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

[Udedenkz]

I too cannot put Windows XP on my system, and I do not even want to try. Again, it doesnt matter. Windows 95 uses less CPU than Windows XP I bet. We now have multi-core and multi-threaded systems. 100% CPU most of the time means nothing. I can still listen to my music and open other stuff with minor lag (the music does not lag, but opening windows and programs might take an extra 3 seconds or so).

Then why are you even arguing here?

Installing XP is really easy,

- Insert Disk

- Follow Installer

- If BSOD, slipstream motherboard drivers

- Restore W7 boot ldr with XP added

Come back when you done this and benchmarked Explorer on both systems.

Otherwise, you = air.

[xWhiplash]

Hmm. In my experience it always lets me work on something else. Maybe since I have an i7? I would be encoding something with After Effects at 100% cpu and I can still work on Photoshop fairly well.

Then why are you even arguing here?

Installing XP is really easy,

- Insert Disk

- Follow Installer

- If BSOD, slipstream motherboard drivers

- Restore W7 boot ldr with XP added

Come back when you done this and benchmarked Explorer on both systems.

Otherwise, you = air.

And why dont you compare the XP CPU usage with Windows 98 or earlier? I bet you it will be even better!

[Subject Delta]

I slipstreamed the newest Intel and JMicron raid drivers, and it STILL bluescreens on me. Just face it, 7 is FAR better for modern hardware.

And I re-did that video, as requested, with keyboard scrolling, and task manager. Even Fraps consumes more CPU than Explorer :laugh: uploaded to my webspace this time so YouTube doesn't screw the quality

Download

[Frylock86]

People are implying that 7 is better at everything and anything than XP on older systems and low-end modern systems.

My netbooks run 7 better than XP. I really haven't had any issues with it on them.

This has been going on since the '80s, and also isn't unique to Windows.

Agreed. I tried running Ubuntu 8.04 on a circa 2001 laptop. Didn't work out so well.

[xWhiplash]

7 is much much more stable than XP ever was. I get a new computer about once a year, and it is around the $600-1,500 range. Don't ask my why, I just like having the latest a greatest and I have the money for it :p. Anyway, back when XP was around, I used it with about 5 different computers. Those computers were also used for gaming. About every other month for 3/5 systems, I would either get a BSOD, or programs would just crash without reason. I have tried everything I could think of to fix it. Formatted, updated all drivers, and just about everything. It did not help. Now I have already 3 computers that run Windows Vista/7. Ever since Vista released, I maybe received 3 BSOD total. 2 of those were not a fault with Windows. I bootcamp'ed my macbook pro and my mac pro with Windows 7 and ran MalwareBytes on a full scan. It went to the Macintosh HD partition without me realizing it and caused a BSOD. I had an outdated bootcamp version.

Point being, XP does not seem to be as stable as people seem to think. This is backed up with all the issues that come up during my work. 70% of the issues are from XP. Plus if I need to remote into a system and install something as admin, it is a hassle with XP. UAC is much much better.

[Udedenkz]

I slipstreamed the newest Intel and JMicron raid drivers, and it STILL bluescreens on me. Just face it, 7 is FAR better for modern hardware.

And I re-did that video, as requested, with keyboard scrolling, and task manager. Even Fraps consumes more CPU than Explorer :laugh: uploaded to my webspace this time so YouTube doesn't screw the quality

Download

No comparison with Windows XP. This is a 7 vs XP thread.

Your CPU usage spiked to 50% when you were resizing.

No idle CPU usage that I can detect in there, 15-20% is the idle with the screen recorder? So scrolling takes 15% CPU, unless you reverse direction where is spikes?

Also, .AVI = oldskool && notDXVA = oldskool

[Subject Delta]

No comparison with Windows XP. This is a 7 vs XP thread.

Your CPU usage spiked to 50% when you were resizing.

No idle CPU usage that I can detect in there, 15-20% is the idle with the screen recorder? So scrolling takes 15% CPU, unless you reverse direction where is spikes?

Also, .AVI = oldskool && notDXVA = oldskool

I am trying to encode a video quickly, not produce a warez rip I don't really need your approval of my format thanks. And I don't need a comparison with XP to prove that it's a non issue. Keep flapping for excuses though, it's funny :D

[Routerbad]

Most definitely. I don't see myself "upgrading" for the next decade unless MS realizes their mistake and makes a lite OS.

You'll realize yours far earlier. I hope you don't plan to buy any new hardware in the near future.

Microsoft does make a "LITE" OS. It's called CE. XP was not light by any stretch of the imagination. It was, however, released when a machine with 512MB RAM and 32MB VRAM and a 900MHz processor was considered "Enthusiast".

[Seizure1990]

Hmm. In my experience it always lets me work on something else. Maybe since I have an i7? I would be encoding something with After Effects at 100% cpu and I can still work on Photoshop fairly well.

Dunno. What I do know is that when my system spikes to 100%, I immediately know it, because my computer becomes (relatively) painful to use. I use a Core 2 Duo, no HT though, so perhaps that's why. Either way, hardware-based, not OS.

[Udedenkz]

I am trying to encode a video quickly, not produce a warez rip I don't really need your approval of my format thanks. And I don't need a comparison with XP to prove that it's a non issue. Keep flapping for excuses though, it's funny :D

Yes you do need to compare versus XP.

A comparison will lead to answers to,

- Is XP's scrolling less CPU intensive than 7's?

- Is XP's window resizing less CPU intensive than 7's?

Make sure you have the latest drivers for both Operating Systems and you have all the latest updates and stuff.

If you have drivers for XP x86_64 SP2 I would recommend that instead of XP x86_32.

[Seizure1990]

7 is much much more stable than XP ever was. I get a new computer about once a year, and it is around the $600-1,500 range. Don't ask my why, I just like having the latest a greatest and I have the money for it :p. Anyway, back when XP was around, I used it with about 5 different computers. Those computers were also used for gaming. About every other month for 3/5 systems, I would either get a BSOD, or programs would just crash without reason. I have tried everything I could think of to fix it. Formatted, updated all drivers, and just about everything. It did not help. Now I have already 3 computers that run Windows Vista/7. Ever since Vista released, I maybe received 3 BSOD total. 2 of those were not a fault with Windows. I bootcamp'ed my macbook pro and my mac pro with Windows 7 and ran MalwareBytes on a full scan. It went to the Macintosh HD partition without me realizing it and caused a BSOD. I had an outdated bootcamp version.

Point being, XP does not seem to be as stable as people seem to think. This is backed up with all the issues that come up during my work. 70% of the issues are from XP. Plus if I need to remote into a system and install something as admin, it is a hassle with XP. UAC is much much better.

Also, dunno what the heck you do with your computer, but my systems barely ever BSOD, and that includes Windows XP.

[Subject Delta]

Yes you do need to compare versus XP.

A comparison will lead to answers to,

- Is XP's scrolling less CPU intensive than 7's?

- Is XP's window resizing less CPU intensive than 7's?

Make sure you have the latest drivers for both Operating Systems and you have all the latest updates and stuff.

If you have drivers for XP x86_64 SP2 I would recommend that instead of XP x86_32.

Makes no difference, the 64 bit version still bluescreens, I can't install it. And to be honest, I don't actually care whether it's less intensive or not, I haven't even seen you provide a plausible scenario in which a user would need to sit there constantly resizing a window.

[Udedenkz]

Makes no difference, the 64 bit version still bluescreens, I can't install it.

You sir need a newbie XP install guide. :p

[Jen Smith]

You sir need a newbie XP install guide. :p

Has nothing to do with being smart enough to click-click-done install something, some 64 bit XP drivers are just unstable as hell and are utter garbage, or even worse, just don't exist. Not XP's fault, bad coding on the manufacturer's end. But definitely one of many good reasons to not want to use XP anymore if you fall into that category.

[Udedenkz]

Has nothing to do with being smart enough to click-click-done install something, some 64 bit XP drivers are just unstable as hell and are utter garbage, or even worse, just don't exist. Not XP's fault, bad coding on the manufacturer's end. But definitely one of many good reasons to not want to use XP anymore if you fall into that category.

I am just making fun of Delta.

Delta mentioned blue screen instead of saying that drivers don't exist / can't find drivers SATA AHCI drivers to slipstream to his XP disk. There also was no mention of lacking BIOS settings to avoid this issue altogether.

[Seizure1990]

XP Pro x64 is known for having terrible driver support. I mean, MS themselves won't even support it in some instances (for example, the Zune drivers are not available for XP Pro x64, but it works just fine on Vista/7 with any bit rating)

[Subject Delta]

I think it's you with the cognitive deficiency, not me. I have changed practically every setting (including updating the ROMs of both of my onboard controllers), I have tried disks with and without slipstreamed drivers, and I have tried my controllers in RAID, AHCI, (where applicable) and IDE mode. As I have already stated above, I tried slipstreaming drivers, so maybe you should give your reading skills a slight tune up before you try to mindlessly mock other people? I have reinstalled XP more times than I can remember, I know what I am doing. The deficiency is with older NT versions of Windows, not me.

Has nothing to do with being smart enough to click-click-done install something, some 64 bit XP drivers are just unstable as hell and are utter garbage, or even worse, just don't exist. Not XP's fault, bad coding on the manufacturer's end. But definitely one of many good reasons to not want to use XP anymore if you fall into that category.

I have tried XP RTM, XP with SP3, Server 2003, XP X64, Windows 2000, and even some old Longhorn builds, it's not just an X64 problem

[Udedenkz]

I have tried XP RTM, XP with SP3, Server 2003, XP X64, Windows 2000, and even some old Longhorn builds, it's not just an X64 problem

I don't get why you tried running 2000 on your PC, this is XP vs 7 discussion.

Additionally 2003 and XP use the same drivers.

Have you tried using Google? You just need generic drivers for the install to recognize your HD.

I found the drivers on HP support forum and I just tried two drivers and the second set worked. HP are a bunch of jerks - hard to find drivers XP drivers and their pre-installed W7 boots at least twice slower than a fresh copy.

[ozgeek]

I recently had to fix a computer belonging to a friend of my mum's. They are nurses like my mum and are not the excat tech types like many of you think. Their computer is a 2006 era Compaq running XP home and pretty much extremely basic. It was as if it was factory setup. Looks as if they didn't install anything on it at all. I fixed (floppy error on POST) it and left it to them. they was extremely happy.

There are people who really don't know/care what a OS is as long as the hardware does what it was purcahsed for.

A computer's a computer no matter what OS is installed on it. But I do agree with you lot that if you purcahse a new computer, it's common sense to put a new OS on it which is done automatically (done at the factory) for most people. So just use what you bought.

[Subject Delta]

I don't get why you tried running 2000 on your PC, this is XP vs 7 discussion.

Additionally 2003 and XP use the same drivers.

Have you tried using Google? You just need generic drivers for the install to recognize your HD.

I found the drivers on HP support forum and I just tried two drivers and the second set worked. HP are a bunch of jerks - hard to find drivers XP drivers and their pre-installed W7 boots at least twice slower than a fresh copy.

Jesus tap dancing christ how many times do I need to repeat this before it sinks in

I HAVE TRIED SLIPSTREAMING DRIVERS

And in case your selective reading syndrome decides to kick in again, let me repeat this for you:

I HAVE TRIED SLIPSTREAMING DRIVERS

I have tried about 4 different sets, one was even modded for greater compatibility. All drivers produce EXACTLY the same result. So I will repeat this for you... the problem is with the OS, not me. I know it's hard for you to come to terms with, but try not to cry, OK?

As for your other question... I wasn't trying to install 2000 or Longhorn I just wanted to see if the problem was XP / Server 2003 specific

[Udedenkz]

Jesus tap dancing christ how many times do I need to repeat this before it sinks in

I HAVE TRIED SLIPSTREAMING DRIVERS

And in case your selective reading syndrome decides to kick in again, let me repeat this for you:

I HAVE TRIED SLIPSTREAMING DRIVERS

I have tried about 4 different sets, one was even modded for greater compatibility. All drivers produce EXACTLY the same result. So I will repeat this for you... the problem is with the OS, not me. I know it's hard for you to come to terms with, but try not to cry, OK?

As for your other question... I wasn't trying to install 2000 or Longhorn I just wanted to see if the problem was XP / Server 2003 specific

Did you slipstream drivers with a clean ISO each time?

If the answer is yes, then well, don't involve yourself in any XP vs 7 discussion. :cool:

[Subject Delta]

Did you slipstream drivers with a clean ISO each time?

If the answer is yes, then well, don't involve yourself in any XP vs 7 discussion. :cool:

Of course I bloody did, i'm not an idiot. You seriously need to grow the hell up.

[LiquidSolstice]

Did you slipstream drivers with a clean ISO each time?

If the answer is yes, then well, don't involve yourself in any XP vs 7 discussion. :cool:

...You shouldn't slipstream drivers with a clean ISO each time then?

Udedenkz Logic at its finest.

[Subject Delta]

...You shouldn't slipstream drivers with a clean ISO each time then?

Udedenkz Logic at its finest.

:laugh:

[LiquidSolstice]

:laugh:

I mean, seriously, I'm trying to figure out if I read that right; he's saying that if you (correctly) slipstreamed your drivers into a clean ISO, then you shouldn't involve yourself in an XP vs 7 discussion? Erm....what? So XP vs 7 discussions are for who then, specifically? Those who grab "dirty" pirated versions of XP?

I think he should go back to uselessly deleting random bits out of the system folders of OSes, something he calls "tweaking". That seemed to work better for him than this logical reasoning business.