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

[Udedenkz]

XP still works fine, but if you have a decent system, there's no reason not to go with Windows 7 instead.

W7 GUI improvements over XP are indeed awesome. Boosts your productivity IMO.

[MtnDewCodeRedFreak]

Win 7!

I wouldn't go back to XP, ever.

[soldier1st]

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.

[Nashy]

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.

[mak123]

now i'm using XP and UBUNTU dual boot....

as my choice XP is very good....

[Flawed]

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.

[Flawed]

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.

[Frylock86]

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.

[Saadu]

Use ubuntu netbook edition. Super fast. Super good.

[tiagosilva29]

Use ubuntu netbook edition. Super fast. Super good.

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

[Frylock86]

OP wanted to know if he should go with XP or 7. Not Linux.

[Hum]

I havent come across any issues with using XP right now. it is still a usable operating system.

+2 ;)

[HawkMan]

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.

[Rigby]

I can't believe how long this thread has gone on. It's like having a six page thread debating about whether it's a good idea to drink mercury.

[sc302 Veteran]

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.

[Frylock86]

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.

[Nick H. Supervisor]

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.

[ceminess]

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.

[Flawed]

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.

[Frylock86]

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.

[Charisma Veteran]

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.

[Flawed]

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 ;)

[Prince Charming]

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.

[Flawed]

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.

[ceminess]

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.