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


Recommended Posts

If you have to reinstall windows xp every 4-5 months, you don't know enough about it to properly support or give any argument for or against it.

I don't recall anytime that I currently needed to add drivers to win7, but its driver library is quite huge...so was windows xp when it first came out.

64 bit windows xp seems to be working fine for my engineers, not many complaints out of them regarding os incompatabilities

xp memory management is good compared to older oses, however with every os improvement I expect memory management to get better

win7 is just as susceptible to malware as windows xp, don't let anything fool you otherwise....it comes down to system patch status and end user knowledge, uac doesn't fix stupid

being that I know what I am looking for xp search is faster than windows 7, takes my system seconds to find a file...shouldn't you be smart enough to name a file somewhat relatively easy to remember or put them into a folder that has something to do with the subject at hand vs randomly through your system with names that don't pertain to anything? If I am writing a paper on the US constitution do you think I am going to be dumb enough to name it dirty ###### and file it in my temp files, or do you think I am going to name it consitiution and put it in a folder called School Projects or US information or something else that pertains to that topic?

I have customized my desktop many times, and it really is for those who are into that crap. The luna theme works just fine for me, really any theme works fine for me so long as I know where things are located. It is called change, get used to it, sometimes it happens for the better, sometimes it happens for the worse, but there is one consistancy with it...it always happens, but there are somethings that havent changed and that is the what the control panel files are called (if you don't know where they are because the gui changed, you can always call them from a run line or command prompt...but this requires you to know more than pointing and clicking).

I figured by 2011 the rabid XP luddites would have died down a little. Judging from the thread I guess not. Maybe in 2014 when Microsoft finally pulls the life support plug on the poor old dinosaur.

Well, they are VERY few in numbers. In general there are 99% Windows 7 fans compared to 1% pathetic XP Luddites. But I like the fact that XP Luddites are in agony nowadays. They HATE the fac that Microsoft has stopped supporting them (only security updates are available). I loved their reaction to the announcement that IE9 and Windows Live Essentials 2011 won't support XP. Lol.

I think people here seem to think more RAM = faster machine/CPU. I guess they seem to think that more RAM used somehow slows down their machine? Which I find curious, because it is far from the truth.

I believe the rationale is that the less memory the OS uses, the more can be allocated to.. you know.. the programs that actually do something.

Windows 7 utilizes memory different. If half of your memory is not being used, then its not doing anything for you.

Your name fits your argument quite well.

Then in that case, why doesn't it use all your memory? Why only half? As you say, if it's not being used then it's not doing anything for you. Perhaps you should send a request to microsoft to use 90% of all available memory, then you can feel self assured that none of your memory is being wasted lol.

I believe the rationale is that the less memory the OS uses, the more can be allocated to.. you know.. the programs that actually do something.

Yes, Windows XP requires less RAM than 7, and Windows 2000 required less RAM than XP, and NT 4.0 required less RAM than 2000. It's too bad that the amount of RAM we have in our systems isn't increasing also so we can keep up with the demand. Oh wait, most systems have 4GB or more today, kind of makes your argument stupid and pointless. Flawed even. Keep clinging to your decrepit old software if you wish, but enough with your ignorant rambling. You're not going to convert anyone back to XP.

I believe the rationale is that the less memory the OS uses, the more can be allocated to.. you know.. the programs that actually do something.

Then in that case, why doesn't it use all your memory? Why only half? As you say, if it's not being used then it's not doing anything for you. Perhaps you should send a request to microsoft to use 90% of all available memory, then you can feel self assured that none of your memory is being wasted lol.

I have yet to see anything from you that says Win7 uses more memory than XP whereas I can show you at least one scenario where XP is less than ideal in my day to day workflow...

Better? Yes, but it still gets infected en masse just like every other windows OS.

NO. I have managed thousand of Vista/7 systems, the infection rate among them is miniscule compared to that of XP.

So why don't you get the extra ram back when superfetch is disabled? I'll tell you why, it's because the base OS is consuming it. If you have superfetch enabled, it can exceed 1gb without any programs even running. And I never noticed any speed improvement of program loading over XP. Superfetch is mostly to compensate for the slow down and general bloat of 7 over XP. So it gobbles up all your memory as it tries to cache lots of stuff in order that you notice how slow it really is.

EVERY single program that I have run on Windows 7 performs much better than on XP. For example, when running Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop and Visual Studio simultaneously, the XP system dies, but on Windows 7 it runs smoothly.

Hmm, what does that remind me of, oh ye, vista when it was first released, you know the code base upon which 7 is built.

But I'm talking about Windows 7 and Vista SP2 -- both of which are a million times more stable than XP.

Yep, they copied that from Linux. It's a poor man's Linux repository limited to only out of date drivers. In Linux we've had that since day one.

Copy? Linux? Oh I think I have heard those words mentioned at the same time before. Isn't the whole of Linux a blatant copy of Windows and Mac? But don't get me started on that.

The same happens in Windows 7/Vista. The registry etc get increasingly fragmented over time.

NO. Improved registry virualization and automatic defagmentations ensure that Windows 7 machines can run for YEARS without ANY performance degradation.

Post the source of these stats please.

Here you go: http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-na-monthly-201103-201103-bar

That's for North America. XP has only 34% usage share. You can find similar stats for Europe and Oceania. Don't forget to compare that to Chinese stats and you'll know 80% XP users are from third world countries who depend on pirated OS.

And two months before the end date they'll extent it once again because the majority of windows users still use XP and it would be bad business for Microsoft. Hehe.

Lolllll. XP is already on life support. Which means it gets ONLY security updates. And Microsoft no longers sells XP. They didn't release IE9 or WLE 2011 for XP. If anything they are going to pull the plug on XP even earlier than 2014. Lollll.

Worldwide, XP still has the lead, but is quickly dropping. Currently it has dropped below 50%.

I don't know where you got those stats from, but they are contradicted by others:

http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10

Worldwide:

XP - 55.09

Windows 7 - 23.08

It's got a fair way to go yet my friend ;)

Free memory = wasted memory. If you don't want it used you may as well remove it and throw it in the trash.

So you're using 100% of your memory all the time? Thought not. Then I guess your logic failed you. Most people don't need to utilise 100% of memory all the time. Sometimes I use 90+, sometimes I use 10%. It's there if I need it. That's the point. There's no justification for the OS to gobble it all up unnecessarily. Of course in Windows Vista/7's case, it's used to conceal performance problems relative to the previous iteration - XP.

Windows XP

Windows 7

:D

Insults - the last recourse of a weak mind ;)

<div id="os-na-monthly-201103-201103-bar" width="600" height="400" style="width:600px; height: 400px;"></div><!-- You may change the values of width and height above to resize the chart --><p>Source: <a href="http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-na-monthly-201103-201103-bar">StatCounter Global Stats - Operating System Market Share</a></p><script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.statcounter.com/js/FusionCharts.js"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://gs.statcounter.com/chart.php?os-na-monthly-201103-201103-bar"></script>

awesome.

So you're using 100% of your memory all the time? Thought not. Then I guess your logic failed you. Most people don't need to utilise 100% of memory all the time. Sometimes I use 90+, sometimes I use 10%. It's there if I need it. That's the point. There's no justification for the OS to gobble it all up unnecessarily. Of course in Windows Vista/7's case, it's used to conceal performance problems relative to the previous iteration - XP.

Yes I want 100% of my memory to be used for something, all the time. Not sitting there empty doing nothing. If no programs are using it I want the OS to use it for caching or whatever it's needed for. As soon as a program requests RAM Windows will free up whatever it needs. This just shows you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. If you're trolling stop it, and if you're not then stop embarrassing yourself. It's just getting sad at this point.

I don't know where you got those stats from, but they are contradicted by others:

http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10

Worldwide:

XP - 55.09

Windows 7 - 23.08

It's got a fair way to go yet my friend ;)

So you pick the ONLY place that reports anywhere baove 50% for XP and then you complain that his research is bad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS_market_share

the median value is far more relevant than any of the others. and the median says XP is at 41.7%

at the very least it shows one thing, the net market share numbers are pure BS. when every other research is more than 10% off in the same direction, it's obvious your numbers are wrong.

Also using more ram for the base system does not mean the system is more bloated or slower. in fact 7 is faster because the system uses more ram, outside of superfecth. also if you want to be an idiot and disable services and make yoru system as slow as XP. you can make 7 use as little memory as XP, but it'll be slower, like XP.

  • Like 2

So you're using 100% of your memory all the time? Thought not. Then I guess your logic failed you. Most people don't need to utilise 100% of memory all the time. Sometimes I use 90+, sometimes I use 10%. It's there if I need it. That's the point. There's no justification for the OS to gobble it all up unnecessarily.

It's pretty clear that you don't understand how the memory management in Windows Vista and 7 works.

If you have to reinstall windows xp every 4-5 months, you don't know enough about it to properly support or give any argument for or against it.

I don't recall anytime that I currently needed to add drivers to win7, but its driver library is quite huge...so was windows xp when it first came out.

64 bit windows xp seems to be working fine for my engineers, not many complaints out of them regarding os incompatabilities

xp memory management is good compared to older oses, however with every os improvement I expect memory management to get better

win7 is just as susceptible to malware as windows xp, don't let anything fool you otherwise....it comes down to system patch status and end user knowledge, uac doesn't fix stupid

being that I know what I am looking for xp search is faster than windows 7, takes my system seconds to find a file...shouldn't you be smart enough to name a file somewhat relatively easy to remember or put them into a folder that has something to do with the subject at hand vs randomly through your system with names that don't pertain to anything? If I am writing a paper on the US constitution do you think I am going to be dumb enough to name it dirty ###### and file it in my temp files, or do you think I am going to name it consitiution and put it in a folder called School Projects or US information or something else that pertains to that topic?

I have customized my desktop many times, and it really is for those who are into that crap. The luna theme works just fine for me, really any theme works fine for me so long as I know where things are located. It is called change, get used to it, sometimes it happens for the better, sometimes it happens for the worse, but there is one consistancy with it...it always happens, but there are somethings that havent changed and that is the what the control panel files are called (if you don't know where they are because the gui changed, you can always call them from a run line or command prompt...but this requires you to know more than pointing and clicking).

Amen my IT brother!

So you pick the ONLY place that reports anywhere baove 50% for XP and then you complain that his research is bad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS_market_share

the median value is far more relevant than any of the others. and the median says XP is at 41.7%

at the very least it shows one thing, the net market share numbers are pure BS. when every other research is more than 10% off in the same direction, it's obvious your numbers are wrong.

Those percentages only account for 92.99%, where is the other 7%. And that's for february, not march.

you can make 7 use as little memory as XP, but it'll be slower, like XP.

You mean slower than XP? Because that's the real reason for superfetch - to disguise 7/Vista's poor performance.

Those percentages only account for 92.99%, where is the other 7%. And that's for february, not march.

You mean slower than XP? Because that's the real reason for superfetch - to disguise 7/Vista's poor performance.

Sounds like you tried running it on a computer that's too old and now you're spreading FUD. Windows 7 performs quite nicely*.

*but you shouldn't run it on a Pentium II with 128 MB of RAM.

This entire topic is characterized by 49.5% people who think Windows 7 should always be used, always, 49.5% people who think Windows XP should always be used, always, and 1% who seem to fall in between and realize that it depends. It's really funny (and frustrating).

Inb4 people complain about me exaggerating.

This entire topic is characterized by 49.5% people who think Windows 7 should always be used, always, 49.5% people who think Windows XP should always be used, always, and 1% who seem to fall in between and realize that it depends. It's really funny (and frustrating).

Inb4 people complain about me exaggerating.

You're exaggerating.

:laugh:

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Pretty nice tool, thanks
    • Indeed. But note that this has Wifi7, HDMI 2.1, BlueTooth 5.4, and 5G Ethernet, so even in the additional features list this bundle blows the Steam Machine away. And, with the money saved, one could improve this dramatically.
    • One of the strangest galaxies in our Universe could help answer some long overdue questions by Sayan Sen Image by Pixabay via Pexels | Not representative An international team of astronomers led by the Department of Astronomy at Tsinghua University has discovered an unusually metal-poor galaxy that may contain signs of first-generation star formation. The galaxy, named Metal-Pristine Galaxy COSMOS Redshift 3 (MPG-CR3), or CR3, was identified using observations from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the Very Large Telescope (VLT), and the Subaru Telescope. The findings, published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, describe CR3 as the most metal-poor galaxy known from the period known as "cosmic noon," around 11.5 billion years ago. Cosmic noon refers to a period when the universe was producing stars at its highest rate and galaxies were growing rapidly. In astronomy, "metals" refers to all elements heavier than helium, including oxygen, carbon, and iron. Because CR3 contains so few of these heavier elements, researchers say it closely resembles what scientists expect the earliest galaxies in the universe may have looked like. The discovery is significant because it could offer clues about Population III (Pop III) stars, the first generation of stars thought to have formed after the Big Bang. These stars are believed to have formed from gas made almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, before heavier elements were created inside stars and spread across the universe through supernova explosions. Hence this is why CR3 has been referred to as a "living fossil." Scientists have long believed that Population III stars existed only in the very early universe. As more generations of stars formed and died, they enriched surrounding gas with heavier elements, making the conditions needed for metal-free star formation increasingly rare. Because of this, researchers expected the formation of such stars to have largely ended after the epoch of reionization, a period when radiation from the first stars and galaxies transformed the neutral hydrogen filling the universe and made it largely transparent to ultraviolet light. CR3 appears to challenge that idea. The galaxy was observed at a redshift of z = 3.193 ± 0.016. Redshift measures how much light from a distant object has been stretched as the universe expands and helps astronomers determine how far back in time they are looking. In this case, the redshift corresponds to roughly 11.5 billion years ago during cosmic noon. Although the universe was already several billion years old by that point, CR3 shows characteristics more commonly associated with much earlier galaxies. Observations revealed exceptionally strong emissions from hydrogen and helium, including Lyα, Hα, and He I λ10830. Lyα, or Lyman-alpha emission, is a specific wavelength of light produced by hydrogen and is widely used to study distant galaxies. Hα emission is another hydrogen signature commonly used to trace active star formation, while He I λ10830 is produced by helium and can indicate the presence of very hot, young stars. The measured equivalent widths of EW₀(Lyα) = 822 ± 101 Å and EW₀(Hα) = 2814 ± 327 Å are among the highest ever observed in star-forming galaxies. Equivalent width is a measure of the strength of an emission line relative to the surrounding light, and such large values are typically associated with intense and very recent star formation. At the same time, researchers found no statistically significant detections of metal emission lines, including [O III] λλ4959, 5007 and C IV λλ1548, 1550. Emission lines act as chemical fingerprints that reveal which elements are present in a galaxy. Oxygen and carbon lines are commonly seen in galaxies that have already undergone significant chemical enrichment. Their absence in CR3 suggests an unusually pristine environment. Using abundance calibration methods developed with JWST observations, the team placed a 2σ upper limit on the galaxy's gas-phase metallicity of 12+log(O/H)<6.52, corresponding to less than 0.7% of the Sun's metallicity (Z < 7 × 10⁻³ Z⊙). Gas-phase metallicity measures the abundance of heavy elements in a galaxy's gas. A 2σ upper limit indicates that the true value is very unlikely to be higher than the quoted threshold. Even when accounting for uncertainties in the calibration methods, the most conservative limit remains 12+log(O/H)<6.95, making CR3 the most metal-poor galaxy identified at cosmic noon. The galaxy also appears to contain very little dust. Researchers measured a Lyα/Hα flux ratio of 13.9 ± 2.5, a result that suggests negligible dust attenuation, meaning very little of the galaxy's light is being absorbed or scattered by cosmic dust. Because dust is usually produced by earlier generations of stars, this finding further supports the idea that CR3 has experienced very little chemical enrichment. Further analysis using spectral energy distribution modelling, a technique that compares observed light with theoretical models, suggests that CR3 contains an extremely young stellar population only around 2 million years old. The modelling, which used Population III stellar templates, also indicates the galaxy has a stellar mass of approximately 6.1 × 10⁵ M⊙. The symbol M⊙ represents one solar mass, or the mass of the Sun. One of the key questions raised by the discovery is how such a chemically primitive galaxy could exist in a universe that had already spent billions of years producing heavier elements. To investigate this, the researchers examined CR3's surroundings. Their analysis suggests the galaxy may lie in a slightly underdense environment, with a density contrast of roughly δ ≈ −0.12. An underdense region contains less matter and fewer galaxies than average. The team suggests that this relative isolation may have helped preserve pockets of pristine gas. Metal-rich material expelled from nearby galaxies may never have reached CR3, while the lower rate of galaxy mergers and interactions could have slowed the mixing of enriched gas into the system. If future observations confirm these findings, CR3 could provide some of the strongest evidence yet that first-generation star formation continued well after the epoch of reionization. Such a result would challenge the conventional view that pristine star formation ended by z ≳ 6 and suggest that small pockets of metal-free gas survived much longer than previously thought. Researchers stress that more observations will be needed to determine the galaxy's true nature. Future spectroscopic studies with higher resolution and better signal quality could help confirm whether CR3 is genuinely hosting Population III star formation. The discovery is also expected to encourage searches for other similar galaxies, which could help astronomers better understand how the first stars formed and how galaxies evolved in the early universe. Source: Tsinghua University, 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.
    • "I think in the immediate absence of a partner to apply relief" In the words of Sterling Archer... "Phrasing!"
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      HidekoYamamoto94 earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • One Month Later
      timbobit earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      nates earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Rookie
      dorf went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      454
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      161
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      107
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      83
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!