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

[LiveAndFight]

Because it's going unsupported? Windows 95 wasn't broke either, but do we still use it? Nope.

Exactly, even my Dad's aerospace plant is upgrading to Windows 7 from XP, 2000 and even DOS in some cases, it doesn't bother any of us if you stay with XP but don't try and justiy it on a tech site where people are looking for "whats the most intelligent option" rather than the most laziest option.

Because it's going unsupported? Windows 95 wasn't broke either, but do we still use it? Nope.

Exactly, even my Dad's aerospace plant is upgrading to Windows 7 from XP, 2000 and even DOS in some cases, it doesn't bother any of us if you stay with XP but don't try and justiy it on a tech site where people are looking for "whats the most intelligent option" rather than the most laziest option.

[Seizure1990]

Just because it makes sense for one company doesn't mean it makes sense for another, or even for a single person. There are some people in this topic who are perfect examples.

Just because it makes sense for one company doesn't mean it makes sense for another, or even for a single person. There are some people in this topic who are perfect examples.

[ObiWanToby]

Software Audio actually made audio sound better.

[demilord]

With XP support being dropped by various developers in the next few years, you would be mad to install XP now, especially when Vista and 7 are far better and more advanced.

Vista better then XP , u must be freaking kidding me windows vista is the 2nd worst os of microsoft ever made, thats why they rolled out 7 so quick.. :whistle:

[sc302 Veteran]

Vista better then XP , u must be freaking kidding me windows vista is the 2nd worst os of microsoft ever made, thats why they rolled out 7 so quick.. :whistle:

Ummm.. win 7 was released approx 3 years after vista, win 8 is being released approx 3 years after win7. xp was released approx 3 years after win 2000. the only time frame that was long was between winxp and vista (about 6 years) and ms said that would not happen ever again.

[Seizure1990]

Either way, it's true, Vist was crap. I wouldn't hold it against a person at all if they wanted to use XP over Vista...

And while the timeframe may have been the same, Microsoft began looking forward to 7 way early, if I remember correctly. They were practically trying to gloss Vista over.

[Frylock86]

Say what you will about Vista, but remember, without it, you wouldn't have 7 ;)

[demilord]

Say what you will about Vista, but remember, without it, you wouldn't have 7 ;)

Windows Vista was a joke compared to windows 7, I bought my laptop with vista and it was slow as a dog.. with 4GB Ram and Ati Radeon 4570HD and T6500 duocore..

I got rid of it and installed ubuntu the 2nd day.. I did burned a restore dvd tho :shiftyninja:

[mrp04]

Either way, it's true, Vist was crap. I wouldn't hold it against a person at all if they wanted to use XP over Vista...

And while the timeframe may have been the same, Microsoft began looking forward to 7 way early, if I remember correctly. They were practically trying to gloss Vista over.

Vista was not crap. People and even OEMs installed Vista on hardware that couldn't adequately run it, which is why people thought it was crap. That and the FUD the media and Apple spread. I had just built a new Core 2 Duo computer with 2GB RAM before Vista came out and it ran it perfectly, no issues at all. The average computer nowadays surpasses those specifications, which is why Windows 7 runs as well as it does. Install Vista on 90% of the computers that run 7 well, and it will run fine. 7 was optimized to run on somewhat lower end hardware, but the main difference is the average computer got much stronger over the 3 years between Vista and 7.

[Frylock86]

Don't forget OEM's overloaded their machines with crapware that Vista just wasn't able to handle, which made for a pretty bad impression.

[Rudy]

Ummm.. win 7 was released approx 3 years after vista, win 8 is being released approx 3 years after win7. xp was released approx 3 years after win 2000. the only time frame that was long was between winxp and vista (about 6 years) and ms said that would not happen ever again.

FTFY

Windows 2000 Retail: 17 February 2000

Windows XP Retail: October 25, 2001

[redvamp128]

Don't forget OEM's overloaded their machines with crapware that Vista just wasn't able to handle, which made for a pretty bad impression.

+1 -- I recently had to work on a Vista machine with an OEM install-- Not only did it have the Vista sidebar active but also a tool bar with that did almost the same thing-- once I turned off both that machine flew.

Now granted I would have to agree with some people that when Vista first came out it did crash a bunch-- mainly this was not Microsoft's fault but a lack of good drivers. However after Vista Service Pack 1 that seemed to fix 95% of all of those issues.

[NEVER85]

+1 -- I recently had to work on a Vista machine with an OEM install-- Not only did it have the Vista sidebar active but also a tool bar with that did almost the same thing-- once I turned off both that machine flew.

Now granted I would have to agree with some people that when Vista first came out it did crash a bunch-- mainly this was not Microsoft's fault but a lack of good drivers. However after Vista Service Pack 1 that seemed to fix 95% of all of those issues.

[some of Neowin]No it didn't! Vista still suxxxxx! ME2! Slow LOL! XP 4 life! [/some of Neowin]

Especially that Flawed guy. Username suits him perfectly. Must've smoked a hell of a lot of drugs to post his asinine POV that he somehow construes as fact.

[Udedenkz]

FTFY

Windows 2000 Retail: 17 February 2000

Windows XP Retail: October 25, 2001

XP x86_32 SP3 - April 21, 2008

XP x86_64 - April 25, 2005

Xp x86_64 SP2 - 12, 2007

[redvamp128]

[some of Neowin]No it didn't! Vista still suxxxxx! ME2! Slow LOL! XP 4 life! [/some of Neowin]

Especially that Flawed guy. Username suits him perfectly. Must've smoked a hell of a lot of drugs to post his asinine POV that he somehow construes as fact.

Same thing I come across with people and IE or Firefox -- they have like 8 toolbars and then wonder why it starts up slow.

Vista to me when it first came up would crash on a bunch of machines but soon after Sp1 that seemed to fix a lot of the issues.

Most can actually be blamed on the quality of drivers ... not to mention a few of the OEM programs actually did more harm than good.

An example of the stated above was an update tool that would install an update not based on version installed but that there was a new one released on the OEM servers.

I saw that one first hand on a Toshiba laptop a few years ago-- The person installed the latest ATI video drivers from the AMD site but decided one day to run the Pitstop tool -- that installed an older version on top of the new one and the laptop would not post to a normal desktop. I ended up on that one going into safe mode and using an Ati driver removal tool and installed the latest one back on it.

Though however -- some people did not look at the differences between-- Made for Windows Vista and Vista Capable machine. (the latter meant that it could run Vista but you may need to do some upgrades in order for it to run properly).

[Simon.]

Vista was not crap.

Indeed, Vista was a great operating system, it was just a terrible release; it was too late and too much of a difference. If I remember correctly, Microsoft was going for an intermediate release between Vista and XP, they probably should have kept with that plan, the delayed release of Vista caused a number of issues for them.

[NEVER85]

XP x86_32 SP3 - April 21, 2008

XP x86_64 - April 25, 2005

Xp x86_64 SP2 - 12, 2007

Service pack releases don't count. They're not new OS's. :rolleyes:

[Udedenkz]

Service pack releases don't count. They're not new OS's. :rolleyes:

Notice also that XP x86_64 is newer then XP x86_32

Although they have a primary goal on stability and security, services packs add new features and support for newer technology.

Additionally, you get EVR in XP with .NET

[NEVER85]

Notice also that XP x86_64 is newer then XP x86_32

Although they have a primary goal on stability and security, services packs add new features and support for newer technology.

Additionally, you get EVR in XP with .NET

Personally I don't know why you're including XP x64, considering it's Server 2003 x64 SP1 with XP's interface and the server components removed, nothing more.

[Solomoon]

Use the one you like it.

I think it's not a matter. :blush:

[Bamsebjørn]

Windows XP is really bad. It doesn't even have Aero Glass... :blink:

[yowanvista]

XP is too obsolete and does not support new technologies, it doesn't even fully take advantage of new hardware

Vista/Win7 FTW

[Seizure1990]

Windows XP is really bad. It doesn't even have Aero Glass... :blink:

I think you're confusing "bad" for "outdated" ;]

And Windows XP 64 is an entirely different OS from XP 32. They use different code bases.

[AnotherITguy]

XP Sucks, end of story, if i were microsoft id would have shut off support ages ago for xp

[Frylock86]

XP Sucks, end of story, if i were microsoft id would have shut off support ages ago for xp

Sad thing is people are ****ed at Microsoft cutting off support for just under half of their user base. THey think it's Microsoft playing "dirty tricks" to "force" an upgrade, even going as far to say it's extorsion.