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

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.
I don't understand why people hate Vista and like Seven so much when they are almost the same exact thing. The only reason I use Seven over XP is because I am no longer capable of living without its nice features (disk partitioning, easy backup, aero snap) but I still find myself disabling UAC, disabling aero on some programs, and various other quirks I had with Vista.
 
[citation][nom]notuptome2004[/nom]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/Goi [...] dio-Stack/http://channel9.msdn.com/Blogs/Cha [...] pabilities[/citation]
Thanks, I've already done a lot of research, and that's the reason I'm holding off for now.
 
I love my 7 running Netbook and it is much more stable in my experience than XP (apps crash with out taking out the system for instance).

As for OS size, the default Netbook Remix Install is bigger than 2 GB last I checked, not including swap partition.

 
I bought a laptop about 6 months ago. The least expensive one available at Best Buy, $400. Specs: Celeron 900 (2.2Ghz single core) 2gig ram, 7,200rpm drive. It was preloaded with Win7. Speed was ok, not too bad. Well I needed XP due loading software I needed for work that would not work with Win7. So I loaded XP. Boy was it a pain tho, had to slip stream some drivers onto an XP disk. But once I got it loaded, Holy ba jesus was it fast. 10yr old OS on todays hardware. I wish I had this laptop like this 5yrs ago at this price and speed.

Win7 sure is speedy on my overclocked 4ghz quad core desktop, but loading XP on a cheap laptop you purchase today can just be as fast.
 
The Temporary Replacement PC I Bought For A Dollar (Yes $1.00) While I Wait For My paycheck To Fix Mine (I Gouged The Motherboard With A Screwdriver During A CPU Upgrade (I Was Pieced-Off!) Runs Windows7 Rather Well Considering Its A 1.8GHz Sempron With 512MB Of RAM, But If I Were To Get A Netbook Or Any Other Laptop Would Most Likely Run Mandriva Linux.
 
XP is a great system, but it is time to move on. Besides, soon Netbooks will become a thing of the past too, considering that smartphones and the like can pretty much do all netbooks can do.
 
Given that users still use XP, Vista, and 7, doesnt explain much on microsofts part much, but given they have made good OSs. Of that makes an interest of what OSs are to come and the point of those and features as well. Cause 7 seems to have a issue in terms of software for XP, and also running XP on a seperate drive, but is still the way to go. But i dont know, what it is i know as a windows user for me to use the OS as it is always varies from time too time, sometimes you need a new and sometimes you dont, and with Vista thats what we've come to learn the most. So hopefully 7 is the one the helps that one problem out the most.

Especially with Xp maintain some services for another5-6yrs, and in that time a means for Vista to be worth something and a means for 7 to replace XP and lead the way for Vista or visa-versa. So going new and being new, would actually be doing it for a change. Cause i think thats what people are wanting or needing to pay for when then buy something.
 
Now if we can only get printers to work with Win 7. It is still cheaper to get XP or live with older software than buy a $100,000+ Xerox or other brand commercial printer. Can't blame Xerox for not wanting to upgrade their drivers, they want to sell you a new machine. Something really, really sad about Win7 compared to Vista, there is more Microsoft developed Xerox drivers available in Vista than Win7.
 
[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 think you may need to strip down your system a bit if you're using that much on the desktop. That, or it scales prefetching with the amount of RAM you have. Mine uses much less at idle (~1.1 GB/3 GB). Honestly, I wish it would use the RAM more aggressively, rather annoying to see Firefox with 500 MB of stuff paged when there's an entire GB of RAM being used for prefetch cache.
 
[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]


FYI: There are 3 different Windows for Desktop, Servers, & MIDs: Windows 7, Windows Server (2008), & Windows CE (2009 update).

The varying levels exist for the same reason the crippled Radeon HD 5830 exists: to make you want more. And Win 7 Ultimate is that price point for people that want to spend more money for something special that has more than they'll use. At least I see very little the Win 7 Pro is lacking.

As to the comment about kernels: The reason you don't have a modular, varying kernel is for compatibility. That's why Linux keeps the same kernel across a bunch of systems: ex. Debian/Ubuntu/LinuxMint. The kernel varies only between systems that don't need to be compatible like between PCs, Servers, & MIDs. The only compatibility there is file transfers, but not programs.
 
WOW, you got screwed over, a celeron is not not work a penny to me and also it was a single core. I gave up single core processors about two years ago and never looked back. Celeron is intel answer to inexpensive computing. I bought a pentium 2.3Ghz dual core, 4G of RAM, and 32OGB hard drive for $499 around the same time.
 
To correct my apparent Windows worship: Win 7 is not perfect, but it is a BIG step in a positive direction. It reduces the OS footprint (which Vista totally screwed up on) and has tremendous improvements in functionality with modern applications.

The whole auto align to half a screen is amazing for productivity on widescreen displays. And Win 7 networks & shares data & printers soooo much easier than XP. The option to pin items is great. I just don't see justification for the complaints with Windows 7 compatibility. Is there anyone who upgraded to XP without a printer, webcam, or other hardware problem?

Windows still faces eventual obsolescence once people realize browser based OSes (like Google's) provide everything they need if they don't play games. And, eventually, games will run without hitches on Linux. Free is cheaper. I currently run Linux on my non-gaming machine.
 
[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]

Windows 7 does not use that much RAM. I'm running Windows 7 with Virtual Studio 2010 Pro, JCreator, iTunes, Chrome with 4 tabs, and Microsoft word all running and I'm at 1.54 GB. You don't know what you are talking about.
 
It's high time to throw out XP. I've done it since the day VISTA was released. XP is simply not suitable or all the new hardware and gadget and looks like an eyesore on your latest HD LCD monitor with crap fonts that hurt my eyes, lack of zooming while browsing, etc etc. And the people who claims WIN 7 uses 1.5GB of RAM while idle, has no idea what he is talking about. WIN 7 will utilize more RAM if there is more RAM available. People just don't understand how a modern OS works and simply look at numbers to make an errornous judgement. What's the point of having 4GB if your OS isn't smart enough to make the most of it? WIN 7 will automatically scale down memory usage if there are less memory available. I can't believe some people still can't understand this simple concept... As for XP, good riddance!! Goodddd-byyyyeee!!
 
in the music industry, pro tools is the standard. protools does not currently support any OS except windows XP, it will not run on windows 7, i have tried. this is going to put pressure on developers to update software, but atleast downgrade licenses give them a little more time.
 
@devorakman112

I think it is laughable that a modern software company can't get its s*** together and upgrade its software to at least work with vista (and hence Win7) in the almost 5 years since vista came out.
 
netbook with only 1gb onboard will struggle with 7.... users need to upgrade to at least 2gb just to boot the os....
 
[citation][nom]tayb[/nom]Windows 7 does not use that much RAM. I'm running Windows 7 with Virtual Studio 2010 Pro, JCreator, iTunes, Chrome with 4 tabs, and Microsoft word all running and I'm at 1.54 GB. You don't know what you are talking about.[/citation]

thats cause you have limited ram... it adjusts for how much ram you have on your system..

win7 on 1 gig is ALOT slower than 1gig on XP admit it
 
i had the RC version of 7 on my main PC, but i went back to XP because my games were very noticably more sluggish with 7 (regardless of the settings). that, plus windows 7 costs money (for somthing that i don't friggin need..?).
 
Running Vista on 1GB is pretty much impossible.

I used to run WIn7 on my notebook with 1GB, it RAN better than XP before I upgraded. I since added another GB when I got it for free. Not much difference I can tell - but I rarely use the notebook. Win7 boots faster, and is far more reliable for SLEEP mode.

But for netbooks with small SSDs - Win7 is still rather bloated in drive space.

I have 2-3 copies of XP PRO & MCE... wonder if I can sell them for a good price?

 
Fatdoi and Luke ...... Both of you are wrong have you used windows 7 on a netbook with 1gb of ram in any case window s7 runs so damn good on a netbook go youtube some videos or something on it or go buy a new netbook with 1gb of ram cause you spitting out lies are are just BS
 
I bought an IBM Thinkpad x41 yesterday and spent the better part of a day trying to get XP to work on it. In the end I gave up and went for windows 7. What a difference! Install from a USB drive is an amazing feature, especially for a computer with no optical drive, i.e. a netbook, and windows 7 already included a complete set of working drivers for every system in the computer, which is close to a miracle when you take into account the custom or heavily modified hardware found in most small form factor computers. It also runs like a dream and this thing only has a 1.5Ghz Dolthan with 1 Gb of ram.
 
[citation][nom]luke904[/nom]thats cause you have limited ram... it adjusts for how much ram you have on your system..win7 on 1 gig is ALOT slower than 1gig on XP admit it[/citation]


there is no needing him to admit it because it is the freaking truth window s7 runs faster then XP because XP does not understand how to use the resources in your system. Windows 7 understands this perfectly and will adjust for system performance accordingly
[citation][nom]zambutu[/nom]i had the RC version of 7 on my main PC, but i went back to XP because my games were very noticably more sluggish with 7 (regardless of the settings). that, plus windows 7 costs money (for somthing that i don't friggin need..?).[/citation]


Now you ran the RC version witch is well i ran it just fine without gaming issues but here we are 1 year since or more since windows 7 launched and has manage to be a great OS . i would say you need to get the Hell rid of windows XP and install windows 7 you will get better performance out of your system that you had no freaking clue ya had because of XPs limitations.


Example: if you are running a Hyper threaded chip such as the Core i7 under windows XP with HT enabled your performance is gonna go down the drain and be far slower then with it off. in windows 7 because windows has a brand new CPU scheduler system it understands that you have 4 physical cores and 4 logical ones Windows 7 can properly balance out performance and go oh ok this is a logical core so i wont load shit on that yet until the physical cores are filled with work loads


on XP it will just throw what ever anywhere and wont know the differ



.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom