Windows XP Death Clock Doesn't Work on XP

Page 4 - 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]three0duster[/nom]F'n Stupid is what it is. But at the same time typical M$. M$ is doing everything they can to spread the hate on XP. Ive turned off updates on my machine a long time ago. All they do is screw up my older hardware and software. Oh well, maybe a blessing in disguise.[/citation]Yeah, screw security! Let's stick with slower, unsafe operating systems. Despite all evidence to the contrary, including benchmarks and hackfests, SOMEHOW WinXP is still better than Win7! Clearly MS is crazy trying to push a better OS onto the world. Heck, I think we need to install Win95A on all your machines.
 

They will be around as long as they can be maintained. Even after support goes EOL, that doesn't mean that the OS just kicks the bucket and everything goes dead. An XP machine can run as long as its hardware runs.
 
im a gamer and i dont give two @!#%s about dx 10, and dx 11. i use xp, i have a hd 5770 and dont feel the need to play at dx10 or 11 when the difference is marginal at best right now.
Click to expand...

Someone does not realize that the 5770 is a DX11 card
 
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]im a gamer and i dont give two @!#%s about dx 10, and dx 11. i use xp, i have a hd 5770 and dont feel the need to play at dx10 or 11 when the difference is marginal at best right now. i prefer xp gui to vista and 7. Microsoft decided to not make it the way i like it. well they lose one person who has a 1000$ yearly software budget (i mean software as in applications, not games)[/citation]

gamers don't run a shitty card like 5770, you poor or something? and MS dont give 2 fks about your 1000$ yearly software budget.
 
[citation][nom]Ciuy[/nom]Why use win XP lol....it sucks hardcore.[/citation] Not really seeing as Windows 7 is slower in GUI performance than in XP. I have both XP and 7 and prefer XP easier to use and faster.

Windows 7 is all hype to me the only useful things it really has over XP is TRIM support and newer direct x version support.

It does have better 64 bit support as well, but that's the fault of software developers choosing to ignore support of XP64 due to it's smaller user base numbers.
 
[citation][nom]schmich[/nom]XP is great and Win7 is great. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. If you have old hardware and XP works well there's no point to upgrade. If you're building a new system then go for Win 7 (64 bit please, so we start going away from 32 bit).One thing I dislike about Win7 is the search "gui". Ask a normal person to search for all images in someones computer on Windows XP and 7, you will see that it's much easier to do this in XP. Windows 7 search filtering is like half way between GUI and command lines, quite pathetic if you ask me.[/citation] 64 bit isn't a valid reason to pick window 7 over XP they both have 64 bit versions that argument is pretty poor also 64 bit support for XP isn't that bad these days and where it is bad it's at the fault of the software developers choosing to ignore it's user base. Who honestly cares though you can dual boot to either or anyway so it doesn't matter.

All I care about is that Microsoft gets windows 8 right and fixes the poor broken GDI+ acceleration problems of windows 7 that XP never had as it was a bad change.

It'll be nice having both ARM and x86 support finally too that will be great in itself.
 
As any software company they too are doing the right thing, why support something which they created decades ago and when there have been better offering in replacement after all it costs to keep supporting. We as a user might hate this but come on does really any of us really love xp over windows 7. I personally not at all windows 7 is exactly what i wanted.
 
[citation][nom]CKKwan[/nom]I want the Classic Start Menu in Win7!Otherwise I would just stay with WinXP, or move to iOS![/citation]

Eh the two really look the same to me.

[citation][nom]gti88[/nom]May be because it works and cand do everything we need?[/citation]

So do all the versions after it.. so?

[citation][nom]ginnai[/nom]XP, much like 98, is a stable rock solid OS. [/citation]

So do all the versions after it.. so?

[citation][nom]wcnighthawk[/nom]OMG, 2014? They need to cut support now. There is absolutely no reason to be using XP in this day and age. Why gimp yourself?[/citation]

Word.

[citation][nom]amdfangirl[/nom]Please grammar already.[/citation]

Remove stick from ass already..

[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]It's funny to read all the cattle that do what Microsoft wants, without really thinking.I'm sure there are people that like Windows 7, but the reality remains, it doesn't do anything that Windows XP doesn't. Except it does it slower, and it does it with greater memory usage. [/citation]

With that logic why not just use windows 95. It does everything faster and with less memory use. Come to think of it i use windows 7 and it much faster then my old xp system :) Not to mention it does things windows XP cannot.

[citation][nom]elcentral[/nom]"Still, it's a good daily reminder of just how" little windows thinks frue before acting[/citation]

You mean Microsoft right? I agree they should have cut support for it a long long time ago. Along with 32 bit support in vista. None of their other os's have had this long of support and likely none after will either. I just hope the next release is 64 bit only.

[citation][nom]cookoy[/nom]stupid wasteless effort from microsoft. why don't they just use the time and energy to program something useful, like extending XP another 10 years.[/citation]

For the love of god no. Not only would that be useless to the fullest extent it wouldn't make any sense at all.

[citation][nom]itchyisvegeta[/nom]XP is what works the best. Why not just base a new OS around XP?I remember how well the Pentium M worked in the benchmarks compared to the Pentium 4, even though it was a laptop CPU. So Intel based their entire Core 2 Duo design off the Pentium M. Then when the Core 2 Duo it, it was the best thing ever.Get a clue, M$![/citation]

Well that was one of the worst comparison EVER. with that logic they would need to go back in time and base xp off of windows 7. And please don't be one of those morons that say m$ grow up.

[citation][nom]memadmax[/nom]I like win7, but they will still have to pry XP from my cold, dead hands...[/citation]

You can have it :)

[citation][nom]chloechan[/nom]Someone does not realize that the 5770 is a DX11 card[/citation]

Someone apparently didn't understand what he was saying 😛

[citation][nom]knowom[/nom]Not really seeing as Windows 7 is slower in GUI performance than in XP. I have both XP and 7 and prefer XP easier to use and faster. Windows 7 is all hype to me the only useful things it really has over XP is TRIM support and newer direct x version support.It does have better 64 bit support as well, but that's the fault of software developers choosing to ignore support of XP64 due to it's smaller user base numbers.[/citation]

Sure if your computer is 10 years old xp is faster. And they ignore xp64 bit because xp is dead. There is no point making something for something that should have been deleted years ago.
 
My university only supports XP machines. Enterprises will take a lot longer to upgrade, its a fact of life.

Did anyone else notice that upgrading to win7 greatly increased their ability to max out your transfer speeds on adsl?

Mine more than doubled. I went from 3.5mbps MAX to 6.9mbps Laugh all you like at my crappy 8meg line, I live in the countryside in the UK, this is as fast as it gets out here. But what a value add I personally found.
 
All of you complaining Win 7 is slow - something is wrong. I had Win7 Ultimate on my old laptop: 1.8 GHz Celeron M, 1 GB RAM, Intel GMA 950. It's just as fast as XP (except in gaming).

However, it *is* true that 90% of non-gamers don't require an upgrade to Win-7. What's the point? =)
 
IMO, this desktop gadget is useless if it cannot be run on XP. MS is so eager to kill XP. I wonder how the guys from the XP team would feel? Imagine how you would feel if your fruitful and hard work is now your company's primary hot potato.
 
This is so sadly typical of Microsoft's corporate culture, which is very far from understanding what their users want and need.

I started on Windows 95. It was rubbish. 98 was no better. I skipped ME, hearing that it was a joke. Win2K was a slight improvement but still inefficient and bug-prone. XP was I thought their best OS, stable and in parts intelligently designed, but still inefficient and very poorly documented. I skipped Vista and recently went to Win 7. It's disappointing - moderately stable, but still inefficient slow and poorly documented. But since XP my Windows has only been a Virtual install on Ubuntu Linux to run apps I can't get Linux versions of, so I don't care too much any more!
 
[citation][nom]elusion11[/nom]considering that win7 runs on netbook and tablet devices, i hardly think that's considered "demanding", my problem with xp is its security vulnerabilities, i never had to reinstall a win7 while fixing other's computers, however, plenty of times when faced with xp, the OS is just in a complete god-awful mess - that the only way to fix it is to install a fresh copy.[/citation]
True, true, true. That is why for most people, cloud OS will be a blessing. All they will have to do is log in. Everything else will be taken care for them.
I am not one of those people.

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]im a gamer and i dont give two @!#%s about dx 10, and dx 11. i use xp, i have a hd 5770 and dont feel the need to play at dx10 or 11 when the difference is marginal at best right now. i prefer xp gui to vista and 7. Microsoft decided to not make it the way i like it. well they lose one person who has a 1000$ yearly software budget (i mean software as in applications, not games)[/citation]
Core 2 Quad 2.4 GHz OC-ed to 3 GHZ, 4670 in crossfire (no OC), and 4 GB of RAM that the 32 bit XP recognizes in 3 GB only. That is my main computer at home. I tested W7 64 bit on a new HDD prior to distributing data into it for full computer usage. Benchmarked it for 3 days and then decided not to register it. Some performance results favour 7, some favour XP, stability-wise the most errors are between chair and keyboard anyway. The extra 1 GB rescued natively from W7 got eaten by it anyway so the usable space was still the same.
Yes, I suggest W7 to all people that ask me for suggestion. If they don't know computer enough to make this decision, they should get as much a closed environment as possible, Apple iPhone like. The rest can weight the benefits of each OS and chose themselves, and customize and fine tune their choice beyond factory default or fist installation settings. Windows XP takes really a long time to fine tune, and is not as secure, but then Windows XP users should know their system inside out anyway.
 
Windows XP will remain the standard in my organization for the next 2 years because that is how long it will take to start implementing Windows 7 on our systems. Many apps don't work well with Windows 7 and they need a budget allocation to be able to update / reprogram their software to work with Windows 7, but money doesn't grow on trees!

Some of my games only run on Windows XP at home, so I still have a boot partition with Windows XP.
 
I'll continue to run XP for many years. All the software and hardware I use were built for XP and they're still very fast and stable. There are way too many unknowns to upgrade and the potentinal for unintended consequences make it too risky. But the biggest reason for not upgrading is I'm very happy with my many systems just as they are.
 
[citation][nom]HappyBB[/nom]IMO, this desktop gadget is useless if it cannot be run on XP. MS is so eager to kill XP. I wonder how the guys from the XP team would feel? Imagine how you would feel if your fruitful and hard work is now your company's primary hot potato.[/citation]

They are called the windows 8 team now. :)

[citation][nom]Sika56[/nom]This is so sadly typical of Microsoft's corporate culture, which is very far from understanding what their users want and need.[/citation]

Yeah its really sad MS kept supporting a OS that died years ago for the people who still use it today. its pretty typical of large companies to keep supporting something they (normally) would have long stopped supporting because of its age and ignored all those people pleading for xp support to continue... that didn't happen did it? I agree it is actually sad they kept supporting this garbage but o well the crying wheel gets the oil. I am happy when xp came out though they kept with their software cycles on support and just let 98 die. to bad they let this crap drag on so much. If they would have pulled the plug when they should have and dropped vista on time we would of course be on like windows 10 by now but all this XP crap would be no more. Of course it would be more like o my windows 9 jesus MS stop upgrading and keep us in the dark ages forget progress just make one last OS and leave it there why must you keep making new software waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. What software company even does that. Ill tell you which one bankrupt ones. Hell while they are at it they might as well give it away for free to right? The only way XP is going to stick around is if MS closes up shop and thats it no more windows. which would suck since there is really nothing to fill tis place in the end user department. But who cares as long as everyone is happy!!! Only problem is only the people stuck in the past would be happy. Those of us that don't hold on to stuff until they don't make replaceable parts for their crap might be a little annoyed that some people would rather sit still while the world moves forward.

If you want to use XP fine but don't punish the rest of us by forcing MS to keep it around. Its bad enough its going to be around till 2014.
 
[citation][nom]stingstang[/nom]And the winner of the most uneducated comment goes to....YOU SIR! Step right up and claim your prize.[/citation]
I know it's not a one-size-fits-all solution, which is why I asked him, "What's preventing you?"

Upgrading Sever + migrating CALs is faster and cheaper than scheduling to inspect everyone's machines just to determine which ones could be upgraded (which is the scenario posed by the person I was replying to).

Odds are there's a decent segment of that company that doesn't perform intensive computing tasks, suggested by the worry that a number of the machines don't meet the 1GHz CPU/1GB RAM needed for Windows 7.
 
The desktop gadget, however, is only supported by Windows Vista and Windows 7 stupid why even have it.

For the first time in 4 years I have control over my OS not in a way like a super admin would but enough to say I do. especially after reading Windows XP Inside Out 2th Edition. Now I can setup a home or small network Create batch files simple Vb Scripts and much more, so ya will I be update any time soon NO not for DX11 or IE10 for that matter.
 


Ditto my friend...Ditto
 


Hah, I can see it now... A guy in his cubicle looooong after everyone has left just like 'what to do what to do. AHA!! XP Death Clock!'
 
You can get the Vista Sidebar running on Windows XP. Then you can install the gadget.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom