85 posts in this topic

Posted

Even so, many consumers, businesses and government agencies have seen no reason to replace XP on their desktop and laptop computers, according to research firm NetMarketShare, which says XP powers nearly 30 percent of all personal computers worldwide. Others estimate 200 million or more XP users.

"XP is a solid operating system. People are used to it. They've got other software that's compatible with it. And all their stuff is on it," said Kevin McGuire, who owns the Bay Area Computerman repair shop in West San Jose. "I still have computers running XP in my shop."

While McGuire is skeptical of the more dire warnings about XP, other experts say there's reason to be concerned. Several makers of antivirus programs and other security software say their products will continue to work with XP, but they may not provide full protection.

Security programs can detect and neutralize malware, but they don't repair vulnerabilities in the underlying operating system, said Gerry Egan, senior director of product management at Symantec, which "strongly recommends" that XP users upgrade to a newer operating system.

But for those who really want to keep using XP, experts offer this advice:

First, be sure to use an updated anti-malware program; some experts recommend using two, since one may find things the other misses. Microsoft Security Essentials is a free anti-malware program that you can download now; you won't be able to download the XP version after April 8, although Microsoft says it will distribute updates for an unspecified time.

Second, switch to Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox for Web browsing. Both will continue to work with XP and have the latest browser security features. The two most recent versions of Microsoft's Internet Explorer won't work with XP, while older versions of Explorer don't work as well with newer websites.

Finally, stick to trusted websites and avoid using an XP computer for online banking, shopping or anything involving sensitive information. Better still, disconnect from the Internet and just use the computer for word-processing, spread sheets or games that are already installed on your machine.

While those steps may reduce the risk, "our advice is to upgrade," said Richard Yom, owner of the PC Clinic repair shop in San Jose. Still, he acknowledged, "some people will wait as long as they can."

more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Really don't understand the furore about upgrading from XP. People didn't have this kind of issue upgrading from earlier versions of Windows, so why is XP so special?

 

It's a dinosaur, get over it and upgrade.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Really don't understand the furore about upgrading from XP. People didn't have this kind of issue upgrading from earlier versions of Windows, so why is XP so special?

 

It's a dinosaur, get over it and upgrade.

 

I could see it in relation to the problems vista has.. but 7 is rock solid.. pretty crazy not to update to 7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I could see it in relation to the problems vista has.. but 7 is rock solid.. pretty crazy not to update to 7.

Ditto that.. Vista was pretty bad until SP2 (XP sucked at first too), actually rather good now but tainted by its bad rep and 7's still better anyway plus plenty of support life left in it so no point anymore. Runs pretty decently on older hardware unless you got something really old with only like 512MB or something, and frankly XP and most current Linux desktops run like ass on those too.. a single tab of a current web browser will gobble that up in no time flat, never mind other background services. Time to upgrade/replace those junkers.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

But, but, but XP is uber fast on my Core i7, 8GB RAM system!!!11!

 

 

:p

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

But, but, but XP is uber fast on my Core i7, 8GB RAM system!!!11!

 

 

:p

 

It is.  And that is something nice about XP on newer systems.. its far less resource intensive.  For those that need to power through something.. it does work well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It is.  And that is something nice about XP on newer systems.. its far less resource intensive.  For those that need to power through something.. it does work well.

Yeah, but your 8GB RAM will only be 3.5GB RAM unless you have the 64bit version, which is not very common.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yeah, but your 8GB RAM will only be 3.5GB RAM unless you have the 64bit version, which is not very common.

common enough.. plus couldn't you do PAE to extend it? Or does that still lock to 3.5.   Either way.. 3.5 on XP is like 16 on windows 8 >.>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

a few mods & tweaks ill prob dual boot xp & linux

 

xp pro 64bit with latest updates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

But, but, but XP is uber fast on my Core i7, 8GB RAM system!!!11!

 

 

:p

 

While it wouldn't see more than 3.5 gigs of ram ... on a boot test with a ssd I bet XP might boot faster than Windows 8.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

"anti-malware program; some experts recommend using two, since one may find things the other misses."

 

What experts are these?  You sure and the hell should not run 2 active running security based software -- That clearly is no expert if they are suggesting such a thing.  Now if you want a non active scanner to also scan some exes before you run, ok - but running 2 active antivirus/malware/firewalls has never been a good idea.  If your going to make a statement like that - you need to be CLEAR about how to run the 2nd one as a offline/passive type scanner.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

common enough.. plus couldn't you do PAE to extend it? Or does that still lock to 3.5.   Either way.. 3.5 on XP is like 16 on windows 8 >.>

Surely you would want to make the most of your RAM without using any hacks. Also, it depends on what you use your computer for. If you are like me then most of the time your computer will use more than 3GBs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

While it wouldn't see more than 3.5 gigs of ram ... on a boot test with a ssd I bet XP might boot faster than Windows 8.

Why is anyone still booting new OSs? Put them to sleep and carry on. Win7+8 sleep-to-desktop > XP sleep-to-desktop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Why is anyone still booting new OSs? Put them to sleep and carry on. Win7+8 sleep-to-desktop > XP sleep-to-desktop

 

I should test the 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I feel sorry for anyone whom uses XP 64-bit. For example its WoW64 pretty much sucks compared to the improved versions in Vista+. That's not all actually, but that's the big main one in my mind.

 

Just die already, XP.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I've never found a PC (with compatible hardware) that wasn't sped up by upgrading to Windows 7 or 8 (with effects turned off).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Why turn off effects, that's the best part! :p

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Turning off the effects is just a placebo.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I feel sorry for anyone whom uses XP 64-bit. For example its WoW64 pretty much sucks compared to the improved versions in Vista+.

I had the same less-than-spectacular results with XP64 back in the day too.. of course it may have been the particular hardware and/or drivers I was using that the time but it was a cluster-f overall. 64 bit didn't get reliable till Vista, and XP using PAE was just more instability added ontop of an already semi-unstable OS.

As far as performance goes, as long as I wasn't trying to squeeze it into 512MB (which sucks no matter which way you look at it) 7 and 8 99% of the time performed faster overall, and was a crapton more reliable while doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Really don't understand the furore about upgrading from XP. People didn't have this kind of issue upgrading from earlier versions of Windows, so why is XP so special?

 

It's a dinosaur, get over it and upgrade.

You're assuming that all the machines running XP today can upgrade to newer revisions of Windows. I know for a fact that many of them can't due to the system requirements of Vista and upwards. A lot of people forget that it's not just RAM, CPU, and drive space, but also graphics.

That's why I always recommend that people with XP either stay with it or upgrade to GNU/Linux. That way they don't have to spend a ton of money on new equipment and costly Windows licences.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

On modern hardware with 64-bit multi-core processors, today's amounts of RAM and other new technologies Windows 7 should be faster than XP.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

On modern hardware with 64-bit multi-core processors and today's amounts of RAM Windows 7 should be faster than XP.

I have a core2duo machine that runs faster on XP than Windows 7 or 8. Try scrolling in explorer with lots of files or resizing a window:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That's why I always recommend that people with XP either stay with it or upgrade to GNU/Linux. That way they don't have to spend a ton of money on new equipment and costly Windows licences.

Viable but not always feasible. Quite a few distros won't run on older hardware too ;) Plus you still have the issue of "bigger software, older hardware." Fire up a browser, whatever Office application, etc, that piddly amount of memory is gone even using the most ultralight desktop you can find. Older hardware can be problematic on new distros as well.

If they want Linux that's fine.. but trying to shoehorn anything reasonably current into a system that's that old isn't the best idea.. toss it or upgrade it or just make a server out of the thing.

 

I have a core2duo machine that runs faster on XP than Windows 7 or 8. Try scrolling in explorer with lots of files or resizing a window:

That's an old insipid argument as Explorer is constantly refreshing data as you're scrolling whereas XP is not.. doing more work means more CPU time. Does not effect real performance in any way... not exactly a benchmark. Never mind I have a C2D sitting right next to me happily running 7 with zero performance issues whatsoever, never mind doing it faster than XP (and in many situations Linux.)
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I have a core2duo machine that runs faster on XP than Windows 7 or 8. Try scrolling in explorer with lots of files or resizing a window:

 

I wouldn't exactly call a Core 2 Duo system modern hardware; those things are ancient. It probably has a very old video card too.

 

Try your test again on an actual new PC. Windows XP does not properly support today's technologies very well, if at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Viable but not always feasible. Quite a few distros won't run on older hardware too ;)

The point is there are distros and desktop environments that are designed to be run on older hardware. Lxubuntu, Puppy, DSL, Xubuntu, and lots more.

That's an old insipid argument as Explorer is constantly refreshing data as you're scrolling whereas XP is not.. doing more work means more CPU time. Does not effect real performance in any way... not exactly a benchmark. Never mind I have a C2D sitting right next to me happily running 7 with zero performance issues whatsoever, never mind doing it faster than XP (and in many situations Linux.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.