Is Windows XP Obselete?

[donavannj]

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.

 

[Dawn]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Dawn]

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]

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 https://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]

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 https://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]

Visit https://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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Oh, and Asrock OC Tuner does NOTHING for you system.

 

[Dawn]

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]

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]

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.