Reminder: Support for Win 2K, XP SP2 Ends July

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]kronos_cornelius[/nom]Microsoft is quickly moving to a place where they are no longer a monopoly. Why would they want to force people out of their product? Once you force them out of Win XP, you take the change that they will move to Windows 7, OS X or Ubuntu Linux. At my school, they already have triple-boot machines, and one of them is Windows XP. The Linux side can surf the web, open PDF, edit files, and print to the lab's printer. OSX I would not know because I am not a mac fun, but Office can be used on OSX. I thought pushing people out of WinXP was a good strategy 4 years ago when Microsoft looked stronger and there was no alternative. But today, I think they could be accelerating the inevitable. Its as if Sony decided to make the PS2 obsolete in hopes that the user-base will move to the PS3... it could work, but it could also backfire.[/citation]
I don't think I've ever seen anyone berate a company for normal practices regarding their product life cycles. XP was bound to be discontinued. It happened to all other Windows versions before it. To continue to hold on to it just proves that you are being a curmudgeon and don't want to move on to that new fangled fancy wiz-bang technology, no?

These kind of responses baffle me. By the time Windows 98 lost support, I was well on my way to embrace Windows XP. Now that XP is losing support, I'm all the way a Windows 7 user. It's head and heels over XP, which, while I still have it installed at home, I only use because there's something wrong with Windows 7's pass through of line in audio. But that need is going to be going away within a couple months, anyway. I hate having to use Windows XP, really. I'm going to be asking for Windows 7 at work at some point (they've got an image and have been deploying it on new computers for a while now, yay).
 
It's not like everyone have the option to upgrade.

I have a Wibrain B1H and there are drivers for Ubuntu 7.10/8.04 and Windows XP.
It just can't run any Windows OS but XP.

There's no hope for new drivers either, because Wibrain went down last year in the economic crisis.
It's an amazing device despite it's specs and I'll use it till it breaks, XP or not it's your choice MS.
 
If you have old hardware I see NO reason to upgrade. Leave your XP install, make sure everything is up to date and just look forward to Win7 on your NEXT computer.
 
[citation][nom]proxy711[/nom]Well don't do anything the CIA and NSA disapprove and you wont have any problems from them. Really the tin foil hat isn't cool anymore, no one likes being spied on, but to expect that the everyday normal joe is being spied on is just being paranoid.[/citation]

Ignorance is bliss!! World history is replete with lessons learned (too late) by citizenry who trusted their governments implisitly as you suggest we should. Do a little reading.
 
Just upgrade to SP3 already and stop complaining. Wasn't SP3 the one that forces you to validate your OS? Maybe everyone complaining is just using pirated versions.
 
i dont see why it would be a problem for Microsoft to continue their XP updates... it will eventually reach a point where many users wont be using XP so updates would use a minimal amount of bandwidth on their servers and in an era of Terabytes and above and i cant really see XP updates making a very big dent in their server space...

why kill support for older systems that have devices that do not have drivers made for their hardware in newer OS. i can understand not releasing 'new' updates but why kill off the updates all together??

 
I don't think they would just dump their XP here for Windows7 coz lots of on-line games here are not supported by win7...maybe,.. in a year or two..
 
ALOT of people have mis-read this article. Support for Windows XP SP2 is coming to an end.

Support for Windows XP SP3 (this is what you most likely have installed) will last for another 4 years...

Hardly cause for panic or rapid upgrades to Windows 7 yet...especially on the business front.
 
[citation][nom]ram1009[/nom]Ignorance is bliss!! World history is replete with lessons learned (too late) by citizenry who trusted their governments implisitly as you suggest we should. Do a little reading.[/citation]
You know, paranoia is rarely based in reality.

The NSA was involved with your Windows XP as well. It's nothing new.

The reports back then stated that they were working with Microsoft to improve the security of the OS. Given their knowledge of computer security (it's part of their job, dangit), they would prove to be an invaluable resource in informing Microsoft of current attacks and methods of protecting against them. To leave Microsoft out in the wind would leave them incredibly susceptible, even with their massive research budget.

If you are really concerned with backdoors, you can monitor your computer's communications via a 3rd party firewall or the like. But what evidence do you have that supports your claim that the NSA built backdoors into Windows 7 (and Vista, and XP, since they were also involved with Microsoft for those OSes)? Because if it's just "the NSA was involved", when the reports only stated that they consulted with Microsoft to educate them of the types of threats a computer faces in this day and age, then you have no leg to stand on, and it simply comes down to irrational paranoia.
 
*sigh* Even with new hardware, there is no reason to "upgrade"

TomsHardware is dedicated to performance. Yet, here we have an OS which is worse is almost every way when compared to its predecessor, and people are all excited about it? Why? Win7 is Vista SP2... here is my take on the basic features:

The UI:

XP can get themes and aftermarket add-ons which make it just like win7. Therefore, arguments for the win7 UI are not relevant. Even a freakishly bad OS can have a shiny paint job. Anyone stuck on this point can go get rick rolled.

The Kernel:

This is where XP obliterates any reason for the switch. In many categories of synthetics, XP wins. Even in the benchmarks where XP loses, win7 is usually only better by an insignificant margin. So, at best, the win7 kernel gets a resounding "meh." from me. In real world performance, my user experience has been much, much better with XP.

..and what about Linux? Why don't we seem to care that another OS on the same hardware has utterly obliterated Win7 and vista? I can think of nowhere else on TomsHardware that such mediocraty is celebrated. An OS has a job. Its job is to manage the hardware and serve the needs of the applications it's hosting. Windows absolutely fails when the basic functions of an OS are examined compared to Linux... just do a google search on "Windows 7 vs Linux" and prepare to be convinced.

After the obvious failures of the windows kernel it comes down to the "user experience." I used to have two PCs in my house on win7. I moved back to XP and 1) I can still do absolutely everything I need to (including gaming with dx10 and watch BluRay in 1080p/Dolby Digital), 2) startups/shutdowns/standbys are MUCH faster, and 3) believe it or not, the systems are more stable. Nothing exotic either, just more stable. So, kids, basically what we have here is a company who could have either 1) continued improving winXP (which was working fine and has lots of room to improve) or 2) sell you some bungled POS that is completely unrelated to XP for basically no technical reason. They've spent millions of engineering hours and billions of dollars on vista/win7, and this is the result? Are you kidding me? Why are you people excited about this?

Oh, and in case you missed it, the best part is that win7 is really just Vista SP2... you do know about the Mojave experiment, right? All you people who bought win 7 got pwned (epic pwned).

So, in a perfect world, Microsoft would distribute linux (because it can't seem to figure out how to even do basic memory management well) and stick to the marketing of the relatively meaningless UI layer like it always has. :)
 
I guess "new hardware" such as video cards with over a gigabyte of memory and I7 systems with 12gigs are no reason to upgrade from XP? Even XP 64-bit is extremely buggy. I have used it.

Themes to look like Vista/7. That is a nice skin, but without an hardware accelerated desktop(Aero) it still runs worse(no v-sync and even dragging windows uses the cpu) and uses extra cpu power for nothing.

Vista/7 have better memory management then XP.

Lets add to features that are worth the upgrade(Assuming you are not still on an old P4 with 2gigs of ram).

1. Superfetch. Programs used often are fetched in idle time for faster loading. This works very well. This by it self makes apps under both Vista and 7 load faster then they do on XP.

2. Aero. Like the requirements or not. New hardware has made it so even integrated can take advantage of smoother window moments with lower cpu usage. A hardware accelerated desktop was long over due for windows. Linux and OSX(this is one thing Apple did a great job of, full hardware control helped allot) had it for years. That said, I find many linux distro have it, but on some windows managers it is without vsync.

3. Better use of multi cpu systems. Windows Vista and 7 both tend to make better use of multiple cpus. When XP was released, very few systems outside of the server world had multiple cpus.

4. DX10/11. While you can install it on XP, there are lots of issues with games that still refuse to run. Even many DX9c games will fail to start after this mod. To add to this, I never have to mess with DX on my Vista/7 Systems. If you want to mod and mod all day, that is good.

5. Better service and startup behavior. Vista/7 Can actually delay the startup of services allowing more serviced to take there turn starting so a system is not bogged on startup. The end result is a shorter time to a responsive system(even with services still loading) on startup. To add to this. Windows Vista and 7 both have better use of idle hard drive time to get things done. So at no point have I had windows bog down my drive, it only reads when the drive is idle(even between requests of other apps). This leads to a smoother experience.

There are many other things as well(start search), Like the fact that win7 cost me less then XP did :)

I am not saying XP is bad. I am saying Vista(After SP1) and 7 are still better on the right hardware. My older systems still run XP and will until the day I stop running them. I did not run out and replace XP with Vista or Vista with 7. When i build a system, I pick what it needs and keep it on that system. My laptop has XP. My media center has XP MCE 2005(i "could" put 7 on it, but there is no need for what i do with it). I have a Vista machine and 7 machine as well. All of them work well with what they have.

As for 7 being Vista SP2. Yes and No. There are several re-writes of code that are far more advanced then any service pack. Some things are just tweaked, others took far more work.
 
4. DX10/11. While you can install it on XP, there are lots of issues with games that still refuse to run. Even many DX9c games will fail to start after this mod. To add to this, I never have to mess with DX on my Vista/7 Systems. If you want to mod and mod all day, that is good.
Click to expand...
Actually, you still can't. XP's kernel really is too old to be able to work with the DX10/11 implementation and drivers. Any "installation" of DX10/11 on XP you see is actually an API layer over equivalent OpenGL calls (which, by the way, won't cover all of DX10/11's capabilities, since OpenGL isn't as full-featured as DX, and hasn't been for many years).
 
Sidran, your points are irrelavent

I am simply saying that on the same hardware, XP will deliver a better experience than Win7. So, when you say "on the right hardware, win 7 and vista are better" I submit that on the "right" hardware that you have in mind, XP will start faster than Win7, will shut down faster than Win7, and load apps faster than Win7. And, in all cases, Linux will beat XP in basic OS functions. This has been my experience so far. My company of 80,000 people agree :). Windows 7 is an embarassment and and IT nightmare.

Do not mention DX10 or 11. To not support those on XP was PURELY a marketing move on Microsoft's part and can, therefore, not be considered a valid argument.

...finally, do you have any hard evidence to back up your statement that Win7/Vista manage memory better than XP?
 
You made some claims. Where's your proof? I would posit that the burden of proof is on you.

I didn't make all those points. But regardless...

And DOS launches apps instantly, boots instantly, and to shut down all you have to do is turn it off! That's hardly a measure of "better". As hardware inevitably gets faster, the user experience of an operating system that on old hardware may be horrible, is just fine on even entry-level systems. I don't care if XP is at all faster at booting (which, I would say, only is true in clean install cases). My Windows XP installation is actually no faster than my Windows 7 installation. In fact, it's slower, and I do manage it as well as I can.

I personally don't care one bit if you decide to stick with Windows XP. I'll be waiting for the day you eventually move on, though. I still am surprised that people on an enthusiast site would stick with the old and fugly. And while you may have decided that Windows XP is easier to manage than Windows 7, I know as a fact that many companies have made the opposite evaluation. And personally, I hate working on Windows XP, now. It feels ancient, and it really doesn't run as smoothly as Windows 7 at all.

I wonder where all the people went that were decrying Windows XP left and right for being such a horrible OS and a huge security weak link?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom