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

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

I still use XP on my DJ rigs for a few reasons:

1) Dual monitor support - it works slightly differently in XP, and is more preferable to me.

2) Reliable - I don't care how reliable 7 is (and it is)... XP has proven itself in this environment to me very well.

3) Audio hardware - The audio drivers for 7 (and Vista) are VASTLY different than XP. XP works better with the software/hardware I use.

4) Global hotkeys/active windows - A tool I use works by mapping global sliders and hotkeys even when not the active window. Under 7 (and Vista) it no longer worked the same way.

I do not represent the majority, but what works for me, works for me!

[Seizure1990]

njlouch, what about the dual-monitor support is different? I find that Zbar (there are other, more feature-packed apps that exist, but they cost $) makes multi-monitor support just fine in 7.

I know of the audio differences as well, and I remember playing around with it... there was a way to force 7's audio to be more flexible, but lately, every time I try googling it, I can't find it...

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

I run some pretty specific DJ software that just made the small differences pretty major :)

[neo158]

I still use XP on my DJ rigs for a few reasons:

1) Dual monitor support - it works slightly differently in XP, and is more preferable to me.

2) Reliable - I don't care how reliable 7 is (and it is)... XP has proven itself in this environment to me very well.

3) Audio hardware - The audio drivers for 7 (and Vista) are VASTLY different than XP. XP works better with the software/hardware I use.

4) Global hotkeys/active windows - A tool I use works by mapping global sliders and hotkeys even when not the active window. Under 7 (and Vista) it no longer worked the same way.

I do not represent the majority, but what works for me, works for me!

Those are definately legitimate reasons for using XP. Not only that but assuming that this is what you do as a job, then it's harder to switch away from XP as you mention that the programs you use failed to work correctly on Vista/7.

[LiveAndFight]

I still use XP on my DJ rigs for a few reasons:

1) Dual monitor support - it works slightly differently in XP, and is more preferable to me.

2) Reliable - I don't care how reliable 7 is (and it is)... XP has proven itself in this environment to me very well.

3) Audio hardware - The audio drivers for 7 (and Vista) are VASTLY different than XP. XP works better with the software/hardware I use.

4) Global hotkeys/active windows - A tool I use works by mapping global sliders and hotkeys even when not the active window. Under 7 (and Vista) it no longer worked the same way.

I do not represent the majority, but what works for me, works for me!

There is NO reason to XP nowadays, if you have legacy software that runs better on XP you can always just run it in a virtual machine.

Those are definately legitimate reasons for using XP. Not only that but assuming that this is what you do as a job, then it's harder to switch away from XP as you mention that the programs you use failed to work correctly on Vista/7.

Again no its not just use a virtual machine or XP Mode on Windows 7.

[neo158]

There is NO reason to XP nowadays, if you have legacy software that runs better on XP you can always just run it in a virtual machine.

Even using Hardware that ONLY runs under XP?

I'm didn't know you could virtualise hardware.

[Skyfrog]

Even using Hardware that ONLY runs under XP?

I'm not so sure.

That's kind of the point of virtualization, you would be running it under XP. ;)

[neo158]

That's kind of the point of virtualization, you would be running it under XP. ;)

Show me virtualisation software that can handle ALL the ports on a PC and I might believe you.

[Skyfrog]

Show me virtualisation software that can handle ALL the ports on a PC and I might believe you.

Which ports do you mean? Virtualization programs have handled legacy ports for years and they work fine with USB now. The only one I'm not sure about is Firewire but I think it works also, at least in VMware.

[Rudy]

There is NO reason to XP nowadays, if you have legacy software that runs better on XP you can always just run it in a virtual machine.

Again no its not just use a virtual machine or XP Mode on Windows 7.

How is the virtual machine going to handle his dual monitor setup? Believe me there's no good reason for him to switch his setup to Win7. Most likely that computer never ever gets connected to the internet :/ (not sure but I would assume.

Plus his sound hardware might still not interact properly with the computer even through the VM

[majortom1981]

I do not think its worth to go back to xp from windows 7 UNLESS you are like njlouch and have hardware reasons. I even have windows 7 running on my eee pc 900a (runs better on it then xp does).

MY main reason is support. IE9 does not run on xp.

[LiveAndFight]

How is the virtual machine going to handle his dual monitor setup? Believe me there's no good reason for him to switch his setup to Win7. Most likely that computer never ever gets connected to the internet :/ (not sure but I would assume.

Plus his sound hardware might still not interact properly with the computer even through the VM

His sound hardware will work just fine through the VM. As far as a dual monitor setup he more than likely can just run the legacy apps that don't work in the vm on the second monitor and his apps that do work he can use on his main screen.

And he can have shared drive in the VM and a network drive(mapped to the same letter as in the VM) on his main OS that maps to the same location.

[cloaked]

I can't believe this topic is still alive. I love windows 2000 but obviously i'm not going to replace windows 7 with it. XP also has many security holes that microsoft has committed not to patch, you must be running at least vista.

[Rudy]

His sound hardware will work just fine through the VM. As far as a dual monitor setup he more than likely can just run the legacy apps that don't work in the vm on the second monitor and his apps that do work he can use on his main screen.

And he can have shared drive in the VM and a network drive(mapped to the same letter as in the VM) on his main OS that maps to the same location.

Please tell me why go through all that trouble when his setup works like a charm right now?

[menes]

The only reason I keep windows 7 in my laptop is that windows 7 can't connect to my router if using WPA2 and for the life of it I cannot figure why. My phones can connect, If i boot to linux I can connect but if I boot in windows 7 I can't. This and the obscure camera that my laptop has for which I cannot find drivers for Windows 7. Vista's 64 bit driver doesn't work well (the camera works, the others can see me through Skype but I cannot see myself! weird, heh?)

But windows 7 is so much better that I' m seriously thinking "to hell of it with WPA2" and why should I care If I can't see myself if the others can ? :)

If you have a new laptop with new hardware I cannot find any good reason to downgrade to XP. Sure, XP is a good and proven OS but Windows 7 *IS BETTER*.

...way way better.

[Charisma Veteran]

Please tell me why go through all that trouble when his setup works like a charm right now?

To make random people on the internet he doesn't know happy, that's why!

[Flawed]

You realize that Windows 7 can and will release memory it is currently using for any program that needs it? And that it grabs more memory in advance when more is installed? Two simple conecepts that seem to completely baffle XP Fans since the introduction of Vista. You just can't simply compare the numbers between XP and 7 and conclude that XP is more efficient (which is completely absurd), memory management works very differently now and has gotten much more flexible while XP is stiff old tech that scales badly with todays hardware.

I feel like I'm in ground hog day. Did you even read this thread? I'll say it again for the last time: Disable superfetch and it still uses more than double the memory of XP. It's not preloading, preallocating, it's just using the memory for its own needs! Alright I;m done with this thread. I can only repeat myself so many times lol.

Ps. If you had actually read the thread, you would have seen my post about XP having a prefetching feature. Clearly you haven't sigh.. /me Waits for the next person to come along with the exact same statement...

[Rigby]

I feel like I'm in ground hog day. Did you even read this thread? I'll say it again for the last time: Disable superfetch and it still uses more than double the memory of XP. It's not preloading, preallocating, it's just using the memory for its own needs! Alright I;m done with this thread. I can only repeat myself so many times lol.

You don't know what you're doing, but I'm glad you're done posting. I can only read your nonsense so many times, lol.

[WelshBluebird]

In terms of battery life - Windows 7 is better, not by much, but 30 minutes is still 30 minutes (my experience with an acer aspire 150 netbook, a dell Inspiron 1520 laptop and my macbook pro).

[notuptome2004]

I feel like I'm in ground hog day. Did you even read this thread? I'll say it again for the last time: Disable superfetch and it still uses more than double the memory of XP. It's not preloading, preallocating, it's just using the memory for its own needs! Alright I;m done with this thread. I can only repeat myself so many times lol.

Ps. If you had actually read the thread, you would have seen my post about XP having a prefetching feature. Clearly you haven't sigh.. /me Waits for the next person to come along with the exact same statement...

XP may have a Pre-fetching feature but it does not work at all or well i never noticed it Windows 7 super fetch actually works as it is supposed to . on my moms system a Dated Athlon XP system with 1.5gb of ram and a 8400GS GPU Windows 7 runs faster then XP ever did with or without super-fetch enabled and with SF enabled the system ran faster programs loaded faster . When my mom calls me an tells me Windows XP is running slow i know something is wrong

With windows XP she called me ever few days of this or that issue or something but it got really bad when She noticed her computer getting slower so i took XP with SP3 of and installed windows 7 for her and she noticed a difference night and day . she uses it every day for her games and other stuff and she has not had a slow down since Day 1 of installing windows 7 for her witch was a year ago and she is on the same install of windows 7

[Solid Knight]

Please tell me why go through all that trouble when his setup works like a charm right now?

Charms don't work at all.

[HawkMan]

I feel like I'm in ground hog day. Did you even read this thread? I'll say it again for the last time: Disable superfetch and it still uses more than double the memory of XP. It's not preloading, preallocating, it's just using the memory for its own needs! Alright I;m done with this thread. I can only repeat myself so many times lol.

Ps. If you had actually read the thread, you would have seen my post about XP having a prefetching feature. Clearly you haven't sigh.. /me Waits for the next person to come along with the exact same statement...

yes without superfetch it uses more memory, and because of this, IT'S A FASTER OS, it's not hard to grasp. Superfecth only makes startup of other apps faster.

you can also make 7 use as little memory as XP by crippling it and disabling services and removing new modules that are part of win7, of course, then it will also become slow like XP.

[Udedenkz]

you can also make 7 use as little memory as XP by crippling it and disabling services and removing new modules that are part of win7, of course, then it will also become slow like XP.

This is *very* difficult to do. Disabling services doesn't really do much to lower the RAM hogging W7 does.

EDIT: Actually I am not aware of any way to lower 7s memory consumption to XP levels, even if you disable all and any networking functionality you will not get to XP levels (with networking functionality).

[Subject Delta]

It can't be as stable and mature as XP because it's still quite new. Any new software will always contain more bugs, inefficiencies etc, It's inevitable. To claim otherwise is a bold face lie, and shows a distinct lack of appreciation for software development.

:laugh:

Windows 7 is built from a more highly evolved and far more robust code base

I feel like I'm in ground hog day. Did you even read this thread? I'll say it again for the last time: Disable superfetch and it still uses more than double the memory of XP. It's not preloading, preallocating, it's just using the memory for its own needs! Alright I;m done with this thread. I can only repeat myself so many times lol.

Ps. If you had actually read the thread, you would have seen my post about XP having a prefetching feature. Clearly you haven't sigh.. /me Waits for the next person to come along with the exact same statement...

It's a more complex OS than XP so of course it's baseline memory usage is going to be a touch higher, but it's only a 100-200 MB difference, peanuts on most modern systems considering what you get extra.

[Jen Smith]

It's a more complex OS than XP so of course it's baseline memory usage is going to be a touch higher, but it's only a 100-200 MB difference, peanuts on most modern systems considering what you get extra.

Depending on the users preferences, that actually kind of cancels itself out too with all the little addons that people tend to add into XP to add functionality, be it shell extensions, background helpers, etc etc. When I used to run XP I had a bunch of little things going that added functionality that XP just doesn't have. (Think the only one I still run is WizMouse, damnit Microsoft add this to Windows 8 already) Once all is said and done, once Windows 7 "settles down" I find my system more often than not idling using less memory than XP did. Not going to be true for everyone of course. Plus I can't buy the "XP is faster because its lighter" mantra either; I have it running on a couple systems that really have no business running Windows 7, and I honestly can't see much, if any, of a performance hit, including an old tablet with a Celeron and 512MB. Yea, more memory is being used, but is it slowing things down? Not in the least, and frankly most of the time its faster. The only thing I did disable was indexing, as the drive is god-awfully slow to begin with and that was just adding salt to the pain. (It's a clunker even with XP.) I only have one system that still runs XP Tablet Edition and that's due to a genuine driver issue, namely a driver not existing, another tablet who's touchscreen display's manufacturer folded up and hasn't released a driver since 2002. I'd just throw Arch on the thing but Linux's tablet support isn't that spectacular yet either.