Why do you still use XP?
- Thread starter xperia
- Start date
I am stuck. My PC cannot handle Windows 7 and I cannot afford a New PC/Hardware either. I am stuck. So I am a economical victim of sorts of the discontinued support for Windows XP. XP has had a great run and I love Windows 7 and would use it if I could afford a path to do so but this is an issue for many people like me.
for myself XP is a very good o/s and i wont replace it just yet if at all, as the months pass by after the end of support for XP i may have a duel boot system with linux mint, only if i have any nasty problems with XP will i do a complete wipe of the hard-drive and use linux mint as my one and only o/s.
I am using XP because I have very old hardware that seems to get slow while running Windows 8.0 and Windows 7. I really like the features of Windows 8 but I think my hardware cannot handle it
I still use XP because my hardware is compatible with Windows CP. Aside from it, it was once the commonly used operating system, so I have mastered my skills in XP more than the other Windows OS.
I still use XP because it's letting me browse the web, watch movies, YouTube, read my e-mails, put pics and videos on it, and I don't have money for a different OS and even if I did, why would a spend money to do exactly the same thing that I'm doing now on my XP?
I still use XP because my computer is not compatible with Seven.
Like most of the folks who have already responded, I too am unable to afford a newer computer that can run Windows 8.1. I'm a low-income, disabled senior, and all of my hardware and software is hand-me-down.
I just joined this forum hoping to find some folks who can help me squeeze a few more years out of Windows XP. I still have an unopened licensed copy of XP that I got from FreeCycle Seattle a couple of years ago and have been meaning to install on one of my barely functional computers one of these days (I'm still running Win 2K on my "main" computer, (and still run MS-DOS 6.21 on three of my machines) which should give you some idea of how far behind the curve I've fallen ;o)
I just joined this forum hoping to find some folks who can help me squeeze a few more years out of Windows XP. I still have an unopened licensed copy of XP that I got from FreeCycle Seattle a couple of years ago and have been meaning to install on one of my barely functional computers one of these days (I'm still running Win 2K on my "main" computer, (and still run MS-DOS 6.21 on three of my machines) which should give you some idea of how far behind the curve I've fallen ;o)
i still use XP as i simply cant afford to upgrade to windows 7/8 and i hate the layout etc of vista,i do dont anything like online etc on my pc and i dont use internet explorer anyway 
I'm using XP due to economic restrictions. But I have a nettop that runs windows 7, I don't see any big difference at all and I do switch to my favorite linux distro PUPPY linux which gives my pc a new life...Fast as the new i7 machines without spending that much in upgrading my system.
Because newer Windows versions have the Windows Explorer totally broken. I do not know who was that "genius" who decided to scrap all of its features and frexibility and introduce so much bugs.
If the newer Windows had a usable Windows Explorer (both file manager and the panel) or I could run an older exlorer under a newer Windows version, I would definitely switch.
If the newer Windows had a usable Windows Explorer (both file manager and the panel) or I could run an older exlorer under a newer Windows version, I would definitely switch.
I still prefer XP.
Hello all from Aunty Jack,
If I want the performance of a Ferrari I use the PC my wife uses. A "monster" AMD multi-core 64 bit with RAM coming out it's ears and top line video, the lot. (OS is Win 7 Home Premium). I have more fun, being a techie at heart, using a ten year old PC and XP. XP is "tweakable" to the max and I always keep a spare hard disk in a desk drawer with the same basic setup of XP in case I make something go, "bang". As for XP, it still does the job perfectly so why change a hobby of mine. Besides, services a so easy to set auto/delayed auto/manual/disabled with XP. Try that with Win 7 !. And, to Clueless in Seattle, I too have used Win 98, Win 2000, Vista from Vista Starter to Home Premium and many fflavours of Linux. But I always go back to XP. XP is one of the most stable, still supported (software anyway) and plain versatile OS's around. And Clueless in Seattle, If I bought a $25.00 P-3 or older I would love to get back into DOS and writing my own "apps" with BASIC.
Cheers to all,
Aunty Jack.
Hello all from Aunty Jack,
If I want the performance of a Ferrari I use the PC my wife uses. A "monster" AMD multi-core 64 bit with RAM coming out it's ears and top line video, the lot. (OS is Win 7 Home Premium). I have more fun, being a techie at heart, using a ten year old PC and XP. XP is "tweakable" to the max and I always keep a spare hard disk in a desk drawer with the same basic setup of XP in case I make something go, "bang". As for XP, it still does the job perfectly so why change a hobby of mine. Besides, services a so easy to set auto/delayed auto/manual/disabled with XP. Try that with Win 7 !. And, to Clueless in Seattle, I too have used Win 98, Win 2000, Vista from Vista Starter to Home Premium and many fflavours of Linux. But I always go back to XP. XP is one of the most stable, still supported (software anyway) and plain versatile OS's around. And Clueless in Seattle, If I bought a $25.00 P-3 or older I would love to get back into DOS and writing my own "apps" with BASIC.
Cheers to all,
Aunty Jack.
Same.
Hello from Aunty Jack,
XP - simply the flexibility and a tried and trusted OS. Suits old low specification hardware and is, ""greased lightening" on any hardware from about 2000 onward. Tweakable to the 'nth degree and still thousands of programs/apps available. Vista, pretty to look at but heavy on resources. Linux, when the swap file and cache pressure settings are modified, the fastest OS around. Linux not well supported with software. XP is like an old comfortable pair of jeans and will do almost anything one wants or will run almost any program/app thrown at it.
My opinion anyway, others may differ.
Cheers from Aunty Jack.
XP - simply the flexibility and a tried and trusted OS. Suits old low specification hardware and is, ""greased lightening" on any hardware from about 2000 onward. Tweakable to the 'nth degree and still thousands of programs/apps available. Vista, pretty to look at but heavy on resources. Linux, when the swap file and cache pressure settings are modified, the fastest OS around. Linux not well supported with software. XP is like an old comfortable pair of jeans and will do almost anything one wants or will run almost any program/app thrown at it.
My opinion anyway, others may differ.
Cheers from Aunty Jack.
Currently I can't afford a newer OS. Also, my current Windows PC is excellent for most games released in 2012 or earlier. Most newer games I can just get on my Xbox One.
Hello all,
My hardware will support Vista Home Basic (tweaked and trimmed) so that is what I am using now. I do keep a spare hard disk fully set up with XP and use it from time to time partly for nostalgia and to have a tried and true OS as a backup. There is life in XP still and hopefully for a few years more.
Cheers, Aunty Jack.
My hardware will support Vista Home Basic (tweaked and trimmed) so that is what I am using now. I do keep a spare hard disk fully set up with XP and use it from time to time partly for nostalgia and to have a tried and true OS as a backup. There is life in XP still and hopefully for a few years more.
Cheers, Aunty Jack.
For me, Microsoft only has one advantage over competing ecosystems: Easy to create your own offline app with Visual Studio that works the same regardless of which Windows PC you're on.
My app is graphics intensive, meaning its purpose is to output graphics on the screen. As such, I still use XP b/c it draws stuff the fastest on the screen. I recompiled my source code for the newer OSes (Win 8.1/.NET 4.5). Still can't beat XP in drawing speed.
Sure, Microsoft is taking .NET to the next level with .NET Native. But the slowness of drawing stuff on the screen lies within the operating system, not on the .NET framework. As such, I don't think .NET Native will remedy the problem of drawing speed.
In order to get me to abandon XP, the drawing speed of my .NET apps has to mach XP in the modern OS. Just to give you a comparison, my app draws stuff in XP 16x faster than it does in Windows 8.1. You can imagine how annoyed I am by these supposed modern OSes that are 16 steps backwards from XP...
Btw, for anyone that don't believe me, try creating a "3d-engine" type app, even basic wireframes will do. But the models have to animate so you can tell the drawing speed. Doesn't really have to be real animation, but could be 100 cubes rotating. Run that same app in XP and 8.1 and you will be amazed by its sluggishness in 8.1...
My app is graphics intensive, meaning its purpose is to output graphics on the screen. As such, I still use XP b/c it draws stuff the fastest on the screen. I recompiled my source code for the newer OSes (Win 8.1/.NET 4.5). Still can't beat XP in drawing speed.
Sure, Microsoft is taking .NET to the next level with .NET Native. But the slowness of drawing stuff on the screen lies within the operating system, not on the .NET framework. As such, I don't think .NET Native will remedy the problem of drawing speed.
In order to get me to abandon XP, the drawing speed of my .NET apps has to mach XP in the modern OS. Just to give you a comparison, my app draws stuff in XP 16x faster than it does in Windows 8.1. You can imagine how annoyed I am by these supposed modern OSes that are 16 steps backwards from XP...
Btw, for anyone that don't believe me, try creating a "3d-engine" type app, even basic wireframes will do. But the models have to animate so you can tell the drawing speed. Doesn't really have to be real animation, but could be 100 cubes rotating. Run that same app in XP and 8.1 and you will be amazed by its sluggishness in 8.1...
Last edited: