No More Windows XP Preloads

[Cerulean]

XP is closer to being like Linux than Windows 7 in terms of hardware requirements.

 

[Atl530i]

Still running XP on an old (circa 2002) Compaq Evo laptop with a P4 2GHz CPU. Still works even though I never use it anymore...

 

[Derangel]

I have a pretty huge game collection and I can't really think of a game that I couldn't get running on Windows Vista/7.

I had to run SimEarth in a VM, but only because it's 16 bit and I'm running 64-bit 7. It runs fine on 32-bit 7. That game is something like 20 years old.

I have a few games that won't work in Win 7. The 10th Anniversay MOH collection, for example. Well specifically Allied Assault. Airbourne works, I just need to uninstall PhysX, install the game with its PhysX drivers, then update PhysX back to the correct modern version. AA on the other hand, yeah its not running at all. Haven't tried Pacific Assault yet, but maybe I'll be lucky. Got a few other older titles as well that don't work.

 

[Conker]

Theres no real benefit to any average user running windows 7 over xp. Xp does everything a person would need. It only misses out on directx 10 and 11 which most games don't really use that much yet. If you want a different look just modify the uxtheme file and add whatever theme you want to your windows. From windows 98 to 2000/xp it was a stability upgrade in stableness and smoothness. Now that stability is out of the way its just mostly looks. I find the bubble bloated look isn't as efficient as the all laid out look of xp or 2000. I like to go from point A to point B with minimal amount of clicks and security warnings. I notice the newer the OS, the dumber they treat the customers in them. Give warnings in every single thing you do. Have to dig far into different subcategory options to get where you need to now. Wonder what windows 8 is going to look like. I think that will be the major transition. I think most computers will start to upgrade when windows 8 comes.

 

[Cerulean]

Theres no real benefit to any average user running windows 7 over xp. Xp does everything a person would need. It only misses out on directx 10 and 11 which most games don't really use that much yet

All Microsoft should have done was to continue XP and keep working it up. It's not like the Linux developers all of a sudden decided to scrap the entire Linux kernel and build something from scratch, ground up, in hopes it would be better.

I mean, yes, Windows 7 does have some benefits (such as the netstack, improved AD/group policy stuff, and a few other things), but those could have been put into XP.

One thought that I have had: if Microsoft spent all their time on XP instead of Vista/7, where would XP be today? How much better would it be?

If you ask me, it should be a competition "against" Linux -- or hold Linux in perspective as a role model in factors of hardware requirements, flexibility based on user-level (ie. if you are grandma, the OS should fit to you and ***NOTHING*** more advanced should get in your way, distract you, etcetera), performance and efficiency (for things like gaming, business or general use programs; multicore efficiency, etc).. you know, the list could go on.

To me, that would be innovation and something worthwhile. Yes, Windows would never be like Linux, but it isn't the point to BE Linux, but to have something of the same UMPH! but designed in a different way.

It would be like having two different algorithms for the same result: Linux vs Windows.

Instead, it's almost like you can't even compare the two because every 4-8 years Microsoft decides to do something so drastic (and starting with Vista on up to 7, awful in so many ways).

Windows 98 from 95 was amazing. But Windows 98 to ME was awful. But from ME to XP or 98 to XP.. XP was the best thing ever made. Then XP to Vista was like a downgrade. 7 is way better than Vista, and personally I'm okay with 7, but I still like XP better because of its smallness (it's small, efficient, and yet so powerful).

Theres no real benefit to any average user running windows 7 over xp. Xp does everything a person would need. It only misses out on directx 10 and 11 which most games don't really use that much yet

 

[Cerulean]

Theres no real benefit to any average user running windows 7 over xp. Xp does everything a person would need. It only misses out on directx 10 and 11 which most games don't really use that much yet. If you want a different look just modify the uxtheme file and add whatever theme you want to your windows. From windows 98 to 2000/xp it was a stability upgrade in stableness and smoothness. Now that stability is out of the way its just mostly looks. I find the bubble bloated look isn't as efficient as the all laid out look of xp or 2000. I like to go from point A to point B with minimal amount of clicks and security warnings. I notice the newer the OS, the dumber they treat the customers in them. Give warnings in every single thing you do. Have to dig far into different subcategory options to get where you need to now. Wonder what windows 8 is going to look like. I think that will be the major transition. I think most computers will start to upgrade when windows 8 comes.

I read this whole post this time. And this is what I have to say:

QFT.

This post couldn't be closer from the truth, and sums everything I feel about Windows XP vs Vista vs 7 in one perfect paragraph.

 

[DeathPrincess]

I think the dates wrong on the forum. I must have woken up after years in a coma (in this chair). It must be 2038 and XP wont work anymore.
Therefore, how was sandy v.ridge with its backwards over clocking. And did AMD ever go under? Or did they sort it out with NV over Phys/x. Or did NV get bought by intel and its Havoks/x? Whats an ideal upgade path for an i7 and do I still need a graphics card? (please dont be that theres only intel graphics )

 

[Cerulean]

*sigh* Really hate to triple post, but I just gotta mention this one last thing:

A great operating system is one that is..

* Simple
* Stable
* Responsive
* Efficient
* User-friendly (to as many levels of people possible; grandma, almost-old people, middle-age people, teenagers, children; developers, consumers, etc.)
* Powerful

If it simple and powerful, then that equals a lot of "profit" (if you understand the analogy anyway).

 

[ktk]

Lol at the XP haters. Businesses determines what OS will be dominant, not gamers.

this.

nothing like upgrading a 300 dollar OS only to find out autocad for win7 cost a few thousand more to upgrade...

 

[QuiteSufficient]

Have to rep for Windows XP in all the threads.

As an IT guy, it is interesting working with companies now faced with making the transition. I had a large deal fall apart two weeks ago because a firm of 18 women, ready to pull the trigger on 18 new dells, found out they would be coming Win7 and just couldn't handle it.

 

[KatalDT]

I think the dates wrong on the forum. I must have woken up after years in a coma (in this chair). It must be 2038 and XP wont work anymore.
Therefore, how was sandy v.ridge with its backwards over clocking. And did AMD ever go under? Or did they sort it out with NV over Phys/x. Or did NV get bought by intel and its Havoks/x? Whats an ideal upgade path for an i7 and do I still need a graphics card? (please dont be that theres only intel graphics )

In 2014, Intel bought nVidia and basically just stamped their name on their new "Larabee" chips, which in 2015 are roughly competitive with the ATI 3870 (at the high end, anyway).

AMD realizes they don't need to compete any, and rebrand the 8xxx series twelve times until 2024 when Intel finally catches up.

Apple buys AMD in 2025 once they decide they need to be sole proprietors of the world's fastest card. AMD now only produces on-board video cards for proprietary Apple machines, of which no Windows 4D drivers exist.

2026 is finally the actual year of the Linux Desktop with the introduction of true 3D desktops, only ten years behind MS and Apple. Consumer market share jumps to a groundbreaking 2%.

In 2027, the Linux market share drops back to 1%, when squabbles on the definition of 'true 3D' forks the primary distributions.

In 2030, consumer hard drives are officially dead. Everything is now in 'the cloud'.

In 2032, "the cloud" crashes and sparks World War VI. Billions dead.

In 2037, World War VI ends. The machines won.

In January of 2038, the machines announce that this is the year of the Linux Neural Net.

 

[Derangel]

Theres no real benefit to any average user running windows 7 over xp. Xp does everything a person would need. It only misses out on directx 10 and 11 which most games don't really use that much yet. If you want a different look just modify the uxtheme file and add whatever theme you want to your windows. From windows 98 to 2000/xp it was a stability upgrade in stableness and smoothness. Now that stability is out of the way its just mostly looks. I find the bubble bloated look isn't as efficient as the all laid out look of xp or 2000. I like to go from point A to point B with minimal amount of clicks and security warnings. I notice the newer the OS, the dumber they treat the customers in them. Give warnings in every single thing you do. Have to dig far into different subcategory options to get where you need to now. Wonder what windows 8 is going to look like. I think that will be the major transition. I think most computers will start to upgrade when windows 8 comes.

Yeah 7 offers nothing over XP except an improved network protocol stack, FAR better security, a much better look (personal opinion, yeah yeah), much better layout, VASTLY improved (and many times quicker) install process, better update process, an actual functioning and supported 64bit version (unless you like only using 3GB of RAM or running a version of an OS that gets virtually no support), far superior resource management (XP wasn't designed with multi-core CPUs in mind)

PS: 99% of the people that use computers ARE IDIOTS when it comes to technology. And you don't like UAC? It takes less time to turn it off than it does to sit there and bitch about it. Its one of the first things I do on a fresh install.

I outright hate using XP. I can't stand it anymore. Its looks old, it feels old, its a piece of shit compared to what we have now. Navigating around is clunky and its not user friendly.

PSS: To turn your stupid ass statement around: If you like the look of your ancient crap so much you can download themes to make 7 look like XP. Or just turn off all the good enhancements.

 

[Gorankar]

They are bound and determined to give Ubuntu some kind of foot hold not matter what. People are not giving in up because a simply fact, it still does what they need. Why this is hard for MS (or H users for that matter) to grasp is hard for ME to grasp. If it isn't broken don't fix it. All this does is give the Linux crowd another small shot at a small market segment. Good enough is sometimes just fine.

All this is, is MS saying no more Xp pre installs on new net books. The OS that replaces the majority of those pre installs on new net books is going to be Win 7 and not Unbuntu. Xp does do what most net book users need and then some. But so does Win 7, and it runs just fine doing your typical net book duties. This is almost a non issue except to businesses in the market for new net books that do not want to migrate, or those with a nearly unhealthy eagerness to see Xp's demise, or those still desperately clinging to Xp for whatever reasons.

The Win 7 32bit beta ran nearly as good on an old 2800+/Nf2/9800pro system with 2 gigs of ram, as Xp did for me. I doubt brand new modern net books will have a problem with Win 7. At least not enough problems to drive the masses to Unbuntu and it's own problems. Outside of business uses and die hards, I doubt we will see much along the lines of downgrades to Xp either.

I have a couple, mostly much older games that don't like it. one of the ones recently that have plagued me was surprisingly was bejewled. not sure why but it hasn't run right once on mine.

Weird, Bejeweled, and most of the other POP Cap titles, off of steam works fine on both my Win7 64 and my Vista 64 computers.

 

[Cerulean]

Yeah 7 offers nothing over XP except an improved network protocol stack, FAR better security, a much better look (personal opinion, yeah yeah), much better layout, VASTLY improved (and many times quicker) install process, better update process, an actual functioning and supported 64bit version (unless you like only using 3GB of RAM or running a version of an OS that gets virtually no support), far superior resource management (XP wasn't designed with multi-core CPUs in mind)

PS: 99% of the people that use computers ARE IDIOTS when it comes to technology. And you don't like UAC? It takes less time to turn it off than it does to sit there and bitch about it. Its one of the first things I do on a fresh install.

I outright hate using XP. I can't stand it anymore. Its looks old, it feels old, its a piece of shit compared to what we have now. Navigating around is clunky and its not user friendly.

PSS: To turn your stupid ass statement around: If you like the look of your ancient crap so much you can download themes to make 7 look like XP. Or just turn off all the good enhancements.

1. There are three crowds you can serve: consumers, business, developers. (Gamers fall in the "consumers" category for the most part; this category is your average person of the populace)

For your business crowd, you want to serve them with this:

* Simple
* Stable
* Responsive
* Efficient
* User-friendly (to as many levels of people possible; grandma, almost-old people, middle-age people, teenagers, children; developers, consumers, etc.)
* Powerful

For your consumer-gamer crowd, you want to serve them with the same thing.

For your plain consumer crowd, you want to serve them the same thing, except you have to sacrifice some responsiveness and power to make up for the aesthetics (which can also be known synonymously as bloat sometimes). As far as performance goes, responsiveness > smoothness. To have smoothness, you have to add time delay, which results in less 'work' (in scientific terms) accomplished. You can have some different levels though, such as: (1) not having a fade/slide effect and fancy animation for everything whilst retaining the graphics and transparent+blur effects, (2) turning off the theme altogether and sticking with something plain like Classic in XP.

Now for all the time Microsoft spent in combined total manhours on Vista and 7, had they have spent that on continuing and improving XP instead, ...
1) They could have developed a way to make XP "compatible" for every level of user, or at least most levels. For example, they could have used "modes" (or profiles of a sort). IT could temporarily switch to the mode/profile that targets businesses when troubleshooting a home computer, fix the problem, and switch back
2) Of all the pros you mentioned about Windows 7, they too could have been implemented into XP; it would be a win-win-win situation (as Michael Scott puts it)



I categorize myself as a consumer, but would be using the "business crowd mode/profile". I don't have a wallpaper (solid black color), no theme (Classic), and a large set of tweaks I have been working on and improving and fine-tuning for over 5 years (one of those small tweaks is "as instantaneous as possible" responses from XP). Most consumers will want a wallpaper, will want a theme, and will want it to look pleasing to the eye (color > black and white).



But I really wonder where XP would be today if Microsoft spent all those man hours on just continuing and improving XP, rather than starting all over (which I think was a really stupid idea, as everyone can figure at this point ).

 

[Cerulean]

For your consumer-gamer crowd, you want to serve them with the same thing.

Correction: most will be stuck in between "consumer" and "business". You can't have both, but I'm sure optimizing the performance of having things like aesthetics/theme, wallpaper, etc could have made up for it somehow.

I personally notice a huge performance difference (even on my Q9450 machine) when having a wallpaper vs solid black (no wallpaper), theme/aesthetics/effect(or no effects) vs no theme (Classic), screensaver (more so if it is a slideshow screensaver) vs no screensaver (just use Power Management to turn the monitor off instead, and it'll save you energy and increase lifespan for your monitor).

 

[DeathPrincess]

actual year of the Linux Desktop with the introduction of true 3D desktops, only ten years behind MS and Apple. Consumer market share jumps to a groundbreaking 2%.

See its all believable apart from the 2% thing. 1.5% would have been pushing it I'm going to go out and try and quad SLI some 2038 intel graphic cips and see if I can get Plants vs zombies at 30fps. And avoid all the fools with crossfired iWrist (watch) [handcuffs].

 

[illuminate]

Now that I've been completely Windows free for about a year (currently have a macbook pro + linux netbook) if I ever had to run a Windows machine again (and I pray to God that I never do), I'd still take XP over W7. Yes, yes, Windows 7 is very nice. Speedy, light, snappy, but XP seems snappiER, cleaner, smaller, and just nicer IMO.

*offtopic*
/me shrugs. Hopefully though, I never have to touch another Windows OS. I've never had a need for anything M$ since the beginning of this year. Before my netbook was even home, Arch was installed on it.

 

[Rizen]

Anyone who thinks 7 isn't as fast or faster than XP is on drugs.

Hell, I was using Vista 64-bit over XP and I never had a problem.

I think some of you are just stubborn.

 

[Derangel]

1. There are three crowds you can serve: consumers, business, developers. (Gamers fall in the "consumers" category for the most part; this category is your average person of the populace)

For your business crowd, you want to serve them with this:


For your consumer-gamer crowd, you want to serve them with the same thing.

For your plain consumer crowd, you want to serve them the same thing, except you have to sacrifice some responsiveness and power to make up for the aesthetics (which can also be known synonymously as bloat sometimes). As far as performance goes, responsiveness > smoothness. To have smoothness, you have to add time delay, which results in less 'work' (in scientific terms) accomplished. You can have some different levels though, such as: (1) not having a fade/slide effect and fancy animation for everything whilst retaining the graphics and transparent+blur effects, (2) turning off the theme altogether and sticking with something plain like Classic in XP.

Now for all the time Microsoft spent in combined total manhours on Vista and 7, had they have spent that on continuing and improving XP instead, ...
1) They could have developed a way to make XP "compatible" for every level of user, or at least most levels. For example, they could have used "modes" (or profiles of a sort). IT could temporarily switch to the mode/profile that targets businesses when troubleshooting a home computer, fix the problem, and switch back
2) Of all the pros you mentioned about Windows 7, they too could have been implemented into XP; it would be a win-win-win situation (as Michael Scott puts it)



I categorize myself as a consumer, but would be using the "business crowd mode/profile". I don't have a wallpaper (solid black color), no theme (Classic), and a large set of tweaks I have been working on and improving and fine-tuning for over 5 years (one of those small tweaks is "as instantaneous as possible" responses from XP). Most consumers will want a wallpaper, will want a theme, and will want it to look pleasing to the eye (color > black and white).



But I really wonder where XP would be today if Microsoft spent all those man hours on just continuing and improving XP, rather than starting all over (which I think was a really stupid idea, as everyone can figure at this point ).

And where would Windows 95 be today if MS hadn't "wasted" all that time and money on newer OSes?

Sorry, but your argument is terrible, sort of. The big reason businesses don't upgrade is cost and program compatibility. It is insanely expensive to upgrade a business. Even a small one can become unwieldy. This is specially true if they use custom programs that will have to be rewritten.

Win 7 is simple, for the most part. It has a learning curve, but its not drastic espically since a lot of the parts of the OS that would require some new learning would be locked off by IT departments (well good IT departments). 7 is very stable (a year in XP was still a barely usable piece of junk with driver problems up the whazoo) and incredibly responsive. Efficient..Yep. User friendly? More so in fact. And once again in the business market we're going back to the point where a lot of stuff is going to be locked off anyway. For the home market, its an easy learning curve. I taught my mother how to use Vista in ten minutes and the last time she touched a computer with Windows the world was using 98. Powerful? More so than XP in ways.

One thing to look at is in any business that utilizes heavy network traffic the improved network protocol stack in 7 will be a big help.

Now on to your insane closing statement: XP was terrible. Sure it worked good for its time, but the actual code is god damn mess. MS rewrote a huge portion of the OS for SP2 and even that only helped a little. XP has un-fixable security holes. Numerous ones of them. XP is by far the least secure OS on the market right now. Its not up to the task of properly managing modern hardware and its only going to get worse as time goes on. Microsoft would have to rewrite almost every single line of code in XP and its kernel to make it work. That is how bad it is.

 

[Valset]

Anyone who thinks 7 isn't as fast or faster than XP is on drugs.

Hell, I was using Vista 64-bit over XP and I never had a problem.

I think some of you are just stubborn.

try putting it on a celeron D with 512mb of ram and say that

fast is a relative term. if you have a fast modern computer that can handle the work load yes.

 

[Valset]

Yeah 7 offers nothing over XP except an improved network protocol stack, FAR better security, a much better look (personal opinion, yeah yeah), much better layout, VASTLY improved (and many times quicker) install process, better update process, an actual functioning and supported 64bit version (unless you like only using 3GB of RAM or running a version of an OS that gets virtually no support), far superior resource management (XP wasn't designed with multi-core CPUs in mind)

PS: 99% of the people that use computers ARE IDIOTS when it comes to technology. And you don't like UAC? It takes less time to turn it off than it does to sit there and bitch about it. Its one of the first things I do on a fresh install.

I outright hate using XP. I can't stand it anymore. Its looks old, it feels old, its a piece of shit compared to what we have now. Navigating around is clunky and its not user friendly.

PSS: To turn your stupid ass statement around: If you like the look of your ancient crap so much you can download themes to make 7 look like XP. Or just turn off all the good enhancements.

I really don't mean this bad but can't you see how this looks to an executive reading this? This is exactly what I was talking about as coming off as a whining IT guy. Nothing you said is wrong. but it changes nothing. Remember what I said when good enough was just fine? XP meets all their requirements. It functional for the vast majority of users. It has no end of third party security available. It runs all the software people need for 95% of business uses. Think about it, what does Windows 7 run that XP doesn't for the business community? There is an incalculable amount of user comfort and familiarity with it that would cause ungodly amount resource to be spent to replace it. Not to mention having to ensure compatibility with the old software, the replacement of the old hard ware, and so on.

Good enough is just fine sometimes, esp when you have such a monstrous investment in it. and they can not recoup that investment once they let it go. IT departments do not (normally) generate any revenue. That means that investment will only get better (from an accounting view point) the longer it last so long as it gets the job done. And XP continues to do just that.

That is the inertia that you have to overcome to replace widows XP. So far its just completely lacking. Your arguments would not serve well in any board meeting and that is where such things are decided. even in small business, smart people look at the bottom line

 

[KatalDT]

I really don't mean this bad but can't you see how this looks to an executive reading this? This is exactly what I was talking about as coming off as a whining IT guy. Nothing you said is wrong. but it changes nothing. Remember what I said when good enough was just fine? XP meets all their requirements. It functional for the vast majority of users. It has no end of third party security available. It runs all the software people need for 95% of business uses. Think about it, what does Windows 7 run that XP doesn't for the business community? There is an incalculable amount of user comfort and familiarity with it that would cause ungodly amount resource to be spent to replace it. Not to mention having to ensure compatibility with the old software, the replacement of the old hard ware, and so on.

Good enough is just fine sometimes, esp when you have such a monstrous investment in it. and they can not recoup that investment once they let it go. IT departments do not (normally) generate any revenue. That means that investment will only get better (from an accounting view point) the longer it last so long as it gets the job done. And XP continues to do just that.

That is the inertia that you have to overcome to replace widows XP. So far its just completely lacking. Your arguments would not serve well in any board meeting and that is where such things are decided. even in small business, smart people look at the bottom line

Yeah, but just wait til Windows 7 SP3.... D!!! (Service Pack 3D, just in case the periods through you off)

Now you'll be able to work in THREE DIMENSIONS. Not one, NOT TWO, BUT THREE!

What's that mean for productivity?

It means everything. You're adding AN ENTIRE DIMENSION. That's a 50% increase in productivity!

Three dimensions of productivity. PRODUCTIVITY!

 

[Valset]

All this is, is MS saying no more Xp pre installs on new net books. The OS that replaces the majority of those pre installs on new net books is going to be Win 7 and not Unbuntu. Xp does do what most net book users need and then some. But so does Win 7, and it runs just fine doing your typical net book duties. This is almost a non issue except to businesses in the market for new net books that do not want to migrate, or those with a nearly unhealthy eagerness to see Xp's demise, or those still desperately clinging to Xp for whatever reasons.

The Win 7 32bit beta ran nearly as good on an old 2800+/Nf2/9800pro system with 2 gigs of ram, as Xp did for me. I doubt brand new modern net books will have a problem with Win 7. At least not enough problems to drive the masses to Unbuntu and it's own problems. Outside of business uses and die hards, I doubt we will see much along the lines of downgrades to Xp either.



Weird, Bejeweled, and most of the other POP Cap titles, off of steam works fine on both my Win7 64 and my Vista 64 computers.

for the most part yes, but I do look to some more Ubuntu netbooks due to this. still its only going to be a fraction of the market.

I don't have the steam version. I have the direct download version. I will have to play with it more maybe.

 

[Derangel]

I really don't mean this bad but can't you see how this looks to an executive reading this? This is exactly what I was talking about as coming off as a whining IT guy. Nothing you said is wrong. but it changes nothing. Remember what I said when good enough was just fine? XP meets all their requirements. It functional for the vast majority of users. It has no end of third party security available. It runs all the software people need for 95% of business uses. Think about it, what does Windows 7 run that XP doesn't for the business community? There is an incalculable amount of user comfort and familiarity with it that would cause ungodly amount resource to be spent to replace it. Not to mention having to ensure compatibility with the old software, the replacement of the old hard ware, and so on.

Good enough is just fine sometimes, esp when you have such a monstrous investment in it. and they can not recoup that investment once they let it go. IT departments do not (normally) generate any revenue. That means that investment will only get better (from an accounting view point) the longer it last so long as it gets the job done. And XP continues to do just that.

That is the inertia that you have to overcome to replace widows XP. So far its just completely lacking. Your arguments would not serve well in any board meeting and that is where such things are decided. even in small business, smart people look at the bottom line

You're kind of repeating exactly what I said about the issue being cost and compatibility. Don't know how old you were in the early days of XP or if you were following the market back then, but it took years for XP to become the major OS in the business world. By years I mean after SP2 came out. The shift is slowly happening in the business world, as machines have to be replaced. I have friends who work IT in a few large companies around here, so believe me I'm aware of what goes into these changes and the challenges and reasons why some companies don't want to change or simply can't reasonably afford it.

Well friends and the fact that my networking teacher has a long history of working with IT departments for a lot of companies and shares his experiences with his routinely and makes sure we know what we're getting into.

 

[Derangel]

You're kind of repeating exactly what I said about the issue being cost and compatibility. Don't know how old you were in the early days of XP or if you were following the market back then, but it took years for XP to become the major OS in the business world. By years I mean after SP2 came out. The shift is slowly happening in the business world, as machines have to be replaced. I have friends who work IT in a few large companies around here, so believe me I'm aware of what goes into these changes and the challenges and reasons why some companies don't want to change or simply can't reasonably afford it.

Well friends and the fact that my networking teacher has a long history of working with IT departments for a lot of companies and shares his experiences with his routinely and makes sure we know what we're getting into.

Darn lack of edit: To be honest I don't see a massive shift happening until Windows 8. A lot of business in some industries are using touch devices and MS is really pushing touch control with 8 right now. Combined with the fact that by that time XP will be beyond a decade old, a lot of machines will need replacing, and they might as well go with the newest OS (assuming of course its not total crap).

 

[Conker]

Over exaggerating. All operating systems have security holes which haven't been patched yet. Seems like your just trying to justify the price you paid to get windows 7. The most insecure thing about the computer is the person using it. If you download anonymous attachments and go to malware infested websites your bound to open yourself up to some bad viruses. XP does everything as it is that 7 can do and it can do it pretty well. If it works don't fix it is what most people follow. Nothing really breakthrough or spectacular came out in 7 other than dx11 which hasn't really took off. Any OS will break down if the user is careless and non-preventative no matter how good it is. No one really cares too much about that new networking protocol in 7 as xp's is good enough. Vlans and network micromanagement is where bandwidth is saved the most.

And where would Windows 95 be today if MS hadn't "wasted" all that time and money on newer OSes?

Sorry, but your argument is terrible, sort of. The big reason businesses don't upgrade is cost and program compatibility. It is insanely expensive to upgrade a business. Even a small one can become unwieldy. This is specially true if they use custom programs that will have to be rewritten.

Win 7 is simple, for the most part. It has a learning curve, but its not drastic espically since a lot of the parts of the OS that would require some new learning would be locked off by IT departments (well good IT departments). 7 is very stable (a year in XP was still a barely usable piece of junk with driver problems up the whazoo) and incredibly responsive. Efficient..Yep. User friendly? More so in fact. And once again in the business market we're going back to the point where a lot of stuff is going to be locked off anyway. For the home market, its an easy learning curve. I taught my mother how to use Vista in ten minutes and the last time she touched a computer with Windows the world was using 98. Powerful? More so than XP in ways.

One thing to look at is in any business that utilizes heavy network traffic the improved network protocol stack in 7 will be a big help.

Now on to your insane closing statement: XP was terrible. Sure it worked good for its time, but the actual code is god damn mess. MS rewrote a huge portion of the OS for SP2 and even that only helped a little. XP has un-fixable security holes. Numerous ones of them. XP is by far the least secure OS on the market right now. Its not up to the task of properly managing modern hardware and its only going to get worse as time goes on. Microsoft would have to rewrite almost every single line of code in XP and its kernel to make it work. That is how bad it is.

 

[Falkentyne]

Users clinging to XP + Console gaming is the reason why PC gaming has been terrible lately.

Do you know what you're talking about?

Windows XP >Windows 7 for FPS gaming. Do you know just how HORRIBLE the mouse response is in windows 7? Windows 2000 used 98's ballsitics and was flawless (this is why many pros used 2000 for gaming for a long time), until the low level XP mouse fixes came out (like Anir's fix) which was superiour to Cheese's fix.

But even in windows 7, the current mouse fixes, while they DO improve things, still have the mouse feeling floaty for a lot of people. They switch back to XP (dual boot?), and their scores go way up.

Most people agree that even with markC's mouse fixes, the mouse STILL Doesn't feel the same as it does with XP and Anir's win32k.sys patch (SP2) or wcafix (SP3) which make the mouse as flawless as it was in windows 2000...

 

[Derangel]

Over exaggerating. All operating systems have security holes which haven't been patched yet. Seems like your just trying to justify the price you paid to get windows 7. The most insecure thing about the computer is the person using it. If you download anonymous attachments and go to malware infested websites your bound to open yourself up to some bad viruses. XP does everything as it is that 7 can do and it can do it pretty well. If it works don't fix it is what most people follow. Nothing really breakthrough or spectacular came out in 7 other than dx11 which hasn't really took off. Any OS will break down if the user is careless and non-preventative no matter how good it is. No one really cares too much about that new networking protocol in 7 as xp's is good enough. Vlans and network micromanagement is where bandwidth is saved the most.

Perhaps a bit, but Vista and 7 killed some major ways that viruses infect computers. Which does protect the careless users a bit better. Yes 7 was mostly an advancement from Vista, but hey we're not comparing 7 to Vista here, compared to XP there are vast improvements.

Its not really saving bandwidth as much as allowing it to flow more efficiently and, in some cases, quicker within a network. However, you're right its not a reason to upgrade, but its there. We likely won't see it in the lifetime of 7, but I think a lot of the little improvements will be more obvious in IPv6.

I've paid very little for Windows 7. My laptop came with it and I don't remember what I paid for the key I'm using on my desktop, but it was very, very little as it was through an elearning deal with the college I go to. Beyond that I have a Technet sub.

 

[Derangel]

Do you know what you're talking about?

Windows XP >Windows 7 for FPS gaming. Do you know just how HORRIBLE the mouse response is in windows 7? Windows 2000 used 98's ballsitics and was flawless (this is why many pros used 2000 for gaming for a long time), until the low level XP mouse fixes came out (like Anir's fix) which was superiour to Cheese's fix.

But even in windows 7, the current mouse fixes, while they DO improve things, still have the mouse feeling floaty for a lot of people. They switch back to XP (dual boot?), and their scores go way up.

Most people agree that even with markC's mouse fixes, the mouse STILL Doesn't feel the same as it does with XP and Anir's win32k.sys patch (SP2) or wcafix (SP3) which make the mouse as flawless as it was in windows 2000...

XP > 7 for FPS? Really? Prove that its any amount that matters worth a shit. Using all modern drivers, hardware, and a perfectly clean install with NO enhancements on any side. Oh yes and you can't cheat and use different DX modes. Oh and no bullshit benchmark crap. REAL gameplay only. I'll be waiting. Until then I'm going to believe you're speaking out your ass there.

As for the mouse thing. Uhh...I'm just going to assume you're correct because I don't give to shits about the inane grips of pro gamers.

 

[Falkentyne]

Sigh....can't edit my posts...

Plus, windows 7 won't allow unsigned drivers to be installed, so you have to disable UAC (a MUST) and boot into test mode to install stuff like third party xbox drivers (VERY important, because you WANT deadzone tweaks and axis reassigning). And that's just one example.

Once Microsoft fixes the mouse control issues, or someone writes a low level hack to give back XP pointer ballistics (cuz MS sure won't), then I'm fine with windows 7. But if you still think W7 is the best thing since sliced bread, go to www.esreality.com and read the Marc mouse fix thread on the hardware forum thread. There are *THAT* many people with mouse problems on windows 7 in competitive FPS gaming. And you will NOT find a tougher crowd, than people who actually MAKE MONEY winning tournaments, or competing with the top players...

 

[Derangel]

Sigh....can't edit my posts...

Plus, windows 7 won't allow unsigned drivers to be installed, so you have to disable UAC (a MUST) and boot into test mode to install stuff like third party xbox drivers (VERY important, because you WANT deadzone tweaks and axis reassigning). And that's just one example.

Once Microsoft fixes the mouse control issues, or someone writes a low level hack to give back XP pointer ballistics (cuz MS sure won't), then I'm fine with windows 7. But if you still think W7 is the best thing since sliced bread, go to www.esreality.com and read the Marc mouse fix thread on the hardware forum thread. There are *THAT* many people with mouse problems on windows 7 in competitive FPS gaming. And you will NOT find a tougher crowd, than people who actually MAKE MONEY winning tournaments, or competing with the top players...

I believe unsigned drivers is an issue only with 64bit 7. Same with Vista. Then again I've actually never used any 32bit version of 7 so I don't know.

 

[Smiththers2]

i just cant get over how old XP is.. i use it when i have to and when i do, i think "oh my god, its 2002 again" any new machine be it netbook or laptop is going to have enough power to run 7. ram isnt as expensive as it was back in the day so i dont care about the cost, just load your machine to the gills and call it a day.
I still cant get over the fact that every XP machine ive had has killed itself in a matter of 6 months, just little fuckups like cd burning stops working, or itunes wont write to the ipod. a re install of XP always fixed it so it wasnt hardware. i ran xp on my q6600 and it was a god damn waste of power, installed vista/7 and saw the machine come to life.

 

[daglesj]

BULLSHIT. My eee900 has a 16GB SSD in it.

It's a NETBOOK, it's not supposed to be used for gaming/ storing pr0n/etc.

It's for light use like email/surfing/etc.

So some form of stripped down basic linux distro would be in order?

XP is overkill for most netbook use.

 

[katalin_2003]

those were the times..XP did a lot for us but let's look forward!

 

[Gorankar]

Xp is fine, it meets all the requirements, you prefer it, some companies are not ready to migrate.

That's cool,
But, since this move is for NEW net books only, and the downgrade option still exists, there is no forced upgrade here. The new net books are not going to cost more because of 7, the masses still do not want nix, and this "news" is nothing more than MS tossing another shovel of dirt on Methuselah.

 

[ICOM]

Anyone who thinks 7 isn't as fast or faster than XP is on drugs.

Hell, I was using Vista 64-bit over XP and I never had a problem.

I think some of you are just stubborn.

That or most of us just don't give a good flyin' fuk about operating systems. I'm a hardware junkie.

 

[Valset]

So some form of stripped down basic linux distro would be in order?

XP is overkill for most netbook use.

If the Linux crowd was smart this is where they would be pushing. You can make a damn slick GUI and a better kernel then XP if they could just pull their heads out.

 

[SamuraiInBlack]

not sure where you got your starcraft installer from, but the one off battle.net required no voodoo dancing (or compatibility mode for that matter) to get working. In fact I just tried running it off an old hard drive (old windows 7 installation, didnt reformat it) and it worked perfectly.

Everytime I load it up it looks like someone splattered tie-dye on my screen. even reinstalled it and had it patched via Battlenet and it still did it.

Starcraft 2 - works fine. Starcraft 1 - forget it, running it on XP.

 

[Derangel]

Everytime I load it up it looks like someone splattered tie-dye on my screen. even reinstalled it and had it patched via Battlenet and it still did it.

Starcraft 2 - works fine. Starcraft 1 - forget it, running it on XP.

Must be something weird on your end. SC1 works perfectly for me too.

 

[King of Heroes]

Stopped using XP when Vista came out. Haven't gone back since (in fact, I'm still using Vista, and I have two Win 7 Pro full install discs sitting on my desk).

Vista/7 introduced security features that are nothing but beneficial to the 'average user' that people love to bring up. UAC and non-admin default accounts alone are HUGE reasons for those people to get rid of XP. When they download a virus, and its guaranteed they will, Vista/7 at least have UAC and no default admin rights as built-in first lines of defense. This is something both OS X and Linux have had for YEARS. Yet this LACK of security is somehow seen as an advantage for XP to the average user? Clinging to XP has nothing to do with power, functionality, or ease of use (in which XP displays utter inferiority against ALL its rival operating systems). Its about users being so terrified of their computers that they can't fathom of thought of actually having to learn anything new about it.

Its fear. Nothing more.

And frankly, it doesn't even apply to all 'average joes'. When I was working in the school system, many of the teachers I worked with regularly asked me if the school system would be jumping over to Vista (7 wasn't out yet). Despite the common image of them, many average joes actually display some eagerness at trying out new things (which is only natural). Its probably no surprise that these people are usually younger than 40.

ONLY businesses have a legitimate excuse. Since 'OS upgrade' is synonymous with 'new computer' for them, having to replace hundreds and possibly thousands of computers is not cheap at all. My university has already replaced many of its machines with new Windows 7 computers, but its doing so in a slow, piecemeal fashion.

And as far as just upgrading XP. I can't really say anything about that, as I have never been able to look under the hood of XP, so I have no idea if implementing the new features in Vista/7 on XP is even possible or not. But frankly, the addition of features that are beneficial to users should not be hampered by the chain of backwards compatibility. It sure as hell hasn't stopped OS X and Linux, and it is a major reason why Windows has to play catch up with them alot of the time. I rarely if ever hear about OS X users complaining about the lack of backwards compatibility.