Is Windows XP Obselete?

[locoroco]

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]

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.

 

[Dawn]

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...

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]

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]

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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Dawn]

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.

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

and the one I posted earlier

https://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]

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.

https://macosx.com/forums/apple-news-...ared-os-x.html

and the one I posted earlier

https://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 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
https://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/features/performance-improvements.aspx?tabid=2&catid=3

 

[Dawn]

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.
https://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]

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]

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

 

[Dawn]

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

https://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.

 

[Dawn]

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.

 

[locoroco]

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