There's Absolutely Nothin 7/8/9 Does Better Than XP!

Want 4 virtual desktops on XP? Ditto. There's a FREE M$ technet sysinternal tool that works on XP/7/8. That's supposed to be 9's selling point, right? 4 virtual desktops? No thanks, I can already do that on XP!

There's absolutely nothing that 7/8/9 has that wants me to move from XP. Why do I want the ability NOT to be able to watch HD videos on my old laptop (anything after XP will bloat this system's performance down)?

 

I would believe that the selling point is to have the xp style with the security of win9. ??

==

 

^ More like Windows 3.11 style. XP has the decency to have rounded corners at the top and a slight 3d "bubbly" look... I believe they will bring back rounded corners in Windows 10, and that will be its selling point. Don't think Aero Glass is coming back until Windows 12, when they finally sort out the modern GUI mess...

 

First off, I REALLY don't think that there will be a conventional Windows after Windows 9. I think after that, the focus will be on some sort of subscription policy (like Office 365). That would be more profitable for Microsoft in the long run, and would not necessitate as much focused development of Windows on the PC. The future is in mobile consumption products, which is where all of this Metro crap began in the first place.

Secondly, I really think that Microsoft dropped the ball on XP/2000 users. I can't see why Microsoft could not have created a subscription service to allow updates to the product for a modest annual fee. There is only a modest amount of work needed to make XP current (Sata and SAS compatibility, DirectX and video improvements - which would in turn allow newer versions of Internet Explorer to be utilized; and improved security features that work on newer bioses and CPUs.) Other than that, leave the look of the OS as is, and provide patches. Would that not constitute a new profit centre for Microsoft?

Plus the updates already exist, and they are used for expensive paid corporate support and for POSReady 2009.

Thirdly, and this is important. One cannot say that there aren't areas where Vista, 7 and 8 are not superior to XP. The x64 implementation and memory management is much better on x64 builds. Like it or not, the newer OS builds are far more secure. As much as I hate the idea of the Component Store, which keeps multiple DLL libraries on hand for compatibility's sake (at the cost of disk space), it does prvent DLL issues and many BSODs. I've never had one on Vista x64 SP2. Also, native support of both Sata and Advanced Format Drives are better handled in Vista, 7 and 8.

 

BSODs... I've never had one after XP SP3. And I'm the type of user that has his computer on at least 7 hours/day connected to the internet. And security is a joke on any given OS. I fail to see how 7/8/9 (or w/e Kernel 6.x based OS) is more secure than XP. How do you explain away all those Win7 infected machines? Surely, if 7 is more secure than XP, how come I've never gotten a malware since MSE became free for XP?

Let's not even get into browsers. Something as old as Opera 12 (which was released in 2012) beats hands down any version of Internet Explorer in existence. Btw, the current version of Opera is now 20-something and works on XP.

And in memory management, I don't get how people even need 6GB of RAM let alone 8GB. I have another recent machine with 4GB. I throw multiple instances of CPU and memory intensive apps at it, and I barely break the 3GB barrier... Windows XP can use up to 3.6GB or so, so I'm not in danger of needing an x64 system, even though my XP machine is actually an x64 system with only 2GB of RAM...

And if you want to talk DirectX... The best games I've ever played were made for DirectX 9, which runs on XP. All those fancy realism 3d graphics card driven modern games don't really provide me with as much entertainment. And everyone knows, real gamers don't game on PC's, the best games are found on consoles...

 

But see, you are gauging your own usage and work habits on others and asking "Why would anyone need 6 or 8 GB of RAM"? It's quite a boon for large spreadsheets, image work, audio editing (my area of use) and the like. Plus, on an x64 system with large amounts of RAM, I no longer need to page memory to a virtual RAM file, so I don't get I/O slow downs there.

I think citing Opera 12 as superior to something like IE 11 is a bit misguided. IE 11 renders quickly and works quite well. Don't take IE history and apply it to version 11. The Trident engine has improved vastly. I've run Opera 12, and while a great choice if you have hopes of browsing the web on unsupported Windows versions (like 2000, ME or 98), it is indeed inferior to IE 11.

Again, your comments on DirectX don't apply to everyone. There are some (not me, as I'm more like you ) that want higher definition games and more fluid movement, so we can't disparage DirectX 10 and 11 and the improvements it brings.

As for security, we're not just talking malware. Certain ports and files can be exploited and thus, there are other ways that your system can be accessed (in fact we may even be unaware that it's happening). And yes, while all Windows versions may have security holes, why would I not want as much patched as possible? Just makes sense.

Look, I love XP, and even though I've moved on, I miss using it at home (I am using it right now at work though...lol). However, I think that it's best to be honest about where its strengths and weaknesses are.

Have a good day.

 

Look, I'm using XP on 2GB of RAM without needing a page file, and I still have 300MB-500MB of free RAM left after I open multiple instances of all the apps I run on XP. And that includes an ocasional HD video opened in a virtual desktop for sheer boredom.

7/8/9 is not superior to XP in security. Once again, how come there are stories of Windows 7 systems infected simply being connected to the internet? If kernel 6.x OSes are so secured (over XP), these things shouldn't be happening.

DirectX, as I've said before, I fail to see how you can't get better fluid HD graphics with better control dynamics on say an XBox One, PS4, or Wii U.

And Opera 12 is superior in every way to Internet Explorer. Plus, don't forget all the browser innovations such as tabbed browsing/speed dials, etc. originated from Opera. Opera always has the latest cool thing before the boys copy from them. The only advantage I've ever found in using IE is that if you cut and paste from a web page into Word, it retains the styling of the web page whereas in other browsers, it just copies the plain text. Of course, this can't be helped b/c Word source code is propietary and only Microsoft can implement it in IE...

Lastly, let's not even get into AF (Advanced Format) hard drives. There are no native 4K hard drives on the market as yet. The mere fact that an HDD has the AF logo means it's running in emulation mode whether you are on Windows 7/8/9 or XP. So, currently no advantage there... And there won't be any if I stock up on a few of today's HDD's before the true native 4K drives come out...

 

I can see Jody's point, but also eatup's.

If I may suggest, it's horses for courses.

My XP is as stable as any OS I've ever used. I also have W7 on a second, separate drive, so I have direct comparison.

My wife uses W7 exclusively on both of her laptops and gets continual crashes as she never tires complaining to me about. (Because of course, it's all my fault, naturally).

Most updates are probably not necessary at all. Unless you use Office, you will never need the Office updates and these are interminable.

There are reasons to use W7 and beyond, especially if you have a large business with a significant turnover. Having the most modern computer set up can be crucial.

But equally, you don't drive a 3 trailer truck if you just want to go down to the corner shop.

Personally, I'm fine with XP. It does what it's supposed to with no fuss. But for the sake of my wife and others, I dearly hope the tablet market can expand sufficiently so it can be as competitive as a PC. Because that it definitely the future.

 

Hello Jojo,

I agree with you about XP and Windows 7. We have both here. XP 32 bit for me on the old PC and Win 7 Home Premium on the AMD 64 bit super monster for my wife.

Yep, why use a cannon to shoot a canary. (maybe a bad choice of words but !).

Probably some will argue the point about their favourite OS. As you say, "horses for courses.

Cheers from Aunty Jack.

 

I wouldn't argue that in the least bit whatsoever. I just don't ever agree that saying something is better than something else when that is just not the case.

Perhaps, Eatup's system runs great (so did my XP x64 setup; it ran in exemplary fashion), but arguing that Vista/7/8 are not more secure just because Eatup has no breaches on XP, and there have been on other's systems, doesn't make it so. Eatup probably utilizes good usage behaviour and doesn't visit questionable sites and the like. I'm sure he'd have a good experience on newer OSs as well.

Besides, where was it Eatup that you heard AF drives are not using the new block sizes? You have to use a jumper for XP on such drives for it to work at its optimum (and it indeed makes a difference). And what of USB 3.0 for example? (Just because you have no use for it, doesn't make it's improvements all for nigh)

I think sometimes were getting a bit sensitive on this. To bring up shortcoming of Windows XP does not need to be viewed as a attack or a challenge. Some of the tone I was getting back felt like I was cornering a cat. There's no need to feel challenged by me.

Remember, I loved OS/2 and thought it was the best OS ever at one time. But Windows today is DEFINITELY a better OS than OS/2 ever was. Some of the products' biggest fans would never admit that. I like XP too, and I'm most glad you enjoy it. But let's deal with what is reality; that's all.

No hard feeling I hope.

 

^ The irony is, I currently have two laptops. The old one is my "beater" laptop that I use 99% of the time on XP. The newer one triple boots to XP/7/8 (I got the 8 upgrade for cheap when it was something like $17 to upgrade). I plan on quadruple booting that machine should 9 become free for 8.x users. Nevertheless, I spend 99.9% of my time on XP on that newer machine. Why...?

In regards to AF HDDs. I was under the impression that native 4K disks aren't on the market yet. Those AF HDDs only let you access the 4K clusters thru an emulation layer. It doesn't really care what OS you're using. You do, however, need W7 or later to properly align the first partition though. After that, you can install XP on it... My newer machine has an AF HDD installed. XP runs much faster than W7 on this "AF" drive. Surprised? That's b/c at the kernel level XP is, ahem, superior to 7/8/9 in every way...

I mean you look at a country like Japan. They're possibly the most tech advanced country in the world. Yet, they (still) prefer fax machines and physical music CD vs digital downloads. Why? Yesterday's tech are always superior b/c they've been thru the whole development cycle. I don't think kernel 6 will reach its pinnacle of development until ver 6.6, by which time 5.1 will still be far superior...

 

All this talk about security updates has always confused me.
If M$ provides security updates to its OS's, how come I still have to run 3rd party anti-malware software?
Doesn't it make sense that a security update should secure your OS from malware, and if it doesn't, why bother with the updates. And besides, do you really want Big Brother putting stuff on your machine that you don't know about, watching over your shoulder?
Just one man's rant. Thanks.....

 

The security updates are, for the most part, a sham I'm afraid.

Most updates are not needed for home users and are aimed at M$ Office and such. They rarely do anything to imporve security, but every once in a while, they might.

So you need anti-malware because your principal open port, the internet, is vulnerable.

There was a time care and intelligence were enough. Now, sadly, nasties get in from animation in advertising, even from buttons which say they are one thing but actually install something.

In my W7 OS, I downloaded an update from M$ called Windows Activation Update. This piece of generosity rendered lots of otherwise genuine W7 OSs including mine, invalid.

I was able to sort it out because I bought mine from a reputable supplier, who had prepared.

The Moral is M$ is not your friend. They give you nothing free.

 

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but what are you basing that opinion on? If the updates were not of any benefit, why are they suggesting so fiercely that one should not apply POS Ready 2009 updates to the OS? After all, if the updates are worthless, and the user breaks their OS applying them, why should Microsoft care? The OS is no longer supported.

Those updates probably DO benefit XP users to be honest. Any I wasn't meaning to get in to a POS Ready argument. But I think there likely is some benefit to MS updates. Why do you believe they are a sham?

 

I didn't say any of those things and if I had then your point would have been valid.

Updates on XP are no-longer issued. Leaving updates on, or even available is simply leaving another port open and vulnerable.

There is little point in accepting an updated for a program you don't have installed.

 

You said "The security updates are, for the most part, a sham I'm afraid." What did that mean?

I agree with turning off the Windows Update Service now though, most definitely.

 

They are a sham because all too often they don't do anything positive.

The impression has been sent out that unless they are permanently turned on then your computer is at risk. The reality is, that is simply not true.

 

I finally managed to get Win 7 on the oldest laptop I have. So now, I dual boot XP/7 on this machine. I must say, if there is one area Win 7 does extremely well over XP, it's Wi-Fi connectivity.

Recently, one of our family members decided to put in a new router when the previous one was barely two years old and working dandy. All of a sudden, I encountered problems wirelessly connecting to the router from XP. My machine would sometimes spend up to 15 mins trying to get a darn connection in XP, sometimes even requiring a reboot to reset the Wi-Fi card. Meanwhile, Win 7 almost handled connectivity flawlessly on this same machine.

Also, certain files (>1GB) that would take me a good 4-5 hours to download in XP, I'm finding I can dl them in 30 minutes sometimes on Win 7. With the exception of certain sites, such as Microsoft download center, I have never seen a >1Mbps dl speed b4 for any one file downloaded on XP thru Wi-Fi. It was my first time to witness it in Win7 and I was shocked...

Overall, I would have to say Win 7 makes better and more efficient use of Wi-Fi. I am hesitant to use it as my main OS though, b/c I remember a certain instance where Win 7 popped up a balloon saying my data got corrupted during the file copy process. This shouldn't happen in an OS b/c if there is one thing it's supposed to do, that is to copy files flawlessly. I blame it on the excess "bloat" inherent in the OS that caused the file copy process to lag in real-life time and hence produced corrupted data...

 

Update: Win7 seems to have just as bad a time as XP trying to connect to this particular router. I can confirm though, Win7 can fully utilize fast download servers capacity where available. Sites like Mega.co.nz will download at >1Mbps no matter if you're on XP or Win7. But for other sites, there might be a big difference in download speed between Win7 and XP...

 

I'm back again after having spent more than a month a lot of the time on Win7 (before, I would log on occasionally, just to upload to OneDrive)...

So, I must say, XP continues to impress me and win me over.

Also, if any Microsoft OS developer is reading this, here are my rants on why XP is still The King:

1. Lag during video playback in Windows 7. I know it's not the HDD's fault b/c it was just a small video file (<1GB). Either it's the inherrent system bloat or the DRM mechanism (ie. all audiovisuals must pass thru the built in "protected video path" filter) that is the major cause of lag.

2. Too much eye candy. By default I've always been wary of "ultra pretty" things. Like ultra pretty women are more trouble than they're worth. Heck, real beauty is more than just skin/GUI deep. I simply can't stand the too much eye candy of Windows 7's GUI. Heck, even after I turn off all the Aero and tweaked the GUI to look as much like XP as I can, I still can't stand the sugary sweetness in-your-face eye candy of Windows7. It gives me a mental toothache just looking at Win7's interface too much. XP manages to strike the proper balance between looking good and ready for serious business. (As a side note, Win8/10 manages to do just the complete opposite --- looking as ugly and bland as possible. Ugly and ultra pretty, they're both the same thing!)

3. System lag. I want quick response for everything. All GUI operations in Windows 7 take 3x longer than in XP. Every tenths or hundredths of milliseconds count for me in being a happy user, vs a p1ssed off one!

4. Wow, I can't play 12 year-old games on Windows 7 on what appears to be at the most 10fps on Windows 7, but the same games in XP on the latest DirectX (9.0c) for it runs circles around Win7. This is not really excusable for older laptops b/c performance should lag by no more than 50% on a newer OS on old hardware, not 75% or 80%!

5. Random screen scrambling in Windows 7. I know it's not my hardware nor driver. On my other laptop, which I purchased recently, I've encountered the same screen scrambling in, get this Windows 8.0. So, I know this scrambling is an OS/kernel issue b/c 7 and 8.0 share the same code base. I also know, the screen scrambling is part of the DRM mechanism (ie. protected video path) being accidentally tripped, which is why the mouse pointer looks suspiciously fine, while the rest of the screen looks like scrambled pay TV (when everything was still on analog signals). The only solution to stop the scrambling is a reboot. To me, this is even worse than a BSOD b/c you can still read the screen then. This move to implement such a mechanism in an OS really shows a business's dark side/ugly human nature. This is as equally ugly as another business move by a certain laptop manufacturer to only let you burn ONE SET of the system recovery discs while permanently deactivating such features afterwards. What if someone burnt a bad copy? They will be left with no recovery discs. So when I say implementing such things in software is ugly, I meant to say it makes the business entities that implement them reveal their inner ugliness and lack of basic charity/common courtesy... Now, why is screen scrambling ugly? What if you're running a time-critical task and you suddenly get screen scrambling. The system is essentially visually useless until you reboot, and that's losing valuable time. Also, what if you're running some math simulation that requires many hours to complete, and half way thru, the screen scrambles so you can't see the results on the screen? Then you gotta start over, which sucks. THIS IS MY BIGGEST GRIPE WITH WINDOWS 7/8.x. Sure Windows 7/8.x may lag in video playback and games. Sure the GUI and common tasks may be slow as hell compared to XP. But that don't make it a useless OS, until you add in random screen scrambling d/t DRM mechanism being accidentally tripped, and then you get PURE SUCKAGE!! Also, btw, how is screen scrambling supposed to stop piracy when most of the "ripping" is done by pros and perhaps people who formerly worked on such protection mechanisms and the common user simply points, clicks, and downloads them afterwards?

After the above rant, I feel so much better... Now the good parts about Windows 7.

1. It has IE11. It means I can access OneDrive without worrying about FireFox/Chrome/Opera/Safari secretly stealing my password/recoding my email address.

2. I can get 2.0MBytes/sec downloading stuff from Google Drive over Wi-Fi. Not 2.0Mbits/sec, but wholesome Bytes as in 8 bits = 1 Byte!

Ergo sum, I can't see myself continuing to support the Wintel ecosystem by purchasing Windows preloaded hardware in the future. But on the bright side, with my old and new laptops, both of which I feel can continue to do their job for another 5-15 years with maybe needing a few HDD replacements now and then, I would have no need to touch another Wintel product for a very long time anyways...