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

[Jen Smith]

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.

Indeed.. faulting an OS for one app is a little petty, at best, especially when it's probably due to a poorly optimized dotNET assembly. If you're going to hate an OS that's on you, but hate the OS itself, not some random app that comes with it. It's like me saying that XP sucks because 7 plays a better game of Minesweeper. There's quite a few GUI related irritations in XP as well that are well beyond annoying.

If it really irks you that badly, there's some replacements out there, for example Event Log Explorer is pretty decent for a freebie, use that one myself as there's a few features it has that the built in doesn't. (Being able to monitor multiple machines at once and have it autorefresh is kind of handy at times when dealing with a bunch of servers.)

[kalel83]

Is MS dos still a good OS for today's computing?

How about windows 98?

3.1?

Wtf people, XP is dead. Deal with it.

[Subject Delta]

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).

Maybe you ought to make your posts a little clearer then?

Windows XP X64 is built from the Server 2003 codebase. Not only is driver support for it poor compared to X64 versions of Vista and 7, Microsoft don't even release some software updates for it. It's a better bet than XP X86 for modern hardware but it still won't take full advantage in the way Windows 7 does. And to be honest, the fact that it has support for multiple core processors doesn't mean it takes advantage of them in the same way 7 does.

[The Laughing Man]

XP is dead , move on. If you like it and it works for you great! Don't preach to us when we have moved on to something more current for our newer hardware.

[Frylock86]

Maybe you ought to make your posts a little clearer then?

Windows XP X64 is built from the Server 2003 codebase. Not only is driver support for it poor compared to X64 versions of Vista and 7, Microsoft don't even release some software updates for it. It's a better bet than XP X86 for modern hardware but it still won't take full advantage in the way Windows 7 does. And to be honest, the fact that it has support for multiple core processors doesn't mean it takes advantage of them in the same way 7 does.

Don't forget that no one uses it. No one. That invalidates his argument.

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.

Glad to see I'm not the only one who enjoyed Vista. Once I installed it, I had no problems with it, and it made XP look like 3.1 in comparison.

[Athernar]

Don't forget that no one uses it. No one. That invalidates his argument.

Glad to see I'm not the only one who enjoyed Vista. Once I installed it, I had no problems with it, and it made XP look like 3.1 in comparison.

Don't forget that the reason no one uses it because the driver support is practically non-existant.

It's funny, because if you use the logic all the Vista-bashing sheep use, 3rd-party driver issues are the fault of the parent OS - so XP (At least x64) must suck pretty bad. :shifty:

[Seizure1990]

XP is dead , move on. If you like it and it works for you great! Don't preach to us when we have moved on to something more current for our newer hardware.

Where do you see this? All I ever see is the opposite. I mean, that's all this entire topic is.

[Frylock86]

Where do you see this? All I ever see is the opposite. I mean, that's all this entire topic is.

XP died April 21st 2008. All we're waiting on now is the funeral set for April 8th 2014.

[Seizure1990]

Case in point...

[Frylock86]

Case in point...

What part of "dead" don't you get? :huh:

Poor hardware support, currently in "Extended Support", All around poor performance = Dead and gone. Quit scaring others from upgrading.

[Seizure1990]

Now you're just putting words in my mouth. I've never tried scaring anyone from updating. But obviously, you have no intentions of having a real discussion.

Just scaring others from an OS that works well enough and convincing them their computer will explode with XP. As I've said before, not everyone is ready to make the switch, and not everyone can justify a 200 dollar dent in their wallet. Got nothing to do with technology.

[Frylock86]

Their computers won't explode, but they'll degrade running XP. Windows Rot is still alive and well on XP, Vista and 7, not so much.

If they can't upgrade, they still need to understand that nothing is supported forever. This wouldn't be much of an issue if 1. People would quit complaining for Microsoft to support a dead OS (I'm still laughing at the people who want IE 9 on XP and those who tried to port DX10), and 2. Quit trying to destroy new machines with it only to waste money for a placebo effect - It may be faster but you're wasting your hardware for nothing really anymore.

[Subject Delta]

Now you're just putting words in my mouth. I've never tried scaring anyone from updating. But obviously, you have no intentions of having a real discussion.

Just scaring others from an OS that works well enough and convincing them their computer will explode with XP. As I've said before, not everyone is ready to make the switch, and not everyone can justify a 200 dollar dent in their wallet. Got nothing to do with technology.

XP will stop receiving support, and companies will stop writing drivers and software updates for it as well. In the world of computing it's called progress, and it's not going to go away because a few diehards refuse to evolve with the times.

[LiquidSolstice]

XP died April 21st 2008. All we're waiting on now is the funeral set for April 8th 2014.

You know, I get that you're anti-XP, and you have an almost Lazure-esqe type of hate for XP as though it stabbed your newborn child (even though people using XP really doesn't directly affect you in any way), but I have to say, you're really starting to come off as just plain immature.

I'm not on the "XP Forever" train, and I certainly think its time is up, but the way you're so viciously aggressive about it is...well, sorry to say this, kind of pathetic :/. I feel like you can express your opinion without so much Windows 7 "fascism".

[Frylock86]

You know, I get that you're anti-XP, and you have an almost Lazure-esqe type of hate for XP as though it stabbed your newborn child (even though people using XP really doesn't directly affect you in any way), but I have to say, you're really starting to come off as just plain immature.

I'm not on the "XP Forever" train, and I certainly think its time is up, but the way you're so viciously aggressive about it is...well, sorry to say this, kind of pathetic :/. I feel like you can express your opinion without so much Windows 7 "fascism".

Don't mean to come off as 'fanatic', but at the same time, I feel as if people aren't really getting it. There are many who still think extended support = mainstream support, therefore I can continue to deploy it and reap the benefits of newer Microsoft services and software, by which 2014 I can then start looking to upgrade.. :/

[LiquidSolstice]

Don't mean to come off as 'fanatic', but at the same time, I feel as if people aren't really getting it. There are many who still think extended support = mainstream support, therefore I can continue to deploy it and reap the benefits of newer Microsoft services and software. :/

What's important is that the more knowledgeable users such as you and I know that its not true.

Change in computing comes, whether or not people like it. Rest assured, people will eventually have to let go of XP. It's just a fact. You needn't worry about the transition, it will be as gentle or as rough as it needs to be for people to get with the times.

Businesses that chose to continue to use older software will get their sharp slap in the face, but that's not your worry. Microsoft has done what it can, but eventually, just like IE6, XP will finally come to an end.

Just take it easy; the harder you try and pull something away from people the more attached to it they become. Eventually, it gets taken from them whether or not they like it, and when that happens, they will deal with it. Don't drop your pride just to try and get that satisfaction now, just have patience. Trust me.

[Seizure1990]

You know, I get that you're anti-XP, and you have an almost Lazure-esqe type of hate for XP as though it stabbed your newborn child (even though people using XP really doesn't directly affect you in any way), but I have to say, you're really starting to come off as just plain immature.

I'm not on the "XP Forever" train, and I certainly think its time is up, but the way you're so viciously aggressive about it is...well, sorry to say this, kind of pathetic :/. I feel like you can express your opinion without so much Windows 7 "fascism".

Which has been my point all along. I use Windows 7 on both of my machines, and love it. But acting like Windows XP is the reincarnation of Satan is just BS, and causing unnecessary fear and grief. People will switch when they're good and ready. What's the worst that happens if people keep clinging on to their old OS? You keep saying it over and over and over (and over and over and over). They'll lose support, both in terms of hardware and software.

Umm.... ok? I still get machines in my workshop running 98. Trust me when I say that some people will use an OS as long as it serves them. Not everyone is like you and I.

People DO "get it" and you're just being a condescending prick with the overly passionate way you are acting. I've gotten it for a while. What I also get, though, is that not everyone has the same needs and wants as you.

[Frylock86]

People DO "get it" and you're just being a condescending prick with the overly passionate way you are acting. I've gotten it for a while. What I also get, though, is that not everyone has the same needs and wants as you.

Obviously not, otherwise the Internet wouldn't be full of this "Which OS should I be using?" crap. LS said it best. People are going to get slapped in the face and act like they were wronged by somebody else. It'll be a **** show sure to entertain.

[muratoner]

If you don't have a newer pc (like 1gb ram and a slow c2d as an example) xp will work much faster for you.

If you recently bought a nice setup like i7+4gbram+ssd drive than you should definitely switch to 7.

AND NO not everyone spends thousands of dollars on a pc every few years, so XP is nowhere near dead.(in terms of others using it)

When people decide upgrading their machines then we'll see it happen.It's like some people wrote the kernel of W7, they're like the angry mob with the torches in their hands.

[Seizure1990]

Obviously not, otherwise the Internet wouldn't be full of this "Which OS should I be using?" crap. LS said it best. People are going to get slapped in the face and act like they were wronged by somebody else. It'll be a **** show sure to entertain.

And what if someone made a "which OS" topic and it turned out they were running a PIII on 256MB of RAM. What then? Obviously an extreme example, but my point is that if it were a black and white affair, there wouldn't be 2000 such topics. By simply going "ONLY 7, NEVER XP, RAWRAWRAWR" you aren't helping anyone.

On the other hand, explaining the reasons why one should upgrade, and what to expect if one doesn't, is helpful. That way, the user can make an educated decision on their own, and figure out whether the price tag is worth it. Not just follow your advice blindly, as if you were the Holy Lord of Computing.

[Frylock86]

And what if someone made a "which OS" topic and it turned out they were running a PIII on 256MB of RAM. What then? Obviously an extreme example, but my point is that if it were a black and white affair, there wouldn't be 2000 such topics. By simply going "ONLY 7, NEVER XP, RAWRAWRAWR" you aren't helping anyone.

On the other hand, explaining the reasons why one should upgrade, and what to expect if one doesn't, is helpful. That way, the user can make an educated decision on their own, and figure out whether the price tag is worth it. Not just follow your advice blindly, as if you were the Holy Lord of Computing.

PIII? but with only 256 MB of RAM? I wouldn't even put XP on that. It wouldn't run. Windows XP needs a more powerful system than that.

My only beef is with people having these brand new systems and killing their investment with installing XP thinking their "1337".

I also have been giving reasons as to why one should upgrade. Go back through my posts and you will see them. Proper modern hardware support, security, and most of all, stability being my main three reasons.

[Seizure1990]

PIII? but with only 256 MB of RAM? I wouldn't even put XP on that. It wouldn't run. Windows XP needs a more powerful system than that.

My only beef is with people having these brand new systems and killing their investment with installing XP thinking their "1337".

I also have been giving reasons as to why one should upgrade. Go back through my posts and you will see them. Proper modern hardware support, security, and most of all, stability being my main three reasons.

And after your reasons, you went on with your two-posts-a-page about "can't wait till XP dies, hrrgggghhh". Yes. We get it... your reasoning is certainly valid, if not exaggerated, but I was simply pointing out that you need to chill.

That's the end though, I'm done going back and forth on this. It's getting boring, and I feel like a fool for carrying on so long, so I'm gonna cut my losses... See ya around though!

[Frylock86]

And after your reasons, you went on with your two-posts-a-page about "can't wait till XP dies, hrrgggghhh". Yes. We get it... your reasoning is certainly valid, if not exaggerated, but I was simply pointing out that you need to chill.

That's the end though, I'm done going back and forth on this. It's getting boring, and I feel like a fool for carrying on so long, so I'm gonna cut my losses... See ya around though!

I've been saying that because at that point we can stop these silly "XP RULZ HUR HUR" debates. Of course there most likely will be someone who buys a "12 core, 256GB RAM" system and throws XP on it trying to pretend their cool.

[Kpssst]

And what if someone made a "which OS" topic and it turned out they were running a PIII on 256MB of RAM. What then? Obviously an extreme example, but my point is that if it were a black and white affair, there wouldn't be 2000 such topics. By simply going "ONLY 7, NEVER XP, RAWRAWRAWR" you aren't helping anyone.

On the other hand, explaining the reasons why one should upgrade, and what to expect if one doesn't, is helpful. That way, the user can make an educated decision on their own, and figure out whether the price tag is worth it. Not just follow your advice blindly, as if you were the Holy Lord of Computing.

Then it would be time to get a new computer.

[Seizure1990]

What if the person only checks their email and occasionally writes up a letter in MSWord? Do they need to get a new computer?