Why do you stay with Windows XP?

Despite Windows 7 and 8 being out now, why do you guys continue to stick with Windows XP? I stay with it because installing and learning a new OS is a pain in the but I don't have time for.

 

Some reasons... XP because it is very fast and not resource hungry. Vista, 7 and 8 eat alot of resources. Some or most say the three have lots of bloatwares in them. XP works on older and slower machines. XP is technically no longer the target of most cyber attacks since the three are the most used Windows OS'es nowadays.

 

I have it on two machines. XP does just what I need on them. One is an older desktop with different memory card inputs. I use it to copy data/pics from one type of memory to another. The other is strictly used for browsing the internet. XP fits the bill. There is absolutely no reason to buy a newer OS for that.

 

I have 2 PCs, 1 LT and 1 DT. The XP on my DT is what I need. My LT is Win-7

 

I run with two machines win7-64Bit & Win XP-Pro32Bit
xp is my favorite but what i can't do on xp i do on win7 like record & edit video thru mce
best of both worlds for me i have no intention of giving up on xp or w7 in the near future
w8 is not for me don't fancy leaning over my desktop too swipe the screen
why i run w7 in 64bit mode i really dont know as the software i use is all 32bit

 

Due to some reasons.It is very comfortable to use.All the process are done quickly.All the devices and softwares are support.

 

Oh this is so funny and hilarious how we say that XP is fast and NOT resource hungry now. I can remember when it was just a youngster and everyone (mostly migrating from Win98 and skipping Win2000) was saying, "XP is SOoooo resource hungry and takes twice as long to boot. The HDD never stops clicking away and its always doing something and never takes a rest. It uses so much RAM (and that was when first introduced and would run on 128MB, imagine that) and is nearly 1GB install image and after first few updates the System folder is, OMG 1.2GB in size. Now we all have machines with ten times the resources and XP doesn't look so bad. Of course we all said similar things about Win98, and Win95. Now I have a system with 4GB of RAM and constantly getting 'Out of Memory' warnings on Windows 7. I never thought I would see the day when about 16 billion bits or 4 billion bytes is not enough memory on a pc to do the kind of computing I like to do.

Oh and BTW, My answer to the original question ..... just for S&G or a more politically correct, 'Just for fun'. Just like I boot up Win98 every once in a while and do a few things. Just to remember what it was like back in the day. Really anyone really only needs one Windows machine (desktop) and maybe one portable Windows machine (Laptop). Older machine I feel do much better running an older Linux distro than an old Windows.

 

XP and Office 2003 have end of support dates of April 2014.

If you continue to use xp, there will be no new security updates and you stand to get infected, as exploiters are waiting for the end of support date to attack.

 

Mac for the win!

 

Old Software

I have several older programs, such as Photoshop and Illustrator, that I love and don't want to have to update (very costly), so I stay with the partner who brung me.

Bill

 

Some programs will not run on Win 7 and above, and as mentioned above, it's costly to upgrade the programs, some of which aren't available. Also, Win 7 Pro x64 XP Mode is not the same as regular Win XP. XP Mode doesn't run as nicely. It's like running a dumb terminal version of XP on an old server.

I only upgraded to Win 7, because my Win XP Pro x64 CD was damaged (scratched) and couldn't get a good install. I subsequently sent the CD to Azuradisc to have the scratches removed, but there are still a few sectors that are unreadable. I've got a work around for that and I intend to set up one of my systems for Win 7 Pro x64 / Win XP Pro x64 dual boot.

XP is a good operating system. It was stable and had a lot of features Win 98 and Win ME didn't.

 

I in fact use Windows XP with the old Windows 95 interface. It makes the system use just as much resources as Windows 95. The Windows XP interface is in fact much more resource hungry and I've stopped using it. It will be interesting to see new interfaces being developed that use just as less resources on open source versions of Windows XP.

It can take advantage of the new trend toward flat interfaces and outline logos in operating systems (Windows 8 of course), in the new major desktop programs by both Adobe and Microsoft, and online applications (I can only think of Gmail). I also see web sites migrating toward flat colors, reversing the development toward gradients in the middle of the last decade (which Europe and Australia never joined in fact, save some French websites), perhaps following the trend by desktop and online applications (and operating systems). Even Firefox got a logo with less gloss last month. OS X did away with some animations, and I think all animations should be done away with. They just make things slower, disserving the purpose of computers. I regret Firefox's addition of a new tab animation, which just makes things slower. The full screen animation serves a function by showing the the usual menus of Firefox are still available at the top of the screen, but the new tab animation does not. A user sees that the plus button simply adds a new tab. It doesn't have to animate out of the existing tabs for such routine operation as opening a new tab. I think the principle on animations is to use it when it can truly help provide some information (such as the existence of the usual Firefox menus, although out of sight at the top of the screen) or alert on something that is beyond the scope of normal computing (normal error messages don't fit in). But otherwise, animations don't serve any computing purpose.

Microsoft should be applauded for the move toward flatter interfaces in their operating systems. The major desktop environments on Linux are still stuck with the bloated gradient-filled interfaces which also Microsoft spearheaded. Unfortunately, it's one thing to have detail in logos and quite another to have gradients is interfaces. One detracts from performance and the other does not.

 

I prefer the look of xp i think it looks so much better than any new operating system i just wish they would bring out a windows 7 operating system that looked just like xp

 

Just what I suggested here:
http://www.tenforums.com/windows-10...ows-10-last-version-windows-9.html#post236678

and here:
http://www.xpforums.com/my-opinions-some-o-s-microsoft-t932367.html#post3251753

One other thing: perhaps if Microsoft wanted to cater to segments of the market that felt left in the cold by Windows 10, they should create similar builds resembling older versions of Windows, but with today's security/build model:

We could have Windows Aero, It would have the default look and option of Windows 7 with glass effect and Modern/Metro apps would be removed. To simplify build updates, eradicate IE and just include Edge. The Windows component store could be updated to reflect the cleanup benefits of Windows 8x/10x. Compatibility with applications would be the same as Win8x/10x.

Then we could have Windows Classic. This build would resemble the look of Windows XP, and use the classic themeing engine, without Aero. Many of MMC snap-ins could be reworked to resemble the classic NT 5x look, but maintain the same working code beneath to simplify updates between the different OS builds. Since there would be a modern video rendering engine built in, and since Microsoft would want a consistent update system between all of their OS builds, they could just eradicate IE and include Edge here as well. And it would use the Windows Component Store to perform updates and installation. Even though I hate the WinSxS bloat, you can't ask Microsoft to go back to a Windows NT 5x security and system model.

If I were Microsoft, I would forgo including all of the 8x/10x enterprise apps in these builds, and any Modern interfacing. That would serve as a value added marketing approach to nudge users to upgrade to Windows 10. Meanwhile, the large set of users who are 7 and XP fans would be happy to have systems which work the way they like.

 

You are more vulnerable with 7 /8.1 also 10.
Microsoft himself adding privacy craps like temetry and so on.

 

XP has nice setting applet that allows me to opt for MIDI files to be played to an external synthesiser, and recognises the very inexpensive Roland UM1, USB to MIDI interface.

So I can play my e Rolls (pianola rolls transcribed to MIDI format) on my Yamaha Keyboards attached to USB on my XP machine.

I do not know of any way of doing this on 7, 8, or 10! I guess it is possible to do so from command line, but so far, I have not discovered how.

So its XP and AV Linux in the music room.

 

XP is just what I have been used to all my life and know a lot of the tricks/such plus the community for XP is brilliant as displayed here, unlike any other OS I've come across! Simplicity and usability above all.

 

All of the above (almost). I killed updates after WGA 9 years ago, so when MS quit supporting XP, I saw....no change. Without all those updates to slow the machine, it works just fine.
There are some workarounds to get to websites that (apparently) have been bought off by some un-named OS manufacturer to block access if you are using an older OS.
It does what I want, is (apparently) MORE secure than the new stuff, as the bad guys don't care to waste resources trying to hack older OS.
I have three running..one 32 bit (this one) and two 64 bit, plus a Macrium Reflect Image of this one just in case.
I have several discs with licenses just in case again.
I've used 7, 8 and 8.1, and not impressed with the UI. I have used 10 twice now, when I had to revert unwanted "upgrades" back to 7, and I am REALLY not impressed.
Hang on...it may be a bumpy ride when MS goes "subscription" model on 10 some time after the end of the "free" period. I suspect they will try to shut down OS not current, which they stated they could do 9 years ago whenever they wanted to (hence the external hard drive image and spare discs and computers).

 

I don't like the Windows 7 UI, either. I love the Vista UI, though.

 

It took me years to get WinXP tamed and tweaked to my taste, to teach it to respect my privacy and to learn enough about its ways to be its master rather than its slave.
When Win7 appeared I dutifully gave it an opportunity. But as I found out that some of my software wouldn't run even on a virtual XP machine, that the system was constantly busy with mysterious operations I wasn't supposed to know about, that in spite of its full 64-bit capability it was definitely slower than its predecessor, I just lost interest and went back to good ol' XP, and there I shall stay.
I must admit that I didn't even try Win8 and Win10: what I read about them was enough to persuade me that it would be a sheer waste of time.

Hard drives are cheap today: a few spare disks with clones of the system partition, a fast backup-restore program, a pretty good Malwarebytes and a huge backup disk for the rest of the clutter (to be plugged in only when the net is physically disconnected) should protect me against nearly everything short of an earthquake.
So why should I allow Microsoft to push its constantly worsening crap into my computer?