Windows 9 Expected To Push Consumers Off Windows XP

Page 7 - 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.
Many people around here have a severe OCD against Win8's start page and categorically refuse to consider simple aftermarket alternatives like Classic Shell Start Menu. I find it funny how people blindly rage about something they could so easily bypass for free if they were willing to be rational instead of emotional about it.
Click to expand...
The fact is that it is regressive
It used to be fine with no third party crap. Now its not.

That shouldn't be
 


Windows 8 made me actually realize how little I used the start menu. The most I use is the search function. Other than that I am on the desktop most of the time and anything I need is on it as an icon or pinned to the start bar.



Nice shot at the guy who has given more money than all of us here on THGF probably make together away to helping people.

Linux will never evolve until two things happen:

1. It gets full support and becomes as easy to utilize and install as Windows

2. OpenGL becomes the dominate API. Considering that most every game is coming out with DirectX, OpenGL is not going to become the dominant API for a while, even with VALVe pushing SteamOS and Linux games.



Windows 8 is solid and functioning. Short of Metro, the OS itself is actually a more advanced OS than 7, considering the improvements to the back end.

Then again, as said people look at one thing and think the worst.; People saw Vista being a slow PoS on systems with 512MB of RAM, when XP needed at least 1GB at the time, and thought "it is the worst OS ever" when it was actually a decent OS with hardware that supported it.
 
"Old" does not mean bad, any more than "new" means good. I have a bunch of HP dc7900 SFF desktops with 4GB ram, all about 4-5 years old), and they ran OK with Win XP (downgrade), better with Win 7 Pro (upgrade), and even better with Win 8.1 Pro (upgraded plus Start8). Device drivers have been OK, but biggest problem was Microsoft dropping Arial Narrow from the distro...that screwed the pooch bigtime for many spreadsheets and accounting packages. Talk about an own goal; see the MS technet forums about this gotcha...Otherwise, we're cool with 8.1.Howsomever, older operating systems, while limited and sometimes buggy, have all their limitations and bugs well known and documented, and can still work fine in a closed environment.Flying to New York? The airplane software all runs on embedded Win NT4 upd 6a...
 
The Idea that windows 9 will get users off XP is ridiculous why? Well first if windows 7/8 and are anything to go by it will be crap, require more patches than Charlie Chaplin's orphans pants...The sad truth is this: windows XP is the only decent operating system Microsoft made...they have made not a single O/S that comes close to it...I have travelled in over a 100 countries, and XP reigns still.......This rushing out new O/S by microsoft started with vista, a piece of crap, and useless to boot...The Idea that Microsoft might actually make an O/S system and test it for a year or two before selling it, well that's never going to happen...The sooner a major new player gets on the O/S system scene the better......In China there is talk of a Chinese tech company buying the rights for X/P and making a new Chinese version.....Now the Chinese have done amazing things with the old X/P....I for one hope sincerely the rumours are true, because the Chinese are amazing at making tech stuff that actually works...Mind you they do have a strict law there about selling shoddy goods...which is quite funny when you think of all the fakes...But the truth is...Chinese fakes are far superior to Microsoft originals!..My fake windows 7 was stunning three years of non stop service no crashing, no freezing everything working perfectly/...yet the original which i'm running back home here in UK till i go back is frigging hopeless..I spend more time trying to fix it than using it.... Chinese fake windows 7 is better than the original Why ? Because the Chinese fixed a product Microsoft could not....sad but it is actually true....
 

XP required a ton of patches too...
The sad truth is this: windows XP is the only decent operating system Microsoft made...they have made not a single O/S that comes close to it...I have travelled in over a 100 countries, and XP reigns still.......This rushing out new O/S by microsoft started with vista, a piece of crap, and useless to boot...
Click to expand...
Vista's biggest problems were bugs and high hardware requirements at the time of release.
The bugs were patched out and eventually hardware caught up. We aren't really making those leaps in
requirements anymore
The Idea that Microsoft might actually make an O/S system and test it for a year or two before selling it, well that's never going to happen...The sooner a major new player gets on the O/S system scene the better......In China there is talk of a Chinese tech company buying the rights for X/P and making a new Chinese version.....Now the Chinese have done amazing things with the old X/P....I for one hope sincerely the rumours are true, because the Chinese are amazing at making tech stuff that actually works...Mind you they do have a strict law there about selling shoddy goods...which is quite funny when you think of all the fakes...But the truth is...Chinese fakes are far superior to Microsoft originals!..My fake windows 7 was stunning three years of non stop service no crashing, no freezing everything working perfectly/...yet the original which i'm running back home here in UK till i go back is frigging hopeless..I spend more time trying to fix it than using it.... Chinese fake windows 7 is better than the original Why ? Because the Chinese fixed a product Microsoft could not....sad but it is actually true....[/quotemsg]

Whatever. I used to be an XP fanboy in 2006-2007 at Vista release. But now I mostly use Vista and 7 and
really they are fine
Click to expand...
 


I am sorry, but XP is simply not better than Windows 7. Categorically.
If any of them is going to be put on the pedestal, it should be Windows 7.

As for patches... are you kidding? They've probably been patching XP every 4th Tuesday for what... 13 years?
Windows needs patches, and XP is even worse in that regard.

XP reigns because it works and because the VAST MAJORITY of the population wouldn't upgrade unless utterly compelled to. You know why? Vista. People who adopted Vista probably would not upgrade either. It's not a statement on the quality of the OS, it's a statement on people being cheap and not wanting to upgrade before absolutely necessary.

I'll say it again - The difference between using 7 and XP is night and day. XP is slow. It's tedious too. Seriously, 1.5 hours trying to get that crap OS to communicate with a server share, and I got the same hooked up in 15 minutes on Windows 7.

XP can burn in a firey pit in hell. It's fine. If you have it, you should probably upgrade for reasons I've mentioned (if your comp gets compromised due to the holes underlying the system once they stop patches, I have every right to be angry with you and call you negligent. Especially if it impacts mine. I don't want more spam or botnets in the world.) That said, however, I will never willingly go back to it. It was great in its time, but it's ancient. Like Rome.

Eventually, the turtle formation is not going to work anymore and you're going to have to get an arquebus. It's more resource-intensive, but those Swiss pikemen aren't going to slaughter themselves.
 
If Microsoft doesn't wake up and realize that people have invested a lot of money in programs just to be told to throw them all away because they are no longer compatible with their current operating systems then I, as well as a lot of other people I know are going to flood our cities dump sites with all of these computers that no longer are supported. And, I myself don't plan to buy another one.
 


You make an excellent point here mate, Now the the most used Microsoft system is XP by a very long way, now personally I thought XP was a amazing....So why oh why did Microsoft not simply keep developing it instead of discarding it for the crap Vista, and as far as I'm concerned the equally crap windows 7

XP was fast, reliable, and easy to use...Yeh of course it need patches but I just installed my ?
windows 7 for the umpteenth time and i counted the updates require 178!!!..Now come on Windows 7 is not that old
and yet it has been discarded almost already, in place of windows 8 and now we are told Windows 9 is in the wings like a bridesmaid looking for husband...It is ridiculous...I said it before this is a scam by microsoft..They make crap systems, crap software and have them on the table for a short period then move on try and get others to buy a more updated untested system....At the moment I am still using a brilliant little Nokia phone which is eleven years old...I ditched the modern penchant fancy phones..why ? well simple the little Nokia is a gem..it works everywhere
it's been down the toilet, in the seas, had vomit thrown up all over it...a nice little clean..and bang it still works..in fact it can get signals even in the Scottish mountains something my daughters fancy Iphone couldn't manage!

Microsoft are treating customers the same way fashion designers treat woman,,,like a piece of meat........
There is a rumour in China that they will buy the XP brand once Microsoft withdraw its updates in April...I hope they do...because I ran it in China with Chinese updates and improvements and it is still a brilliant system far better than windows 7..which is only fast if you stop over half the programmes which make it attractive...
 
No, it's not time to dump XP. I have several Windows 7 machines, no Vista any longer, and several XP machines. The XP machines works best, and are the least annoying to work with. (Fewer unexplained "computer must thinks and why not freeze for a bit"-hangs, for example.)I have expensive hardware that will ONLY work on XP thanks to the hardware manufacturer.This "must move on" BS is of course understandable when you are in the new-and-shiny computer business. But it makes little sense to us actually using computers for various things, not particularly caring what MS has now thought up for Windows to look flash but become even more annoying and intrusive.
 


Its astonishing how many windows XP fanboys are there. Quick question. Did you also run Windows 95 in 2007?
Because that is how old XP is.
"computer must thinks and why not freeze for a bit"
Click to expand...
That is usually caused by insufficient RAM or a fragmented disk. XP is not immune to this

I have expensive hardware that will ONLY work on XP thanks to the hardware manufacturer.
Click to expand...
What could possibly be restricted to XP unless it is just plain old?
 
I will believe it when I see it. But I do not think I will see it. The fundamental (and should be obvious) flaw with Windows 8 is the GUI. It may be fine for a tablet,. (Although I got rid of it on my tablet after using it a month and finding compatibility problems) but it does not work in a business desktop or even a home traditional desktop environment. That's it, it is very simple. Don't over think this Microsoft. I do not have one client who has gone to it in a office environment that doesn't either hate it or has gone back to Win 7. Which by the way is a great OS. XP was a great OS. That is why people are hesitant to move. I even have some Windows 2000 Pro business users still out there. The second problem Microsoft has is that they still think they are the only player in the game. Their Tech Support proves that. I spent 4 hours on the phone with them and there useless VOIP system this week. I either could not understand them or they me. Not to mention the 7 times I got disconnected. How can we trust them to write an OS if they cant even get a VoIP phone to work. Enough said I have migrated my Browser to Chrome and Opera. .I am looking for a non Microsoft OS to use permanently and as for Office well there still is a stranglehold on the business user. 2013 and 365 do not address the over 30 needs of most managers. I hope to scrap Office someday too.
 


Windows XP required two service packs before it was actually a decent OS that any business would even consider looking at. Those three service packs combine a ton of the updates that XP got from release until the release of those SP. Even after SP3 XP still has 200-300 more updates to run. As well XP SP2 was a major change to the OS itself and introduced a lot of the features people think are superior. XP needed those updates to become a good OS because before them it was not fast, stable and reliable. It was buggy, unsecure and crashed a lot more.

7 Has only had one service pack and really doesn't need another one.

In terms of an actually OS, 7 is a better OS. We now have systems with quad cores, 8GB of RAM and a SSD all on a super fast buss. XP does not know how to use that hardware. 7 does. XP will load the cores one at a time so the first core gets loaded, second etc. 7 will distribute processes across all available cores so no one core becomes too loaded. This helps especially when you have an application wanting to use a core and is only written for a single core, usually core 0.

XP runs great with 1GB of RAM and unless you want to deal with the driver and stability issues of XP 64Bit, maxes out at 3-3.5GB. 7 on the other hand runs best with 4GB and can actually utilize much more. It will load free RAM with apps that you use often so they are ready to go. So instead of having 8GB of RAM where 6GB just sits until you have an app that can use it, it's used by apps you do use and freed instantly when an application needs more.

As for security, 7 is just hands down better. It has a more secure kernel and a more secure MBR. 8 is even better with Secure Boot. There is really no arguing that. Same goes with any OS as they find new ways to secure it and patch holes the old one had.



If you have issues with "freezing" on any machine than you have a hardware issue. I have used every MS OS from DOS forward and never had "freezing". Then again I also build my systems with newer hardware and don't try to run a new OS on barely minimum specs.

You sire need to look deeper into your systems instead of randomly blaming the OS. 7 was nothing but smooth for me.



People said the same thing about Windows 95/98 when it first came out. No one wanted to move to the GUI from the DOS command prompt. And when XP removed DOS as the back end there was all kinds of uproar over it.

You see there is always this initial uproar over changes to OSes. Then eventually people move on and forget about it.

As for Office, find me an equal equivalent to it and I will use it. SO far all the alternatives I have used are inferior to Office.
 
The ONLY reason Windows 8 exists, is that Microsoft wants in on the mobile computing revolution. They aren't even a bit player right now. So they created a smartphone GUI on a desktop OS, and forced it down user's throats by "obsoleting" Windows XP. They hope that users accustomed to Windows 8, will abandon Android, and demand smartphones running a Windows 8 GUI. And it might have worked, if Windows 8 didn't suck, and was actually functional in the desktop computer environment.
 
GUI was an improvement over DOS. People had an uproar over losing DOS? I don't remember that, there might be a few people who were bothered by it but it didn't cause an uproar like Vista or W8. Every Windows OS has been an improvement over from the last. At least until W8 came out, and since it's been out usage share has been terrible. Vista was the same way yet W7 has done really well and continues to do so.

When people think that XP or Windows 7 is better and they'd rather spend extra money on making that happen there's something wrong with the way MS is doing things. It's like having a car capable of going 100mph in 8 seconds, then with the new car you only have a top speed of 70mph but it gets up to speed far quicker then the 100mph car. Not only that, oh you can make that car go up to 100mph by installing something. Windows 9 isn't going to impress people because the start menu isn't coming back, among other things that are probably will be no longer present.
 
GUI was an improvement over DOS. People had an uproar over losing DOS? I don't remember that, there might be a few people who were bothered by it but it didn't cause an uproar like Vista or W8. Every Windows OS has been an improvement over from the last. At least until W8 came out, and since it's been out usage share has been terrible. Vista was the same way yet W7 has done really well and continues to do so.

When people think that XP or Windows 7 is better and they'd rather spend extra money on making that happen there's something wrong with the way MS is doing things.
Click to expand...
Yes!
 
"Windows 9 Expected To Push Consumers Off Windows XP
It's time to go people. The Windows XP party will be over soon."

Spoken by the same Millennials who rent their cars by the year (aka, lease), their phones by the month, and a new wardrobe every time Jason Wu sneezes.

A computer is a tool. As long as the tool is doing it's job, it ought to be left alone!

Millennials won't know that because the only thing they're interested in are the toyz and selfies. But somewhere wayyyyy in the back room there are actual computers doing work to provide that ethereal existenze they so enjoy.

The problem is that Microsoft has finally caught on to the "renting" game. They've finally found a generation that is ready, willing, and trained to "rent" not own. Their software is fast becoming rentable (Office 360 and soon Win10) and disposable (well some always thought it was this LOL). They expect their cash flow to go through the roof. It will be interesting to see what happens when the Millennials are finally forced out of Mommy's basement and have to pay for all this stuff themselves on a MacDee paycheck. Could be interesting. Maybe that's why they're all up in arms to increase the minimum wage.
 


I think you'll find there are a lot commercial companies and embedded applications still running XP because it works. I know of one XP computer that's been running non-stop for nearly 2 years now. It just hums along doing it's job without complaints. It was properly set up on proper hardware and there it is. But I digress.

Most of us "fanboys" in the business went from Win 3.1 to NT and then to Win 2K before settling on Win XP SP3. Nobody in their right mind used Win 9x for anything important. I laugh. One local business IT manager bragged about how his Win 95 network was the best. The backroom was a spaghetti mess from h*** and he spent all his time "cloning" and "tuning". The local computer store owner dropped by one day and caught the division manager for lunch. It took about a week to convert everything to XP Pro (and I heard everyone got new computers too). Suddenly the IT guy had lots of spare time on his hands and was able to ... gasp ... return calls to the support center!!! OMG LOL

Assuming you've not let a virus in the front door, XP freezing is likely due to bloatware. The problem with newer, 64-bit systems is that they hide a lot of bloated, sloppy programming. For example, Chrome started out light and fast ... and now (at v. 33) sucks up tens or hundreds of megabytes for every tab that's open. I checked mine just now and with 18 tabs open, it is occupying slightly over 3 GIGABYTES (which means good old XP is politely and patiently paging 2.5GB on and off the hard drive. Which is why most in the know will get at least 8GB of RAM and 16GB if they have the money. Win 8 if I am not mistaken won't run properly with all features enabled in less than 2 GB. To think, Windows 1.0 would run off a 3½" floppy disk [wikipedia it]. Yes, I still have that disk and the Toshiba computer that it booted. And, as of last year, both still worked. :) But I digress.

The only problem I've ever had with XP freezing is an errant memory byte on the video display card that appeared last year. But the three new video cards I tried refused to play nice with the on-board sound card so I just live with it. HP was as clueless as were the video board manufacturers. They all opined that the new video cards worked fine on the new computers they have on their desks so they couldn't see what the problem was. Sigh.

Hardware and XP. Take a wander through your house (or the neighbors if you don't have one) and start throwing out everything out that is more than five years old. Certainly it cannot still be of use since it is so old, right? I have a Canon printer that's 12 years old. It still prints better than the two lasers and three All-in-Ones I've had since. In fact, I got it back out after getting the Epson Artisan 830 because, like the last three printers before it, the Espon cannot reliably feed anything stiffer than standard copier paper to save it's life. Labels and business card sheets? Not a chance I'll even test that. The Canon is a gravity feed and happily accepts card stock, magnetic sheets, business card stock, onion paper [wikipedia it], envelopes, etc., etc., etc.. I wish I could find another just like it. But I digress.

Just because something is old doesn't mean it isn't doing a great job. Judging by the design errors I spot on most everything I buy today, I'm guessing there should be more older people sitting at the CAD terminals!!

As for some companies stopping at Windows XP in support of their hardware, if you had to deal with the totally screwed up security protocols (or mis-protocols IMHO) that started with Win Vista, you might decide to stop there too and retire or go into another line of work. The fellows that wrote one of the best HTML editors I ever used started into Win Vista, tossed their cookies once too often and decided it would be easier to retire to the beach ... so they did. And with that, I'm headed there also ... no sense wasting a whole nice sunny day indoors! LOL
 
I think you'll find there are a lot commercial companies and embedded applications still running XP because it works. I know of one XP computer that's been running non-stop for nearly 2 years now. It just hums along doing it's job without complaints. It was properly set up on proper hardware and there it is. But I digress.
Click to expand...
Embedded and near embedded applications are kind of different because they are dedicated to a purpose
and hardware and software may go unchanged for many years.
Most of us "fanboys" in the business went from Win 3.1 to NT and then to Win 2K before settling on Win XP SP3. Nobody in their right mind used Win 9x for anything important. I laugh. One local business IT manager bragged about how his Win 95 network was the best. The backroom was a spaghetti mess from h*** and he spent all his time "cloning" and "tuning". The local computer store owner dropped by one day and caught the division manager for lunch. It took about a week to convert everything to XP Pro (and I heard everyone got new computers too). Suddenly the IT guy had lots of spare time on his hands and was able to ... gasp ... return calls to the support center!!! OMG LOL
Click to expand...
Windows 95 wasn't the best for networking. For large networks *NIX still rules to be honest
Assuming you've not let a virus in the front door, XP freezing is likely due to bloatware. The problem with newer, 64-bit systems is that they hide a lot of bloated, sloppy programming. For example, Chrome started out light and fast ... and now (at v. 33) sucks up tens or hundreds of megabytes for every tab that's open. I checked mine just now and with 18 tabs open, it is occupying slightly over 3 GIGABYTES (which means good old XP is politely and patiently paging 2.5GB on and off the hard drive. Which is why most in the know will get at least 8GB of RAM and 16GB if they have the money. Win 8 if I am not mistaken won't run properly with all features enabled in less than 2 GB. To think, Windows 1.0 would run off a 3½" floppy disk [wikipedia it]. Yes, I still have that disk and the Toshiba computer that it booted. And, as of last year, both still worked. :) But I digress.
Click to expand...
That is one thing that disgusts me is the fact programmers are now lazy and don't try to optimize for lower memory usage
I am not a fan of 64 bit either because it drops 16 bit application support (yes I still use some)

Chrome is that bad really? I wouldn't know because I certainly don't use it on the desktop.
Firefox 24 is using ~900MB with 77 tabs open

Hardware and XP. Take a wander through your house (or the neighbors if you don't have one) and start throwing out everything out that is more than five years old. Certainly it cannot still be of use since it is so old, right? I have a Canon printer that's 12 years old. It still prints better than the two lasers and three All-in-Ones I've had since. In fact, I got it back out after getting the Epson Artisan 830 because, like the last three printers before it, the Espon cannot reliably feed anything stiffer than standard copier paper to save it's life. Labels and business card sheets? Not a chance I'll even test that. The Canon is a gravity feed and happily accepts card stock, magnetic sheets, business card stock, onion paper [wikipedia it], envelopes, etc., etc., etc.. I wish I could find another just like it. But I digress.
Click to expand...
LOL You seem to be profiling me as a thrower-outer. I see how I could have given that impression but it is totally untrue.
This is my newest machine and it is mixed. The motherboard, GPU and PSU are new but the other components are >6 years
old

I also COLLECT vintage computers. In fact I would have posted this from my 486 running Windows 3.11 with 24MB RAM
if it weren't for the fact that Opera 3.60 choked on tomshardware.

In fact I just bought a PCI 486 motherboard because I am going to do a 486 build to see how modern I can make a 486 machine

As for some companies stopping at Windows XP in support of their hardware, if you had to deal with the totally screwed up security protocols (or mis-protocols IMHO) that started with Win Vista, you might decide to stop there too and retire or go into another line of work. The fellows that wrote one of the best HTML editors I ever used started into Win Vista, tossed their cookies once too often and decided it would be easier to retire to the beach ... so they did. And with that, I'm headed there also ... no sense wasting a whole nice sunny day indoors! LOL
Click to expand...
It won't get you anywhere to not adapt though.
The fact is technology marches on. That doesn't mean old stuff isn't still useful but I personally wouldn't
use XP as a main machine.

A dedicated purpose machine? sure

 


It is no more monopolizing than what Apple does with their software being tied to just their hardware.

The only ones you cannot disable it on is the OEMs but on custom boards you have the option to disable it.



You don't remember it but it was there. Same thing happened when XP first came out people wanted to cling on to 2K.

I always enjoy new and advancements. I don't see a reason why not. I had DOS but I also went to 95/98/XP/Vista/7/8. I always like to know what is new, how it works so I can have an advantage.

At some point, people will move on and forget about it and we will have to deal with the people who are complaining about something else new they do not like.
 
It is no more monopolizing than what Apple does with their software being tied to just their hardware.
Click to expand...
That is a big deal! I don't buy any Apple products (except vintage stuff) for that very reason

Your logic is akin to saying that its okay to steal because you know someone else who did and got away with it.
Its absolutely wrong and such practices should be illegal
The only ones you cannot disable it on is the OEMs but on custom boards you have the option to disable it.
Click to expand...
Again a big deal. A good portion of computer sales are OEM because people are too stupid or unwilling to build their own
But the lack of ability to later install the operating system of choice is a bunch of immoral garbage.

And what about laptops?
 


Even if there was people who hated XP, it would have still been in the minority. Even when i got XP, i found it to be far more stable than W98. W98 i had the trouble of losing RAM, even after closing programs it still kept taking up RAM as if i never closed the program(s) in the first place. I can't even use my first PC with XP anymore it's super slow so obviously it's time to give up at least using Windows with that machine, i may just disassemble it for parts.

I enjoy new advancements and new technologies as well, but there are some that you have to avoid. Windows 8, theoretically would be a good thing for the future, but there is too many problems and changes to really make it work, especially for those who need a deadline and can't be bothered with dealing with the changes. Other then a few things here and there such as disk defragmenter, new securities in place, and the look of the UI Windows barely changed. In fact other then maybe that one odd software that doesn't work with the latest OS and obsolete hardware there really is no reason to get the latest Windows. There's always going to be people who won't upgrade and it's mostly cost or software issues. The reason people don't want W8 is because the interface is different, that's a whole new thing that MS brought to the table and as if not wanting to upgrade because "i can get 5 more years out of this system", "because i don't have money" or "because i have software that won't run". Now it's "i can't use this because i hate the UI". If people suddenly cave into getting W8 then that's the decision they made. I am making mine by switching to Linux. If i am going to relearn how to use an OS it might as well be to my advantage. I don't need Windows to surf the internet or use my PC as a media center, for mostly everything else that is mostly offline i could continue to use W7 for until hopefully Linux gains more development.

The funny thing too is i saw that XP caught on quick, at least with the people i know. There may have been people resistant to upgrading to XP but W8 is a first where even the stores salesmen are suggesting W7 instead. In fact one guy suggested to illegally download W7. Not very smart but, must be pretty desperate to make a PC sale to suggest something like that. No one can say for sure whether the new UI will stick, MS continues to try to push it. Will people give up avoiding W8? Or W9? It really depends on what MS does and whether it'll appeal to people. Vista had it's share of problems and after W7 came out majority was happy with it. With so many drastic changes and the way the economy is, it'll be much harder to try to convince users to get the latest OS now. Even if W9 manages to succeed well, sales still might be low.
 

Since the previous mainstream Windows release before that was Windows ME, it is not hard imagining why people were fairly happy with ditching the Win9x legacy... the original Win95 and Win98 releases did not leave particularly good impressions either. Windows XP was also the first mainstream genuine 32bits Windows (no more real-mode drivers and interrupts) with pretty good hardware device support. By the time SP1 came out, XP was vastly more stable than Win95OSRx and Win98SE ever were.

There wasn't much to dislike about XP apart from breaking some programs and games.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom