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

[XerXis 259]

And how do you know that? If the majority of Windows users and businesses are still on XP, Microsoft isn't going to drop support any time soon. Just look at IE6. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news :D

They still support ie6 because it came together with windows xp. Once windows xp support ends (which will be in 2014), ie6 support is also finished.

[Flawed 8]

I wouldn't. There's zero advantages to it, you lose all of the benefits of 7, and more importantly, if your device shipped with Vista/7, it's unlikely that drivers for a lot of its hardware are even available for XP, especially so if it shipped with 64bit flavours of Vista/7.

There aren't many vista/7 only drivers yet. And if a system does, I would complain to the company about it.

[sc302 1,725]

The cost is astronomical in some cases. Let say that a business uses the cheap $100 OEM licenses (hopefully they are using volume licenses because you would have to imput all key codes for oem, just using this as a nice round number). You are looking at 10 million to upgrade those 100,000 plus lets say a person can oversee 30 installs a day that is 3333 days for one person to be able to do that, well if 60 people can do 30 a day that is 555 days that 60 people would be out doing upgrades, lets double that 120 people could oversee 30 installs each and be finished in 28 days (about 2 working months taking weekends off). 120 peole working 8 hour days for say 15 an hr for 28 days straight which is an added $403,200 on top of the 10 million plus the year for r&d for the new os, now multiply that by every 2 years that a new os is due to come out. For a business it is easier to write that off in x amount of years, 5.4 million is a bit to chew per year for technology upgrades. If the techs are imaging 1 by 1, you are looking at an average mean of 4-6 per person per day, not 30 and that is if there is nothing to do other than copy the old user profile and push it to the new computer.

Edit: Businesses work by offsetting cost across years, if those years come too frequently, their profit margins deteriorate. After a certain dollar amount it becomes a capital expendature. These capital expendatures depreciate over a few years, some take 5-10 years to completely depreciate, generally when there is no value left in the item a new one will be purchased. This is how OS upgrades are seen in large businesses, it isn't a 1 or 2 computer deal, it is a whole site upgrade. Recently we had a pretty high on the food chain user request that her office version get upgraded to the latest version, we said we have no problems with that but to be compatible with everyone else and at the same revision we would have to upgrade everyone....needless to say she was denied by the owner to upgrade 500 users to the latest version of office so she could be the cool guy, the version that the company is running hasn't depreciated enough.

[Flawed 8]

They still support ie6 because it came together with windows xp. Once windows xp support ends (which will be in 2014), ie6 support is also finished.

Only when it first came out. It hasn't shipped with XP for years.

[amon91 41]

Software/hardware support is the key here. As long as that's available (which won't be for much longer), XP will remain a usable OS for a while. As many have pointed out here, due to its cost, many companies will just end up stretching the life of their software/hardware (or anything really) as much as they can.

[Nick H. 9,761]

Some might call it an [up]grade. It certainly was for vista. And in terms of performance and resource efficiency, it's an upgrade too.

But we're not talking about Vista and XP.

Windows 7 -> Windows XP does not equal an upgrade. If you can show me a system running Windows 7, then the same machine running Windows XP, and you're able to point out that it's better in performance and resource efficiency then maybe I'll be swayed slightly.

I run Windows XP at home and at work. My machine at work is decent enough to run Windows 7, but due to company standardisation it doesn't yet. My computer at home isn't powerful enough to run Windows 7, so I've still got it running XP.

The OP's laptop falls in to the same category as my work machine, in that it is powerful enough to run Windows 7. However, unlike my work machine the OP isn't restricted by work standards. He shouldn't downgrade to Windows XP, simple as.

[Flawed 8]

But we're not talking about Vista and XP.

I'm talking about Vista and 7.

Windows 7 -> Windows XP does not equal an upgrade. If you can show me a system running Windows 7, then the same machine running Windows XP, and you're able to point out that it's better in performance and resource efficiency then maybe I'll be swayed slightly.

Just look at the memory and disk access performance logs. XP wins hands down. Uses less then half the memory, and disk access is significantly less frequent too.

[Charisma 2,395]

I'm just laughing at all the people who are like "SUPPORT WILL SO TOTALLY BE ENDED IN 2014". Sure, it might, but that's exactly what everyone said about the last two deadlines Microsoft had in their sights. They are going to have a hard time converting enough of their established base to get away with that. I don't see why they can't support both anyway--they should be happy to have not one, but two of the most popular OS's running out there. Let those who want to/can convert to 7 do so, but it doesn't mean there isn't a use for XP at least for the time being. In short, can't we all just get along? ;)

[Rudy 457]

The cost is astronomical in some cases. Let say that a business uses the cheap $100 OEM licenses (hopefully they are using volume licenses because you would have to imput all key codes for oem, just using this as a nice round number). You are looking at 10 million to upgrade those 100,000 plus lets say a person can oversee 30 installs a day that is 3333 days for one person to be able to do that, well if 60 people can do 30 a day that is 555 days that 60 people would be out doing upgrades, lets double that 120 people could oversee 30 installs each and be finished in 28 days (about 2 working months taking weekends off). 120 peole working 8 hour days for say 15 an hr for 28 days straight which is an added $403,200 on top of the 10 million plus the year for r&d for the new os, now multiply that by every 2 years that a new os is due to come out. For a business it is easier to write that off in x amount of years, 5.4 million is a bit to chew per year for technology upgrades. If the techs are imaging 1 by 1, you are looking at an average mean of 4-6 per person per day, not 30 and that is if there is nothing to do other than copy the old user profile and push it to the new computer.

Edit: Businesses work by offsetting cost across years, if those years come too frequently, their profit margins deteriorate. After a certain dollar amount it becomes a capital expendature. These capital expendatures depreciate over a few years, some take 5-10 years to completely depreciate, generally when there is no value left in the item a new one will be purchased. This is how OS upgrades are seen in large businesses, it isn't a 1 or 2 computer deal, it is a whole site upgrade. Recently we had a pretty high on the food chain user request that her office version get upgraded to the latest version, we said we have no problems with that but to be compatible with everyone else and at the same revision we would have to upgrade everyone....needless to say she was denied by the owner to upgrade 500 users to the latest version of office so she could be the cool guy, the version that the company is running hasn't depreciated enough.

Plus you didn't add the cost of a business making sure all their software are compatible with the new version of Windows. At my work we have many many applications that needs to be tested and some of them even need to be updated so they'll run properly....and that's expensive and probably a good reason why we're still running XP

[XerXis 259]

Only when it first came out. It hasn't shipped with XP for years.

So?

? The engineering point of view on IE6 starts as an operating systems supplier. Dropping support for IE6 is not an option because we committed to supporting the IE included with Windows for the lifespan of the product. We keep our commitments. Many people expect what they originally got with their operating system to keep working whatever release cadence particular subsystems have.

?

As engineers, we want people to upgrade to the latest version. We make it as easy as possible for them to upgrade. Ultimately, the choice to upgrade belongs to the person responsible for the PC."

source: http://blogs.sitepoint.com/2009/08/18/microsoft-support-ie6-2014/

IE6 support is tied to windows XP support, and that's the only reason for microsoft still supporting it

[xendrome 5,423]

Just look at the memory and disk access performance logs. XP wins hands down. Uses less then half the memory, and disk access is significantly less frequent too.

The fact that you pointed out that XP uses half the memory of Windows 7 invalidates any argument you have in this matter, since clearly you have not educated yourself on the memory usage and management in Windows 7, nor the aspect of Superfetch.

Don't take this as an attack, I am just saying you seem to be mis-informed.

[Flawed 8]

So?

source: http://blogs.sitepoint.com/2009/08/18/microsoft-support-ie6-2014/

IE6 support is tied to windows XP support, and that's the only reason for microsoft still supporting it

So if no one was using it, they would still be supporting it? It has nothing to do with the large number of businesses which have enterprise applications tied to it then...

[notuptome2004 154]

I'm talking about Vista and 7.

Just look at the memory and disk access performance logs. XP wins hands down. Uses less then half the memory, and disk access is significantly less frequent too.

\

That dont mean Crap because windows 7 is more efficient at how Memory is managed then windows XP ever was and can be who gives a crap if XP shows it only uses 300mb of 2gb of ram or more it just means your ram is being wasted and just sitting ther providing you with no Performance benefit at all, While windows 7 is able to use your ram to boost performance and manage it better then XP can and allocate ram to programs that request it or need it .......................

Oh and if you run your system down to the last damn drop of ram Windows 7 wont well in my case wont Freez and or slow down and or BSOD or Restart while XP would Restart or Freez or slow toa crawl before freezing or BSODing

XP is made and based on 11 year old technologies and Code bases the Memory Management system is over 11 years old

[Flawed 8]

The fact that you pointed out that XP uses half the memory of Windows 7 invalidates any argument you have in this matter, since clearly you have not educated yourself on the memory usage and management in Windows 7, nor the aspect of Superfetch.

Don't take this as an attack, I am just saying you seem to be mis-informed.

Okay. Disable the superfetch service then check again. It still uses more than double the memory of XP. I've tested it before. It has nothing to do with superfetch. The base OS is simply bloated and inefficient.

[Charisma 2,395]

\

That dont mean Crap because windows 7 is more efficient at how Memory is managed then windows XP ever was and can be who gives a crap if XP shows it only uses 300mb of 2gb of ram or more it just means your ram is being wasted and just sitting ther providing you with no Performance benefit at all, While windows 7 is able to use your ram to boost performance and manage it better then XP can and allocate ram to programs that request it or need it .......................

Oh and if you run your system down to the last damn drop of ram Windows 7 wont well in my case wont Freez and or slow down and or BSOD or Restart while XP would Restart or Freez or slow toa crawl before freezing or BSODing

XP is made and based on 11 year old technologies and Code bases the Memory Management system is over 11 years old

One thing I have to point out too is that it depends on what you're doing with it. I've taxed my XP system pretty hard at times, and have never caused it to freeze or BSOD. I got a blue screen exactly once, when I was playing around with drivers. Sure, it slows down under a heavy load--any computer will--but if your XP machine was having that many problems, it doesn't mean it's a problem with the OS. That's like a bad driver blaming the car for all his accidents.

[Nick H. 9,761]

Okay. Disable the superfetch service then check again. It still uses more than double the memory of XP. I've tested it before. It has nothing to do with superfetch. The base OS is simply bloated and inefficient.

I think you're losing both the point and this fight. First we were discussing performance and resource efficiency, now we're just talking about how much RAM each OS uses? Fine, XP uses less RAM than Windows 7. Does that make it overall a faster, more efficient and reliable Operating System on today's machines? No.

I'll point it out again. I like XP. I still use XP. But due to my circumstances, I fall in to a minority category for now. There is no need for Windows XP on the OP's machine.

[Flawed 8]

That dont mean Crap

I disagree. It's a base indicator of system efficiency.

because windows 7 is more efficient at how Memory is managed then windows XP ever was

Really? Please elaborate. If you are talking about superfetch, then disable the service and take a look at the memory again. I'll give you a clue, it's not superfetch eating all that memory.

who gives a crap if XP shows it only uses 300mb of 2gb of ram or more it just means your ram is being wasted and just sitting ther providing you with no Performance benefit at all.

So consuming system memory in order to compensate for poor OS performance is a species of efficiency?

While windows 7 is able to use your ram to boost performance and manage it better then XP can and allocate ram to programs that request it or need it .......................

So you are saying all programs will load/run faster because of this? Funny, I noticed this myself...

Oh and if you run your system down to the last damn drop of ram Windows 7 wont well in my case wont Freez and or slow down and or BSOD or Restart while XP would Restart or Freez or slow toa crawl before freezing or BSODing

Both XP and 7 use swao space, so there is no BSOD's to speak of except for the usual ones windows regularly spits out.

XP is made and based on 11 year old technologies and Code bases the Memory Management system is over 11 years old

And yet, it's more efficient than it's modern counterpart. What does that say about Microsoft software? What will Windows 8's recommended specs be? 4gb of ram?

[Flawed 8]

I think you're losing both the point and this fight. First we were discussing performance and resource efficiency, now we're just talking about how much RAM each OS uses?

Others were trying to dispute the memory argument, so I clarified my position on the matter. What else would you suggest?

Fine, XP uses less RAM than Windows 7

Tell that to the others who are disputing it ;)

Does that make it overall a faster, more efficient and reliable Operating System on today's machines? No.

In and of itself no, but in conjunction with other things such as disk access and cpu usage, it's certainly more efficient with machine resources. In terms of reliability, XP is much more mature, and thus is more stable and reliable. In addition, it has better software support/compatibility. Overall, it's a more attractive proposition when choosing a windows OS for the majority of users at least.

I'll point it out again. I like XP. I still use XP. But due to my circumstances, I fall in to a minority category for now. There is no need for Windows XP on the OP's machine.

There's no need to run Windows 7 on it either. In fact there's no need to run any specific OS. That's the beauty of choice.

[Xtreme2damax 42]

Now I know you haven't used 7. Most stable Windows version out there. It's a year and a half old, and has a SP already. It's tried and true. No reason not to be using it now.

Agreed, even the beta/rc builds were just as stable, if not more stable than XP. Windows 7 is by far the most stable OS, even when it was in it's infancy and continues to be a stable OS.

[Sir Topham Hatt 270]

XP is a damn good OS, with better backward compatibility, good enough security, better usability. . .

I'm not saying XP isn't good, just that Windows 7 is better... for me.

[ceminess 11]

Others were trying to dispute the memory argument, so I clarified my position on the matter. What else would you suggest?

Tell that to the others who are disputing it ;)

In and of itself no, but in conjunction with other things such as disk access and cpu usage, it's certainly more efficient with machine resources. In terms of reliability, XP is much more mature, and thus is more stable and reliable. In addition, it has better software support/compatibility. Overall, it's a more attractive proposition when choosing a windows OS for the majority of users at least.

There's no need to run Windows 7 on it either. In fact there's no need to run any specific OS. That's the beauty of choice.

WOW... just...wow

[Frylock86 95]

I hope we didn't scare the OP away. I haven't seen him post once.

[MtnDewCodeRedFreak 239]

Ugh this is BS. If you are so sure about running XP on today's hardware, then why not you try running Windows 3.1 or 95 (not the OSR 1/2.x) on your "most modern PC ever"?

*lends ear, hears silence*

Quite frankly, MS really should have abandoned XP after Vista is released and NOT extend XP support after SP2 (but noooo due to the so-called tech "pundits" that cling to XP ... quite pathetic).

As for the case of IE9 on XP, this is falling on deaf ears. MS is not going to listen, because IE9 uses hardware acceleration, a feature available only on Vista and above. XP uses the CPU to render graphics, which is a 2000-2001 technology. Vista from 2006 and ahead uses the graphics card to render the GUI, which in fact puts the burden OFF the CPU. A big fat "Duh" moment.

This XP and Vista/7 thing has been discussed ad nauseam already. Face it, XP is old. End of discussion, period, case closed.

[Frylock86 95]

Ugh this is BS. If you are so sure about running XP on today's hardware, then why not you try running Windows 3.1 or 95 (not the OSR 1/2.x) on your "most modern PC ever"?

*lends ear, hears silence*

Quite frankly, MS really should have abandoned XP after Vista is released and NOT extend XP support after SP2 (but noooo due to the so-called tech "pundits" that cling to XP ... quite pathetic).

As for the case of IE9 on XP, this is falling on deaf ears. MS is not going to listen, because IE9 uses hardware acceleration, a feature available only on Vista and above. XP uses the CPU to render graphics, which is a 2000-2001 technology. Vista from 2006 and ahead uses the graphics card to render the GUI, which in fact puts the burden OFF the CPU. A big fat "Duh" moment.

Face it, XP is old. End of discussion, period, case closed.

QFT.

[AntiLuddite 5]

XP is a pathetic, fugly, ancient, insecure, unproductive and completely unusable OS. Here are a few reasons why XP is so pathetic compared to Windows 7:

1. XP has a horrible and incredibly fugly UI. Every time I look at the pathetic XP UI, I feel sick.

2. XP is a usability nightmare. It has a pathetic search system compared to Windows 7. There are no breadcrumb bars, no stacks, no libraries, no start menu search. The list goes on and on.

3. XP is the most insecure OS of ALL time. 99.9% of the security issues of the world are because of XP.

4. XP has pathetic memory management. With any system with over 1 GB RAM, XP is horribly inefficient. It can't handle that RAM at all. On the other hand Windows 7 utilizes the extra RAM for increasing performance.

5. XP can't handle 4GB RAM. Don't mention XP 64-bit as it has NO driver support at all, and is horribly instable.

6. XP has PATHETIC driver support. NO NEW PC's bought in the last 2 years has drivers for XP. On the other hand Windows 7 has excellent driver support.

7. XP has PATHETIC performance issues. Use XP for more than a couple of months, and the system gets almost unusably slow. Try to run 3 or 4 memory intensive programs simultaneously, and the system will crash/BSOD immediately.

Because of those reasons, XP has been COMPLETELY dead in the developed world.

1. XP now has only 40% market share according to Wikipedia. Vista/7 combined has much more than that. At current rate, by the end of 2011 it will fall below 25%.

2. XP has less than 35% market share in the developed world like North America, Europe and Oceania. Windows 7 is the SINGLE MOST POPULAR OS in these countries.

3. XP has about 87% market share in CHINA where 99% of systems run on pirated OS.

4. XP is dead as dodo in EVERY CIVILISED country in the world.

5. Windows 7 is the FASTEST SELLING OS in the history of computing with over 300 MILLION COPIES sold within first 15 months of release.

Because of these reasons only clueless people will decide to run XP in 2011. Windows 7 FTW. Microsoft FTW.