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

    • 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!