That is a valid point about the 2k8 server kernel in 7. One last thing to add to weighing of pros and cons, is the fact that he has XP x64 licences, not 7, so unless you are going to push pirating, he would have to buy a new license. I would better see that money spent on hard drives, then the latest gag MS has out.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Advice on XP Pro X64
- Thread starter sohosources
- Start date
Win 7 is worth the money, XP Pro x64 is old and tired. But seriously, if he has no money then why is he even asking? If you need more hard drives or whatever and have no money for Win 7 just install whatever you have a license for..seems obvious, no point in a forum debate in that event...
This.
Get Windows 7 64-bit. Your friends are idiots, don't listen to them. They have no fucking clue what they're talking about because driver/app issues are nearly non-existant. I mean you might have problems with that copy of "Barbies Dream Vacation" that was released 6 years ago for Windows XP, otherwise you should have no problems at all.
The latest MS gag huh? Bias much. Instead of telling him to install XP64 if he doesn't have the money for Win7, then Linux is the clear answer. To my knowledge that is still free. I get the feeling I am conversing with someone who hasn't even tried it fairly enough to compose a better opinion on Win7 other than "another MS gag". XP64 is another MS gag...
You clearly don't have a PhD in English, either. He wasn't stating that the 64-bit Professional edition is 8 years old, but rather that the Windows XP family of operating systems itself is 8 years old. He's saying that an 8 year old operating system (Windows XP) was taken and made into a 64 bit operating system (Windows XP Professional 64-bit). While Windows XP 64-bit is not a carbon copy of the 32-bit Windows XP operating systems, they share enough in common on an architectural level that the point of Windows XP being 8 years old is entirely relevant.
XP x64 has a lot more of server 2k3 in it, then XP 32bit. So using that XP is 8 years old, is not the most valid point either.
Honestly guys, I just plain hate new software and MS is not my favorite company by far, so not supporting their every try to make money does not make me dumb.
....I already covered that base with the last sentence in my previous post. Plus, you seem to be forgetting that Windows Server 2003 is, hey presto, 7 years old. It's really not any different when you argue from that angle. Windows XP Professional x64 is a bunch of chunks from an almost 9 year old OS and a 7 year old OS.
I don't see why the point of XP being 8 years old isn't valid.
Don't bother wasting energy on him, he's obviously too stubborn to try new things. If he wants to stick with his 9 year old dinosaur then let him.
DeaconFrost
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 11,582
Why would you be a member of an enthuisists site then?
So run Linux. If you have to use Windows, why not use the best one ever released? You're comments against using Windows 7 don't hold much water, because there are gaping holes in your logic.
Here is the ultimate reasoning for hating 7, for me, many may agree. It is really what Vista should of been, let alone a service pack for Vista, instead all of the people that got hosed on Vista are told less then a few years later to upgrade, but pay for a new licence, when what they bought was junk in the first place. If MS had given free upgrades to all Vista licenses, I would prolly be a-OK for 7, but instead they finally got something that works like it should, and everyone is forgetting the past within a few minutes. This kind of behavior should not be rewarded with new license purchases... I just got done with 4 years in two computer shops and Vista was a PITA from the get go. Honestly, from what I seen and heard, if people actually knew it was Vista like OS, they would hate it too. A lot of MS's decision to bring out a "new" OS, was more to sweep Vista under the rug quietly and regain Vista haters who know nothing about 7.....
7 is fine, but my own friends are going to be pushed [H]ARD to NOT run it by me. That plus the fact of already having the licenses and the ugly UI, make XP x64 a great choice for the base. Maybe some 7 VMs for actual app using....
DeaconFrost
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 11,582
I could tear apart your post and show you all the holes in your logic and reasoning, but you have a FAR too closed-minded approach to be worth the time. Many many don't agree with you, so let's just start with that. You worked in computer shops, meaning you probably dealt with a lot of OEM systems ruined by pre-installed crapware and DFUs. Fact is, Vista wasn't nearly as bad as you or the media think it was. Once third-party vendors (I'm looking at you, Nvidia and Creative) got their asses in gear and released stable drivers, most of the issues disappeared. You are simply buying into the myth that non-tech types perpetuate. You can stop with it here, because you won't find much agreement or sympathy for it on these boards.
As for your reasons to avoid Windows 7...you actually listed reason to upgrade, If you avoided every company that made a product seen as "bad" by the media, you'd be living in a grass hut in a jungle, eating coconuts all day. That's how it works. You wouldn't last long in the real IT world with a closed-minded attitude like that.
If you pushed your friends hard not to run the best MS OS available, that should ruin your credibility in their eyes, and they should wise up and seek tech advice elsewhere. You're doing a disservice to all of those who run their own shops, attempting to give out good advice to their customers, like IceDigger.
Would you prefer to pay for each service pack, like they do in the Apple world? If you honestly think Windows 7 is just a service pack for Vista, you are only admitting to your own lack of knowledge on Windows 7, and your lack of experience with it.
Stick with the facts, and everyone benefits.
As for your reasons to avoid Windows 7...you actually listed reason to upgrade, If you avoided every company that made a product seen as "bad" by the media, you'd be living in a grass hut in a jungle, eating coconuts all day. That's how it works. You wouldn't last long in the real IT world with a closed-minded attitude like that.
If you pushed your friends hard not to run the best MS OS available, that should ruin your credibility in their eyes, and they should wise up and seek tech advice elsewhere. You're doing a disservice to all of those who run their own shops, attempting to give out good advice to their customers, like IceDigger.
Would you prefer to pay for each service pack, like they do in the Apple world? If you honestly think Windows 7 is just a service pack for Vista, you are only admitting to your own lack of knowledge on Windows 7, and your lack of experience with it.
Stick with the facts, and everyone benefits.
I have half-heartedly followed this thread and IMHO I'd still use XP x64 for some of my personal applications (if it wasn't for the aforementioned Zune issues), but I have to agree with DeaconFrost here.
It's fine if you have a valid reason for not using Windows Vista or Windows 7 -- some technical limitation or problem. But, all you've done is listed "media reasons" for not using it. Come on, man -- on these boards you need to actually provide real-world rationale for your opinions on technical topics and your posts have just not risen to the bar on that front.
It's fine if you have a valid reason for not using Windows Vista or Windows 7 -- some technical limitation or problem. But, all you've done is listed "media reasons" for not using it. Come on, man -- on these boards you need to actually provide real-world rationale for your opinions on technical topics and your posts have just not risen to the bar on that front.
You don't seem to realize that nobody is telling anybody to upgrade from Vista to Windows 7. If they like Windows 7, it's fine and dandy if they upgrade for the new interface.
Microsoft hasn't imposed any near-future end of support dates, driver manufacturers are still making Vista drivers, and software developers are completely supporting Vista.
Plus, the vast majority of changes from Vista to Windows 7 are cosmetic in some way. They're nothing that will stop Vista users from getting their enjoyment out of the operating system.
No, Microsoft has decided to stick to a shorter release cycle for new operating systems. Vista lasted 2-3 years, which is how every other Microsoft lasted, excluding Windows XP.
If you want to be ludicrous and waste your time and money, and leave your computer with an inferior and outdated product, that's fine. But don't go ruining your friends computers and wasting their money on a product they likely have no interest in using.
You're not helping your friends in the least by pressuring them into avoiding something that's entirely better than what you're suggesting they use.
That is not completely true, as someone who has worked on hundreds, if not thousands of Vista machines with: clean loads, OEM loads, DIY loads, you name; Windows 7 is NOT nearly as slow as Vista out of the box on a 7 OEM load. I only had to play with it a few minutes to see that. It is much closer to XP speed to be sure. I think that in the real world with not quite perfect latest machines (like nearly EVERYONE here), you will be hard pressed to find someone who would even argue that Vista was slower to use then XP on the same hardware. I should note that KK pressured me to start running XP in Classic mode with all of the UI candy crap turned off to pick up speed years ago, and neither he nor I, can stand the slowness of the Luna theme. Remember that it was he pushing that speed improvement to me, last time around.
Trust me, that was option #1 that we recommended. Option #2, being XP x64, because of Server 2k3 being the closest MS has come to Linux with reliability. (still a ways to catch Linux, but man, 2k3 will run on bad hardware that will BSOD XP 32bit in a good deal of cases)
DeaconFrost
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 11,582
Except when they aren't based on factual information, making them completely irrelevant. You're comments above show that you are buying into the media boas, as opposed to "what really is". In addition to that, if you worked in computer shops and claim to have exppertise on the subject, you wouldn't base your opinions on the crap that comes into a shop to fix...you'd base them on your own systems, set up by you. If so, you'd see Vista was much MUCH better than the public perception.
It is true, though, as I didn't specify a quantity of the operating system that is the same as Vista, though the majority of it is still largely Vista code.
The non-UI related changes in Windows 7 are mostly small ones. Some of the changes I can think of off the top of my head are Multi-Core enhancements, delayed start-up for non-essential services, etc. Nothing particularly staggering. They're all small changes, which results in a small (but present) improvement in performance over Vista with Windows 7.
If you're so entirely certain that Windows 7 is so different, you should list some of the major low-level changes.
If you can't stand the slowness of Luna, then you should be well able to appreciate Vista/Windows 7 and their new Aero UIs. If you have a reasonably modern video card (Like, a Geforce 8400 or faster), you should be running Vista/Windows 7 machines with Aero on, since turning on Aero will cause the Desktop Window Manager to render all visual elements of the operating system on the video card, instead of on the CPU.
InvisiBill
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 2,608
Until a week ago, I was running XP x64 on my i7 920 system, as I had been for the past few years. I switched to Win7 only because I wanted to switch out my GTX285 for a 5870 while keeping my 9800GT for PhysX. I found out the hard way that XP x64 frequently doesn't like having ATI and Nvidia cards installed at the same time.
I had very few issues with XP x64:
First, iTunes' installer was coded to look for OS version 6.0 rather than 5.2. In versions 7 and 8, you could simply edit the installer and change that value, and everything was great. They changed something with 9, and the iPod service got all wonky. iTunes is stupid about plugging into multiple PCs anyway, so I just kept syncing with my work laptop (since it's technically a work phone anyway).
A few newer games wouldn't run. Specifically I remember the Cryostasis demo requiring Vista. Can't think of any others, but I'm sure there were a few. This will only get worse as time goes on.
I played Crysis and it was great. Same for Batman:AA, the L4D games, Modern Warfare, WoW, F.E.A.R., and whatever else I'm forgetting. All of my hardware had drivers and just worked other than the iPhone/iTunes issue above. My Classified E759, 920, GTX285, 9800GT, and SBLive! for Ventrilo all worked well. I hotswapped external eSATA drives and programmed my Logitech Harmony. I ran digital optical out to my speakers and HDMI to my HDTV. Before the Intel system, I was running an Athlon64 X2 6000+ on an nF590 board with the 9800GT and my old 8600GT. 99% of what I tried worked just fine in XP x64.
Now, on to Windows 7...
The ATI and Nvidia cards are working together properly. My SBLive! has a sound driver courtesy of kx, but there doesn't seem to be one for the game port (though I haven't really looked either, but there's not one included in the package). I don't really care, but the warning in Device Manager is annoying for someone a little OCD.
The interface is still Windows 7, and I hate it. For some background, I installed Win7 on my work laptop (Dell E6500) in early November, following the advice common in this thread. It's designed for modern hardware. It does this and that better. So on and so forth. And every day for the past five months, I've fought with the stupid UI. Things that I've been doing in Windows for the past 15 years which are now basically muscle memory don't work. I've been very, very close to switching back to XP, but I know that it's on the way out and eventually I won't even have the option, so I've forced myself to continue using 7.
I arrow up a few directories in Explorer to look at something, and it doesn't work. The new directory is the only thing highlighted on the screen, but it's not actually selected. I press Tab and I've got the new location highlighted on the left, with the file from the old directory outlined on the right. Neither one is actually selected though, so hotkeys like Alt+Enter just don't do anything.
If I use Space or a mouse click to actually select the new dir on the left, Alt+Enter still doesn't bring up its properties - they apparently just removed that from Explorer. When you've selected a folder then tabbed over to its contents, the file is outlined rather than highlighted. This means it's not actually selected, so none of the actions actually do anything. Hitting the Home key doesn't select the top item, though arrowing down and back up does.
I can no longer press Windows,I to bring up my Internet browser - I now to have hit Win then start to type Firefox or Mozilla. If I decide to take my hands off the keyboard and use the mouse instead (which in itself is a slowdown), half the time clicking on Firefox in my Start Menu simply drops out a list of recent HTML files for some reason. I do like that the Start Menu's Search box allows you to pull up a very buried shortcut by typing a few letters in the program's name, but at the same time it has eliminated my instant access to apps on my Start Menu.
I can handle keeping my system clean on my own, so I've disabled my on-access virus scanner. I scan new downloads and such, but I don't need it interfering with every single file I access. Thank you, Action Center, for throwing up a big warning about my scanner being disabled. Ok, I'll tell AC to ignore that. Great, setting is confirmed. Until it pops up a warning balloon about my scanner being disabled. It goes away after 10 seconds. Then 15 seconds later, the balloon pops up again for 10 seconds. Guess what happens 15 seconds after it goes away? Apparently "Turn off messages about virus protection" and "Currently not monitored" mean "Pop up an annoying balloon about virus protection several times a minute".
To sum all that up, I feel forced into using Win7. I'm using it because of a single multi-GPU issue with drivers on XP x64 and the general sentiment that XP is old and outdated. I notice no real difference in performance, though I notice many UI deficiencies. I feel that I'm getting DX11 and iPhone syncing in exchange for putting up with all the regressions in the UI. It's a tradeoff that I still question sometimes, not a massive improvement. This is coming from someone who has used Windows 7 for 5 months, 8 hours a day, 5 days a week - not someone who played with it for 10 minutes and decided they didn't like it because it was different.
I had very few issues with XP x64:
First, iTunes' installer was coded to look for OS version 6.0 rather than 5.2. In versions 7 and 8, you could simply edit the installer and change that value, and everything was great. They changed something with 9, and the iPod service got all wonky. iTunes is stupid about plugging into multiple PCs anyway, so I just kept syncing with my work laptop (since it's technically a work phone anyway).
A few newer games wouldn't run. Specifically I remember the Cryostasis demo requiring Vista. Can't think of any others, but I'm sure there were a few. This will only get worse as time goes on.
I played Crysis and it was great. Same for Batman:AA, the L4D games, Modern Warfare, WoW, F.E.A.R., and whatever else I'm forgetting. All of my hardware had drivers and just worked other than the iPhone/iTunes issue above. My Classified E759, 920, GTX285, 9800GT, and SBLive! for Ventrilo all worked well. I hotswapped external eSATA drives and programmed my Logitech Harmony. I ran digital optical out to my speakers and HDMI to my HDTV. Before the Intel system, I was running an Athlon64 X2 6000+ on an nF590 board with the 9800GT and my old 8600GT. 99% of what I tried worked just fine in XP x64.
Now, on to Windows 7...
The ATI and Nvidia cards are working together properly. My SBLive! has a sound driver courtesy of kx, but there doesn't seem to be one for the game port (though I haven't really looked either, but there's not one included in the package). I don't really care, but the warning in Device Manager is annoying for someone a little OCD.
The interface is still Windows 7, and I hate it. For some background, I installed Win7 on my work laptop (Dell E6500) in early November, following the advice common in this thread. It's designed for modern hardware. It does this and that better. So on and so forth. And every day for the past five months, I've fought with the stupid UI. Things that I've been doing in Windows for the past 15 years which are now basically muscle memory don't work. I've been very, very close to switching back to XP, but I know that it's on the way out and eventually I won't even have the option, so I've forced myself to continue using 7.
I arrow up a few directories in Explorer to look at something, and it doesn't work. The new directory is the only thing highlighted on the screen, but it's not actually selected. I press Tab and I've got the new location highlighted on the left, with the file from the old directory outlined on the right. Neither one is actually selected though, so hotkeys like Alt+Enter just don't do anything.
If I use Space or a mouse click to actually select the new dir on the left, Alt+Enter still doesn't bring up its properties - they apparently just removed that from Explorer. When you've selected a folder then tabbed over to its contents, the file is outlined rather than highlighted. This means it's not actually selected, so none of the actions actually do anything. Hitting the Home key doesn't select the top item, though arrowing down and back up does.
I can no longer press Windows,I to bring up my Internet browser - I now to have hit Win then start to type Firefox or Mozilla. If I decide to take my hands off the keyboard and use the mouse instead (which in itself is a slowdown), half the time clicking on Firefox in my Start Menu simply drops out a list of recent HTML files for some reason. I do like that the Start Menu's Search box allows you to pull up a very buried shortcut by typing a few letters in the program's name, but at the same time it has eliminated my instant access to apps on my Start Menu.
I can handle keeping my system clean on my own, so I've disabled my on-access virus scanner. I scan new downloads and such, but I don't need it interfering with every single file I access. Thank you, Action Center, for throwing up a big warning about my scanner being disabled. Ok, I'll tell AC to ignore that. Great, setting is confirmed. Until it pops up a warning balloon about my scanner being disabled. It goes away after 10 seconds. Then 15 seconds later, the balloon pops up again for 10 seconds. Guess what happens 15 seconds after it goes away? Apparently "Turn off messages about virus protection" and "Currently not monitored" mean "Pop up an annoying balloon about virus protection several times a minute".
To sum all that up, I feel forced into using Win7. I'm using it because of a single multi-GPU issue with drivers on XP x64 and the general sentiment that XP is old and outdated. I notice no real difference in performance, though I notice many UI deficiencies. I feel that I'm getting DX11 and iPhone syncing in exchange for putting up with all the regressions in the UI. It's a tradeoff that I still question sometimes, not a massive improvement. This is coming from someone who has used Windows 7 for 5 months, 8 hours a day, 5 days a week - not someone who played with it for 10 minutes and decided they didn't like it because it was different.
QwertyJuan
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2000
- Messages
- 11,285
I wouldn't TOUCH WinXP again after Win7.... and I was one of the BIGGEST XP fans out there...
SuperSubZero
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2000
- Messages
- 3,780
I agree with you. Win7's GUI is painful to someone who has gotten used to doing things in a certain way. My OCD-ness with the GUI has always been about folder size, position, and interaction. Gutting the framework has forced me to re-think the entire desktop experience and not in good ways. The "feng shui" of the interface is all wrong now.
I ran win 2k pro until xp x64 came out, precisely because it was so similar to the 2k3 OS kernel. It was indeed a PITA to ensure that I wouldn't just brick my system on an upgrade, and I did verify that all the drivers existed before moving. Once I moved, it was smooth sailing, nary an issue except for linsys not supporting my wireless card.
I skipped xp entirely on my primary home system, but run XP Pro on all my laptops currently.
I've since given up on XP x64, and acquired copies of 2k3 EE, which is what I now run on that system. Vista business x64 was held (got it free), but not installed due to a variety of issues with it. Win 7 pro x64 will be installed as my next OS, as I have had a chance to experiment with it on a VM.
Unless you really make sure that xp x64 has the drivers available, don't bother. If you've confirmed the drivers, its one of the best OSs MS ever came out with for the client side workstation.
Note: I thought that the interface with win 2000 pro was the best for me, and I configure all my MS desktops to look like that.
-Steven
I skipped xp entirely on my primary home system, but run XP Pro on all my laptops currently.
I've since given up on XP x64, and acquired copies of 2k3 EE, which is what I now run on that system. Vista business x64 was held (got it free), but not installed due to a variety of issues with it. Win 7 pro x64 will be installed as my next OS, as I have had a chance to experiment with it on a VM.
Unless you really make sure that xp x64 has the drivers available, don't bother. If you've confirmed the drivers, its one of the best OSs MS ever came out with for the client side workstation.
Note: I thought that the interface with win 2000 pro was the best for me, and I configure all my MS desktops to look like that.
-Steven