Neowin.net

Or, quit using Quicktime/Direct show!!

Definitely NOT a good enough reason to upgrade to Vista (yuck!!)

People should've stopped using quicktime years ago. Oh well.

Thing is Apple are determined to install it with iTunes. I don't want Quicktime, just iTunes as the stupid download link says Apple.

Funny, iTunes is just a media library built on top of QuickTime, and the quicktime technologies (which include aac, and mov). The QuickTime player is only a small part of QuickTime.

I don't think it's possible to give up using directshow...

This is exactly the kinda of think MS is looking for by announcing this information, and being sure to say that it doesn't affect vista.

Doesn't hurt when it's the truth.

You can't quit using DirectShow. It's used by every media player there is for Windows.

What about mplayer, SMPlayer, and other mplayer front ends?

I would think they would be sure to say that it doesn't apply to Vista so people using Vista won't be asking for a patch for something that doesn't apply to them.

OMFG give ms a break.

could it be remotely possible that they report this because it is actually a fact, the truth, whatever you want to call it and want to assure vista users this issue does not affect them? of course not, that would be too far fetched.

What do you have against Vista? It's a great OS, much better than Windows XP.

Truth

People still use Vista?

People still use Computers?

People should use Windows 7..... I think.... maybe....

It took me 7 minutes to download this page on my 14Kbps modem on windows 3.11 and all I got was poor comments XD

Sadly, only the intelligent ones.

+1000000000

sorry, but I consider myself to a well technically educated individual and a good while back I switched back to XP. And I instantly regretted it...

There are numerous reasons I didnt like it. Eventually I ended up on W7 and it is far far superior to XP in every manner.. can someone please tell me exactly WHY XP is better than W7? or even Vista?

Exactly, there is NO reason tha anyone should be using XP today unless they have a specific application that calls for it, or a machine that won't run Vista or 7.

Some of my favorite games,apps just dont work on vista. and I dont have enough money to buy latest version of the app just to use it on vista even though my hardware can run the OS easily.

and i'm wise enough to know that following few security guidelines by not visiting lame websites or not downloading trojans from pron sites which might cause problems

Such as?

"better" is a matter of opinion. "Why do some people prefer XP over W7/Vista?" is the correct question.

I have many reasons but the #1 reason would be performance. Why do people overclock, upgrade to a faster CPUs, memory, GPUs? Because speed is important to most people. XP is just plain faster in all my tests and most tests I've seen published on the web.

This wreaks of garbage. If you actually bothered to read any of the tests published on the web as you say, you would know that XP SP3 and Vista SP1 are practically identical in terms of performance and speed. Taking it one step further, you would have seen that Windows 7 actually outperforms both of the above in nearly every test.

I think it's time you started reading more up to date material. Benchmarks from the early days of Vista are no longer valid.

As for those that require XP to run specific applications, maybe it's time to dump said application. If the developer of that application is incapable of moving forward, as in update their software to accommodate new operating systems, it's clearly not worth the time. There has been ample opportunity for software developers to get their software working under Vista. Let's also remember that Windows 7 boasts compatibility with any software that runs under Vista right out of the gate. It's time to move on, if the developer of your software is unwilling to do so, it's time to stop supporting them.

http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/gener...re-273?page=0,1

But don't take their word for it. Do some benchmark tests yourself. In one of my tests, I timed installing Microsoft Office Enterprise Edition.
Time to install...
XP - 5:06
W7 - 11:06
Smackdown baby!

Yes, because only the intelligent ones would use an OS that's less secure.

/sarcasm

You're using an article from January. And you expect me to take you seriously? We're in May, almost June. Time to brush up, (snipped)

Last edited by rm20010 on 29 May 2009 - 20:22

No, I don't expect anything from you (snipped). Except maybe to keep living in fantasy land.

Last edited by rm20010 on 29 May 2009 - 20:23

Games like Medal Of Honor: Allied Assault, Fahrenheit,Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood and many other apps like Corel Paint Shop Pro Photo IX & even X ,Corel draw 8 and so many that i cant list them

Ran them on vista and also vista sp1 with drivers fully updated and with all latest windows updates and still i am unable to run them. why bother wasting time with workarounds when XP can run them fine.

Yes, because personal attacks are going to get anyone to take you seriously!

It's not my fault you're clinging to a dying operating system. When your OS becomes obsolete and you're whining because software is no longer written to pacify those using a 20 year old OS, we'll see who the (snipped) is then. *shrug*

Grow up.

Last edited by rm20010 on 29 May 2009 - 20:22

STFU XP Fanboy, those of us who are intelligent enough use Vista, instead of using a 7 year old OS that has to use workarounds, because it doesn't get critical security updates!!!!

Last edited by rm20010 on 29 May 2009 - 20:26

Reading other people's experiences with these Operating Systems is one way of discerning it's comparative performance, but it never compares to using the OS's yourself.

From my own experience I have found XP to have faster performance on my PC than both Vista and 7. Show me all the online benchmark results you like, but it won't change the simple fact that, in many cases (mine included) XP does work better in terms of performance.

I'm not an XP fanboy. I don't really like XP though I have to use it due to some program incompatibilities. I prefer Windows 2000 myself.

And where do you get the idea that XP doesn't get critical security updates?

Why upgrade to Vista or Win 7? There is literally nothing I can find benefiting from it. I can find me loosing all the joy I have customizing my desktop and enjoying a minimal work environment. Btw, I've used Vista since launch and have played with 7 since public beta. If the Vista/7 enthusiasts can give me a good amount of reasons why people should update, then yeah more info for me.

I don't even want to get into this argument, but I do agree with Rev. There is absolutely nothing I do in Windows that requires Vista or 7, and I really hate the new GUIs. As far as security, XP is perfectly fine if you're not completely computer illiterate and stay away from obviously dangerous activities like installing every shiny thing that pops up in your web browser.

Oh and neo158, XP is still fully supported by Microsoft. Your post reeks of ignorance and your personal attacks reveal your level of maturity.

WINDOWS 7 SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
1 GHz or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
1 GB RAM (32-bit) / 2 GB RAM (64-bit)
16 GB available disk space (32-bit) / 20 GB (64-bit)
DirectX 9 graphics processor with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver

WINDOWS XP SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system)
128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)
1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*
Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor
CD-ROM or DVD drive
Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device

Good for you, timing how long it takes to install pirated software. Don't you feel clever.

This is quite possibly the stupidest reasoning for comparing the two. You're comparing system requirements from an OS that isn't even out yet to an OS that was released in 2001? Wow...

Yes, yes, the hardware resources will magically shrink to XP levels when Windows 7 is released.

Face it, Windows 7 requires much more powerful hardware to run.

Naw, rly? Who's disputing that? XP required more powerful hardware than 2000. 2000 required more powerful hardware than NT4. Each version of OS X requires more powerful hardware than the version that preceded it. The mere fact you use it as an argument is ridiculous.

Hmm, MOH and Bros in Arms works great for me and I'm running Vista x64...

[quote=FrozenEclipse said,]
This is quite possibly the stupidest reasoning for comparing the two. You're comparing system requirements from an OS that isn't even out yet to an OS that was released in 2001? Wow...[/quote]


Naw, rly? Who's disputing that? XP required more powerful hardware than 2000. 2000 required more powerful hardware than NT4. Each version of OS X requires more powerful hardware than the version that preceded it. The mere fact you use it as an argument is ridiculous.[/quote]

You really don't get it do you?
A higher requirement has implications for how fast a OS is. That's why he posted that.

Thanks that is what I was going for

Also, the differences between 2000 and XP system requirements vs XP and 7 are rather large. It is a significantly smaller leap between 2000 and XP than between XP and 7 - look up system requirements for Windows 2000 Professional if you do not believe me.

people still reply to meaningless commnets?

2000 - February 17, 2000
--------
133MHz
64 MB
650 MB


XP - August 24, 2001 - 554 days
-------
300 MHz - 75.2% increase
128 MB - 100% increase
1.5 GB - 136.3% increase


Vista - November 8, 2006 - 1902 days - 243.3% as long
-------
1 GHz - 233.3% increase
1 GB - 700% increase
15 GB - 900% increase

*facepalm* Yeah the fact that 2000 and XP were released less than 2 years apart as opposed to about EIGHT between XP and 7 might have just a BIT to do with that.

Ok, let me explain myself there,

The thing with XP is that, although many individuals would point out that it was released "forever" ago, it had significant amount of improvements implanted through three service packs. DirectX 9.0 March, .NET, Visual C++ 2008, IE8, and WMP11 can be installed on Windows XP without any problems. Those who point this out also forget that XP64 was made much later after XP32, thus it is newer. This is actually a reason that many, I would say, will stay with XP for quite some time - no need. Not everyone is a Halo 2 fanboy, not everyone needs DX10 either, or the extra functionality or pretty effects of Vista/7. The only people that have been using a 7-year old OS are either those without Internet connection, those that do not ever use their computer, or those that just ignored it for some unknown reason.

Next up would be the security. Security problems arise from multiple areas, such as security flaws in Services (which can be disabled or fully removed), applications (which could be updated, tweaked, or replaced), user error (nothing much to do there), weak OS security settings (mmc settings can help there), and other. Statements that say that one should switch Operating Systems due to >ONE< security issue are not that well founded... besides, as if there ain't security flaws in all Operating Systems.

Now after addressing that logical flaws with common pro-7 / pro-Vista arguments, back on topic: the original question was asking whether or not people still use XP, with the implied statement that XP should not be used now. My answer was that the reason why people use XP is the steep incline in the system requirements. The upgrade from Windows 2000 to Windows XP is not as a difficult choice as that of upgrading from Windows XP to Windows 7. One requires less of a hardware upgrade to for from 2k to XP than to go from XP to 7. It is harder to swallow going from 64 to 1024 than going from 32 to 64 MB RAM - this is my main point. Also people with 4GB SSDs/8GB SSDs/16GB SSDs are screwed. (Hell I have like 100MB space left on my W7 partition).

Other reasons might include the GUI. For a user that prefers XP, the Windows Vista/7 GUI might seem rather dumbed down (no search options like in 2k / Tweaked XP, does not tell you how much free space is left, searching for "*.html" will give you all the files with html in them instead of just all the .html extension files, GUI feels like it is more FAT/BLOATED/for a higher resolution, etc). Critisicm that Windows 7 is like Windows Vista might come up, or Change For Change's Sake might come up (I find both of them somewhat valid).

You should also read the Microsoft's Technet W7 forum, there are a lot of people complaining about performance and the disadvantage of lacking classic explorer, for example (I am not saying that it is just those complaints). To say that Windows 7's GUI is perfect or that Windows 7 is FASTER than XP might be rather ignorant, especially on the FACT that Windows 7 requires a lot more than XP to run; it seems that somewhere logic fails. Both Vista/XP/7 can take advantage of multiple cores for example and drivers are available for hardware components (from big-time, non-sweat shop Chinese companies) for both XP and Vista In a few years things might change, but currently, this statement stands true...

I have Windows 7 RC at this current moment, and I cannot say that it is faster or that the GUI is better. I noticed much higher read and writes to my SSD (BTW, Writes To SSD = BAD, especially on a 4GB system), longer loading times, slower GUI, etc. Now, just to be clear, I am not saying that Windows 7 is all bad, no - it is pretty with an adequate GPU, it is functional, and an A+ choice for an average user or even an idiot. All I am saying is that there are plenty of reasons to stick with XP. When I will upgrade my summer 2008 laptop, I might consider W7, but hey for the next two to four years, there is no need or logic to it and I hope I have proven this point through this large and boring post.

EDIT: Clarified, Cleaned, Merged Paragraphs.

Last edited by Udedenkz on 30 May 2009 - 04:45

*High Five*

Yes, because using an OS that's far less secure, more susceptible to Windows rot, and poorly utilizes RAM to get a 1-2% performance boost on modern hardware is a defining factor in determining one's intelligence. It proves that they're lacking said intelligence.

I am sorry, but my bull**** detector is tingling.

Then it must be broken.

Far less secure: Fact. Default account has complete control over system, and not everybody knows how to run as a limited user.

Poorly utilizes RAM: Fact. Free RAM is wasted RAM, hence it's poorly utilized.

1-2% performance boost: Varies with the hardware.

Fallout 3 works just fine on Windows 7.

I'm confused. I'm assuming you are aware that QuickTime has been available for Windows for many years dating back to at least 1992, right? If you know this, I'm not sure why you're asking "QuickTime? on Windows?".

He was probably trying to say very few Windows users have QuickTime, but that would be very wrong. Don't forget that everyone who uses iTunes has QuickTime, and I'm pretty sure there are quite a few iPod owners out there.

Every windows machine I have ever seen in recent years has Quicktime.

That was kind of my point.

I agree. The newer MS OSs are more secure. That's why people like my mom need to use them. She also likes all the "pretty" animations and colors.

There is a way to secure any computer, just follow these steps,
- Turn off and then unplug the PC
- Put your PC in a safe.
- Lock the safe.

Problem Solved; your computer is secure.

I'm sorry you had to dig that joke out of 1996. I'm well aware of how to secure XP. It's just more of a hassle than it needs to be, due to its inherent flaws.

How much of a hassle is it to install an antivirus app?

+1

None if you don't mind your computer running at like 75% it's former speed!

About performance

XP + Antivirus (a good one) > Vista.

XP + Antivirus + Firewall (a real one) > Vista.

This about sums it up.

We can't help it if you don't know how to make an unattended CD that installs in 15 minutes.
BTW, I run Windows 7 on another partition. It gets very little use but it's there.

thank you sir for your common sense, very refreshing to see in this site.

Try telling that to the 90% of people who install an OS from either a pressed retail disc or a untouched burned ISO.

is this a joke or you actually believe it's easy to make unattended CD?

this site seriously needs an IQ test on the signup page

I believe any regular reader of this site is quite capable of making an unattended CD. Heck, anybody who can use Google can find the tools needed.

http://www.nliteos.com/

It is easy to make an unattended CD.

For most Neowin users. The average computer user, not so much.

"surpirior" how?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_vista...hanged_features


Last edited by Barney on 30 May 2009 - 10:52

In every way shape and form.

Wikipedia the new changes in Windows Vista/Server 2008. If there is something techy you dont understand, we will explain it to you

I already know about the changes, new features, etc.
You said your would explain it better. So again, please tell me how everything is superior. No personal opinions. Just facts.

Better utilization of memory, more secure (and don't give me this "install an antivirus on XP" bull**** either because UAC helps prevent flaws from being exploited that aren't always stopped by AV's or firewalls), improved built-in search, true introduction to 64-bit (XP x64 SP2 is just Server 2003 SP2 wrapped in a XP UI, and has all the consumer incompatibilities of Server 2003). I could keep going, but there's no need.

Desktop Window Manager - Just the this vs GDI IMO is worth about 20% of the upgrade
Instant Search - Built into Vista. If you really know how to use it, it works wonders for quickly finding and launching programs.
Explorer - The favorites panel is great (Not sure if it was in XP) and the "buttons" showing its root and its folders are also great. PNG support for icons is a great idea. Metadata and "Copy file but rename it samename(2).jpg" is also great.
Previous Versions - Overwrote a file? Change it back to its original content
UAC - Again, this may be well worth over the 80% of the upgrade to Vista. Remember that Unix/OSX has had this for YEARS so do not say it is annoying.

If question to you is, how long have you tried Windows Vista? 1-2 weeks will not cut it.

You really need to read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista
I might have left out "unimportant" parts that are important to you.

That's a rehashing of your previous posts. You're just pointing out new features.

New dumbest post of the day. The majority don't like Vista? Only the idiots. Most of Neowin tends to disagree with you. Also, the $ replacing an S just makes you look ridiculous. Try again.

http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=776114&hl=