Seizure1990 Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 I agree with the notion that, when possible/reasonable, 7 should be used over XP, but what's with the people suggesting Linux over XP if 7 isn't possible? That doesn't make sense. XP is still a stable OS, that can run 99% of the software and hardware out there. There's nothing wrong with using it if you dont have, or can't use, a later edition. Linux isn't an upgrade or even alternative, it's a completely different beast altogether, and suggesting people to use it over XP, without knowing anything about what they need from an OS is dumb. What about program compatiblity? What about people who are inexperienced and can't deal with the learning curve yet? I can go on. Having said all that, if I was given a choice between Vista and XP, I would definitely choose XP, no questions asked. I'd rather force-feed it drivers for a week then have to use MEv2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soldier1st Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 what about XP with my specs? would 7 do a better job as i am considering of moving back to 7, XP gets slow from time to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frylock86 Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 what about XP with my specs? would 7 do a better job as i am considering of moving back to 7, XP gets slow from time to time. Is that a joke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Neo Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 what about XP with my specs? would 7 do a better job as i am considering of moving back to 7, XP gets slow from time to time. I'd install Windows NT4 if I were you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frylock86 Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 I'd install Windows 2000 if I were you! Nah. Personally, I'd go with 95. Uses less RAM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Neo Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Yeah, I corrected it to Windows NT4. If that feels slow from time to time there's always Windows 3.1 or simply go back to DOS altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frylock86 Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Yeah, I corrected it to Windows NT4. If that feels slow from time to time there's always Windows 3.1 or simply go back to DOS altogether. Indeed. DOS never slows down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soldier1st Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 I'd install Windows NT4 if I were you... you are quite funny i will admit.true it does what it does but i put up with it cuzz i am used to it. if you ran DOS i would LOL@You. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seizure1990 Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 what about XP with my specs? would 7 do a better job as i am considering of moving back to 7, XP gets slow from time to time. If your XP is slow, 7 will only be slower. 7 will only be faster then XP with newer hardware, since it is optimized for the latest technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anibal P Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 If your XP is slow, 7 will only be slower. 7 will only be faster then XP with newer hardware, since it is optimized for the latest technology. Did you even glance at his specs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frylock86 Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 you are quite funny i will admit.true it does what it does but i put up with it cuzz i am used to it. if you ran DOS i would LOL@You. If you're serious, and those specs in your siggy are current, then half of your machine is being wasted with XP running on it as well. You should be using an x64 based OS for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asharae Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Why is this question even being asked? It would be stupid to run anything less than Vista on those specs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frylock86 Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Why is this question even being asked? I would like to know why we can't let this ancient OS die too. It's 2011 for crying out loud. :cry: Ci7, Asharae, Jmixmaster and 1 other 4 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Neo Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Yeah I wish Windows XP would die already. Even worse are the people who complain that the latest applications like Internet Explorer 9 won't run on it. :whistle: Frylock86 and Ji@nBing 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDoggyca Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 the only time some one sohuld be running XP these days are setups like this AMD DualCore 1.7GHZ 2GIG DDr2 600 80GIG HDD Radeon Express 1250m even then its almost tempting to put Vista/7 on a pc like this expect the Radeon Express dose not support WDDM drivers. there for I would lose preformance on vista/7 do to lack of GPU Rendering. The system stuck with xp forever due to the fact LINUX is not a OPTION. LINUX is never a OPTION, LIN-SUCKS!!! as for your system Win7 all the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozgeek Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 It all depends if you have the money to upgrade. Not everyone have the money to upgrade or have a need to upgrade yet. My sister is stilling running XP on their desktop but they have a Win7 laptop. I agree it is very old. Their Acer desktop is so slow even after a format and reinstall but they don't have the money to upgrade. Do you think it's a good idea to upgrade everytime there is a new version? Only if you have the money to do so but don't force it upon low-earners. I wouldn't go back to XP but I will if in the rarest reason I have to. I'm too used to Win7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asharae Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 the only time some one sohuld be running XP these days are setups like this AMD DualCore 1.7GHZ 2GIG DDr2 600 80GIG HDD Radeon Express 1250m even then its almost tempting to put Vista/7 on a pc like this expect the Radeon Express dose not support WDDM drivers. there for I would lose preformance on vista/7 do to lack of GPU Rendering. The system stuck with xp forever due to the fact LINUX is not a OPTION. LINUX is never a OPTION, LIN-SUCKS!!! as for your system Win7 all the way. Lin does not suck, it just isn't for everyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nub Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Most definitely. I don't see myself "upgrading" for the next decade unless MS realizes their mistake and makes a lite OS. What is the point of this? Windows 7 runs faster than XP on decent hardware. If you want a light OS run linux. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frylock86 Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Yeah I wish Windows XP would die already. Even worse are the people who complain that the latest applications like Internet Explorer 9 won't run on it. :whistle: This. I think it's funny that a few here believe Office 15 was leaked running on XP. Hate to say it, but I could bet money Office 15 will only support Vista SP2, 7 SP1, and 8. I think this thread has served its purpose though. OP got their answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flawed Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 I havent come across any issues with using XP right now. it is still a usable operating system. Never had any problems with it myself either. Vista and 7 on the other hand are problematic on many machines. One only has to monitor the level of disk access to realise that battery life is severely diminished whilst using them. Why is this question even being asked? It would be stupid to run anything less than Vista on those specs. Why? XP still has the best supported software of all windows OS's. There's nothing you can do with vista/7 that you can't do with XP, excluding Microsoft software of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asharae Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Never had any problems with it myself either. Vista and 7 on the other hand are problematic on many machines. One only has to monitor the level of disk access to realise that battery life is severely diminished whilst using them. Why? XP still has the best supported software of all windows OS's. There's nothing you can do with vista/7 that you can't do with XP, excluding Microsoft software of course. Why? Because your running your system inefficiently if you use XP still, especially on newer hardware! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frylock86 Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Never had any problems with it myself either. Vista and 7 on the other hand are problematic on many machines. One only has to monitor the level of disk access to realise that battery life is severely diminished whilst using them. Why? XP still has the best supported software of all windows OS's. There's nothing you can do with vista/7 that you can't do with XP, excluding Microsoft software of course. Why? Because it is 11 years old, and cannot take advantage of the OPs hardware. He'd be gimping his machine for no reason at all, nor would he see improved battery life, and he'd have 5 months or so before Windows Rot would kick in, something you don't get on Vista or 7. Not to mention, XP is out of mainstream support. OP would be up ****s creek if he wanted to try new things. Asharae, ZakO, stevember and 4 others 7 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soldier1st Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 If you're serious, and those specs in your siggy are current, then half of your machine is being wasted with XP running on it as well. You should be using an x64 based OS for that. those specs are current.it's only slightly laggy when i come back to using it after a number of hours but it is acceptable. Otherwise it seems fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Udedenkz Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Did you even glance at his specs? His specs fit both operating systems just fine. Simple dual core is not something XP cannot handle, give XP some credit jeez! :rolleyes: I do have to admit that I don't know how good Intel support for XP though. He might not get DXVA on XP. I know that NVIDIA is de-facto winner in driver support - XP and XP 64-bit are still supported. AMD is the de-facto looser in driver support - website tells XP x86_32 users to go **** themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ji@nBing Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 XP still works fine, but if you have a decent system, there's no reason not to go with Windows 7 instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts