66% Of All Windows Users Still Use Windows XP

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by Thankful, Oct 5, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    5,614
    Location:
    Milan and Seoul
    I have Vista Ultimate, XP Pro, XP Home. I won't upgrade XP because the notebooks I have it on are not really worth doing it. I like Vista a lot, and will get Win 7 with a new machine. I really don't understand why some people using XP are so defensive, and have scathing comments about Vista and Win 7.
     
  2. Escalader

    Escalader Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Posts:
    3,710
    Location:
    Land of the Mooses

    Well I like xp and windows 7 which has some worthwhile new features.

    Hey guys this loality to software versions is sort of ... strange. If you can't afford or don't want to move well don't! It's not personal only code... I'm not going to critique anybody who wants to wait.
     
  3. noone_particular

    noone_particular Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    3,798
    Spending money to replace something that serves your needs and is working as it should is a waste. Planned obsolescence benefits no one except the one selling the disposable goods. PCs contain a lot of toxic compounds, lead, arsenic, etc, much of which ends up in landfills and eventually the environment, all because of planned obsolescence. Few recycling facilities exist. Microsofts policies are directly responsible for this toxic waste. They should be required to recycle all of it at their own expense. Under this business model, they're all transitional operating systems. This won't change until Microsoft is forced to take responsibility for all the waste their business model creates. But with world governments controlled by corporations like these, that won't happen.

    Fortunately, the operating systems we have now will continue to work whether MS supports them or not. Contrary to what MS and other big money corporations tell you, the older systems can be just as secure as the newer ones, and just as functional. With a default-deny security policy, security is not a valid reason to replace an OS. Do you replace your furnace, air conditioner, and other consumer goods every time the manufacturer says they have something better? PCs are no different. If you actually need a new one, by all means buy it, but do so because you need it, not because one of the richest companies in the world wants more of your money.

    I still have PCs here that date back to Windows 3.1. In all this time, I've had one PC fail. That was a Win95 unit. I've had to replace a few hard drives from the Win95-98 era. I've worn out a few CD and floppy drives. I've also replaced 2 monitors, both of which were used to begin with. Nothing else has ever failed here. If cared for, the hardware will last a lot longer than the installed OS. Those that are too old to run a usable OS can get turned into firewalls. I have an old P5-133 that has been running 24/7 for the last 3 years with Smoothwall. The only time it gets rebooted is when the power fails. My old HP with a 366MHZ Celeron running 98FE ran 24/7 for 5 years, and still browses the web just fine. I'm becoming convinced that the OS and software running on a PC have a large impact on how long that hardware will last. Testing this theory would require far more PCs than I'll ever have, so I'll never be able to prove it, but if my own PCs are any indication, by running lightweight operating systems and security packages and having the PC run 24/7, the hardware is lasting 10 years and more.
     
  4. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,065
    @fastgame,

    Some people decided to get windows xp on machines that would run vista fine just because they heard "vista is crap"

    Windows xp is a legacy operating system which is 9 years old. There will be no more services packs to add functionality for new technoligies

    Windows 7 is the future people should stop listening to the media. the media always make up crap and people believe it.

    one of the major improvements to vista was the implementation of the graphics stack in usermode. in windows xp if the display driver crashed you would have to do a hard reboot and risk losing data. with windows vista the graphics driver can reload in a few seconds with no data lost.

    I have used windows xp enough to know the flaws of it.
    for the people who dont think there are major changes from windows xp> 7 read wikipedia article of new features in windows vista and the same for windows 7.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2010
  5. wtsinnc

    wtsinnc Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2008
    Posts:
    943
    If you are referring to USB 3.0, it is supported by XP 32 and 64 bit via use of an add-on PCI-E card.
    That support is clearly stated in the documentation by companies such as Crucial, LaCie, and Rosewill, among others.

    Unless, of course, the media is promoting Windows 7.
     
  6. noone_particular

    noone_particular Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    3,798
    This is a repeating story. 98FE didn't run USB 2, but it could be added with a PCI card and drivers. Using available software, most USB devices run on it just as they would on XP. XP will go thru the same process. Talented people will adapt the new technologies to the older systems.

    I can't help but laugh when I see "Windows X" is the future, with X changing every few years. Been watching this repeat since the early 9X days. The next OS is always "the future". Get with the times, and in a couple years, do it again. The "future" just never seems to get here. Small wonder MS is so rich with so many people chasing someone else's definition of the future. In the mean time, those of us with "legacy" systems adapt these new products to our old "obsolete" systems and end up in the same place, surfing the same web, using the same external devices, etc. We got there just a bit later and spent far less to do it.
     
  7. blacknight

    blacknight Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Posts:
    3,344
    Location:
    Europe, UE citizen
    Very well said ! For this reason I don't understand why people says that XP is old. For some " wonderful " 7 features that doesn't match the really difference from XP using ? XP is not old. Is a live and useful OS. Stop.
     
  8. blacknight

    blacknight Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Posts:
    3,344
    Location:
    Europe, UE citizen

    So is.
     
  9. Rmus

    Rmus Exploit Analyst

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Posts:
    4,020
    Location:
    California
    "The Times They Are a-Changin'" -- Bob Dylan

    Ah, yes, really evident in the computer world. A new Operating System purports to be more secure, offer more features, and indeed it does in many respects.

    It revealing to watch the reactions when a new OS is released. Vista was especially amusing, as the often vulgar and offensive rhetoric on both sides illustrated that everything in life is just a point of view.

    I'm one of the 66% who still use Windows XP -- it's actually on my Laptop, since my desktop system still runs Win2K. I installed Win2K in late 2000, I think, and then purchased a new computer in 2003, where Win2K has resided ever since:

    winnt.gif

    Why do I keep Win2K? Because it is simple, stable and reliable.

    Member noone_particular has covered in detail how one can protect a non-supported system, so I won't delve into that.

    The difficulties for the consumer with planned obsolescence are that we often have no choice but to "upgrade" (an unfortunate use of a word, implying that we will get something better).

    Many people do want the added features of a new Operating System, and that's great, but the 3rd party vendors unfortunately often cease to support the older systems, which is not so great.

    For example, Anti-Executable v.3 won't run on Win2K, so to test, I have to install it on my laptop.

    Canon's Digital Professional Photography program and the newer versions of Adobe Photoshop won't run on Win2K. So, I use two systems, the laptop being relegated to photography work.

    Last year I purchased a WinXP OEM disk, intending to "upgrade" my desktop system, but I just can't bear to do it, knowing I'll have to completely rebuild my system, all at once to avoid down time.

    Well, I relate all of this to illustrate that we consumers are a "captive audience," victims of "planned obsolescence" so to speak, and we have to fend for ourselves if we choose to keep products we like.

    My future plan (early next year) is to slowly build the WinXP laptop into my primary system and do away with the desktop system. (RIP Win2k)

    The laptop (Toshiba) came with a Windows 7 disk so that I can easily "upgrade" if it becomes necessary for future photo programs.

    And so it goes...

    ----
    rich
     
  10. wtsinnc

    wtsinnc Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2008
    Posts:
    943
    Be sure to image the final incarnation of your W2K install.
    You might miss it.
     
  11. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    8,013
    Win2k was great, my favorite OS by far. I loved it. Unfortunately it won't run on my newer hardware now (lack of drivers for video etc). But if it did, I'd be using it now instead of 7, as much as I like 7. Those were definitely the good old days....
     
  12. murphy702011

    murphy702011 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2011
    Posts:
    1
    Location:
    Canada
    Can i still use Windows 2000?
     
  13. Noob

    Noob Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    6,491
    The only advantage i see with Win XP is low ram usage when using a clean install, aside from that, it's the same :D
     
  14. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    Mhm....But you can also use XP on a machine that only has 512MB of RAM wich is not the case with Win 7. But soon.... Windows is long gone for me:shifty:
     
  15. DVD+R

    DVD+R Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Posts:
    1,979
    Location:
    The Antipodes
    66% yes of course... and I'm Adolf Hitler
     
  16. nikanthpromod

    nikanthpromod Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Posts:
    1,369
    Location:
    India
    me too....:cool:
    never tried to change:p
     
  17. PJC

    PJC Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Posts:
    2,959
    Location:
    Internet
    :D :D :D
     
  18. Mrkvonic

    Mrkvonic Linux Systems Expert

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Posts:
    10,213
    Software has one purpose - serve the user.
    So if you're happy with your OS, use it.

    Comparing xp to win7, there are a few reasons why you would want to consider win7. For me, it's the backward compatibility feature and 64-bit support. Nothing else really matters. Security, gui and the rest is just hype.

    But in terms of running legacy software, win7 actually does this better than xp, especially for programs designed before sp2 in xp, which locked out lots of olden thingies. This sounds funny, but actually the newer os works better with software designed for the older os.

    64-bit support means little for most users, but if you're into virtualization and 3d rendering like I'm doing, then you do want as much ram and as many cores as possible, which is where you get the advantage.

    As a downside, win7 introduces unnecessary complexity, like extra services and running processes, much more space and so forth. You also have less freedom that you used to, when it comes to what is bundled with the default system. Like .net for instance. You can't not have this on win7.

    For most people, the geeky changes are completely transparent, therefore they see no reason why they should change their reliable and familiar workhorse for something else, which also costs money.

    I don't like changing os and see no point it. Technology often moves ahead for the sake of technology and there's 90% monkey effect there. New hardware support yes, but most people only download porn and use mail, so they hardly need smp, pae, vt-x and whatever. In terms of xp support, microsoft really did a legendary thing. I wish everyone else did the same.

    Mrk
     
  19. MikeBCda

    MikeBCda Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Posts:
    1,627
    Location:
    southern Ont. Canada
    As my sig shows, my system is pretty antique, but it still serves me well with XP which came with it. I'm one of those who, with one exception, has never replaced the OS on an existing working computer (unless you include SP's as new OS's, which I don't) ... when the computer dies, I'll get a new one with whatever's then the current OS installed. Oh, and for what I do, I'm getting along just fine with a mere 256 megs of RAM.

    The one exception was when I added Win 3.1 (which was essentially an application, not an OS) to a DOS 6.2 system simply because it was much easier to access the internet that way.

    So add me to those who stick with an OS as long as I'm happy with it and it does what I need it for.
     
  20. Sully

    Sully Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2005
    Posts:
    3,719
    For me, it is the "nothing else really matters" part, and the "security and gui" part which is what I really like about win7 over XP. XP is hands down the faster OS on all machines I have tried both on. XP is hands down "old-school" and awesome - you don't have a multitude of idiotic menus to traverse to change something. XP is a great OS.

    But, having used win7 for a good while, and recently switching back to the screaming fast XP for a few weeks, I really missed some of win7 that "doesn't matter". I cannot explain why exactly, maybe it has more "handy" features I utilize. If I could merge the two, adding XP speed to win7 and replacing all the menus/control panels/guis in win7 with the ones in XP, it would be "the bomb" as they say :D

    Sul.
     
  21. Johnny123

    Johnny123 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2006
    Posts:
    548
    Location:
    Bremen, Germany
    Let us know when you have the .iso file ready to download ;)
     
  22. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    10,239
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    I have Vista on my laptop & I've always liked it. I much preferred it to XP. My desktop has Win 7 but they are more or less the same kernel it seems to me. I have to admit, when I first saw Vista I thought it was beautiful to look at & simpler to use than XP. I don't know why it was so maligned as an OS. Maybe when it was first released Stateside it had a lot of bugs, but its UK release was fine as far as I know.
     
  23. Noob

    Noob Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    6,491
    Anyways, i think this article is FULL of BS!! :D
    I haven't seen a single person using Win XP since a looooooooong time ago. :)
     
  24. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    10,239
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    There are entire universities, schools, hospitals & colleges in my country that still use XP. What with the recent draconian education budgetary cuts, the present economic climate, & the fact that the computers running XP aren't powerful enough to run anything newer, I can't see them being replaced for a long time. Many European countries are even moving towards Linux so they can avoid replacing perfectly serviceable computers that just don't have the RAM to run Vista/Seven.
     
  25. Boost

    Boost Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Posts:
    1,294
    This ^
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.