenging what you're saying.

And just so that everyone knows, older versions of Teamspeak did indeed not work correctly with Vista. Fortunately, the developers have improved their program and made it both compatible and more secure:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/compatibility/Search.aspx?type=Software&s=teamspeak

 

So i ask that no one further respond to this post and let it fall below the "recent thread" radar or and admin sees fit to do whatever.

 

This isn't your thread, and I believe that the OP may find the previous discussion enlightening. But you are welcome to take your leave of it if you so choose.