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

[Flawed]

One thing I keep seeing in this debate is "search".... is it something you guys really use that often? :blink:

I've personally never used it :/ I know exactly where my files are, it's not that complicated if your files are somewhat organized (and believe me I have LOTS of files, I even kept my programming exercises from university :blush:).

XP search is slow.... but who cares?

Vista and 7 have a much faster search...

OSX had instant search since Tiger with Spotlight....I used it once after I installed Tiger to check it out....then I've used it a few times to calculate stuff hahahah (since you can give it formulas to pass on to the calculator app :p)

I agree. The first thing I do when I install any version of windows, is disable windows search/file indexing. It really only slows down file access. Much like the noatime fstab option in Linux, which prevents writes when merely reading files.

[Skyfrog]

Flawed's nonsensical rambling reminds me of this. :laugh:

[Rudy]

Well the machine in question is running Windows 7 Ultimate x86 with no disk thrashing, high CPU usage or additional memory operations. Granted though I dual boot with Ubuntu 10.04, which seems to be lighter on resources although not so you'd notice. However, don't state opinion as fact.

I'm pretty sure the disk thrashing was a Vista only issue (and it was HORRIBLE!). I've never seen it on Win7, but I've seen it often on Vista

[notuptome2004]

PAE was invented and introduced into CPU lines long before XP was even written. Kludge? No. Unless you wish to label things such as SSE or virtualisation kludges too.

I use windows 7 on almost a daily basis, so I can assure you that my critique is genuine and earnest.

The aforementioned problems with 7 and Vista are ubiquitous. Superfetch tries to compensate for the poor performance by caching certain things. This gives the perception that applications are running faster, but that's simply not true. A few select applications might initially boot faster, but their runtime performance is generally on par or slower than XP.

What is a new version of Windows or any other software for that matter if not a series of patches (service packs) over time? SP2 and SP3 both added additional features to XP, not just bug fixing. The Windows code base itself, and yes, including Windows 7, is two decades old. So I suppose you could say Windows 7 is two decades old if you follow your logic to its natural conclusion.

Nice manners.

the technoligies under windows 7 are not 2 decades old it was beefed up allot from what microsoft spent 3 to 5 years developing for windows vista.

New audio Stack Framwork APIs

new Video Stack FW APIs

new networking stack

a whole slew of new stuff and features that allows future versions of windows to be more HW scaler scale better so yea

and many many new features came to windows 7 that sure on XP you can download a 3rd party program to give you the illusion of the same feature the issue being it does not work the same nore function the same

Also as far as battery life goes umm XP sucks at it a good friend of mine Adam put windows 7 on an age old laptop that well was the first to support DX9 well anyways with XP on it and set to laptop or what ever for as much usage as possible it last 3hrs 12min but with windows 7 Pro on it with everything turned on and the Batt settings set to Power saver windows 7 gets a good 5hrs 40min so that is a good 2hrs 52min more then windows XP so Tell us again all mighty and know it all Flawed

[Seizure1990]

There's nothing wrong with an OS using more resources then its predecessor, thats why the standard memory amount is constantly rising, as well as CPU cores/clock, etc. Remember when RAM cards came in 64MB, and if you were hot ****, you had some 256MB sticks in your power house? Now you actually have to search for sticks as low as 256 (i dont think they make lower anymore, but its possible they still produce 128, not sure), and we have modules that go as high as 4GB, and maybe even 8GB? At the same time, we're not more for the larger, newer modules then we were for the older, smaller ones at the time. That's how technology works, and it always baffles me when people use increased resource consumption as an excuse to pass off a system.

As for program efficiency, aren't their tons of articles out there that aimed to measure software performance in XP vs 7? If I remember correctly, the end result was that most programs are either the same, or have differences that are negligible. A few run more efficiently in XP, and many run more efficiently in 7. Doesn't 7 tend to outperform XP in gaming, or am I just imagining things?

[Gutierrez]

XP is still good and will be good for a long, long time.

[neo158]

XP is still good and will be good for a long, long time.

Only until 2014 when all support is pulled!!!

[Seizure1990]

Would you mind explaining how that magically turns an otherwise good OS into a pile of junk?

[neo158]

Would you mind explaining how that magically turns an otherwise good OS into a pile of junk?

I didn't say anything about XP turning into a "pile of junk" because support would be pulled. I'm stating that when support is pulled that means no more updates so it won't be "good for a long long time".

[Flawed]

Only until 2014 when all support is pulled!!!

That's what they said the last time Microsoft extended the support date. If you think they're going to abandon so many users think again ;) I know a lot of Windows 7 proponents would love that to happen, but it's just wishful thinking plain and simple.

I didn't say anything about XP turning into a "pile of junk" because support would be pulled. I'm stating that when support is pulled that means no more updates so it won't be "good for a long long time".

And you don't know for certain support will be pulled. Microsoft has extended it before, and will do again if enough users still have it.

[Sir Topham Hatt]

Hey, chill out everyone.

It's not a war of what is good and what is not, it's personal preference.

For me, Windows 7 works and is fine. I wouldn't choose to use XP over Windows 7.

People are attached to Windows XP because it's a constant. No matter how you look at it, XP is comortable and support for it from developers has been improving ever since it's release. Windows 7 is new and needs you to step out of that comfort into a matured UI with other things too.

I personally don't see why people are hanging on to XP. Support for applications you say? With ease, you can still make old applications run. Try the game, Hogs of War. It knows it's not installed on Windows 98 so it doesn't want to run. Compatability mode works. If someone can give genuine reasons why they will still use XP, then I am all ears (program compatability is not a valid reason).

But as ever, people will think what they are using is the best. They are right. It is the best... for them. Not for everyone.

[neo158]

That's what they said the last time Microsoft extended the support date. If you think they're going to abandon so many users think again ;) I know a lot of Windows 7 proponents would love that to happen, but it's just wishful thinking plain and simple.

Most of those would be corporate users though. Hypothetically if, after 2014, Microsoft find a serious security flaw that affects all versions of Windows do you think they'll release a patch for XP?

[redvamp128]

I would have to agree with some of the people on this issue-- Really depends on the hardware--now having said that I would say if over 5 years old then yes it would be a good OS... but on newer hardware I would say go Windows 7-- This laptop I am writing this on has a 1.9ghz Pentium M with 1 gig of memory-- and yes it would run Vista/7 just fine but I don't want to purchase it since this laptop came with XP. This laptop will remain with XP however should support be lacking or things don't want to work then I would choose to dual boot with Linux.

[Seizure1990]

XP has had how many actual updates in the past year? I think all the ones I've seen are for Windows Defender, and drivers... As if removing updates and support would make a difference.

[Frylock86]

2014 can't come soon enough. :hmmm:

[Seizure1990]

There is no reason in the world to care so vehemently what others use as their OS, and you are just making yourself look silly.

[Rudy]

For home users XP doesn't really have a place anymore but I disagree that WinXP doesn't have a place in the business world. For a business the extra cost of Vista/7 isn't worth it (it doesn't really have any benefit for a business.....no Aero is NOT a benefit for them :blink: )

[dr_crabman]

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.

You realize that Windows 7 can and will release memory it is currently using for any program that needs it? And that it grabs more memory in advance when more is installed? Two simple conecepts that seem to completely baffle XP Fans since the introduction of Vista. You just can't simply compare the numbers between XP and 7 and conclude that XP is more efficient (which is completely absurd), memory management works very differently now and has gotten much more flexible while XP is stiff old tech that scales badly with todays hardware.

[Frylock86]

For home users XP doesn't really have a place anymore but I disagree that WinXP doesn't have a place in the business world. For a business the extra cost of Vista/7 isn't worth it (it doesn't really have any benefit for a business.....no Aero is NOT a benefit for them :blink: )

That place is quickly waning, if not already. Windows since Vista has had superior security measures, and superior stability compared with XP. Plus, with XP on life support, many companies are already upgrading to 7. If anyone here thinks Microsoft will extend that 2014 cutoff date, they're mistaken. Under no circumstances should anyone be operating under the assumption they will.

There are many business cases to argue for Windows 7.

[Nguyen07]

are games suppose to perform better on XP than on Vista/7 ?

[Frylock86]

I have not noticed a change. Then again, my GPU is a beast of a chip. :ninja:

[Jen Smith]

are games perform better on XP than on Vista/7 ?

Just my own guesstimations of course, everybody's hardware is going to be different. On my gaming rig, between XP and 7 (running DX9 games), really didn't notice much of a difference, if any. Plus or minus a few FPS depending on the game. If anything I'd say Win7 spends less time at loading screens perhaps.. just overall tends to get things started quicker. The only time I saw a framerate hit is with DX10/11 gaming since it's doing a lot more video processing, which is to be expected. Can't compare to XP obviously as it's never going to support the later platforms. Can't say sticking to XP just because of gaming is a good reason, have yet to find anything that doesn't run well under 7.

No comments on XP versus Vista though.. skipped that one, hated it.

[Udedenkz]

are games suppose to perform better on XP than on Vista/7 ?

This is true for NVIDIA 8600M GT and NV ION. Don't ask why.

[Frylock86]

Just my own guesstimations of course, everybody's hardware is going to be different. On my gaming rig, between XP and 7 (running DX9 games), really didn't notice much of a difference, if any. Plus or minus a few FPS depending on the game. If anything I'd say Win7 spends less time at loading screens perhaps.. just overall tends to get things started quicker. The only time I saw a framerate hit is with DX10/11 gaming since it's doing a lot more video processing, which is to be expected. Can't compare to XP obviously as it's never going to support the later platforms. Can't say sticking to XP just because of gaming is a good reason, have yet to find anything that doesn't run well under 7.

No comments on XP versus Vista though.. skipped that one, hated it.

Can't recommend sticking to XP at all for gaming, unless you want to continue playing older games. The new batch of games coming along look to be moving away from DX9 - meaning no XP support. Battlefield 3 being a prime example. BF3 is DX10/11 only.

[Seizure1990]

I don't know if that argument is even relevant. If you had the hardware to run the latest games, then yea, you shouldn't be using XP anyways.