PDA

View Full Version : Is Windows XP Obselete?


PkMnTrainer Yellow
May 13th, 2010, 05:55 AM
Inspired by this question being asked various times on various forums and a recent topic here at PC.

Is XP obsolete? Outdated? Dieing?
Maybe it's already dead?

I'll tell you what, I personally find that it's very obsolete, and if it isn't dead, needs to die soon less it hold back the rest of the tech world with it's inferiority.

True fact, XP is the reason Firefox is so insecure right now. =3
Mozilla builds Firefox to be aimed at XP users. Thus, they don't use newer security features. This will be changing in the future though, don't worry.

Opinions?

xJordan360
May 13th, 2010, 06:34 AM
If it isn't dead yet, it's currently terminally ill.

donavannj-
May 13th, 2010, 09:38 AM
It is still under support for most versions of it (specifically SP 3 or later for 32-bit versions and SP 2 or later for 64-bit versions) until sometime in 2011/2012. It is quite vulnerable even with the weekly Tuesday updates sent out by Microsoft, but that's to do with the fact that it's kernel was released 9 years ago.

twocows
May 13th, 2010, 09:45 AM
It's not obsolete, but it is being phased out. It's still useful for older systems that can't handle newer operating systems, but better hardware should stick to Vista or 7.

thepsynergist
May 13th, 2010, 12:39 PM
Still though, 16 bit programs that require good graphics can't be run on a XP Virtual Machine. What I recommend is to make a partition to your C: Drive and multi boot XP with either Vista or Win7, whichever you have.

twocows
May 13th, 2010, 12:51 PM
Still though, 16 bit programs that require good graphics can't be run on a XP Virtual Machine. What I recommend is to make a partition to your C: Drive and multi boot XP with either Vista or Win7, whichever you have.

Uh, not sure you meant what you thought you meant. 16-bit programs are obsolete; most things are programmed in 32-bit or 64-bit. Windows 3.1 ran 16-bit programs, and while modern systems can still run them, they're very outdated.

However, I'm a big fan of dual-booting; I usually have a Windows partition and a GNU/Linux partition on my computers.

Cassino
May 13th, 2010, 01:20 PM
I still run 95.

ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWAH


But no, XP isn't obsolete just yet. This here 95 on my laptops is, but it is still the opposite of useless; like how my MS Word 97 might pale in comparison to my college's Word 2007, but it is none the less still a valid tool for the creation of any good document; the 2007 edition is 'bigger and better' as they say, but that doesn't mean 97 is therefore bad, as many people seem to believe. Even past when XP goes vastly out of use, there's simply no point I see in keeping up with this redundantly grandiose computer race.

Sneeze
May 13th, 2010, 01:32 PM
I still use XP on my gaming rig, partially out of laziness, partially because of compatibility issues. I have 7 on my laptop and it does run alot smoother but if i had 7 on my desktop I'd not be able to play half my games, even when I do upgrade I'll probably make a partition and have XP and 7.

linkinpark187
May 13th, 2010, 04:27 PM
I have a Windows 98 desktop setup specifically for my older games. Any of the games that I've run when I had XP seem to run in 64-bit 7 with no issues. I love 7, though. As someone said earlier, XP isn't obsolete, but terminally ill. It's long overdue to be put out of it's misery, and as much as I love XP, I love 7 more. Be prepared for 2014:

"On April 8, 2014, all Windows XP support, including security updates and security-related hotfixes, will be terminated." (as quoted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP)

It's said to see it go, but...I'll give it my 21 gun salute. It was good while it lasted, but all good things must come to an end.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
May 14th, 2010, 05:45 AM
I'd say it's very obsolete. o.O

Did you guys know that Internet Explorer no longer supports XP?
Internet Explorer 9 is dropping XP, not because it's being phased out, but because so many new technologies have been developed that XP can't handle.

Just because it's not useless doesn't mean it's not obselete.

When I switched to 7, only one game of mine refused to work, and that's because the developers, being punks, DELIBERATELY didn't add support for Vista or 7. A criminal offense if you ask me.

XP can't handle newer security features. It can't handle newer APIs. It can't handle a lot of things really.

What you guys are seeing is everyone cushioning their software for XP so that it can handle the old, obsolete operating system. Does anyone remember when Firefox started to suck for them? Yeah, that was probably XP's fault.

Even if you were using 7. It was XP's fault, because Mozilla wanted to make the browser for XP.

At the point at which an Operating System starts to hold back the tech world as a whole I think it's time to say it's obsolete.

Say you're walking down the street with an old man. You're young, but he can't keep up. Now you have to walk slower so that he can pretend to be able to do the same things you do.

The young man is 7.
The old man is XP.

Microsoft is tired of it, and frankly seeing as my Firefox has a tendency to break and crash consistently these days, I'm tired of it too. I want the software advantages of my new Operating System and this whole "XP is not obsolete" idea is denying me that.

(PS: If you are like me and Firefox is crippled after being attacked by things that were left vulnerable due to XP cushioning, try Chrome or IE8, both of which offer advanced security features on Vista / 7.

Also PS: Mozilla is finally fixing their mistakes. You can expect Firefox to be somewhat less vulnerable starting the very next versoin, 3.6.4)

Hermione Granger
May 14th, 2010, 06:16 AM
The young man is 7.
The old man is XP.


Look who's talkin. :<

I'm laughing to all those who's saying XP is obsolete. :laugh:
7, Vista, XP, 95: its all windows operating systems! Someday, 7 will even be more obsolete than XP. Nothing's permanent y'know except change. So someday, Microsoft will stop selling older OSs, yes 7 is old very very old, and will make people buy their newly developed OS.

I'd stick with XP, as I can design it to look like something new. xD

tl;dr: Everything's gonna change, and 7 will become old very very old.

donavannj-
May 14th, 2010, 06:20 AM
I don't know about you, PkMnTrainer Yellow, but I've only encountered FF issues with certain add-ons installed, or when the computer's been jostled, and other times just running hot. So it's been just as stable as Chrome for me.

EDIT: @Zeffy: 7 cannot logically ever be more obsolete than XP, simply because it was released nearly a decade after XP. From 1991 to 2001, Microsoft went from 3.1 to XP, and no one's saying XP is more obsolete than 3.1.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
May 14th, 2010, 07:26 AM
Look who's talkin. :<

I'm laughing to all those who's saying XP is obsolete. :laugh:
7, Vista, XP, 95: its all windows operating systems! Someday, 7 will even be more obsolete than XP. Nothing's permanent y'know except change. So someday, Microsoft will stop selling older OSs, yes 7 is old very very old, and will make people buy their newly developed OS.

I'd stick with XP, as I can design it to look like something new. xD

tl;dr: Everything's gonna change, and 7 will become old very very old.

I'm sorry but... you make no sense Zeffy o.O And lack a point as well.
You also seem to be contradicting your stance. All you said SUPPORTS the fact that XP is obsolete and that you should change to 7.
Are you trolling? :\

Also, consider yourself lucky, Candy. Tests show Firefox is far more insecure than either IE8 or Chrome. While IE8 does have some very odd speed issues that I frankly don't understand, it is in fact more secure.

Firefox is WAY behind on utilizing new technology, something I expect them to fix very soon as I have been beta testing future Firefox versions and have personally seen a few major enhancements.

You know how Chrome has had this one feature where if a plugin like Flash or Quicktime breaks it just kills the flash element with a "This plugin has crashed" screen replacement?

Yeah, in Firefox? Your browser just crashes. But starting in 3.6.4, they'll be stealing that idea from Chrome.

Point and case, Firefox is insecure as it is now, and is in need of serious updates.

Oh, and my experience with Firefox going nuts has nothing to do with addons. It has to do with Firefox being exploited and permanently damaged to not be able to function under certain circumstances. For instance, the Firefox installation on my Desktop, crashes whenever Active X is on a page.

On my Laptop, Firefox can cause unbelievably horrible memory leaks that can lock my computer up and cause me to have to restart under certain circumstances.

Both are Windows 7 machines, and any other Browser runs flawlessly. IE8, Chrome, Opera, Safari. They all run without a hitch. (Actually, no, Opera does not, but that's off-topic as it is Opera's problem as a whole, not related to the OS discussion at hand.)




In fact, I believe strongly that once 3.6.4 comes out, I will no longer suffer the Active X crash on my Desktop.

I frankly don't know how I'm supposed to fix the installation on my laptop. Perhaps a purge and re-installation would yield results.

Yusshin
May 14th, 2010, 12:36 PM
Firefox isn't insecure. It's when you load it with add-ons that it becomes slow, gaunky, and crash-worthy.

I have never had a virus surfing with FF. I don't have an anti-virus installed. I just have AdAware Plus + and Scriptlock. I have entered questionable streaming sites and random other places. I've never had a virus, just a few cookies.

IE gave me viruses lol and pop-ups, not to mention. In my experience, IE is the Dell of browsers - trash, crashy, and badly constructed.

IE can't even open certain HTML sites; it's ridiculous rofl

I don't believe XP is obsolete either; sure, it's not as pretty as 7, but you can change the interface to look like W7. It might not be as updated or secure, but it's the best laptop for games since it's simple. W7 moves **** around and has its own installation procedures that sometimes don't even work. It took me a reformat and a bunch of uninstall/reinstallations to make the Sims 2 work on my W7 laptop, whereas it took one install on XP and it worked like a charm.

I love XP. That's why I'm planning to dual-partition and put XP on my 64-bit system with 50GB to itself, for better gaming (since installations will always work lol)

PkMnTrainer Yellow
May 14th, 2010, 04:13 PM
Firefox isn't insecure. It's when you load it with add-ons that it becomes slow, gaunky, and crash-worthy.

I have never had a virus surfing with FF. I don't have an anti-virus installed. I just have AdAware Plus + and Scriptlock. I have entered questionable streaming sites and random other places. I've never had a virus, just a few cookies.

IE gave me viruses lol and pop-ups, not to mention. In my experience, IE is the Dell of browsers - trash, crashy, and badly constructed.

IE can't even open certain HTML sites; it's ridiculous rofl

I don't believe XP is obsolete either; sure, it's not as pretty as 7, but you can change the interface to look like W7. It might not be as updated or secure, but it's the best laptop for games since it's simple. W7 moves **** around and has its own installation procedures that sometimes don't even work. It took me a reformat and a bunch of uninstall/reinstallations to make the Sims 2 work on my W7 laptop, whereas it took one install on XP and it worked like a charm.

I love XP. That's why I'm planning to dual-partition and put XP on my 64-bit system with 50GB to itself, for better gaming (since installations will always work lol)

Please read my previous post that contains a rebuttal to what you just repeated about Firefox and addons o.O;

That's rather odd because I have no problems with IE8 besides some small speed issues. Perhaps you are referring to the dead browser IE6? Or perhaps you're running IE8 on XP, which cannot use new security features built into newer Operating Systems?

And... here, read this. It's basically showing off how XP cannot under any circumstances go much farther due to limitations. Here, let me clip out a few sections of the article.

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/04/why-microsoft-did-the-right-thing-in-ditching-xp-for-ie9.ars

Now, it's true that software is not like physical goods; while the ravages of time may make hardware break down, Windows XP works as well today as it did when it was new. Better, if you consider the extensive capabilities added in Service Packs and free downloads. But the computing world does not stand still; working as well as it did when it was new means that Windows XP hasn't kept up with computing's advances. The next generation of hard disks (or indeed, current generation, for Western Digital users), for example, are at risk of suffering severe performance penalties on XP systems. To get the best from the technology that for many has replaced spinning disks—the solid state drive—requires support for the TRIM command, found natively only in Windows 7. XP similarly lacks any built-in support for Blu-ray discs.

IPv6 is—fingers crossed—a technology that will become far more prevalent in the coming years, as the IPv4 address space finally starts to run out. XP does support IPv6 in a limited way, but it can only be configured using arcane command-line syntax. Windows Vista added GUI configuration and made IPv6 a first-class citizen on the network, and Windows 7 rounds out IPv6 support by including support for ancilary technology such as DHCPv6. XP is simply ill-prepared for an IPv6 world.

Web browser security is a notorious problem, as the recent pwn2own event has once again demonstrated. Windows Vista and Windows 7 have much greater systematic protections against security flaws than Windows XP does. The Address Space Layout Randomization feature makes existing flaws harder to exploit by making systems less predictable to attackers. This protection is not perfect, and there are indeed techniques that allow its circumvention, but every obstacle makes would-be hackers' jobs harder. The protection ASLR offers is also boosted by the use of a 64-bit operating system, another area where XP falls behind (64-bit XP is a bastard hybrid of Windows XP and Windows Server 2003, with the result that much 64-bit software that works properly on Vista and 7 fails to work properly or at all on XP 64).

More substantial protection is provided by the Mandatory Integrity Control feature of the two modern OSes. By marking a process as "Low Integrity," Windows prevents that process from being able to write to the majority of the hard disk and registry. The result is that even if the Web browser is compromised, the attacker is greatly restricted. Though an attacker can read most data (though this too can be restricted), he can't install rootkits, trojans, spyware, or anything else, because he cannot write to the parts of the file system required to do this.

Importantly, this protection has no real means of circumvention. Features like ASLR (and DEP, which is found in XP) are designed to make hackers' jobs harder, but do not erect any hard, kernel-enforced barriers, which is why, with skill, they can be bypassed. MIC erects a much harder barrier; to bypass MIC a hacker would have to find and use an exploit that allowed a process to elevate its privileges to strip itself of the "Low Integrity" label. If the attacker cannot do this, then he is forever trapped in the Low Integrity sandbox, unable to install his malicious software.

Privilege escalation vulnerabilities—software flaws that trick the kernel into giving a process more rights than it should have—do exist, so even MIC is no panacea. But they're substantially rarer than common browser flaws, and they are more likely to be fixed more quickly, because of their scope. Most important is that they can be fixed—they're a result of bugs in the kernel. DEP and ASLR can't be fixed as such; the circumvention mechanisms are to an extent inevitable.

Of the big five, only two browsers currently use this protection on Windows; Internet Explorer (7 and 8), and Chrome. For this reason alone, I'd be hesitant to use Safari, Opera, or Firefox. Their security track record isn't really any better than Microsoft's, and the consequent exploitability of these browsers is much greater.

This advantage is not one that is merely hypothetical, either. In common with other vendors, Microsoft assigns a risk rating to every security flaw, and Internet Explorer flaws on Windows Vista and Windows 7 have quite consistently had lower risk ratings than those same flaws on Windows XP. Why? Because the flaws are greatly restricted by the MIC barrier. Microsoft might be biased, but there are security researchers who concur; Charlie Miller, so successful at pwn2own, regards Chrome and IE 8 on Windows 7 as arguably the safest Web browsing platform. It's no coincidence that these are the browsers that use MIC sandboxing. The protection works.

Windows XP supports none of this protection, nor will it ever. Denying XP users access to its latest and greatest browser isn't a bad thing: Windows XP users should be strongly discouraged from using their machines in any hostile environment. Far from saying that IE9 should be supported on XP, we should be demanding that the other three browsers start supporting these security features and dropping XP support, too. These really are features that everybody should be using.

The biggest single reason for dropping XP is not, however, security; it's graphics. Internet Explorer 9 already boasts high-performance, hardware-accelerated graphical capabilities. In particular, Microsoft has shown off IE9's SVG capabilities. (SVG is a W3C standard that enables vector graphics to be embedded into webpages.) These graphics can be manipulated using JavaScript, opening up a whole new world of possibilities for standards-compliant webpages—widespread support for SVG might very well allow standard pages to start doing the kinds of tasks that hitherto have required plugins like Flash or Silverlight to accomplish.

The way that Microsoft has decided to achieve this is to use Direct2D for all of IE9's rendering. Direct2D is a 2D vector graphics API that's layed on top of Direct3D, and Direct3D is, of course, fully hardware accelerated. Direct2D is in many ways a pretty good match for HTML, CSS, and SVG rendering; unlike Windows' old graphics API, GDI, Direct2D is vector-based (so allows for easy, high-quality scaling and animation), but unlike OpenGL or Direct3D, it offers a simple programmatic interface that's tailored towards 2D graphics, without the complexity that 3D entails.

Similarly, for text, Microsoft is using DirectWrite. Again, the technology is high-performance, hardware-accelerated, and it integrates cleanly with Direct2D.

Sorry for the wall of text. I felt the need to provide factual evidence in a topic so full of opinions.

Oh, and I've personally installed Sims 2 on a Windows 7 laptop. Worked fine the first time. No idea what went wrong for you. o.O; Your laptop seems to have lots of problems with programs that are perfectly compatible and secure under Windows 7.

I run a 64 bit Windows 7 on my gaming Desktop, and have never had a more pleasing OS. o.O;

.Seth
May 14th, 2010, 04:58 PM
I used to use XP on my IBM computer, and to be honest, I wasn't satisfied. Though, that was probably because of the hardware the IBM had.

That aside, it's aging, with most newer software not supporting XP (heck, even Microsoft stopped supporting it), and the fact it can't use some new software is kind of irritating.

It's okay if you're just doing something simple or need a quick operating system, but 7 is fast enough and it has aero.

Some people say they use XP for "compatibility purposes", but you're also going to run into compatibility issues within XP if you need newer, better software.

Hermione Granger
May 14th, 2010, 05:28 PM
Are you trolling? :\


You've got a lot of nerve calling me a troll. :|

All I was saying was, someday we're all going to switch with Windows 7, because Microsoft will cut all connections to XP in the year 2014. Then someday, Microsoft will create another OS that they want to sell more than 7. Its just a repeating cycle, like when XP is dead 7 will be much active. Then Microsoft will create another OS and then sell it to us, then cut all connections to 7.

tl;dr: 7 is great, IMO, but calling another system obsolete is not a great attitude. Why are we arguing about this anyways, its just a machine. xD

^ Aero can make computers with 'bad' graphics cards run slow, and Vista had aero too, y'know. :\

Silver
May 14th, 2010, 05:53 PM
C'mon now, don't be hating on my Windows XP. Mainly cause I'm a cheapass who won't pay for Windows 7 just for dualbooting.

twocows
May 15th, 2010, 01:01 PM
You've got a lot of nerve calling me a troll. :|

All I was saying was, someday we're all going to switch with Windows 7, because Microsoft will cut all connections to XP in the year 2014. Then someday, Microsoft will create another OS that they want to sell more than 7. Its just a repeating cycle, like when XP is dead 7 will be much active. Then Microsoft will create another OS and then sell it to us, then cut all connections to 7.

tl;dr: 7 is great, IMO, but calling another system obsolete is not a great attitude. Why are we arguing about this anyways, its just a machine. xD

^ Aero can make computers with 'bad' graphics cards run slow, and Vista had aero too, y'know. :\
Uh, obviously Windows 7 will be obsolete someday, but it isn't right now; I fail to see how that has any bearing on the problem at hand. Perhaps you don't know what obsolete means; it means archaic or outdated, usually because something newer and better has come along. Windows XP is almost ten years old, and while it was a solid operating system for a long time, it's being phased out in favor of better things, like Windows Vista and Windows 7. It's still useful on older computers because of the support it receives from third parties and because it's so lightweight, but the better solution is to invest in new hardware and run stuff that isn't outdated. And the reason this matters is because the people clinging to outdated technology are holding back progress. Besides putting themselves at risk, you have developers being forced to support archaic systems, which means they won't be using advancements that help make their software faster and more secure. As Yellow pointed out, this means those of us that actually stay up to date don't get the stability or performance we should be getting.

Spinor
May 15th, 2010, 01:09 PM
Did I seriously read "16 bit programs" somewhere in this thread?

And I really want to say XP is obsolete as hell. It's close to a decade since its release, it's not even funny. Schools only kept it because Vista failed epically in security. W7 is a different story.

In semi-ontopicness. My school recently upgraded to different computers this week. I'll be checking them out when I have Technology on Tuesday. They better be sexy and not have XP.

In fact, Linux will do good just to annoy the other kids who think that being an internet addict makes them a geek. Hell ****ing no, they are way off.

Yusshin
May 15th, 2010, 03:45 PM
Nan, it was IE8 or IE 9 on Windows 7, not sure. It crashed to Hell, couldn't open some HTML pages, and was slow as heck :< Mozilla is a lot safer and crash-resistant for me.

twocows
May 15th, 2010, 06:31 PM
Schools only kept it because Vista failed epically in security. W7 is a different story.
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Windows 7 is actually Windows Vista service pack 3, or as I've recently taken to calling it, Windows Mojave (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/mojave-experiment/) 2.0.

Seriously, Vista was fine security-wise. The only problems were fixed after the first service pack, and those were mostly related to drivers (most of which were based on the outdated XP driver model instead of the completely redesigned one that Vista and 7 use). Vista is a pleasure to use these days, I use it and 7 on many of my systems and there are few discernible differences.

Nan, it was IE8 or IE 9 on Windows 7, not sure. It crashed to Hell, couldn't open some HTML pages, and was slow as heck :< Mozilla is a lot safer and crash-resistant for me.
Internet Explorer 9 is not out yet. I haven't heard of this sort of problem, normally IE8 works great on Windows Vista and Windows 7. If Firefox works, use it for now, but if you see a fix somewhere, I'd recommend trying it out.

Michfan
May 15th, 2010, 06:35 PM
I'm going to go with the majority to say that Windows XP has "terminal cancer", and will die out by 2014. I'm running Windows 7 Ultimate right now, feels good man. If you can't afford 7, definitely keep going with XP.

Yusshin
May 15th, 2010, 07:40 PM
Internet Explorer 9 is not out yet. I haven't heard of this sort of problem, normally IE8 works great on Windows Vista and Windows 7. If Firefox works, use it for now, but if you see a fix somewhere, I'd recommend trying it out.

Ah, okay. I just knew it wasn't IE7 xD lol but I wasn't sure what one was the newest IE. Thanks for clarifying.

In any case, yeah, Mozilla works better for me. IE hates me for some reason.

I love Windows 7, though. XP is great for those W7-noncompatible games.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
May 16th, 2010, 06:27 PM
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Windows 7 is actually Windows Vista service pack 3, or as I've recently taken to calling it, Windows Mojave (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/mojave-experiment/) 2.0.

Seriously, Vista was fine security-wise. The only problems were fixed after the first service pack, and those were mostly related to drivers (most of which were based on the outdated XP driver model instead of the completely redesigned one that Vista and 7 use). Vista is a pleasure to use these days, I use it and 7 on many of my systems and there are few discernible differences.


Internet Explorer 9 is not out yet. I haven't heard of this sort of problem, normally IE8 works great on Windows Vista and Windows 7. If Firefox works, use it for now, but if you see a fix somewhere, I'd recommend trying it out.

I've never heard of it either. Sounds like the typical IE6 comment except change 6 to 8. Makes me question the authenticity, no offense. Just because of the low probability of this happening I wouldn't place the blame on IE8. Weird shiz happens sometimes.

Firefox is not a safe browser. I must stress that Mozilla has yet to upgrade Firefox to the latest technology. This is factual, not opinion based. You can say it's secure but that hacker aint listening. It's for your own safety that you wait for Mozilla to upgrade FF before you put it in any dangerous situations.

If you use Windows seven and want security and speed Chrome has the specs.

If you use XP... well... sorry, you can't benefit from the extra security because the OS can't handle it. You're out in the open. I'd avoid anything that could be a virus because at this point there's no real way for an XP user to be protected truly. Caution is the only protection.
So you might as well use Firefox with XP.

See why I say XP is obselete? It just can't run with any other more modern OS anymore.

twocows
May 16th, 2010, 07:16 PM
I've never heard of it either. Sounds like the typical IE6 comment except change 6 to 8. Makes me question the authenticity, no offense. Just because of the low probability of this happening I wouldn't place the blame on IE8. Weird shiz happens sometimes.

Firefox is not a safe browser. I must stress that Mozilla has yet to upgrade Firefox to the latest technology. This is factual, not opinion based. You can say it's secure but that hacker aint listening. It's for your own safety that you wait for Mozilla to upgrade FF before you put it in any dangerous situations.

If you use Windows seven and want security and speed Chrome has the specs.

If you use XP... well... sorry, you can't benefit from the extra security because the OS can't handle it. You're out in the open. I'd avoid anything that could be a virus because at this point there's no real way for an XP user to be protected truly. Caution is the only protection.
So you might as well use Firefox with XP.

See why I say XP is obselete? It just can't run with any other more modern OS anymore.

Agree with everything except the part about Firefox being insecure. It's not suffering from any more zero-day exploits than anything else (at least as far as I'm aware of); pretty much everything that's out right now is secure provided it and your OS are updated (and that's the key point). One thing Firefox has is Adblock, though. A lot of exploits are transmitted through ads; that's one thing Firefox still has over the other browsers (Chrome has something similar, but it just hides the ads, it doesn't stop them from loading).

PkMnTrainer Yellow
May 17th, 2010, 10:17 AM
Agree with everything except the part about Firefox being insecure. It's not suffering from any more zero-day exploits than anything else (at least as far as I'm aware of); pretty much everything that's out right now is secure provided it and your OS are updated (and that's the key point). One thing Firefox has is Adblock, though. A lot of exploits are transmitted through ads; that's one thing Firefox still has over the other browsers (Chrome has something similar, but it just hides the ads, it doesn't stop them from loading).

I've already presented that I have solid evidence that Firefox is in fact lacking security features other browsers (IE8/Chrome, mainly) have.

Like I said, you can say it's secure, but the hacker is not listening.

Also: Adblock is on Chrome. It's not 'similar' it's the same thing.
https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglidom

twocows
May 18th, 2010, 07:08 AM
I've already presented that I have solid evidence that Firefox is in fact lacking security features other browsers (IE8/Chrome, mainly) have.

Like I said, you can say it's secure, but the hacker is not listening.

Also: Adblock is on Chrome. It's not 'similar' it's the same thing.
https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglidom
Incorrect. From the page:
We're waiting on a Chrome feature that will allow us to block ads from being downloaded. Until then, we remove them after the fact. This means that even if you subscribe to the EasyPrivacy list, your browser will still be pinging the URLs that track you. Star the issue at http://bit.ly/chromebug35897 to get this fixed sooner!
Given that Google's primary source of revenue is ads, I doubt we'll be seeing this implemented anytime soon.

As for Firefox, as I have said, I haven't seen a significantly higher number of zero-day or unpatched exploits than on any other browser, provided it's updated. I have, however, had fewer problems with Firefox users (using Adblock Plus) clicking on popups telling them they've won a prize/their computer is infected/the FBI is watching and subsequently downloading a virus.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
May 19th, 2010, 10:36 AM
As for Firefox, as I have said, I haven't seen a significantly higher number of zero-day or unpatched exploits than on any other browser, provided it's updated. I have, however, had fewer problems with Firefox users (using Adblock Plus) clicking on popups telling them they've won a prize/their computer is infected/the FBI is watching and subsequently downloading a virus.

Firefox is not updated compared to it's competitors. Statistics aren't factual, while my observations on browser security features are. If anything, those statistics suggest the USER is smarter, not the browser is more secure. Here, read the Firefox 3.6.4 beta release notes. This is just an example of age old technology finally starting to make it's way to the insecure browser. The main feature described in the "What's new" section has been in Chrome as far back as I can remember.

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.6.4build1/releasenotes/

KAZillonaire
May 23rd, 2010, 02:43 PM
No. It's actually very common, because it's simple and basic. Unlike Vista, with some stuff you aren't use to. If you have XP, I suggest learn more about Vista and 7, before you make a lemonade stand and save up for a new computer.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
May 24th, 2010, 05:43 AM
No. It's actually very common, because it's simple and basic. Unlike Vista, with some stuff you aren't use to. If you have XP, I suggest learn more about Vista and 7, before you make a lemonade stand and save up for a new computer.

Why would we want simple and basic? If we wanted that, we'd stick with 2000? 98? 95? Maybe DOS?
I thought we wanted functional and easy to use, some things XP isn't compared to Vista and 7.

donavannj
May 24th, 2010, 06:47 AM
Why would we want simple and basic? If we wanted that, we'd stick with 2000? 98? 95? Maybe DOS?
I thought we wanted functional and easy to use, some things XP isn't compared to Vista and 7.

Ever done support for the nearly-computer-illiterate? The majority of these people just got used to XP in the last few years, and Vista/7 have such huge interface changes from XP that this group is completely turned off by both because it's so different.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
May 24th, 2010, 07:38 AM
But it's pretty darn similar, and far superior.
I don't see how that answers my question, either. Not liking change doesn't seem to be a very valid argument.

donavannj
May 24th, 2010, 07:44 AM
But it's pretty darn similar, and far superior.
I don't see how that answers my question, either. Not liking change doesn't seem to be a very valid argument.

Well, some people are stubborn like that and barely even aware of the existence of security vulnerabilities, let alone what they look like.

Okami Chi
May 24th, 2010, 07:50 AM
In some things yes, in others no. After they make the next Windows I think XP will be dead. I think the only reason XP is not dead yet, is because it's easy to use and because some people viewed Windows Vista as a fail. I like Vista and 7, but others hate them. :\

PkMnTrainer Yellow
May 25th, 2010, 12:45 PM
because it's easy to use

Well I disagree with that. The amount of manual driver installs and trouble shooting involved in setting up and or fixing a Windows XP install compared to Vista or 7 makes me think XP is harder to use.

Heart's Soul
May 25th, 2010, 03:53 PM
XP is lightweight and is the newest OS that runs on my computer. Yes, Windows 7 is too greedy for this. If there was a Windows 98 thing that made it run like XP, I'd take it. I want 7, but I'm so used to XP, I just installed a 7 Remix Package.

donavannj
May 25th, 2010, 07:39 PM
Well I disagree with that. The amount of manual driver installs and trouble shooting involved in setting up and or fixing a Windows XP install compared to Vista or 7 makes me think XP is harder to use.

End users don't often deal with that. Like I said, it's the level of comfort with the interface. I point you to this trope (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks) on TVTropes. This happens a lot to Microsoft, but there's not a whole lot that can be done about it.

Mario The World Champion
May 25th, 2010, 08:21 PM
My older Compaq computer from 2006 has XP on it and I don't have many issues with it. In fact, I only had one major virus attack, but my friend got it back in shape in a few days. My 2008 Compaq has Vista and I still hate the stupid thing.due to the fact that some of my games don't work on it. I'm just happy my NASCAR games run fine and without issue. Maybe in 2-3 years, we'll get a new computer that has Windows 7 in it and I'll complain about how that sucks.

@ PkMnTrainer Yellow: I never had any issues with Firefox with my XP computer and I haven't had any issues with Firefox on my Vista computer. On the subject about driver problems for XP, there's a simple remedy if you're technologically inept: Have a good friend who knows a lot about computers. Problem solved!

PkMnTrainer Yellow
May 27th, 2010, 10:09 AM
My older Compaq computer from 2006 has XP on it and I don't have many issues with it. In fact, I only had one major virus attack, but my friend got it back in shape in a few days. My 2008 Compaq has Vista and I still hate the stupid thing.due to the fact that some of my games don't work on it. I'm just happy my NASCAR games run fine and without issue. Maybe in 2-3 years, we'll get a new computer that has Windows 7 in it and I'll complain about how that sucks.

@ PkMnTrainer Yellow: I never had any issues with Firefox with my XP computer and I haven't had any issues with Firefox on my Vista computer. On the subject about driver problems for XP, there's a simple remedy if you're technologically inept: Have a good friend who knows a lot about computers. Problem solved!

I would be that good friend that has to deal with XP all the time.:\ Not fun.

Also, my Windows 7 installation has had 0 minor or major attacks since early beta. =3 I put it through plenty of dangerous situations, too.

Windows XP is crashzilla under the same user, being me in this case.

With XP, I had to deal with using IE6 and having hundreds of major security holes, some of which can't be fixed, out of the box. I also had to install a driver manually for most of my hardware. This includes anytime I get something new.

With 7, run windows update, plug in my stuff. It automatically installs, and I go.

Mario The World Champion
May 27th, 2010, 02:56 PM
Also, my Windows 7 installation has had 0 minor or major attacks since early beta. =3 I put it through plenty of dangerous situations, too.

Wait. Isn't it common sense to NOT put your computer through dangerous situations? No wonder you keep on having issues and are now crying that XP sucks. A normal computer user would be smart enough to not do anything like you did. My friend would probably laugh at you if I told him that uyou put your computers through that stuff.

Hiroshi Sotomura
May 27th, 2010, 04:24 PM
Wait. Isn't it common sense to NOT put your computer through dangerous situations? No wonder you keep on having issues and are now crying that XP sucks. A normal computer user would be smart enough to not do anything like you did. My friend would probably laugh at you if I told him that uyou put your computers through that stuff.
On the contrary: most phishing scams, viruses, and data leaks are the result of a "normal computer user".

PkMnTrainer Yellow
May 27th, 2010, 04:46 PM
Wait. Isn't it common sense to NOT put your computer through dangerous situations? No wonder you keep on having issues and are now crying that XP sucks. A normal computer user would be smart enough to not do anything like you did. My friend would probably laugh at you if I told him that uyou put your computers through that stuff.

I work with computers and am well aware of the possible consequences of what I do, though. I'm not really a "normal" user. I can have a completely annihilated Windows 7 machine up and running again in approx 20-40 minutes without losing any files, (or losing everything, if I so choose)

I say that because that is the amount of time it takes me to simply reinstall Win 7, which is basically a surefire last resort to any malware.

I'm simply willing to accept the risk of not keeping to very safe places in the web, because I see benefits of not doing so.

For instance, I've seen ads that appear on Myspace attempt to virus me up several times. (Avast promptly murders the ad before it does so.) I still go there, though.

Archer
May 27th, 2010, 05:46 PM
I work with computers and am well aware of the possible consequences of what I do, though. I'm not really a "normal" user. I can have a completely annihilated Windows 7 machine up and running again in approx 20-40 minutes without losing any files, (or losing everything, if I so choose)

I say that because that is the amount of time it takes me to simply reinstall Win 7, which is basically a surefire last resort to any malware.

I'm simply willing to accept the risk of not keeping to very safe places in the web, because I see benefits of not doing so.

For instance, I've seen ads that appear on Myspace attempt to virus me up several times. (Avast promptly murders the ad before it does so.) I still go there, though.
If you're restoring all of your files after a reinstall in that amount of time, you're not scanning them before you do so.

And remember guys, your "computer friend" may be happy to help you out occasionally, but more often than not, you're not the only one who hassles them to do so, and they're likely to enjoy it somewhat less than you think. Advice is one thing, expecting them to clean up your computer every 6 months is another.

Eldrei
May 27th, 2010, 11:55 PM
I'm still using Windows XP and I'm planning to switch to Win7 but I don't know much about comps!! What will happen if I upgrade it to Win7????

Sneeze
May 28th, 2010, 12:02 PM
I'm still using Windows XP and I'm planning to switch to Win7 but I don't know much about comps!! What will happen if I upgrade it to Win7????

IIRC Windows 7 gives you the option to retain all your original files while overwriting your current OS and such, never done it myself though so not entirely sure how it works.

locoroco
May 28th, 2010, 12:42 PM
i personally dont like win7 to much requirements if u want a gameplay computer stick with xp win7 requires double of everything in the requirements for example

call of duty modern ware fare

Required (minimum) Specs
CPU: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 2.4 GHz or AMD(R) Athlon(TM) 64 2800+ processor or any 1.8Ghz Dual Core Processor or better supported
RAM: 512MB RAM (1gb for Windows 7)
Hard Drive: 8GB of free space
Video card: NVIDIA(R) Geforce(TM) 6600
or better or ATI(R) Radeon(R) 9800 Pro or better

recommended

CPU: 2.4 GHz dual core or better
RAM: 1G for XP; 2G for Win7
Hard Drive: 8GB of free space
Video card: 3.0 Shader Support recommended. Nvidia Geforce 7800 or better or ATI Radeon X1800 or better

as u can see everything reccomended for xp is lower than win 7 also if the version u plan on installing is win7 home premium or any other version thats not win7 ultimate many of the programs made for xp wont work on win7 unless u have win 7 ultimate and run the program in compatibility mode and anyways that disk cost almost 350$ why would u do it stick with win xp

PkMnTrainer Yellow
May 28th, 2010, 12:48 PM
If you're restoring all of your files after a reinstall in that amount of time, you're not scanning them before you do so.g, expecting them to clean up your computer every 6 months is another.

You've obviously never seen how effectively Avast scans then. =3 Believe me when I say if a file is getting transfered or running it's getting scanned in the background with Avast, downloads included. <3 Avast. (This is part of the free version, too.)

@Sneeze: It's called a Custom Install and is available to XP users, unlike Upgrade install which is frankly a bit overrated.

Simply make sure it does not format your drive and you will not lose your files.

i personally dont like win7 to much requirements if u want a gameplay computer stick with xp win7 requires double of everything in the requirements for example

call of duty modern ware fare

Required (minimum) Specs
CPU: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 2.4 GHz or AMD(R) Athlon(TM) 64 2800+ processor or any 1.8Ghz Dual Core Processor or better supported
RAM: 512MB RAM (1gb for Windows 7)
Hard Drive: 8GB of free space
Video card: NVIDIA(R) Geforce(TM) 6600
or better or ATI(R) Radeon(R) 9800 Pro or better

recommended

CPU: 2.4 GHz dual core or better
RAM: 1G for XP; 2G for Win7
Hard Drive: 8GB of free space
Video card: 3.0 Shader Support recommended. Nvidia Geforce 7800 or better or ATI Radeon X1800 or better

as u can see everything reccomended for xp is lower than win 7 also if the version u plan on installing is win7 home premium or any other version thats not win7 ultimate many of the programs made for xp wont work on win7 unless u have win 7 ultimate and run the program in compatibility mode and anyways that disk cost almost 350$ why would u do it stick with win xp

Scuse me... Nice fake minimum requirements. Too bad all I had to do to find out was google the specs myself.

Here's the REAL specs, which only mention Vista...because..yeah old game is old. It's also a fact that Windows 7 has lower requirements than Vista due to the massive complaints Vista got about that.

Minimum System Requirements

Required (minimum) Specs
CPU: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 2.4 GHz or AMD(R) Athlon(TM) 64 2800+ processor or any 1.8Ghz Dual Core Processor or better supported
RAM: 512MB RAM (768MB for Windows Vista)
Hard Drive: 8GB of free space
Video card: NVIDIA(R) Geforce(TM) 6600
or better or ATI(R) Radeon(R) 9800 Pro or better

Recommended Specs
CPU: 2.4 GHz dual core or better
RAM: 1G for XP; 2G for Vista
Hard Drive: 8GB of free space
Video card: 3.0 Shader Support recommended. Nvidia Geforce 7800 or better or ATI Radeon X1800 or better


=/ FURTHERMORE, the only thing that's even mentioned being different is the RAM, not "everything". CPU is the same, Hard Drive space is the same, Video Card is the same. Finally, most programs work with Windows 7. Thank you very much.

Heart's Soul
May 28th, 2010, 06:36 PM
[beep], Seven, it won't even install on my PC because my PC is THAT bad. 1.15GHz, 256MB RAM. Not even enough to boot 10 Chrome tabs on Seven. I'll stick with my YouTube-less XP, thank you very much.

donavannj
May 28th, 2010, 08:07 PM
[beep], Seven, it won't even install on my PC because my PC is THAT bad. 1.15GHz, 256MB RAM. Not even enough to boot 10 Chrome tabs on Seven. I'll stick with my YouTube-less XP, thank you very much.

Well, if you've only got 256MB of RAM, I think it's time you started looking for a new computer. Especially if you want to game. (b'-')b

15ares
May 28th, 2010, 08:18 PM
heck no! XP pwns all, it doesnt ask for permission with everything like vista, and vista doesnt even let you open all the files and programs xp does. i hate my vista lol. Idk about windows 7, but i still say XP FTW!!!

Archer
May 29th, 2010, 02:18 AM
as u can see everything reccomended for xp is lower than win 7 also if the version u plan on installing is win7 home premium or any other version thats not win7 ultimate many of the programs made for xp wont work on win7 unless u have win 7 ultimate and run the program in compatibility mode and anyways that disk cost almost 350$ why would u do it stick with win xp
As Yellow said, RAM is the only difference because, being 8 YEARS NEWER, 7 is running more in the background. For a very good reason, too. 7 can cope with an older CPU, I've had it running on my 1.2GHz/1.5GB/Tablet just fine. It's the RAM it needs and it still idles on less that Vista, which really isn't that bad. Did I mention how horrible XP x64 is? Because if you're gaming, chances are you're have 4GB ram, in which case:

1. You won't care less about the extra 500-600MB that Vista and 7 use
2. You'll have a 64-bit OS and XPx64 is a last minute-throw together. And no drivers for it, Whereas Vista and 7 x64 are great.


Also, regarding Program Compatibility, you should really do a bit of research before you go throwing it in as evidence. There are a small number of programs that don't run on XP; most of which are outdated. There's absolutely no reason to get Ultimate. Everything from Starter Edition (neutered Netbook version) has the option to run in compatibility mode. If you're thinking of XP mode, it's just another virtual machine, so you might as well run the more versatile VirtualBox from [Sun] *shotted* Oracle. By the way, XP mode is available in Window 7 Professional, which is only step up from Home Premium.

Oh, and if you're gaming on XP, have fun with your archaic DirectX 9, while we're all using DX11.

Sorry for ranting... :D

You've obviously never seen how effectively Avast scans then. =3 Believe me when I say if a file is getting transfered or running it's getting scanned in the background with Avast, downloads included. <3 Avast. (This is part of the free version, too.)

I'll have to have a look into Avast at some point; I used it ages ago when it was trying to imitate a CD Player, and that was enough to turn me off.

[beep], Seven, it won't even install on my PC because my PC is THAT bad. 1.15GHz, 256MB RAM. Not even enough to boot 10 Chrome tabs on Seven. I'll stick with my YouTube-less XP, thank you very much.
Yes, it will not physically let you install unless you have 512MB Ram. You can always hack the disc image to remove this, but it's really trying to tell you something.

That's also the funny thing about Chrome (and IE8/Safari). Each tab is a separate process. So while Firefox is a bit of a sloth to open up, and its uage may be higher with one tab open, it doesn't make a huge difference if you open a new tab. Whereas the others open an extra instance of the program with each tab.

If you find FF too slow, try K-Meleon. It's a little ugly (I'm a little obsessive, though), but it's quite snappy. Based on FF's engine, too.

15ares, you do, um, realise that the UAC prompts are to stop unauthorised access to your system, don't you? XP is so prone to security threats, it's not funny. Proof: With both an XP computer and Vista computer, try to delete system32 and see what happens... I'm telling you now, that your Vista install will kick up a stink and continue running. Can't say the same for XP...

a

twocows
May 29th, 2010, 02:43 AM
If you're restoring all of your files after a reinstall in that amount of time, you're not scanning them before you do so.

And remember guys, your "computer friend" may be happy to help you out occasionally, but more often than not, you're not the only one who hassles them to do so, and they're likely to enjoy it somewhat less than you think. Advice is one thing, expecting them to clean up your computer every 6 months is another.
I'm the only person I've ever met that actually enjoys fixing peoples' computers, and most everyone I know does it (since most of my friends are computer science guys like me), if that ratio tells you anything about how much most computer science guys don't want to fix your computer.

OTOH, I'd be more than happy to do so for pretty much anyone, and I don't charge (though I take donations) since I actually enjoy it.

heck no! XP pwns all, it doesnt ask for permission with everything like vista, and vista doesnt even let you open all the files and programs xp does. i hate my vista lol. Idk about windows 7, but i still say XP FTW!!!
Turn off UAC if you don't like it, though for someone with the amount of "expertise" you're showing, I certainly wouldn't recommend it since it's an important security feature (one that, as you pointed out, XP lacked).
vista doesnt even let you open all the files and programs xp does
That should read "idiot programmers haven't updated their outdated crap to run on Vista," or in other words, it's the application developer's fault. And any "files" that "open" in XP should open in Vista or any other Windows OS, for that matter, as long as you have something associated with opening it.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
May 29th, 2010, 04:49 AM
2. You'll have a 64-bit OS and XPx64 is a last minute-throw together. And no drivers for it, Whereas Vista and 7 x64 are great.


Also, regarding Program Compatibility, you should really do a bit of research before you go throwing it in as evidence. There are a small number of programs that don't run on XP; most of which are outdated. There's absolutely no reason to get Ultimate. Everything from Starter Edition (neutered Netbook version) has the option to run in compatibility mode. If you're thinking of XP mode, it's just another virtual machine, so you might as well run the more versatile VirtualBox from [Sun] *shotted* Oracle. By the way, XP mode is available in Window 7 Professional, which is only step up from Home Premium.

Oh, and if you're gaming on XP, have fun with your archaic DirectX 9, while we're all using DX11.

Sorry for ranting... :D


I'll have to have a look into Avast at some point; I used it ages ago when it was trying to imitate a CD Player, and that was enough to turn me off.

Yes plz.

My gaming computer actually runs Windows 7 64-bit. It's a fact that XP 64-bit is absolute crud and can't even run most 64-bit programs. That being said XP cannot do 64-bit, which will become more and more popular.

Fact: My gaming computer (64-bit) is more stable than my 32-bit Windows 7 laptop, which has on ocassion run into some long term use bugs that are fixed with a simple restart. My gaming computer has yet to so much as run into a single hitch of problems despite the fact that given my way I'd rarely turn it off / restart it. I've never had to troubleshoot a single thing related to that beautiful machine~<3

And yeah. I'm sick of people talking about Program Compatibility while lazy developers sit out there making video games that don't even work on Vista and yet and expecting us to deal with it. NOT Microsoft's fault or problem. Get the torches and pitchforks, and yell at the developers.

So MANY of my programs work on Windows 7 Home Premium for me that I say who cares about XP mode? I don't need XP mode. Nothing except Mabinogi (Which is run by XP hugging noobs) even so much as requires advanced troubleshooting!




...Oh, and Avast imitating a CD-player? lol wut
Just so we're clear, this is Avast, the program I've trusted ever since I realized Norton was full of bologna
http://www.avast.com/index



Turn off UAC if you don't like it, though for someone with the amount of "expertise" you're showing, I certainly wouldn't recommend it since it's an important security feature (one that, as you pointed out, XP lacked).

Indeed. Very important security feature. You know that constant nagging you get when opening programs? That was also the developers fault. I say was, because I have UAC on and rarely get the admin approval screen even on my gaming machine anymore.

You know why it stopped asking so much? Wasn't Microsoft. That was developers realizing they were making their software with a major security flaw and fixing it the heck up. Back in the day of XP you couldn't so much as open a word document without running it in admin mode. When Vista and 7 came out, they offered UAC, which is a BRILLIANT security feature that simply was not followed correctly by developers at first.

What developers need to do, is realize that their programs DEFINITELY don't need to run in admin mode most of the time, and stop designing them to run in admin mode even though they don't have to. It's much more secure to do it that way, and takes away the annoying prompt.

Look at Google Chrome. You can install it without admin rights. Without admin rights, there's no fear of it damaging your computer. In fact, if I ever saw Google Chrome ask for admin rights I'd flat out deny because I know Chrome doesn't do that. Firefox does sometimes, but Chrome does not.

Archer
May 29th, 2010, 05:47 AM
...Oh, and Avast imitating a CD-player? lol wut
Just so we're clear, this is Avast, the program I've trusted ever since I realized Norton was full of bologna
http://www.avast.com/index
You clearly haven't been using since "Norton was full of bologna", because it has been crap since 2000, and the following Avast interface isn't that old.
http://www.avast.com/eng/images/simple_01.gif

See? CD Player. Which means you saw Norton's failure later than you should. :D Just messing around with you, though. :P

EDIT: By the way, I've decided to try out Avast for a bit. See if it's as good as Avira...

PkMnTrainer Yellow
May 29th, 2010, 08:29 AM
You clearly haven't been using since "Norton was full of bologna", because it has been crap since 2000, and the following Avast interface isn't that old.

See? CD Player. Which means you saw Norton's failure later than you should. :D Just messing around with you, though. :P

EDIT: By the way, I've decided to try out Avast for a bit. See if it's as good as Avira...

It took a shockingly long while for a virus to bring that to my attention, now that I think of it. Ah well, I didn't use the web back then anyway. Was all for video games.

Team_SJK
May 30th, 2010, 10:16 AM
It took a shockingly long while for a virus to bring that to my attention, now that I think of it. Ah well, I didn't use the web back then anyway. Was all for video games.

That's how it is for me. I still use XP because some of my games don't even run properly in 7. They're all choppy in Windows 7, yet they run perfectly fine in XP, but I like the way Windows 7 works and looks. So now you see the predicament I'm in. Maybe if I had a larger hard drive, I could dual boot.

locoroco
May 30th, 2010, 02:59 PM
exacly what i mean try to run nfs u2 on 7 see if it runs i hate dx11 its crap i like dx9 better also for the ppl dont say that game is old if u think that try running pro street with my pc specs see if it run without any lagg

My pc specs:

AMD sempron 140 3.1ghz overclocked
Nvidia 7025 512mb ps 3.0 dx9
1gb ram 1066mhz
asrock n68-s mother board
win xp home

try running it in your win7 with those specs at full graphics with no lagg and tell me if win7 is better for gaming in other cases better for anything also i can run call of duty at full speed so dont say seven is better bcause the best gaming computers where made in xp platform until vista came out check out the alienware computers running xp and tell me its it comparable to win7 also i have a friend of mine thats runnin a phenom x2 on a xp for gaming also win xp home and 4 gb of ram at 5.2 ghz overclocked dont ever compare a xp to a win7 its still to early to call win7 the best os win xp is still the best for now

PS:sorry for my grammar mistakes my english is rusty

Team_SJK
May 30th, 2010, 03:14 PM
exacly what i mean try to run nfs u2 on 7 see if it runs i hate dx11 its crap i like dx9 better also for the ppl dont say that game is old if u think that try running pro street with my pc specs see if it run without any lagg

My pc specs:

AMD sempron 140 3.1ghz overclocked
Nvidia 7025 512mb ps 3.0 dx9
1gb ram 1066mhz
asrock n68-s mother board

try running it in your win7 with those specs at full graphics with no lagg and tell me if win7 is better for gaming in other cases better for anything

I'm with you on that. I would like to invite people to try playing Oni (one of the best games by Bungie [now part of Microsoft], the developers of Halo) using a PC with:

- Intel Core 2 Duo 2.16 GHz
- 1 GB SDRAM
- No independent graphics processing
- Windows 7 64-bit
... And then I would like to invite people to do the same thing, with the same machine, only this time with Windows XP 64-bit. I guarantee, you'll see a Godzilla-sized difference in performance.


And Locoroco: Your grammar's good enough for me. ;-)

locoroco
May 30th, 2010, 05:13 PM
First of all my graphics card is embbeded second thx i take that as a compliment since a lot of ppl say fix ur grammar and it gets real anoying after a while my comp also is running on a 30gb hd is not sata its a 9 year old hd like my computer was a amd duron 997mhz with 256mb of ram and a s3 graphics pro savage ddr im glad i upgraded her to wut she is right now she was just getting a lil bit to slow for me so i upgraded her best 200$ i ever spent hahahahahahhaha also my sempron is a dual core the only thing is that i havent unlocked it yet overclock with this motherboard is perfect no programs work accelerated they run normally shes also water cooled 30c• at that temperature she works in puerto rico and well its very cool since in puerto rico hot days go for like 90f so i guess she will make a decent gaming computer anyways back to topic no matter wut i will never buy win7 i've owned win xp for over 9 years and im 14 years old (yes ive owned it since i was 5) its been my first os and it will keep being it now i must say that i have been thinking about making her win 7 bcause i like the interface and the aero but thats the thing i like how it looks win xp's look its a bit dated but it works and also ive turned on task manager and when she is in idle the cpu charge is at 0% also the commit charge is 65mb out of the 1gig of ram i love my computer and love xp and like i said dx11 sucks its way to buggy i prefer my dx9 or dx10.1 but in no way i will put dx11 so haha take that all of the win7 users no offence intended win 7 is way to young to call it the replacement of win xp also i dont seem to have any security issues the last time i got a virus she just kept restarting so what i did was just turn her on in safe mode and using microsoft's tool MRT i cleaned her and she went back to normal that was when she had the amd duron so like i said win xp will keep being my os till by some miracle or extreme condition i have to change to win7 so for now i sugest you keep xp ok.

twocows
May 30th, 2010, 07:38 PM
First of all my graphics card is embbeded second thx i take that as a compliment since a lot of ppl say fix ur grammar and it gets real anoying after a while my comp also is running on a 30gb hd is not sata its a 9 year old hd like my computer was a amd duron 997mhz with 256mb of ram and a s3 graphics pro savage ddr im glad i upgraded her to wut she is right now she was just getting a lil bit to slow for me so i upgraded her best 200$ i ever spent hahahahahahhaha also my sempron is a dual core the only thing is that i havent unlocked it yet overclock with this motherboard is perfect no programs work accelerated they run normally shes also water cooled 30c• at that temperature she works in puerto rico and well its very cool since in puerto rico hot days go for like 90f so i guess she will make a decent gaming computer anyways back to topic no matter wut i will never buy win7 i've owned win xp for over 9 years and im 14 years old (yes ive owned it since i was 5) its been my first os and it will keep being it now i must say that i have been thinking about making her win 7 bcause i like the interface and the aero but thats the thing i like how it looks win xp's look its a bit dated but it works and also ive turned on task manager and when she is in idle the cpu charge is at 0% also the commit charge is 65mb out of the 1gig of ram i love my computer and love xp and like i said dx11 sucks its way to buggy i prefer my dx9 or dx10.1 but in no way i will put dx11 so haha take that all of the win7 users no offence intended win 7 is way to young to call it the replacement of win xp also i dont seem to have any security issues the last time i got a virus she just kept restarting so what i did was just turn her on in safe mode and using microsoft's tool MRT i cleaned her and she went back to normal that was when she had the amd duron so like i said win xp will keep being my os till by some miracle or extreme condition i have to change to win7 so for now i sugest you keep xp ok.
It's really not the grammar that bothers me it's that you put all your text into a long paragraph without ending a single sentence and it gets really convoluted and hard to understand because it just keeps going on and on with no real end in sight and I can't find a place to stop reading because your whole thing is one sentence and it ends up being plain unreadable and it becomes really hard to follow especially since the period is a placemarker of sorts and it also breaks up sentences so you have time to process what has been said so to actually put that much text into a single sentence with bad grammar to boot plus the fact that you seem to throw unrelated ideas in at will makes your text just plain unreadable.

Darn, it still only ended up being half as long as yours.

Also, you have no idea what you're talking about. DX11 isn't "crap" or "buggy," it's basically DX10 with a few enhancements, which was basically DX9 completely overhauled to be more efficient and more graphically impressive. If you think it's "crap," either your system is outdated and you're getting low framerates on DX11-enabled games or you have your settings cranked down low so it looks bad. Another possibility is that your graphics card doesn't even support DX11, so you're blaming problems on something you're not even using. If your system is really using integrated graphics, guess what: you're not using DX11. Intel integrated graphics doesn't support DX11 yet, so any glitches you're encountering are from DX10. Of course, if you're on XP, you don't even have access to DX10 or DX11, so again, any problems you're having aren't even from those versions.

"The best computers were made with XP until Vista came out." And the best computers were made with Vista until 7 came out. Just because your friend stuck XP on his machine doesn't mean it's the best platform for gaming. As for mentioning Alienware as an example of a gaming machine, no gamer in their right mind would buy a pre-built unless they just liked to waste money. Building your own computer is far cheaper and will get you better quality parts. I built a gaming machine for my brother recently. It has Windows 7 on it and games run just fine; they probably run better than they would on XP thanks to the optimizations DX10 and DX11 offer to newer graphics cards. And again, DX11 comes with and is only available on Windows 7. You can't have one without the other.

As for the interface, you can disable the Aero theme if you want it to look like classic-style Windows.

EDIT: It turns out DX11 is for Vista and 7, my mistake.

locoroco
May 30th, 2010, 09:48 PM
your wrong my computer runs perfectly with all of the setting cranked up to high.second my computer runs perfectly any game that is dx11 enabled it runs call of duty modern warefare 2 with no lagg what so ever.third who mentioned intel i dont own intel i will never own intel i despise intel my graphics card is an nvidia 7025 read the post i made earlier.fourth She does support dx11 she's win 7 ready i just dont like the high sytem requirements.fifth I've used my friend computer that has exactly the same specs as mine the only thing its that its win7 and it barely runs call of duty modern warefare 2.Sixth i know that no gamer would buy a pre built computer duhhh i made mine from scratch im just saying its a big company that makes great gaming computers.and lastly i like the interface i like the aero i just dont like the os requirements also like i said earlier try running nfsu2 or prostreet in that computer and bfore you say i anything i can run undercover i just need more ram thats it.also my computer is ps 3.0 so i get great looking games.

I'm with you on that. I would like to invite people to try playing Oni (one of the best games by Bungie [now part of Microsoft], the developers of Halo) using a PC with:

- Intel Core 2 Duo 2.16 GHz
- 1 GB SDRAM
- No independent graphics processing
- Windows 7 64-bit
... And then I would like to invite people to do the same thing, with the same machine, only this time with Windows XP 64-bit. I guarantee, you'll see a Godzilla-sized difference in performance.. ;-)

i know i will see a godzilla sized difference but i never could understang the difference between the 64bit and 32bit i guess its like a high def thing right? the os looks different or something. ill stick with 32bit for now.

twocows
May 30th, 2010, 11:13 PM
your wrong my computer runs perfectly with all of the setting cranked up to high.second my computer runs perfectly any game that is dx11 enabled it runs call of duty modern warefare 2 with no lagg what so ever.third who mentioned intel i dont own intel i will never own intel i despise intel my graphics card is an nvidia 7025 read the post i made earlier.fourth She does support dx11 she's win 7 ready i just dont like the high sytem requirements.fifth I've used my friend computer that has exactly the same specs as mine the only thing its that its win7 and it barely runs call of duty modern warefare 2.Sixth i know that no gamer would buy a pre built computer duhhh i made mine from scratch im just saying its a big company that makes great gaming computers.and lastly i like the interface i like the aero i just dont like the os requirements also like i said earlier try running nfsu2 or prostreet in that computer and bfore you say i anything i can run undercover i just need more ram thats it.also my computer is ps 3.0 so i get great looking games.



i know i will see a godzilla sized difference but i never could understang the difference between the 64bit and 32bit i guess its like a high def thing right? the os looks different or something. ill stick with 32bit for now.
I did make a mistake in my post (DX11 is not Windows 7 exclusive, it is also for Vista), but if you are running XP, it will not run because Microsoft has not backported it to XP. There is simply no DX11 on XP, it does not exist and will never exist. The Nvidia 7025 is an integrated GPU, I believe, but you might be right in that it supports DX11. However, that doesn't change the fact that XP does not.

That's not to say you can't run games that use DX11. Most game manufacturers realize a lot of people still use XP so haven't completely switched over to DX10/DX11 and still make their games DX9 compatible with some performance/graphics improvements for machines capable of more.

If your friend's computer barely runs that game, perhaps there is some incompatibility in the game with regards to Windows 7, or something is dragging down his system (Aero can do this, I disable it). My high-end machine can run even the most modern games (Battlefield: Bad Company 2, Metro 2033, Crysis, etc.) at high framerates on Windows 7, no problems whatsoever, and my other machines built in the past three years have no problem with newer games on Win7, though I turn the settings down a bit to keep a high framerate. Not sure what you mean by ps 3.0, by the way.

As for 32-bit vs 64-bit, there's a bit of noticeable performance improvement, but nothing to warrant a switch unless you're making a new system. Definitely not to XP 64-bit, which is absolutely horrible.

Archer
May 31st, 2010, 01:12 AM
your wrong my computer runs perfectly with all of the setting cranked up to high.second my computer runs perfectly any game that is dx11 enabled it runs call of duty modern warefare 2 with no lagg what so ever.

No. No it doesn't. Assuming these are your specs:

AMD sempron 140 3.1ghz overclocked
Nvidia 7025 512mb ps 3.0 dx9
1gb ram 1066mhz
asrock n68-s mother board
win xp home

You're not going to run any new games at anywhere near maximum settings, without watching a very pretty slideshow. What sort of a framerate do you see as acceptable? 6fps?


.fourth She does support dx11 she's win 7 ready i just dont like the high sytem requirements.
No, the GPU won't run anything in DX11. Only the ATI 5000s and NVidia 400s are DX11 compatible. And with a Sempron and a Gig of ram, no wonder you see issues trying to game on Win 7. Your board is probably AM2+, so chuck in an extra 2GB stick of DDR2 ram and Athlon X2 250. Give it an ATI 5670 to play with (no extra power required and budget friendly) and call it a day.

You do realise that playing games in DX10/11 is going to give you a performance hit, right? They run in DX10/11 (if supported) by default on Vista. That's why you're going to notice.

i know i will see a godzilla sized difference but i never could understang the difference between the 64bit and 32bit i guess its like a high def thing right? the os looks different or something. ill stick with 32bit for now.
64-bit is a different architecture. It provides a 64 bit bus on the CPU and allows you to use more than 3.25GB ram. It also allows the execution of 64-bit code, allowing a greater throughput on productivity apps. The extra RAM is necessary for a higher-end gaming rig.

Think your machine can run anything? Try Battlefield Bad Company 2 or Crysis Warhead. My machine only runs Crysis happily on "Gamer" (3/4) settings, so there's no way you'll get far.

locoroco
May 31st, 2010, 04:06 AM
just in case remember my comp is overclocked.I unlocked the second core yesterday and she is stable and i can run pretty much any game now.also my motherboard is am3. and by ps i mean pixelshader 3.0.and she does support win 7 she is win7 ready dint you read my mother board the asrock n68-s supports dx11 because she did have win7 with dx11 but i downgraded her to xp because it didnt wanna run games like need for speed pro street or carbon or nfs u2 or pretty much any of the game that i wanted to play because of incompatibility issues just so you know.i hate vista its crap and win 7 is to young like i said ill stick with xp until the end and she makes a great gaming computer.Dual core sempron @3.1 ghz try beating that with an athlon my graphics card is also overclocked and lastly ive done the gaming test online (the 1 that scans your computer and compares them to the specs of the game) and she only doesnt make it because of the ram ill chuck and extra 3gigs of ram and call it a day. and then i might think about win7.also i downgraded her because i cant hack pokemon games with it it was just my worst mistake ever putting win7 on my comp i had it for a torturing 1 week i should have told my dad(he was helping me install everything) to put win xp on it since i dont see my dad for a week i had to wait all of that time to acctually downgrade her it was horrible.like i said put your computer in idle and open task manager and tell me if the cpu charge goes down to 0% if it does ill buy your computer for 2000$ no it doesnt go to 0% well thats the problem the cpu that your system is using you cant use it can you.So for once just listen to yourself and accually try the test online and tell me if u pass it if you do tell me how did it go.also i've owned this proccesor and motherboard for bare 3 weeks why would i buy a new prossecor if this 1 is new also for me to run the ati gpu i need a new power supply thats the thing the power supply is also 3 weeks old.why would i change her she just need more ram i have played call of duty and its perfectly playable.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
May 31st, 2010, 09:00 AM
That's how it is for me. I still use XP because some of my games don't even run properly in 7. They're all choppy in Windows 7, yet they run perfectly fine in XP, but I like the way Windows 7 works and looks. So now you see the predicament I'm in. Maybe if I had a larger hard drive, I could dual boot.

Just get a better computer and you won't experience "Choppy" anymore I'm thinkin' =3 You must be too close to the minimum requirements and that's not acceptable for gamers.


I'm with you on that. I would like to invite people to try playing Oni (one of the best games by Bungie [now part of Microsoft], the developers of Halo) using a PC with:

- Intel Core 2 Duo 2.16 GHz
- 1 GB SDRAM
- No independent graphics processing
- Windows 7 64-bit
... And then I would like to invite people to do the same thing, with the same machine, only this time with Windows XP 64-bit. I guarantee, you'll see a Godzilla-sized difference in performance.


And Locoroco: Your grammar's good enough for me. ;-)

...Actually no I don't think I will see a godzilla sized difference. Both machines are over 9000 times overqualified to play that game and would probably run it at absolute full speed constantly. The thing requires only 64 MEGS of RAM.

Except for one problem. XP 64 bit sucks eggs and could very well have errors trying to run the program. Horrible comparison. Windows 7 64 Bit owns XP 64 bit SO hard it's not even funny. It's RIDICULOUS how much better it is.

Furthermore, integrated graphics are a disgusting thing to use in a comparison revolving around gaming. Also, 64 bit Vista / 7 are basically automatically superior to XP in a gaming environment due to the support of 4+ gigs of RAM and the superior handling of data. XP 64 bit is a terrible operating system (See: Compatibility issues that make Vista's initial release look good.)

Furthermore, I think it's kind of ironic you're giving a bare minimum hardware comparison, because we gamers definitely DO NOT look anything but down on those that deliberately try to use the minimum.
Can't do that and game properly. One or the other.



why would i change her she just need more ram i have played call of duty and its perfectly playable.

Quite frankly, that precious game of yours is medium-end at best. Try Crysis.


exacly what i mean try to run nfs u2 on 7 see if it runs i hate dx11 its crap i like dx9 better also for the ppl dont say that game is old if u think that try running pro street with my pc specs see if it run without any lagg

With the specs you have you should quite frankly not be playing video games. See what I said above. Meeting the minimum requirements is not the gamer way. Also, my LAPTOP could probably run that thing. Sorry, but that means it's old in terms of hardware requirements.


your wrong my computer runs perfectly with all of the setting cranked up to high.second my computer runs perfectly any game that is dx11 enabled it runs call of duty modern warefare 2 with no lagg what so ever.

No, he's not wrong. In fact, you're blatantly wrong. =/ DX11, nor DX10 are on XP. Even if a game has DX11 enabled, you aren't using it. XP can't use it, because XP is obsolete. A thousand bucks says that game looks better on my screen because I'm using 7.

fifth I've used my friend computer that has exactly the same specs as mine the only thing its that its win7 and it barely runs call of duty modern warefare 2.

That's because you need to upgrade your computer. You're way behind on hardware, and that's not acceptable in a gaming environment.

also my computer is ps 3.0 so i get great looking games.

http://matthewgill.info/Blue%20Dragons/Movies/Crysis.jpg This is an image comparison of Crysis graphics to a photograph.

Don't tell us about great looking. We've seen far better.

donavannj
May 31st, 2010, 10:20 AM
@Locoroco: Your "high-end" games aren't very high-end if you can run them on that terrible system of yours, which is way behind the gaming standard on specs. Hell, even The Sims 2 would lag on your system with XP installed and it running at the highest settings, as would Sim City 4 running these two mods: Network Addon Mod and Colossal Addon mod. And the games I'm talking about are 6 and 7 year old games, not exactly what you would call new.

Archer
June 1st, 2010, 01:58 AM
Dual core sempron @3.1 ghz try beating that with an athlon
Athlon II X2 260 @ 3.2 GHz stock. Done :P
Or my Phenom II X4 965 Quad @ 4.1GHz? How's that?

Do you mind telling me what this test is? And try an actual standard, like 3DMark06. I'd get you to run Vantage, but I forgot that XP can't run it.

Oh, and:
54406
That's with things running in the background. Also, the more ram you have, the more it will use.

locoroco
June 1st, 2010, 05:44 AM
First i could run sims 1,2,3 on my amd duron with s3 graphics pro savage ddr and 798 megs of ram a lil laggy not much but nothing hard to run.second yeah look at your ram usage that just proves my point vista and 7 are RESOURCES HOGS!!!!.Third yeah that game crysis looks cool not what im used to but yeah. fourth my comp make a great gaming computer but you know what im not going to keep discussing this my point is alredy on a pic so ill stop right here and while you have to keep upgrading i have to do nothing so.....yeah.

twocows
June 1st, 2010, 09:35 AM
First i could run sims 1,2,3 on my amd duron with s3 graphics pro savage ddr and 798 megs of ram a lil laggy not much but nothing hard to run.second yeah look at your ram usage that just proves my point vista and 7 are RESOURCES HOGS!!!!.Third yeah that game crysis looks cool not what im used to but yeah. fourth my comp make a great gaming computer but you know what im not going to keep discussing this my point is alredy on a pic so ill stop right here and while you have to keep upgrading i have to do nothing so.....yeah.
That's at load. At load, his computer is using approximately 1/8 of his total RAM. I don't know about his, but mine uses maybe 200MB at idle. Probably less, I'm guessing because that computer is off (I'm using a GNU/Linux machine at the moment).

And if you honestly think you don't need to upgrade your computer to keep up with modern gaming, you're deluding yourself. Even a high-budget gaming computer needs to be upgraded every so often, and yours is mid-range at best (Sempron is a budget processor and integrated graphics are a joke, even Nvidia's line). If you just want to play older games, you won't have a problem, but if you want to play any newer games you're going to have to bottom out the settings or upgrade like anyone else.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
June 1st, 2010, 11:02 AM
fourth my comp make a great gaming.

I'm going to disagree here. You're comparing against computers like ours that could probably outrun several computers of your specs combined. Sad news is I question whether your computer could play Crysis on low.


a lil laggy not much but nothing hard to run.second yeah look at your ram usage that just proves my point vista and 7 are RESOURCES HOGS!!!!

A "lil" laggy is a term many gamers would scoff at. And I think you've overstepped the line in calling them "resource hogs".

...First of all, you're going with the minimalist argument again, which is not okay for anyone that intends to play video games.

...Second of all, the requirements for 7 are LOWER than vista. That blows the accusation of 7 being a resource hog right out of the water. The XP standard of hardware is long dead. Microsoft knew it. There was no removing Vista from the market. All they did with 7 was not increase the minimum requirements any. (They even lowered it slightly)

Furthermore, do you have ANY idea what a RAM hog XP is compared to it's predecessor, Windows 2000/ME? Vista requires 1 gig, two times XP. XP, however, requires 512 Megs, which is an incredible sixteen times what 2000 required. (2000 required 32 megs at minimum)

So I say no, if anything, XP is the biggest "memory hog" in the existance of these cornerstones of technology.

95 = 4 megs
98 = 16 megs
Windows ME = 32 megs
Windows 2000 = 32 megs
Windows XP = 512 megs

donavannj
June 1st, 2010, 12:08 PM
So I say no, if anything, XP is the biggest "memory hog" in the existance of these cornerstones of technology.

95 = 4 megs
98 = 16 megs
Windows ME = 32 megs
Windows 2000 = 32 megs
Windows XP = 512 megs

Oh, and let's not forget that it needed 3 GB of HDD space to install, whereas Windows 2000 only needed... 300 MB, I think.

Though you could get XP to run on a bare minimum of 64 MB and running okay at 128 MB, though both would have a fair few features disabled.

@locoroco: You just said a "lil" laggy for The Sims. Which means not very good at all. And I am going off of personal experience of running these games on systems that were just like yours. I had to run it at low settings to get even the base game for The Sims 2 to run without any hitches.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
June 1st, 2010, 01:03 PM
Oh, and let's not forget that it needed 3 GB of HDD space to install, whereas Windows 2000 only needed... 300 MB, I think.

Though you could get XP to run on a bare minimum of 64 MB and running okay at 128 MB, though both would have a fair few features disabled.

@locoroco: You just said a "lil" laggy for The Sims. Which means not very good at all. And I am going off of personal experience of running these games on systems that were just like yours. I had to run it at low settings to get even the base game for The Sims 2 to run without any hitches.

Those are unsupported amounts of RAM though. You could probably get 2000/ME to go lower too. Just pointing that out.

locoroco
June 1st, 2010, 02:00 PM
i said a lil laggy on my amd duron 1400+ 997mhz with s3 graphics pro savage also if u setup xp right you could get her runnig with 64mb right and lastly xp does not require a minimum of 512 mb it required a minimum of 128mb and a unsupported minimum of 64mb just so you know vista was the biggest memory hog and 7 followed also try proving that the more ram it has the more it will use i have an xp comp with a celeron 1.2 ghz and she has 128 mb of ram she uses exactly what this 1 does with 1 gig in other words 64mb

PkMnTrainer Yellow
June 1st, 2010, 03:24 PM
Oh hey, you're right. Apparently 128 megs is the minimum. My bad.

That still makes XP the biggest memory hog in existance. (Twice as much as Vista raised the requirement.) I'm sorry but your argument doesn't make sense. Vista is not a memory hog, and Seven is the exact OPPOSITE of a memory hog. Like I said, if anything, XP is worse.

You seem to be insinuating that the amount of RAM doesn't matter, which is a HUGE mistake. You realize that when the system runs out of RAM it uses other slower methods of doing things right? That's the only reason it will use more RAM the more RAM you have, because RAM is more efficient than the alternatives, sometimes very significantly faster. Yes, your computer uses more RAM the more it has, but that doesn't mean it's good to have very little RAM or that RAM does not boost performance.

It does.

The increasing requirement of RAM is a requirement for more advanced operating systems. It's not really something you can magically stop needing to upgrade. You can sometimes improve things to use less RAM, but sooner or later if you want to put newer stuff you need to upgrade.

twocows
June 1st, 2010, 03:33 PM
Oh, and let's not forget that it needed 3 GB of HDD space to install, whereas Windows 2000 only needed... 300 MB, I think.

Though you could get XP to run on a bare minimum of 64 MB and running okay at 128 MB, though both would have a fair few features disabled
My nLited XP on my decade-old Aptiva got down to only using about 16 processes at idle, which got its RAM usage down even lower, I believe. Then again, Windows 2000 could be trimmed in almost the same way, allowing it to run on even older systems just fine.

Oh hey, you're right. Apparently 128 megs is the minimum. My bad.

That still makes XP the biggest memory hog in existance. (Twice as much as Vista raised the requirement.) I'm sorry but your argument doesn't make sense. Vista is not a memory hog, and Seven is the exact OPPOSITE of a memory hog. Like I said, if anything, XP is worse.

You seem to be insinuating that the amount of RAM doesn't matter, which is a HUGE mistake. You realize that when the system runs out of RAM it uses other slower methods of doing things right? That's the only reason it will use more RAM the more RAM you have, because RAM is more efficient than the alternatives, sometimes very significantly faster. Yes, your computer uses more RAM the more it has, but that doesn't mean it's good to have very little RAM or that RAM does not boost performance.

It does.

The increasing requirement of RAM is a requirement for more advanced operating systems. It's not really something you can magically stop needing to upgrade. You can sometimes improve things to use less RAM, but sooner or later if you want to put newer stuff you need to upgrade.
Yeah, when the system has resources that aren't being used, it puts them to use. When idle, a Windows system will defragment itself, and when there's extra RAM, it'll load parts of commonly used programs into memory in case you want to start them up.

locoroco
June 1st, 2010, 04:29 PM
well all im saying is that my xp is good for my type of gaming if you care about that senseless game crysis is your waste of time. newer games (most of them about war) have lost their touch in originality since 2006 i cant bear to buy i new game most of them are crap i like to buy games that havent lost their touch. also i definately know that ram is an important issue all im saying is that xp is not the biggest memory hog if you count vista and try to run it with 256mb of ram what would happen i think you cant even install it because it doesnt allow you to the same is for 7 if you dont have 512mb of ram it doesnt allow you to install it also i have a 12 year old dell with windows xp on it pentium 2 with 32mb of ram it has ie5 and really old programs bu it hasnt given me any problems about ram. so what im saying is that my current computer (until i can get more ram) for games under 2007 is great any game that i have tried playing in this comp runs smoothly i cant say the same for win 7 thats all i just cant like i said a few post ago i like how win7 looks i just dont like the requirements neither the program compatibility try running gta sa try running sappy try running a map try running nfsu2 or nfsmw try it and then tell me i just gotta say that my computer plays them all like if they where nothing so...... i think ill stick with xp i few more years.i can proudly say that i have owned xp since i was 5 years old im currently 14 and its the best os i have ever had it has never let me down. so you tell me if 7 is better than xp,it has lower ram usage than 7 it has better program compatibility without running any crappy compatibility mode its better on older computers so right now its to early to call 7 better than xp.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
June 1st, 2010, 05:20 PM
well all im saying is that my xp is good for my type of gaming if you care about that senseless game crysis is your waste of time.


I'm... detecting jealousy. Many gamers dream of having a computer than can run Crysis on full high.

newer games (most of them about war) have lost their touch in originality since 2006 i cant bear to buy i new game most of them are crap i like to buy games that havent lost their touch.

Opinion... Not fact. I'd like to point out the Atari crash and use that as evidence otherwise.

also i definately know that ram is an important issue all im saying is that xp is not the biggest memory hog if you count vista and try to run it with 256mb of ram what would happen i think you cant even install it because it doesnt allow you to the same is for 7 if you dont have 512mb of ram it doesnt allow you to install it

You think that's bad? Try being a Win 2000 gamer when XP game out. XP is in fact the biggest memory hog in the sense that it had the LARGEST relative increase in memory. Fact, not opinion.

also i have a 12 year old dell with windows xp on it pentium 2 with 32mb of ram it has ie5 and really old programs bu it hasnt given me any problems about ram. so what im saying is that my current computer (until i can get more ram) for games under 2007 is great any game that i have tried playing in this comp runs smoothly i cant say the same for win 7 thats all i just cant like i said a few post ago i like how win7 looks i just dont like the requirements neither the program compatibility try running gta sa try running sappy try running a map try running nfsu2 or nfsmw try it and then tell me i just gotta say that my computer plays them all like if they where nothing so......

Now I know you're just making stuff up. I run some of these games and they have absolutely no problem with Windows 7. Just because you choose to use inferior programs doesn't mean you don't have "problems with RAM". That just means you're compensating for problems.

i think ill stick with xp i few more years.i can proudly say that i have owned xp since i was 5 years old im currently 14 and its the best os i have ever had it has never let me down. so you tell me if 7 is better than xp,it has lower ram usage than 7 it has better program compatibility without running any crappy compatibility mode its better on older computers so right now its to early to call 7 better than xp.

Now I have a problem. It's one thing to question whether XP is obsolete. To call XP better than Windows 7? That is absolutely r-i-d-i-c-u-l-o-u-s. You're either a troll or you're making things up to support your argument. I can name 10 reasons Windows 7 is blatantly superior to XP right on the spot, while hundreds probably exist. Allow me to demonstrate.

1. 64 bit that doesn't suffer from additional compatibility issues.

2. More secure from malicious attacks.

3. More stable from accidents

4. It's very easy to reinstall Windows 7 without reformatting.

5. Windows 7 supports Direct X 10/11

6. Windows 7 supports Internet Explorer 9

7. Windows 7 supports several new APIs used in the building of programs such as IE9 that will inevitably cause OTHER programs to abandon XP too.

8. Windows 7 will be supported longer.

9. Windows 7 has UAC

10. Windows 7 has ASLR (MAJOR advancement in security XP will never have)

locoroco
June 1st, 2010, 07:16 PM
o pls ie8 and ie9 and the biggest pieces of sh*** that could ever exist. second i never get viruses. third i dont care about 64 bit. your telling me windows 7 is more stable than xp hahahahahaha you make me laugh. fourth you probably took more than 5 hours to name all of those things and i never said win xp was better than seven i said that xp is not out of the race yet thats all ill consider it ut of the race once i see that microsoft and all of the os hacking fans including me stop making things for xp dont worry all of us os hacking fans will make win xp better than 7 and lastly why the heck did we even start talking about older computers. also i hate war games i just like call of duty bcause is the first 1 i had.

Archer
June 1st, 2010, 07:57 PM
If you'd been around here for longer, you would have seen that I had Windows 7 running usably on a P3-850MHz with 256 MB ram. I got it to idle on 130MB ram, with a bit of tweaking. I also said that my screenshot had stuff running in the background. Namely 12 Firefox tabs and Halo 1. You don't seem to understand that any version of Windows will use extra ram if it has more. I can take out a 2GB stick and the idle will drop to ~700MB. If you have 12 GB of ram, it may well use 3GB, loading common programs into ram so that you don't have to pull them off slow hard drives.

Not caring about new games does not make your computer better, it just proves that you are ignorant.

Give me a screen shot of your idle ram usage, btw.

donavannj
June 1st, 2010, 09:39 PM
Hey, locoroco, just save your face and stop acting like a computer know-it-all, since you're obviously not. Do your research before coming in here and declaring that XP is more stable than 7 or Vista. On exactly identical (save for the operating system) machines at work, I've had an XP install become unresponsive 4 times since I installed them in January, compared to zero times for the Windows 7 machine, and the Windows 7 machine is used far more often. Try telling me that XP is more stable than 7 now after having heard my personal experience. And, also, each machine has 1 GB of RAM and Intel Core 2 processors. Same would go for a Vista PC, though it wouldn't run as quickly as 7 or XP because it has so many more background tasks than either. I would not game on such a weak PC, though, because even the older games I like are ridiculously process heavy and will lag on even the lowest of settings.

And, also, IE 8 is quite functional if you actually use Windows 7, and the same will go for IE 9, which isn't even out yet. Your poor experience with IE 8 is likely due to the fact that it wasn't even designed for XP. It was designed for Windows 7.

Also, if you save up $450 and know where to look for parts (I've found Micro Center stores have some pretty good deals pretty often, just not always on what you're looking for), you can get a very capable PC to game on.

locoroco
June 1st, 2010, 10:03 PM
your right ill just shut up i think that i will never get 7 i downloaded the upgrade advisor HOLY SH*** 40GBS FOR THE ENTIRE INSTALATION GO TO HELL WINDOWS ill forget this all happened im happy with my xp if your happy with your 7 good for you ill just just stick with my low resourses xp also my comp has never crashed on me 9 years and nothing.also the holy s*** moment was bcause i have a 320gb hd and i alredy used up 230gb so its kind of hard to fit 7 in all of that.also my poor experience with ie8 is not in security its legginess and pretty much everything in fact i have gotten 2 bad viruses in 9 years.

donavannj
June 1st, 2010, 10:24 PM
How would you know if its never crashed on you? 9 years ago you would have been 5, and the vast majority of 5-10 year olds aren't let anywhere near the computer.

And I bet you didn't know that XP is using 9 GB on your system, if it's properly updated, by itself. And it may also be worth noting that I have a 320 GB hard drive in my laptop with Vista installed, and I've been hovering around 95 GB of free space since January, and I got it about a year ago. The key is to know whether or not you're going to be installing any more applications/games or downloading any other huge files.

And, also, upgrading is a terrible way to go unless you absolutely cannot afford to lose certain licenses that you have on the older system, such as Office or some other expensive application.

And I didn't say it was security that was your particular issue with IE 8. I was also talking about lag. That has everything to do with the fact that it wasn't designed for XP, it just runs on it.

twocows
June 1st, 2010, 10:24 PM
o pls ie8 and ie9 and the biggest pieces of sh*** that could ever exist. second i never get viruses. third i dont care about 64 bit. your telling me windows 7 is more stable than xp hahahahahaha you make me laugh. fourth you probably took more than 5 hours to name all of those things and i never said win xp was better than seven i said that xp is not out of the race yet thats all ill consider it ut of the race once i see that microsoft and all of the os hacking fans including me stop making things for xp dont worry all of us os hacking fans will make win xp better than 7 and lastly why the heck did we even start talking about older computers. also i hate war games i just like call of duty bcause is the first 1 i had.
Internet Explorer 9 is not out yet. You're making judgment on a product you could not possibly have used. As for Internet Explorer 8, it's perfectly safe to use if you're using a proper anti-virus, such as the free Microsoft Security Essentials (http://www.microsoft.com/security_essentials/).

peopleperson
June 1st, 2010, 10:31 PM
I'm using windows XP right now. There's nothing wrong with it; my laptop is a vista and there's nothing wrong with it either. If you know how to use a PC correctly there really isn't a big deal.

locoroco
June 1st, 2010, 10:47 PM
im one of the exeptions. anyways im a big downloader i download pretty much everything that i think i might find usefull(someday). i dont have any licenses all of my program are shared in other words pirated so i dont have any probs with that but is just way to much memory. also for the 64bit 2 gb of ram as a minimum dam ill stick with xp for now i have been thinking for some time to upgrade but is just not possible and way to many things limit. me i love older games (2004-5-6) games and i really dont wanna lose them so i guess xp is the right choice and im proud to say it. and just like peopleperson said if you know how to use a comp it really doesnt make any difference so ill stick with xp.

donavannj
June 1st, 2010, 10:50 PM
im one of the exeptions. anyways im a big downloader i download pretty much everything that i think i might find usefull(someday). i dont have any licenses all of my program are shared in other words pirated so i dont have any probs with that but is just way to much memory. also for the 64bit 2 gb of ram as a minimum dam ill stick with xp for now i have been thinking for some time to upgrade but is just not possible and way to many things limit. me i love older games (2004-5-6) games and i really dont wanna lose them so i guess xp is the right choice and im proud to say it. and just like peopleperson said if you know how to use a comp it really doesnt make any difference so ill stick with xp.

2 GB minimum requirement for Windows 7 64-bit? This is news to me. The version I'm running at work is 64-bit, and it's on a system with 1 GB of RAM. :\

locoroco
June 1st, 2010, 11:05 PM
well thats wat it said in the program i dont know

Archer
June 2nd, 2010, 02:34 AM
your right ill just shut up i think that i will never get 7 i downloaded the upgrade advisor HOLY SH*** 40GBS FOR THE ENTIRE INSTALATION GO TO HELL WINDOWS
anyways im a big downloader i download pretty much everything that i think i might find usefull(someday). i dont have any licenses all of my program are shared in other words pirated

I think you just made a fool of yourself. And for the record, my 7 x64 Pro installation is just under 15GB. 32-bit would be substantially smaller. They suggest more room so there is space for all of your software, pagefile (which you're really going to need if you insist on 1 GB ram) Hiberfile, etc.

2 GB minimum requirement for Windows 7 64-bit? This is news to me. The version I'm running at work is 64-bit, and it's on a system with 1 GB of RAM. :\
x64 has a higher RAM limit because they assume that you will be using 64-bit programs. These put through twice as much information at once, so it's a safe assumption that you will need extra RAM. And many of the system programs are 64bit, hence the higher idle RAM usages on x64.

I still don't get why you went with such poor parts if you built the machine yourself. I'm not even sure where you managed to find 1GB DDR3 ram. You went with a newish platform (AM3) and paired it with a Sempron and a gig of ram. If you were so concerned about money, an AM2+ board with 2GB DDR2 would have been a better idea.

This argument clearly isn't getting anywhere and I'm worried it's going to start a flame debate if it isn't one already.

Summary: Windows XP is still a viable product for the time being, but it certainly has no future. Windows 7 is superior on newer machines and is preferable.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
June 2nd, 2010, 06:08 AM
Internet Explorer 9 is not out yet. You're making judgment on a product you could not possibly have used. As for Internet Explorer 8, it's perfectly safe to use if you're using a proper anti-virus, such as the free Microsoft Security Essentials (http://www.microsoft.com/security_essentials/).

The official statement on IE9 is that XP is not being supported and that's all I need to know.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2361485,00.asp

Perhaps you jumped to conclusions assuming I did not research this which I have >.o

locoroco
June 2nd, 2010, 06:51 AM
alright but i mean 7 with xp mode is 40gb using x64.also html5 with h.264 streaming in youtube is going to suck that is probably another reason why i hate ie9 im a beta tester for html5 on youtube is not really that great and you have no choice but to stick with it.my mother board it supports am3 processors it has ddr2 ram sorry if i confused you this asrock motherboard is wierd.anyways ill stick wit xp and its outdated security (i dont get viruses anyways LOL)and its probably outdated everything bcause for my usage is more than enough win7 x64 not an option and win7 32bit not and option either. ill stick with it it still has potential. when every single 1 of my favorite webpages dont support xp ill move to 7 for now i dont think so.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
June 2nd, 2010, 07:37 AM
alright but i mean 7 with xp mode is 40gb using x64

...You don't need XP mode. I have never used it and ran into very little compatibility trouble. So no, XP mode is not a part of Windows 7, or a requirement by any means. It's just a piece of software.

.also html5 with h.264 streaming in youtube is going to suck

You're the first person I've ever heard talk about HTML5 poorly. There's nothing sucky about it. Just another new technology that isn't being natively supported in XP. (You'll have open source solutions for this one, though. /eyeroll)

when every single 1 of my favorite webpages dont support xp ill move to 7 for now i dont think so.

Something tells me come 2014 it'll be meer months before XP is so insecure due to lack of support that it won't be a matter of support, it'll be a matter of you have the nerve to use XP in anything remotely dangerous and you get a nice BSOD.

twocows
June 2nd, 2010, 02:13 PM
The official statement on IE9 is that XP is not being supported and that's all I need to know.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2361485,00.asp

Perhaps you jumped to conclusions assuming I did not research this which I have >.o
I wasn't quoting your post, I was quoting locoroco's post. Given that he's on XP and it's not out yet, there's no possible way he could know that "it's the biggest piece of ****."

alright but i mean 7 with xp mode is 40gb using x64.also html5 with h.264 streaming in youtube is going to suck that is probably another reason why i hate ie9 im a beta tester for html5 on youtube is not really that great and you have no choice but to stick with it.my mother board it supports am3 processors it has ddr2 ram sorry if i confused you this asrock motherboard is wierd.anyways ill stick wit xp and its outdated security (i dont get viruses anyways LOL)and its probably outdated everything bcause for my usage is more than enough win7 x64 not an option and win7 32bit not and option either. ill stick with it it still has potential. when every single 1 of my favorite webpages dont support xp ill move to 7 for now i dont think so.
Anyone that judges a product by its beta version does not deserve to be a beta tester. The whole point of beta testing is to point out what you don't like and provide feedback on it so they can change it before the final release. If there is something you don't like about it, tell them. HTML 5 on YouTube is a necessary step; people should not have to install extra proprietary software to do things that should be standardized. YouTube already uses H.264 for most rendering anyway, they're just working out the bugs in their player interface.

jazzrocking
June 3rd, 2010, 02:35 AM
I do not think that Window XP is Obsolete as I still use it and there are certain advantages of it. The following are the reasons,

1. You can still run older apps easily.
2. Easily installed.
3. You don't need any fancy Firewall.
4. You can have true DOS not cmd DOS.
5. You don't need any fancy virus checkers as 80% of virus's now are made for Win2k/XP/Vista.
6. You don't need constant daily updates for features they have cocked up.

donavannj
June 3rd, 2010, 07:03 AM
I do not think that Window XP is Obsolete as I still use it and there are certain advantages of it. The following are the reasons,

1. You can still run older apps easily.
2. Easily installed.
3. You don't need any fancy Firewall.
4. You can have true DOS not cmd DOS.
5. You don't need any fancy virus checkers as 80% of virus's now are made for Win2k/XP/Vista.
6. You don't need constant daily updates for features they have cocked up.

1. Older apps also work well in Windows 7 and Windows Vista, too.
2. Windows 7 and Windows Vista have even easier installs.
3. Yes, you do. Windows XP is still relevant to those who wish to expose vulnerabilities in systems, since it's still widely used.
4. XP and 2000 both had an emulated DOS environment. Last one to run on top of true DOS was Windows 98.
5. That statement is just contradictory to itself, and proves that you do need an Antivirus program.
6. Thing is, they're not daily updates, they're weekly updates, and most of those updates are for XP, not Vista or 7, since they're covering security vulnerabilities in the operating system.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
June 3rd, 2010, 07:23 AM
I'm using windows XP right now. There's nothing wrong with it; my laptop is a vista and there's nothing wrong with it either. If you know how to use a PC correctly there really isn't a big deal.

Yeah... but... if that was how simple reality was Windows 3.1 / 95 would still be popular.

They're not. o.o

I wasn't quoting your post, I was quoting locoroco's post. Given that he's on XP and it's not out yet, there's no possible way he could know that "it's the biggest piece of ****."

Oh I'm sorry. My bad. I must've have payed a bit too little attention to the person making the argument. How embarrassing.

1. You can still run older apps easily.
My windows 7 machine can run software and games that pre-date XP. This argument is propaganda. =/

2. Easily installed.
No. It's not. In fact XP installs are quite painful in comparison to newer Operating Systems, majorly due to the fact they also require a reformat.

3. You don't need any fancy Firewall.
There is no reason XP needs a firewall any less than Vista or 7. In fact, due to security vulnerabilities it needs it more if anything.

4. You can have true DOS not cmd DOS.
XP doesn't have true DOS

5. You don't need any fancy virus checkers as 80% of virus's now are made for Win2k/XP/Vista.
...

6. You don't need constant daily updates for features they have cocked up.
I don't see what a rooster has to do with thi-*YELLOW IS SHOT*
Updates are weekly, and furthermore many people LIKE new things, instead of being on a life support of vulnerability fixes that don't really do anything noticeable like XP is.

Actor
June 3rd, 2010, 08:17 AM
XP has the chance in my eyes, to be perfectly usable when vista itself is obsolete. (In a way i'm saying that there is a chance that XP will not be obsolete when Vista is.) Turns out it's still pretty popular.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
June 3rd, 2010, 08:33 AM
XP has the chance in my eyes, to be perfectly usable when vista itself is obsolete. (In a way i'm saying that there is a chance that XP will not be obsolete when Vista is.) Turns out it's still pretty popular.

I think that that's very unrealistic and very improbable.

Actor
June 3rd, 2010, 08:35 AM
I think that that's very unrealistic and very improbable.

:p You're very right. Mabye XP will only go on untill next year, where microsoft could release a 10th anniversary editon for XP.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
June 3rd, 2010, 09:05 AM
:p You're very right. Mabye XP will only go on untill next year, where microsoft could release a 10th anniversary editon for XP.

That, would be sudden and out of the blue considering no plans for anything like that have been announced.

Okami Chi
June 3rd, 2010, 09:17 AM
Well, if you've only got 256MB of RAM, I think it's time you started looking for a new computer. Especially if you want to game. (b'-')b
God how does a computer even run MS Paint on that! Lol! :D

donavannj
June 3rd, 2010, 09:45 AM
God how does a computer even run MS Paint on that! Lol! :D

Well, one could easily manage that. I mean, MSPaint on my Vista laptop uses only 2 MB of RAM on a blank page, and I would imagine that the Windows XP one would take up fewer resources as it's running an older version.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
June 3rd, 2010, 10:52 AM
Well, one could easily manage that. I mean, MSPaint on my Vista laptop uses only 2 MB of RAM on a blank page, and I would imagine that the Windows XP one would take up fewer resources as it's running an older version.

I seem to recall XP MSpaint using significantly less resources (As well as being horrible compared even to what we have now)

Also, hyperbole is fun.

Peeky Chew
June 5th, 2010, 12:51 AM
I don't understand how people are asking how it handled graphics. My old xp computer could run supreme commander on medium settings with no lag. That was amazing at the start of 2007.

Archer
June 5th, 2010, 02:14 AM
XP has the chance in my eyes, to be perfectly usable when vista itself is obsolete. (In a way i'm saying that there is a chance that XP will not be obsolete when Vista is.) Turns out it's still pretty popular. The only truth I can see in this, is that there will be no hardware that Vista will happily run on where Seven won't. XP, on the other hand, will be an option to run on older machines. Obviously, if the machine is that old, there's no point throwing any money at it. Whereas XP may have its place, Seven is better wherever vista is considered.

I don't understand how people are asking how it handled graphics. My old xp computer could run supreme commander on medium settings with no lag. That was amazing at the start of 2007.
The requirements weren't exactly high at all. 512MB ram and a 128MB video card? You wouldn't see a performance difference between XP and 7, because it would never get close to pushing the computer, and there's no DX10 to deal with.

Peeky Chew
June 5th, 2010, 03:33 AM
The requirements weren't exactly high at all. 512MB ram and a 128MB video card? You wouldn't see a performance difference between XP and 7, because it would never get close to pushing the computer, and there's no DX10 to deal with.You've obviously never played it/read any reviews. The mininum requirements were massively under what it actually needed. You had to have a 512 mb video card and at least 2 gb ram to run the medium specs. When it was released game spot said there was no system which could run it at the highest specs with hundreds of enemies on screen with no lag.

Xp ran it fine.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
June 5th, 2010, 06:19 AM
The only truth I can see in this, is that there will be no hardware that Vista will happily run on where Seven won't. XP

Pardon? Are you insinuating that Vista will run on older machines than 7?

I'd actually like to point out that 7 has slightly lower requirements, and nothing higher. In essence, 7 will run on ANYTHING Vista runs on and more. One of the majorly lower requirements is HD space. Here, let me demonstrate.

1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
1 gigabyte (GB) RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit)
16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)
DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver

1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
1 GB of system memory
40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
Support for DirectX 9 graphics with:
WDDM Driver
128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)
Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware
32 bits per pixel
DVD-ROM drive
Audio Output
Internet access (fees may apply)

Both are straight from Microsoft.com I'd like to note that they've included some silly things in the Vista minimum such as internet access and DVD ROM drive that really have no business being there. I'd also like to note that the Vista 64 bit specs for RAM and HD are missing.

You've obviously never played it/read any reviews. The mininum requirements were massively under what it actually needed. You had to have a 512 mb video card and at least 2 gb ram to run the medium specs. When it was released game spot said there was no system which could run it at the highest specs with hundreds of enemies on screen with no lag.

Xp ran it fine.

I'd like to point out that Supreme Commander is a Vista exclusive. Perhaps you should consider, if you were so inclined to manage to find/create a hack to let that thing play on XP, that you may very well have been disabling things XP couldn't handle. The illusion of a fair contest was in reality your computer running the game on lower settings. For instance, seeing as it's Vista Exclusive, ten bucks says it's meant to use DX10/11

Peeky Chew
June 5th, 2010, 08:48 AM
I'd like to point out that Supreme Commander is a Vista exclusive. Perhaps you should consider, if you were so inclined to manage to find/create a hack to let that thing play on XP, that you may very well have been disabling things XP couldn't handle. The illusion of a fair contest was in reality your computer running the game on lower settings. For instance, seeing as it's Vista Exclusive, ten bucks says it's meant to use DX10/11Just shows how much you guys actually know about the game. On the back it say: Microsoft Windows XP Sevice Pack 2, Vista.
And it used directX 9, which it installed for you.
It wasn't less good picture either, it looks identicall on it, Vista and 7.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
June 5th, 2010, 09:34 AM
Just shows how much you guys actually know about the game. On the back it say: Microsoft Windows XP Sevice Pack 2, Vista.
And it used directX 9, which it installed for you.
It wasn't less good picture either, it looks identicall on it, Vista and 7.

...Your point?
I believe you just contradicted yourself.

Also, a game built on Direct X9 is automatically old in my eyes.

Peeky Chew
June 5th, 2010, 09:46 AM
...Your point?
I believe you just contradicted yourself.

Also, a game built on Direct X9 is automatically old in my eyes.My point was that you said it wouldn't work on XP, but it's designed to. And my original point was that if XP can run SC it's better than people are giving it credit for.
You obviously have no idea what I'm talking about, or Supreme Commander, which for your information was extremely advanced graphics wise is 2007 (you'd know that if you'd bothered to do some research), so I'll just leave.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
June 5th, 2010, 10:23 AM
My point was that you said it wouldn't work on XP, but it's designed to. And my original point was that if XP can run SC it's better than people are giving it credit for.
You obviously have no idea what I'm talking about, or Supreme Commander, which for your information was extremely advanced graphics wise is 2007 (you'd know that if you'd bothered to do some research), so I'll just leave.

I know exactly what you're talking about... Your point's kind of weak, though. Are you insinuating that the fact it works for XP means something? Should I praise the NES for being able to play Super Mario Bros? o.O I think not. Supreme Commander is fairly low-end, regardless of whether it looks nice. Quite frankly you could pick higher-end games XP can still play.

Oh, and the negative emotion in your posts is rather detracting from their quality.

MINIMUM SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS:
Microsoft® Windows® XP Service Pack 2, Vista
1.8 GHz Processor
512 MB RAM
8 GB Available Hard Drive Space
128 MB Video RAM Or Greater, With DirectX 9 Vertex Shader / Pixel Shader 2.0 Support (Nvidia 6x00 Or Better)
Sound Card, Speakers Or Headphones
Broadband Internet Connection (DSL/Cable).
RECOMMENDED SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS:
3.0 GHz Intel Or Equivalent AMD Processor Or Better
1 GB RAM Or Better
8 GB Available Hard Drive Space
256 MB Video RAM, With DirectX 9 Vertex Shader / Pixel Shader 2.0 Support (Nvidia 6800 Or Better)
Internet Connection With Cable/DSL Speeds

Peeky Chew
June 5th, 2010, 10:44 AM
As Ive already said, Supreme Commanders mininum requirements are some of the most under exaggerated ever. To run it lag free you'l need at least double the recommended requirements: 4GB. Well if you won't beleive me for some reason, read this:
Since the game is keeping track and simulating hundreds of units over such a large area, it doesn't take much before the frame rate will start to stutter. On our test machine with a dual core CPU and 2GB of RAM, we experienced slight pauses on the humongous 81k-by-81k map. On smaller maps with a larger set of AI opponents, the action slowed to a virtual crawl as the system strained to keep up with the action. It's doubtful that a PC has been built yet that can run Supreme Commander's largest map with a full set of AI opponents at high graphics detail.
You're trying to tell me that that was farily low-end? A 2GB at at the start of 2007 was top end.

twocows
June 5th, 2010, 11:44 AM
As Ive already said, Supreme Commanders mininum requirements are some of the most under exaggerated ever. To run it lag free you'l need at least double the recommended requirements: 4GB. Well if you won't beleive me for some reason, read this:

You're trying to tell me that that was farily low-end? A 2GB at at the start of 2007 was top end.
So what you're saying is that XP wasn't obsolete back when XP wasn't obsolete? I think I agree, and furthermore, I think we should all talk about how old technology wasn't old when it wasn't old. Have you seen the new (decades ago) DOS 6.22? Oh man, it's got some cool new (decades ago) features. I hear it can even support the new (decades ago) Windows interface, it's great for productivity (decades ago)!

Peeky Chew
June 5th, 2010, 01:23 PM
So what you're saying is that XP wasn't obsolete back when XP wasn't obsolete? I think I agree, and furthermore, I think we should all talk about how old technology wasn't old when it wasn't old. Have you seen the new (decades ago) DOS 6.22? Oh man, it's got some cool new (decades ago) features. I hear it can even support the new (decades ago) Windows interface, it's great for productivity (decades ago)!No, I'm just saying XP is more powerfull than it gets credit for xD

PkMnTrainer Yellow
June 5th, 2010, 01:56 PM
No, I'm just saying XP is more powerfull than it gets credit for xD

I'm now saying that whether XP can do something it was supposed to be able to do many years ago is rather irrelevant o.O

I would be absolutely furious if my computer could not run that game under the most extreme conditions on full high. That would say to me that the game needed some major engine tweaking or I'd been majorly ripped off.

donavannj
June 5th, 2010, 02:35 PM
You're trying to tell me that that was farily low-end? A 2GB at at the start of 2007 was top end.

What? No, 2 GB of RAM was a medium-high amount of RAM at the start of 2007, not top end level.

And you were also probably running Supreme Commander on a computer with a slower processor.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
June 5th, 2010, 03:45 PM
What? No, 2 GB of RAM was a medium-high amount of RAM at the start of 2007, not top end level.

Agreed. I'd go to say that 4 GB / 6 GB would've been top level at the time. Right now, I'd think 12 GB would be top of the line for a gaming computer. (That is, unless you count the uber expensive method of getting 24 GB =3)

(I personally have 6 GB on my gaming computer. DDR3 and 1800 MHZ. I thought I had gotten 8, but, I was mistaken.)

MagitekElite
June 5th, 2010, 03:59 PM
I hope its not dead, although Microsoft won't be supporting it anymore (forcing people to buy new things) I still find it to be the second best Windows software Microsoft ever created. The first being 2000.

At least XP's Paint program was better.

Heart's Soul
June 5th, 2010, 04:11 PM
1. 64 bit that doesn't suffer from additional compatibility issues.
My friend didn't get The Neverhood running on his 64bit version, but on my 32bit XP it works fine. Guess what? The game is from 1994!
2. More secure from malicious attacks.
Mine is secure even against my own virus tests
3. More stable from accidents
XP never crashed on me.
4. It's very easy to reinstall Windows 7 without reformatting.
Partitions exist for a reason
5. Windows 7 supports Direct X 10/11
XP supports 10 and 11 on my PC.
6. Windows 7 supports Internet Explorer 9
I'm sticking with Chrome (before, I used IE6)
7. Windows 7 supports several new APIs used in the building of programs such as IE9 that will inevitably cause OTHER programs to abandon XP too.
And I should care... why?
8. Windows 7 will be supported longer.
Yawn, 98 and XP aren't supported, why should I care about 7? It'll last about 6 years.
9. Windows 7 has UAC
Yawn.
10. Windows 7 has ASLR (MAJOR advancement in security XP will never have)
Yawn.

Bolded my reasons to why I don't want 7. Besides, 256MB RAM is just enough for me and Photoshop *hugs* Also, 7 won't even install on my system, it needs 1GHz to run. I have 1.15GHz.

Dammit, I'm Aeris now.

donavannj
June 5th, 2010, 04:14 PM
(I personally have 6 GB on my gaming computer. DDR3 and 1800 MHZ. I thought I had gotten 8, but, I was mistaken.)
I personally have just 4 GB of DDR2, because I'm on a budget. I don't remember what the bus speed was, though.

I could probably expand to 8 GB for $70, since I've still got 2 slots open, but that's a tank and a half of gasoline for me (which is 1 1/2 weeks of driving for me).

I hope its not dead, although Microsoft won't be supporting it anymore (forcing people to buy new things) I still find it to be the second best Windows software Microsoft ever created. The first being 2000.

At least XP's Paint program was better.

Microsoft will just be dropping support for Service Pack 2 for XP, not Service Pack 3. Support for that ends in 2014. And Windows 2000 wasn't all that much of an improvement over 98, in my opinion.

And, if you think XP's Paint program was an improvement, wait'll you see the improvements the Vista and 7 versions offer over XP's in terms of file compression methods while still retaining quality (interface stayed the exact same, though). ;D

EDIT: @ Heart's Soul: Just get an emulator if you want to play some game from 1994. Also, was this friend running Windows XP 64-bit, or Windows Vista/Windows 7 64-bit? 'Cause there's a huge difference in the quality of the 32-bit emulators in the OSes. XP 64-bit's emulator sucks horribly. And I've gotten my older, non-3D games to run just fine in Windows 7.

Mr. X
June 5th, 2010, 04:27 PM
Both are straight from Microsoft.com I'd like to note that they've included some silly things in the Vista minimum such as internet access and DVD ROM drive that really have no business being there. I'd also like to note that the Vista 64 bit specs for RAM and HD are missing.

1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
1 GB of system memory
40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
Support for DirectX 9 graphics with:
WDDM Driver
128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)
Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware
32 bits per pixel
DVD-ROM drive
Audio Output
Internet access (fees may apply)


I'd like to point out that i had a vista machine running on 512 mb ram.

But then again it was vista home basic which might have lower reqs then which ever version of vista that you posted.

But i've upgraded it from vista to xp and put a hd 3450 vid card and maxed out the ram.

Edit

http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?lc=en&dlc=en&cc=us&docname=c00910224#N877

Specs for proof

donavannj
June 5th, 2010, 04:31 PM
I'd like to point out that i had a vista machine running on 512 mb ram and a 64 mb video card. So i highly doubt that those are the minimum requirements.

But then again it was vista home basic which might have lower reqs then which ever version of vista that you posted.

Home Basic wasn't even offered in some countries (such as the United States), so it's highly likely.

MagitekElite
June 5th, 2010, 04:45 PM
Home Basic wasn't even offered in some countries (such as the United States), so it's highly likely.
It wasn't?

....How did I get it then? o.O

Mr. X
June 5th, 2010, 04:52 PM
Did you even bother to read the specs? it states that it was available in the us and canada and that it has vista basic for the os.

So much for not being avaliable in the us.

donavannj
June 5th, 2010, 04:56 PM
Did you even bother to read the specs? it states that it was available in the us and canada and that it has vista basic for the os.

So much for not being avaliable in the us.

Oh, wait, it was. Never mind. I thought I heard something about it being dropped in the US at some point, though. I know it doesn't get offered with a new system as much any more if it does.

And here's (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/compare-editions/home-basic.aspx) your home basic system requirements.

EDIT: And that wasn't in your post when I was last in this thread.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
June 5th, 2010, 05:13 PM
Very observational Mr. X. Vista Home Basic DOES have different minimum specs which are significantly lower. It is a very basic OS though. I would personally not try to use it for anything but just that, basic stuff.

1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
512 MB of system memory
20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
Support for DirectX 9 graphics and 32 MB of graphics memory
DVD-ROM drive
Audio Output
Internet access (fees may apply)

Poeman
June 5th, 2010, 05:21 PM
Hey guys I just want you to know I'm on windows ME, and have an 8 bit monitor with 16MB of RAM, it's all you need and you kids and your fancy machines are expensive. I have no clue what Team Fortress is like but it surely can't beat pong!
Anyways I have to go, my dial up is holding up the phone and I'm expecting a call about my Nintendo 64 RAM Expander.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
June 5th, 2010, 06:08 PM
Hey guys I just want you to know I'm on windows ME, and have an 8 bit monitor with 16MB of RAM, it's all you need and you kids and your fancy machines are expensive. I have no clue what Team Fortress is like but it surely can't beat pong!
Anyways I have to go, my dial up is holding up the phone and I'm expecting a call about my Nintendo 64 RAM Expander.

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/930/imnerdplz.gif Oh you get back here you dastard! I'm going to break out Windows 3.1 and get minimalist all over your basement!

twocows
June 5th, 2010, 07:27 PM
Bolded my reasons to why I don't want 7. Besides, 256MB RAM is just enough for me and Photoshop *hugs* Also, 7 won't even install on my system, it needs 1GHz to run. I have 1.15GHz.

Dammit, I'm Aeris now.
My friend didn't get The Neverhood running on his 64bit version, but on my 32bit XP it works fine. Guess what? The game is from 1994!64-bit Windows XP is terrible.


Mine is secure even against my own virus testsOh boy, here we go. And you scoff at UAC. Unless you do penetration testing or hacking for a living, I doubt your "tests" mean anything. People that scoff at security measures really are the easiest to hack; I know this personally.

XP supports 10 and 11 on my PC.Nope. It doesn't. You're wrong. DX10 and DX11 aren't available for XP. There are hacks to make games think they are, but they mostly redirect calls to DX10/11 functions to similar (but slower and not as good) DX9 ones.

And I should care... why?Because you won't be able to use newer programs. Of course, if you want to have Windows 3.1-like compatibility with applications, nobody's going to stop you.


Yawn, 98 and XP aren't supported, why should I care about 7? It'll last about 6 years.Then use it for six years. If you're still using 98, you must not have a lot of computer needs.

Sarcastic Prince
June 5th, 2010, 08:51 PM
No, it's not obselete, I still need it to play GBA and PSX games.
But XP really is slow, and 7 is most probably the best computer out of
XP, Vista and 7 itself.

donavannj
June 5th, 2010, 08:55 PM
No, it's not obselete, I still need it to play GBA and PSX games.
But XP really is slow, and 7 is most probably the best computer out of
XP, Vista and 7 itself.

What? Emulators run on Windows Vista and Windows 7 just fine.

Archer
June 6th, 2010, 12:10 AM
What? Emulators run on Windows Vista and Windows 7 just fine.
You can basically ignore any comments saying the common software won't run. And who was smart enough to say that Photoshop only needs 256MB ram? How old could the version be?

Zet
June 6th, 2010, 12:34 AM
Hey guys I just want you to know I'm on windows ME, and have an 8 bit monitor with 16MB of RAM, it's all you need and you kids and your fancy machines are expensive. I have no clue what Team Fortress is like but it surely can't beat pong!
Anyways I have to go, my dial up is holding up the phone and I'm expecting a call about my Nintendo 64 RAM Expander.
Needs more Monkey Island games.


So what you're saying is that XP wasn't obsolete back when XP wasn't obsolete? I think I agree, and furthermore, I think we should all talk about how old technology wasn't old when it wasn't old. Have you seen the new (decades ago) DOS 6.22? Oh man, it's got some cool new (decades ago) features. I hear it can even support the new (decades ago) Windows interface, it's great for productivity (decades ago)!
And Linux was a poor man's Unix. Though now Linux just beats Unix by doing what Unix can do and more.

Heart's Soul
June 6th, 2010, 10:29 AM
You can basically ignore any comments saying the common software won't run. And who was smart enough to say that Photoshop only needs 256MB ram? How old could the version be?

I have Photoshop CS on my computer. I also can use Google Chrome, too.

Now YouTube is a problem. Can't even access that bastard.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
June 6th, 2010, 11:28 AM
Besides, 256MB RAM is just enough for me and Photoshop

Trying to run that morbidly obese program on ANYTHING below the maximum is a sure sign that you are a sick masochist. XD

Heart's Soul
June 6th, 2010, 11:47 AM
Add in Google Chrome, Windows Explorer, and Windows Media Player (due to WinAMP not functioning with YouTube) and you get a computer that's slow as hell.

Oh, and I have a drawing pad connected too!

locoroco
June 6th, 2010, 11:31 PM
My colleague Preston Gralla came up with seven reasons to move to Windows 7 (http://blogs.computerworld.com/14541/seven_reasons_for_upgrading_to_windows_7). And, they are pretty good, but good enough to switch away from XP, or to skip Mac OS X Snow Leopard or desktop Linux? I don't think so. Let me open up by saying though that if you're using Vista-you poor, poor person-yes, you should migrate to Windows 7 (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9136500/Review_Windows_7_RTM_a_closer_look). After all, Windows 7 is really just Vista without the warts. Otherwise, no, I don't see any compelling reason to switch.
I say this as someone who's also been running Windows 7 since the late betas and I'm currently running the RTM (release to manufacturing) version. I like Windows 7 (http://blogs.computerworld.com/windows_7_beta_is_already_better_than_vista), but if you were to ask me what the big feature, the 'wow' that would make you want to go to the trouble of moving to Windows 7, I'd be left without anything to say. Heck, look at Gralla list, number one on the list is the new taskbar. Microsoft wants me to spend big bucks for a new taskbar!?
OK, on with the list.
1) Windows 7 still has all the security of a drunken teenager in a sports car. From Windows for Workgroups and NT 3 until today, Windows is a security joke. It used to be that running Windows just put your head into the noose. Now, millions of lazy Windows users are the reason why the Internet is a mess (http://blogs.computerworld.com/14510/its_time_to_get_rid_of_windows). If you already do all the right things to keep XP running safely, you're not going to get any safer by buying Windows 7.
2) Windows 7, no matter how you buy it, is expensive. (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9135068/FAQ_How_much_will_Windows_7_cost_you_) Does your budget have the extra cash to buy a new and improved taskbar!?
3) Upgrading from XP to Windows 7 will require that you do a clean install (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9136362/_Dumb_Windows_7_upgrade_chart_sparks_spat). That means everything on your hard disk gets vaporized during the 'upgrade." Vista users have it easier. So long as they're moving from equivalent version to equivalent version or to Windows 7 Ultimate they can update without needing to rebuild their systems.
There are lots of ways, like Microsoft's own Windows Easy Transfer (http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/products/features/windows-easy-transfer) and I'm sure there will be many more, to migrate your data from your old system to your new one, but all of them take work. If you have a business with dozens to tens-of-thousands of Windows PCs you can count on a honking, huge upgrade bill.
4) Did you notice what I didn't say above? I didn't mention transferring your old programs and device drivers from XP to Windows 7. For that, Easy Transfer and most of the first generation of migration programs are of no help at all. You'll need to reinstall your old programs and device drivers. Then, you'll need to update all those programs and drivers. Doesn't that sound like fun? Doesn't that sound like hour after hour per PC of migration work?
5) XP already works. I can tell you chapter and verse on why you'd be better off running desktop Linux or put a Mac on your desk. Most of you though are happy running XP. If that's you, I'll be darned if I can think of a single, significant change that you'll get from running Windows 7 instead of XP.
6) If you're an XP user you'll need to learn a new user interface. Parri Munsell, Microsoft's Director of Consumer Product Management for Windows, has been fond of saying, "Our goal was to make the UI (user interface) in Windows 7 much easier to navigate." OK, I'd agree. It is a bit better.
But, I'm someone who switches operating system interfaces as often as most of you go out to get a pizza. I asked some friends who were XP stalwarts what they thought about the interface. They all thought it was pretty, but, they also all found it annoying to work with since they had to re-learn how to do XP basics. Vista users will have it easier, but XP users can expect to have a learning curve with the new UI.
And, once more, I find myself asking, "Is there anything here that's really a solid improvement on XP?" Or, to get brass tacks, if I'm a CFO or CIO, I want to know what I'm going to get out of re-training people to the new interface and I'm left thinking there's really nothing game-changing about the Windows 7 UI.
7) Finally, if you have an older PC, forget about it. I know there are people who swear that Windows 7 will run on low-powered PCs (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9136192/Windows_7_How_low_can_you_go_). Yeah, right. I've used Windows 7 on netbooks (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9132041/Hands_on_Running_Windows_7_on_a_netbook). It wasn't pretty. Windows 7 Starter Edition? Microsoft won't sell it to you (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9136454/Ballmer_confirms_Windows_7_Starter_restrictions_for_netbooks).
Bottom line. If you want something that's really better than XP, and you're willing to go to the trouble and expense of moving from one platform to another, you'll get real improvements like better security and low up-front costs, from a desktop Linux like SLED (SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop) 11 (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9130344/Novell_s_SUSE_Linux_Enterprise_Desktop_11_A_true_Windows_replacement) or Ubuntu 9.04 (http://blogs.computerworld.com/the_five_best_new_things_in_ubuntu_linux_9_04). Windows 7 is certainly better than Vista, but XP... not so much.

some of the reasons why i dont like 7. read and then talk because like it says right there 7 isnt all that is cracked up to be.also if it aint broke dont fix it.

twocows
June 7th, 2010, 01:05 AM
My colleague Preston Gralla came up with seven reasons to move to Windows 7 (http://blogs.computerworld.com/14541/seven_reasons_for_upgrading_to_windows_7). And, they are pretty good, but good enough to switch away from XP, or to skip Mac OS X Snow Leopard or desktop Linux? I don't think so. Let me open up by saying though that if you're using Vista-you poor, poor person-yes, you should migrate to Windows 7 (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9136500/Review_Windows_7_RTM_a_closer_look). After all, Windows 7 is really just Vista without the warts. Otherwise, no, I don't see any compelling reason to switch.
I say this as someone who's also been running Windows 7 since the late betas and I'm currently running the RTM (release to manufacturing) version. I like Windows 7 (http://blogs.computerworld.com/windows_7_beta_is_already_better_than_vista), but if you were to ask me what the big feature, the 'wow' that would make you want to go to the trouble of moving to Windows 7, I'd be left without anything to say. Heck, look at Gralla list, number one on the list is the new taskbar. Microsoft wants me to spend big bucks for a new taskbar!?
OK, on with the list.
1) Windows 7 still has all the security of a drunken teenager in a sports car. From Windows for Workgroups and NT 3 until today, Windows is a security joke. It used to be that running Windows just put your head into the noose. Now, millions of lazy Windows users are the reason why the Internet is a mess (http://blogs.computerworld.com/14510/its_time_to_get_rid_of_windows). If you already do all the right things to keep XP running safely, you're not going to get any safer by buying Windows 7.
2) Windows 7, no matter how you buy it, is expensive. (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9135068/FAQ_How_much_will_Windows_7_cost_you_) Does your budget have the extra cash to buy a new and improved taskbar!?
3) Upgrading from XP to Windows 7 will require that you do a clean install (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9136362/_Dumb_Windows_7_upgrade_chart_sparks_spat). That means everything on your hard disk gets vaporized during the 'upgrade." Vista users have it easier. So long as they're moving from equivalent version to equivalent version or to Windows 7 Ultimate they can update without needing to rebuild their systems.
There are lots of ways, like Microsoft's own Windows Easy Transfer (http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/products/features/windows-easy-transfer) and I'm sure there will be many more, to migrate your data from your old system to your new one, but all of them take work. If you have a business with dozens to tens-of-thousands of Windows PCs you can count on a honking, huge upgrade bill.
4) Did you notice what I didn't say above? I didn't mention transferring your old programs and device drivers from XP to Windows 7. For that, Easy Transfer and most of the first generation of migration programs are of no help at all. You'll need to reinstall your old programs and device drivers. Then, you'll need to update all those programs and drivers. Doesn't that sound like fun? Doesn't that sound like hour after hour per PC of migration work?
5) XP already works. I can tell you chapter and verse on why you'd be better off running desktop Linux or put a Mac on your desk. Most of you though are happy running XP. If that's you, I'll be darned if I can think of a single, significant change that you'll get from running Windows 7 instead of XP.
6) If you're an XP user you'll need to learn a new user interface. Parri Munsell, Microsoft's Director of Consumer Product Management for Windows, has been fond of saying, "Our goal was to make the UI (user interface) in Windows 7 much easier to navigate." OK, I'd agree. It is a bit better.
But, I'm someone who switches operating system interfaces as often as most of you go out to get a pizza. I asked some friends who were XP stalwarts what they thought about the interface. They all thought it was pretty, but, they also all found it annoying to work with since they had to re-learn how to do XP basics. Vista users will have it easier, but XP users can expect to have a learning curve with the new UI.
And, once more, I find myself asking, "Is there anything here that's really a solid improvement on XP?" Or, to get brass tacks, if I'm a CFO or CIO, I want to know what I'm going to get out of re-training people to the new interface and I'm left thinking there's really nothing game-changing about the Windows 7 UI.
7) Finally, if you have an older PC, forget about it. I know there are people who swear that Windows 7 will run on low-powered PCs (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9136192/Windows_7_How_low_can_you_go_). Yeah, right. I've used Windows 7 on netbooks (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9132041/Hands_on_Running_Windows_7_on_a_netbook). It wasn't pretty. Windows 7 Starter Edition? Microsoft won't sell it to you (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9136454/Ballmer_confirms_Windows_7_Starter_restrictions_for_netbooks).
Bottom line. If you want something that's really better than XP, and you're willing to go to the trouble and expense of moving from one platform to another, you'll get real improvements like better security and low up-front costs, from a desktop Linux like SLED (SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop) 11 (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9130344/Novell_s_SUSE_Linux_Enterprise_Desktop_11_A_true_Windows_replacement) or Ubuntu 9.04 (http://blogs.computerworld.com/the_five_best_new_things_in_ubuntu_linux_9_04). Windows 7 is certainly better than Vista, but XP... not so much.

some of the reasons why i dont like 7. read and then talk because like it says right there 7 isnt all that is cracked up to be.also if it aint broke dont fix it.
Perhaps you should cite your source (http://blogs.computerworld.com/14542/seven_reasons_to_skip_windows_7), I don't like to have to Google for it.

As some of the comments in that article pointed out, a lot of that is bull. He makes no effort to back up any of his claims. Windows 7 less secure? Now there's a joke. XP is a festering wound in the internet, and Vista and 7 are endlessly ahead in terms of security. In terms of price, it's not that hard to get it free or for a reduced price.

I'm not sure whether the clean install statement is accurate, but even if it is, it shouldn't be a big deal if you made a data partition and can write down a quick list of software to reinstall (and lol at the implication that businesses still keep data on the same partition, or even hard drive, as the OS).

His argument that it "just works" explains itself, but I'll add something on. DOS "just worked," and Windows 3.1 "just worked." That doesn't mean there wasn't a compelling reason to upgrade. I can think of several reasons to upgrade to Windows 7, some of which I have already mentioned.

He even admits the Windows 7 interface is better before going on to assume that the person reading the article is as stupid as he is and can't figure out a slightly different interface (that, for the record, you can easily make look like the old one).

The way he makes his "argument," it's almost like he got that one sentence backward. Perhaps it should have read like this.
Let me open up by saying though that if you're using XP-you poor, poor person-yes, you should migrate to Windows 7 (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9136500/Review_Windows_7_RTM_a_closer_look). After all, Windows 7 is really just Vista with a few nice changes, so why bother upgrading a Vista computer?

PkMnTrainer Yellow
June 7th, 2010, 05:59 AM
Microsoft wants me to spend big bucks for a new taskbar!?
No. :\

1) Windows 7 still has all the security of a drunken teenager in a sports car. If you already do all the right things to keep XP running safely, you're not going to get any safer by buying Windows 7.
Windows 7 has more native security than XP, and will continue to get more, unlike XP. This is factual, not opinionated you know. If I need to, I can list these security features and how they protect the system.

Does your budget have the extra cash to buy a new and improved taskbar!?
Yes, because that's completely irrelevant to buying Windows 7. Getting a new and improved taskbar is practically free with mods.


3) Upgrading from XP to Windows 7 will require that you do a clean install (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9136362/_Dumb_Windows_7_upgrade_chart_sparks_spat). That means everything on your hard disk gets vaporized during the 'upgrade."
Lie. Windows 7 supports a Custom Install without a reformat. No files are lost.

5) XP already works.
So does 3.1

7) Finally, if you have an older PC, forget about it. I know there are people who swear that Windows 7 will run on low-powered PCs (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9136192/Windows_7_How_low_can_you_go_). Yeah, right. I've used Windows 7 on netbooks (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9132041/Hands_on_Running_Windows_7_on_a_netbook). It wasn't pretty. Windows 7 Starter Edition? Microsoft won't sell it to you (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9136454/Ballmer_confirms_Windows_7_Starter_restrictions_for_netbooks).
Bottom line. If you want something that's really better than XP, and you're willing to go to the trouble and expense of moving from one platform to another, you'll get real improvements like better security and low up-front costs, from a desktop Linux like SLED (SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop) 11 (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9130344/Novell_s_SUSE_Linux_Enterprise_Desktop_11_A_true_Windows_replacement) or Ubuntu 9.04 (http://blogs.computerworld.com/the_five_best_new_things_in_ubuntu_linux_9_04). Windows 7 is certainly better than Vista, but XP... not so much.
You can't be a gamer, a minimalist, and also try and run Linux. >>

Seriously dude, you can't argue that XP is as good as or better than Windows 7. That's just ridiculous. This is about whether XP is obsolete.

Amaruuk
June 7th, 2010, 08:10 AM
I sure wish my school would get 7 already (they upgrade the Macs constantly, so why can't they at least do something for the PCs? It's like my middle school and how they'd upgrade Macs and then downgraded their PCs to 95 at around the time of XP's beginnings >.>). I have 7 at home, but they have XP still, and the differences are glaring. I'm at home most often and only use the PCs at school to work on Maya because my laptop can't handle it. I'm used to the ease of workflow that 7 has, but then I go to the lab and it's just... ugh. I sit there thinking the whole time about how old and unwieldy XP is in the face of 7.

It's not Vista, so I don't see any reason to continue to hesitate with upgrading. Plus, it's college. There's no ancient stuff of questionable compatibility to be run when the point is to teach up-to-date, big name software to keep students current for when they graduate.

locoroco
June 7th, 2010, 08:43 AM
you completely lost the point of the post if you read closely it states that "If you already do all the right things to keep XP running safely, you're not going to get any safer by buying Windows 7. " though its just a lil safer the post already says it.also did you read a lil forward"There are lots of ways, like Microsoft's own Windows Easy Transfer and I'm sure there will be many more, to migrate your data from your old system to your new one, but all of them take work. If you have a business with dozens to tens-of-thousands of Windows PCs you can count on a honking, huge upgrade bill." it doesn't say that its impossible it says that it requires work.Also you are practicly just spending big bucks for a taskbar xp already work perfectly and doesn't make a difference if you use 7 it says that your safer but if you have bad internet habits you are not safer than xp neither less safer you are equally safe they all get viruses and win7 viruses are a bad bad thing.Also dont start saying gaming cuz 7 has horrible audio,if you notice lots of users get problems with the jacks or the audio being laggy or choppy im just saying dont know if its true.In a final note what im trying to say is that if your upgrading to 7 because you have viruses well then fix your internet habits cuz i dont get any viruses and haven't gotten 1 for 7 years so its not safer if you move to 7 you just have less probability at spyware big deal. my xp is working perfectly and i dont need to change it so i would recommend ppl who dont have any problems with xp to stick to it 7 will not make the "safer" thing better it will make you think you are safer thats it cuz i had 7 i downloaded most of the stuff i got now and my 7 crashed on me i had to restore her by pressing f5 and doing some steps to actually boot her 5 hours later and ive almost filled the hard drive and yet no virusesso sorry but 7 doesnt make a big diff from xp if you know how to use it.

donavannj
June 7th, 2010, 09:04 AM
tl;dr because of massive wall of text with terrible spacing and minimal punctuation: The person you quoted obviously hasn't tried to intentional break both 7 and XP. Even with just passive efforts on my part (via modified browsing habits) to infect Windows 7 and Windows XP, Windows 7 showed significantly more resilience to infection. And Windows 7 can use the improved security features that many antivirus programs already have that are designed with security features Vista or 7 in mind, that wouldn't work in XP as it doesn't have the improved security features.

Though as always, browsing the internet without antivirus and antispyware software is like sleeping around with a litany of people who have an 80% chance of having STDs and not using a condom. Browsing on XP, however, is like using a cheap, three-year-old, brittle condom and not expecting it to break on you mid-coitus, whereas browsing with 7 is like using a fresh condom.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
June 7th, 2010, 09:14 AM
you completely lost the point of the post if you read closely it states that "If you already do all the right things to keep XP running safely, you're not going to get any safer by buying Windows 7. " though its just a lil safer
Wrong. It's a LOT safer. Once again, there are specific technologies with specific functions that can be listed out here in TL;DR fashion if you want to argue this point.

Do you have any idea what ASLR is?

the post already says it.also did you read a lil forward"There are lots of ways, like Microsoft's own Windows Easy Transfer and I'm sure there will be many more, to migrate your data from your old system to your new one, but all of them take work. If you have a business with dozens to tens-of-thousands of Windows PCs you can count on a honking, huge upgrade bill." it doesn't say that its impossible it says that it requires work.
It doesn't really take work. See what you XP users fail to realize is that installing an OS and reformatting the hard drive are two very different things. XP automatically reformat before installing. Windows 7 does not have to, and all files are perfectly preserved without any hassle. The only downside is that you will have to reinstall any programs, which is the only advantage of an upgrade.

Also you are practicly just spending big bucks for a taskbar xp already work perfectly and doesn't make a difference if you use 7 it says that your safer but if you have bad internet habits you are not safer than xp
So help me if you call Windows 7 just a taskbar again... :cer_pissed: NOT cool, or correct. Also, you are in fact safer using Windows 7 with bad habbits than using XP with bad habbits. Once again, 7 has more native security. Ever heard of DEP?

cuz 7 has horrible audio, if you notice lots of users get problems with the jacks or the audio being laggy or choppy im just saying dont know if its true.

That's not related to the Operating System. That is related to poor audio hardware. Windows 7 has a lot of good basic drivers to come with. If anything, audio is better on Windows 7.

For instance, when I bought my machine with XP on it, I bought some nice high definition audio speakers. I had to go to the manufacturer's website and download and install the driver before they worked.

When I took the same speakers and plugged them into a Windows 7 Machine, they automatically installed without me having to do ANYTHING more than plug them in and began working.

RTHookers
June 7th, 2010, 09:59 AM
you completely lost the point of the post if you read closely it states that "If you already do all the right things to keep XP running safely, you're not going to get any safer by buying Windows 7. " though its just a lil safer the post already says it.also did you read a lil forward"There are lots of ways, like Microsoft's own Windows Easy Transfer and I'm sure there will be many more, to migrate your data from your old system to your new one, but all of them take work. If you have a business with dozens to tens-of-thousands of Windows PCs you can count on a honking, huge upgrade bill." it doesn't say that its impossible it says that it requires work.Also you are practicly just spending big bucks for a taskbar xp already work perfectly and doesn't make a difference if you use 7 it says that your safer but if you have bad internet habits you are not safer than xp neither less safer you are equally safe they all get viruses and win7 viruses are a bad bad thing.Also dont start saying gaming cuz 7 has horrible audio,if you notice lots of users get problems with the jacks or the audio being laggy or choppy im just saying dont know if its true.In a final note what im trying to say is that if your upgrading to 7 because you have viruses well then fix your internet habits cuz i dont get any viruses and haven't gotten 1 for 7 years so its not safer if you move to 7 you just have less probability at spyware big deal. my xp is working perfectly and i dont need to change it so i would recommend ppl who dont have any problems with xp to stick to it 7 will not make the "safer" thing better it will make you think you are safer thats it cuz i had 7 i downloaded most of the stuff i got now and my 7 crashed on me i had to restore her by pressing f5 and doing some steps to actually boot her 5 hours later and ive almost filled the hard drive and yet no virusesso sorry but 7 doesnt make a big diff from xp if you know how to use it.
\/ plz.
tl;dr because of massive wall of text with terrible spacing and minimal punctuation: The person you quoted obviously hasn't tried to intentional break both 7 and XP. Even with just passive efforts on my part (via modified browsing habits) to infect Windows 7 and Windows XP, Windows 7 showed significantly more resilience to infection. And Windows 7 can use the improved security features that many antivirus programs already have that are designed with security features Vista or 7 in mind, that wouldn't work in XP as it doesn't have the improved security features.

Though as always, browsing the internet without antivirus and antispyware software is like sleeping around with a litany of people who have an 80% chance of having STDs and not using a condom. Browsing on XP, however, is like using a cheap, three-year-old, brittle condom and not expecting it to break on you mid-coitus, whereas browsing with 7 is like using a fresh condom.Sounds like you have experience man >.>

@OP:
Yeah, XP is kinda outdated. Really people has gone LOLOMG VISTA USES MORE THAN 512MB RAM!!... It's time to upgrade. Aka two years old PCs run Vista fine. My own E4600 / 8800GTS 512 / Crap 2GB RAM ran it find, I'm using W7 now.

XP should die ASAP. And if you can't catch up with tech maybe you're just bad? Really it's inferior to the likes of Vista. I'd prolly run Linux over XP, as Linux is cool and XP is outdated. (I used Ubuntu) Even though the fact Linux isn't suited for gaming.

Mugendai
June 27th, 2010, 10:13 AM
I was linked to this thread by someone else, and after reading, I decided I should contribute my opinion to it.

I use Windows XP, and prefer to use it, and will probably continue to do so until none of the newer games I'm actually interested in will work. If the programs somehow stop working earlier than the games, then I'll just use Linux for that.

There is probably a security risk from still using Windows XP, but I am not really concerned. I don't use Internet Explorer (assuming that the latest version is Vista/7-exclusive), and I don't attract viruses. I don't use an anti-virus or a firewall (unless a NAT'd router counts), and I rarely bother to use Windows Update, except after a fresh install. However, I DO use Spybot Search and Destroy occasionally. With all these security issues I give my computer, I have never been attacked during the 4 years I've used Windows XP (and Windows 2000) in this way, except for one time when my computer started acting strangely in general (windows randomly flipped between themselves), so I just reinstalled XP on a completely reformatted hard drive.

I doubt my computer will get attacked tomorrow or next week, and if it does, then I'll just reinstall everything; it is that easy for me, considering I reinstall the operating system once every 6 months anyway. With that said, I am aware that there ARE some risks that cause your computer to be infected with a certain few things you don't notice at all (except for perhaps sluggishness), but I take the risk as I have a few general issues with the various security software I've tried previously, but I won't go into detail on this.

So, why do I refuse to use Windows Vista or 7? They are quite bloated. They suck up a lot of memory and CPU resources for the new features I do not use or care about (eye candy is quite subjective). You might say that newer things will gradually use more and more resources, and that I should be upgrading, and while I do agree that more computing power is good, there is little loss in useful functionality the less resources an operating system uses (for example, XFCE and Fluxbox with Linux, and I quite like them). I would like to be allowed as much resources as possible for running the other, useful things I do use.

The newer Windows do have some new hardware-related features that XP does not have, but I do not use them. I think someone claimed that IPv6 was one of them, although I have no trouble setting it up on XP, and it was one of the reasons I switched from Windows 2000 in the first place. However, and I'm probably contradicting myself at least a bit by saying this, but I will not deny that 64-bit Windows XP may be terrible, although I have yet to try it, and the motherboard only handles 2 GB of RAM (ironically enough it still has a 64-bit CPU) and I don't care to spend more money for a newer computer when this one works quite well, and the games I play run at a high FPS on it.

Much of the latest and newest things still work on XP (and Windows 2000 for that matter!), and so I am quite happy with Windows XP. I should note, as well, that I am not that big of a gamer so I haven't encountered any new games that does not work on XP.

So, Windows XP is old, but not too old to be unusable, and it is not entirely obsolete.

</endrant>

PkMnTrainer Yellow
June 27th, 2010, 11:25 AM
If the programs somehow stop working earlier than the games, then I'll just use Linux for that.
Best be preparing for this one. XP is being phased out. IE9 will not be supported and you will continuously be more vulnerable to viruses. If I were you, quite honestly? I'd switch to Linux now, as long as you don't mind the loss of games and compatibility with programs.


There is probably a security risk from still using Windows XP, but I am not really concerned. I don't use Internet Explorer (assuming that the latest version is Vista/7-exclusive), and I don't attract viruses. I don't use an anti-virus or a firewall (unless a NAT'd router counts), and I rarely bother to use Windows Update, except after a fresh install. However, I DO use Spybot Search and Destroy occasionally. With all these security issues I give my computer, I have never been attacked during the 4 years I've used Windows XP (and Windows 2000) in this way

Now you're trolling. XP is a blundering baffoon of outdated security practices at this point. I'd appreciate it if you didn't lie and or say things like this to encourage people to feel safe using a OS that is not safe at all. I know for a fact an XP installation is extremely lucky to last a few months exposed to the internet without any protection. Why? I see the viruses getting blocked. I KNOW they're out there, where they come from, what they do, and how often they tend to appear.

I doubt my computer will get attacked tomorrow or next week There's a fair chance you will. The internet doesn't have pity for people not using any protection, and you'll find it will not protect you for you. Consider using a free version of an antivirus called Avast.

So, why do I refuse to use Windows Vista or 7? They are quite bloated. They suck up a lot of memory and CPU resources for the new features I do not use or care about (eye candy is quite subjective). You might say that newer things will gradually use more and more resources, and that I should be upgrading, and while I do agree that more computing power is good, there is little loss in useful functionality the less resources an operating system uses (for example, XFCE and Fluxbox with Linux, and I quite like them). I would like to be allowed as much resources as possible for running the other, useful things I do use.
They're not bloated. They don't suck up a lot of memory and or CPU resources. In fact, XP was as bad if not worse than Vista when it came to memory advancements. People made this excuse when XP came out. It's not really valid. Here, see this article from 2003 (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=6958)... Kinda seems familiar, doesn't it. That's because it's the same thing. Furthermore, 7 has slightly LOWER hardware requirements than Vista, so I dare say it's absolutely ridiculous to call 7 a memory hog.

The newer Windows do have some new hardware-related features that XP does not have, but I do not use them. I think someone claimed that IPv6 was one of them, although I have no trouble setting it up on XP, and it was one of the reasons I switched from Windows 2000 in the first place. However, and I'm probably contradicting myself at least a bit by saying this, but I will not deny that 64-bit Windows XP may be terrible, although I have yet to try it, and the motherboard only handles 2 GB of RAM (ironically enough it still has a 64-bit CPU) and I don't care to spend more money for a newer computer when this one works quite well, and the games I play run at a high FPS on it.

XP has poor IPv6 support compared to newer OSes. And there are many new features on newer OSes that XP is no longer capable of getting, some of these major security advancements like ASLR and UAC. Also, 64 bit on Vista and 7 are pretty much incredible, while XP's 64 bit is a monstrosity.

Much of the latest and newest things still work on XP (and Windows 2000 for that matter!), and so I am quite happy with Windows XP. I should note, as well, that I am not that big of a gamer so I haven't encountered any new games that does not work on XP.

Not using it to it's full potential doesn't really make it not obsolete though. And I'm sorry to say it but the latest and greatest is in fact not on XP anymore.

locoroco
June 27th, 2010, 12:13 PM
Stop reapiting the D*** uac and whatever is that 7 and vista use all of us are happy with our xp we will not change as soon as xp phases out open source will kick in i already have aero on my xp i already have lots of things that vista and 7 do exclusivly i have dx11 (yes i really do real easy to do) i have everything that vista has and even bettered i dont care no more i dont want any of the new os they are resource hogs and pretty much anything that vista or 7 has i have it on my good new xp so i really do not care when ie9 comes out(as much as i hate ie) ill have it making a hack for it is the easieast thing to do so i with a big i feel sorry for you i say good bye.

donavannj
June 27th, 2010, 12:35 PM
Stop reapiting the D*** uac and whatever is that 7 and vista use all of us are happy with our xp we will not change as soon as xp phases out open source will kick in i already have aero on my xp i already have lots of things that vista and 7 do exclusivly i have dx11 (yes i really do real easy to do) i have everything that vista has and even bettered i dont care no more i dont want any of the new os they are resource hogs and pretty much anything that vista or 7 has i have it on my good new xp so i really do not care when ie9 comes out(as much as i hate ie) ill have it making a hack for it is the easieast thing to do so i with a big i feel sorry for you i say good bye.

Okay, a few things:

1. UAC helps prevent the casual user from inadvertantly installing some malicious software. Other security features of Vista and 7 reduce random attacks on your machine, which do happen quite often with XP, since all you usually have to do is open ONE web page, document, or other file coded to exploit the vulnerability, and then whomever decides to target your machine to control can easily use that exploited back door without you being made aware because they're not using Windows and therefore don't have to follow Windows protocols. And then there's the matter of the XP administrator account being so easy to crack from any location. I will not state what it is because, despite millions of XP users who aren't even aware of it, there are plenty of hackers who don't know what this vulnerability is, and I don't wanna inform the latter group.

2. Open source OSes don't do gaming.

3. Having 1 GB of RAM means you're using a machine that's equivalent to a machine with just 256 MB of RAM in 2004. Sure, it may run an older OS just fine, but you're behind on performance levels for both applications and OSes, which was the case for a machine with 256 MB of RAM in 2004.

4. Vista was good, but just tried too hard to be everything for everyone. 7 takes the good in Vista and amplifies it, while still being less of a resource hog than Vista.

5. I feel sorry for you being so deluded that 1 GB of RAM is enough to play newer games. I know from experience that many 5 and 6 year old games struggle with that much on even XP.

and...

6. Windows 7 is much more flexible in relation to how much RAM you have physically on your machine than XP and Vista were.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
June 27th, 2010, 12:43 PM
Stop reapiting the D*** uac and whatever is that 7 and vista use all of us are happy with our xp we will not change as soon as xp phases out open source will kick in i already have aero on my xp i already have lots of things that vista and 7 do exclusivly i have dx11 (yes i really do real easy to do) i have everything that vista has and even bettered i dont care no more i dont want any of the new os they are resource hogs and pretty much anything that vista or 7 has i have it on my good new xp so i really do not care when ie9 comes out(as much as i hate ie) ill have it making a hack for it is the easieast thing to do so i with a big i feel sorry for you i say good bye.

Please take your trolling elsewhere! We have better tastes than the average person who thinks all UAC does is interrupt their ever so impenetrable cardboard box fortress and listens to everything they hear on the internet! -_- Seriously! You completely ignore any logic used against you. It's like, insanely old at this point.

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/5429/madlynotimpressedplzy.png

locoroco
June 27th, 2010, 02:37 PM
Okay, a few things:

1. UAC helps prevent the casual user from inadvertantly installing some malicious software. Other security features of Vista and 7 reduce random attacks on your machine, which do happen quite often with XP, since all you usually have to do is open ONE web page, document, or other file coded to exploit the vulnerability, and then whomever decides to target your machine to control can easily use that exploited back door without you being made aware because they're not using Windows and therefore don't have to follow Windows protocols. And then there's the matter of the XP administrator account being so easy to crack from any location. I will not state what it is because, despite millions of XP users who aren't even aware of it, there are plenty of hackers who don't know what this vulnerability is, and I don't wanna inform the latter group.

2. Open source OSes don't do gaming.

3. Having 1 GB of RAM means you're using a machine that's equivalent to a machine with just 256 MB of RAM in 2004. Sure, it may run an older OS just fine, but you're behind on performance levels for both applications and OSes, which was the case for a machine with 256 MB of RAM in 2004.

4. Vista was good, but just tried too hard to be everything for everyone. 7 takes the good in Vista and amplifies it, while still being less of a resource hog than Vista.

5. I feel sorry for you being so deluded that 1 GB of RAM is enough to play newer games. I know from experience that many 5 and 6 year old games struggle with that much on even XP.

and...

6. Windows 7 is much more flexible in relation to how much RAM you have physically on your machine than XP and Vista were.

open source os do gaming it depends on who programs it. this comp has a gig of ram the other has 6 gigs running xp home gaming edition. i said stop mentioning uac i know what it does i dont install any software unless i trust it and uac all it does is f*** up all of the keygens and other programs. vista wasnt good it never was too many d*** question to close a frigging window.

Please take your trolling elsewhere! We have better tastes than the average person who thinks all UAC does is interrupt their ever so impenetrable cardboard box fortress and listens to everything they hear on the internet! -_- Seriously! You completely ignore any logic used against you. It's like, insanely old at this point.

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/5429/madlynotimpressedplzy.png

you stop trolling you revived the dang thread

PkMnTrainer Yellow
June 27th, 2010, 03:25 PM
open source os do gaming it depends on who programs it. this comp has a gig of ram the other has 6 gigs running xp home gaming edition. i said stop mentioning uac i know what it does i dont install any software unless i trust it and uac all it does is f*** up all of the keygens and other programs. vista wasnt good it never was too many d*** question to close a frigging window.



you stop trolling you revived the dang thread

No I didn't. The guy before me did. And we'll mention it all we want because we're sort of right and you're sort of being ignorant.

Furthermore, your argument consists of "no ur wrong and i hate vista" in TL;DR fashion. I'd be more unimpressed but that's not possible.

donavannj
June 27th, 2010, 05:53 PM
open source os do gaming it depends on who programs it. this comp has a gig of ram the other has 6 gigs running xp home gaming edition. i said stop mentioning uac i know what it does i dont install any software unless i trust it and uac all it does is f*** up all of the keygens and other programs. vista wasnt good it never was too many d*** question to close a frigging window.

And it also depends on what games you play. Keygens are technically illegal anyways. And you obviously didn't look around enough to know that you CAN turn UAC off in Vista. And you sound like you're going off of the words of others, and not personal experience, because Vista was nowhere near as annoying to use as you make it sound.

TheAppleFreak
June 28th, 2010, 06:29 AM
*pokes head into thread
inserts TAF-style logic in the words below*
open source os do gaming it depends on who programs it. this comp has a gig of ram the other has 6 gigs running xp home gaming edition. i said stop mentioning uac i know what it does i dont install any software unless i trust it and uac all it does is f*** up all of the keygens and other programs. vista wasnt good it never was too many d*** question to close a frigging window.

Okay; there are a few things I find wrong with this:

Name any modern (as in, past 2006) computer game that runs on any variant of *nix or any other open source OS (like Solaris). Emulation of another platform through WINE (this includes Crossover Games) or any virtualization software doesn't count.
XP Home Gaming Edition? Are you referring to XP Media Center Edition? Gaming Edition doesn't exist, unless it's bootleg.
As much as UAC can be a pain in the a**, it does protect against some types of malicious software. It's always a good idea to at least keep it on the setting where it doesn't dim the screen, just so it doesn't lag a Vista or 7 system.
Keygens and the like are illegal. Even then, to the best extent of my computer knowledge, UAC shouldn't completely mess up a program. Chances are, it's the new architectures implemented by Microsoft that's causing incompatibilities.

locoroco
June 28th, 2010, 09:53 AM
And it also depends on what games you play. Keygens are technically illegal anyways. And you obviously didn't look around enough to know that you CAN turn UAC off in Vista. And you sound like you're going off of the words of others, and not personal experience, because Vista was nowhere near as annoying to use as you make it sound.

yes it was i had vista i couldnt even make a d*** word document each time i tried to close the window it pop out a bunch of dialog boxes asking me if i wanted to close i said yes and she pop out another one and it was very annoying. then whats the point of having uac at all i know i can turn it off.

*pokes head into thread
inserts TAF-style logic in the words below*


Okay; there are a few things I find wrong with this:

Name any modern (as in, past 2006) computer game that runs on any variant of *nix or any other open source OS (like Solaris). Emulation of another platform through WINE (this includes Crossover Games) or any virtualization software doesn't count.
XP Home Gaming Edition? Are you referring to XP Media Center Edition? Gaming Edition doesn't exist, unless it's bootleg.
As much as UAC can be a pain in the a**, it does protect against some types of malicious software. It's always a good idea to at least keep it on the setting where it doesn't dim the screen, just so it doesn't lag a Vista or 7 system.
Keygens and the like are illegal. Even then, to the best extent of my computer knowledge, UAC shouldn't completely mess up a program. Chances are, it's the new architectures implemented by Microsoft that's causing incompatibilities.


Do you know spanish or have google chrome so i can give you the link so you can see it yourself, xp gaming edition was coded by me and like 7 other guys i worked on stability and errors and they worked on memory usage and other things. Do i care if keygens are illegal i use them on xp with panda antivirus gold 2010 and it doesnt get deleted but i did try it on a brand new vista that didnt even have an antivirus and it deleted it, it was very annoying if i have to turn off uac then whats the point of having it in the first place?

donavannj
June 28th, 2010, 10:05 AM
yes it was i had vista i couldnt even make a d*** word document each time i tried to close the window it pop out a bunch of dialog boxes asking me if i wanted to close i said yes and she pop out another one and it was very annoying. then whats the point of having uac at all i know i can turn it off.

That'd be the document editor, not Vista. UAC only pops up when you run an installer or when changing a system setting.

Paper Ghost
June 28th, 2010, 10:09 AM
It probably is, as much as I like to deny it. ;~; *has all my stuff on an XP*

Mine still works good though....but then again, it's never had internet on it. >__>

White Glint
June 28th, 2010, 10:13 AM
I originally hated vista. Honestly, I thought it was a POS. But now I <3 it.

XP has become...a technological lunchtray to me now. A bunch of crap you DON'T want, yet you decide to deal with anyway. Vista and Windows 7 are like Homemade Cookies, whereas you know what you're getting(kinda), and you always enjoy it...kinda.

While I can't say i still don't HAVE XP(Bleh, My Video Game Budget prevents me from updating unless I pirate it...unless it's free, then slap me for stupidity), the only reason it's on my PC is because I can't buy it. Vista confuzzled me with the 64 bit and 32 bit crap, but what the hell is the point of caring anyway?(Computer techies, you can inform me of this if you care, because I'm not the smartest computer whiz kid)

As stated earlier, XP is, indeed, a computerized epidemic. Time after time again, I've had to erase everything and re-install the friggin XP because of some unknown Trojan problem, or some virus, or some other BS from browsing regular sites.(How the hell do you get a Trojan from a Flash Game site?? Not cool, man) While vista and 7 might not have some things that you might've liked on XP(IDK what that might be), can you really complain when you don't have to worry about getting viruses and trojans as much as you have to on vista or windows 7?

While XP isn't, shall I say, dead, I find it hard to bother to use it now when you decide to upgrade to a newer OS. And as much as I enjoyed XP, I think it's about time to move on. It's 2010, and no one wants to spend half an hour or so trying to install windows XP pro. =/

(Expects a tl;dr from this)

mr. ck
June 28th, 2010, 10:37 AM
Personally, I think that Windows XP IS obsolete, anybody who still has it, just isn't willing to change (which imo is perfectly fine) or is scared of Windows 7 since Vista failed or maybe not willing to spend the money...

My Windows XP was the most customized and the most useful Operating System that could be. I tend to do a lot to make my Computer... mine.
And at that time, I wasn't willing to shift to Windows 7. But then I tried, set up dual booting and stuff. And it worked, and it was pretty good.
I had tried the betas, and I hated them (with a passion)... But the release was amazing.

I'd disagree with anybody who hates UAC:
It was necessary to implement something like that, especially with so much software coming up just to f*ck up your systems.
Anybody heard of viruses that spread through pendrives? Or those registry edits that limit you. These are small programs that make use of administrative permissions to be contagious and cause harm.
I work on a lot of computers, and help a lot of people with technical problems, and someone who is not an advanced user needs the UAC.
And if somebody has used Linux, we already had something like it in Linux (sudo, gksudo etc.)

And I love Windows Aero. Eyecandy without the performance problems like in Windows Vista. It's beautiful.

The new taskbar too, it's so easy to manage things now.

The only thing I don't like about Windows 7 is that I miss the old Paint (I don't like ribboned paint) And some legacy Chinese hardware that won't run.

Nonetheless, my opinion, give Windows 7 a try, if I hadn't, I would have been one of those who are arguing here, like die-hard Windows XP fans.

locoroco
June 28th, 2010, 11:19 AM
ok you want to see aero here a pic of xp with aero
http://i994.photobucket.com/albums/af64/locoroco_01/untitled.jpg
thats my xp with aero if thats not enough proof that xp does whatever 7 and vista do even better than them here is the 3d view of my xp
http://i994.photobucket.com/albums/af64/locoroco_01/untitled1-1.jpg
i have dx11 i could have uac if i wanted i could have anything that vista and 7 do with the reliability of my xp if you have gotten viruses bad for you the most i get in this comp is spyware also for the record my friend has 7 he got a really bad virus in the first 3 weeks of his computers life while i that have had this installation of xp for over 2 years now not even a single virus and she is running perfectly.sorry for the big pics.o and 1 last pic that proves that she is xp.
http://i994.photobucket.com/albums/af64/locoroco_01/untitled-1.png

twocows
June 28th, 2010, 11:26 AM
Do you know spanish or have google chrome so i can give you the link so you can see it yourself, xp gaming edition was coded by me and like 7 other guys i worked on stability and errors and they worked on memory usage and other things.
"XP Gaming Edition" is nothing more than an nLited XP with a few components removed to make it run faster, something I could do myself in 20 minutes. There isn't any coding involved that I'm aware of, except perhaps some very basic scripting.

i have dx11 i could have uac if i wanted i could have anything that vista and 7 do with the reliability of my xp if you have gotten viruses bad for you the most i get in this comp is spyware also for the record my friend has 7 he got a really bad virus in the first 3 weeks of his computers life while i that have had this installation of xp for over 2 years now not even a single virus and she is running perfectly.sorry for the big pics.o and 1 last pic that proves that she is xp.
You do not have DX11. At best, you have the hacked "DX10" that is floating around, which is mostly emulation and redirection, not true DX10. As for your friend getting a virus, that is merely anecdotal evidence. I have used Vista for two years and not gotten any viruses or any other malware.

mr. ck
June 28th, 2010, 08:34 PM
@locoroco, DX11 can't be run in WinXP, like twocows said it IS one of those hacked things.
That skin of yours is UGLY.

And if you really can have all those features of Win7 using software available, might as well get Win7? I mean, you have pretty much converted your WinXP to Win7?

Windows however has a reputation of being a Virus attractor, the version doesn't matter. Though I do believe that the software that comes with 7 actually does a lot to prevent them.
I've heard of people just leaving a new installation of Windows connected to the internet for 5 days, (without even using it) and the machine fills with viruses.

locoroco
June 28th, 2010, 09:30 PM
i know that the skin doesnt match XD i just chose it so you can see the effect better. ok ill come clean as why do i dont want 7, too much resources ok i love win 7 but the use im gonna give it i know is just not gonna work i love xp also win 7 is just xp with a lot of new things, they didnt use vista to make 7 not even the aero is the same as vista. though ive considered converting to 7 but my xp is just way too much my style and just upgrading means letting go of many of my childhood memories, yeah i remember back in the days running an amd duron @997mhz 256mb of ram those where the days, i cant let go of xp and i probably wont, a lot of coders and i are working on win xp sp4 progress is good we gonna make it and its gonna be awesome. i hope you have good luck with your 7 and vistas because im having a good time with my xp so i really have no complaints windows xp is: light on new comps,stable,really customisable, great for gaming i just cant say anything bad because my xp the use i give it i really dont get anything more than spyware so like i said i love 7 but dont like its resource usage.

donavannj
June 28th, 2010, 10:08 PM
Windows 7 and Windows Vista are identical. Windows Vista is Windows 6.0, while Windows 7 is Windows 6.1, speaking in technical terms, that is. And that's just like Windows 2000 was Windows 5.0 and Windows XP was Windows 5.1.

Around XP's release, people absolutely hated it, as it was a resource hog for the time. 256 MB was a lot to ask as a minimum requirement of computers at that time, as most mid-high range retail machines came with at 512 MB. Well, 3 years down the road, it's the most common version of Windows, as a typical computer had doubled its RAM to run Windows XP. People also hated it because it was a big change, like Vista and 7 were from XP. Those same 3 years later, people had become accustomed to XP.

The only issue with Vista was that it was released when mid-low price range machines had just reached 1 GB, so most people who had it experienced quite a bit of sluggishness because it demanded every resource they had. 3 years later, people hailed Windows 7 as the savior, when it really isn't all that different from Vista - it just came at a time when 2 GB is the norm in the mid-low price range, which may not have been true if Vista were never released.

Also, I've had a higher percentage of XP installations corrupt or crash on me than Vista or 7 installations within the first year, and it wasn't the hardware, either. XP's stability has nothing on the stability of Vista or 7.

And the guideline for malware that I operate by is this: If you've gotten one infection that you can see, you've probably got 5 or more you can't see.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
June 28th, 2010, 10:47 PM
yes it was i had vista i couldnt even make a d*** word document each time i tried to close the window it pop out a bunch of dialog boxes asking me if i wanted to close i said yes and she pop out another one and it was very annoying. then whats the point of having uac at all i know i can turn it off.

I would thank UAC if it did that. It would mean my word processor was trying to do something probably illegal or dangerous. Use your brain.



Do you know spanish or have google chrome so i can give you the link so you can see it yourself, xp gaming edition was coded by me and like 7 other guys i worked on stability and errors and they worked on memory usage and other things.

What the... http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/6364/wthplzd.png
I wouldn't brag about your so called programming skills unless you're willing to prove them with a test.

Do i care if keygens are illegal i use them on xp

Keep it to yourself.


ok you want to see aero here a pic of xp with aero

thats my xp with aero if thats not enough proof that xp does whatever 7 and vista do even better than them here is the 3d view of my xp


That's not aero, it's not as good as aero, and since I know how you did that, I can safely say it eats plenty of memory. No, your "XP" cannot do whatever 7 or Vista can and the suggestion that it can is ridiculous.


i have dx11 i could have uac if i wanted i could have anything that vista and 7 do with the reliability of my xp if you have gotten viruses bad for you the most i get in this comp is spyware also for the record my friend has 7 he got a really bad virus in the first 3 weeks of his computers life while i that have had this installation of xp for over 2 years now not even a single virus and she is running perfectly.sorry for the big pics.o and 1 last pic that proves that she is xp.

You can't have UAC, and you can't have DX11. Furthermore you aren't safe or secure. You've been proven wrong on this point like 3 or 4 times in this same thread. Enough is enough. You can't force the argument down our throats.



--------------------------------
FURTHERMORE.

I've been using Windows 7 since the early pre-RC beta and it has never needed to be fixed once. XP couldn't stand up to this sort of stability even if it had a nice anti virus, a nice anti spyware, AND a smart user.

Pokémon Ranger ✩ Moriarty
June 29th, 2010, 12:54 AM
Well...I'll say XP isn't obsolete because I'm now using it on my back-up laptop and it still works fine. I'm a noob when it comes to programming and stuff but XP was always my favourite OS because for me Microsoft got everything about the interface right, and it was highly customisable. :>

But I'm not hating on Windows 7 because my Dad has it on his desktop, and he worships it, mainly because of its compatibility mode.

Vista, on the other hand...;~; I used it for two years at university and oh god, the pain. It just felt half-finished and kept erasing my files for no reason. Or crashing. Or throwing up a million dialogue boxes when they weren't needed. It was pretty though, I guess...

Archer
June 29th, 2010, 03:57 AM
Well...I'll say XP isn't obsolete because I'm now using it on my back-up laptop and it still works fine. I'm a noob when it comes to programming and stuff but XP was always my favourite OS because for me Microsoft got everything about the interface right, and it was highly customisable. :>

But I'm not hating on Windows 7 because my Dad has it on his desktop, and he worships it, mainly because of its compatibility mode.

Vista, on the other hand...;~; I used it for two years at university and oh god, the pain. It just felt half-finished and kept erasing my files for no reason. Or crashing. Or throwing up a million dialogue boxes when they weren't needed. It was pretty though, I guess...
That's partially because Enterprise networks with Vista are usually locked down like an airport in a terrorist attack - reasonable well.

And locoroco, I'm still waiting on a screenshot of your crazy powerful gaming rig.

mr. ck
June 29th, 2010, 04:19 AM
@locoroco I'm sure you've never tried Windows 7. It's not even a major resource hogger... (Blinds hogs more...) :? Your thoughts are prejudiced...
And have fun playing games without DirectX.
I don't believe anything about the SP4 part... Prove it :P Moreover, I'm still trying to imagine what you are coding for a closed source OS?

@donavannj Windows 7 and Windows Vista are identical...? I LOL'd hard at that O.o
Moreover, locoroco is at least right about one thing (even in his useless post)... Microsoft did have to redo the Aero and stuff.

The only issue with Vista was that it was released when mid-low price range machines had just reached 1 GB
I disagree with half of what you said. For most people, WinXP wasn't a hogger back when it was released. We had Celerons, P2/P3 and stuff which had windows 98 at that time. We did install XP, and it really wasn't a hogger. It's still my preferred windows OS on old computers. (Works fine on second hand PCs from the 80s-90s (don't exactly remember the dates but it's around that time))
Vista was an actual disaster... And even now my Win7 works faster than Win Vista that I had long ago.
Tbh... I had a genuine copy of Vista which I replaced with a counterfeited Win XP... And now running genuine Win 7.

twocows
June 29th, 2010, 08:23 AM
@locoroco I'm sure you've never tried Windows 7. It's not even a major resource hogger... (Blinds hogs more...) :? Your thoughts are prejudiced...
And have fun playing games without DirectX.
I don't believe anything about the SP4 part... Prove it :P Moreover, I'm still trying to imagine what you are coding for a closed source OS?

@donavannj Windows 7 and Windows Vista are identical...? I LOL'd hard at that O.o
Moreover, locoroco is at least right about one thing (even in his useless post)... Microsoft did have to redo the Aero and stuff.

I disagree with half of what you said. For most people, WinXP wasn't a hogger back when it was released. We had Celerons, P2/P3 and stuff which had windows 98 at that time. We did install XP, and it really wasn't a hogger. It's still my preferred windows OS on old computers. (Works fine on second hand PCs from the 80s-90s (don't exactly remember the dates but it's around that time))
Vista was an actual disaster... And even now my Win7 works faster than Win Vista that I had long ago.
Tbh... I had a genuine copy of Vista which I replaced with a counterfeited Win XP... And now running genuine Win 7.
Actually, XP was a pretty big resource hog back when it was released, especially compared to 2000. It came out only two(?) years after 2000 but was quite a bit more heavy. I know because I have XP installed on a Pentium II computer, and even heavily nLited, it runs quite slow.

The only real "disaster" with Vista was that Microsoft overlooked that most of the drivers available on release would still be using the old model and it would take a while for manufacturers to transfer to the new model. That resulted in a lot of incompatible hardware.

donavannj
June 29th, 2010, 08:49 AM
@donavannj Windows 7 and Windows Vista are identical...? I LOL'd hard at that O.o
Moreover, locoroco is at least right about one thing (even in his useless post)... Microsoft did have to redo the Aero and stuff.

I disagree with half of what you said. For most people, WinXP wasn't a hogger back when it was released. We had Celerons, P2/P3 and stuff which had windows 98 at that time. We did install XP, and it really wasn't a hogger. It's still my preferred windows OS on old computers. (Works fine on second hand PCs from the 80s-90s (don't exactly remember the dates but it's around that time))
Vista was an actual disaster... And even now my Win7 works faster than Win Vista that I had long ago.
Tbh... I had a genuine copy of Vista which I replaced with a counterfeited Win XP... And now running genuine Win 7.

Well, the file structure is EXACTLY THE SAME between the two OSes. The only difference is the features that are used, which happen to be better designed so they use slightly less resources in 7. And they are both Windows 6.x. I guess they're not EXACTLY IDENTICAL, but they are similar enough that, in 15-20 years, the average user wouldn't be able to tell you which was which, just like I know most of my peers can't distinguish the differences between any of the Windows OSes that Microsoft released in the '90s.

I doubt it was able to work with any PCs from the '80s, since the bare minimum for Windows XP is 64 MB for the bare minimum of features, and fully featured it needed 128 MB of RAM, which is double what Windows 2000 recommended, and four times that of what Windows 2000 needed to run. It also took double the hard drive space of Windows 2000, needing 1.3 GB. Now consider that only a year and a half had passed between the releases, while 5 years had passed since XP was released when Vista went retail. Those jumps seem much larger now, don't they?

And what were the specs of the machine you had Vista on as opposed to the Windows 7 machine? And, like twocows said, for the first few months Vista had minimal driver support because manufacturers were slow to release drivers for it.

mr. ck
June 29th, 2010, 12:02 PM
@donavannj It's the same computer with almost no changes. (I'm sure any upgrades that I have done, I had when I had Win Vista installed)
You guys aren't ready to believe that Win 7 is actually faster than Vista...?
I didn't have Win Vista in the first few months :P They bought some licenses later, and we were given some.

I find it weird that both of you found Windows XP a resource hogger. We had a really old computer at home, and it had been here since long before Windows XP was even released (I don't even remember since that computer was my mom's, so you get the idea)
We didn't upgrade our computers a lot back then, it was probably what you would have found in the trash, still it was used for many scientific calculations, and it was pretty fast.
Can't list the specs though, it has actually gone into trash now.

We had another machine in the lab, much older than this (it was a second-hand machine) And with lower specs than the one I was talking about. It ran Win XP (again used for calculations) perfectly until almost every part of it died.

Edit: Maybe not machines from the 80s, I guess. They say we had a P3 when we installed Win XP on both of them. RAM must have been around 256 MB. I wouldn't be surprised though, since the PC we bought in 2000 already had that much, so by 2001/2002 at least all new computers should have had much more than 64 MB, and 128 MB. I still don't understand how people disliked Windows XP for being a resource hogger.

Trope
June 29th, 2010, 12:14 PM
My retired 9 year old laptop is running on '97, and works without any problems. I've bought my current laptop with Vista, and had nothing but problems with. So, I skipped back over to the computer shop, demanded a free XP professional (which I got) and tossed Vista in their face. ;3

This laptop is now 3 years old, and working without any serious problems. I've heard lots of good stuff about 7, but I see no use in replacing my perfectly working XP for 7, also because I don't need a new laptop yet. If I buy a new one, it'll probably have 7, though I'd like Linux on it as well.

donavannj
June 29th, 2010, 12:22 PM
You guys aren't ready to believe that Win 7 is actually faster than Vista...?

I know from experience that 7 is slightly faster than Vista. Much of that perceived speed is probably because 7 loads up 75% of the startup stuff while it's still showing you the "Welcome" screen after you have successfully logged in, whereas Vista loads maybe 25% of that stuff while showing you that "Welcome" screen, and does the rest while taunting you with your desktop, just like XP.

locoroco
June 29th, 2010, 03:33 PM
it depends on how much stuff your comp has on startup my comp barely has anything on startup and she boots extremely quick i can even see the option to enter the bios. o and mr.ck ill show you the pics of my gaming comp later i got too much s*** on my plate

PkMnTrainer Yellow
June 29th, 2010, 08:13 PM
And locoroco, I'm still waiting on a screenshot of your crazy powerful gaming rig.

Wouldn't get your hopes up.



I disagree with half of what you said. For most people, WinXP wasn't a hogger back when it was released.

Excuse me excuse me... I hate to interrupt but I provided evidence otherwise earlier in the thread. Here, allow me to show you an even more insightful piece of evidence than the last one.

http://macosx.com/forums/apple-news-rumors-discussion/10622-windows-xp-sucks-compared-os-x.html

and the one I posted earlier

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=6958

If you look over these near decade old forum posts about how much XP sucks (From 2001-2003) you'll find they look oddly familiar! "SLOW! IT JUST LOOKS PRETTIER. NOTHING NEW. INCOMPATIBILITY" ....They're even so similar there's no evidence! =D /thumbs up

XP - Proof that mindlessly bashing superior things is good for your future. /eyeroll


I know from experience that 7 is slightly faster than Vista. Much of that perceived speed is probably because 7 loads up 75% of the startup stuff while it's still showing you the "Welcome" screen after you have successfully logged in, whereas Vista loads maybe 25% of that stuff while showing you that "Welcome" screen, and does the rest while taunting you with your desktop, just like XP.

The software performs significantly more efficiently and I think pointing out that it's technically just as "fast" is something the end-users don't care about, to be honest.


The only real "disaster" with Vista was that Microsoft overlooked that most of the drivers available on release would still be using the old model and it would take a while for manufacturers to transfer to the new model. That resulted in a lot of incompatible hardware.

I'll have to disagree with you there. Not that what you said isn't true, but that there's more than one real disaster that ruined Vista. The second major disaster was that Criticism was let run wild. Anti-Microsoft propaganda was just EVERYWHERE if you remember. It was being forced down throats, people accepted it by brute force, people hardly bothered defending it. This was possibly due to a case of mass "Oh, somebody else will do it. I don't need to." or something similar, and Vista was successfully demonized. This huge mistake is the reason people like Loco can run around lying their faces off about how terrible Vista is and stand a chance at being believed.

mr. ck
June 29th, 2010, 09:48 PM
I still can't agree... I have already posted about my personal experiences...
And I'm mostly with people who are doing scientific calculations (my mom and at the lab) They did not have any problems. In fact those machines have run fine until they died or were replaced.
They did not have server grade machines, and super fast hardware until a year ago.

Excuse me excuse me... I hate to interrupt but I provided evidence otherwise earlier in the thread. Here, allow me to show you an even more insightful piece of evidence than the last one.

http://macosx.com/forums/apple-news-...ared-os-x.html (http://macosx.com/forums/apple-news-rumors-discussion/10622-windows-xp-sucks-compared-os-x.html)

and the one I posted earlier

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=6958

If you look over these near decade old forum posts about how much XP sucks (From 2001-2003) you'll find they look oddly familiar! "SLOW! IT JUST LOOKS PRETTIER. NOTHING NEW. INCOMPATIBILITY" ....They're even so similar there's no evidence! =D /thumbs up

XP - Proof that mindlessly bashing superior things is good for your future. /eyerollI still didn't see many arguments about the OS's speed... I'm not talking about security, lane graphics and stuff... It wasn't slow back then for most people...

it depends on how much stuff your comp has on startup my comp barely has anything on startup and she boots extremely quick i can even see the option to enter the bios. o and mr.ck ill show you the pics of my gaming comp later i got too much s*** on my plate Haha... I can no longer believe any crap you say.

EDIT: Have a look at how MS Advertises Win 7
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/features/performance-improvements.aspx?tabid=2&catid=3

PkMnTrainer Yellow
June 30th, 2010, 09:23 PM
I still didn't see many arguments about the OS's speed... I'm not talking about security, lane graphics and stuff... It wasn't slow back then for most people...

Didn't the older article have something about that? Hmm...
Take this one then. Lookin' nice and familiar.
http://www.softwaretipsandtricks.com/forum/windows-xp/16086-slow-windows-xp-hard-disk.html


Haha... I can no longer believe any crap you say.

Good to see I'm not alone in this.

mr. ck
June 30th, 2010, 10:18 PM
Anyway... The conclusion is that Windows 7 is much better than Windows Vista in all respects including performance...
Which is peculiar since all versions of Windows had slower performance in comparison to their predecessors.

Want to add something? :P
Oh yeah, and locoroco is a troll.

locoroco
June 30th, 2010, 10:25 PM
here is my gaming comp
http://i994.photobucket.com/albums/af64/locoroco_01/mygamingcomp.jpg

thx for not believing me i log on fast because of asrock's fast boot well have a good 1 with 7 hehehe

flight
June 30th, 2010, 11:36 PM
Firefox is not a safe browser. I must stress that Mozilla has yet to upgrade Firefox to the latest technology. This is factual, not opinion based. You can say it's secure but that hacker aint listening. It's for your own safety that you wait for Mozilla to upgrade FF before you put it in any dangerous situations.

I dunno, I mean, FF seems to be working pretty nicely for me. I've never really had any problems aside from it crashing every now and then but that can be easily ignored...somewhat.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
June 30th, 2010, 11:39 PM
here is my gaming comp
thx for not believing me i log on fast because of asrock's fast boot well have a good 1 with 7 hehehe



http://www.techwarelabs.com/reviews/processors/amd_phenom_9850/

Looks like you've got a little big fat inconsistency in processor speed and processor being used. That processor runs at 2.5 and overclocks to 3.0. Getting it above 3.0 can be difficult. Furthermore your computer says 6 GB but it's well known that 32 bit XP supports 3 point something gigs at max, possibly 4 with a hack I once saw. Not six.

I find your lying and deception disgusting.


I dunno, I mean, FF seems to be working pretty nicely for me. I've never really had any problems aside from it crashing every now and then but that can be easily ignored...somewhat.

Firefox has updated straight from 3.6.3 to 3.6.6 since I posted that, releasing major security upgrades to fix some of the problems I bashed Firefox for having. Basically I don't necessarily support what I said back then as being still true seeing as it only applied to past versions where Firefox's security was in serious need of upgrade.





Oh, and just for the heck of it.

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/796/specsm.jpg http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/1976/ratingw.jpg

flight
June 30th, 2010, 11:47 PM
Firefox has updated straight from 3.6.3 to 3.6.6 since I posted that, releasing major security upgrades to fix some of the problems I bashed Firefox for having. Basically I don't necessarily support what I said back then as being still true seeing as it only applied to past versions where Firefox's security was in serious need of upgrade.

I'm always in the recent versions of Firefox for this reason. I cannot provide an opinion or say anything about security issues for that matter because I've never really stuck with an old version of Firefox for prolonged periods of time for it to be exposed to any kind of...harmful programs or what have you.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
July 1st, 2010, 12:11 AM
I'm always in the recent versions of Firefox for this reason. I cannot provide an opinion or say anything about security issues for that matter because I've never really stuck with an old version of Firefox for prolonged periods of time for it to be exposed to any kind of...harmful programs or what have you.

It was at 3.6.3 for a while. 3.6.4 introduced a nice huge security update. Now my only comment is that it's still a slug that can be out-sped by the slowest Microsoft Office startups.

Haowakeorden
July 1st, 2010, 11:56 AM
The sooner XP dies, the sooner they'll come out with software that's tolerably compatible with Vista and 7.

locoroco
July 1st, 2010, 12:03 PM
now its my turn to say it your looking for initernet knowledge not personal experience i know for a fact i made xp take the 6 gigs and i know for a fact that i overcloked it there it really doesnt matter if you believe me or not i know i have my gaming comp i had to turn it on for this dang thread so whatever have fun with your 7

PkMnTrainer Yellow
July 1st, 2010, 03:23 PM
You're a terrible liar Loco. You did not overclock your processor to two times it's normal speed, nor do you have XP 32 bit utilizing 6 gigs of RAM. Everyone can see it and prove it with just a bit of research, and no amount of pretending otherwise is going to change that.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=overclock+phenom+9850+to+5+ghz&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=CyIf7YSEtTL3fB5X6gAS684TmBwAAAKoEBU_QEzB4&fp=e0fa4b5da4f245a4

Here, what does this google search for "Phenom 9850 overclock 5 ghz" reveal? Certainly not that it's possible. It reveals what I stated before. Getting it over 3.0 is pretty difficult. 5.0? NOT happening.

Quite frankly you're beginning to irk me.

locoroco
July 1st, 2010, 05:10 PM
i didnt say my xp used the 6 gigs but unlike the other xp mine recognizes that it has 6 gigs i never said it used it them it uses 4 gigs of ram barely it uses 3.96 gigs of ram

Cassino
July 2nd, 2010, 12:57 AM
i didnt say my xp used the 6 gigs but unlike the other xp mine recognizes that it has 6 gigs i never said it used it them it uses 4 gigs of ram barely it uses 3.96 gigs of ram
Then XP knowing there's 6GB was seemingly a pretty pointless thing to say. You just need to find the right info display that will say how much memory it has in total and how much can actually be addressed. It's not remarkable that it can tell its own hardware.

flight
July 2nd, 2010, 01:06 AM
It was at 3.6.3 for a while. 3.6.4 introduced a nice huge security update. Now my only comment is that it's still a slug that can be out-sped by the slowest Microsoft Office startups.

If it's how long it takes to start up, then I can agree with you there. Anything else, well...I don't necessarily see any slowness there.

locoroco
July 2nd, 2010, 02:43 AM
Then XP knowing there's 6GB was seemingly a pretty pointless thing to say. You just need to find the right info display that will say how much memory it has in total and how much can actually be addressed. It's not remarkable that it can tell its own hardware.

well for xp it is since when you ussually go to an xp with 6 gigs of ram it will only tell you that it has 3.25 gb of ram

Actor
July 2nd, 2010, 02:46 AM
The sooner XP dies, the sooner they'll come out with software that's tolerably compatible with Vista and 7.

We need a aniverrsiry editon for windows xp in 2011. That's my bet.

mr. ck
July 2nd, 2010, 02:56 AM
well for xp it is since when you ussually go to an xp with 6 gigs of ram it will only tell you that it has 3.25 gb of ram
It's not... You can make your XP say anything to you. If it's a lie, it doesn't matter.

Blaze The Hedgehog
July 2nd, 2010, 05:23 AM
I gave XP up when I moved to Mac. I still use it with the PC in the study, but I use so many programs that make Vista/7 cry when I use them, XP seems like the only way I can get peace out of them.

donavannj
July 2nd, 2010, 07:52 AM
I gave XP up when I moved to Mac. I still use it with the PC in the study, but I use so many programs that make Vista/7 cry when I use them, XP seems like the only way I can get peace out of them.

You must be using software versions that don't support Windows Vista/Windows 7. Updated versions should work just fine on those.

Blaze The Hedgehog
July 2nd, 2010, 08:07 AM
You must be using software versions that don't support Windows Vista/Windows 7. Updated versions should work just fine on those.

I have Adobe CS3 however only a few of the programs seem to work on Windows 7, so I use Xp to escape the hassle, which is strange, because it does support the platform. Maybe it's just my computer.

donavannj
July 2nd, 2010, 08:15 AM
I have Adobe CS3 however only a few of the programs seem to work on Windows 7, so I use Xp to escape the hassle, which is strange, because it does support the platform. Maybe it's just my computer.

Or your permissions level. Windows 7 and Windows Vista are amazingly compatible with older software, as long as you have the right permissions level.

What other software besides CS3 whines?

Blaze The Hedgehog
July 2nd, 2010, 08:20 AM
Jasc Pain Shop Pro, but I know that Corel acquired the program so it's just the case of getting some coins to purchase the latest version.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
July 2nd, 2010, 12:49 PM
Jasc Pain Shop Pro, but I know that Corel acquired the program so it's just the case of getting some coins to purchase the latest version.

Well if you're going to use inferior versions of a program what can you expect? That'd be your fault, not the OSes fault ._.

We need a aniverrsiry editon for windows xp in 2011. That's my bet.

I'm sorry but no. Come 2011 - 2013 the only thing needed is for XP to be dead so less obsolete operating systems can take it's place.

donavannj
July 2nd, 2010, 01:26 PM
Well if you're going to use inferior versions of a program what can you expect? That'd be your fault, not the OSes fault ._.

You do have to keep in mind that software suites like CS 4 and such are ridiculously expensive if you wish to legitimately acquire them.

Silver
July 2nd, 2010, 01:27 PM
The only reason I use XP is because I'm not going to drop however much money for Windows 7 just to use it in bootcamp. If I get a student discount anytime soon, I'll probably upgrade to Win 7 64-bit just so it recognizes all my ram on my iMac and Macbook.

Cinaed666
July 2nd, 2010, 02:16 PM
Windows XP SP3 is a pretty complete OS. It is however being MADE obsolete by microsoft who are cutting all support for it. This way older hardware cannot be used anymore as the new windows versions are such resource hogs, and people will buy a brand new computer with -you guessed it- windows 7.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
July 2nd, 2010, 03:42 PM
You do have to keep in mind that software suites like CS 4 and such are ridiculously expensive if you wish to legitimately acquire them.

If they don't offer free updates for their program once you legitimately buy, like I'm pretty sure Adobe even does, you should not expect it to last more than a year or two. That means no blaming anything but the program itself.


Windows XP SP3 is a pretty complete OS. It is however being MADE obsolete by microsoft who are cutting all support for it. This way older hardware cannot be used anymore as the new windows versions are such resource hogs, and people will buy a brand new computer with -you guessed it- windows 7.

Lolconspiracytheory

To cut implies that end of support was forced. Reality check, XP is not future proof and has a boatload of compatibility issues at the programming level. For instance, IE9 is not going to support XP for very specific reasons. XP cannot use newer APIs that will offer major performance increases is one of these reasons. Some of these same API issues make XP browsers insecure compared to the same browser on a newer OS.

mr. ck
July 2nd, 2010, 08:18 PM
The only reason I use XP is because I'm not going to drop however much money for Windows 7 just to use it in bootcamp. If I get a student discount anytime soon, I'll probably upgrade to Win 7 64-bit just so it recognizes all my ram on my iMac and Macbook.
You get Windows 2008 for FREE as a student... Which is the latest version of the server editions of Windows.
It has most of the features of Windows 7 as well.

@the compatibility issues. Use XP mode.

Also CS2 used to work fine in Vista, CS3 should probably also work. I'm using Win7 with CS4 and it works well. I'm thinking about getting CS5 now :)

locoroco
July 2nd, 2010, 08:25 PM
i still cannot think that xp is outdated. well im gonna keep to what the thread title says no its not obsolete yet true theres better technologies but xp is not obsolete

donavannj
July 3rd, 2010, 01:09 PM
You get Windows 2008 for FREE as a student... Which is the latest version of the server editions of Windows.
It has most of the features of Windows 7 as well.

@the compatibility issues. Use XP mode.

I don't recommend that normal users get a Sever version of Windows. There's too much they could mess up on their machine by using it.

And XP mode isn't really all it's cracked up to be, honestly. It's far easier just to get it running in Windows 7. Plus, you need Windows 7 Pro or better to even get to use XP Mode.

mr. ck
July 4th, 2010, 04:31 AM
Hmm... At least the XP mode assures that the software that ran in WinXP still works in Win7... And on almost all new computers it works fine...

How can you mess up your computers by using Windows Server? It is the OS used by almost all huge networks which require ThinClients and the like.

donavannj
July 4th, 2010, 01:04 PM
How can you mess up your computers by using Windows Server? It is the OS used by almost all huge networks which require ThinClients and the like.

Because it gives you so much more control than the standard Windows. There's so much more control that the standard user, and even many above average users, wouldn't know what to do with all this sudden new control. And the standard user doesn't know what the hell Windows Server is asking them with that "Server Configuration" prompt that pops up the first time you log into a Windows Server machine. It also doesn't run games very effectively, if at all.

It also costs substantially more than a standard Windows OS. And it takes up more resources than the equivalent standard Windows OS.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
July 4th, 2010, 04:31 PM
Ever see how much RAM your average server has? Let me tell you. 8 gigs would be considered low-end. You know how 64 bit OS machines can use up to 128 GB of RAM? Even though NOTHING would ever need that? Guess what, things do. Servers go that high. Yeah, that's right, servers can go up to 128 GB of RAM, right now. And they use that much RAM.

...Course, what they're meant to do is very very different than normal.

These are the machines that OS is meant to run on. Need I say more?

donavannj
July 4th, 2010, 05:51 PM
Ever see how much RAM your average server has? Let me tell you. 8 gigs would be considered low-end. You know how 64 bit OS machines can use up to 128 GB of RAM? Even though NOTHING would ever need that? Guess what, things do. Servers go that high. Yeah, that's right, servers can go up to 128 GB of RAM, right now. And they use that much RAM.

...Course, what they're meant to do is very very different than normal.

These are the machines that OS is meant to run on. Need I say more?

8 GB is more mid-low, not low end. 4-6 GB is on the low end. Most places use multiple servers instead of going above 20-30 GB on a server, though, since a network application, or even accessing the server, would be slow if everyone were trying to connect to it at once, since most servers only use two Gigabit ethernet ports. Those servers that do need that much RAM tend to be massive database servers that run things like Microsoft Exchange Server or Oracle databases, and other things similar to those.

But, like I said in that last paragraph, a weak server uses 4 GB. Most need much more than that.

mr. ck
July 4th, 2010, 09:29 PM
Facepalm...
The RAM isn't the minimum requirement for the Windows to run... Heck so many people use the server version of windows on their mediocre PCs.

The server version does everything that the home versions of windows do... It's only limited by the hardware you put on it. And you don't need even 8 GB RAM, if you're not going to put up any web servers / file servers / terminal servers etc (and a large client base). They just give you more power... which could be an issue, w/e... and are configured for heaps of security. And some of the defaults are tweaked for performance rather than ease of use and eye candy (which isn't something that requires hardwork to reverse)

Don't assume that all servers run internet servers, or database servers or terminal servers. 4 GB may be enough depending on the application... For most cases however, 8 GB is good enough. Most servers that require high performance and RAM usage are in load sharing networks or in clusters.
And 64-bit OS machines can go beyond 128 GB... -_-'
Even Win7 supports more. Not to mention certain Linux distros supposedly permit unlimited RAM. Hardware is the factor that limits the RAM... Theoretically some processors can have heaps of RAM.

donavannj
July 4th, 2010, 10:51 PM
Facepalm...
The RAM isn't the minimum requirement for the Windows to run... Heck so many people use the server version of windows on their mediocre PCs.

Are they using it for gaming or for everything other than gaming? 'Cause, last I checked, DirectX doesn't play nice with server OSes. And I didn't say anything about the minimum requirements for it. I'm well aware that it needs a minimum of 512 MB of RAM to run, and 2 GB to run at a decent speed. And think of the pricing! Great unholy fires of hellhounds, Windows Server 2008 is expensive! excluding free copies only available to students in information technology fields, but, even then, they can't get R2 at this point in time, at least in my country

The server version does everything that the home versions of windows do... It's only limited by the hardware you put on it. And you don't need even 8 GB RAM, if you're not going to put up any web servers / file servers / terminal servers etc (and a large client base). They just give you more power... which could be an issue, w/e... and are configured for heaps of security. And some of the defaults are tweaked for performance rather than ease of use and eye candy (which isn't something that requires hardwork to reverse)

It's not gamer friendly, as, like I said above, I don't believe it can run DirectX. And did I mention the pricing? That's a big stickler. Sure, it can run, but what can you do on it besides access the internet? That's a waste of $200 for just the web server edition, which is the cheapest of them. And then there's the fact that few computers actually come with it set up, and the install options would lead to many frustrated end users because they installed the "Power Shell" version because they thought it was an even better version, and it turned out to just be a CLI interface. That extra security is another thing that would frustrate many end-users.

Don't assume that all servers run internet servers, or database servers or terminal servers. 4 GB may be enough depending on the application... For most cases however, 8 GB is good enough. Most servers that require high performance and RAM usage are in load sharing networks or in clusters.

Web servers require the least amount of specs out of anything a corporation needs, since they're basically file servers that have to accommodate web traffic. And many smaller corporations, instead of throwing down $5000+ for another server to run another application they need, will upgrade their existing servers to better handle the all the applications they need, since it's far cheaper to buy more sticks of RAM than to buy a whole new server.

mr. ck
July 4th, 2010, 11:56 PM
My post was a reply to Yellow... She said that you need at least 8 GB RAM to use Win Server as an OS.
It doesn't hold true for both the people using it on their PCs and on their servers.
I know people using server hardware for better performance of applications 9quicker calculation)... Since they are the only (or one of the few) users, they never need to go beyond 4-6 GB RAM.

And Windows Server is free to high school and college students. This means that you do not need to be an IT student.
The point is, if someone knows what they are doing... A free copy of windows is a good thing.

donavannj
July 5th, 2010, 01:00 PM
And Windows Server is free to high school and college students. This means that you do not need to be an IT student.

That may be true in India, but it's not entirely true here. If you're a student, Microsoft will give you a discount, but it won't give it to you free unless you actually are in a degree where you need to mess around with Windows to study for a class of yours.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
July 5th, 2010, 10:52 PM
My post was a reply to Yellow... She said that you need at least 8 GB RAM to use Win Server as an OS.

No, I didn't. I didn't even say anything remotely like that. All I said, was that server computers with 8 GB of RAM are low end.

Have a free facepalm, courtesy of karma.

Oh, and Dona... 8GB would be hard pressed to even do a school. I'd say that speaks a lot for how low end an 8 GB server is.

mr. ck
July 6th, 2010, 02:17 AM
That may be true in India, but it's not entirely true here. If you're a student, Microsoft will give you a discount, but it won't give it to you free unless you actually are in a degree where you need to mess around with Windows to study for a class of yours.
Visit http://www.dreamspark.com
I'm sure it works for everyone.
My school isn't listed with them and still they gave me the services...

@Yellow: Then how is it even relevant to what we were talking about...?

donavannj
July 6th, 2010, 02:21 PM
Oh, and Dona... 8GB would be hard pressed to even do a school. I'd say that speaks a lot for how low end an 8 GB server is.

Schools are quite large networks, though. I know my high school's network was about as large as my employer's network, and my employer uses 3 servers that have 20 GB of RAM apiece just for the Active Directory Services and DFS services for three sites.

Visit http://www.dreamspark.com
I'm sure it works for everyone.
My school isn't listed with them and still they gave me the services...

Huh. Wasn't aware of that site. Must be one of those things that they don't want the world knowing about. I can get stuff through the MSDN through my school anyways, though.

twocows
July 6th, 2010, 05:12 PM
Visit http://www.dreamspark.com
I'm sure it works for everyone.
My school isn't listed with them and still they gave me the services...

@Yellow: Then how is it even relevant to what we were talking about...?
Actually, Dreamspark isn't available to some universities (like mine). Luckily, I have MSDNAA, so I don't much care, heh.

lutherdclooney
July 6th, 2010, 05:54 PM
Inspired by this question being asked various times on various forums and a recent topic here at PC.

Is XP obsolete? Outdated? Dieing?
Maybe it's already dead?

I'll tell you what, I personally find that it's very obsolete, and if it isn't dead, needs to die soon less it hold back the rest of the tech world with it's inferiority.

True fact, XP is the reason Firefox is so insecure right now. =3
Mozilla builds Firefox to be aimed at XP users. Thus, they don't use newer security features. This will be changing in the future though, don't worry.

Opinions?

1) What is it about XP that you find obsolete besides that it only supports up to 4GB RAM (which is what most users have or less).

2) If there was no XP then netbook computers would have no OS at all. What would you like them to run instead?

3) Do you need to use more than 4GB?

4) The way I see it then XP is still good today 10 years after due to smaller footprint for RAM, CPU usage - and, lesson learned is that "bloatware" like vista is not the right direction for all of us. I have a netbook and really enjoy its 4-5 hours of battery time (even with an old battery and the N280 Atom CPU I got - N450 CPU is much better, though) and I did try both Vista and C7 on my core 2 duo laptop - and switched back to XP within 2 days each time.

Reason? Any OS that doesnt have a SP2 should not be touched since there are too many flaws in them such as truecrypt and other programs (that may not be mainstream) does not run on them.

Once C7 has at least SP2 - and when I need more than 4GB ram - then will be happy to look at it again. But, there is a reason why NASA just a few years ago used a 28kb faxmodem in one of their rover robots for Mars.

Why?
Because the 28.8 kb faxmodem was so thoroughly tested that all bugs and funny things have been documented a long time ago while newer technology still have un-known bugs.

TheAppleFreak
July 6th, 2010, 06:36 PM
1) What is it about XP that you find obsolete besides that it only supports up to 4GB RAM (which is what most users have or less).
That, and Vista/7 have new frameworks that give applications more security, as well as new APIs to let programs do more than XP would let them.

2) If there was no XP then netbook computers would have no OS at all. What would you like them to run instead?
Preferably Windows 7 Home Premium edition. My base model Dell Mini 10v runs it quite well even with Aero turned on.

3) Do you need to use more than 4GB?
If you're like me, who virtualizes tons of software, or Yellow (and others here in C&T) who game heavily, yes. My computer actually barely squeaks by with the 4 GB of installed RAM that I have given the work I do.

4) The way I see it then XP is still good today 10 years after due to smaller footprint for RAM, CPU usage - and, lesson learned is that "bloatware" like vista is not the right direction for all of us. I have a netbook and really enjoy its 4-5 hours of battery time (even with an old battery and the N280 Atom CPU I got - N450 CPU is much better, though) and I did try both Vista and C7 on my core 2 duo laptop - and switched back to XP within 2 days each time.

Reason? Any OS that doesnt have a SP2 should not be touched since there are too many flaws in them such as truecrypt and other programs (that may not be mainstream) does not run on them.

Once C7 has at least SP2 - and when I need more than 4GB ram - then will be happy to look at it again. But, there is a reason why NASA just a few years ago used a 28kb faxmodem in one of their rover robots for Mars.

Why?
Because the 28.8 kb faxmodem was so thoroughly tested that all bugs and funny things have been documented a long time ago while newer technology still have un-known bugs.
Or... the distances between Mars and Earth's orbital satellites is so far away the max speeds wouldn't be able to surpass that.

Comments in bold.

I personally think that XP is outdated.

locoroco
July 6th, 2010, 07:24 PM
Why is xp outdated or obsolete??? its like saying that your corolla 2006 is obsolete because of the corolla 2010 just because its old its not obsolete. True theres better technologies but that doesnt make it obsolete it just makes it older. You cant say that vista was any good either it was slow and pretty much I can call vista an experimental phase of windows to see how people would react, why do you think not much more than a year after vista's release they released 7 its not a coincidence microsoft admitted their mistake and tried to fix it with 7 while most of the problems where fixed some where left behind or barely touched.

Originaly posted by TheAppleFreak: If you're like me, who virtualizes tons of software, or Yellow (and others here in C&T) who game heavily, yes. My computer actually barely squeaks by with the 4 GB of installed RAM that I have given the work I do.

seriously my xp never touches her limit I game very heavily and the most ive ever touched was 3.02gb. An example of a heavy game is gta4 or the ps2 emulator also who in here besides me have played resident evil 5? they have pretty heavy requirements and i play them of full high and thats as much as she is ever touched from her 221mb idle. I always record my comps performance and thats the highest shes ever been. And yes I just called my comp a she.

mr. ck
July 7th, 2010, 02:04 AM
Actually, Dreamspark isn't available to some universities (like mine). Luckily, I have MSDNAA, so I don't much care, heh.
Hmm... They have an option that says something like "Is your school not listed?" and if you go ahead and contact them, they verify you without any hassles... They did for me withing half a day.

That's what they did for me.

twocows
July 7th, 2010, 11:08 AM
Hmm... They have an option that says something like "Is your school not listed?" and if you go ahead and contact them, they verify you without any hassles... They did for me withing half a day.

That's what they did for me.
I looked at that a few months ago for about ten seconds before giving up because I already had MSDNAA.

Blaze The Hedgehog
July 7th, 2010, 12:02 PM
Oh, and Asrock OC Tuner does NOTHING for you system.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
July 7th, 2010, 06:08 PM
Schools are quite large networks, though. I know my high school's network was about as large as my employer's network, and my employer uses 3 servers that have 20 GB of RAM apiece just for the Active Directory Services and DFS services for three sites.

Schools are also known for being stingy about upgrading to the newest technology. I attend one of the most valuable schools in the USA (Meaning, more money has been spent on it than any other) and it's worst server only has around 16 GB of RAM. Point being, for servers, 8 GB is very much low end.

1) What is it about XP that you find obsolete besides that it only supports up to 4GB RAM (which is what most users have or less).
Insecure
Unstable
Incompatible

Has reached it's limits as far as what can be fixed or improved. XP is NOT future proof and it's way past it's intended expiration date.

Doing some things such as installing hardware or fixing simple problems is tedious compared to newer Operating Systems.

It lacks a 64 bit version that doesn't suck. This is more than just supporting more than 4 GB of RAM.

Oh, and in the long run? XP tends to make up for the few things newer OS take the time to do more securely by taking FOREVER to fix when someone exploits the vulnerabilities this leaves open. Yeah, this means more waisted time.[


2) If there was no XP then netbook computers would have no OS at all. What would you like them to run instead?

Windows 7. If you want to buy obsolete Operating Systems to get away with spending less on a computer that's your choice.

3) Do you need to use more than 4GB?
Heck yes. Wanna game? 4 GB is going to be medium end. Wanna do any sort of web hosting? Medium end. Want it to be able to server anything? Low end.

4) The way I see it then XP is still good today 10 years after due to smaller footprint for RAM, CPU usage - and, lesson learned is that "bloatware" like vista is not the right direction for all of us. I have a netbook and really enjoy its 4-5 hours of battery time (even with an old battery and the N280 Atom CPU I got - N450 CPU is much better, though) and I did try both Vista and C7 on my core 2 duo laptop - and switched back to XP within 2 days each time.

Your gross misuse of the term "bloatware" irks me. What you meant to say was that it requires more hardware, to which I say... This is how computer upgrades have ALWAYS worked. You think Windows 2000 to XP was any different from XP to Vista in regard to the amount of power it took to run one compared to the other? Sure wasn't. It was the exact same thing. Furthermore, XP needs to DIE within the next few years. It needs to move on so it's grandkids can be successful and not be held back by it's ugly mug like I'm so tired of seeing.

Once C7 has at least SP2 - and when I need more than 4GB ram - then will be happy to look at it again. But, there is a reason why NASA just a few years ago used a 28kb faxmodem in one of their rover robots for Mars.

Why?
Because the 28.8 kb faxmodem was so thoroughly tested that all bugs and funny things have been documented a long time ago while newer technology still have un-known bugs.

Um... Oooor maybe the extreme distance doesn't allow for much faster speeds? Maybe technology just hasn't gotten far enough to get faster across such huge distances yet? >> If you thought any sort of OLD 28.8 kb faxmodem could handle that kind of distance I'm afraid you're mistaken. It's probably quite new.

Heart's Soul
July 8th, 2010, 07:45 AM
In my school, we just get Windows XP laptops/notebooks/outdated technology for the semester. Then we have to format. Heh, I'm going to do so much to them once school starts. (Program-wise)

XP isn't so obsolete, wait until 2014 when support fully ends.

vinylscratchp0n3
July 8th, 2010, 02:24 PM
XP has been dead since Mac OS X Leopard came out. I hate XP, but my dad won't let me get a Mac. So I'm stuck with inferiority until I have enough money to get my own.

Heart's Soul
July 8th, 2010, 02:36 PM
XP has been dead since Mac OS X Leopard came out. I hate XP, but my dad won't let me get a Mac. So I'm stuck with inferiority until I have enough money to get my own.

And I hate Macs. They're not so friendly with a custom system. So you can't upgrade RAM.

locoroco
July 8th, 2010, 06:55 PM
XP has been dead since Mac OS X Leopard came out. I hate XP, but my dad won't let me get a Mac. So I'm stuck with inferiority until I have enough money to get my own.

dude for mac get windows 7 its a lot better than mac thats for sure

mr. ck
July 9th, 2010, 02:04 AM
dude for mac get windows 7 its a lot better than mac thats for sure
DUDE! It's a personal opinion...

Mac is much better than Win 7, dude...