random Windows XP rave

Windows XP is awesome.

No, really, it is. As far as I'm concerned it's the best version of Windows ever, barring only 2003 Server (whose cost is absolutely prohibitive for home users). I know the default security settings are bad (though there are ways of dealing with that), I know IE6 is rubbish (though there are ways of dealing with that too), I know it lacks stuff like UAC (though that's more than made up for by the ubiquity of good security apps)... But it is also the fastest, most stable, and most functional desktop OS I have ever used. So major kudos to Microsoft for having knocked this one out of the ballpark... Even if it is getting obsolete.

(And here's to hoping that ReactOS finally gets full USB support in the near future...)

 

this thread seems productive...lol

 

Some will like XP no matter what, some will die for windows 7, some hate vista without ever trying it, some like Vista and after a few tweaks prefer it to XP.

 

As many before has voiced their pref. for XP.
So after a few years many will shout '' windows 7 forever ''
OS's are just as volatile as RAM as seen from a large time scale.

The current windows is really better in many ways (native support voor SSD) and will improve over the years,just like XP did after his first incarnation.

 

I believe it all boils down to your PC equipment and how well it supports Windows Vista/7. If you're dealing with an older PC, WinXP is certainly better (far more efficient use of system resources) than Vista/7. On the other hand, if you are dealing with a relatively new PC with ample RAM and a current graphics card, then Vista/7 is a good choice.

 

oh god not this again..
if you have a computer that came with XP fine use it otherwise use a modern OS.
Vista had alot of under the hood changes and windows 7 improved the whole user experience. sure i wasnt sure about the new user interface at first but i like it now.

windows 7 is alot better than XP and works great without a service pack. it took until SP2 until XP worked well and took vista until SP1 to be good. so i still dont know why so many people dont like vista espically since alot of haters didnt even try it..

 

I've never had such a reliable OS for laptops as I have with Win7. It's great with just slamming the lid shut, packing up, then a few hours later or the next day or a few days later...taking it out and opening the lid and BAM...log in right away and get going again. All my XP laptops weren't as good with hibernate/resume, nor was Vista. Nor was Mint/OpenSUSE/Ubuntu/PCLinuxOS.

My laptop doesn't really power down or reboot except once every few months....literally.

And speaking of old hardware and Win7, at our office we have one bench rig...a Pentium 4...I believe it's a 2.8 non hyperthread....... well before true dual core days. 1 gig of RAM. Yeah it's old, onboard Intel video too. Optiplex GX280.

It had run XP for years, fresh install of Win7 last fall...runs just as nicely. Quite an outdated machine, and comparable performance to XP on that old dinosaur.

Anyways, before I get pulled too deeply into a thread that looks like it was made to be a trolling post..

 

Win7 > XP in terms of speed, reliability, and every thing else. Benchmarks prove it.

 

I have an open mind, but when it comes to computing, I begin to wonder also about proprietary systems.

You guys should look at this:

http://en.windows7sins.org/

If you think it's FUD, then guess again, this is run by the 'Free Software Foundation', it's hardly BS.

http://www.fsf.org/campaigns

Check out also, 'Defective by Design':

http://www.defectivebydesign.org/


P.S. If you care about your rights, then you should be concerned and read and be educated!

 

To be honest with you, DasFox, though I myself am an advocate of freedom and privacy, these "sins" aren't alarming. If you think what Microsoft does is bad, try Apple. They, I honestly think, would prefer their users to have a "mark of the antichrist"-type of deal to where nothing can be done without Apple's say so. That's of course my opinion, but they sure seem to like it that way.

I can't get upset with Microsoft over WGA. I hate the thing because it's one more thing to have to download and let run when updating time comes around, but its purpose is perfectly understandable. I DON'T like the DRM nonsense, but there just is no arguing with the brainless and greedy media empire. They've yet to get it through their head or just choose to ignore that they themselves are the reason piracy is so rampant, so who expects them to understand or care about the problems other than piracy that DRM schemes bring?

As far as the actual topic of this thread, I'm using 7 Home Premium now, a fresh convert, and I like it to an extent. It's snappier and I've not encountered any error boxes popping up like I was used to with XP. My new system far outshines my XP box, but it still feels like 7 doesn't try to hog up resources like XP wanted to do. I'm completely lost with the "library" concept, but I'll get used to it I suppose. UAC, eh, whatever I guess. It pops up when I install a program, I click yes, it shuts up. I'll probably put ProcessGuard on here because I don't feel UAC really protects from anything.

Anyway, yeah, to each his or her own. XP was overall a great system, 7 is too. To be honest, I don't look forward to service packs. I feel as though they eventually degraded XP performance and I really wish that didn't have to happen to 7.

 

Apple is exactly like that. Theres a reason its illegal to use their OS even in a VM.

 

As an FYI:

When UAC is enabled, the user is running as a standard user - the permission popup elevates the user to Admin temporarily (installing a program for instance).

And bless MS's little heart, IE will only be in Protected Mode (sanboxed) with UAC enabled.

 

YeOldStonecat - don't worry, I'm not trolling... Not trying to, anyway.

It's mostly that XP is hecka faster than Vista/7 or Linux. Especially on underpowered hardware like my current netbook, which gets bogged down to the point of complete unusability on Linux. Now I'm sure Vista and 7 have wonderful features, and I know Linux does (it's much more friendly for power-users, and better for programming stuff IMO)... But they have gotten so sluggish as to be unusable.

On Linux, if I start up Firefox the system becomes less responsive right away. Open up a YouTube video and menus take about five seconds to open on Fedora. Even on an ultra-slim Arch system, Firefox, Opera, Chrome, Midori, Epiphany, and Arora are all insanely slow on Javascript intensive sites (or anything that uses Flash at all).

On Windows 7 Starter? IE/Windows Explorer goes unresponsive every few seconds. Windows leave obvious trails when you move them. The control panel takes half a minute to open.

And on Linux there's also the issue of crashiness. To get a stable system on any given distro I have to run through a dozen different kernel options, plus other stuff. For instance, i915.powersave=0 works fine on Arch, but on Fedora it's not recognized and on Mandriva it actually causes graphics issues. And when X crashes, of course, you lose your data.

(The same thing happens when XP crashes... But I've yet to see XP crash on non-defective hardware.)

So for my purposes at least, XP is basically the only reasonable choice. That's what the post was about.

 

btw fedora and arch are bleeding edge distros so of course they arent going be as gonna be as stable as a long term supported product such as windows xp. you should compare XP to something like debian stable,ubuntu LTS or CentOS 5x

for a netbook you just need to use a lighter desktop environment. such as xcfe or LXDE.

I really think you should try debian lenny with a light desktop environment which is an option using the debian net installer. you simply sscroll down to advanced install option,alternate desktop environments,choose a light one and install.
If you want reliable linux you arent gonna get much more reliable than debian.

 

I would, but neither of those work properly on the netbook thanks to bleeding edge hardware. No wireless and dodgy ethernet and sound on LTS, neither wifi nor eithernet on CentOS.

XFCE? LXDE? Heck, I've tried Pekwm + ROX with HAL disabled. None of it works; Firefox, Seamonkey, Chrome, any browser still brings the poor computer to its knees. And no, it doesn't use the dreaded Poulsbo chipset; this one has "nice" 945GME hardware.

Alas, ethernet no workey on Lenny. Not unless I want to use the latest kernel from BPO with the latest stability issues. And this still doesn't solve the great honking performance problems.

 

IMHO, XPx64, based on 2003x64 is the best ever Windows distro out there period, its super stable due to the 2003 core and quick, being x64 its also quite secure and WoW does a swell job of running x32 apps. On hardcore gaming forums, many gamers use XPx64 wherever possible to gain more frame rates than Windows 7, doesn't surprise me, even I/O is better in XPx64.

 

Linuxforall unfortunately the bench tests say otherwise.

 

In what aspect? Do you mean frame rates for games or overall.

 

Overall in bench testing Win7 smokes XP.

 

I have to agree with Gullible Jones, I´m seriously thinking of removing Win 7 (or making a dualboot system, is this possible?) on the new PC I´m going to buy. I have made a comparison, and I came to the conclusion that Vista/7 don´t offer any killer feature that makes me wanna give up XP Pro.

And even more importantly, most of my security tools don´t even run on Win 7. I have to say that I´m still really impressed with XP, especially when it comes to system stabilty, even with a heavily modified kernel, it is still running rock solid.

 

You can believe who ever you want, but benchtesting between Win7 and XP on the same hardware cant be biased. The proof is in the pudding.

 

Yes, it is possible to run dual-boot. Just Google and there's all kinds of info on how to do this. In fact, you could go a step further and run dual boot and use a vm such as the free VirtualBox and run one of your O/S' in it. My setup:

1. Dual-boot Windows 7 x64 + Linux Mint x64

2. VirtualBox installed in Win 7 running same linux Mint x64. this VBox setup allows me to try things (I'm still learning Linux) in the VBox that might break something so if that happens I just quickly revert to a previous snapshot. I can also demo other linux distros at will. A while back I had XP running in the VBox.

The nice thing about the vm is that you can have both O/S' up and running simultaneously so you can easily and quickly venture from one to the other. With dual-boot you can have only one running at any time.

 

Hi wat0114,
out of curiosity, does VirtualBox slow down your system noticeably?

 

No, it's hardly noticeable. I have the VBox setup with 3D disabled, so that helps performance, especially that of the vm. It does of course depend on the O/S you are running in the vm and how much memory - both RAM and video - you allocate to the vm. Typically you don't need much, so there's plenty for your "real" system. XP Pro was very fast and any Linux distro I've run was/is fast. My hardware is 4 yrs old, although high end for that era, but for sure hardware bought within the last year will equal or surpass mine easily, so it should not be a problem.

Think about the ultra security you could enjoy with a setup like this, as well. One could surf the web in the Linux vm, which is, at least in my case, running on my Win 7 limited account, so for an exploit to breech the Windows system It has to launch in the linux vm, some how leap ninja-like out of the vm and into the Windows environment, then breech it which is limited account with AppLocker setup no less. Even without any kind of 3rd party or built-in security measures in the Windows enviro, this will still be a tremendously secure approach. Basically the resources you use for the vm would have been used for running all those 3rd party security apps anyway

 

I use VMWare Workstation and prefer it over the free VirtualBox.