is XP SP3 still a good OS for today's computing?


Recommended Posts

i actually had 7 on before and it worked great(some games didn't work or if they did they worked partially) but when one of my drives died i freaked out and thought 7 should of told me that it was dieing so i went to Linux for awhile and i liked it for awhile but gettin used to Linux was not easy, then finally after like 4 months of using Linux i went back to XP but XP was not quite the same as before(i did say i would never use XP again as i liked 7 alot.

All our computers at work use XP. We're a computer repair shop. Despite what many people here will rant and rave to you about, XP is a stable, dependable system.

One thing to keep in mind though, is that when dealing with newer hardware, certain vendors have stopped supporting/supplying drivers for XP. As time goes on, this will become a bigger issue.

I don't think anyone would argue that XP was a stable OS. But Windows 7 is as stable, if not more stable, and offers a far better user experience than XP ever can.

But Windows 7 is as stable, if not more stable, and offers a far better user experience than XP ever can.

It can't be as stable and mature as XP because it's still quite new. Any new software will always contain more bugs, inefficiencies etc, It's inevitable. To claim otherwise is a bold face lie, and shows a distinct lack of appreciation for software development.

i actually had 7 on before and it worked great(some games didn't work or if they did they worked partially) but when one of my drives died i freaked out and thought 7 should of told me that it was dieing so i went to Linux for awhile and i liked it for awhile but gettin used to Linux was not easy, then finally after like 4 months of using Linux i went back to XP but XP was not quite the same as before(i did say i would never use XP again as i liked 7 alot.

I find that XP and Ubuntu work just as good if not better on modern hardware than Windows Vista/7. Sure XP doesn't have the eye candy of Linux's compiz or Vista/7's Aero, but it's rock solid in terms of maturity, driver/software support, and compatibility.

In the end, it's about whatever you're comfortable with. I think it's good for everyone to try different OS's. That way you can make an informed decision regarding pros/cons of each system.

It can't be as stable and mature as XP because it's still quite new.

Now I know you haven't used 7. Most stable Windows version out there. It's a year and a half old, and has a SP already. It's tried and true. No reason not to be using it now.

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.

So you're wasting half your hardware for nothing then? If you can, and have no dependance on XP, I would upgrade soon.

It can't be as stable and mature as XP because it's still quite new. Any new software will always contain more bugs, inefficiencies etc, It's inevitable. To claim otherwise is a bold face lie, and shows a distinct lack of appreciation for software development.

being stable has nothing to do with age. and 7 isn't only as stable as XP it's more stable. on top of that, when/if it crashes, it's highly unlikely that it will crash the entire system like XP would, since a lot of the crash prone modules have been moved out of the kernel and into user space. like for example graphics.

Well with the near future of XP no longer being supported (2 os revisions is about where engineers stop making compatible software for in new revisions), I would say that XP is not a feesable os to continue to deploy. There are exceptions as with anything though.

Getting a business that has 100,000 computers all running xp on a specific image that has been tested and true on xp is going to be hard to transition over. All of their apps have to be tested in the new os (a lot of their apps are legacy to begin with), fixes have to be made and put into the image for the legacy software to work (if it will work), and for some businesses this takes about a year to find and fix or determine if the new os can be put into play. Then there is the cost of 100,000 pcs being upgraded and the lost man hours to be able to upgrade them if they don't have a system in place to do a image push to the pc's.

For many companies it is extremely costly to do on a wide scale and it is why XP was a blessing, it allowed all companies to catch up to the microsoft world. But if MS keeps releasing OSes every 2 years, businesses will not be able to catch up because they will be a year behind and that is if they get apporval prior to or during R&D. I would like a 4-6 year span between major OS releases with service packs taking care of the inbetween. Hell apple is still on OSX from its original release, however there have been many revisions to the OS but they release it as a new OS when it is just a modified original (kind of like a service pack). I am all for going 64 bit and staying there for a while, but lets stay on the version of windows for a bit and release upgrades as needed.

But as far as XP being a viable OS for today, it is ok for today, but it's days are certainly numbered.

Well with the near future of XP no longer being supported (2 os revisions is about where engineers stop making compatible software for in new revisions), I would say that XP is not a feesable os to continue to deploy. There are exceptions as with anything though.

Getting a business that has 100,000 computers all running xp on a specific image that has been tested and true on xp is going to be hard to transition over. All of their apps have to be tested in the new os (a lot of their apps are legacy to begin with), fixes have to be made and put into the image for the legacy software to work (if it will work), and for some businesses this takes about a year to find and fix or determine if the new os can be put into play. Then there is the cost of 100,000 pcs being upgraded and the lost man hours to be able to upgrade them if they don't have a system in place to do a image push to the pc's.

For many companies it is extremely costly to do on a wide scale and it is why XP was a blessing, it allowed all companies to catch up to the microsoft world. But if MS keeps releasing OSes every 2 years, businesses will not be able to catch up because they will be a year behind and that is if they get apporval prior to or during R&D. I would like a 4-6 year span between major OS releases with service packs taking care of the inbetween. Hell apple is still on OSX from its original release, however there have been many revisions to the OS but they release it as a new OS when it is just a modified original (kind of like a service pack). I am all for going 64 bit and staying there for a while, but lets stay on the version of windows for a bit and release upgrades as needed.

But as far as XP being a viable OS for today, it is ok for today, but it's days are certainly numbered.

Honestly, I know the cost can be high, but 2014 is fast approaching and XP has gone into extended support. Money just simply isn't an excuse anymore, as this should have been planned for, and you're going to be spending it sooner or later, anyone hopping off of it at the last minute are asking for trouble. If I was an admin, I'd be pressing for upgrading now rather than later. Everyone should be in the process of testing it or deploying it if not already deployed. In house programmers would have the fires under their asses lit to upgrade any in house software, and if any vendor's software refuses to work at this point, then it's time to find a new vendor.

I really wanna see XP's market share to fall below 40% by year's end.

No one on the consumer front should still be installing it on anything than legacy hardware. Nor should they be downgrading.

You're a home user already with a copy of Windows 7 running on a machine that can support it? Stick with 7, there's no reason for you to downgrade.

The use of XP today is reserved for certain situations, and your predicament doesn't fall in to one of those situations.

  • Like 2

Honestly, I know the cost can be high, but 2014 is fast approaching and XP has gone into extended support. Money just simply isn't an excuse anymore, as this should have been planned for, and you're going to be spending it sooner or later. If I was an admin, I'd be pressing for upgrading now rather than later. Everyone should be in the process of testing it or deploying it if not already deployed. I really wanna see XP's market share to fall below 40% by year's end.

No one on the consumer front should still be installing it on anything than legacy hardware. Nor should they be downgrading.

Ha what? How can you say money isn't an excuse? Last time I checked it still costs money to upgrade to windows 7.

Look at it this way. When a company upgrades to windows 7 (or any OS for that matter) it is very costly. They have to first make sure their PC's will run it efficiently, and if not, upgrade/purchase new PC's that will. Secondly, they have to make sure all of their software/printers/devices will run on windows 7, and if not, make sure that Virtual XP mode is a viable option for them, or find a work around for any incompatible software/devices. After all that has been worked out, it has to actually be deployed to all of the PC's. Then you have to train all of the employees in order to use windows 7 correctly.

All of the above can cost a lot of money, especially if a company outsources their IT. I'm all for upgrading to the latest OS. But to say money isn't an excuse anymore, is just simply ridiculous.

Arch Linux or Gentoo could be a better choice. The problem is that this is the Windows Support section.

How is that a problem? He's asking for OS advice. Naturally, Linux is an alternative to XP if one wants to avoid Vista/7.

You're a home user already with a copy of Windows 7 running on a machine that can support it? Stick with 7, there's no reason for you to downgrade.

Some might call it an [up]grade. It certainly was for vista. And in terms of performance and resource efficiency, it's an upgrade too.

Ha what? How can you say money isn't an excuse? Last time I checked it still costs money to upgrade to windows 7.

Look at it this way. When a company upgrades to windows 7 (or any OS for that matter) it is very costly. They have to first make sure their PC's will run it efficiently, and if not, upgrade/purchase new PC's that will. Secondly, they have to make sure all of their software/printers/devices will run on windows 7, and if not, make sure that Virtual XP mode is a viable option for them, or find a work around for any incompatible software/devices. After all that has been worked out, it has to actually be deployed to all of the PC's. Then you have to train all of the employees in order to use windows 7 correctly.

All of the above can cost a lot of money, especially if a company outsources their IT. I'm all for upgrading to the latest OS. But to say money isn't an excuse anymore, is just simply ridiculous.

It's not really an excuse if you have to spend it sooner or later. Microsoft certainly isn't going to extend XP's life past 2014, and if people are thinking they will, and are planning under that assumption, then, they're in for a rude awakening.

It's not really an excuse if you have to spend it sooner or later. Microsoft certainly isn't going to extend XP's life past 2014, and if people are thinking they will, and are planning under that assumption, then, they're in for a rude awakening.

*taps your siggy* you may or may not have valid points, but with that kind of obvious bias, it's hard to take you seriously on this subject.

Money just simply isn't an excuse anymore

Why waste money buying an OS when you can use it to upgrade the machine's components instead? It's certainly better value for money.

and you're going to be spending it sooner or later

Really? Why is that?

, anyone hopping off of it at the last minute are asking for trouble. If I was an admin, I'd be pressing for upgrading now rather than later. Everyone should be in the process of testing it or deploying it if not already deployed. In house programmers would have the fires under their asses lit to upgrade any in house software, and if any vendor's software refuses to work at this point, then it's time to find a new vendor.

Hold your horses batman. XP has the greatest marketshare of all windows versions, thus it also has the best driver/software support, and the most developers producing software for it.

I really wanna see XP's market share to fall below 40% by year's end.

Wishful thinking...

No one on the consumer front should still be installing it on anything than legacy hardware. Nor should they be downgrading.

The last time I checked, the "consumer" as you call him, can do anything he likes, including installing XP on a 12GB memory, quadcore cpu, and a SLI graphics configuration if he so wishes. Quit with the proselytisation already. By all means make a recommendation, but there is no one prescription for preferred OS's. He can use XP, Ubuntu, or whatever he likes ;)

I wouldn't. There's zero advantages to it, you lose all of the benefits of 7, and more importantly, if your device shipped with Vista/7, it's unlikely that drivers for a lot of its hardware are even available for XP, especially so if it shipped with 64bit flavours of Vista/7.

It's not really an excuse if you have to spend it sooner or later. Microsoft certainly isn't going to extend XP's life past 2014, and if people are thinking they will, and are planning under that assumption, then, they're in for a rude awakening.

And how do you know that? If the majority of Windows users and businesses are still on XP, Microsoft isn't going to drop support any time soon. Just look at IE6. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news :D Besides, they can always switch to free modern alternatives such as Ubuntu, which supports their existing hardware.

It's not really an excuse if you have to spend it sooner or later. Microsoft certainly isn't going to extend XP's life past 2014, and if people are thinking they will, and are planning under that assumption, then, they're in for a rude awakening.

You are right. It's not an excuse. There is a valid reason for some companies to wait to upgrade. First, they are still getting support from microsoft, so there isn't currently a rush to upgrade for them. Secondly, waiting does have its benefits for some companies.

The benefits of waiting, means that the price of supported computer hardware goes down, any software that they use that isn't compatible with 7 might be compatible in the future (if the software company plans on upgrading).

But lets face it. Money talks, and if a company cannot afford it now, they will wait, until they can afford it later.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience 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.
    • TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 by Razvan Serea TeraCopy is a compact program designed to copy and move files at the maximum possible speed, also providing you with a lot of features. Copy files faster. TeraCopy uses dynamically adjusted buffers to reduce seek times. Asynchronous copy speeds up file transfer between two physical hard drives. Pause and resume transfers. Pause copy process at any time to free up system resources and continue with a single click. Error recovery. In case of copy error, TeraCopy will try several times and in the worse case just skips the file, not terminating the entire transfer. Interactive file list. TeraCopy shows failed file transfers and lets you fix the problem and recopy only problem files. Shell integration. TeraCopy can completely replace Explorer copy and move functions, allowing you work with files as usual. TeraCopy is free for non-commercial use only. For commercial use you need to buy a license. The paid version of the program includes the following features: Copy/move to your favorite folders. Save reports as HTML and CSV files. Select files with the same extension/folder. Remove the selected files from the copy queue. TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 changelog: Added support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. Improved exception handling and automated bug report upload. Fixed several minor bugs and small memory leaks. Build 26 (June 24) Fixed a rare exception when a transfer completed. Features added since version 3.17: Enhanced speed graph. New multi-threaded copy engine. Support for copying to multiple targets. Queue system for managing multiple copy operations. Support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. TeraCopy entry in the modern Windows Explorer context menu. Integrated toolbar in the title bar. Why receive LocalSend transfers with TeraCopy? Handle file conflicts: Skip, overwrite, or rename files when a file with the same name already exists. LocalSend always creates another copy, which can waste time and disk space, especially when resuming an interrupted transfer. Filter unwanted files: Apply ignore lists or remove files manually before accepting a transfer, so unnecessary files are not downloaded. Better performance on fast networks: In tests over a 10 Gbps connection, TeraCopy received files several times faster than the standard LocalSend app on Windows. Download: TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 | 14.5 MB (Freeware, paid upgrade available) View: TeraCopy Website | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Briefly used Turbo Pascal (and Turbo C++) in 97 and soon after that I bought PC magazine that included a full version of Delphi 2. I still use Delphi today, some 29 years later.
    • Age of Empires Mobile comes to PC, here's how to carry over progress from your phone by Ivan Jenic Image: YouTube/Microsoft Microsoft just released Age of Empires Mobile for PC. The game, officially called Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, is available for free on Steam and Microsoft Store, almost two years after its initial release for handheld devices. Age of Empires is one of those franchises that entire generations grew up with. The original came out in 1997, and immediately got people hooked to building civilizations and crushing their enemies on the battlefield. However, the franchise today is a far cry from its roots, as Age of Empires Mobile is, well, a game optimized for handheld devices, and not a classic RTS title we’ve all loved for years. And, of course, it includes in-game purchases. The PC version is still a mobile game at its core, but it’s been optimized for desktop play. There’s mouse control, full keyboard compatibility, and a refined UI. Microsoft also refreshed the visuals with some 4k textures, so the game should look better on larger screens. The game supports Crossplay, so you can switch between your phone, tablet, and PC without losing anything. But linked progress doesn’t come out of the box, as you have to enable it first. Here’s how to link your progress: On your mobile device, open Age of Empires Mobile. Go to Settings (Gear icon) > Account. Select Bind Account and choose a sign-in option. Once you enable account binding, sign in on PC using the same method, and your progress will be accessible across all your devices. Xbox Game Pass subscribers also get a bonus reward pack on PC, which includes: 1 Monthly Pass Token 1 Custom Resource Chest 10 Universal 60-Minute Speed-Ups 1,000 Empire Coins Exclusive Player Portrait Frame You can find more info about Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, as well as download links, on the Age of Empires official website.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      458
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      79
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!