Do we actually NEED such processing power?

And I can google just as many to counter yours. That's why for the most part they don't mean squat.

I know that sooner or later I'll have to move on from XP, but Win 7 is going to have to get a LOT better before that happens. I remember when XP first came out. It wasn't until SP1 that it started to come into it's own, and it really didn't shine until SP2 came out. Vista was the same, but even SP2 couldn't save it. Hopefully by the time SP2 of Win 7 is released it will make enough of a difference to overcome it's shortcomings. Until then, or until I acquire hardware that requires it I'm sticking with what works. Right now all of my C2D and C2Quads run better with XP than 7.

 

Honestly, I don't know what you have against 7, because most people will agree that it's the first Windows OS that doesn't even need to be tweaked to be fast and stable. Really doesn't even need service packs for stability like XP did (and oh god it needed SP2 so badly). It has no shortcomings that I can see. But yeah lets just end this conversation.

 

I don't know where you get your "Most People" idea. There is one thing that proves that XP is the better OS overall all and that is XP Mode. If Win 7 was that good there wouldn't be any need for it. Since there is it proves that Windows 7 is NOT better than XP.

But like I said, this is pointless you think what you think and I know what I know. Now let's end this before one of the mods steps in.

 

Not where backward compatibility is concerned and "XP mode" doesn't cut it.

 

Oh, is XP Mode not very good? I suppose not every computer has virtualization... Good point Talin.
Plus most people have Home Premium I suppose.

 

They changed it so you no longer need hardware vt to run it, but you still need Ultimate, Professional, or Enterprise to run it. Since most systems ship with Home Premium and that is what the majority of users are buying retail most users are still prevented from using it.

And no, it isn't that good. Some programs still do not run correctly in it and you take a significant performance hit even with one that does have hardware VT.

But the main point is that if Windows 7 is supposed to be so good then why does it even need it to run these programs? That shows it isn't all that and a bag of chips and why a more mature OS like XP in the first place is a much better OS for most people.

 

Just because W7 isn't backwards compatible with programs that run on a 10 year old OS doesn't mean it's not what most people should use...besides, you can get most programs to work with compatibility mode.

 

Nowhere in my post do I advocate Windows XP. I simply stated that it was what I used on my work computer due to its ancient hardware. I love Windows 7 however it's simply not worth it to install it on my work computer for what I do.

Re-read my post btw, I said exponentially more intensive. YES tasks have become more intensive, but the day has not come where you need triple the hardware from 3 years ago to run basic tasks. Netbooks are living proof of this fact.

The advancements in hardware technology are rarely for basic users, they're for power users. Basic users can get by with the lower end of the spectrum.

And you completely missed my point. People feel the NEED to have better hardware because they can't use and maintain a PC properly. An i7 might with 6GB of RAM might still feel snappy even after 2 years of bloat, spyware and random crap an average Joe will put in it, but the average Joe probably doesn't NEED it if he's doing average Joe tasks. I've seen enough "bad users" to know this fact. The average Joe just assumes that PCs get slower and buys better hardware when in fact lower end hardware kept well could easily perform their desired tasks.

 

I missed that part, sorry.

Funny, I have seen very few complaints about Win7 really. Most people actually like it, and many were excited to be retiring XP.

Even those who were against it based on people like you loved it once they used it.

MS has already stated that there will only be minimal security patches to XP from here on out and there has been a few zingers that have already needed some patches and they refused to bother.

There are a few programs out that refuse to run on Xp, quite a few that refuse to work on Windows 2000, most notably the new Itunes and several wireless cards (I encountered a Linksys the other day).

So even if MS is throwing out patches, companies are and will continue to dump support long before MS does since it costs money to support each OS. By the time Windows 8 goes mainstream this trend will accelerate as they no longer will want to support xp, Vista, 7, and 8, plus Mac. Dropping the oddball that will be XP will be a no brainer.

 

Oh ok Leslie, I had no idea they were slacking off on security patches so much. I thought that if they said they were still supporting an OS, it mean't "fully support". Thanks.

 

Well MS always ends up dumping support for an OS a few years after they're done with it. Vista and Windows 7 will also follow this once the next thing comes out. It's part of their business plan to make you move on. I mean, they want to concentrate on future venues rather than past projects.

 

First off, some of these programs are only 2 or 3 years old. And there are a LOT of them that will not run in compatibility mode or XP mode (a lot more than Microsoft will admit). Some of them have no Vista/7 version that will run in Win 7. If you need to run one of these then you need to run an 8 year old OS to do so (it will be 9yo in October of this year). And just because it's old doesn't make it any less competent, reliable, or usable.

Bull crap. That's completely false. I defy you to produce proof of such a statement.

You aren't looking very hard then. And your idea that most people love it once they try it is misleading at best. SOME people do, but polls show just the opposite.

I make a good percentage of my income converting new systems from Vista or Win 7 to XP so that people can get work done. I don't solicit the work, nor do I encourage it. People know that I can do it and come to me in such numbers that I have to turn some of the business away as I simply do not have the time to do so.

 

I can pull up dozens more if you woudl like.



http://news.cnet.com/2100-1016_3-6152952.html
http://www.crn.com/software/197000329;jsessionid=P1FDCSYGSVS2RQE1GHOSKHWATMY32JVN
http://www.informationweek.com/news/windows/operatingsystems/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=208800494

Taken from some of these links...

The highlighted portion means no more updates or fixes EXCEPT security hot fixes (small patches). Any major security issue will be dealt with on a case by case basis and often only if a company pays them to do it.


Security patches for SP2 ends in 2013, as per Microsoft end of life support.
All XP support will end come 2014 unless another extension is made.

From Microsoft directly...
Statement regarding XP's support:

Taken from here: https://support.microsoft.com/oas/d...ductList&c=SMC&ln=en-us&prid=3219&gsaid=37013



And here is the Windows XP Support Lifecycle page
http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifepolicy

Support provided:
Paid support (per-incident, per hour, and others)
Security update support
Product-specific information that is available by using the online Microsoft Knowledge Base
Product-specific information that is available by using the Support site at Microsoft Help and Support to find answers to technical questions


Non-security hotfix support was available.
Required an extended hotfix agreement, purchased within 90 days of mainstream support ending. This time frame has long passed.

 

Back on topic, for most consumers needs even the older CULV's have enough processing power. Where you benefit from more is by increasing the pipe to the data. Locally that could mean an SSD or better networking card. Externally this could be your WAN, or even LAN, pipe.

I would churn along fine 99% of the time with what is considered a slow CPU. There is the other 1% of the time I might wish for more punch but again this then becomes rare. Where you need to draw the line is when it becomes mission critical. So when it can’t do the task is when want more CPU becomes need more CPU.

There certainly was a time where software development drove the need for faster hardware. We came to a cross roads I would say at, or somewhat before, 1GHz single cores. This is where current software was trying to use up the headroom that the hardware was providing. Leading to where we are today with portable device capability.

Hardware has become so small and powerful that Notebooks, Netbooks and even some handheld devices are to the point they can capably run the software of their desktop brethren. I can remember not too long ago I would never have bothered with a notebook let alone no longer having use for a desktop.

 

None of the up to date ones say anything about only MINIMAL security updates. That is the part I question as it is NOT accurate.

But enough of this bull crap it isn't getting anyone anywhere.

 

I agree with you Tanware, the CULV is more than enough for most tasks really. Even the Atom, with enough ram doesn't do too badly. Mine had 2gigs of ram, a (very slow) SSD, and Win7 and while not speedy by any means, it handled basic computing just fine. More than tolerable.

If they were not so memory limited (most can only support 2gigs), I wouldn't mind a CULV for the long battery life they offer.

Hotfix means small security patch.
Something they can code quickly.

I wish I could find something more precise, but MS doesn't really specify one way or another.

 

This thread turned into an XP vs W7 thread so it is now closed.