Is Windows XP Obselete?

[donavannj]

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.

 

[Dawn]

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]

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]

XP has the chance in my eyes, to be perfectly usable when vista itself is obsolete.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]

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.

 

[Dawn]

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]

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

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.

 

[Dawn]

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]

...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.

 

[Dawn]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Dawn]

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]

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.

 

[Dawn]

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]

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]

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]

(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]

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

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

Specs for proof