Recommended Posts

Maybe because you've used it more often ... 

I don't ...

 

Well I mean everything is still in the same place as with Vista and 7 and XP .. for the most part. The control panel pretty much the same. so is my computer , folder options and stuff.

Apart from cost,time constraints,lack of software/hardware support and lack of money you mean :D

 

That's part of the cost of doing business. If you can't afford to keep your infrastructure up to date you either shouldn't be using computers or shouldn't use a commercial OS you're unable to maintain.

  • Like 2

So what you are saying is you really don't know where anything is at, you just search for everything.

Why needlessly click around like a lunatic? Search is just easier, and is a huge time saver. I don't need to know where anything's at, and nor does the user which is another huge productivity gain.

People use OS' to run applications and in many large environments, one single application (Medical, etc.). If XP is all they need ... they should upgrade though. It's too old and insecure.

 

Intel is also seeing slow sales because software hasn't really caught up to the power currently available on average desktops. Just look at what DX12 will do just from optimizing how software takes better advantage of hardware. Delays in Skylake don't help.

 

With x99 on ITX, USB 3.1, Intel is do for some increased sales toward the end of the year. With Xbox for Windows 10 and more console ports being unchained on the PC platform, there's plenty of sales to come. Intel can blame themselves for this lull as much as anyone else. I'm ready to buy, but what am I going to buy? I have a 4790k, GTX 970, 16GB DDR2400, 144Hz Gsync 1080p ... my next upgrade will be ASRock's ITX x99, DDR4 2400 16GB, i7-5820k, and a 30"+ when G-sync is available at that size < 60Hz. And even then it's only as an enthusiast, not because I "need" it. Nothing taxes what I have now. If it's not free, I have no compelling reason to go to Windows 10.

  • Like 2

Why needlessly click around like a lunatic? Search is just easier, and is a huge time saver. I don't need to know where anything's at, and nor does the user which is another huge productivity gain.

 

What happens when the issue you are fixing is broken search? How do you find anything?

 

What are some of the things you always search for?

My parents had already upgraded a lot of PCs in their building.

 

Obviously, everyone who does actual subcontracting work already have computers running Windows 8.1 (with Start Menu replacement), but the people doing paperwork and such were still running PCs with Windows XP.

 

Rather than upgrading those PCs to Windows 8.1, my parents went on a buying spree and bought a lot of those cheap $200 desktop PCs from Dell.

 

Anyway, they still have a lot of PCs with Windows XP running slideshows or connected to ancient peripherals, but those don't connect to the internet so they don't count as part of the market share.

What happens when the issue you are fixing is broken search? How do you find anything?

 

What are some of the things you always search for?

I have never seen Search broken. I'm searching for apps, system settings, and network configurations.

How is anyone working on an OS, where it takes twice as long to do anything as it would on Windows 7 or Windows 8? I HATE remoting into an XP, and not finding where I need to go because it's buried in pop up box after pop up box, and there's no search. Don't even get me started on window management.

 

Windows XP only ever did one thing well, and that's this:

 

 

/snip

 

 

Sounds like you need a new profession.  

No, these companies just need to get off XP.

 

I do not know what you do...but if you're in the tech support business then you need to accommodate the client needs.  If you can not provide services that they are paying for or if you hate it that much...you should probably find a new profession.

 

Obviously your hatred for XP has clouded your judgement regarding it.

How is anyone working on an OS, where it takes twice as long to do anything as it would on Windows 7 or Windows 8? I HATE remoting into an XP, and not finding where I need to go because it's buried in pop up box after pop up box, and there's no search. Don't even get me started on window management.

 

Windows XP only ever did one thing well, and that's this:

HowtoTroubleshootMSWindowsXPErrorCodesSc

 

and:

Stop%2BWindows%2BError%2BBlue%2BScreen.j

Listen, don't blame XP because you're using it very wrongly. No one else has had these problems.

Obviously your hatred for XP has clouded your judgement regarding it.

 

His hatred for XP runs deep, VERY deep.

 

I remotely connect into customers who are still running XP machines all ... mostly home users. I am self employed doing computer repair and have been for the last 12 years. When I see an XP machine, I will recommend they upgrade (Upgrade is usually done by purchasing a new computer.) .. Most of the time they don't want to, they pay me for my services and that's it. I don't refuse to work on their machine just because they have XP , like some members of this community have said they do when someone brings in an XP machine.

 

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink!

  • Like 2

And why ARE they "freaking"?  Mostly because WE (the folks that support them) are ALSO either freaking OR deploying click-bait posts and articles simply because we don't want those same folks to move or upgrade.

 

When it comes to being change-averse, some of us are more opposed than our user-base.  (Folks that I support ARE buying touch-screen portables and AIOs - and without my having said diddly to them about them; my mom is a major example.  Note that I personally don't own such a device.  Her BFF went the touch route also - in this case, it was a tag-team recommendation from both her own hands-on with Mom's touch AIO, and my own recommendation as far as portable-computer capabilities; she got herself a touch-based portable running 8.1 Pro.)

 

We're basically treating the folks we support as so many pre-teens (or worse - children) "why"?  Do we think we know better than they do what they want?  Or is it that we want them to keep "needing us" - and want to keep them ignorant?

 

If EITHER is the case, that makes our own actions part of the gol-darned PROBLEM.

 

As the father eagle said to the mother eagle "The chicks have to leave the nest sometime."

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink!

Sure you can, shoot em and let em fall in...

 

Listen, don't blame XP because you're using it very wrongly. No one else has had these problems.

I had BSODs regularly on XP and XP x64.  Vista didn't clear them up entirely but it was a damn good start.

  • Like 1

I had BSODs regularly on XP and XP x64.  Vista didn't clear them up entirely but it was a damn good start.

 

Obviously something was wrong with your particular setup(s).  Not saying that blue screens didn't occur...but I'd certainly wouldn't say I had them "regularly". 

  • Like 2

Obviously something was wrong with your particular setup(s).  Not saying that blue screens didn't occur...but I'd certainly wouldn't say I had them "regularly". 

Yes, the fact that I play high end games with dedicated sound hardware was pretty much enough.  DirectSound was notoriously unstable.

 

That wasn't all of it, but it was a good chunk of it.

i did not read the whole thread, but come on,  windows XP had WAY MORE CRASHES then any windows since.  there is no two ways about it.

 

yeah, many were fixed with patches...    but overall,  in XP world,  I had to do fresh installs all the time.   since Windows 7, i only did system restore a few times due to drivers, but that is all.

 

XP needed clean installs, because it was almost impossible to get it working properly otherwise.   if you use the computer heavily and install and uninstall programs,   XP did NOT stay same.

something was building up, and clean install was the only safe bet to get PC running max performance.

 

 

 

and i LOVED XP.    but i was seen BSOD there all the time.   in Win7 and up -  it is a novelty.  in XP it was part of life.


Listen, don't blame XP because you're using it very wrongly. No one else has had these problems.

 

 

Are you joking?   :huh:

No one else had these problems with XP?    :rofl:

As much as I liked XP,  over the life of it,   BSOD were extremely common.    It is a fact..     

Maybe the very lastest updated XP runs great,  but if you are a user since day 1... you have seen those screens hundreds of times.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I did however try Win ME before..     Now that was a clusterfudge if i ever seen one.   I could not last more then a week, before returning to Win98 SE

 

So XP was a great breath of fresh air.    it did crash a lot though... not near as much as ME, and maybe even less then 98 (which was pretty bad until 98 SE) ... but it still crashed a lot.

Listen, don't blame XP because you're using it very wrongly. No one else has had these problems.

Windows Rot != "using it wrongly". Are you Steve Jobs now? Windows Rot was a fact of life for millions of XP users -and still is. XP PCs are still the most commonly reimaged systems where I work.

  • Like 1

I had BSODs regularly on XP and XP x64.  Vista didn't clear them up entirely but it was a damn good start.

Yes, thanks in part to the Windows Display Driver Model. Prior to this, Microsoft had stated that display drivers were responsible for "up to 20 percent of all blue screens" in Windows XP.

One of the principal goals during development of WDDM

post-483058-0-48974100-1426451541.png

Why needlessly click around like a lunatic? Search is just easier, and is a huge time saver. I don't need to know where anything's at, and nor does the user which is another huge productivity gain.

 

That quote really sums it up. The problem isn't with XP, it's with you. A decent worker ALWAYS learns to use the tools of his or her trade properly.

  • Like 2

That quote really sums it up. The problem isn't with XP, it's with you. A decent worker ALWAYS learns to use the tools of his or her trade properly.

I know how to use Windows.

 

A true Windows pro isn't going to waste their time clicking around like a madman, like you're forced to in XP. Windows XP is very much the definition of "Anti-productive".

I know how to use Windows. A true Windows pro isn't going to waste their time clicking around like a madman, like you're forced to in XP. Windows XP is very much the definition of "Anti-productive".

 

That's utter nonsense, settings really aren't that hard to find in XP if you actually know what you're doing. I can set up XP machines just as quickly as 7/8.x machines.

  • Like 2

That's utter nonsense, settings really aren't that hard to find in XP if you actually know what you're doing. I can set up XP machines just as quickly as 7/8.x machines.

 

Correct, plus there is something called the "Run" box. Which I use quite freqent on XP .... want the control panel on XP? ...Windows key +R then type control and press enter.

 

services? Services.msc and press enter

 

clicking around like a madman

is what you do when you can't find what you are looking for :D

 

You make it sound like it takes 100 clicks to do anything, you are just being overly dramatic.

  • Like 2
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Google is opening the world's first AI museum in Los Angeles by Ivan Jenic Image via: Google Ever since AI image generators went mainstream, the debate over whether AI-generated art is real art hasn't let up. Those who don’t consider AI to be art say that if a machine does the creating and anyone can prompt it, there’s no skill involved, and therefore no art is produced. The counter-argument is equally persistent, as defenders of AI-generated artworks often claim that AI is just a tool, and that every major technological breakthrough, like the camera or the computer, was met with the same skepticism before eventually being accepted as a legitimate creative medium. Google’s position in this debate is clear. Which is no surprise, as the company is investing billions in AI infrastructure. And now, in efforts to encourage people to use its AI even more, Google is opening Dataland on June 20, which it's calling the world's first AI arts museum. Located inside The Grand LA, a Frank Gehry-designed building in Los Angeles, the museum spans 25,000 square feet. The museum is built around a collaboration with media artist Refik Anadol, who has worked with Google since 2016. The inaugural exhibition is called Machine Dreams: Rainforest, and is powered by an AI model trained on “an extensive dataset of the natural world.” It generates 1.2 billion pixels of visuals in real time and reacts to visitors dynamically. The space also generates soundscapes, real-time emotion sensing, and algorithmically produced scents. Image via: Refik Anadol Studio / Google Google says that the museum is powered by its Gemini models, which run on Google Cloud. So, everything is generated inside one of Google’s AI data centers and is streamed to the museum. Alongside the museum opening, Google Arts & Culture is funding an AI Artist Residency, giving four artists $25,000 grants each, along with mentorship from Refik Anadol Studio and access to Google's machine learning tools. Their work will be shown at Dataland and on the Google Arts & Culture website later this year. Google’s AI museum will undoubtedly initiate a fired-up debate on social media, and we can’t wait to see the first reactions. Via: Smithsonian Magazine
    • Calling GTA 6 overhyped crap doesn’t make you edgy, it just makes you sound like someone who hasn’t enjoyed anything since the PS2 era.
    • I’m not arguing whether Rockstar likes money. Obviously, they do, they’re a business. I’m saying this isn’t new. They’ve always launched console first. This is just how Rockstar operates.
    • I'm not sure how old the school is, but they've been doing this since GTA 3. Back in those days we'd be lucky for game companies to release on the PC at all. And with the current state of Sony (or Microsoft) their gaming wing won't be getting a penny from me.
    • We now know when and how the Universe may truly end by Sayan Sen Image by Marek Pavlík via Pexels| Not representative A study by physicist Henry Tye of Cornell University suggests that the universe may not expand forever. Instead, it could eventually stop expanding, begin contracting and end in a "Big Crunch" roughly 20 billion years from now. The research, published in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, was conducted by Tye, Horace White Professor of Physics Emeritus at Cornell University. Using recent observations from major dark-energy surveys, Tye and his collaborators developed a cosmological model that predicts the universe could have a total lifespan of about 33 billion years. Since the universe is currently estimated to be 13.8 billion years old, the model places it near the midpoint of its existence. According to Cornell University's summary of the research, the study centers on the cosmological constant, a term introduced by Albert Einstein in his theory of general relativity. In modern cosmology, the cosmological constant is commonly used to describe the simplest form of dark energy, the unknown phenomenon believed to be driving the accelerating expansion of the universe. "For the last 20 years, people believed that the cosmological constant is positive, and the universe will expand forever," Tye said in a Cornell University news release. "The new data seem to indicate that the cosmological constant is negative, and that the universe will end in a big crunch." The study draws on data from the Dark Energy Survey (DES) and the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI), two major projects designed to investigate the nature of dark energy. According to Tye, recent observations suggest that dark energy may not behave exactly like a simple cosmological constant. To account for those observations, Tye and his collaborators proposed a model involving an extremely light hypothetical particle that evolves over time. In their calculations, this produces a negative cosmological constant and leads to a future collapse of the universe. The model predicts that cosmic expansion would continue for approximately another 11 billion years before reaching a maximum size, after which the universe would begin contracting and eventually collapse. Scientists have long debated how the universe might end. As explained in an article published in The Conversation by Stephen DiKerby of Michigan State University, several possibilities have been proposed. If dark energy remains constant and positive, the universe could continue expanding indefinitely, gradually becoming colder, darker and more diffuse in a scenario often called the "heat death" of the universe. Other theoretical possibilities include a Big Rip, in which cosmic expansion accelerates so dramatically that galaxies, stars and even atoms are torn apart, or a Big Crunch, in which expansion reverses and the universe collapses back into an extremely dense state. DiKerby notes that the Big Crunch idea itself is not new. What distinguishes Tye's work is that it attempts to use current observational data to estimate when such a collapse might occur and how it could unfold. Much of the universe's long-term evolution remains uncertain. According to current astrophysical understanding, stars will continue to form and die for billions of years. The Sun, for example, is about halfway through its expected lifespan. Galaxies are also expected to continue merging; the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies are projected to collide several billion years from now. At the same time, the nature of dark energy remains one of the biggest unanswered questions in cosmology. While observations indicate that the universe's expansion is accelerating, scientists still do not know what is causing that acceleration. Future observations may therefore alter current predictions about the cosmos's ultimate fate. Tye emphasized that additional evidence will be needed before firm conclusions can be drawn. DESI continues to collect data, while upcoming observations from missions and observatories including Euclid, SPHEREx and the Vera C. Rubin Observatory are expected to provide more precise measurements of dark energy. "People have said before that if the cosmological constant is negative, then the universe will collapse eventually. That's not new," Tye said. "However, here the model tells you when the universe collapses and how it collapses." For now, the study presents one possible future for the cosmos rather than a settled prediction. Whether the universe ultimately ends in a Big Crunch, expands forever, or follows another path entirely remains an open question that future observations will help answer. Source: Cornell University, The Conversation This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      With What earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      570
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      175
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      73
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      68
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!