Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Installing windows xp on core i5 430m system

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Core
  • Intel i5
  • Windows XP
Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 19, 2010 8:49:40 PM

Hello All,

I would like to know if I can install Windows XP on a laptop which has core i5 450m processor (Dell Inspiron 15R).

Thanks in advance.

Manju P. :) 

More about : installing windows core 430m system

a b à CPUs
May 19, 2010 9:03:31 PM

You shouldn't have any problems :) 
Score
0
May 19, 2010 9:04:47 PM

dunno about dell but w/ some sony laptops you would get BSOD. I guess the only way to find out is to try install it.

BEFORE:

Check dell support/drivers for you particular model and see if they are offering xp drivers than you are good to go. IF not than i wish you good luck... may be impossible.

Good Luck,

:) 
Score
0
Related resources
a b à CPUs
May 20, 2010 10:17:11 AM

Driver are the only issue here. Sony laptops use the same chipsets as anybody else. If there are issues, its almost certainly with the drivers.
Score
0
May 20, 2010 12:46:12 PM

There are issues big time especially when win xp has no support for the stuff on the mb. What I don't get is why would someone take a dual core laptop that's probably has win 7 64 bit on it and install win xp 32 bit on it. Doesn't make since to kill capabilities by downgrading to a OS that no longer has support anymore.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 20, 2010 7:48:43 PM

kg4icg said:
There are issues big time especially when win xp has no support for the stuff on the mb. What I don't get is why would someone take a dual core laptop that's probably has win 7 64 bit on it and install win xp 32 bit on it. Doesn't make since to kill capabilities by downgrading to a OS that no longer has support anymore.


What are you talking about? What doesn't XP support?
Score
0
May 21, 2010 3:55:56 AM

For 1 win xp doesn't support the enhanced sleep functions in that laptop.
Score
0
a c 813 à CPUs
May 21, 2010 4:01:24 AM

Any reason why you are even thinking of running Win XP. To be perfectly honest it is time for people to move on and ditch XP. Win 7 is so much better.
Score
0
May 21, 2010 4:08:12 AM

I suppose that if Win7 Pro was installed, XP could be installed as a second OS. But unless there is a very good reason, like needing XP for a particular program or piece of hardware, I agree with Logain. Move on the Win7 and enter the world of modern day computing.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 21, 2010 7:01:45 AM

logainofhades said:
Any reason why you are even thinking of running Win XP. To be perfectly honest it is time for people to move on and ditch XP. Win 7 is so much better.


Not by my measure. And I have both.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 21, 2010 7:03:55 AM

I have yet to see a meaningful feature in vista or 7 that justify the ungrade. And I have all three.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 21, 2010 7:04:22 AM

sailer said:
I suppose that if Win7 Pro was installed, XP could be installed as a second OS. But unless there is a very good reason, like needing XP for a particular program or piece of hardware, I agree with Logain. Move on the Win7 and enter the world of modern day computing.


XP IS modern day computing. Were not talking about windows 98 here. As of this moment, XP is the most common operating system in computers today. And it hasn't been preinstalled in systems for 3 years.
Score
0
a c 813 à CPUs
May 21, 2010 8:02:13 AM

kg4icg said:
For 1 win xp doesn't support the enhanced sleep functions in that laptop.


Yea the battery in my laptop seems to last a good deal longer with win7. I am only using XP on my laptop because, unfortunately, that is what I am working with for school right now. They have not updated their program to do MCP for Vista or Win 7 yet. Soon as I am done with my current coursework, I am ditching this archaic, old eyesore of an OS and going back to win 7.




FALC0N said:
XP IS modern day computing. Were not talking about windows 98 here. As of this moment, XP is the most common operating system in computers today. And it hasn't been preinstalled in systems for 3 years.


Only because people fear change or are too cheap to. I used to be the same way. But after using Vista then Win7, I cannot stand to even use XP anymore.


FALC0N said:
I have yet to see a meaningful feature in vista or 7 that justify the ungrade. And I have all three.


I take it you have pretty low ram requirements then. Soon as I have the money I am going back to 8gb. I find myself running out of ram only having 4gb.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 22, 2010 2:47:49 AM

logainofhades said:
Yea the battery in my laptop seems to last a good deal longer with win7. I am only using XP on my laptop because, unfortunately, that is what I am working with for school right now. They have not updated their program to do MCP for Vista or Win 7 yet. Soon as I am done with my current coursework, I am ditching this archaic, old eyesore of an OS and going back to win 7.


XP looks better than 7 does. And you need to pay attention more in english class. XP does not fit the definition of archaic by any reasonable standard.

However, 7 does have longer battery life on laptops. Its not a huge gain, but it is there.

Quote:

Only because people fear change or are too cheap to. I used to be the same way. But after using Vista then Win7, I cannot stand to even use XP anymore.


I own the FULL RETAIL version of 7 Ultimate. Clearly my problem was that I was "too cheap".

After using Vista and 7, I almost returned my copy of 7. Not that its bad, its just not worth the money if you already have XP AND know what you are doing. Windows 7 brings me nothing of consequence that I don't already have on XP.

Quote:
I take it you have pretty low ram requirements then. Soon as I have the money I am going back to 8gb. I find myself running out of ram only having 4gb.


A problem exacerbated by windows 7 heavy memory usage. XP uses less memory, leaving more for applications.

If your speaking of the 4gb barrier, there is an XP 64.
Score
0
May 22, 2010 12:33:51 PM

FALC0N said:
XP looks better than 7 does. And you need to pay attention more in english class. XP does not fit the definition of archaic by any reasonable standard.

However, 7 does have longer battery life on laptops. Its not a huge gain, but it is there.

Quote:

Only because people fear change or are too cheap to. I used to be the same way. But after using Vista then Win7, I cannot stand to even use XP anymore.


I own the FULL RETAIL version of 7 Ultimate. Clearly my problem was that I was "too cheap".

After using Vista and 7, I almost returned my copy of 7. Not that its bad, its just not worth the money if you already have XP AND know what you are doing. Windows 7 brings me nothing of consequence that I don't already have on XP.

Quote:
I take it you have pretty low ram requirements then. Soon as I have the money I am going back to 8gb. I find myself running out of ram only having 4gb.


A problem exacerbated by windows 7 heavy memory usage. XP uses less memory, leaving more for applications.

If your speaking of the 4gb barrier, there is an XP 64.


I think you need to recheck your facts, Win XP uses more memory then Win 7 does and Win XP64 won't even work on that laptop, since there are no Win XP64 drivers for it. Win XP64 was a complete failure for which it was never released mainstream.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 22, 2010 2:09:22 PM

kg4icg said:
I think you need to recheck your facts, Win XP uses more memory then Win 7 does and Win XP64 won't even work on that laptop, since there are no Win XP64 drivers for it. Win XP64 was a complete failure for which it was never released mainstream.


Wow! Did you actually say "Win XP uses more memory then Win 7" ??????? Do you have any idea what your talking about? Clearly NO if you think that is the case. It is an empirical fact that Windows 7 uses far more memory than Windows XP. It is a fact even Microsoft does not dispute.

Windows XP 64 wasn't a failure. It never achieved the market penetration of vista or 7 64 because nobody was running into 4 GB barriers in 2005. The transition to 64 bit is being driven by systems running 4gb of memory and up. Its that simple. Thats why almost every OEM machine with 3gb or less still comes with 32 bit OS.

As for xp drivers on his laptop, maybe there are and maybe there are not. But Im going to guess you didn't even bother to look.

Who was it that needed to recheck their facts again?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 22, 2010 2:19:16 PM

Quote:
^+1
The maturity of XP64 is way supar compared to Vista/7 64bit versions. XP-64 was more like an Open-Beta for 64-bit OSes.
Besides, 7 looks much better than XP IMO.


I have used all three side by side and I don't see much of a maturity difference. I think XP 64 has been unjustly tarnished by the troubles in the earlier years. It has come a long way since it was launched.

7 looking better I disagree with, but its a matter of opinion. Fisher price grew on me I guess. But 7 is a big improvement over vista.
Score
0
May 22, 2010 2:48:44 PM

I'm using desktop here with i5 series processor, this reply is windows XP sp3 within :p 
Score
0
a c 813 à CPUs
May 25, 2010 2:32:33 PM

FALC0N said:


A problem exacerbated by windows 7 heavy memory usage. XP uses less memory, leaving more for applications.

If your speaking of the 4gb barrier, there is an XP 64.


It has nothing to do with heavy memory usage of windows 7. It is called running F@H, 10-20 tabs open in firefox, WoW, IM clients and other programs at the same time. WoW by itself can use over 1gb easily. I have found myself running on the low side of available ram more than I would like. Back when I used to run 2 SMP clients plus a GPU client for F@H it was even worse. There is no way I would use XP 64. Overall poor driver support and would be taking a step backwards. To me XP is an ancient OS that needs to die. It has been around for, what, 9yrs now? In the PC world, that is is an eternity. It is time to move on.
Score
0
May 25, 2010 5:44:36 PM

triplebug said:
I'm using desktop here with i5 series processor, this reply is windows XP sp3 within :p 


There's a big difference between a desktop using standard components and a laptop using whatever random chips the manufacturer got a good deal on, some or all of which don't have XP support and some of which require modified drivers to run.

I'm looking at buying an i5 laptop and while I have no intention of replacing the pre-installed Vista++ with XP (I'll install Linux and just use Windows for games and video editing), while researching them online I did see a few people complaining that XP wouldn't run at all due to either missing drivers or a plain old BSOD on startup.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 26, 2010 2:10:59 AM

logainofhades said:
It has nothing to do with heavy memory usage of windows 7. It is called running F@H, 10-20 tabs open in firefox, WoW, IM clients and other programs at the same time. WoW by itself can use over 1gb easily. I have found myself running on the low side of available ram more than I would like. Back when I used to run 2 SMP clients plus a GPU client for F@H it was even worse. There is no way I would use XP 64. Overall poor driver support and would be taking a step backwards. To me XP is an ancient OS that needs to die. It has been around for, what, 9yrs now? In the PC world, that is is an eternity. It is time to move on.


Yes it does have a lot to do with windows 7 memory useage. Thats why windows 7 has more than twice the official memory requirements. People do the same stuff with XP that they do with vista and 7. And it usually works better on XP.

XP has been continually upgraded. The XP your using today is not the XP you were using in 2001. More importantly, XP is the best OS microsoft ever produced. Thats why it won't die easily. Its that good.

XP 64 driver issues are mostly myth left over from 5 years ago. As a general rule, if there are Vista and 7 64 bit drivers, there are XP 64 bit drivers also.

Your entitled to your opinion but XP is still in more than half of PC's for a reason. Simply put, its the best MS OS of all time.

Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 26, 2010 2:14:09 AM

MarkG said:
There's a big difference between a desktop using standard components and a laptop using whatever random chips the manufacturer got a good deal on, some or all of which don't have XP support and some of which require modified drivers to run.

I'm looking at buying an i5 laptop and while I have no intention of replacing the pre-installed Vista++ with XP (I'll install Linux and just use Windows for games and video editing), while researching them online I did see a few people complaining that XP wouldn't run at all due to either missing drivers or a plain old BSOD on startup.


True, it can more difficult with a laptop sometimes. But if you know what your doing, its very doable.
Score
0
May 26, 2010 2:24:12 AM

FALC0N said:
XP 64 driver issues are mostly myth left over from 5 years ago. As a general rule, if there are Vista and 7 64 bit drivers, there are XP 64 bit drivers also.

Your entitled to your opinion but XP is still in more than half of PC's for a reason. Simply put, its the best MS OS of all time.


UGH!

XP was okay for its time but it's time to move on. I tried using that outdated software not to long ago and BARELY ANYTHING WORKED.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 26, 2010 2:42:27 AM

FALC0N said:


Your entitled to your opinion but XP is still in more than half of PC's for a reason. Simply put, its the best MS OS of all time.


facepalm with getting nostalgic over old software. That installed user base is xp32, not the beta xp64 by the way. As if they can't improve upon programming code ? Whether its security,encryption or enhanced multimedia, DX11? its time to move on.
Score
0
May 26, 2010 2:49:43 AM

FALC0N said:

XP 64 driver issues are mostly myth left over from 5 years ago. As a general rule, if there are Vista and 7 64 bit drivers, there are XP 64 bit drivers also.

Your entitled to your opinion but XP is still in more than half of PC's for a reason. Simply put, its the best MS OS of all time.


While I agree that driver issues with XP64 are a myth left over from years ago, I disagree about XP being the best MS OS of all time. XP was great. It solved many problems that Win98 had, and was relatively stable. But it has nowhere near the capabilities of Vista64 or Win7. For the most part, a newer OS is substantially better than the previous one, ME being the exception to that rule. Besides, how would you run DX10, much less DX11, on XP?

Unless you're content to do only the most basic things on a computer, there is little choice except to step into the modern world of computing.
Score
0
May 26, 2010 2:55:43 AM

FALC0N said:
Yes it does have a lot to do with windows 7 memory useage. Thats why windows 7 has more than twice the official memory requirements. People do the same stuff with XP that they do with vista and 7. And it usually works better on XP.


Windows 7 has double the memory requirement than XP because Microsoft likes to play it safe given the Windows Vista debacle, as well as the low price of memory. Many sites have ran benchmarks on netbook comparing Windows 7 and XP, and most found there isn't a large disparity between them.

http://www.cnet.com/8301-18603_1-10142629-73.html

Some user testimony:
http://superuser.com/questions/7002/does-windows-7-run-...

XP has been continually upgraded. The XP your using today is not the XP you were using in 2001. More importantly, XP is the best OS microsoft ever produced. Thats why it won't die easily. Its that good. said:
XP has been continually upgraded. The XP your using today is not the XP you were using in 2001. More importantly, XP is the best OS microsoft ever produced. Thats why it won't die easily. Its that good.


Windows XP lived for so long because of 2 reasons: the adoption of netbook, as well as business customers trying to reduce IT costs. In fact, without netbook, Windows XP's support would've been terminated back in 2008.

In fact, if you used both Windows 7 and Windows XP, you'd notice a significant advantage of 7 over XP. But since you're claiming some false facts against Windows 7, I assume you haven't touched it yet.

Your entitled to your opinion but XP is still in more than half of PC's for a reason. Simply put, its the best MS OS of all time. said:
Your entitled to your opinion but XP is still in more than half of PC's for a reason. Simply put, its the best MS OS of all time.


Read above.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 26, 2010 3:21:15 AM

FALC0N said:
Yes it does have a lot to do with windows 7 memory useage. Thats why windows 7 has more than twice the official memory requirements. People do the same stuff with XP that they do with vista and 7. And it usually works better on XP.

XP has been continually upgraded. The XP your using today is not the XP you were using in 2001. More importantly, XP is the best OS microsoft ever produced. Thats why it won't die easily. Its that good.

XP 64 driver issues are mostly myth left over from 5 years ago. As a general rule, if there are Vista and 7 64 bit drivers, there are XP 64 bit drivers also.

Your entitled to your opinion but XP is still in more than half of PC's for a reason. Simply put, its the best MS OS of all time.


Hmm...

Quote:
XP has been continually upgraded. The XP your using today is not the XP you were using in 2001. More importantly, XP is the best OS microsoft ever produced. Thats why it won't die easily. Its that good.


Eventually it will die. Mostly due to MS cutting support for it in a few years, but the other reason is due to security issues that can not be patched up easily or quickly. Windows 7 doesn't have the same holes as XP does making it a better choice.

Quote:
XP 64 driver issues are mostly myth left over from 5 years ago. As a general rule, if there are Vista and 7 64 bit drivers, there are XP 64 bit drivers also.


Hmmm.. From what i learn about Windows xp 64 bit (for X86-64 system), drivers for it was either buggy or rare which was the reason why xp 64bit flopped.

Although i never hear of the general rule thumb. Mainly due to the fact that driver for xp dont run at all on vista from what im aware, while vista drivers had decent success running on 7, meaning the core of xp is majorly different from vista and 7.

Quote:
Your entitled to your opinion but XP is still in more than half of PC's for a reason. Simply put, its the best MS OS of all time.


While you are true that theres a reason why XP is on more than half of pc's, it's the wrong reason.

Simply put, most people are either:
A. not interested in a new OS.
B. cant afford it
C. They dont know if 7 can work on there pc
D. there no driver support for windows 7 on the pc there using (which if you have an old pc like i do, there is no support for 7 for any of the hardware i have in it. making it useless to even thing about upgrading the OS)

There a few other reasons but there not really major reasons like the 4 i pointed out.

Now as for the Best MS OS of all time, thats really a personal option. Maybe windows 2000, 98, 7, or even vista was the best.

What you should of said was " the Most popular MS OS of all time. That no one can dismiss as XP is the most popular OS Microsoft has ever produced.


But the truth is, xp as lived long enough. Some Programs, hardware, and features are being built for vista and 7 that cant run on XP and sooner or later, everyone will be doing it.

As much i like XP, i seen what windows 7 can do and it's better than xp.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 26, 2010 3:24:22 AM

dang, i need to improve my typing speed. 4 responses while i typing.....
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 26, 2010 4:02:42 AM

sailer said:
While I agree that driver issues with XP64 are a myth left over from years ago, I disagree about XP being the best MS OS of all time. XP was great. It solved many problems that Win98 had, and was relatively stable. But it has nowhere near the capabilities of Vista64 or Win7. For the most part, a newer OS is substantially better than the previous one, ME being the exception to that rule. Besides, how would you run DX10, much less DX11, on XP?

Unless you're content to do only the most basic things on a computer, there is little choice except to step into the modern world of computing.


Nowhere near the capabilities? Where did you get this garbage from? Microsofts marketing team?

I can't think of anything of consequence you can do with windows 7 or vista that you can't do with XP.

Yes its true that DirectX 10 and 11 were not ported to XP, but that was a microsoft decision. Not a limitation of the OS. And just about every game that supports DirectX 10 and 11 support 9 as well.

Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 26, 2010 4:06:03 AM

greenlines said:
UGH!

XP was okay for its time but it's time to move on. I tried using that outdated software not to long ago and BARELY ANYTHING WORKED.


Nothing says "I don't know what I'm doing" more than a post like this. XP IS STILL IN HALF OF ALL PC's. It is to this day the most popular OS of all time. That means drivers everywhere. If you couldn't get it working, you don't know what your doing.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 26, 2010 4:12:02 AM

notty22 said:
facepalm with getting nostalgic over old software. That installed user base is xp32, not the beta xp64 by the way. As if they can't improve upon programming code ? Whether its security,encryption or enhanced multimedia, DX11? its time to move on.


XP 64 IS NOT BETA.

And why are you depending on MS for security, encryption and Multimedia, security patches aside? This says a lot about why some of you think Vista and 7 are awesome. Windows vista/7 has a lot of second rate fluff included with it. A more skilled user would look elsewhere for those tools and suddenly all your left with is a new user interface and a memory hog kernel. Instead, your convinced by the shinny string.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 26, 2010 4:35:11 AM

yomamafor1 said:
Windows 7 has double the memory requirement than XP because Microsoft likes to play it safe given the Windows Vista debacle, as well as the low price of memory. Many sites have ran benchmarks on netbook comparing Windows 7 and XP, and most found there isn't a large disparity between them.

http://www.cnet.com/8301-18603_1-10142629-73.html

Some user testimony:
http://superuser.com/questions/7002/does-windows-7-run-...


NO, WINDOWS 7 HAS TWICE THE MEMORY REQUIREMENTS TO XP BECAUSE IT USES TWICE THE MEMORY. This is the third time in this thread I have had to answer this stupid claim. It is a matter of fact that both Vista and 7 use much more memory than XP. Stop posting your meaningless speculation as though it is fact. Its not.

Your links are worthless. Aside from having next to nothing to do with memory useage, they don't support your position. The CNET link was so weak that even they discounted their results. "It remains to be seen if Windows 7 is really a viable candidate for Netbooks" I am amazed you actually posted these as evidence.

Quote:

Windows XP lived for so long because of 2 reasons: the adoption of netbook, as well as business customers trying to reduce IT costs. In fact, without netbook, Windows XP's support would've been terminated back in 2008.


WRONG AGAIN. XP lived so long for because its the best OS MS ever released. There are only 3 OS in MS history that people "downgraded to". DOS 3, 98SE, and XP. In the case of the first two, its successor was all manor of suck. Vista really didn't. It just looked that way because it came after XP.

Quote:
In fact, if you used both Windows 7 and Windows XP, you'd notice a significant advantage of 7 over XP. But since you're claiming some false facts against Windows 7, I assume you haven't touched it yet.


I have both dual booting. Windows 7 has a new interface. Thats always a matter of personal opinion and preference. But there is little functional difference that isn't second rate add ons to make it look cooler. And XP is noticeably lighter and faster.

NO, my facts were correct. You don't know what your talking about. You have made at least 2 statements that are patently false.
Score
0
a c 813 à CPUs
May 26, 2010 4:51:07 AM

XP is not faster than Win7. I have run XP, Vista x86 and win 7 x86/x64 on my laptop. It runs best with Win7. I only use the x86 win7 due to no x64 driver yet for the printer @ school.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 26, 2010 4:54:04 AM

The O/S that has been hanging around is XP32, this is what a editor from PC MAG wrote about his long term attempts at using XP64
Quote:
UPDATE [19-JUN-2006]: Despite the delayed release of Windows Vista (x32 & x64), it's safe to conclude that WinXP64 never happened. Of the drivers I was missing nearly a year ago, not a single one has been released for XP64. At the same time, beta drivers for Vista can be found more often now. It is unlikely that this trend will turn around in the remaining 9 months until Vista takes center stage. While that new OS will have its own problems, XP64 never really took off and practically remained a playground for early adopters who didn't mind to spend $100 for something that's virtually unusable.


Recommended:
No
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 26, 2010 5:07:40 AM

warmon6 said:

Eventually it will die. Mostly due to MS cutting support for it in a few years, but the other reason is due to security issues that can not be patched up easily or quickly. Windows 7 doesn't have the same holes as XP does making it a better choice.


Vista/7 is more secure in its stock state. But for many experienced users who have had XP for years, you already have a phalanx of security add ons that fill in that gap.

I have never said that XP is for everyone. For most, 7 is the better choice at the moment. But XP is lighter, flexible, and powerful.

As for security support, patches for XP stop in 2014. Vista in 2012 and 7 in 2015. Unless your using Vista/7 pro, then its 2017/2020. You read that right, XP gets patches as long as vista and almost as long as 7.

Quote:

Hmmm.. From what i learn about Windows xp 64 bit (for X86-64 system), drivers for it was either buggy or rare which was the reason why xp 64bit flopped.


No. XP 64 didn't really flop. It was just unneeded. The only reason for most people to upgrade to 64 bit is the 4GB barrier. Even today, if you have 3 GB or less, you likely have 32 bit.

When XP first came out, nobody had 4gb. Most boards didn't even support it. If that need had existed then, XP 64 would have done fine. But it didn't. By the time 4GB was an issue, Vista was already out.

The XP 64 driver issues are an issue for Vista/7 64 as well. But as 64 bit became more common, so did the drivers for all of them. XP 64 included. If there is a Vista/7 64 bit driver, there is almost always a XP 64 driver as well. But the reputation lingers.

Quote:
While you are true that theres a reason why XP is on more than half of pc's, it's the wrong reason.


Simply put, most people are either:
A. not interested in a new OS.
B. cant afford it
C. They dont know if 7 can work on there pc
D. there no driver support for windows 7 on the pc there using (which if you have an old pc like i do, there is no support for 7 for any of the hardware i have in it. making it useless to even thing about upgrading the OS)


There a few other reasons but there not really major reasons like the 4 i pointed out.


Option "A" supports my position. If the end user feels that the OS does everything they need, thats a great commentary on the OS.

And any of these reasons could apply to any MS OS. So why didn't it? That list sounds great until you realize that XP is the only OS this has happened to in MS history. That is why your wrong.

Quote:
Now as for the Best MS OS of all time, thats really a personal option. Maybe windows 2000, 98, 7, or even vista was the best.

What you should of said was " the Most popular MS OS of all time. That no one can dismiss as XP is the most popular OS Microsoft has ever produced.


Does anybody really doubt that 25 years from now, when the question is asked, that XP would win the "greatest MS operating system of all time" category? If it doesn't, it won't be defeated by anything we have seen to date. Thats my criteria.








Score
0
May 26, 2010 5:08:35 AM

FALC0N said:
Nothing says "I don't know what I'm doing" more than a post like this. XP IS STILL IN HALF OF ALL PC's. It is to this day the most popular OS of all time. That means drivers everywhere. If you couldn't get it working, you don't know what your doing.


When XP came out, I heard from more then one person that their peripherals wouldn't work, no drivers. When I went to use XP, software wouldn't install, not compatible, and that was with software that was designed specifically for XP. It was nice for it's time, but it's time to move on.

And no, being the most populus OS doesn't make it the best, it only makes it the most used. There's enough old boxes running to inflate that number, but that's mostly due to people not caring to have something more modern. The ease of use that Vista gave over XP was fantastic, and Windows 7 fixed a lot of quirks with Vista.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 26, 2010 5:10:56 AM

logainofhades said:
XP is not faster than Win7. I have run XP, Vista x86 and win 7 x86/x64 on my laptop. It runs best with Win7. I only use the x86 win7 due to no x64 driver yet for the printer @ school.


Yes it is. About 10%. Not a big deal, but it is.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 26, 2010 5:11:33 AM

notty22 said:
The O/S that has been hanging around is XP32, this is what a editor from PC MAG wrote about his long term attempts at using XP64
Quote:
UPDATE [19-JUN-2006]: Despite the delayed release of Windows Vista (x32 & x64), it's safe to conclude that WinXP64 never happened. Of the drivers I was missing nearly a year ago, not a single one has been released for XP64. At the same time, beta drivers for Vista can be found more often now. It is unlikely that this trend will turn around in the remaining 9 months until Vista takes center stage. While that new OS will have its own problems, XP64 never really took off and practically remained a playground for early adopters who didn't mind to spend $100 for something that's virtually unusable.


Recommended:
No


You didn't just post a quote from 4 years ago did you? Seriously, you could offer a rebuttal to your own post. Thats a weak offering. I expect better from you Notty.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 26, 2010 5:32:45 AM

greenlines said:
When XP came out, I heard from more then one person that their peripherals wouldn't work, no drivers. When I went to use XP, software wouldn't install, not compatible, and that was with software that was designed specifically for XP. It was nice for it's time, but it's time to move on.

And no, being the most populus OS doesn't make it the best, it only makes it the most used. There's enough old boxes running to inflate that number, but that's mostly due to people not caring to have something more modern. The ease of use that Vista gave over XP was fantastic, and Windows 7 fixed a lot of quirks with Vista.


Yes but there is a reason it is so populous. Its not an accident. What has happens to XP has never happened to any MS operating system. This does not happen every time MS changes an OS. You hear anybody lamenting the fall of Vista? Nope. Nor did you with any other MS OS. The lame excuses offered for XP popularity and resiliency always overlook this.

People love XP because its stable, powerfull and light. Most of the "new features" of Vista/7 are not even OS functons. They are bells and whistles added on.
Score
0
May 26, 2010 5:40:27 AM

XP is certainly not faster than Windows 7. Windows 7 has far, far better support for multicore CPUs, 64bit CPUs, higher memory capacities, SSDs and just about every other modern piece of computer hardware. Windows XP only supports DirectX 9 while Windows 7 supports DirectX 11 which improves both performance and visuals in the latest games like Battlefield: Bad Company 2.

As for Windows 7 using a bit more ram than XP, who really gives a ***? Even a low end computer will comes with 4GB ram these days and Windows 7 runs fine with 2GB. When I built my i7 system I was able to use 12GB ram without spending all that much on the memory. If you're so concerned about high memory usage why not drop down to Windows NT 4? XP used about 4x more memory than NT4, and we can't have that now can we?!

New features? There are tons of new features in Win7 (some in Vista too) that have made me so much more productive on the PC. The redesigned start menu and taskbar are the obvious ones. Aero makes Windows look much more appealing, and boosts the performance of the system by having the GPU take care of all those effects. Without ranting on for an hour about new Windows features that have made my life easier, there's one more that is worth mentioning. The snap feature makes it super easy to work with multiple applications simultaneously. Since I use a large 30" LCD with a resolution of 2560x1600 this features is incredibly useful. This seemingly simple feature is probably the best thing that has happened to Windows since Windows 2000 was launched a decade ago.

Since you seem to think Windows XP is the second coming of Christ or something close to it, why don't you provide us with a detailed list of features that made it so much better than it's immediate predecessor which was Windows 2000? 2000 -> XP was nowhere near as big of a jump as XP -> Vista and the bar was raised even higher with Windows 7.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 26, 2010 5:59:41 AM

FALC0N said:
You didn't just post a quote from 4 years ago did you? Seriously, you could offer a rebuttal to your own post. Thats a weak offering. I expect better from you Notty.


FALC0N said:
Yes but there is a reason it is so populous. Its not an accident. What has happens to XP has never happened to any MS operating system. This does not happen every time MS changes an OS. You hear anybody lamenting the fall of Vista? Nope. Nor did you with any other MS OS. The lame excuses offered for XP popularity and resiliency always overlook this.

People love XP because its stable, powerfull and light. Most of the "new features" of Vista/7 are not even OS functons. They are bells and whistles added on.

lol, how many posts are you going to make without a shred of proof, to back up your emotional anecdotes for software ? Everything that XP could be is in win7. XP64 had major bugs and incompatibilities .
http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/windowsxp_x64.asp
Quote:
Ultimately, the numerous compatibility issues will prove to be XP x64's Achilles heel and I can't imagine any mainstream user being happy with this OS as a result. My gut feeling is that Microsoft is just biding its time until Windows Vista ships, and at that point the overwhelming number of x64 systems out there will put hardware and software support over the top. Until then, it's a non-starter, save for the most niche possible markets. As I wrote previously about this release, if you need it, you already know you need it. Otherwise, steer clear.
Conclusions

I have mixed feelings about Windows XP Professional x64 Edition. Microsoft did an amazing job of replicating XP Pro on a completely new hardware platform, and so many technology mavens would love to upgrade to this technically excellent system. But the real victims, of course, are those people who foolishly make an attempt at running XP x64. It's just not a viable OS today.


Quote:
# Some installers refuse to install to anything other than 32-bit XP, even though the product runs perfectly on x64.
# XP Professional x64 edition cannot be updated with the 32 bit Windows XP Service Pack 3 installer; no analogous x64 service pack has been released.
# The hibernation feature doesn't work when the system has more than 4 GB of mapped RAM. The problem may manifest itself with as little as 2 GB of physical RAM or even less.[29]
As of June 2008, Microsoft does not plan to release any further service packs for Windows Server 2003 and consequently, for Windows XP Professional x64 Edition.[31][32
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 26, 2010 10:11:34 AM

Mandrake_ said:
XP is certainly not faster than Windows 7. Windows 7 has far, far better support for multicore CPUs, 64bit CPUs, higher memory capacities, SSDs and just about every other modern piece of computer hardware. Windows XP only supports DirectX 9 while Windows 7 supports DirectX 11 which improves both performance and visuals in the latest games like Battlefield: Bad Company 2.

As for Windows 7 using a bit more ram than XP, who really gives a ***? Even a low end computer will comes with 4GB ram these days and Windows 7 runs fine with 2GB. When I built my i7 system I was able to use 12GB ram without spending all that much on the memory. If you're so concerned about high memory usage why not drop down to Windows NT 4? XP used about 4x more memory than NT4, and we can't have that now can we?!

New features? There are tons of new features in Win7 (some in Vista too) that have made me so much more productive on the PC. The redesigned start menu and taskbar are the obvious ones. Aero makes Windows look much more appealing, and boosts the performance of the system by having the GPU take care of all those effects. Without ranting on for an hour about new Windows features that have made my life easier, there's one more that is worth mentioning. The snap feature makes it super easy to work with multiple applications simultaneously. Since I use a large 30" LCD with a resolution of 2560x1600 this features is incredibly useful. This seemingly simple feature is probably the best thing that has happened to Windows since Windows 2000 was launched a decade ago.


Why is it that everyone defending windows 7 looks like they are reading stright from MS marketing materials? At least try to sound like your doing your own thinking.

Your fist paragraph is garbage with the one exception being the DirectX stuff. But you even made that sound rehearsed.

No there are few new features and a bunch of second rate add ons.

XP used memory. It didn't waste memory. Vista and 7 are bloatware.

I'm glad you like Aero. Some people are amused by shinny things. I'm not.

Windows 7 made you "so much more productive on your PC"? What? If an OS makes you more productive, than you have no idea what your doing. Problem is the user not the OS.

Snap feature is cool, but it isn't that big a deal.

Hey, you forgot to mention that Windows 7 was your idea.

Quote:
Since you seem to think Windows XP is the second coming of Christ or something close to it, why don't you provide us with a detailed list of features that made it so much better than it's immediate predecessor which was Windows 2000? 2000 -> XP was nowhere near as big of a jump as XP -> Vista and the bar was raised even higher with Windows 7.


I think XP is the second coming of christ? Go back and read what you have written about Vista/7. I say XP is fast, stable, light, flexible. You ramble for three paragraphs with things like you "sooo much more productive" with 7. You fit the "second coming of christ" remark much more closely than I.

Features? In an operating system? Operating systems are not about features. They are not application software, they run application software.

Vista/7 is bloatware with a bunch of cheap utilites and programs along for the ride. You know why MS does that? Because they have not improved the OS itself. So they throw a bunch of cool looking gadets on there to make people like you think your getting all kinds of cool stuff. Obviously it works with lines like "so much more productive".




Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 26, 2010 10:39:56 AM

notty22 said:
lol, how many posts are you going to make without a shred of proof, to back up your emotional anecdotes for software ? Everything that XP could be is in win7. XP64 had major bugs and incompatibilities .
http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/windowsxp_x64.asp


This is a five year old article of a BETA release. The information is badly outdated. And lack of 64 bit drivers were 70% of the problem anyways. The other 30% have been resolved since by updates or are still a problem with vista/7 64bit. If you understood the topic, you would know this already, but you don't.

Proof? Most people know this stuff already notty. I don't have to lead them from A to B to C. I don't understand why you insist on posting on topic you obviously know nothing about.

Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 26, 2010 11:05:55 AM

Just admit it people. XP is the best ever. :bounce: 
Score
0
May 26, 2010 11:29:55 AM



It seems someone's elevator is not going up to the top floor.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 26, 2010 12:28:04 PM

FALC0N said:
Why is it that everyone defending windows 7 looks like they are reading stright from MS marketing materials? At least try to sound like your doing your own thinking.

Your fist paragraph is garbage with the one exception being the DirectX stuff. But you even made that sound rehearsed.

No there are few new features and a bunch of second rate add ons.

XP used memory. It didn't waste memory. Vista and 7 are bloatware.

I'm glad you like Aero. Some people are amused by shinny things. I'm not.

Windows 7 made you "so much more productive on your PC"? What? If an OS makes you more productive, than you have no idea what your doing. Problem is the user not the OS.

Snap feature is cool, but it isn't that big a deal.

Hey, you forgot to mention that Windows 7 was your idea.

Quote:
Since you seem to think Windows XP is the second coming of Christ or something close to it, why don't you provide us with a detailed list of features that made it so much better than it's immediate predecessor which was Windows 2000? 2000 -> XP was nowhere near as big of a jump as XP -> Vista and the bar was raised even higher with Windows 7.


I think XP is the second coming of christ? Go back and read what you have written about Vista/7. I say XP is fast, stable, light, flexible. You ramble for three paragraphs with things like you "sooo much more productive" with 7. You fit the "second coming of christ" remark much more closely than I.

Features? In an operating system? Operating systems are not about features. They are not application software, they run application software.

Vista/7 is bloatware with a bunch of cheap utilites and programs along for the ride. You know why MS does that? Because they have not improved the OS itself. So they throw a bunch of cool looking gadets on there to make people like you think your getting all kinds of cool stuff. Obviously it works with lines like "so much more productive".



You might as well say that to XP. It has something that was the start of super fetch in vista and the improved version in 7. Called prefetcher.

Seems XP waste as much memory as much vista and 7 :lol: 


Quote:
Just admit it people. XP is the best ever. :bounce: 


Now your saying just XP is the best ever. No, Ubuntu the best ever. :kaola: 

Anyways, as stated before. thats a personal option. Not a fact.

Xp is certainly the most popular but not the best. So no, people will not admit XP is the best. Get it though your head.
Score
0
May 26, 2010 3:09:21 PM

FALC0N said:
Yes but there is a reason it is so populous. Its not an accident. What has happens to XP has never happened to any MS operating system. This does not happen every time MS changes an OS. You hear anybody lamenting the fall of Vista? Nope. Nor did you with any other MS OS. The lame excuses offered for XP popularity and resiliency always overlook this.

People love XP because its stable, powerfull and light. Most of the "new features" of Vista/7 are not even OS functons. They are bells and whistles added on.


I can place two factors for XPs popularity that are hard to ignore:
1. It was the best MS operating system for the home user for half a decade.
2. It was released in a boom time.

Beyond that its not much better then for running on a netbook, and the people who keep running probably are businesses, or people who don't need much more functionality then what a netbook can offer. Beyond that, most netbooks that are out there have more power to them then the average desktop running XP right now (just guessing, don't know)
Score
0
May 26, 2010 4:11:13 PM

I very much doubt netbooks have more power than the average desktop. They are castrated laptops to start with.

As for running XP, I guess if someone wants to run a dinosaur OS and claim its the best ever, that's his privilege. I ran XP32 and XP64 for many years on my office computers, but I upgraded the XP64 to Vista and gave away my XP32 computer a week ago. I need lots of power, ram, versatility, etc, and XP doesn't provide for the my needs. But to each his own. I have mixed feelings about whether Win7 is really better than Vista or not, but I won't be building any more Vista computers.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 26, 2010 5:09:11 PM

To answer the OP's question, I would just keep 7 and move on. XP is being phased out. Unless you REALLY need XP, there is no point. The ONLY reason I haven't ditched XP is because if I go to Windows 7, I want to build a new system first since my system is obsolete (Socket 775, no SATA drives, etc), and I don't want to put a new OS on old hardware.
Score
0
May 26, 2010 5:18:28 PM

Windows XP is still so popular because Windows 7 has been on the market for only around six months, and Vista was launched with numerous bugs that took some time for them to sort out. Windows Vista never really recovered from the poor reputation it gained at launch from the bugs present in the OS not to mention all the buggy drivers that were out at the time (Nvidia and Creative spring to mind).

As for Windows Vista/Seven and better hardware support:

Memory management:

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysinternals/memmg...

Multicore CPUs:

http://developer.amd.com/documentation/articles/pages/2...

SSDs (Win7, rather than Vista)

http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/E/6/5E66B27B-9...

Better multicore support resulting in better system performance with multicore and mutlithreaded CPUs. We've got six core CPUs here now for desktop machines, and with HyperThreading that's support for up to twelve threads. We've got machines with more than 4GB ram, Windows will use Superfetch to further improve system responsiveness and performance. We've got SSDs that dramatically improve system performance and Windows 7 has been optimised for SSDs, right out of the box.

Just as another example of how far Windows has come along in recent years, I was reinstalling my system a few months ago With a dual boot XP/Win7 setup (3Dmark 2001 and Aquamark love Windows XP) on my Core i7 setup. My install drive is a pair of WD Raptors in striped RAID configuration. Windows Seven was dead easy to install, I just stuck the Intel RAID drivers on a USB flash drive and the Windows setup detected and used them. Not so easy with XP. I can't just put them on a flash drive. Fine then, to be retro I pulled out my USB floppy drive and put the RAID drivers on a floppy disk. Sorry, can't do that either since my USB floppy drive isn't one of the two models supported by XP. Well fine then. I'll take the side panel off of my case, get an oldschool floppy drive, plug in the appropriate cables, enable the floppy drive in the BIOS then do it that way.

All that trouble just to read a ******* RAID driver. To throw fuel on the fire if I had just used Microsoft's default RAID driver in Windows Seven I wouldn't have had to do anything at all to make it work.

Even if you don't care for the Aero UI (I've yet to meet anyone who does't prefer it to the blue and green fisher fisher paykel inspired UI that XP comes with by default) the crazy thing is that you can turn it off. Who would have thought of that? Of course Aero allows you to take advantage of GPU acceleration in applications. Internet Explorer 9, and upcoming versions of Firefox will support GPU acceleration in the browser. That's going to speed things up markedly and enable some cool new things, like in this link below.

http://channel9.msdn.com/posts/Charles/IE-9-Surfing-on-...

I actually agree with you with regards to the gadgets, I don't find them that useful at all. But it's no problem sine they are turned off by default.

The snap features enables me to easily work with multiple applications open on my screen at once. Rather than manually resizing my applications manually and then dragging them to where I want them I can quickly drag the window to the side of the screen and let the mouse button go and they snap to the side. It's incredibly useful on my 30" monitor since even with two apps side by side each still has 1280 pixels wide of space. It's a very simple features, there's not much to it, but I find myself using it all the time. The same can be said for the ability to drag a window to the top of the screen to maximize it, simple but very useful IMO.

The start menu, having a small search bar down there is incredibly useful too. In XP if I wanted to hunt for an application I only occasionally used (rather than something I use regularly, which would have a shortcut handy) I'd go into the programs section and search it down. In Windows 7 I just type the first few characters of that application's title and the system finds it for me instantly. The same if I need to quickly find a document. It's a simple addition that makes a big difference.

The new taskbar in Win7 also allows me to work with multiple apps a lot easier as well. If I'm listening to music in WMP for instance, and I want to access the controls I just hover the cursor over the WMP icon and I can access the controls right from there. If I want to access more sophisticated controls for WMP, or for another program like Word, or IE or any other application that has been coded to support the feature then I can just right click the icon. I can perform many simple tasks in programs this way, without actually having to bring the program up. It's just done from the taskbar. I can rearrange the icons on the taskbar if I want to. Positioning the cursor over an icon gives me a thumbnail display of that application, allowing me to more easily find what I'm after. If I have multiple windows of a single application open then I just put my cursor over the icon and it'll show me a thumbnail for all the windows for that application allowing me to easily select the one I want.

These are real improvements that result in real productivity gains for me. Though since Windows 7 is bloatware I've been considering going back to Windows 95 since it has very low memory usage!
Score
0
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!