LiveAndFight Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seizure1990 Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ObiWanToby Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Software Audio actually made audio sound better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demilord Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sc302 Veteran Posted March 20, 2011 Veteran Share Posted March 20, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seizure1990 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frylock86 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Say what you will about Vista, but remember, without it, you wouldn't have 7 ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demilord Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrp04 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 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. Simon. 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frylock86 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudy Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redvamp128 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEVER85 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 +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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Udedenkz Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redvamp128 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 [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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon. Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEVER85 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Udedenkz Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEVER85 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solomoon Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Use the one you like it. I think it's not a matter. :blush: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bamsebjørn Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Windows XP is really bad. It doesn't even have Aero Glass... :blink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yowanvista Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 XP is too obsolete and does not support new technologies, it doesn't even fully take advantage of new hardware Vista/Win7 FTW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seizure1990 Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnotherITguy Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 XP Sucks, end of story, if i were microsoft id would have shut off support ages ago for xp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frylock86 Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts