I wonder what M$hit did to make people belive Windows 7 is faster / more stable than XP. I'm doing a lot of work with big IDE environments, i did a lot of comparisons and actually XP gives much better experience, is much smoother and stable than Windows 7. Maybe 7 makes sense for gamers, but not for me.
-
Leakers revise RTX 5090 and RTX 5080 power draw to 575W and 360W respectively — Up to 27% higher than last-generation RTX 40 GPUs
- Status
- Dec 1, 2007
- 1,091
- 37
- 19,310
"The move from Windows 7 to Windows Vista, however, wasn't anything of the sort."
Don't you mean the other way around. I don't know any sane person that would move FROM Win7 to Vista.
Anyway, sentence structure aside, Win8 is worrying me with the "it'll work on every device" talk. I don't need my beefy desktop rig to play nice with my tablet (partially because I'll never buy a tablet...). I don't need an idiot proof start screen with embedded HTML 5 (which sounds like a massive virus magnet waiting to happen). I just need an OS that stays out of my way so I can do what I want faster. Maybe make it a bit prettier in the process... that's about it.
Don't you mean the other way around. I don't know any sane person that would move FROM Win7 to Vista.
Anyway, sentence structure aside, Win8 is worrying me with the "it'll work on every device" talk. I don't need my beefy desktop rig to play nice with my tablet (partially because I'll never buy a tablet...). I don't need an idiot proof start screen with embedded HTML 5 (which sounds like a massive virus magnet waiting to happen). I just need an OS that stays out of my way so I can do what I want faster. Maybe make it a bit prettier in the process... that's about it.
OS should give user fast and intuitive access to applications, make them run fast and integrate them. Everything more is just bloatware, i really don't give a shit about eye candies Windows 7 gives, it looks neat at first glance but quickly became boring and annoying. Actualy M$ struggles to find a way to keep selling its OS'es so it's puting more and more money into marketing to make people belive they need new, better, faster, more stable... And this is all one big fat lie, as they never did anything faster and more stable than XP, which can be fine tuned and fly even on 256MB of ram. Windows 7 is memory and disk space hog, it is utterly useless in terms of productivity, but with DX move at least they could force gamers to switch to Win7.
- Dec 1, 2007
- 1,091
- 37
- 19,310
[citation][nom]lutel[/nom]OS should give user fast and intuitive access to applications, make them run fast and integrate them. Everything more is just bloatware, i really don't give a shit about eye candies Windows 7 gives, it looks neat at first glance but quickly became boring and annoying. Actualy M$ struggles to find a way to keep selling its OS'es so it's puting more and more money into marketing to make people belive they need new, better, faster, more stable... And this is all one big fat lie, as they never did anything faster and more stable than XP, which can be fine tuned and fly even on 256MB of ram. Windows 7 is memory and disk space hog, it is utterly useless in terms of productivity, but with DX move at least they could force gamers to switch to Win7.[/citation]
I take it you haven't actually switched to Windows 7. They've done benchmarks in performance for both XP and Win7 and they're close. In some cases Win7 beats XP despite it's higher system requirements.
Also, being able to grab the title bar and snap it to the sides of the screen and maximize/minimize makes window management much easier. Not to mention, the windows themselves don't look like they were made for a kinder gardener. I have to admit, Win7 is my favorite Microsoft OS to date.
That said, Xp was absolute CRAP running on anything less than 512MB of ram (which should have been the listed minimum spec). It doesn't run well until 1GB and it's takes 2GB to be considered "fast". That's not to say it's a bad OS, though. I would rank it just under Win7 but before Vista.
(note the use of an actual S instead of a $. Lets grow up people...) MS needs to focus on making tasks faster. Snapping windows to the edges of the screen is a great example of this. Also, the customizable jump lists made it easier to get to specific folders without having to create an array of shortcuts on your desktop. These are things we need. Speed up our tasks, don't put extra steps between me and the task at hand.
One place I see this failing in Win8 is the new Start Screen. You have to swipe through pages of programs before getting to the one you need as opposed to the list in Win7 (which was also searchable). I would doubt that you could simply disable this screen an just use the classic start menu, but that would mean there are features being added that are worthless.
I have a feeling Win8 will be another "Vista". Incomplete ideas that will be corrected in Win9. Also, desktop functionality may be compromised in hopes of making the OS "tablet-friendly". This is a particularly idiotic move, because tablets won't last. I know industry leaders are pushing for it, but they're expensive, glorified toys. Once the fad passes, we'll just be left with a clumsy OS designed for yesterday's "Fadgets" (not to be confused with the derogatory term for homosexual individuals).
I take it you haven't actually switched to Windows 7. They've done benchmarks in performance for both XP and Win7 and they're close. In some cases Win7 beats XP despite it's higher system requirements.
Also, being able to grab the title bar and snap it to the sides of the screen and maximize/minimize makes window management much easier. Not to mention, the windows themselves don't look like they were made for a kinder gardener. I have to admit, Win7 is my favorite Microsoft OS to date.
That said, Xp was absolute CRAP running on anything less than 512MB of ram (which should have been the listed minimum spec). It doesn't run well until 1GB and it's takes 2GB to be considered "fast". That's not to say it's a bad OS, though. I would rank it just under Win7 but before Vista.
(note the use of an actual S instead of a $. Lets grow up people...) MS needs to focus on making tasks faster. Snapping windows to the edges of the screen is a great example of this. Also, the customizable jump lists made it easier to get to specific folders without having to create an array of shortcuts on your desktop. These are things we need. Speed up our tasks, don't put extra steps between me and the task at hand.
One place I see this failing in Win8 is the new Start Screen. You have to swipe through pages of programs before getting to the one you need as opposed to the list in Win7 (which was also searchable). I would doubt that you could simply disable this screen an just use the classic start menu, but that would mean there are features being added that are worthless.
I have a feeling Win8 will be another "Vista". Incomplete ideas that will be corrected in Win9. Also, desktop functionality may be compromised in hopes of making the OS "tablet-friendly". This is a particularly idiotic move, because tablets won't last. I know industry leaders are pushing for it, but they're expensive, glorified toys. Once the fad passes, we'll just be left with a clumsy OS designed for yesterday's "Fadgets" (not to be confused with the derogatory term for homosexual individuals).
- Dec 1, 2007
- 1,091
- 37
- 19,310
[citation][nom]SirDude0Lot[/nom]Or you could just dump the entire microsoft bullshit and get a real operating system like Linux or Mac OSX[/citation]
I almost Thumbed Up this comment because it's just too rich to hide. This is spoken like a true techno-snob. You think you're cool because you can put down a popular OS. Let's see you play any AAA game at the same framerate as a windows game on Linux (with Wine or Cedega, of course). Hell, lets see you play a AAA game on Mac... even one DESIGNED for a Mac. They don't run as well. I know the response lurking in your mind is likely "well, the servers that run the games run on linux" and you're probably right. Unfortunately, most people find Linux too much of a hassle for everyday use. On the flipside, most people either can't afford a Mac or they understand enough about computers that they don't want to seem like a pompous douchebag carrying a Mac around.
As much as you hate it, Windows is the middle ground. That's why it's still the most popular OS. It's compatible, it runs 90% of the applications people use, it doesn't cost an arm, leg, and your first-born, and it doesn't require you to enter the console to do simple things. The only "bullshit" you have to deal with is buying a decent Anti-virus program. Besides, if you're a competent user, you'll have all your data backed up separately so the unlikely event of a virus getting past Nod32 won't result in any loss of data. I'd rather clean up a virus than pay twice the amount for similar hardware or continually enter the console to install things that aren't available or up to date in the repository.
I almost Thumbed Up this comment because it's just too rich to hide. This is spoken like a true techno-snob. You think you're cool because you can put down a popular OS. Let's see you play any AAA game at the same framerate as a windows game on Linux (with Wine or Cedega, of course). Hell, lets see you play a AAA game on Mac... even one DESIGNED for a Mac. They don't run as well. I know the response lurking in your mind is likely "well, the servers that run the games run on linux" and you're probably right. Unfortunately, most people find Linux too much of a hassle for everyday use. On the flipside, most people either can't afford a Mac or they understand enough about computers that they don't want to seem like a pompous douchebag carrying a Mac around.
As much as you hate it, Windows is the middle ground. That's why it's still the most popular OS. It's compatible, it runs 90% of the applications people use, it doesn't cost an arm, leg, and your first-born, and it doesn't require you to enter the console to do simple things. The only "bullshit" you have to deal with is buying a decent Anti-virus program. Besides, if you're a competent user, you'll have all your data backed up separately so the unlikely event of a virus getting past Nod32 won't result in any loss of data. I'd rather clean up a virus than pay twice the amount for similar hardware or continually enter the console to install things that aren't available or up to date in the repository.
apache_lives
Splendid
- Dec 10, 2002
- 6,873
- 1
- 26,160
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]the 64 bit version got a bad rap, but its not as bad as most people think, that said, i'm not using it. being limited to 4gb of ram is the only hard part, though i have considered setting up a ram drive as a swap disc, which would effectively give me as much ram as i damn well please, just not as efficient. i can easily eat 6gb of ram on the pc i have with 7, but i rarely use it. being tied to dx9, as a gamer, im VERY proud to say that graphics mean nothing to me. sure pretty graphics are nice, but i don't care, to me, gameplay > everything else. there are so few games that require 10+ only, now, how many of those games cant be done in dx9, as in the game play required dx10 or 11 to even function? i honestly wish people would stop using dx because microsoft will use it again at some point to try and push gamers to a new os that no one likes, or at best, push us to a more refined version of windows 7 that will cost 170+$ to get the version that doesn't suck. i dont use ie for anything so it doesn't bother me that microsoft is trying to get me to upgrade by not giving me 9. i also dont use windows live for anything, i wanted to, but parts are so badly put together that its not an option for me, im looking at photo gallery when i say that, the taging system is almost unuseable. not sure what you mean by 2gb video cards, i only have a 1gb hd5770 that i can make play anything. i would love to keep every program i use open while playing games, but i close some of them to get 2gb of head room, i have had 6 harddrives fail over a 3 month period of time. i will NEVER trust large harddrive with ANY of my data even if i have redundancy. i really dont mind having more steps to set up a hdd, i set it up once and can largely forget about it. ill be honest and say i have no idea what ahci is. and wiki didnt help me. outlook express, yea, i use gmail, i never liked outlook because how many viruses ran automaticly just by opening up an email?really there are only 2 things that windows 7 has that entices me at all. dx11 - though i wish people would use opengl, its not that far behind and you could make a game that ran on EVERYTHING that way, making linux a viable optionbetter ssd support - granted right now this means nothing to me, but when ssds drop to sub 1$ a gb, it will challenge what os i have top boot from.[/citation]
64 bit- Not as bad? What exactly is wrong with it? Wheres the problem? What are you talking about.
64 bit- Not as bad? What exactly is wrong with it? Wheres the problem? What are you talking about.
apache_lives
Splendid
- Dec 10, 2002
- 6,873
- 1
- 26,160
[citation][nom]ginnai[/nom]I am always surprised by the intensity of the anti-slightly outdated technology (32-bit, XP, etc). Both sides make valid points, but its just the fact that this argument is always luring around a corner that shocks me. Until I am out of grad school, I am going to be rockin' XP... because the price of a new OS is more than I want to afford. Its not surprising that Windows is trying to maintain/lower the min specs, they sell software, not hardware. Microsoft doesn't want/care if you upgrade your hardware, but software is a must! Blizzard does the same thing, bigger game in a smaller package, it makes sense.[/citation]
Slightly outdated? 10 years is more then outdated. If you have the $$$ for a new machine you should have bought a new os with it otherwise your still using OLD junk.
Slightly outdated? 10 years is more then outdated. If you have the $$$ for a new machine you should have bought a new os with it otherwise your still using OLD junk.
apache_lives
Splendid
- Dec 10, 2002
- 6,873
- 1
- 26,160
[citation][nom]lutel[/nom]OS should give user fast and intuitive access to applications, make them run fast and integrate them. Everything more is just bloatware, i really don't give a shit about eye candies Windows 7 gives, it looks neat at first glance but quickly became boring and annoying. Actualy M$ struggles to find a way to keep selling its OS'es so it's puting more and more money into marketing to make people belive they need new, better, faster, more stable... And this is all one big fat lie, as they never did anything faster and more stable than XP, which can be fine tuned and fly even on 256MB of ram. Windows 7 is memory and disk space hog, it is utterly useless in terms of productivity, but with DX move at least they could force gamers to switch to Win7.[/citation]
YOUR XP IS FAR TOO HEAVY, IM AN IDIOT AND I STICK TO WINDOWS 98 CAUSE IT RUNS ON 64 MB OF RAM AND I DONT NEED ADVANCED FEATURES SUCH AS RELIABILITY, STABILITY OR PRODUCTIVITY
this is the 2001 equivalent of your statement
EVERY time a new microsoft OS comes out everyone is "ah nah dont want it" or "too heavy" or "too hard to use" and before you know it its accepted and everyone uses it and finally likes it before another OS comes along to fill in that spot of, and no one looks back and see's the trend.
Does anyone here still use windows 2000? its ligher and just as reliable as xp, right? Windows 95/98 anyone? it was heavier and slower and whatever compared to 3.xx?
YOUR XP IS FAR TOO HEAVY, IM AN IDIOT AND I STICK TO WINDOWS 98 CAUSE IT RUNS ON 64 MB OF RAM AND I DONT NEED ADVANCED FEATURES SUCH AS RELIABILITY, STABILITY OR PRODUCTIVITY
this is the 2001 equivalent of your statement
EVERY time a new microsoft OS comes out everyone is "ah nah dont want it" or "too heavy" or "too hard to use" and before you know it its accepted and everyone uses it and finally likes it before another OS comes along to fill in that spot of, and no one looks back and see's the trend.
Does anyone here still use windows 2000? its ligher and just as reliable as xp, right? Windows 95/98 anyone? it was heavier and slower and whatever compared to 3.xx?
livebriand
Distinguished
- Apr 18, 2011
- 1,004
- 0
- 19,290
[citation][nom]splinterprise[/nom]livebriand: No. Microsoft still doesn't have proper 64 bit support together for most of their product lines, especially Office 2010. Check out Microsoft's official recommendation for pretty much not deploying 64 bit anything onto enterprise client (aka not-server) machines. 64 bit Windows may be good enough for home users who don't have reliance on 10 y/o Access databases and Excel spreadsheets, but MS' 64 bit platforms aren't nearly backwards-compatible enough for businesses.Linux, on the other hand, has no problems with 64 bit, and almost no difference in capability or stability between 32/64bit platforms.[/citation]
How does Microsoft not have proper support? I've been running nothing but Windows 7 64-bit for a year and a half, and I haven't had any issues with it. Everything I use runs, even older things like Photoshop CS (1). Also, you can still use 32-bit Office if you like. Personally I use 64-bit just because I want to see how well it runs anyway (despite Microsoft warning not to), and I haven't had any issues. It works just as well as Office 2010 32-bit did back when I had XP. Seriously, the compatibility issues are nonexistant. Just get a 64-bit OS and forget about 32-bit.
Of the 4 Windows machines in my house, 3 happen to be within 2 years old and shipped with Windows 7, while one is about 8 years and has XP. If I had older machines that shipped with Vista or even some that shipped with XP (as long as they are dual-core), I would vebriand: No. Microsoft still doesn't have proper 64 bit support together for most of their prupgrade them. That XP machine is probably going to be replaced sometime soon, as it's time anyway - with 1GB RAM and a 3.2GHz Pentium 4, XP's performance is okay but not great. All the machines I've seen that can't run a 64-bit OS probably can't run Windows 7 32-bit smoothly anyway. 64-bit's requirements are basically the same as 32-bit except for more RAM and a CPU that supports it, which any computer from the past 5 years or more supports.
Therefore, there is no real reason to stick with 32-bit. And do those business things that don't run well with 64-bit OSes run well on 32-bit Vista or 7? I kinda doubt it. It's time to move on.
How does Microsoft not have proper support? I've been running nothing but Windows 7 64-bit for a year and a half, and I haven't had any issues with it. Everything I use runs, even older things like Photoshop CS (1). Also, you can still use 32-bit Office if you like. Personally I use 64-bit just because I want to see how well it runs anyway (despite Microsoft warning not to), and I haven't had any issues. It works just as well as Office 2010 32-bit did back when I had XP. Seriously, the compatibility issues are nonexistant. Just get a 64-bit OS and forget about 32-bit.
Of the 4 Windows machines in my house, 3 happen to be within 2 years old and shipped with Windows 7, while one is about 8 years and has XP. If I had older machines that shipped with Vista or even some that shipped with XP (as long as they are dual-core), I would vebriand: No. Microsoft still doesn't have proper 64 bit support together for most of their prupgrade them. That XP machine is probably going to be replaced sometime soon, as it's time anyway - with 1GB RAM and a 3.2GHz Pentium 4, XP's performance is okay but not great. All the machines I've seen that can't run a 64-bit OS probably can't run Windows 7 32-bit smoothly anyway. 64-bit's requirements are basically the same as 32-bit except for more RAM and a CPU that supports it, which any computer from the past 5 years or more supports.
Therefore, there is no real reason to stick with 32-bit. And do those business things that don't run well with 64-bit OSes run well on 32-bit Vista or 7? I kinda doubt it. It's time to move on.
livebriand
Distinguished
- Apr 18, 2011
- 1,004
- 0
- 19,290
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]YOUR XP IS FAR TOO HEAVY, IM AN IDIOT AND I STICK TO WINDOWS 98 CAUSE IT RUNS ON 64 MB OF RAM AND I DONT NEED ADVANCED FEATURES SUCH AS RELIABILITY, STABILITY OR PRODUCTIVITYthis is the 2001 equivalent of your statementEVERY time a new microsoft OS comes out everyone is "ah nah dont want it" or "too heavy" or "too hard to use" and before you know it its accepted and everyone uses it and finally likes it before another OS comes along to fill in that spot of, and no one looks back and see's the trend.Does anyone here still use windows 2000? its ligher and just as reliable as xp, right? Windows 95/98 anyone? it was heavier and slower and whatever compared to 3.xx?[/citation]
Yeah but there was a benefit from upgrading from the 9x OSes to w2k. Windows 2000 is rock solid, and the worst I've been able to do is crash a program. With Windows 98, I easily crashed the entire OS while trying to force it to run Google Chrome under KernelEx (yeah I know I'm not supposed to do that, but still...). W2k had far fewer bsods, if at all, and w98 had far more. There were gains. Also, newer OSes support new hardware. Try running w2k on modern hardware. Sure, it'll see the cores (which w98 won't), but it has a 32-bit ram limit, realistically 3.25GB. And you can't run modern programs on it.
Yeah but there was a benefit from upgrading from the 9x OSes to w2k. Windows 2000 is rock solid, and the worst I've been able to do is crash a program. With Windows 98, I easily crashed the entire OS while trying to force it to run Google Chrome under KernelEx (yeah I know I'm not supposed to do that, but still...). W2k had far fewer bsods, if at all, and w98 had far more. There were gains. Also, newer OSes support new hardware. Try running w2k on modern hardware. Sure, it'll see the cores (which w98 won't), but it has a 32-bit ram limit, realistically 3.25GB. And you can't run modern programs on it.
clonazepam
Distinguished
- Jul 10, 2010
- 2,629
- 0
- 21,310
Windows ME offered next to nothing over Windows 98 but was great timing for their xbox project.
Windows 8 may/may not add much over Windows 7 but is great timing for their next xbox project.
Windows 8 may/may not add much over Windows 7 but is great timing for their next xbox project.
dalauder
Splendid
- Aug 30, 2010
- 4,421
- 219
- 23,690
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]The issue with Vista wasnt Vista is was companies like Acer etc that sold units with 512mb of memory and packed it with so much useless junk it just crawled, vista if properly setup was great, i would still take vista over XP any day, and windows 7 - its 99% vista.[/citation]I've ran Windows Vista on machines that greatly exceeded minimum specs (6GB RAM, etc.) and it's SLOW. Windows XP loses some functionality, but it is faster. I don't see how you can claim that Vista wasn't slow. Windows 7 is MUCH quicker--roughly the speed of XP with a lot more functionality. Blame it on ACER if you like, but Vista sucked--even on custom builds.
Northwestern
Distinguished
- Jun 17, 2011
- 373
- 0
- 18,790
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]I know bugs carried across from Vista to 7, and i know its not perfect, as for crashing - Nvidia caused just about all of the issues there. A properly installed/setup Vista will crash or cause far less issues then XP.XP no matter what hardware (quad core, 4gb etc) you have its still stale and slow (even the 64-bit with 8gb - feels the same as the 32-bit with 1gb), hangs in the same places and is just pure junk - its days are over.When ram is so cheap, why not 2-4gb - im using 16gb, same as my work machines - when its $50 for 4gb WHY THE HELL NOT[/citation]
To confirm it was Nvidia's fault, I had a Dell XPS M1530. My first laptop and at the time, I didn't know crap about anything. Within my second year the laptop started going down the crapper, everything started to come apart and without even diagnosing the thing, I rendered it Vista's fault.
Today, however I have moved on from that laptop. After some research, I found my laptop had been plagued by a faulty Nvidia chip which fried the motherboard. 98% of the problems I encountered was because of the chip, not the OS, while 1% was viruses. I admit, Vista had it's share of problems as the final 1% was Vista's fault. Though Vista just came out when computers weren't as great.
To confirm it was Nvidia's fault, I had a Dell XPS M1530. My first laptop and at the time, I didn't know crap about anything. Within my second year the laptop started going down the crapper, everything started to come apart and without even diagnosing the thing, I rendered it Vista's fault.
Today, however I have moved on from that laptop. After some research, I found my laptop had been plagued by a faulty Nvidia chip which fried the motherboard. 98% of the problems I encountered was because of the chip, not the OS, while 1% was viruses. I admit, Vista had it's share of problems as the final 1% was Vista's fault. Though Vista just came out when computers weren't as great.
rohitbaran
Distinguished
- Mar 21, 2010
- 1,938
- 0
- 20,160
Well, Windows 8 is still Windows vs 6.xx i.e. same version as Windows 7. The least they can do is keep the system requirements same if not reduce them.
jj463rd
Distinguished
- Apr 9, 2008
- 1,510
- 0
- 19,860
[citation][nom]dalauder[/nom]I've ran Windows Vista on machines that greatly exceeded minimum specs (6GB RAM, etc.) and it's SLOW. Windows XP loses some functionality, but it is faster. I don't see how you can claim that Vista wasn't slow. Windows 7 is MUCH quicker--roughly the speed of XP with a lot more functionality. Blame it on ACER if you like, but Vista sucked--even on custom builds.[/citation]
It didn't on my custom system.I had 8GB DDR2 RAM (cost $100 back in 2008),a quad core CPU and Vista Home Premium 64 bit.One the fastest booting and usable systems that I have although the CPU is now aged but still quite a useful system.I still enjoy it as much as my 2 other newer Windows 7 custom builds.
It didn't on my custom system.I had 8GB DDR2 RAM (cost $100 back in 2008),a quad core CPU and Vista Home Premium 64 bit.One the fastest booting and usable systems that I have although the CPU is now aged but still quite a useful system.I still enjoy it as much as my 2 other newer Windows 7 custom builds.
Khimera2000
Distinguished
- Jul 16, 2009
- 324
- 0
- 18,780
[citation][nom]SirDude0Lot[/nom]Or you could just dump the entire microsoft bullshit and get a real operating system like Linux or Mac OSX[/citation]
LOL listing OSX and Linux together just made me laugh. Mac is just doing incremental updates to a propitiatory version of unix, and by extension Linux. I'm still waiting for apple to release there own OS that was actually coded in house.
LOL listing OSX and Linux together just made me laugh. Mac is just doing incremental updates to a propitiatory version of unix, and by extension Linux. I'm still waiting for apple to release there own OS that was actually coded in house.
apache_lives
Splendid
- Dec 10, 2002
- 6,873
- 1
- 26,160
[citation][nom]livebriand[/nom]Yeah but there was a benefit from upgrading from the 9x OSes to w2k. Windows 2000 is rock solid, and the worst I've been able to do is crash a program. With Windows 98, I easily crashed the entire OS while trying to force it to run Google Chrome under KernelEx (yeah I know I'm not supposed to do that, but still...). W2k had far fewer bsods, if at all, and w98 had far more. There were gains. Also, newer OSes support new hardware. Try running w2k on modern hardware. Sure, it'll see the cores (which w98 won't), but it has a 32-bit ram limit, realistically 3.25GB. And you can't run modern programs on it.[/citation]
You cannot do ANYTHING serious on an XP/2k machine - the 4gb limit makes it useless for pro's or power users, and the 64-bit version - comeon seriously, that piece of just was rubbish since day one, never really supported then, still not properly supported now.
Anyone using Windows XP today here and now obviously doesnt do anything serious with there machine, or simply doesnt want 100% from there system.
Again i state reasons why it should be dead and buried already:
No TRIM support
No DirectX 11 support
No Native AHCI support
DPINST tool doesnt work for rolling out drivers
Microsoft Office 2007+ Destroys Outlook Express
Windows Live Essentials (latest) doesnt work (- MSN etc)
No widely supported 64-bit version = ~3g limit
Halo 2 doesnt work natively (lol had to add that 😀 )
No Internet Explorer 9 (if thats your thing)
No native HDD 4k sector support
The usuals - never feels "quicker" no matter how much ram you give it, it looks so old and out-dated, more security issues, less and less hardware support, hangs in the same spots every time.
I HATE xp, and if you guys ever used Windows 7 for more then an hour on a DECENT machine (Pentium 4's and Athlon XP's are DEAD) you would too - i kid you not.
You cannot do ANYTHING serious on an XP/2k machine - the 4gb limit makes it useless for pro's or power users, and the 64-bit version - comeon seriously, that piece of just was rubbish since day one, never really supported then, still not properly supported now.
Anyone using Windows XP today here and now obviously doesnt do anything serious with there machine, or simply doesnt want 100% from there system.
Again i state reasons why it should be dead and buried already:
No TRIM support
No DirectX 11 support
No Native AHCI support
DPINST tool doesnt work for rolling out drivers
Microsoft Office 2007+ Destroys Outlook Express
Windows Live Essentials (latest) doesnt work (- MSN etc)
No widely supported 64-bit version = ~3g limit
Halo 2 doesnt work natively (lol had to add that 😀 )
No Internet Explorer 9 (if thats your thing)
No native HDD 4k sector support
The usuals - never feels "quicker" no matter how much ram you give it, it looks so old and out-dated, more security issues, less and less hardware support, hangs in the same spots every time.
I HATE xp, and if you guys ever used Windows 7 for more then an hour on a DECENT machine (Pentium 4's and Athlon XP's are DEAD) you would too - i kid you not.
Ciuy
Distinguished
- Feb 26, 2009
- 565
- 0
- 18,980
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]im a gamer, the only way i would get 8 is if the rumor that it can play 360 games is true, which i highly doubt. would love to get rid of my 360. but unless thats true ill stick with xp. a good motherboard is 200-400$ thats not cheap in my book, now if you are looking at budget 30-50$ motherboards i can see why you are confused. besides, its nice not needing to completely rebuild a computer from ground up just to use a newer processor.[/citation]
xp is for old cunts
xp is for old cunts
- Jul 16, 2009
- 4,821
- 0
- 22,780
I have an 8 year old laptop with a single core and 1Gb ram that runs Windows 7 just great, I reckon it will have a run out for the next 4 years if I use Windows 8 on it as well.
Gotta love that.
Gotta love that.
apache_lives
Splendid
- Dec 10, 2002
- 6,873
- 1
- 26,160
[citation][nom]jj463rd[/nom]It didn't on my custom system.I had 8GB DDR2 RAM (cost $100 back in 2008),a quad core CPU and Vista Home Premium 64 bit.One the fastest booting and usable systems that I have although the CPU is now aged but still quite a useful system.I still enjoy it as much as my 2 other newer Windows 7 custom builds.[/citation]
I also had 8gb and a quad and vista was great
[citation][nom]Ciuy[/nom]xp is for old cunts[/citation]
crude, but i agree
[citation][nom]Northwestern[/nom]To confirm it was Nvidia's fault, I had a Dell XPS M1530. My first laptop and at the time, I didn't know crap about anything. Within my second year the laptop started going down the crapper, everything started to come apart and without even diagnosing the thing, I rendered it Vista's fault. Today, however I have moved on from that laptop. After some research, I found my laptop had been plagued by a faulty Nvidia chip which fried the motherboard. 98% of the problems I encountered was because of the chip, not the OS, while 1% was viruses. I admit, Vista had it's share of problems as the final 1% was Vista's fault. Though Vista just came out when computers weren't as great.[/citation]
Alot of people blame vista, for no reason at all - they never tried it, just keep the myths going
This happens every release of windows - no one accepts that its good, and yet years later everyone accepts it and loves it even though its the SAME OS, nothing has really changed bar peoples perception.
Wake up.
I also had 8gb and a quad and vista was great
[citation][nom]Ciuy[/nom]xp is for old cunts[/citation]
crude, but i agree
[citation][nom]Northwestern[/nom]To confirm it was Nvidia's fault, I had a Dell XPS M1530. My first laptop and at the time, I didn't know crap about anything. Within my second year the laptop started going down the crapper, everything started to come apart and without even diagnosing the thing, I rendered it Vista's fault. Today, however I have moved on from that laptop. After some research, I found my laptop had been plagued by a faulty Nvidia chip which fried the motherboard. 98% of the problems I encountered was because of the chip, not the OS, while 1% was viruses. I admit, Vista had it's share of problems as the final 1% was Vista's fault. Though Vista just came out when computers weren't as great.[/citation]
Alot of people blame vista, for no reason at all - they never tried it, just keep the myths going
This happens every release of windows - no one accepts that its good, and yet years later everyone accepts it and loves it even though its the SAME OS, nothing has really changed bar peoples perception.
Wake up.
GreaseMonkey_62
Distinguished
- Jul 3, 2009
- 521
- 0
- 18,980
Some Atom processors are 64bit, but the majority of them are still 32bit. The "high end" Atom processors are 64bit, but manufacturers don't want to pay for them.
eddieroolz
Splendid
- Sep 6, 2008
- 7,057
- 0
- 25,860
Though this should make a lot of people happy, I personally wouldn't have minded a spec increase. Vista, as much as it was wrongly hated, helped accelerate the development speed of PC industry, particularly the lowering of DDR2 costs.
applegetsmelaid
Distinguished
- Apr 22, 2010
- 441
- 0
- 18,780
iamtheking123
Distinguished
- Sep 2, 2010
- 410
- 0
- 18,780
If there's no XP mode option (also known as the power-user mode) for the GUI then MS can go eff themselves.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question New build wont post Gigabyte B650M Gaming Plus wifi , AMD Ryzen 5 7600X CPU, 32GB T-Force RGB DDR5. Need help!
- Started by Notmiserable
- Replies: 27
-
-
Discussion PSU recommendations and power supply discussion thread - Tom's hardware- Started by Darkbreeze
- Replies: 2K
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Latest posts
-
-
Question Asus ROG CROSSHAIR X870E HERO - - - - PCIe lanes and the NVMe slots ?- Latest: thegreatdelcamo
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram