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


Recommended Posts

Because it's going unsupported? Windows 95 wasn't broke either, but do we still use it? Nope.

Exactly, even my Dad's aerospace plant is upgrading to Windows 7 from XP, 2000 and even DOS in some cases, it doesn't bother any of us if you stay with XP but don't try and justiy it on a tech site where people are looking for "whats the most intelligent option" rather than the most laziest option.

Because it's going unsupported? Windows 95 wasn't broke either, but do we still use it? Nope.

Exactly, even my Dad's aerospace plant is upgrading to Windows 7 from XP, 2000 and even DOS in some cases, it doesn't bother any of us if you stay with XP but don't try and justiy it on a tech site where people are looking for "whats the most intelligent option" rather than the most laziest option.

Just because it makes sense for one company doesn't mean it makes sense for another, or even for a single person. There are some people in this topic who are perfect examples.

Just because it makes sense for one company doesn't mean it makes sense for another, or even for a single person. There are some people in this topic who are perfect examples.

With XP support being dropped by various developers in the next few years, you would be mad to install XP now, especially when Vista and 7 are far better and more advanced.

Vista better then XP , u must be freaking kidding me windows vista is the 2nd worst os of microsoft ever made, thats why they rolled out 7 so quick.. :whistle:

Vista better then XP , u must be freaking kidding me windows vista is the 2nd worst os of microsoft ever made, thats why they rolled out 7 so quick.. :whistle:

Ummm.. win 7 was released approx 3 years after vista, win 8 is being released approx 3 years after win7. xp was released approx 3 years after win 2000. the only time frame that was long was between winxp and vista (about 6 years) and ms said that would not happen ever again.

Either way, it's true, Vist was crap. I wouldn't hold it against a person at all if they wanted to use XP over Vista...

And while the timeframe may have been the same, Microsoft began looking forward to 7 way early, if I remember correctly. They were practically trying to gloss Vista over.

Say what you will about Vista, but remember, without it, you wouldn't have 7 ;)

Windows Vista was a joke compared to windows 7, I bought my laptop with vista and it was slow as a dog.. with 4GB Ram and Ati Radeon 4570HD and T6500 duocore..

I got rid of it and installed ubuntu the 2nd day.. I did burned a restore dvd tho :shiftyninja:

Either way, it's true, Vist was crap. I wouldn't hold it against a person at all if they wanted to use XP over Vista...

And while the timeframe may have been the same, Microsoft began looking forward to 7 way early, if I remember correctly. They were practically trying to gloss Vista over.

Vista was not crap. People and even OEMs installed Vista on hardware that couldn't adequately run it, which is why people thought it was crap. That and the FUD the media and Apple spread. I had just built a new Core 2 Duo computer with 2GB RAM before Vista came out and it ran it perfectly, no issues at all. The average computer nowadays surpasses those specifications, which is why Windows 7 runs as well as it does. Install Vista on 90% of the computers that run 7 well, and it will run fine. 7 was optimized to run on somewhat lower end hardware, but the main difference is the average computer got much stronger over the 3 years between Vista and 7.

Ummm.. win 7 was released approx 3 years after vista, win 8 is being released approx 3 years after win7. xp was released approx 3 years after win 2000. the only time frame that was long was between winxp and vista (about 6 years) and ms said that would not happen ever again.

FTFY

Windows 2000 Retail: 17 February 2000

Windows XP Retail: October 25, 2001

Don't forget OEM's overloaded their machines with crapware that Vista just wasn't able to handle, which made for a pretty bad impression.

+1 -- I recently had to work on a Vista machine with an OEM install-- Not only did it have the Vista sidebar active but also a tool bar with that did almost the same thing-- once I turned off both that machine flew.

Now granted I would have to agree with some people that when Vista first came out it did crash a bunch-- mainly this was not Microsoft's fault but a lack of good drivers. However after Vista Service Pack 1 that seemed to fix 95% of all of those issues.

+1 -- I recently had to work on a Vista machine with an OEM install-- Not only did it have the Vista sidebar active but also a tool bar with that did almost the same thing-- once I turned off both that machine flew.

Now granted I would have to agree with some people that when Vista first came out it did crash a bunch-- mainly this was not Microsoft's fault but a lack of good drivers. However after Vista Service Pack 1 that seemed to fix 95% of all of those issues.

[some of Neowin]No it didn't! Vista still suxxxxx! ME2! Slow LOL! XP 4 life! [/some of Neowin]

Especially that Flawed guy. Username suits him perfectly. Must've smoked a hell of a lot of drugs to post his asinine POV that he somehow construes as fact.

[some of Neowin]No it didn't! Vista still suxxxxx! ME2! Slow LOL! XP 4 life! [/some of Neowin]

Especially that Flawed guy. Username suits him perfectly. Must've smoked a hell of a lot of drugs to post his asinine POV that he somehow construes as fact.

Same thing I come across with people and IE or Firefox -- they have like 8 toolbars and then wonder why it starts up slow.

Vista to me when it first came up would crash on a bunch of machines but soon after Sp1 that seemed to fix a lot of the issues.

Most can actually be blamed on the quality of drivers ... not to mention a few of the OEM programs actually did more harm than good.

An example of the stated above was an update tool that would install an update not based on version installed but that there was a new one released on the OEM servers.

I saw that one first hand on a Toshiba laptop a few years ago-- The person installed the latest ATI video drivers from the AMD site but decided one day to run the Pitstop tool -- that installed an older version on top of the new one and the laptop would not post to a normal desktop. I ended up on that one going into safe mode and using an Ati driver removal tool and installed the latest one back on it.

Though however -- some people did not look at the differences between-- Made for Windows Vista and Vista Capable machine. (the latter meant that it could run Vista but you may need to do some upgrades in order for it to run properly).

Vista was not crap.

Indeed, Vista was a great operating system, it was just a terrible release; it was too late and too much of a difference. If I remember correctly, Microsoft was going for an intermediate release between Vista and XP, they probably should have kept with that plan, the delayed release of Vista caused a number of issues for them.

Service pack releases don't count. They're not new OS's. :rolleyes:

Notice also that XP x86_64 is newer then XP x86_32

Although they have a primary goal on stability and security, services packs add new features and support for newer technology.

Additionally, you get EVR in XP with .NET

Notice also that XP x86_64 is newer then XP x86_32

Although they have a primary goal on stability and security, services packs add new features and support for newer technology.

Additionally, you get EVR in XP with .NET

Personally I don't know why you're including XP x64, considering it's Server 2003 x64 SP1 with XP's interface and the server components removed, nothing more.

XP Sucks, end of story, if i were microsoft id would have shut off support ages ago for xp

Sad thing is people are ****ed at Microsoft cutting off support for just under half of their user base. THey think it's Microsoft playing "dirty tricks" to "force" an upgrade, even going as far to say it's extorsion.

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!