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

[Udedenkz]

And I repeat, evidence? I have neither problems with excessive memory usage, or disk thrashing

Evidence for what? It is common sense - the lack need for swap usage by a memory intensive application is a good thing.

Just because you and I do not run memory intensive games/software, doesn't mean that others do not.

Do I have to point out that RAM is dirt cheap and with systems having 4-8GB these days your argument is completely absurd.

I have Windows 7 and only 2 GB of RAM and I have no thrashing in any programs or games. You either have a very crappy system or you're just making stuff up. Go back to Windows 98 and have fun, it only requires something like 16 MB.

Not sure what the first statement has to do with the fact that XP is a lightweight OS compared to Windows 7.

You do not run memory hogging applications then.

Yes and Windows 7 is better than sex a flawless perfect jewel of godliness, oh wait, no... you are just a troll.

Oh no, what am I going to do now every time I want to open services and drag the window border back and forth really fast?

I guess I'll have to go back to XP. :rolleyes:

Point being,

Super perfect flawless Windows 7 cannot do something as bloody simple as have a fast Microsoft Management Console?

it's not just the services box.It's for everything that needs 2D.I've noticed this and hated the responsiveness of W7.It's even worse if you have a folder with 200+ video files and click the folder and wait for about a minute (every freakin time) to process.It's the most annoying thing ever.I don't want any preview handlers checking folders.I just want to see my files.Is it too much to ask for

Thank you.

Why don't you just turn the previews off then, it's a very simple setting.

Why should it be acceptable for this to be slow though, when Windows XP manages such things much faster?

[Rigby]

Not sure what the first statement has to do with the fact that XP is a lightweight OS compared to Windows 7.

Windows 98 is a lightweight OS compared to XP too. Too bad it's also outdated; have any other pointless arguments? Once again if Windows 7 is thrashing your hard drive then your PC is an outdated piece of junk. No one else is having that problem.

Yes and Windows 7 is better than sex a flawless perfect jewel of godliness, oh wait, no... you are just a troll.

Well that's a really dumb strawman argument isn't it; no one said anything like that. It appears that you are the one trolling.

If you can't debate your point without resorting to silly childish statements and name calling maybe you should just quit.

[Rippleman]

use what works for you, ignore the people that say "i can't wait for xp to die".... why the heck would i care what YOU prefer? doesn't affect me one bit....

i use windows 7 on my main workstation, XP on my laptops, and ubunto on my netbook... all are fine and are good for what they are running with n problems.. everything runs as needed.... end of story.

[Frylock86]

3 years and 5 days and this madness goes away.

It's already going away. GO ahead run XP on your new machine and see what happens...

[Subject Delta]

Evidence for what? It is common sense - the lack need for swap usage by a memory intensive application is a good thing.

Evidence that Windows 7 actually does what you are claiming it does

[Frylock86]

Evidence for what? It is common sense - the lack need for swap usage by a memory intensive application is a good thing.

Just because you and I do not run memory intensive games/software, doesn't mean that others do not.

Not sure what the first statement has to do with the fact that XP is a lightweight OS compared to Windows 7.

You do not run memory hogging applications then.

Yes and Windows 7 is better than sex a flawless perfect jewel of godliness, oh wait, no... you are just a troll.

Point being,

Super perfect flawless Windows 7 cannot do something as bloody simple as have a fast Microsoft Management Console?

Thank you.

Why should it be acceptable for this to be slow though, when Windows XP manages such things much faster?

I'm sorry buddy, but I am not buying your arguments. I run a few memory intensive games and even Photoshop and have never had any problems with my memory or disk thrashing in Win7.

[Udedenkz]

Windows 98 is a lightweight OS compared to XP too. Too bad it's also outdated; have any other pointless arguments? Once again if Windows 7 is thrashing your hard drive then your PC is an outdated piece of junk. No one else is having that problem.

Well that's a really dumb strawman argument isn't it; no one said anything like that. It appears that you are the one trolling.

If you can't debate your point without resorting to silly childish statements and name calling maybe you should just quit.

It is obvious that you have no intent in rational discourse by bringing Windows 98 into the discussion.

Unlike XP, 98 is not suitable for modern hardware. XP, on the other hand, supports 128GB RAM and Multi-Core CPUs...

I am not sure where you got the idea that Windows is thrashing my hard drive. Actually I don't even use the swap on any of my systems.

My specs are in my signature by the way.

Evidence that Windows 7 actually does what you are claiming it does

What does Windows 7 do when an application requires > (your RAM amount here) to run? Kill it off then? Is that what you are suggesting? :rolleyes:

Swap is an extension oh physical memory and is used as such. It is also massively slower than the physical memory.

Please don't become the "RAM amount means nothing" guy.

[Frylock86]

Unlike XP, 98 is not suitable for modern hardware. XP, on the other hand, supports 128GB RAM and Multi-Core CPUs... isn't either.

Lol. Wut? I hate to tell you, but neither is XP anymore. Not by far. Want to get the most out of your new rig? Windows 7 (Or Vista if you so choose) is the only way to go.

http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/generation-gap-windows-multicore-273?page=0,1

http://www.dailytech.com/Windows+7+Boasts+Better+Multicore+Support+for+up+to+256+Cores/article16479.htm

Can't we just admit XP is dead and move the frak on already? To continue telling folks to install XP is very bad advice. XP isn't properly supported anymore to be doing this. I'm sorry you feel different, but most folks should be focused on upgrading if they want to take advantage of their hardware and new software or features. XP can't do that, and continuing to use it won't change that at all.

Windows XP died in 2008 when it went onto long term support. The funeral is set for April 8th 2014. I can't wait to go and spit on the casket.

[Skyfrog]

What does Windows 7 do when an application requires > (your RAM amount here) to run?

The same thing XP does if it runs out of RAM, only 7 handles it much better. Fortunately this is all a moot point since today's computers come with more than enough RAM to run 7 without any of these situations you are spreading FUD about. Face it, your arguments are stupid. Yes every new version of Windows requires more memory but as new versions come along so have vast improvements in hardware. Not to mention that Vista and 7 actually use RAM efficiently instead of XPs braindead method of just letting it sit unused. Windows XP was a great OS for it's time, but it was not designed for today's hardware. It's obsolete.

[LiquidSolstice]

Evidence for what? It is common sense - the lack need for swap usage by a memory intensive application is a good thing.

Just because you and I do not run memory intensive games/software, doesn't mean that others do not.

Not sure what the first statement has to do with the fact that XP is a lightweight OS compared to Windows 7.

You do not run memory hogging applications then.

Yes and Windows 7 is better than sex a flawless perfect jewel of godliness, oh wait, no... you are just a troll.

Point being,

Super perfect flawless Windows 7 cannot do something as bloody simple as have a fast Microsoft Management Console?

Thank you.

Why should it be acceptable for this to be slow though, when Windows XP manages such things much faster?

You know, I know that you're unbelievably obsessed with all things tweaking, and looking at the rather weak machines in your signature, it's pretty obvious to me why.

I'm by no means on the "Windows 7 = God" train, but I'm familiar with your "tweaking" posts and as I understand it, you're not satisfied with the performance of any of your machines (judging from your XP "Tweak" Guide).

Not trying to start bad blood, just noting observations.

[MtnDewCodeRedFreak]

You know, I know that you're unbelievably obsessed with all things tweaking, and looking at the rather weak machines in your signature, it's pretty obvious to me why.

I'm by no means on the "Windows 7 = God" train, but I'm familiar with your "tweaking" posts and as I understand it, you're not satisfied with the performance of any of your machines (judging from your XP "Tweak" Guide).

Not trying to start bad blood, just noting observations.

He probably tweaks Windows 95 to work on newer hardware just because it have a smaller footprint on 2-TB hard drives. /sarcasm

You know what? It's pointless to even argue with a numbskull like him. Let him and other XP fanboys live in the past (NT 5.x days) and not catch up - when 2014 comes (Windows 8 would be 2 years old by that time and perhaps Win 9 Beta), and MS kills off support for XP completely (when it should have been this year in reality, but they reset support when XP SP2 came out), he'd be SOL.

And, when he comes back in 2014 and whines about why XP won't work on this and that and won't support newer hardware, DON'T answer him - maybe then he'd get the hint.

[HawkMan]

You do not run memory hogging applications then.

Well I do, I run 3DS MAx, Photoshop, Lightroom... and other rather memory hungry apps, and I run them at the same time, an dI have no problems with slowness, tradshing, low meory or anythign on Windows7, in fact it works better thanon XP.

[Subject Delta]

It is obvious that you have no intent in rational discourse by bringing Windows 98 into the discussion.

Unlike XP, 98 is not suitable for modern hardware. XP, on the other hand, supports 128GB RAM and Multi-Core CPUs...

Windows XP will only work with 4+ GB of physical memory when PAE is enabled, which causes driver instability.

What does Windows 7 do when an application requires > (your RAM amount here) to run? Kill it off then? Is that what you are suggesting? :rolleyes:

Swap is an extension oh physical memory and is used as such. It is also massively slower than the physical memory.

Please don't become the "RAM amount means nothing" guy.

The same thing that any OS would do when an application demands large amounts of memory. it pages out things that aren't needed, and if there still isn't enough memory the application would eventually crash. If you have convinced yourself that XP would behave any different in this situation you are mistaken. Besides, I have 8 gigs of RAM, and I have never had an application come close to needing enough memory to over tax my system, on any OS.

[nekkidtruth]

Point being,

Super perfect flawless Windows 7 cannot do something as bloody simple as have a fast Microsoft Management Console?

Point being,

You're an idiot. You're using a comparison of an OS who natively runs in a 3D environment to one that natively runs in 2D. On top of that, the comparison is showing you how to cause this "issue" by doing some pretty stupid things, basically things a normal person has no reason to do. Who the hell opens up any window and rapidly resizes it from small to large repeatedly? Who the hell moves the column width back and forth like a spaz every time they open said windows?

I have never ever experienced any type of slow down when navigating to where I want/need to be in Windows 7.

What a stupid, ridiculous comparison. What's worse is you just tried to make it sound like "Yeah! This is why I <3 XP so much!!!!!" and you ended up sounding foolish.

What's even more foolish is you think everyone believes Windows 7 is some be-all end-all to operating systems. Uh yeah, no.

[Scorbing]

anybody still running XP? I have a ultra light laptop with C2D ULV 1.3Ghz/4GB DDR3/Intel 4500MHD with win7. Im thinking going back to XP? is it a good idea? battery life for example?

Ubuntu 10.10 can become your laptop's best friend :yes:

Point being,

You're an idiot. You're using a comparison of an OS who natively runs in a 3D environment to one that natively runs in 2D. On top of that, the comparison is showing you how to cause this "issue" by doing some pretty stupid things, basically things a normal person has no reason to do. Who the hell opens up any window and rapidly resizes it from small to large repeatedly? Who the hell moves the column width back and forth like a spaz every time they open said windows?

I have never ever experienced any type of slow down when navigating to where I want/need to be in Windows 7.

What a stupid, ridiculous comparison. What's worse is you just tried to make it sound like "Yeah! This is why I <3 XP so much!!!!!" and you ended up sounding foolish.

What's even more foolish is you think everyone believes Windows 7 is some be-all end-all to operating systems. Uh yeah, no.

(Y)

Lol. Wut? I hate to tell you, but neither is XP anymore. Not by far. Want to get the most out of your new rig? Windows 7 (Or Vista if you so choose) is the only way to go.

http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/generation-gap-windows-multicore-273?page=0,1

http://www.dailytech.com/Windows+7+Boasts+Better+Multicore+Support+for+up+to+256+Cores/article16479.htm

Can't we just admit XP is dead and move the frak on already? To continue telling folks to install XP is very bad advice. XP isn't properly supported anymore to be doing this. I'm sorry you feel different, but most folks should be focused on upgrading if they want to take advantage of their hardware and new software or features. XP can't do that, and continuing to use it won't change that at all.

Windows XP died in 2008 when it went onto long term support. The funeral is set for April 8th 2014. I can't wait to go and spit on the casket.

:devil: ....Too funny....LOL

[Udedenkz]

I wouldn't recommend Ubuntu.

It seems to be a memory hog without actually justifying it. Windows 7, seems more component based (services anyone?) and that kinda justfies things.

It uses as much resources as W7, but cannot support a stupid printer and doesn't offer hardware h264/AVC support for Intel and AMD GPUs.

As a compensation for worse performance compared to XP, Windows 7/Vista interface does not tear and offers tear-free video. Ubuntu is not yet advanced enough to do this.

If you cannot get Windows 7 Professional, then go with XP - you will have a better experience with either OS.

Ubuntu should have better battery life though, either that or worse - depends on how well your hardware is supported...

@nekkidtruth,

Well, I for one maximize my services.msc when I use it.

The issue is there and it has NOT been fixed in SP1 for some unknown bloody reason.

Neither has slow scrolling in WMP / Explorer on low-end CPUs have been addressed.

Sadly, Windows 7 interface is slower than that of XP.

That is all I am saying.

x86-based versions of Windows Server 2003 that are running on a computer that uses a multicore processor or a hyper-threading processor support a maximum number of 32 logical processors.
x64-based versions of Windows Server 2003 that are running on a computer that uses a multicore processor or a hyper-threading processor support a maximum number of 64 logical processors.

Operating system	Number of processors	Physical RAM
Microsoft Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition	4	4 gigabytes (GB)
Microsoft Windows Server 2003, Standard x64 Edition	4	32 GB
Microsoft Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition	8	64 GB
Microsoft Windows Server 2003, Enterprise x64 Edition	8	1 terabyte
Microsoft Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition	32	64 GB
Microsoft Windows Server 2003, Datacenter x64 Edition	64	1 terabyte
Microsoft Windows XP Professional	2	4 GB
Microsoft Windows XP Professional x64 Edition	2	128 GB

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888732

As I said, 128 GB RAM...

[nekkidtruth]

@nekkidtruth,

Well, I for one maximize my services.msc when I use it.

The issue is there and it has NOT been fixed in SP1 for some unknown bloody reason.

Neither has slow scrolling in WMP / Explorer on low-end CPUs have been addressed.

Sadly, Windows 7 interface is slower than that of XP.

That is all I am saying.

Right, you maximize the window. Once. You don't spaztastically minimize/maximize it so it's a tiny little silly issue that doesn't effect anyone negatively. As for the rest of your issues, can't say as I've experienced them myself. If they exist in all installations of Windows 7, it's clearly not as severe as people are making them sound as I have yet to have the problem. All of these "issues" and comparisons to a 10+ year old operating system are simply straw grasping. If you don't like Windows 7 and or have issues with it, fine. There's nothing wrong with that. But these petty excuses are just that. Excuses.

[Subject Delta]

@nekkidtruth,

Well, I for one maximize my services.msc when I use it.

The issue is there and it has NOT been fixed in SP1 for some unknown bloody reason.

Neither has slow scrolling in WMP / Explorer on low-end CPUs have been addressed.

Sadly, Windows 7 interface is slower than that of XP.

That is all I am saying.

I am sure those extra couple of tenths of a second are going to put SUCH a dent in your schedule. It's not an issue because nobody just sits there dragging windows around the screen to constantly resize them.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888732

As I said, 128 GB RAM...

The point that you STILL seem to be missing, however, is what is supported and what can be addressed are 2 different matters. Yes, PAE can allow 32 bit versions of Windows to address extra memory, but as I seem to keep having to point out, most 32 bit drivers are NOT PAE aware, which means that if you enabled PAE, it would just make your system more unstable, and Windows XP CANNOT address more than 4GB of physical memory without PAE

[Udedenkz]

I am sure those extra couple of tenths of a second are going to put SUCH a dent in your schedule. It's not an issue because nobody just sits there dragging windows around the screen to constantly resize them.

The point that you STILL seem to be missing, however, is what is supported and what can be addressed are 2 different matters. Yes, PAE can allow 32 bit versions of Windows to address extra memory, but as I seem to keep having to point out, most 32 bit drivers are NOT PAE aware, which means that if you enabled PAE, it would just make your system more unstable, and Windows XP CANNOT address more than 4GB of physical memory without PAE

Nonetheless valid argument.

Really? Really now?

In the article itself it states that XP x86_32 is limited to 4GB RAM!

Is it really that hard to tell that I am talking about 64-bit here?

It is called Windows XP x86_64 and Windows 2003 x86_64 and it is newer and more secure than Windows XP x86_32.

Also, notice the expert on the maximum number of logical processors (cores).

[Frylock86]

Nonetheless valid argument.

Really? Really now?

In the article itself it states that XP x86_32 is limited to 4GB RAM!

Is it really that hard to tell that I am talking about 64-bit here?

It is called Windows XP x86_64 and Windows 2003 x86_64 and it is newer and more secure than Windows XP x86_32.

Also, notice the expert on the maximum number of logical processors (cores).

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Windows XP x64 is such a huge pile of ****. Who uses that? No, it is not a valid argument. How many x64 XP installs do you come across?

[xdot.tk]

What OS did all you XP haters use before Vista/7. Did you hate it as much then?

[LiquidSolstice]

What OS did all you XP haters use before Vista/7. Did you hate it as much then?

"What did all you candle-haters use before lightbulbs became more common. Did you hate it as much then?"

[nekkidtruth]

What OS did all you XP haters use before Vista/7. Did you hate it as much then?

I don't hate XP. I never hated XP. I am however, intelligent enough to understand that a 10+ year old operating system is shall we say, out of date. It's not something I should be using as the support (regardless of the extension) is dead. It's called moving on. I don't need to hold on to something that no longer benefits me in any way.

[Frylock86]

What OS did all you XP haters use before Vista/7. Did you hate it as much then?

YES! It's overstayed it's welcome. That's why we hate it!

[XP1]

What OS did all you XP haters use before Vista/7. Did you hate it as much then?

I used Windows XP, the best Windows OS at the time. However, I began hating Windows XP the month after I installed Vista RTM, in January 2007, immediately when it was released to the public.