XP why still use it after the 22nd?

I have been a pleased Beta tester for WIn 7 and I have to say

Its better then Xp
Just as stable
All the bells an whistles Vista promised but better
Does not need a SP2 to be good like XP did ( many of you do not remember the horrible problems with XP original only the XP after SP2)

Over all its so good watch out Apple ( Apple knows this)

so why use XP an OS that Microsoft will stop selling and supporting soon.

I say do the switch!

 

Yeah i agree W7 can seamlessly replace XP for regular users.

Businesses and corporations wont switch over to W7 for another 2-3 years though.

 

One Hospital I was at was still using 98 on the wards! Ugh!

 

Hospital is like that, but 98 really crazy, usually, I do see XP in Hospital. Basically, majority still using XP if you go to non-urban areas.
Urban areas are on Vista and now 7 is keep growing.

I do agree Windows XP is not practical anymore.
MS and all the other software manufacturers will stop providing support for Windows XP(this is what I wish) sooner or later.
This will ensure the world will move to Vista/7 instead of the 8 or 9 years(2001-2009) old XP.

 

I may make the change at some point in the future. I like the promise of better performance from Windows 7.For now, though, I have XP running on my machine. It's been stable on a single install for almost two years, and it's working quite well. I won't upgrade until the reasons for doing so seem worth the money and almost inevitable aggravation.

( This is why I won't be upgrading in a hurry.)

 

My HP Pavilion a6600z desktop will be getting Vista on Thursday. My dv6458se, however, will be keeping XP. I'll not be running 7 on a notebook until I get one that has it preinstalled. And most likely, that won't happen as I plan on making a MacBook my next notebook, so I'll dual-boot Snow Leopard and Vista.

 

I've been running Windows 7 RTM for a couple of months now on the HTPC and a couple of test desktops and I've been fairly pleased. I'll be installing Windows 7 on future builds but the computers currently running Windows XP will stay that way until they're either re-purposed or decommissioned.

In-place upgrades of Windows operating systems never sat well with me and having to reformat the hard drive and reconfigure the system to the way it was before the OS upgrade is just way too much trouble than it's worth.

 

I'll will stick with Vista until I get a new notebook with W7 installed. I currently have W7 RC on one of my partitions, but come March 2010 that's all over.

XP is already out of my life. I deleted both my notebook & desktop XP partitions since I see no use for them.

 

I deleted my Vista and XP Recovery Partitions from my laptop yesterday. So, did my friend deleted his XP Recovery Partition too.
Find that after moving to 64bit OS(Windows 7 and Vista). I have no love for 32bit OS(vista) recovery anymore.
If someone said XP great and want to continue using it(I mean my friends), I will definitely LOL them and wish them experience newer software can't be installer sooner or later.

 

One Word-Netbooks...at least for now. Apparently the majority of netbook makers are installing Starter edition on their "non premium" entries, no doubt because it costs less for them to buy. However, even though it's lost it's "for emerging markets" only status (that's home basic's job now) you don't get a lot of the features (found in Home Premium) that make 7 well 7.

For example, you cannot change your desktop wallpaper. That's just silly, and while I'm sure someone will find a reg hack to disable this limitation, 95% of users won't know how to do this, or feel comfortable doing it at all. HP's getting around this by including Stardock MyColors, but that's just additional software to get in the way and slow things down. I know it's also intended for those subsidized netbooks wireless carriers are putting out, as a form of branding-you'd get a VZW or ATT wallpaper set as default...but come on Microsoft. You make all this talk about "personalization" yet lock down the wallpaper on a computer form factor that is proven to be more of a personal buying decision than any other-laptops. Inexcusable. Period.

There's no fast user switching: What if this is a family netbook? Mom and Dad don't want their files accessed by the kids, and also don't want the kids to tinker with the settings. This omission makes switching users a hassle-something that was two click simple and instaneous on XP is now longer as you must close all your applications. Not cool.

No Aero, (Windows 7 looks very ugly without it, where as XP looks fine since it never had it in the first place) No Mobility Center (again, on a NETBOOK)

You can't even do remote play using Media Player to save space on your netbook's hard disk.

Some of these are less "important" than others, and I know that there has to be some differentiation between Starter and Home Premium but come on Microsoft, don't release an OS that does even LESS than XP out of the box. Non changable Wallpaper?!?! Are you KIDDING ME?

Checking on Best Buy shows all of the Windows 7 netbooks they are planning to sell at launch. Not ONE has Home Premium, even some of the higher end ones. Dell's not giving you the option to step up to Home Premium, HP sets Home Premium as a default on the Mini 311 premium netbook, but leaves their lower end model stuck on starter.

I certainly hope manufacturers offer up Home Premium soon, even as a step up option if they have to, because this is just ridiculous....

/rant

 

I'd like to take the opportunity to remind everyone here that unlike us at NBR, not everyone is using state-of-the-art computer hardware. I know plenty of soccer mom types out there who are still using computers with a Pentium 4 and 512 MB of RAM that they bought years ago... and they have no complaints about their computer.

I can't imagine that they would still be happy with such a machine if you put Windows 7 on it, and telling these people to get a new computer just so that they can run Windows 7 would be fixing what ain't broken.

 

+rep. That's the situation for my parents, except 1024 MB instead of 512 MB. It probably could run Windows 7, but it wouldn't do so at the optimal settings (no Aero on a midrange GPU from 2002), and why bother with the hassle when XP's working fine for them, especially with a clean install required? And they may well replace it in a year or two anyways, making spending the money now less of a value.

I'll be using XP after the 22nd due to better compatibility with several of my early-2000's programs that I use frequently. Many of Vista/7's problems I could get around by methods such as disabling UAC so I could modify C:\Program Files as much as I wanted, but some compatibility issues I just could not solve, except by using XP. So I'll keep on using it. If I get a second computer in two or three years I may install Win7 on it, but I'll likely keep XP installed natively on at least one computer for another 4-5 years or so. I actually could have been using the RTM version of Windows 7 since August, or the beta since January (with an upgrade to RC somewhere along the line), but other than a few weeks of Win7 testing early in the year have almost exclusively used XP instead.

And for me, XP SP1 was a perfectly good OS. I never used the RTM version, and was perfectly happy using Windows 98 First Edition until 2003. But when I switched to XP, I was pleasantly surprised by the lack of compatibility issues and the smooth performance. For three years, until 2006, I used XP SP1 with no complaints. So I can't comment on how the RTM was, but I didn't find SP2 to be necessary, or indeed, to be a noticeable change from SP1.

The end of selling doesn't really matter to me, either - I already have XP, so that's a non-issue. And the end of support is in 4.5 years. As Scott McNealy of Sun said, technology has the shelf life of a banana. So I'm not too concerned about the end of XP support sneaking up on me while I'm still using today's gizmos and in today's technical mindset.

 

Yep, My parents computer is more than capable of running 7, but I probably wont upgrade it for them just because i'd get even more phone calls from them and my siblings asking how to do something.

 

I agree with the above. There seems to be an almost aesthetic dislike of running less than the newest anything on a machine. Personally, due to a perpetual lack of funds, I've been running out of date software (and often hardware) for years.

That's been one of the nice things about the last six years. I remember times--running DOS, Win. 3.1, and Win. 95--when most recent software ceased being compatible with my OS, and I had to really look to find things that still were. However, I have yet to run into a new PC program that, in principal, won't run under Windows XP. Memory is an issue on older machines, and my current Sony doesn't have the graphical chops to run many games, but an OS upgrade won't change that. In the meantime, I lack what was often my primary motive in looking to change my operating system.

 

I don't ever plan on going back to XP. I'll gladly take Vista or 7 over XP anyday.

Can't wait to get my copy of 7 installed.

 

Financial reasons. If I was building a New Pc or buying a new laptop I would definitely buy Win 7. But my desktop is old and Win 7 won't help it and my laptop already has Vista Business, which works great and I don't want to spend for 7 on that. I usually buy an OS and machine and stick with it more a while.

 

I won't change the OS on my netbook. It isn't worth the cost of the unit vs the cost of a new OS since xp works just fine on it.

I will update my main notebook rig, but that is running vista.

 

Out with the old in with the new.

 

Faster on older hardware, and cheap. Especially if I'm just running some games on Windows, I'll run XP or whatever I can get. My hardware is capable of running Win7 fine, but for some people, that's not an option (but Ubuntu is! ).

Besides, I still find I can do pretty much everything as efficiently on XP as Vista, so it's not terribly tempting to pay $200 or something for Win7 Business. MS really goofed up letting XP hang on so long, because now you can customize it so well; there are so many apps for it.

Oh yeah, and it's more fun and tweakable than Win7. Oh, and Linux.

 

I was finally able to move from XP to Win 7 after skpping Vista!

 

I don't see any reason to use win7. I'll remove it from my new laptop.

reasons?
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?p=5426183#post5426183
And following posts.

 

Give me your key.

 

The conversion to Win7 won't be truly complete until SC2 comes out.

 

SC2 or SP2?

 

Yes there are always those who hate for no reason in this world.

These articles have no real facts to back them up just a lot of text to take up a page.

 

What is SC2? Win 7 is complete and I must say one of the first OS's from M$ to be so in along time

If SC is SP then relax you do not need SP2 to make it complete it is.

For newer computers ( 24 months or less) Windows 7 will run pretty well the main issue is video cards, you need a certain level.

For those still not convinced and running XP, uh you are still running M$ software, now more then 9 years old

 

I do not hate. Stop accusing falsely.

I point to facts. You can dismiss these facts. You provide no facts.

I prefer a fact based reality. Others prefer a fact free reality. Let the reader choose and stop attacking me.

 

Fact one I have beta tested Longhorn and used Vista ( I also Beta tested XP)

I never liked Vista a lot of compatibility issues with drivers till the end.

Fact two I beta tested WINDOWS 7 on three different Laptops, works well, no blue screens no matter what I did to it.

Fact three what I read was not a knowledge base like this so I dismiss it.

Your proof was a You tube video ( waste of time if its important then write a real review) As much facts as the onion network news! Funny though http://media.cnetnetworks.com.au/fl...m.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?p=5426183

and this Peter Gutmann, [email protected]
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html As much facts as the onion network news! Funny though
Last updated 12 June 2007 (but see the note below)
Distributed under the Creative Commons license (see Appendi
an article based on Vista in 2007 http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
Fact four if you or others do not Hate windows 7 then why bother to post these unproved articles and say the things you do?

I would love to see some facts to back up that Windows 7 is not as good as I and others say. So far these links prove nothing

( as you can tell I have buttons that get pushed, I just like to see facts)

 

You've never used Vista, have you? While there is some truth to the Auckland article, some parts are just rampant paranoia. If you recall, people had the same fears regarding Windows XP and DRM. As you may see (since you mention you, yourself, are using XP, at least partially), reality isn't as bad as heresay suggested. Also, part of his gripe is with regards to HDCP which was still new at the time. Technology has matured and there are less problems regarding HDCP nowadays. Heck, I think all monitors currently shipping are HDCP-enabled and you can get HDCP-support even on $30 video cards.

True, Vista has some irritating, sometimes unnecessary content protection in place - NBC fiasco, DRM in all recordings if you have a CableCARD system (supposedly lifted, by the way) - but if you actually use it, you'll find that it's not as bad as the article may have led you to believe.

I wouldn't install Windows 7 on any of my current computers already running Windows XP (not my style to upgrade the OS), but I wouldn't hesitate to installing and using it on newer builds.

 

I hardly doubt the credibility of your cited facts.

 

Here's an interesting comparison of XP with Vista. Search on the same Infoworld site for Randall C. Kennedy's comparison tests on Windows 7.

http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/death-match-windows-vista-versus-windows-xp-144

Alternatively, look at the Testfreaks results -

http://www.testfreaks.com/blog/information/windows-xp-vs-vista-vs-7/

The Testfreaks result is comparing 32bit XP with 64bit Vista and Windows 7, athough a further comparison with 64bit XP is promised, (because the addressing limitations of 32bit XP make it unable to utilise much more than 3GB of SRAM). According to Randall Kennedy, the better simultaneous processing optimisation of Vista and Windows 7 gives no discernable advantage until you have rather more cores than today's desktops, let alone laptops, and they still haven't fixed the slow file copying problem of Vista in Wndows 7 it seems. For most businesses, an "upgrade" from XP would be a total waste of money, offering no practical benefits, except for employees who want to spend all day playing those advanced video games which require Direct X 10/11 rather than doing the work they're supposed to be doing. The default admin privilege security loophole in XP can be closed by any decent system administrator, and Vista is still vulnerable to privilege escalation exploits anyway. Why spend money on more RAM just to get the same or worse performance with Vista/Windows 7? So XP was bad before SP2? If anything, that means one should at least wait for Windows 7 SP1 before changing to avoid similar issues. Microsoft have learnt their lesson, to a degree, with the Vista debacle by using much the same kernel architecture in Windows 7 to avoid the same driver issues. The downside of this is that Windows 7 is only a marginal improvement in performance over Vista. I don't care about flashy GUIs, or the time that might be saved with the taskbar changes in opening an application with one click instead of two when the things that matter to me, like video processing time, take a lot longer. Utterly pointless CPU intensive graphic features like Aero would be the first thing I'd disable on Windows 7, leaving an ugly GUI compared to XP, as stated above. Remember also that Google will be releasing their own FREE system in the not too distant future. (already available in Beta), Here's an extract from their site -

"We do expect the new OS to offer fast wireless WAN capabilities, much faster than today’s standard. What Google will also focus on is speed, and this will be done by making certain that its new operating system will not hog system resources, something that Windows is famous for."

One in the eye for Bill Gates. Personally, I would have said "infamous". Add to that the inevitable spate of buffer overflow vulnerabilities guaranteed with every new Windows product....
Which are most people likely to choose, (apart from the early adopter lemmings, and those victims of brand inertia, who will pay more for less) - a bloated and expensive OS, or a fast light free one? Probably the first! That's why IE is still by far the most commonly used browser!

 

Why use XP after the 22nd?

Because the sound card I use in my desktop does not have Win7 drivers available yet and the shell I use isn't 100% Win7-compatible.
I like my shell and I definitely like my desktop being able to make noise.

Everyone's circumstances are different, Win7 is not a cure-all.

 

One thing I know for sure is that my printer does not work well in Vista. I can get it to work but not as well as in XP since there are no specific Vista drivers for it. I am not a 100% sure(correct me if I am wrong) but that means that it won't work well in Win 7 either. I am not willing to buy a printer right now.

 

Yep I understand, systems older then 24 months will have some problems with Windows 7 but any system that could run Vista can run Windows 7
many if not most vista drivers work in 7

I have tested quite of Dell drivers with 7 and found them to work fine.

So it is understandable, my point is more towards the people who bought new laptops in the past 2 years, why not switch from XP to windows 7.

On another note, people are starting to talk more about how Windows 7 is not faster in many ways then Vista, Ok while in some areas true, Windows 7 was Vista idea taken to a higher level of form and function, after the last 3 years of agony with Vista ( I suffered as well as others) Windows 7 finally brings an end to head aches and heart aches of Vista.

So Vista no doubtingly will be off many shelves and Windows 7 will replace it, In fact it seems Dell has already done this with a few exceptions for some reason they are offering Vista home basic still.

Why fight a good working OS?

 

Why fight a good working OS? That would be XP then!

 

Let me quote you for the answer:

For all its faults, it still works pretty well, and despite Microsoft pulling the plug in the near future, with the install base, it'll be some time before third party developers drop XP. Besides, few people actually buy operating systems. They usually just get it when they buy a new computer.

 

"...and despite Microsoft pulling the plug in the near future...."

In IT terms I wouldn't describe 2014 as the near future myself. XP has already effectively outlived one supposed successor, and with the increasing trend towards cloud based technology, who knows how long Windows 7 will last? For people like my relatives, and most businesses, (probably the vast majority), there's no benefit to be gained by Windows 7 over XP. As you say, they wouldn't buy a new OS anyway, unless it's pre-installed. Fortunately, Moore's Law ensures that when they have to replace their current PCs they will get sufficient RAM to run the more bloated software without a drop in performance or having to pay any more than before.

 

I develop software in all MS OS.

Not that hard. There are literally thousands of BSOD bugs in vista and more in win7.

The fact is vista and its upgrade win7 deliver nothing for the added cost. I linked a very respected computer scientist who addressed the architectural issues with vista and win7. These are not bugs. They are fundamental structural issues found in MS own structural documents. This fundamental structure has not changed since long before 2007.
When you actually READ what he says you will be informed.

Adding to that most users cannot tell the difference between MS $200 OS and a free one. Why should users upgrade?

Are you saying I cannot post what I know to be true? But you can post how you feel?

How can you say a respected computer scientist is unproven, when how many laptops you have used cannot be proven? The article I linked has far more thought and experience behind it than using win7 on three laptops.

Why bother to dismiss articles that you have not even read?

You do not want facts. You want your position supported.

 

I only built my PC slightly more than 2 years ago and the sound card was added considerably more recently.
The specs are well in excess of what is needed to run Vista or Win7, it's just minor incompatibilities.

And yes, there are Vista drivers available but apparently they're rather poor, whereas my XP x64 drivers work just fine.


Also, with regards to the shell, Emerge is so much nicer to use than any standard Windows shell that I have ever tried (and, yes, I've tried Win7) that even if my sound card would work, I'd see no reason to pay money to move to a poorer interface.


Don't get me wrong, I think Win7 is a great step forward and I'm sure I'll enjoy using it on my laptop when I purchase it but I'm perfectly happy with what I've already got on my desktop PC, so I see no reason to upgrade.

 

i'm in the process of downloading my student copy of 7 now. im using vista cos it came with my current notebook, and i have 4 gigs of ram so i needed a 64bit os. i'm quite happy with vista, but it is a bit slower than XP.

hopefully 7 will make things a bit nicer. waiting to get a nice SSD so i can see sub 20 second boot times

 

I decided long time ago, W7 rocks.

 

i have xp home on netbook and xp pro on notebook.

 

I loled. You decided a long time ago...
Like the facts don't matter...

 

You should have sub 20 sec boot time's on XP without an SSD stingray.



As far as why am I still using it after the 22nd, it's smaller and faster, as of a few month's ago, there was still more software being developed for it than anything else....75% of the world is still using it, so it's not going to be unsupported any time soon....probably more considering downgrade right's have artificially bloated Vista sale's and will do the same with W7 as far as it's initial penetration into enterprise where XP is still offered with downgrade right's.

Got to love the hype for W7 though, especially on my local TV new's, very funny considering it's effectively a tweaked vista.
Also very funny MS sending out email's for W7 RC user's asking what you think, I didn't get any replies to my question's as to why it was still slower than XP and still 4 time's bigger and for a breakdown of what function's accounted for the extra 8GB in initial install size before it even start's collecting data.

 

A lot of the extra install space is additional/newer drivers. Some of it is higher-quality pictures/sounds - the backgrounds, for instance, are 1920x1200 IIRC, versus the 800x600 shipped with XP. Part of it is the new functionality (whether you like it or not), and the complexity inherant in it. On the whole, though, Windows 7 32-bit isn't that bad in space - the Ultimate 32-bit Release Candidate takes less than 5 GB on a fresh install. That's not much more than most Linux distributions, and a whole lot less than Mac OS (or Vista, for that matter, although it too is better than Mac OS in initial install space).

You probably were hoping for too much if you expected personal responses, though. I'm pretty sure I read that there would not be personal respones, and you can't expect that when they've got literally millions of beta testers.

 

xp officially died to me and to all of my family members and friends

R.I.P windows xp

 

I was talking about 64bit W7 RC....11GB before any driver's or update's installed, the push is toward's 64 bit OS's, most XP user's are using 32bit and will be steered toward's W7 64bit or whatever version is next, by way of what the OEM's will make available [I've not seen a notebook on a manufacturer site with W7 32bit as an option yet, but maybe they're coming]


Yes, I was seriously expecting a reply from them..... I thought I was the only one, they used my name and everything....very personal like

 

When XP launched in 2001, hard drives were 20-80 GB in capacity. Nowadays, hard drives are 500GB-2TB in capacity, so Windows 7 actually uses a smaller percentage of a contemporary hard drive than XP did.

 

It's not about how much percentage of the hard drive it uses up, but more with how efficient it is and how much non user benefitting background crap is running behind the scene's/how much code the OS has to wade through to do what the paying customer has instructed it to do.

Traditionally with window's, bigger OS = worse application and general performance, I've seen nothing different from W7 apart from it being faster booting than Vista, which would hardly be difficult considering booting a stock install of vista is like waiting for the second coming of christ.
When you get W7 down to 17 second's from pushing the power button to be able to open something, on a standard 7.2k hard drive, let me know

Anyway I've said why I will keep using XP, but will no doubt try W7 on the next notebook I buy, but for now, post 22nd...nothing's changed.

 

11GB sounds good to me - far better than the 46.1GB Windows folder I have with XP x64.