I wish they updated XP.

[xIronhidePro]

Sure, they are coming out with new and better OS, but honestly lots of people especially computer fanatics, like XP. It's simple and runs great.

Nowadays, the install disk doesn't even work because it's too outdated. Does anyone else feel the same?

Like they should make a new XP. Like a replica, maybe for a celebration for it's 15th birthday or something.

^^

 

[PhilFrisbie]

XP is still a good OS for some uses; I used it on my media PC build last year. I had no issues installing it on new hardware after I set the SATA port to emulate a PATA hard drive.

Microsoft will not back down; they are committed to the new Windows 8 interface, whether we like it or not!

 

[penguintech]

The days of XP are coming to a close. While I do still use it at work, all my computers / laptops at home are all running Win7.
While I can say that XP will be missed, there will always be the die-hards that use it even beyond MS 2014 stop support date.
We still have people who bring in repairs on computers running Windows 2000 and not too long ago I had a customer ask to purchase a PC with Windows 98 on it.
I must say, honestly, I find Win7 and even Vista to be more intuitive than XP, and the features are right on target with today's higher end technology.
Will I be going to windows 8? no. I wont even put it on my Touchsmart computer. I think it's ugly, the UI is horrible, and it will go by the wayside, much the way Windows ME did.

 

[vampm]

I still use XP. Definatelly the best OS ms have made. And I am sure that they can attach to it the new things like dx11, but they dont want to do so, because everyone MUST buy their new staff, in order to support the so called new technologies that cannot get in win xp.

Win 7 is like xp but with a "better" so called visual appearence. I think that under that look, the core is the same as xp's, and correct me if I am wrong in this.

 

[ex_bubblehead]

I still use XP. Definatelly the best OS ms have made. And I am sure that they can attach to it the new things like dx11, but they dont want to do so, because everyone MUST buy their new staff, in order to support the so called new technologies that cannot get in win xp.

Win 7 is like xp but with a "better" so called visual appearence. I think that under that look, the core is the same as xp's, and correct me if I am wrong in this.

Very wrong. The whole core was redone.

 

[ktownmike]

Windows 7 is good, especially if you get pro, you can then add virtual xp that will run 32 bit legacy apps on a 64 bit system. It seems every other version is good so I will try 8, as soon as apps we need to run on a daily basis have a compatible version.
3.1 good
95 bad
98 good
me bad
xp good
vista bad
7 good
8?

25% windows 7, 2% vista, 73% xp. Will be installing 7 on computer replacement as needed for now. I wonder if they will offer the win 7 downgrade option.

 

[vampm]

Can u tell the differenses?

 

[vampm]

And even if 7 are better from xp @ core to core, all windows have the same problem: the registry. this is a cancer from the old windows. Also the net framework is THE cancer (its default in win 7 as i know), but thats another conversation..

Also the ui of 7 is for the simple ppl, not pc fanatics and serious users. And again I cant understand why they dont have the classic start menu..

 

[PhilFrisbie]

Very wrong. The whole core was redone.

Hmm, if the WHOLE core was redone why do so many Win7 patches also apply to XP?

 

[PhilFrisbie]

And even if 7 are better from xp @ core to core, all windows have the same problem: the registry. this is a cancer from the old windows.

Amen!! The text configuration files on Windows 3.1 NEVER became corrupted. . .

 

[cl-scott]

Very wrong. The whole core was redone.

I wouldn't say the whole core, but significant chunks most definitely. There was a lot of work done in Vista to make the process scheduler better at dealing with multi-core CPUs vs SMP (a subtle, but important, difference), there was a lot of work done to shore up security on the driver model. These are not the sorts of features most people notice, like Aero (which itself was a more or less complete rewrite of the Windows shell to use DirectX instead of GDI+), but they were very significant and laid the foundation for a lot of things to come. Windows 7 and 8 are really just the beginning, and you're only just starting to see what is possible.

It is always amusing to me though to see people claiming how XP is the greatest OS, etc. I remember when XP came out and people were complaining left and right... It's slow, it's bloated, it doesn't work with this or that hardware device, my software doesn't work (particularly games)... Pretty much the exact same laundry list of complaints people level against Vista to this day. The truth is that XP is still largely a product of the age of innocence on the Internet. It was created before Microsoft really started taking security seriously, and was quite happy to put security as a distant afterthought to features. How quickly people forget that for YEARS on end there were literally 2-3 remote exploit vulnerabilities found in XP and/or IE EVERY WEEK.

 

[ktownmike]

Don't bring up IE, the program that should be labeled a virus. And is labeled a security risk in my world except for certain sites that firefox does not work

 

[xIronhidePro]

Windows XP is great, and it doesn't come with any bloatware or anything, it's sleek and fast with nothing you don't need.

Windows Vista shouldn't even be an OS, it's the slowest Operating system, and is just stupid all-around. 7 is good and I would choose it over XP for a gaming rig, but for an everyday PC - XP is great.

 

[vampm]

It is always amusing to me though to see people claiming how XP is the greatest OS, etc. I remember when XP came out and people were complaining left and right... It's slow, it's bloated, it doesn't work with this or that hardware device, my software doesn't work (particularly games)... Pretty much the exact same laundry list of complaints people level against Vista to this day.

And I get angry when you are amused to me (and many others). But then I got amused to you because you are one with the mass. (no offence dude, but read bellow)

YES, when xp came out, I was on win ME (!?!?!?!) and said that XP are heavy. BUT that time was when I learned abou computer and staff, step by step alone.

Today, just before I post, I tested win 7 for good in my friend's pc. They are simply CRAP!!! Win 7 are for novices, for the stupid mass, not for a serious user. (I am not refering at all to vista/8, they are not OSes).

Some things I do in XP, I cant do them in 7. For example the new unified audio architecture; some programs cant see the master sound device that you see in XP.

Also, the other crap, the UAC. Even if you disable it, you still dont have the same freedom like in xp to mess with the files (allong with TrustedInstaller service)

Also about the so called "holes" in the security and bla bla.. get a good antivirus, dont use IE, dont do any win update and the whole problem is solved. My system runs for years fine and without any windows update.

And whats with aero? it laid the foundation for a lot of things to come???

Also, in xp when u right-click to close a program/folder, the "close" is a few pixels up and left; in 7 its above the taskbar and ITS SOOO ANNOYING!!! In xp u close a whole bunch of programs/folders in a second, in 7 its another story..

Also wtf? the right-click in desktop -> properties is now PERSONALIZTION??? You should be from greece to see the stupid word. (the translation is right, but the word gets in my nerves). After this, isnt win 7 for the stupid mass or not???

Anyway, win 7 would be good if they had the same ui as xp, and additional options to make it like what it is now (aero), the classic start menu and the quick launch. Also the UAC must have option to be complete absent. After all its JUST an exe (explorer.exe).

 

[ktownmike]

You are going to hate windows 8 based on your response, I still use office 2003 with the compatibility of 07, I have 07 and 10 but I hear your pain. Why do I have to relearn everything and spend more than 30 seconds trying to do what I already know how to do. I am a gui guy, and office 07 I had a slim grasp on, then in office 2010 they moved the undo, I conspiracy theory here think it is so new users will look at office libre and be lost, where is the ribbon?

 

[xIronhidePro]

@Cl-Scott, No offense dude, but please refrain from saying "Vista" anywhere on my thread(s) - It's a horrible OS, and If I could choose between that and XP, I would definitely choose Windows XP.

XP is not full of bloatware, and it's faster than Windows V by lightyears. I can install XP within 1 hour and have everything downloaded/updated and ready for gaming within 2 hours.

Windows 7 and XP are about the same speed, 7 is just a lot newer and has better features, but I mean come on...XP = Classic.

 

[vampm]

Already tried 7, and are crap. I wish for a remake of xp, make a new simplyfied core that support new techs (not patches and add-ons), and keep the same gui. Also make the whole setup process more simplyfied (the setup is slow, for an os < 1gb)

 

[hang-the-9]

Windows 7 is good, especially if you get pro, you can then add virtual xp that will run 32 bit legacy apps on a 64 bit system. It seems every other version is good so I will try 8, as soon as apps we need to run on a daily basis have a compatible version.
3.1 good
95 bad
98 good
me bad
xp good
vista bad
7 good
8?

25% windows 7, 2% vista, 73% xp. Will be installing 7 on computer replacement as needed for now. I wonder if they will offer the win 7 downgrade option.

It's easy to tell that 8 will be crappy. If only for the re-designed interface.

I think MS has a fully active system of making every over version suck on purpose.

If you have a good running Windows version, you don't want to upgrade. So you wait a few years, then you buy a computer with a new version because your old one is too slow or dies. Now you have a version of Widows which is a lot worse compared to your last one. MS comes up with a new Widows, you are so happy to upgrade that you go out and buy a new version even though your computer already has a pre-installed Windows. Bam! they get new sales where there would be none. If every version of Widows was good, they would probably be waiting a full other upgrade cycle for people to switch.

 

[hang-the-9]

Already tried 7, and are crap. I wish for a remake of xp, make a new simplyfied core that support new techs (not patches and add-ons), and keep the same gui. Also make the whole setup process more simplyfied (the setup is slow, for an os < 1gb)

So what you want is 7 with a XP gui? You can do that now, in Windows even for some parts, and in 3rd party tools in other ways.

Or do you want MS to re-write XP for you? If you give them 10-20 million they would probably do it

 

[cl-scott]

@Cl-Scott, No offense dude, but please refrain from saying "Vista" anywhere on my thread(s) - It's a horrible OS, and If I could choose between that and XP, I would definitely choose Windows XP.

XP is not full of bloatware, and it's faster than Windows V by lightyears. I can install XP within 1 hour and have everything downloaded/updated and ready for gaming within 2 hours.

Windows 7 and XP are about the same speed, 7 is just a lot newer and has better features, but I mean come on...XP = Classic.

But this just shows the fluid nature of things. XP was basically what we were stuck with, for better or worse, because of the unexpected delays in getting what would become Vista out the door. The hardware side of the equation wasn't sitting still, so over time the hardware compensated for the greater demands of XP, and software developers learned to deal with the fact that rules present in Win9x were actually being enforced in XP. So just like the complaints over Vista subsided after IGPs developed sufficiently to handle Aero, so did the complaints with XP.

What Vista had was a marketing problem. Microsoft promised the world, couldn't deliver, and then the only "sexy" feature of the entire OS was Aero. There were, however, significant under-the-hood improvements made to the core of Windows which laid the foundation for Windows 7. People who take the time to dig past the surface will come to respect Vista for the accomplishment it is, laying the foundation for the next several versions of Windows. That's not to say that Microsoft didn't overpromise and underdeliver, but it also doesn't detract from the fact that significant and important changes were made with Vista and it deserves at least a grudging respect for it.