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

[sc302 Veteran]

If you have to reinstall windows xp every 4-5 months, you don't know enough about it to properly support or give any argument for or against it.

I don't recall anytime that I currently needed to add drivers to win7, but its driver library is quite huge...so was windows xp when it first came out.

64 bit windows xp seems to be working fine for my engineers, not many complaints out of them regarding os incompatabilities

xp memory management is good compared to older oses, however with every os improvement I expect memory management to get better

win7 is just as susceptible to malware as windows xp, don't let anything fool you otherwise....it comes down to system patch status and end user knowledge, uac doesn't fix stupid

being that I know what I am looking for xp search is faster than windows 7, takes my system seconds to find a file...shouldn't you be smart enough to name a file somewhat relatively easy to remember or put them into a folder that has something to do with the subject at hand vs randomly through your system with names that don't pertain to anything? If I am writing a paper on the US constitution do you think I am going to be dumb enough to name it dirty ###### and file it in my temp files, or do you think I am going to name it consitiution and put it in a folder called School Projects or US information or something else that pertains to that topic?

I have customized my desktop many times, and it really is for those who are into that crap. The luna theme works just fine for me, really any theme works fine for me so long as I know where things are located. It is called change, get used to it, sometimes it happens for the better, sometimes it happens for the worse, but there is one consistancy with it...it always happens, but there are somethings that havent changed and that is the what the control panel files are called (if you don't know where they are because the gui changed, you can always call them from a run line or command prompt...but this requires you to know more than pointing and clicking).

[AntiLuddite]

I figured by 2011 the rabid XP luddites would have died down a little. Judging from the thread I guess not. Maybe in 2014 when Microsoft finally pulls the life support plug on the poor old dinosaur.

Well, they are VERY few in numbers. In general there are 99% Windows 7 fans compared to 1% pathetic XP Luddites. But I like the fact that XP Luddites are in agony nowadays. They HATE the fac that Microsoft has stopped supporting them (only security updates are available). I loved their reaction to the announcement that IE9 and Windows Live Essentials 2011 won't support XP. Lol.

[Flawed]

I think people here seem to think more RAM = faster machine/CPU. I guess they seem to think that more RAM used somehow slows down their machine? Which I find curious, because it is far from the truth.

I believe the rationale is that the less memory the OS uses, the more can be allocated to.. you know.. the programs that actually do something.

Windows 7 utilizes memory different. If half of your memory is not being used, then its not doing anything for you.

Your name fits your argument quite well.

Then in that case, why doesn't it use all your memory? Why only half? As you say, if it's not being used then it's not doing anything for you. Perhaps you should send a request to microsoft to use 90% of all available memory, then you can feel self assured that none of your memory is being wasted lol.

[WelshBluebird]

For a modern machine like that, there is no reason why you should be putting XP on it.

For older computers, then its fine. But downgrading to XP is just pointless.

[Tomoko]

I believe the rationale is that the less memory the OS uses, the more can be allocated to.. you know.. the programs that actually do something.

Yes, Windows XP requires less RAM than 7, and Windows 2000 required less RAM than XP, and NT 4.0 required less RAM than 2000. It's too bad that the amount of RAM we have in our systems isn't increasing also so we can keep up with the demand. Oh wait, most systems have 4GB or more today, kind of makes your argument stupid and pointless. Flawed even. Keep clinging to your decrepit old software if you wish, but enough with your ignorant rambling. You're not going to convert anyone back to XP.

[BajiRav]

I believe the rationale is that the less memory the OS uses, the more can be allocated to.. you know.. the programs that actually do something.

Then in that case, why doesn't it use all your memory? Why only half? As you say, if it's not being used then it's not doing anything for you. Perhaps you should send a request to microsoft to use 90% of all available memory, then you can feel self assured that none of your memory is being wasted lol.

I have yet to see anything from you that says Win7 uses more memory than XP whereas I can show you at least one scenario where XP is less than ideal in my day to day workflow...

[yowanvista]

XP = installed on Old crappy machines with old hardware

Vista/Win7 = new machines

[AntiLuddite]

Better? Yes, but it still gets infected en masse just like every other windows OS.

NO. I have managed thousand of Vista/7 systems, the infection rate among them is miniscule compared to that of XP.

So why don't you get the extra ram back when superfetch is disabled? I'll tell you why, it's because the base OS is consuming it. If you have superfetch enabled, it can exceed 1gb without any programs even running. And I never noticed any speed improvement of program loading over XP. Superfetch is mostly to compensate for the slow down and general bloat of 7 over XP. So it gobbles up all your memory as it tries to cache lots of stuff in order that you notice how slow it really is.

EVERY single program that I have run on Windows 7 performs much better than on XP. For example, when running Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop and Visual Studio simultaneously, the XP system dies, but on Windows 7 it runs smoothly.

Hmm, what does that remind me of, oh ye, vista when it was first released, you know the code base upon which 7 is built.

But I'm talking about Windows 7 and Vista SP2 -- both of which are a million times more stable than XP.

Yep, they copied that from Linux. It's a poor man's Linux repository limited to only out of date drivers. In Linux we've had that since day one.

Copy? Linux? Oh I think I have heard those words mentioned at the same time before. Isn't the whole of Linux a blatant copy of Windows and Mac? But don't get me started on that.

The same happens in Windows 7/Vista. The registry etc get increasingly fragmented over time.

NO. Improved registry virualization and automatic defagmentations ensure that Windows 7 machines can run for YEARS without ANY performance degradation.

Post the source of these stats please.

Here you go: http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-na-monthly-201103-201103-bar

That's for North America. XP has only 34% usage share. You can find similar stats for Europe and Oceania. Don't forget to compare that to Chinese stats and you'll know 80% XP users are from third world countries who depend on pirated OS.

And two months before the end date they'll extent it once again because the majority of windows users still use XP and it would be bad business for Microsoft. Hehe.

Lolllll. XP is already on life support. Which means it gets ONLY security updates. And Microsoft no longers sells XP. They didn't release IE9 or WLE 2011 for XP. If anything they are going to pull the plug on XP even earlier than 2014. Lollll.

[+BudMan MVC]

"If you have to reinstall windows xp every 4-5 months, you don't know enough about it to properly support or give any argument for or against it. "

QFT!!

[Flawed]

Worldwide, XP still has the lead, but is quickly dropping. Currently it has dropped below 50%.

I don't know where you got those stats from, but they are contradicted by others:

http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10

Worldwide:

XP - 55.09

Windows 7 - 23.08

It's got a fair way to go yet my friend ;)

[Frylock86]

Windows XP

Windows 7

:D

[AntiLuddite]

[Flawed]

Free memory = wasted memory. If you don't want it used you may as well remove it and throw it in the trash.

So you're using 100% of your memory all the time? Thought not. Then I guess your logic failed you. Most people don't need to utilise 100% of memory all the time. Sometimes I use 90+, sometimes I use 10%. It's there if I need it. That's the point. There's no justification for the OS to gobble it all up unnecessarily. Of course in Windows Vista/7's case, it's used to conceal performance problems relative to the previous iteration - XP.

Windows XP

Windows 7

:D

Insults - the last recourse of a weak mind ;)

[sc302 Veteran]

<div id="os-na-monthly-201103-201103-bar" width="600" height="400" style="width:600px; height: 400px;"></div><!-- You may change the values of width and height above to resize the chart --><p>Source: <a href="http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-na-monthly-201103-201103-bar">StatCounter Global Stats - Operating System Market Share</a></p><script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.statcounter.com/js/FusionCharts.js"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://gs.statcounter.com/chart.php?os-na-monthly-201103-201103-bar"></script>

awesome.

[Tomoko]

So you're using 100% of your memory all the time? Thought not. Then I guess your logic failed you. Most people don't need to utilise 100% of memory all the time. Sometimes I use 90+, sometimes I use 10%. It's there if I need it. That's the point. There's no justification for the OS to gobble it all up unnecessarily. Of course in Windows Vista/7's case, it's used to conceal performance problems relative to the previous iteration - XP.

Yes I want 100% of my memory to be used for something, all the time. Not sitting there empty doing nothing. If no programs are using it I want the OS to use it for caching or whatever it's needed for. As soon as a program requests RAM Windows will free up whatever it needs. This just shows you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. If you're trolling stop it, and if you're not then stop embarrassing yourself. It's just getting sad at this point.

[HawkMan]

I don't know where you got those stats from, but they are contradicted by others:

http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10

Worldwide:

XP - 55.09

Windows 7 - 23.08

It's got a fair way to go yet my friend ;)

So you pick the ONLY place that reports anywhere baove 50% for XP and then you complain that his research is bad.

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

the median value is far more relevant than any of the others. and the median says XP is at 41.7%

at the very least it shows one thing, the net market share numbers are pure BS. when every other research is more than 10% off in the same direction, it's obvious your numbers are wrong.

Also using more ram for the base system does not mean the system is more bloated or slower. in fact 7 is faster because the system uses more ram, outside of superfecth. also if you want to be an idiot and disable services and make yoru system as slow as XP. you can make 7 use as little memory as XP, but it'll be slower, like XP.

[Skyfrog]

So you're using 100% of your memory all the time? Thought not. Then I guess your logic failed you. Most people don't need to utilise 100% of memory all the time. Sometimes I use 90+, sometimes I use 10%. It's there if I need it. That's the point. There's no justification for the OS to gobble it all up unnecessarily.

It's pretty clear that you don't understand how the memory management in Windows Vista and 7 works.

[DootDootMan]

If you have to reinstall windows xp every 4-5 months, you don't know enough about it to properly support or give any argument for or against it.

I don't recall anytime that I currently needed to add drivers to win7, but its driver library is quite huge...so was windows xp when it first came out.

64 bit windows xp seems to be working fine for my engineers, not many complaints out of them regarding os incompatabilities

xp memory management is good compared to older oses, however with every os improvement I expect memory management to get better

win7 is just as susceptible to malware as windows xp, don't let anything fool you otherwise....it comes down to system patch status and end user knowledge, uac doesn't fix stupid

being that I know what I am looking for xp search is faster than windows 7, takes my system seconds to find a file...shouldn't you be smart enough to name a file somewhat relatively easy to remember or put them into a folder that has something to do with the subject at hand vs randomly through your system with names that don't pertain to anything? If I am writing a paper on the US constitution do you think I am going to be dumb enough to name it dirty ###### and file it in my temp files, or do you think I am going to name it consitiution and put it in a folder called School Projects or US information or something else that pertains to that topic?

I have customized my desktop many times, and it really is for those who are into that crap. The luna theme works just fine for me, really any theme works fine for me so long as I know where things are located. It is called change, get used to it, sometimes it happens for the better, sometimes it happens for the worse, but there is one consistancy with it...it always happens, but there are somethings that havent changed and that is the what the control panel files are called (if you don't know where they are because the gui changed, you can always call them from a run line or command prompt...but this requires you to know more than pointing and clicking).

Amen my IT brother!

[Flawed]

So you pick the ONLY place that reports anywhere baove 50% for XP and then you complain that his research is bad.

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

the median value is far more relevant than any of the others. and the median says XP is at 41.7%

at the very least it shows one thing, the net market share numbers are pure BS. when every other research is more than 10% off in the same direction, it's obvious your numbers are wrong.

Those percentages only account for 92.99%, where is the other 7%. And that's for february, not march.

you can make 7 use as little memory as XP, but it'll be slower, like XP.

You mean slower than XP? Because that's the real reason for superfetch - to disguise 7/Vista's poor performance.

[AntiLuddite]

Those percentages only account for 92.99%, where is the other 7%. And that's for february, not march.

Have you visited the Statcounter link that I posted? See? XP is dead. It has less than 35% market share. Lol.

[Skyfrog]

Those percentages only account for 92.99%, where is the other 7%. And that's for february, not march.

You mean slower than XP? Because that's the real reason for superfetch - to disguise 7/Vista's poor performance.

Sounds like you tried running it on a computer that's too old and now you're spreading FUD. Windows 7 performs quite nicely*.

*but you shouldn't run it on a Pentium II with 128 MB of RAM.

[Flawed]

Have you visited the Statcounter link that I posted? See? XP is dead. It has less than 35% market share. Lol.

That site's stats are clearly skewed.

[AntiLuddite]

That site's stats are clearly skewed.

No, they are not. Lol. But your brain is clearly skewed. Lol.

[Seizure1990]

This entire topic is characterized by 49.5% people who think Windows 7 should always be used, always, 49.5% people who think Windows XP should always be used, always, and 1% who seem to fall in between and realize that it depends. It's really funny (and frustrating).

Inb4 people complain about me exaggerating.

[Frylock86]

This entire topic is characterized by 49.5% people who think Windows 7 should always be used, always, 49.5% people who think Windows XP should always be used, always, and 1% who seem to fall in between and realize that it depends. It's really funny (and frustrating).

Inb4 people complain about me exaggerating.

You're exaggerating.

:laugh: