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

[Ci7]

How on earth is xp dead when it has %40 usage of all pc's.It's still in half of the computers you see.But since Frylock calls it dead i guess we can trust his instincts and move on.

It's gonna take at least 2 years to get there.People would probably move on to Windows 8 by then so Win7 will never pass XP's usage ratio.

it well

i notice every 12 month win7 share increase by roughly 15% to 16% trend

it is now roughly 31% worldwide , doing the math that would land us

at about 47%+ for win7

XP would take most of the decline obviously which lower it to 30% to 33% since it is the older sister OS

by next april or may 2012

[that is not taking on the estimation June >>> oct 2012 , because they *may* as well be count as Win8 , eliglble for free upgrade to win8 for OEMs PC ]

Windows 8 is due out oct 2012

[Frylock86]

people actually using it means nothing? :rolleyes: And yes people will be moving away.The key word is "will be"....and the majority haven't.

Not to Microsoft. And the "majority" depends on where you live. Here in the States, Vista/7 market share outnumbers XP, same int he UK, Australia, etc.

[muratoner]

it well

i notice every 12 month win7 share increase by roughly 15% to 16% trend

it is now roughly 31% worldwide , doing the math that would land us

at about 47%+ for win7

XP would take most of the decline obviously which lower it to 30% to 33% since it is the older sister OS

by next april or may 2012

[that is not taking on the estimation June >>> oct 2012 , because they *may* as well be count as Win8 , eliglble for free upgrade to win8 for OEMs PC ]

Windows 8 is due out oct 2012

even if you're right and xp lowers to say %30.Can we say it's dead.If we do then let's not even talk about unix os or others.And according to netmarketshare xp is down from %61 to %54 over the last year.And Win7 is up from %14 to %23.Doing the math in 2012 xp would be %47 where as win7 will be 32.

Not to Microsoft. And the "majority" depends on where you live. Here in the States, Vista/7 market share outnumbers XP, same int he UK, Australia, etc.

by majority i mean our beloved planet..not just a city a country or a village.

[Ci7]

even if you're right and xp lowers to say %30.Can we say it's dead.If we do then let's not even talk about unix os or others.And according to netmarketshare xp is down from %61 to %54 over the last year.And Win7 is up from %14 to %23.Doing the math in 2012 xp would be %47 where as win7 will be 32.

by majority i mean our beloved planet..not just a city a country or a village.

Hitslink are kind biased toword XP/IE6

my % figure is from Statcounter btw

a midiean of XP useage 40% which is even lower

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems

[NEVER85]

http://www.infoworld.com/t/business/windows-multicore-test-results-247

:whistle:

"January 22, 2009" <----LOL

Your own articles are out of date. Study up a bit more, kid.

[xdot.tk]

:rolleyes:

[NEVER85]

:rolleyes:

Roll your eyes when you have no counter-argument. Gotcha.

[xdot.tk]

I'd rather not waste my breath with blinded Windows 7 fanboys. Oops! I just did a little bit. :whistle:

[MtnDewCodeRedFreak]

:rolleyes:

Now, WTF are you rolling your eyes for? YOU made your own mistake via posting outdated articles.

Guess what? XP is well on its way out, whether you like it or not. Quit trying to make/scare us into staying on XP.

You want to stay on XP, fine go for it, but don't make all of us stay.

Goddamn.

[NEVER85]

I'd rather not waste my breath with blinded Windows 7 fanboys. Oops! I just did a little bit. :whistle:

You've been trying to convince everybody in this thread that XP has been better than 7 for how long now? Sorry, but "not wanting to waste your breath" is a failed argument given you've been wasting your breath all this time, and all you've done is make yourself look more ridiculous each time. I actually feel bad for you, sitting there all alone, doing nothing with your time but scrolling up and down an Explorer window, and trying to pass that off as evidence of XP being more efficient than 7. Maybe you should get your parents to take you out for a drive or something.

[xdot.tk]

lol :laugh:

[Subject Delta]

That article doesn't even say what version of Office they used, hardly anything about their testing methodology... or anything useful for that matter. All I know is that all multi core aware applications that I use are every bit as fast on 7 as they ever were on XP

[Frylock86]

HEY GUYS! I just tested out MW2 on XP and I got better frames rates than I did on 7!

On XP I got 342 FPS, while on 7, I got 341 FPS!

XP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7

:shifty:

[Subject Delta]

HEY GUYS! I just tested out MW2 on XP and I got better frames rates than I did on 7!

On XP I got 342 FPS, while on 7, I got 341 FPS!

XP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7

:shifty:

Damn you, I only got 340 FPS :(

[Seizure1990]

You guys should get off the computer and experience real life.

The FPS is, like, >9000

[Jen Smith]

The FPS is, like, >9000

And in 3D!

[Frylock86]

lol :laugh:

So now that your arguements have been rendered moot, you're just going to sit there and laugh at everyone? Dude, you're on the wrong boards if you're going to act this way.

I believe InfoWaste's Save XP site is still up, maybe, just maybe, they'll hire you to look after it.

[xdot.tk]

:laugh:

[Seizure1990]

And in 3D!

It's even got Smell-O-Vision. :cool:

Nothing else has that technology.

[NEVER85]

So now that your arguements have been rendered moot, you're just going to sit there and laugh at everyone? Dude, you're on the wrong boards if you're going to act this way.

I believe InfoWaste's Save XP site is still up, maybe, just maybe, they'll hire you to look after it.

He's got nothing anymore, hence his responses. He's still going through the denial phase.

[soldier1st]

He's got nothing anymore, hence his responses. He's still going through the denial phase.

lets all get along, everyone has their reasons for using what they are and pushing something will not help either. if something works for someone and they are happy with it then leave it at that. for me if say XP does the job without issue and i am happy with it then myself, i see no reason to change to something. the only way to know is to do trial and error.

[xWhiplash]

The problem is not that people are still using XP, it is when they complain about new technologies are not included or saying useless arguments. So no, XP is not good anymore. Vista/7 have new technologies that mostly cannot be ported over at all. Microsoft has abandoned it mostly (Windows Live and IE 9 are Vista/7 only) and it will keep getting worse, not better. I do not know why anybody would want to stick with XP. Not to mention your new hardware will be useless if you put XP on it. Can you effectively run XP 64-bit on an i7 machine with 6-8GB of ram? Multi-core systems seem to be horrible with XP, at least in my experience. Not to mention that most developers completely ignore XP 64-bit in created stable and decent drivers.

All the arguments are pretty crazy anyway.

XP boots up way faster than 7 - In my experience, it is around the same. XP sometimes takes longer. 7 sometimes takes longer. But does it really matter? Turn on the computer, and get a snack, drink, coffee, or whatever. Boot times do not mean anything. It could be a slow hard drive. Does XP even install properly/easily with a SSD? I am not sure, I never tried.

Game X get 10 additonal FPS when running in XP instead of 7! - Again, who cares. This, along with most of the issues I have heard, are in the "You will only notice a issue if you look for it" category. It might be true that it gets some FPS. It does not really matter. Now if game X runs at 100+ FPS in XP and no more than 10 FPS in 7, that game has some issues. But from day-to-day use of Game X, can you tell a difference when running it on XP or 7? Probably not. Turn off the FPS display and give it a try.

Application X boots up faster in XP! - Combination of the two above.

Major CPU usage when I open Windows Explorer and sit there moving the scroll bar up and down repeatedly for several minutes so fast I cannot see anything! - Severe and useless test case. Who will sit there and do that? Again, from day-to-day usage you will not notice a difference.

I have an old computer and XP does what I need. - PERFECTLY fine argument! Keep it, it works, it will probably work better on an old machine than 7 would. But do not expect support for it forever. Some people still use Windows 95. Should MS support that as well?

Enough with these useless arguments. Is XP still good today for new systems? No. MS already wants to forget it, and it will just get worse. Is it still good today if you already have it and it works? Yes. Do you use a program that gets updated regularly? It might be a year or two until they drop support MAYBE.

[Seizure1990]

I have an old computer and XP does what I need. - PERFECTLY fine argument! Keep it, it works, it will probably work better on an old machine than 7 would. But do not expect support for it forever. Some people still use Windows 95. Should MS support that as well?

Problem is some people don't get this, and will rail on you for even mentioning/asking about XP, regardless of what your specs are (or without knowing them at all)

[Udedenkz]

The problem is not that people are still using XP, it is when they complain about new technologies are not included or saying useless arguments. So no, XP is not good anymore. Vista/7 have new technologies that mostly cannot be ported over at all. Microsoft has abandoned it mostly (Windows Live and IE 9 are Vista/7 only) and it will keep getting worse, not better. I do not know why anybody would want to stick with XP. Not to mention your new hardware will be useless if you put XP on it. Can you effectively run XP 64-bit on an i7 machine with 6-8GB of ram? Multi-core systems seem to be horrible with XP, at least in my experience. Not to mention that most developers completely ignore XP 64-bit in created stable and decent drivers.

All the arguments are pretty crazy anyway.

XP boots up way faster than 7 - In my experience, it is around the same. XP sometimes takes longer. 7 sometimes takes longer. But does it really matter? Turn on the computer, and get a snack, drink, coffee, or whatever. Boot times do not mean anything. It could be a slow hard drive. Does XP even install properly/easily with a SSD? I am not sure, I never tried.

Game X get 10 additonal FPS when running in XP instead of 7! - Again, who cares. This, along with most of the issues I have heard, are in the "You will only notice a issue if you look for it" category. It might be true that it gets some FPS. It does not really matter. Now if game X runs at 100+ FPS in XP and no more than 10 FPS in 7, that game has some issues. But from day-to-day use of Game X, can you tell a difference when running it on XP or 7? Probably not. Turn off the FPS display and give it a try.

Application X boots up faster in XP! - Combination of the two above.

Major CPU usage when I open Windows Explorer and sit there moving the scroll bar up and down repeatedly for several minutes so fast I cannot see anything! - Severe and useless test case. Who will sit there and do that? Again, from day-to-day usage you will not notice a difference.

I have an old computer and XP does what I need. - PERFECTLY fine argument! Keep it, it works, it will probably work better on an old machine than 7 would. But do not expect support for it forever. Some people still use Windows 95. Should MS support that as well?

Enough with these useless arguments. Is XP still good today for new systems? No. MS already wants to forget it, and it will just get worse. Is it still good today if you already have it and it works? Yes. Do you use a program that gets updated regularly? It might be a year or two until they drop support MAYBE.

XP doesn't have SSD detection. Windows 7 didn't disable defragmenter for me when I had an 1st gen SSD, so it ain't perfect.

Additionally that SSD gave better read speeds under XP ~120 on XP vs ~90 on 7 according to HDTune benchmark.

Rebooting is a thing of the past in my opinion, just put your computer to sleep/hibernate/stand-by - this leads to a much faster startup.

One needs to know that although XP doesn't use all cores to boot itself - it is smaller and lighter so not that much needs to load.

One thing to do is to AVOID PRE-INSTALLED OS. HP W7 boots a lot slower than a clean W7 for example.

On weaker hardware this matters a lot more than on medium and high end hardware.

The point here is that Superfetch might simply be implemented to combat additional overhead that W7 introduced, otherwise XP applications should start slower compared to the same highly used applications on W7.

You don't get it. The Steps to Reproduce is quite simple really, for example, open Pictures Library - press down key to scroll. The issue is that Windows Explorer is highly used and should be able to scroll folders really fast using little CPU, like it DID on Windows XP. This is a regression. If W7 wan't installed on netbooks, I would be complaining - higher end CPU mask this issue. Why should any modern CPU go into high performance mode when scrolling your pictures library or scrolling your MP3 in Windows Media Player? Well, it shouldn't, it is a simple task that shouldn't waste battery life.

Just like to compensate for lack of W7 features on XP, there are good (f-in fast) explorer alternatives for W7, but hey, WTF Microsoft?

Agree.

Agree.

[Rigby]

Problem is some people don't get this, and will rail on you for even mentioning/asking about XP, regardless of what your specs are (or without knowing them at all)

The question was about today's computing. He didn't ask "Is XP SP3 still a good OS for my fifteen year old crapbox PC."