who thinks we should bring xp back? i have e-mailed the editor that wrote the article about the 2008 petition,there were 200.000+ signichers against killing it off,the support kill date is 2014 but why not keep it as a main o.s that reminds windows and windows users that microsoft can do something right lol i think xp should live on and be upgraded as time passes,gamers ect get xp and poeple that like pretty desktops get the future versions of windows.
hmm no. If you take a course on Operating System, and see how things works.. you'll AVOID XP at all cost with a modern (2004 and newer) computers. Ignoring how an OS works on the back, in managing about EVERYTHING including security, XP is still vomit. It's packed with holes everywhere, that makes a 8 year old kid be able to make a virus within minutes of barely knowing virtually any programming languages. It's real easy and pathetic. XP is based on NT3 (1993), between 1993 to 2001, it was NT3 with patches and new updates. Bringing back XP is EXACTLY bringing back NT3. DO you want to use NT3? I dont' think so. XP is really NT3 with some patches, a theme, a some interface improvements, with USB support. XP doesn't support: - USB 3.0 - SATA - Crapsastic memory management for users with 512MB of RAM (Microsoft said it when XP was out, and said that it won't be a problem as the day the majority of people get more than 512MB of RAM, Longhorn (Vista) will be out - it was expected to be out in 2003. - And XP doesn't support well over half of the technologies used inside a recent computer. - Heck XP setup can't even load drivers from a CD or USB memory stick. If you are too cheap to upgrade your 2000 out-dated computer, then live with what you have, and leave people who actually use more their computer than just for web, enjoy their computer.
Windows 98 was absolutely fantastic and I HATED the idea of upgrading to Win 2000/XP. It had a clean interface and ran beautifully. Only as I got older did I realise that it was an upgrade of a pretty buggy Windows 95 and there were tons of things it couldn't do, and even more things it could've done better. Would I still hang onto Win 98? Of course not!! Windows 7 is fantastic, it does everything you could want it to, and I haven't had any problems with it so far. Yes, I still love XP, and I'll keep fond memories of it, but it's time to lay it to rest. If someone were to build a new OS LIKE XP but using different foundations then I would buy it. Unfortunately, technology has moved on and outgrown what XP was designed for. Whenever people bring an XP laptop/PC in for repair I savour the experience; it runs quickly (because it's so old) and is efficient and familiar to use. But I would worry if it were my own PC because of the increasing security risks it poses and things it can't do.
Windows 7 pisses all over XP. I don't see the issue. Also XP lasted a LONG time for an OS. Be thankful for that and move on.
Time to move on me thinks lado. All of the above sums it up really. I wasn't even tempted to get on the web until a newer OS came about because of the back doors that XP had. At least with W7 and yes, Vista, the exploits are mostly user intergrated and couldn't just run in the background. I can just picture all the XP die hard fans starting to download all the SP's and updates for there yearly fresh installs. Better start soon as there is soooo many for every setup and spec. ROLFLOLZQUIFFLE!
XP does indeed support sata and many of the technologies used inside recent computers. I HAVE to take 7 off and install XP on all laptops and desktops. Memory management might not be as good, but it works without issue imo. A standard desktop for me boots up and uses about 256MB or so. With 512MB installed it works quite well (although I tend to stick 768MB - 1GB in). So what if it was based off NT4? It's a solid OS (with at least SP2 applied, anyway) and although holes are still being plugged, at least it's just for vulnerabilities and not so much for general usability/compatibility. I love 7, but XP still 'just works' and tbh has nothing wrong with it (for me, anyway).
Not to mention that it will probably take them a week to get all the updates, if they have XP pre-SP1. I had XP SP1, and it used to take 2 days to get allllll the updates for my computer.. back in 2005. What a week-end project. Win7 you install.. 7 min later (with a USB key), and it's DONE! Perform all the updates and driver install.. that takes about a few minutes, and your done. Install all your applications and configure everything, restore your data.. that is about half a day. Half a day all done, compared to 2 days and you haven't even install a software, as you can't do it at the same time. Chee I wonder what to pick as OS!
I think GoodBytes means out-of-the-box support. Why take off W7? It runs really well on my ASUS EEEPC 1005HG with 2GB RAM. And that's Ultimate. I've even got Hitman 2 installed on it. @GoodBytes So much TRUE in them thar words.
Oh dear. A horse and cart might be a fun way to travel when you are in the country side and you want to enjoy the scenery as you amble through the leafy lanes, but you wouldn't want to jump on the M25 in one to get to work every day.
To be fair, the only issue we have with Win 7 is reformatting; because 7 doesn't do a "full" format out of the box, we're told to do that with an XP disk first and then install Win 7. I read somewhere that there can be slight problems with a Win 7 install doing that, even though it's never happened to me I take it as a possibility. Secondly, I've also seen that it's possible to do a full format through a Win 7 install by doing it through the console but again, never actually tried it myself. So while it would be nice to have the Full/Quick format option with Win 7, I guess it isn't completely necessary as there are various ways around it and things generally work okay.
Yes, that is what I mean. Installing SATA (assuming that your set your controller to RAID or AHCI), is a just plain headache to setup under XP. It works.. yes..but not well. No mater what you do, how much RAM you have, XP doesn't use your RAM.. it continuously use your HDD, as it keeps swapping things from the HDD to RAM and vise versa, to minimize RAM usage, so that you can heavy multi-task on the system. NT4 is based on NT3. That is like going: "My computer is too fast for me, I need to slow it down...I don't care, as it works. Speed is not and never was an issue".
I had XP and 7 running on my old Dell P4 (6 years old).. only upgrades to it were more HDDs and upped the ram to 2GB... 7 beat the snot out of XP at any task i threw at it. hell.. I even installed BFBC2 in both OS's just to see how game play would be... Keep in mind this PC had a paltry GeForce 6800 512MB GPU in it and I had to play the game at mid to low settings to even be able to move around... Same quality settings on both OSs and 7 gave me about 7fps more than XP every single time... it was still a lowly 29 or 30 fps at mid-low settings, but playable when compared to the 20fps I got on XP. XP had its time and even though I'm typing this on an XP machine (company hasn't made the switch to 7 yet); that time has gone by and 7 is here to take over the world now.
I still use it on the netbook.. but really that os has been to hell and back- maybe time to go with win 7
Wouldn't bring it back... as previously mentioned the underlying changes are much more than just skinning the OS. I actually really like XP though, and I'm not a fan Microsoft's UI design choices in the last... well... 10 years I guess I even really hated Luna and put XP straight back into classic mode, but I'm forcing myself to use W7's native UI this time, minus the eye candy. For me, XP is like a battered set of old boots -- I don't feel so comfortable with 7, but in time it'll probably feel the same -- I've had 9 years to get to know XP, after all.
Bah forget XP. Who thinks we should bring 3.1 back? I mean what's wrong with running programs from DOS?
