Microsoft Doubtful of Win XP's Netbook Future

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]buwish[/nom]To be honest I was never a fan of XP- too simplistic. I ditched XP the second Vista came out in beta and haven't used it since.[/citation]

Well said and I did the same. I cannot stand the look of XP, and only use it at work where I am forced to. I always jump on any new OS or software. Sure you get some bugs, but I enjoy the hell out of all of the new goodies that are always included for us consumers who love innovation.
 
[citation][nom]intesx[/nom]8 years ago people like you were saying that about 2000 and XP. They converted eventually and they're the same ones today that are struggling to hold on to XP.There is nothing bloated about Aero these days... even throw away computers can run Aero without breaking a sweat.[/citation]
I'm not talking about resource usage, I'm taking about desktop space... wasted pixels. And yes, 8 years ago I did say that, then years after it came out I could afford more realestate. BUT when you open a window on a small monitor (netbook) and all you can see is tool bars and a few files before everything goes off the screen. That's just not cool.
Heck, even on my Desktop (22" square at 1400x1050), Explorer has an inch and a half of useless crap on top before you get to content.
 
Change. Please let it happen.

XP is a thing from the past - let it go.

[citation][nom]maigo[/nom]I'm not talking about resource usage, I'm taking about desktop space... wasted pixels. And yes, 8 years ago I did say that, then years after it came out I could afford more realestate. BUT when you open a window on a small monitor (netbook) and all you can see is tool bars and a few files before everything goes off the screen. That's just not cool. Heck, even on my Desktop (22" square at 1400x1050), Explorer has an inch and a half of useless crap on top before you get to content.[/citation]

Then hide the icons. The toolbars. The status bars. Nothing's preventing you from doing that on either XP or 7. If you don't like the fat taskbar, then make it small or auto-hide it.
 
I too doubt XP has much life left in it... I am not so sure about 7 being the right fit for Netbooks but in time it should be fine (when the hardware catches up) until that time MS should make a light version of 7 or make something new just for low end hardware.

Baring all that a nice light Linux distro works great on low end stuff :)
 
What a "surprise", I mean all M$ has to do is stop supporting an 8 year old OS and their "prophecy" becomes self-fulfilling. Besides, it makes sense for them to concentrate on one version rather than having to keep legacy products around. The cry for less demanding software gets less important every-time the hardware gets more powerful.
 
[citation][nom]doc70[/nom]There is a Windows for phones, it's called Windows Mobile, and it does multitasking among other things, unlike the iDon't.[/citation]

There you go showing your ignorance, there happens to be an app for that. 😉
 
netbooks were designed to run linux
Why has this been forgotten?
xubuntu on my original 702 screams compared to xp on my new t91
unfortunately the gma500 is such a piece of crap that it makes ubuntu unstable (or rather as far as i have figured out how to shoehorn the system around that stupid gma chip.

Running ubuntu on an SD card is faster then winblows on the ssd.
 
[citation][nom]dainsane1[/nom]netbooks were designed to run linux Why has this been forgotten? xubuntu on my original 702 screams compared to xp on my new t91 unfortunately the gma500 is such a piece of crap that it makes ubuntu unstable (or rather as far as i have figured out how to shoehorn the system around that stupid gma chip. Running ubuntu on an SD card is faster then winblows on the ssd.[/citation]

The integrated graphics are not unstable, it would be your config you used.
 
Windows xp uses less resources and benchmarks higher than windows 7 especially when gaming and the game does not have the videocard as a bottleneck.

The less resources the OS uses, the more the resources can be devoted to running your applications and getting work done.

OS like vista and windows 7 attempt to compensate for their slowness by doing something called time shifting. it loads a ton of crap into memory so when you try to run a program that has been cached, it starts up faster. but it doesn't change the fact that it is slower

also windows vista and windows 7 have been having more major security problems lately as compared to windows xp.

microsoft likes leaving every startup item and service running even though most computer users have no need for most of them and many of the windows updates have been for fixing security problems in services that most users don't use but run by default. this problem has been happening since windows 98.

also what reason do many people have to upgrade to windows 7? the security is not better (some may boast about UAC but it does nothing for security, all of the currently auto installing malware that generally exploit IE will install them self with no warning, things like UAC are pretty much false security

it is like the companies who sell firewalls, the job of a firewall is to block all ports and only open the ones you need, but since there aren't many ways to improve it since SPI firewalls, many companies that charge for firewalls will pop up a warning for every little ping or random packet that heads your way and it will give a message to the user that it blocked an attack when really it is just random packets that are blocked by windows firewall or the routers firewall silently, but because companies like nortons and zone alarm will spam these messages, it gives the illusion to novice users that it is doing more to protect them when in reality it is just spamming them with useless messages


PS I recommend that everyone her actually read up on whats actually being fixed in a windows update, you will see that many of the fixes are for services running in the background by default but is never really used by anyone.
 
[citation][nom]Razor512[/nom]Windows xp uses less resources and benchmarks higher than windows 7 especially when gaming and the game does not have the videocard as a bottleneck.The less resources the OS uses, the more the resources can be devoted to running your applications and getting work done.OS like vista and windows 7 attempt to compensate for their slowness by doing something called time shifting. it loads a ton of crap into memory so when you try to run a program that has been cached, it starts up faster. but it doesn't change the fact that it is sloweralso windows vista and windows 7 have been having more major security problems lately as compared to windows xp. microsoft likes leaving every startup item and service running even though most computer users have no need for most of them and many of the windows updates have been for fixing security problems in services that most users don't use but run by default. this problem has been happening since windows 98. also what reason do many people have to upgrade to windows 7? the security is not better (some may boast about UAC but it does nothing for security, all of the currently auto installing malware that generally exploit IE will install them self with no warning, things like UAC are pretty much false security it is like the companies who sell firewalls, the job of a firewall is to block all ports and only open the ones you need, but since there aren't many ways to improve it since SPI firewalls, many companies that charge for firewalls will pop up a warning for every little ping or random packet that heads your way and it will give a message to the user that it blocked an attack when really it is just random packets that are blocked by windows firewall or the routers firewall silently, but because companies like nortons and zone alarm will spam these messages, it gives the illusion to novice users that it is doing more to protect them when in reality it is just spamming them with useless messagesPS I recommend that everyone her actually read up on whats actually being fixed in a windows update, you will see that many of the fixes are for services running in the background by default but is never really used by anyone.[/citation]

when "resources" cost what, $20 (ram) why do you complain? OMG i got 8gb and that was under $100 au months ago why is there an issue?
 
more stuff running also reduces memory bandwidth and more crap running also increases CPU load which is why windows 7 and vista benchmarks lower than windows xp especially with games that do not have the videocard as the bottleneck

you may have gotten a large amount of memory for cheap but it doesn't change the fact that windows xp will run faster on the same system. it is like replacing the body of your car with the body of a bus, the vehicle will still move but it will be slower, you can get a 1000 horse power engine for it and it will run faster but it wont change the fact that if the 1000 horse power engine was pulling the body of a car instead of a but that it will go faster.

unless you have unlimited resources, anything using more resources will deprive other apps of resources and thus reduce performance

so I ask, why would someone want to move from xp if with the new OS they will be doing the same thing just slower on the same hardware?
 
What people don't realize is that Windows 7 is infested with DRM and other features that let companies spy on the end-users without them knowing it. Firewalls and the like in Win7 automatically allows software from big corporations to scan the computer and send information to their servers without the consent from the users.
 
[citation][nom]g00ey[/nom]What people don't realize is that Windows 7 is infested with DRM and other features that let companies spy on the end-users without them knowing it. Firewalls and the like in Win7 automatically allows software from big corporations to scan the computer and send information to their servers without the consent from the users.[/citation]

Proof?

I'm not saying I disagree with you...it's just that "talking out of your ass" is far less believable than having back-up for your statements (even if what comes out of your ass may very well be the truth).
 
[citation][nom]Razor512[/nom]more stuff running also reduces memory bandwidth and more crap running also increases CPU load which is why windows 7 and vista benchmarks lower than windows xp especially with games that do not have the videocard as the bottleneckyou may have gotten a large amount of memory for cheap but it doesn't change the fact that windows xp will run faster on the same system. it is like replacing the body of your car with the body of a bus, the vehicle will still move but it will be slower, you can get a 1000 horse power engine for it and it will run faster but it wont change the fact that if the 1000 horse power engine was pulling the body of a car instead of a but that it will go faster.unless you have unlimited resources, anything using more resources will deprive other apps of resources and thus reduce performanceso I ask, why would someone want to move from xp if with the new OS they will be doing the same thing just slower on the same hardware?[/citation]

It depends on what you're using it for.

If your computer usage hasn't changed on the same hardware when going to the same operating system, then you're right--going from XP to 7 would probably not be a good idea.

However, if your usage HAS changed (i.e.: running something RAM-intensive, wanting an HTPC with Media Center (yes, I know third-party apps do this as well), wanting to script events that come out of the Event Viewer), then that's a different story.

Going to your car analogy, trading in a car for an SUV would not be practical for one person, but if that one person now has children to transport, then their "usage" changes.
 
[citation][nom]dainsane1[/nom]netbooks were designed to run linux Why has this been forgotten? xubuntu on my original 702 screams compared to xp on my new t91 unfortunately the gma500 is such a piece of crap that it makes ubuntu unstable (or rather as far as i have figured out how to shoehorn the system around that stupid gma chip. Running ubuntu on an SD card is faster then winblows on the ssd.[/citation]

It hasn't been forgotten.

It's just that the average Joe wants familiarity. After all, Linux WAS the only OS available for netbooks at one time, correct? Once XP was put on netbooks, their sales pretty much skyrocketed. Why? Familiarity.

If you're a computer geek, then of course Linux would be better for you. If you can't tell the difference between Windows and Office, then you probably shouldn't be messing with Linux.
 
[citation][nom]killerb255[/nom]Proof?I'm not saying I disagree with you...it's just that "talking out of your ass" is far less believable than having back-up for your statements (even if what comes out of your ass may very well be the truth).[/citation]

It's not "talking out of your ass", it's pretty much common sense. It's actually kind of naïve to think that Microsoft would not take these measures to defend their commercial interests.

You want some back-up? Well, it's pretty obvious that you cannot connect whatever you want to an HDMI port. The peripheral equipment must be certified. I have encountered several occasions where the "exceptions settings" in the firewall mysteriously get unchecked for programs that I want to block from the internet. In other circumstances I have failed to prevent the software to communicate with the web. It has happened that some software just starts to refuse running, i.e. nothing happens when I execute it. But when I change the path of the executable it suddenly starts runing again. And these things is just the tip of an iceberg.

I'm sorry to ruin you perception of reality but Windows is horribly _infested_ with DRM and other controversial features that impose on peoples' privacy.
 
while microsoft cant monitor you in a way that invades your privacy, their DRM can limit features of your system depending on what ever DRM content is playing, it also controls what software and hardware you can use to play the content you paid for which creates a monopoly for the companies that meet the DRM requirements which increases prices and hinders innovation. this encourages piracy which in terns encourages more restrictive DRM which further increases piracy because only the innocent and legit customers are burdened by the DRM
 
[citation][nom]killerb255[/nom]It hasn't been forgotten. It's just that the average Joe wants familiarity. After all, Linux WAS the only OS available for netbooks at one time, correct? Once XP was put on netbooks, their sales pretty much skyrocketed. Why? Familiarity.If you're a computer geek, then of course Linux would be better for you. If you can't tell the difference between Windows and Office, then you probably shouldn't be messing with Linux.[/citation]

consider this, what does the vast majority of PC users use their computers for?

then think about this, do they need windows 7 to do it?

thats the problem, most users don't need it, most of what microsoft added and most of the changes they did, does nothing to improve performance, windows 7 performs slower than windows xp.

most of the features added to windows 7 are invisible to most users and most people who find out about them will never use them

PS this has been talked about a lot on security now as well as many other security podcast, because microsoft doesn't want support calls, they leave every service in windows running by default so if the user ever needs them, they will already be running instead of the user having to go find service and enable it. the downside to this is that it waste system resources and makes the overall system run much slower than it otherwise would. it also reduces security as many of the critical security problems are found in services and features in windows that most users will never use.

new code is less secure than old battle hardened code which is why many of the security problems found in XP are not severe and almost all of them for XP are for IE and random services that windows runs that most users never use and the other large amount are from new code developed in newer OS and become back ported to windows XP to improve compatibility between the OS

for everyone before you upgrade thing about this, is there something that you specifically need to do that requires windows 7, (don't include anything about the UI as you will get tired of it after the first few uses and those features are also available in windows xp if you install 3rd party apps (which is a waste of resources)

all of the new non UI based features in windows 7, do not benefit the average computer user

and the added UI features only hurt the user.

for example the windows 7 start menu, they made it so small and added a scroll bar so it is harder to find programs in it, and not everyone likes the search feature as not everyone knows the name of a app, many just notice them by the icon or the look of the word and not the word it's self

and the folder search feature that they advertise in windows 7 is also in xp, you just don't get a search bar but if you click in any blank part of the window then type in a name it will auto highlight the file in the folder
 
[citation][nom]intesx[/nom]8 years ago people like you were saying that about 2000 and XP. They converted eventually and they're the same ones today that are struggling to hold on to XP.There is nothing bloated about Aero these days... even throw away computers can run Aero without breaking a sweat.[/citation]

I laugh at those people every time microsoft brings out a new OS its so sad.
 
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]I laugh at those people every time microsoft brings out a new OS its so sad.[/citation]
but compared to windows 2000, windows xp actually added new features that were actually useful.

windows 2000 only supported 2 cpu cores while windows xp supported 32

if you disable the eye candy in both the settings and the registry so it doesn't appear in the login screen, both windows xp and windows 2000 use the same amount of memory

XP had features that allowed it to run faster.

windows 7 offers none of this, it offers no features that will improve performance compared to xp when new hardware comes out, the hardware support is the same, for the average user.

same as with windows 95 going to windows 98, support for more memory, better CPU support, better hard drive support, better network support/

windows vista, windows 7, and windows me are the only complete OS'es that offer nothing new to the average user other than slower performance which cant be outgrown when hardware advances
 
[citation][nom]g00ey[/nom]It's not "talking out of your ass", it's pretty much common sense. It's actually kind of naïve to think that Microsoft would not take these measures to defend their commercial interests.You want some back-up? Well, it's pretty obvious that you cannot connect whatever you want to an HDMI port. The peripheral equipment must be certified. I have encountered several occasions where the "exceptions settings" in the firewall mysteriously get unchecked for programs that I want to block from the internet. In other circumstances I have failed to prevent the software to communicate with the web. It has happened that some software just starts to refuse running, i.e. nothing happens when I execute it. But when I change the path of the executable it suddenly starts runing again. And these things is just the tip of an iceberg.I'm sorry to ruin you perception of reality but Windows is horribly _infested_ with DRM and other controversial features that impose on peoples' privacy.[/citation]

Once again, I didn't say I disagree with you. All I asked was for you to back up your statement, in which you did in this case.

Now back up "ruining my perception of reality."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom