I've been using XP64 for years now and support has gotten a lot better. There are still a handful of peripherals that are not supported (an encrypted USB drive and a scanner in my case). I can't remember running across any software that wouldn't run under 64, either. So far I haven't seen any reason to upgrade to W7. I no longer game, so the latest hardware isn't an issue, XP does everything I need it to, and I don't enjoy trying to figure out where the @$#! MS hid everything this time. I'm sure at some point I'll end up getting 7, probably on a laptop, but I'm not looking forward to it. I don't know why MS can't offer XP or even ME UIs for each new OS they release. Quit moving crap around and making it look shiny just because you can!
Since Vista Microsoft did a make over of everything including folder structure. Now, it's ORGANIZED! No more 20 "Application Data" folders, no more "Add/remove Programs" (how do you add programs?, why Updates are included in it?, how about repairing a program) it now called Program and Features and you have Windows Updates separated from program (under a sub section updates where put), and you can install/uninstall Windows features, including IE (it now out of explorer.exe). Well, it's useless to continue, as almost everything was re-written. So yes, it's different. But it's for teh best. Beside with the serach bar everywhere you can search for everything, including sub option under a control panel. Like you can search for "mouse looks", and you'll get an item: "Change how the mouse pointer looks". Selecting it gets you right to the option. It's pretty cool. Microsoft reply: Quit complaining and embrace change. In all seriousness, you have Classic theme... but why you want that. Why do you want your CPU to render the interface. Since when CPU was ideal at drawing anything. It can't even draw Flash/HTML5 with any acceptable performance in a small window, and you everything?
I know you're passionate about this stuff, but could you please refrain from insulting people who disagree with you or have different opinions? Thanks
You can make 7 look as you want it to look. As for things being a different place... You get used to it. I used XP the other day for the fist time in ages, and I couldn't remember where anything was, and ended up thinking the same as you do about 7. You just get used to stuff.
If you don't like newer operating systems, don't use them. But on the same hand, don't expect everything to work forever either. Working with XP systems these days (and trying to disinfect them, summarily) is a slow, painful procedure. XP's System Restore feature is largely useless. Sometimes it works, but if you can't get into Safe Mode, and the Explorer shell is causing you issues, good luck. Similarly, the Recovery Console is a godsend. Being able to perform maintenance on a system from far, far above is definitely nice. XP lacks a lot of little intuitive features, by default at least. What is this, no "Open Location" in the task manager, copy / delete / move operations aborting when they hit a locked file, no ability to search programs on a system? How dreadful. Insecurity. XP is starting to come up on a decade old, and already looking like Swiss cheese. It's easy to get rootkits in, meaning that when it comes time to fix one of these geriatrics, out come GMER and TDSS killer, because what we see on the surface sure as hell isn't the only thing. Poor out of the box hardware compatibility - Oh look, the device manager is glowing yellow, and because this system is Pre-SP3 (or if you're really unlucky, it's STILL on RTM), I get to fight with Realtek drivers again, huzzah! Poor out of the box aesthetics - I must admit, when I first saw XP's skin by default, it was sublime. But now the big green button on a long blue bar just seems like a Playskool OS. Don't even get me started on MCE. It can burn for all I care. Burn forever. Sure, you can modify it into installing with SP3 by default, but that's a pain in the rump. IE6. Do I need to say anything else? The only upside to XP is that doing updates isn't like pulling glass out of tender wounds. Every time I come across a Vista RTM system, I cringe for the next 5 hours of updates to do. But really, yeah. If we all hung by these attitudes of holding onto ancient technology, we would have never evolved past the command line (which is still damn useful if you ask me); and we would have never let go of dinosaurs like Windows 2000. You really can't even make the "Performance" argument anymore. Dual core processors are common as the grains of sand on the beach, and if you've got a system with something older, it's good and time to put that boat anchor out to sea. If you've got a netbook, you don't get the right to complain. Memory is cheap and plentiful. 4GB of ram is well under $100, and just about every new system to market ships with it. Gigantic, quick, high density drives are everywhere we look. The sad fact is that even a low, low end 7 system today is faster than any XP system from it's day. So really people, move on from your caves and flea ridden animal skins. If for nothing else, please adopt a civilized operating system, if for nothing else than the poor *******s that have to support it.
If it ain't broke... I still use my Win 2000 running in a virtual session in Ubuntu 64-bit as it runs specific software that won't work with any later Windows. And this works great and seamless. A company as big and profitable as Microsoft should support their OS as long as possible. Look what happened when Vista came out. If everyone had changed from XP it would of been a huge disaster. I still have XP on my new system and it runs just fine. In fact I was surprised when I monitored the processors at just how well XP handled multiple applications on a quad-core system. I was expecting just one processor to take all the heat but XP managed to spread the load very well indeed. Nearly as good as when I run my 64-bit Ubuntu and Win 7! Win 7 is a great leap forward and I know there will be security issues with XP. If you have new hardware and can afford Win 7 then there is no reason why not to. There is also no reason why not to install Ubuntu 64-bit as its free and works great but people have their own preferences. Win 7 was not as good to install as I thought. I still had to load each driver specifically just as in XP. Win 7 could not even find the correct driver for my old HP printer but XP did. The biggest problem for Win 7 seems to be on laptops. It runs really slow on the new laptops I have seen. XP would be much quicker on these machines. Win 7 really needs a laptop version but Windows are not very scaleable at the best of times. XP still has a massive user base and can out perform Win 7 in some systems so why not keep it going? Example:-I was thinking of turning off XP in my new system as I have Win 7 Pro 64-bit and Ubuntu 64-bit and I still may do so. But I was editing a wedding video I had taken on my camcorder and Movie Maker in XP has more video capture options than the new version in Live Essential 2011. I had to use XP to make use of these extra options. And before you say the obvious about you can run XP mode in Win 7, you can't use i1394 Firewire ports in XP mode! Just one example of where XP came to my rescue where Win 7 couldn't.
Well, I'm still here on XP. Tried both vista and 7, and 7 at several points through beta etc to retail Still came back to XP. I just like it
But the same was said for XP, and the fact that it had the FisherPrice theme on it, really did not help. So I guess Windows 95 was for retards, 98 for double retards.. so Win7 for IQ of 1?
Win 7 at home and on my work admin pc thankfully. Our users are still trudging along on xp boxes, some of whom have only just been upgraded from win2k! A several thousand pound justification to make the users and our lives easier is hard to push to the board of directors...
You deserve one! Maybe you could change the title to "Keep XP Supported" as it has not gone just yet..
thats nothing. our wheel alignment machine at work is running its software on windows '95. its not even an old machine, the makers just havnt written new software since then (it gets updated every year with specs for new makes/models). why fix what isnt broken i suppose... it takes me back when i see the "It's now safe to turn off your computer" message
There could have been. Prior to seeing that screen you couldn't be sure that Windows had written all cached data to the disk. Reminds me of Win95 OSR2, I believe, where I had to insert an artificial break (read: having Windows play a sound ) before the system shut down just to avoid the above scenario. Oh, and you would only see the shutdown screen if your hardware didn't support ACPI properly or if your hardware was misconfigured.
