Are you buying? I also take the cheap approach. When what I have does all I need to my satisfaction, why should I replace it? Some of us old farts have seen this cycle repeat quite a few times. Slight variations of the same old arguments get brought out every time. I for one could care less about the "latest and greatest". Just because technology moves on doesn't mean I'm automatically following along. I've used Vista and 7 on a few occasions and don't see anything that justifies replacing perfectly good equipment. Eye candy and little "features" don't begin to justify it. If and when I do "upgrade" it won't be Windows (or a MAC). That seems to be the case with every new OS they've ever released. For the newer OS to match or exceed its predecessors performance, it needs better hardware. When I got this XP unit, I repartitioned it and made it multiboot, adding Linux and 98SE. Nothing I've done to XP has ever made it as fast as the 98 system. When I had 2K on it, I managed to get XP close to its speed but couldn't quite match it. When the hardware is equally compatible, the older OS always seems faster. If MS ever decides to produce a truly efficient OS again, I might change my mind, but I doubt they ever will.
lol, I like new stuff too, but I guess I just don't buy BECAUSE it is new, only if it is BETTER. Sul.
I guess I would agree to that somewhat. However, I bought a brand new (yes, new and shiny ) intel 2600k system. It is insanely fast compared to my older c2duo system. With an intel SSD. When I put win7 on it, it was very noticably slower than XP on it. There is no way I would expect the new OS, with better support for brand new hardware to be slower than an old dog like XP, designed when ata100 was the norm. I remember when SATA came out and original XP discs would not work without supplying a driver. But win7 has the drivers already. Why is it slower? Bah, who knows. But I did expect it to be better out of the box. Sul. EDIT: because I found ways to make it "almost" as fast, and I wanted some of the features win7 offered, I kept it, overlooking what I consider to be some very bad redesigns of certain interfaces that I consider backwards and slow.
I don't know why you'd run XP instead of a minimal Ubuntu install or some Linux distro. If it's for games you're going to want 7 anyways for the latest DX, which absolutely will lead to improved performance (and support for modern games). If you're on XP you're running a seriously outdated OS that was built before MS started caring about security. It was wonderful in its time but it's time to say goodbye.
Back up about 6 years or so, change XP to 98 in that statement, and it becomes the same statement that was made when support for 98 ran out. It's the same old cycle defended or justified with the same arguments. For me, XP is used for one game and some casual browsing. Assuming I don't renew the game, it runs out in a few months. I have a partition for Linux. Haven't settled on a version. Most of the time I don't feel like messing with it. Having a hard time staying interested.
I really don't care what arguments were made when (edit: not to say I don't get what you're tryin gto say, I just eman that other people a decade ago can't speak for me). In 5 years I won't be saying "Windows 7 was made before Microsoft cared about security" because that's not the case. Even if they make huge improvements in Windows 9 the fact is that they went into Vista and made huge changes. I've found Ubuntu to work without messing around at all personally.
Ditto... Likewise for Mint. 2 of the easiest distros around.... As for XP, yes, I think the fact that it's been around for over a decade now, in wide use, testifies to it's popularity and success... I still prefer 7 though...
I love the way things get done in my XP desktop. In a few days I ll be getting a laptop with Windows 7. Personally, I am kind of conservative and like the way things are in XP so is going to be hard for me to stop using the older computer. I done some reading on W7 and at this moment, I don't think I am going to like it as much as I have enjoyed using XP. Hopefully, I ll like W7, only time will tell. Bo
"Come on you old farts time and technology moves on" Well if it was not for the ability for better Customizing in XP I would be back on Win 2000 in a heartbeat I have been strongly thinking about giving up windows altogether and going Linux
I was only kidding guys, everyone likes different things and take their own decision. Personally i prefer Windows 7 over Windows XP, i'm so used to Windows 7.
Umm, why? Why would someone (assuming, anyone who uses ms product) want to switch to linux really? Seriously, why would they? Most that try it go back to windows, at least those I know who aren't true geeky types. I am not saying any negatives, just asking a simple question. I think they don't because they have bought apps for windows and they know windows. If they aren't full time nerds, it is just not convenient to switch. lol, you assume everyone wants to play the latest game. I don't know, but I have lots of old games that work just fine in XP, and even BF3 works on XP. As for performance, I guess that depends on your hardware. On my old system win7 sure didn't do anything for performance at all. Honestly, I get tired of hearing how much better vista/7 are in the security realm. That is a blanket statement that is just not true. Why don't you instead say things like "for most users it is more secure"? That is the reality. I had no problems with XP, even as admin. The only issues I had were self inflicted when installing something that I should have paid attention to. Vista/7 both allow the same thing once you click OK to elevate. Don't get me wrong, I know there are better mechanisms in vista/7, but in the hands of an experienced user, XP was fine. Hmm. I think it is time to say goodbye when you get hardware that can handle the bloated nature of vista/7/8. Yes, bloated, as in consumes a lot more resources than XP. When all my hardware is able to run win7 without issue, I will likely say goodbye to XP, that I will freely admit. But until then, XP remains - without security issues btw Sul.
Make that 2 in complete agreement with Sully. Every time MS releases a new OS, it needs more powerful hardware just to sit there. An OS should be an interface between the hardware and the user, and a platform for the users software, nothing more. It does not require several gigabytes of disk space and ram to accomplish this. It's the equivalent of a car engine using 200 horsepower just to idle. Windows uses 20 times the amount of code it used to to accomplish the same tasks. You'd think code should have become more efficient than it used to be but the opposite is taking place. Now that hardware has almost unlimited memory and disk space, the operating systems consume it in amounts that didn't exist a few years ago. The only reason I see for this bloating is to force users to buy new hardware. That has been a repeating joke/lie that's been going for way too long. Every time they release a new OS, all the rhetoric about how insecure its predecessor was comes out. In their default state, no version of Windows is secure. Microsoft has no interest in releasing a secure OS. Doing so would destroy one of their primary methods for coercing users to upgrade. With a bit of work and the right tools, they can all be made more than secure enough for normal usage. Absolutely. It's time to say goodby to MS and planned obsolescence.
Your misunderstanding is thinking that Microsoft has to try to let their OS be insecure when the simple fact is that they're making it more secure and hackers are then finding ways to still hack it. It's a big difference. You can accept that the cost of exploitation is higher for a Windows 7 machine or not. I think a lot of people realize that Microsoft has started to care a lot about security. And they started caring post-XP.
There's no misunderstanding. One only has to see the same broken record so many times to know it's a rerun. MS supposedly "got serious" about security with XP too. It was so much more secure than its predecessor. So secure that botnet, rootkit, and patch day became household terms. There's nothing different here. Another batch of "security features" with alphabet soup labels, most of which have already been defeated. An attack surface that keeps getting bigger. Open ports by the dozen, some very hard to close. There's no way I'll believe that the services using those ports aren't exploitable. If you want to trust it, be my guest. I don't.
Actually I think it was midway through XP that Microsoft began to get serious about security - before that their antipathy was well known. Security was considered to be the user's problem. What noone_particular describes was how it was going from 95 to 98 to XP - at least how I and others remember it. Of course the marketing continued for Vista and Win7, but by then it was clear that MS had made a great strides in securing the OS.
That's what I mean. Post initial-release. XP didn't even have a firewall on release. You can't say they were taking things seriously because mainstream computers before XP weren't the same. All new threats came about. Not according to some.
The most popular, yes. The best, no. It is entirely because people refuse to let go of it. Fear of change, resistance to spend money, or buying into the hype that there is something wrong with newer OSes that are clearly better. Fortunately support for it will eventually end and even if people refuse to upgrade at that time I can refuse to service anyone using it.
I do find it fascinating how different people here have such distinct opinions. One says windows are getting more secure. True, they are. The other says they have been claiming the same thing over and over. True, they have. What I find fascinating is that really, IMO, both sides are more or less correct, and that both sides are looking at the same issues, just from a different viewpoint. They have been stating with every new release how much better it is than predecessors, and each new version has plenty of exploits to be found. They do care more now than they used to about users security, and have implemented many new features that do make it easier to secure the system. Some people feel very strongly about thier viewpoints. Others agree with many facets of multiple viewpoints. I always ask myself the question "did they say something that is of value to me, and can I add it to my viewpoint". And that is what I love about this place. You can learn something almost every day, and you can, if you wish to, constantly refine your viewpoint based off so many others input. I can honestly say that in my time here, many of my preconcieved notions have been modified because of others differing viewpoints. And to me, that is a great thing. Sul.
Only because anyone buying a new computer is having 7 forced upon them. Most of the people I know that do end up wanting XP back. This is why terms like "most popular" are highly subjective. I will say that, IMO, XP is the "best" OS Windows has yet made. And as time passes I see OS's becoming much like everything else. The phrase "they don't make em like they used to" will be applicable. The main criteria for me will always be functionality and a light footprint. This is the case because any security shortcoming can be overcome with my knowledge/usage as an end user, a patch/update to the OS, software (i.e. Sandboxie), and a good ol' NAT router. Mainly the former. The only thing that will get me off XP will be when they stop patching it. As long as they continue to, no reason to change. From now until then 7 will need plenty of patches of it's own. I feel compelled to also point out that XP wasn't the greatest OS until SP2. 98 wasn't very good until SE. At least with 7 it's a pretty decent OS right off the bat.
