Party's Over, Windows XP: No More on New PCs

Status
Not open for further replies.

liveonc

Distinguished
Mar 24, 2008
437
0
18,780
0
Long live XP downgrade! I'd rather have a Vista/XP if I really wanted XP & it's a good way of selling Vista when Windows 7 is what people want.
 

Haserath

Distinguished
Apr 13, 2010
1,377
0
19,360
45
XP is still better than 7 for netbooks. 7 uses 1.5GB just sitting on the desktop, that is way too much for a netbook.

Linux would be better than both for a netbook anyway.
 
[citation][nom]Haserath[/nom]XP is still better than 7 for netbooks. 7 uses 1.5GB just sitting on the desktop, that is way too much for a netbook.Linux would be better than both for a netbook anyway.[/citation]

That is the same for Vista. People love Win7 even though it is nothing more than Vista with a spit shine.
 

victorintelr

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2010
187
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]cruiseoveride[/nom]People still use Windows?[/citation]
Ups...
He's either being sarcastic,
A linux user (that's good)
Or a Steve Jobs servant/minion (screwed up)
 

d-block

Distinguished
Dec 28, 2009
242
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]nforce4max[/nom]That is the same for Vista. People love Win7 even though it is nothing more than Vista with a spit shine.[/citation]
7 is what Vista should have been.
 

Ramar

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2009
249
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]Haserath[/nom]XP is still better than 7 for netbooks. 7 uses 1.5GB just sitting on the desktop, that is way too much for a netbook.Linux would be better than both for a netbook anyway.[/citation]

U mad. Have you tried using XP versus 7 on a netbook? It is night and day, son. 7 runs much better.
 

groveborn

Distinguished
Mar 6, 2008
71
0
18,630
0
Microsoft has generally done a good job at giving its customers what is wants. XP was fine, is fine, but it will not be enough for soon to come PCs. I see a major issue with Windows as it is; there are more devices that aren't *precisely* a PC that run Windows.

It's time for several different types of Windows. Windows for PC/Laptops, Windows for Servers, Windows for MIDs... There is no reason for a one size fits all Windows. And there is certainly no need for varying levels of crippled OSes.

I dispise the current pricing scheme. Windows Starter? If you pay an extra $50 you can change your wallpaper. Seriously.
 

nevertell

Distinguished
Oct 18, 2009
335
0
18,780
0
All the dudes stating that windows 7 eats too much ram whilst idling, it's because of memory prefetching. It would be rare to run out of memory even on a netbook with a gig of ram if you're running just a browser (except for chrome) and a music player, therefore it's a viable option for a netbook, in my opinion.

It's just sad that memory prefetching is just a feature in windows, it doesn't actually work, unlike linux.
 

nevertell

Distinguished
Oct 18, 2009
335
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]groveborn[/nom]Microsoft has generally done a good job at giving its customers what is wants. XP was fine, is fine, but it will not be enough for soon to come PCs. I see a major issue with Windows as it is; there are more devices that aren't *precisely* a PC that run Windows.It's time for several different types of Windows. Windows for PC/Laptops, Windows for Servers, Windows for MIDs... There is no reason for a one size fits all Windows. And there is certainly no need for varying levels of crippled OSes.I dispise the current pricing scheme. Windows Starter? If you pay an extra $50 you can change your wallpaper. Seriously.[/citation]
I agree with you on one thing. One-size fits all is not what people need. But there is also no need for 3 seperate windows's that would then be divided into 3 different versions (starter/home/ultimate BS). They should redo their kernel, make it modular, so that the user can add/remove modules, there should be at least 2 desktop envirnoments, 1 for a MID, 1 for a desktop, there should also be an option to not use one at all.
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
[citation][nom]d-block[/nom]7 is what Vista should have been.[/citation]

i hated vista in every way shape and form. but 7 i am able to use, i just hate the user interface so much i refuse to jump.

have a computer with it, hate every aspect of using that computer.
 

Aintry

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2008
78
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]pocketdrummer[/nom]Not a big loss unless you're trying to record. Drivers are still lagging for Audio Interfaces. It's a pity too, I like Windows 7 much more...[/citation]
I'm holding back for that very reason. All I do on my PC is audio processing. All of my gear has to work right or I'm sunk. Right now, everything I use works with Windows XP. I'm not knocking Windows 7 as an OS; I'm sure it's great. But driver support is kind of shaky in the one area that's absolutely critical to me.
 

notuptome2004

Distinguished
Oct 6, 2010
152
0
18,690
4
[citation][nom]Haserath[/nom]XP is still better than 7 for netbooks. 7 uses 1.5GB just sitting on the desktop, that is way too much for a netbook.Linux would be better than both for a netbook anyway.[/citation]


i beg to differ on that as my mother runs a AMD athlon XP based AMD system with 1.5gb of ram and an 8400 GS GPU that had windows XP on it with 1.5 of ram and well windows 7 performs better then XP on the same hardware and it is slower the system is then an average new netbook and yet its ram usage tot ram usage is only 400 to 500 or slightly over that of ram even doing and having allot of stuff open, windows 7 is very efficient on how ram is actually used when she had windows XP on with SP3 just have the same amount og stuff running would cause the system to feel laggy to her plus she always had to call me on a problem or 2 each week on windows XP with SP3 witch was a 4 week old install and well the end result


She has yet to call me on how to do this or fix this with windows 7 as it is running in tip top shape since January when i installed it.
 

kelemvor4

Distinguished
Oct 3, 2006
469
0
18,780
0
Netbooks lack the horsepower to run most programs anyway. Linux makes a heck of a lot of sense for netbooks. Lightweight, capable, stable, free.

Windows is needed for pc's due to the lack of native software on competing platforms (even wine is not a very good options for anything made in the last year or two). But a netbook can't run that stuff anyway due to resource constraints so there's no reason to run windows on a netbook.
 

notuptome2004

Distinguished
Oct 6, 2010
152
0
18,690
4
[citation][nom]Aintry[/nom]I'm holding back for that very reason. All I do on my PC is audio processing. All of my gear has to work right or I'm sunk. Right now, everything I use works with Windows XP. I'm not knocking Windows 7 as an OS; I'm sure it's great. But driver support is kind of shaky in the one area that's absolutely critical to me.[/citation]


What gear would that be cause i am sure your gear would work just great under windows 7 as windows 7 audiostack fixed all the sound issues vista had and well also is far more capable and advanced over what XP offers and Drivers are a non issue now for windows 7. i think you assume we still in the begin months of windows vista when drivers for some manufactures were a tad spotty and or non existent so please Detail the hardware you have and then maby go out and try windows 7 before ya assume your hardware wont run right in windows 7
some video links below on the windows 7 audio stack and what is new and changed all from the Developers him self



http://channel9.msdn.com/shows/Going+Deep/Elliot-H-Omiya-Larry-Osterman-and-Frank-Yerrace-Inside-Windows-7-Audio-Stack/



http://channel9.msdn.com/Blogs/Charles/Inside-Windows-7-Larry-Osterman-on-new-audio-capabilities



 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY