Windows 7 Will Kill XP Ahead of Windows 8, It

[AnotherITguy]

yes your logic is flawed, because come 2014 its bye bye security updates, its how the saying goes, you'll be caught with your pants down

[Samurizer]

Yes, i know the economy is in the dumps but seriously, you can get a decent windows 7 box for like $500 these days, running a Pentium 3 these days is kind of counterproductive if you ask me, specially in a business setting.

That's still $500 I can spend on other things that I actually need.

However, if you prefer being a masochist and somehow enjoy using a decade-old insecure, fugly and unproductive OS - then feel free to ignore my suggestions.

As already pointed out, "fugly" and "unproductive" are your subjective opinions. My opinion about "productivity" goes towards doing actual work, not spending time staring at a UI, regardless of how "pretty" it may be. About security, I haven't seen a malware infection, and that's basically all that matters.

[Tha Bloo Monkee]

yes your logic is flawed, because come 2014 its bye bye security updates, its how the saying goes, you'll be caught with your pants down

Ok, buddy, 2014 is 4 years away, worry about that in a few years. There's no rush to upgrade even if in FOUR YEARS it'll be discontinued.

[Flawed]

Yes, I agree that at the moment there are no malwares out in the wild for Linux

Fixed that for you.

although architecturily Windows 7 is more secure than both

Wrong. Windows 7 is no more secure than Linux in architectural terms. In fact it still has a default browser that supports Active X, which is the largest source of drive by virus/malware infections. I also note that you always limit your discussion to windows 7 when most windows users still use XP. For a more complete comparison:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Comparison_of_Windows_and_Linux#Security

From this it's easy to see that windows (all versions) is inferior and always has been in terms of infections and vulnerabilities. In addition, according to your own past logic, windows 7 also benefits from security in obscurity because most users still have XP. If and when users do migrate to 7, then I'm sure you'll see more attacks.

Windows 7 is by far the greatest desktop OS in the world in terms of usability, UI and support for great software, like Office 2010 and Visual Studio 2010. That's why I can't advocate anyone to use any OS other than Windows 7.

Oh dear, where to start.

1. Actually XP is pretty good in terms of usability, but vista and 7 are a huge step back. It takes far more steps to do tasks. Things have been rearranged, so it users have to relearn the system from scratch almost.

2. In terms of UI, compiz is light years ahead of windows in eye candy, functionality, and features.

3. Office is office, the core features haven't changed since 2000. OpenOffice does a fine job of implementing the features most people use, it has great support for the ISO OpenDocument standard, and it's free. MS is struggling to justify its office price tag these days, as evidenced by the recent F.U.D video on youtube, which i might add bears a striking resemblance to the BestBuy propaganda.

5. Visual Studio. Only applies to windows. An IDE is an IDE. There are many freely available that do a great job: code::blocks, eclipse, anjuta, kdevelop, and many more. Personally, I prefer Vim/Screen/GCC/GDB/GNU Autotools. Again, there's nothing to justify the price tag when developing on windows, especially if you intend to develop cross platform.

[+Warwagon MVC]

nvm

[NEVER85]

For those who use XP on older (more than 5 years old) machines, it's understandable that you won't upgrade if it's not financially feasible to do so.

Those of you who use XP on relatively new (less than 2 years old) machines, you need your heads examined in the worst way.

[AnotherITguy]

Enjoy your windows xp, dont bitch when the security updates dry up, and oh, quit trying to advertise your XP IS THE BEST AND IM NEVER LEAVING it charade, its pathetic

[GayWolf]

Well, in FOUR YEARS when they stop releasing security updates for XP, then yes there will be a big rush to upgrade. At that point, upgrade or get the machine off the god damn internet!

For the LOLZ. Nice trolling buddy.

[treemonster]

Sigh.

Would you upgrade your car if your current car worked perfectly fine for you and you didn't want to spend the money to upgrade it?

NO.

SAME LOGIC APPLIES.

10 year old car doesn't have broken seatbelts and a used air bag and doesn't expose your bank account to the world, which would be good reasons to buy a new car.

[Flawed]

you can keep saying "yeah, I don't need to spend $200 for this" and keep denying yourself from the great experience that Windows 7 provides.

Why pay for it when you can get a superior experience for free?

Security, search, UI, productivity, support for modern hardware - all these things add up to make Windows 7 a critical update for XP users.

I'm sorry, but I have to call BS on all those. There is just no motivation for people to pay to upgrade to windows 7, face it ;)

However, if you prefer being a masochist and somehow enjoy using a fugly and unproductive OS - then feel free to ignore my suggestions.

http://techblissonline.com/windows-7-theme-for-xp/

You can make xp look identical to 7. I guess that blows away most of your reasons for upgrading lol.

[+Warwagon MVC]

1. Actually XP is pretty good in terms of usability, but vista and 7 are a huge step back. It takes far more steps to do tasks. Things have been rearranged, so it users have to relearn the system from scratch almost.

I agree. In some area's they turned a 2 click process into a 5 click process.

I mean look what they did to system restore. If you wanted to create a restore point in XP you would open up system restore and you would get the option to create a restore point or go back to an existing one

In Vista and 7 all you get to do is go back to a restore point using system restore. If you actually want to create a system restore point then you have to go into the system properties. For users that don't know to right click on my computer and choose properties, they have to

1) click start / control panel / system

2) Click the System Protection tab

3) Click "the create" button.

I mean how would the average user even know where to look to find that? To me it seams like a cluster **** compared to how it was done in XP.

[riceBox]

Win 7 vs Win XP, as bad as Windows vs Mac OS. :rofl:

[GayWolf]

http://techblissonline.com/windows-7-theme-for-xp/

You can make xp look identical to 7. I guess that blows away most of your reasons for upgrading lol.

Don't understand why would anyone want to do that. For me XP themed looks better and it's more intuitive/productive, Windows 7 has what? Multiple ways of showing transparent? How cool. Pass. :laugh:

[Tha Bloo Monkee]

10 year old car doesn't have broken seatbelts and a used air bag and doesn't expose your bank account to the world, which would be good reasons to buy a new car.

I dunno about you, but I've been in cars from 2000 that were fine. You can throw any analogy in people's faces and they wouldn't get it.

I understand the "hate" for putting XP on a new machine, in a way. But why would you upgrade an old machine? That doesn't make sense, why fork out the money for an OLD machine?

[Jan Veteran]

http://techblissonli...7-theme-for-xp/

You can make xp look identical to 7. I guess that blows away most of your reasons for upgrading lol.

No matter how much you skin or change XP, it will NEVER behave or look 100% like Windows 7.

[AnotherITguy]

Windows XP, Windows eXtra Pain lolz

[pezzonovante]

Wrong. Windows 7 is no more secure than Linux in architectural terms. In fact it

still has a default browser that supports Active X, which is the largest source

of drive by virus/malware infections. I also note that you always limit your

discussion to windows 7 when most windows users still use XP. For a more

complete comparison:

https://secure.wikim..._Linux#Security

From this it's easy to see that windows (all versions) is inferior and

always has been in terms of infections and vulnerabilities. In addition,

according to your own past logic, windows 7 also benefits from security in

obscurity because most users still have XP. If and when users do migrate to 7,

then I'm sure you'll see more attacks.

Yes, I always limit my discussions to Windows 7/Vista because they are the modern Windows versions. Almost 40% users use Vista/7. XP is decade-old and completely obsolete except among Luddites. Do you talk about Linux OSes from 2001 when comparing with Windows?

The link you provide says nothing in particular about Windows 7/Vista's security as opposed to Linux/Mac OS's security. The fact that XP is less secure than any other OS on the planet is common knowledge. But in 2010 that's irrelevant. What matters most is Windows 7's modern security features are far better than Linux/Mac OS.

1. Actually XP is pretty good in terms of usability, but vista and 7 are a

huge step back. It takes far more steps to do tasks. Things have been

rearranged, so it users have to relearn the system from scratch almost.

2.

In terms of UI, compiz is light years ahead of windows in eye candy,

functionality, and features.

3. Office is office, the core features haven't

changed since 2000. OpenOffice does a fine job of implementing the features most

people use, it has great support for the ISO OpenDocument standard, and it's

free. MS is struggling to justify its office price tag these days, as evidenced

by the recent F.U.D video on youtube, which i might add bears a striking

resemblance to the BestBuy propaganda.

4. Visual Studio. Only applies to

windows. An IDE is an IDE. There are many freely available that do a great job:

code::blocks, eclipse, anjuta, kdevelop, and many more. Personally, I prefer

Vim/Screen/GCC/GDB/GNU Autotools. Again, there's nothing to justify the price

tag when developing on windows, especially if you intend to develop cross

platform.

1. Windows 7's UI is by far the most productive among any OS ever developed in the history of computing. Windows 7 has start menu search which enables users to find ANYTHING on their computers within a fraction of a second - something that can never be done on XP or Linux out of the box. Windows 7 improves productivity by introducing Breadcrumb bars, Aero Snap, Aero Peek, Jumplists, stacks, saved searches, Libraries etc. The list goes on and on. No other OS comes close.

2. Compared to Windows Aero, Compiz looks like it was designed in the 90's. Aero is both elegant and productive. While Compiz looks artificial and doesn't integrate well to the whole OS at all.

3. Office 2010 is so far ahead of OpenOffice in terms of features that I won't even bother to get started on that front. Instead, I will state the most obvious reason why there are no alternatives to Office 2010 -- the ribbon UI. It's the biggest improvement in the UI in the last 20 years. Having used the ribbon, there's no way I can EVER go back to using the fugly and unproductive Menus/toolbars from the 80's.

4. Visual Studio is by far the best IDE of any OS. C# and C++ are the two most popular languages in the world, and no other IDE offers as much functionality for developing with those two languages.

[treemonster]

I dunno about you, but I've been in cars from 2000 that were fine. You can throw any analogy in people's faces and they wouldn't get it.

I understand the "hate" for putting XP on a new machine, in a way. But why would you upgrade an old machine? That doesn't make sense, why fork out the money for an OLD machine?

problem wasn't with my anaology, it was with the anaology in the post i quoted.

20 year old cars are fine. but OSes aren't cars.

also lolz@ no malware for linux. amg keep believing that.

[GayWolf]

Windows XP, Windows eXtra Pain lolz

Windows 7, it takes 7 hundred dollars worth of material, and 7 clicks more, to do the same thing you did in XP with your previous computer.

[Flawed]

Don't understand why would anyone want to do that. For me XP themed looks better and it's more intuitive/productive, Windows 7 has what? Multiple ways of showing transparent? How cool. Pass. :laugh:

I agree, but I was just debunking his argument that windows 7 looks better than XP, because, you can make them look the same. Of course, beauty is subjective, and I don't personally like the appearance of 7 either.

[ViperAFK]

I agree. In some area's they turned a 2 click process into a 5 click process.

I mean look what they did to system restore. If you wanted to create a restore point in XP you would open up system restore and you would get the option to create a restore point or go back to an existing one

In Vista and 7 all you get to do is go back to a restore point using system restore. If you actually want to create a system restore point then you have to go into the system properties. For users that don't know to right click on my computer and choose properties, they have to

1) click start / control panel / system

2) Click the System Protection tab

3) Click "the create" button.

I mean how would the average user even know where to look to find that? To me it seams like a cluster **** compared to how it was done in XP.

Valid examples, but vista/7 has search in the start menu in control panel making it MUCH easier to use than xp overall IMO. I also loathe the xp start menu with the burning passion of 1000 suns. Menus upon expanding menus = fail. In vista/7 I can just search. Like I want to go into the control panel and find something. No need to bother navigating at all. Type in what I need. I was fixing an xp machine for someone today and just kept thinking about how much of a PIA it felt to use compared to 7. Don't get me wrong I loved xp, and it is still indeed a usable OS, but I think overall vista/7 are easier to use, especially 7 with the superbar. Vista was not as good and in some ways It feels like the retarded stepchild of 7 and xp gui-wise, but with 7 ms has come a long way with usability.

[treemonster]

Windows 7, it takes 7 hundred dollars worth of material, and 7 clicks more, to do the same thing you did in XP with your previous computer.

i just did a system restore in 4 clicks on win 7.

[pezzonovante]

I agree. In some area's they turned a 2 click process into a 5 click process.

I mean look what they did to system restore. If you wanted to create a restore point in XP you would open up system restore and you would get the option to create a restore point or go back to an existing one

In Vista and 7 all you get to do is go back to a restore point using system restore. If you actually want to create a system restore point then you have to go into the system properties. For users that don't know to right click on my computer and choose properties, they have to

1) click start / control panel / system

2) Click the System Protection tab

3) Click "the create" button.

I mean how would the average user even know where to look to find that? To me it seams like a cluster **** compared to how it was done in XP.

Again that's just pathetic. You completely ignore how an user will find Sytem Restore on XP, and choose to highlight a wrong way of doing a simple thing on Windows 7.

Here's how a Windows 7 user opens System Restore (or virtually ANYTHING): Type "restore" in Start menu search, and within a fraction of a second the System Restore option comes up.

Again, I just cannot explain in words how useful the Start Menu search is.

[rajputwarrior]

10 year old car doesn't have broken seatbelts and a used air bag and doesn't expose your bank account to the world, which would be good reasons to buy a new car.

how does xp expose your bank accounts to the world?

I understand the "hate" for putting XP on a new machine, in a way. But why would you upgrade an old machine? That doesn't make sense, why fork out the money for an OLD machine?

you see what you did there? that's called logic and most people in this thread don't understand that.

[ViperAFK]

Here's how a Windows 7 user opens System Restore (or virtually ANYTHING): Type "restore" in Start menu search, and within a fraction of a second you get the System Restore option comes up.

QFT :rofl:

I dunno about you, but I've been in cars from 2000 that were fine. You can throw any analogy in people's faces and they wouldn't get it.

I understand the "hate" for putting XP on a new machine, in a way. But why would you upgrade an old machine? That doesn't make sense, why fork out the money for an OLD machine?

Also QFT. Putting xp on a new machine is just ridiculous, but I don't see reason for people with older machines that still work for them to upgrade if they don't need to.