Win7 Is it worth finally giving up XP?

devil22 said:
Classic Ad Hom - You can't attack the arguments so you attack the people making the arguments, with lame conspiracy theories you have 0 proof of...
Click to expand...
What argument am I attacking? Hell, what argument are we even having? Please, tell me. Because so far all you've done is gotten yourself worked up into a slather over things I didn't say.
 
What didn't you say that I am getting worked up over "into a slather?" And that's my point, you aren't attacking an argument, you're attacking people by saying they are MS employees who lied about it. Like everyone who doesn't write "Windoze" and "M$" is payed off by the demons of redmond or some shit, it childesh and gets old. And we're not having an argument any more since you've run out of arguments, and are reduced to trolling, but what else is new around here?
 
devil22 said:
What didn't you say that I am getting worked up over "into a slather?" And that's my point, you aren't attacking an argument, you're attacking people by saying they are MS employees who lied about it. Like everyone who doesn't write "Windoze" and "M$" is payed off by the demons of redmond or some shit, it childesh and gets old. And we're not having an argument any more since you've run out of arguments, and are reduced to trolling, but what else is new around here?
Click to expand...
We never were having an argument. That's the great thing. You come out of no where, completely overreact to my post and proceed to assume you know what the hell I'm talking about. You don't. Re read my posts without your bias, and you'll see what kind of ass you've made out of yourself.
 
We never had an argument because your arguments are extremely weak and tired and get demolished so easily that it's really no argument at all, you said something stupid and I pointed out it was stupid, and I know EXACTLY what the hell you are talking about because it is the same tired BS I hear from silly "M$ hatin" script kiddiez all day, and the only one biased is you who will say anything and everything to make your point, then deny it when called on it, so you're the one making an ass out of yourself.
 
XOR != OR said:
Why? Of what benefit is there to moving to 7? Does the cost outweigh the benefit?

I've done the numbers. It doesn't. XP will have security updates through...2014 I think. Until then there is no reason to make the move.

I work according to my schedule, not MS's.
Click to expand...

You have to understand that you stand as perhaps the lone exception to the commonality on a PC enthusiast forum. What you're talking about is a legitimate reason for sticking with XP, but most XP-lovers on here are under the impression that Vista and 7 are simply bloated pieces of ass that will slow down their gaming performance, make their video and sound card drivers stop working and fuck up their everyday apps all for a slight graphical upgrade.

Now, I am running XP on my primary HDD until the final release in October at which time I will switch. I have the Win7 7100 RC on a secondary HDD just for testing purposes. For my purposes (gaming and the various demands of gaining a rigorous college-level education in physics) I notice very little difference between the two OSes. Drivers work fine, hardware works fine, the UIs work fine, games work fine and apps like Mathematica, LaTeX and various others work fine in both.

Seven is a little snappier, quicker to boot up, it has DX10 (which I find to be utterly pointless) and it has various user-friendly features built-in that simply don't exist in XP. It is apparently more secure, although I have never experienced a major security issue in 7 years of using XP with nary an antivirus or firewall installed. I see a lot of discussion regarding the superiority of the kernel and various other internal aspects of the OS, but it falls completely flat because I never actually notice any of this in my day-to-day use. I'm running a 64-bit OS for the first time and that seems to make little difference besides the fact that is supports more than 3.5gb of memory.

In the end, it's easy for me to understand why a person could be inclined to stick with XP.
 
Last edited:
XOR != OR said:
We never were having an argument. That's the great thing. You come out of no where, completely overreact to my post and proceed to assume you know what the hell I'm talking about. You don't. Re read my posts without your bias, and you'll see what kind of ass you've made out of yourself.
Click to expand...

It's not like your posts were coherent, well thought out, and stating your exact position on the matter. Oh Wait... :D
 
XOR: All the arguments about your business are all well and good, but what are you using on your personal machines? On any machines where you don't need to run apps without proper Vista/7 support?
 
LstOfTheBrunnenG said:
XOR: All the arguments about your business are all well and good, but what are you using on your personal machines? On any machines where you don't need to run apps without proper Vista/7 support?
Click to expand...
Right now I have vista on my desktop, and I plan on moving to 7 when I get a new harddrive.

I use what I need to learn. I haven't been overly enamored with vista. I like XP's interface better. That's personal preference, I know. I'll accept that Vista is faster in a lot of things ( although they fucked up searching for files...how I'll never know, but they fucked it up ), but for my own personal tastes I prefer XP.
 
My final thoughts:

The OP shouldn't look at this from a "giving up" point of view, but instead a "wow, look what I gained" one. It's not about loss, it's about gain, really.

Only time will tell if he/she/it gets that, I suppose...
 
I'll probably stick to xp x64 until ati stops making drivers for it lol. Too many programs installed and too many downloads to back up right now. :)
 
Cmustang87 said:
IS THIS THREAD STILL GOING ON?
Click to expand...

Becaue this is actually quite an intresting topic. This debate goes back three years when Vista was coming out and a ton of people at the time were saying that Vista's main competition would be XP. It was one time when the media chorus was right on the money.

So is XP still that good? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!!!!!!!!! People are mistaking native application and driver compatiblity of apps that never got updated and using that as way to say that XP is still just as good as ever and they are so offbase its just plain strange.
 
heatlesssun said:
So is XP still that good? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!!!!!!!!! People are mistaking native application and driver compatiblity of apps that never got updated and using that as way to say that XP is still just as good as ever and they are so offbase its just plain strange.
Click to expand...
I'd argue that this is subjective; what's good for you may not be good for me. You say vista is faster in games than XP? Sure, that's an objective measurement. But a blanket "it's better" is based on your own perceptions and experiences. You may like the interface better in vista/7 than XP, whereas I do not.

As far as the OP's question; it looks like for his purposes, he wants the objective measurements. And if the tests bear it out, he should go with 7/vista over xp.

Everyone's requirements are different. Dismissing some just because you don't agree with them is as silly as me dismissing yours because I don't like them.
 
XOR != OR said:
I'd argue that this is subjective; what's good for you may not be good for me. You say vista is faster in games than XP? Sure, that's an objective measurement. But a blanket "it's better" is based on your own perceptions and experiences. You may like the interface better in vista/7 than XP, whereas I do not.

As far as the OP's question; it looks like for his purposes, he wants the objective measurements. And if the tests bear it out, he should go with 7/vista over xp.

Everyone's requirements are different. Dismissing some just because you don't agree with them is as silly as me dismissing yours because I don't like them.
Click to expand...

Everything is subjective to some extent. One can talk about the XP vs the 7 interface and things of that nature sure. But let's face it. At this point XP GETS NOTHING ON ITS OWN. It's features and capabilities are frozen forever, at least officially from Microsoft. Unless you need things like DX 3D support you get XP from free with Windows Enterprise/Ultimate anyway. By now at least 90% of the stuff that didn't work on Vista upon release probably does. Stuff that only works on XP is pretty much not well supported anyway, at least in the consumer market.

WINDOWS 7 IS WITHOUT QUESTION A SUPERIOR OS OVERALL TO XP. XP has a GUI that certain people like and works with older apps. That's it. It's got nothing else on 7 and that's what bugs people. It's like saying a Nintendo 64 is better than a Wii because the Wii doesn't play 64 games. Sure from a personal perspective but from the overall technical perspective that garbage.

If you like XP better than 7 then sure you like it better than 7. But XP is simply old and done. It's got a great past but no future. The model T was a great car. But it isn't now. The Nintendo 64 was a great console. But it isn't now. The CRT was cool. But not any more. All of these technologies are still around, every now and then we all run into a model T on the road. Very cool but the past.

But history teaches us that things change. What was once great gets one uped. Windows 7 is the finest desktop OS ever developed for those who want to use a computer to do any and every and all things possible on a desktop computer. Period.

And next year maybe Chrome OS passes it by, maybe Ubuntu 10, maybe something else. The past is the past. The future is yet to come and XP has none. The king is dead. Turn the page.
 
I'll grant you those points, there's no arguing them. XP isn't getting new features.

I guess what bugs me the most is that people do say, as you did, that one OS is better than another. To me, that's the wrong way to think about OSes. I don't sit down at my computer to play with the OS. I sit down to do work in Office, browse the web, play games. To that end, the 'best' OS is the one that does what I ( or anyone else ) needs it to do with the minimal amount of fuss. The 'best' is entirely dependent on what the end user wants, and thus is subjective.

You wouldn't say that 7 is better than Redhat, would you? Why? Because it's an apples to oranges comparison. Same with just about every OS out there. XP still meets the needs of many people, and thus for them it's the 'best' OS.
 
XOR != OR said:
I'll grant you those points, there's no arguing them. XP isn't getting new features.

I guess what bugs me the most is that people do say, as you did, that one OS is better than another. To me, that's the wrong way to think about OSes. I don't sit down at my computer to play with the OS. I sit down to do work in Office, browse the web, play games. To that end, the 'best' OS is the one that does what I ( or anyone else ) needs it to do with the minimal amount of fuss. The 'best' is entirely dependent on what the end user wants, and thus is subjective.

You wouldn't say that 7 is better than Redhat, would you? Why? Because it's an apples to oranges comparison. Same with just about every OS out there. XP still meets the needs of many people, and thus for them it's the 'best' OS.
Click to expand...

Sure Windows XP meets the needs of a lot of people and works for them still I said that more than once. That doesn't mean that technologically its better. In fact, just because XP meets ones needs doesn't even mean that Windows 7 meets one's needs better.

Let's break it down. When it comes to XP's "superiority" over Windows 7, proponents of that argument invariably mention three things.

1. Legacy compatibility
2. The Windows GUI shell
3. Performance, especially on older hardware

Fair enough. So let's look at each one:

Legacy Compatibility

When did running software that has design flaws become a feature? Most of the stuff that I've seen, especially business oriented stuff that didn't work on Vista was because the software simply was badly designed. Assuming full administrative rights? Come on! That's utter BS. Now I understand that's not the only issue but for business users you now have XP mode in Windows 7 and solves a great deal of issues while isolating crap software to the crap software box or VM. Software that violates the least privledged user principle is evil.

So my point here is simple. Compatibility is uber important I get that. But Vista/7 have better security and as a result don't play well with certain apps. That's bad software design on the app side. So while XP may serve legacy needs to confuse that with "my app doesn't work with Windows 7 so 7 sucks" is ignorant. There is often a VERY good reason why some older apps don't work.

Windows 7 will break certain apps BY DESIGN and that ain't always a bad thing.

The Windows GUI shell

Very subjective so I won't say much other than a Start Menu that expands to fill the known universe isn't all that cool to me.

Performance, especially on older hardware

So an eight year old OS will run better on hardware made eight years ago. Once again, useful to some people with older hardware. But by that logic would DOS be even better? How low do you want to go? And with 7 plenty of people are seeing that in certain cases 7 is working well with older hardware.

Look at this list. It's all about the way things were. If you're all about the past, then XP might very well fit the bill and be a better solution than Windows 7.

Why Windows 7 is MUCH better than XP

1. Security

XP's security model sucks. Microsoft knew it. Why do you think that changed it so radically in Vista and scrificed so much backward compatibliy with XP? THEY HAD TO! In fact I was kind of happy to see just how much crappy software did break in Vista because to me it proved for the first time that Microsoft was SERIOUS about security. Microsoft was willing to take it on the chin to do the right thing about security.

2. Bug Fixes

XP has a LOT of annoying bugs. Windows Explorer in XP is crap. XP forgets window settings faster than I do names. Microsoft has put more work into fixing things that have plauged Windows for years into the 7 release than they ever have. This was a release that finally answered the critics in a real way. Fix your bugs!

3. Feature Set

So XP runs older software, some people like the shell better and it performs better on older hardware. So let's list some 7 features

XP Mode
DX 10,11
BitLocker
AppLocker
Touch Interface
Much better multi-core/multi-CPU support and threading
Much better security
Libraries - this really is a killer feature that I can't live without now
ISO burning
Much better Media Center with support for things like ClearQAM
Really impressive usuability features like voice recognition, much better handwritting recognition

And so on...

So XP works better on older hardware, runs older apps better natively and some people like the GUI better. And 7 does what now?:cool:
 
Again, can't argue the specific points. And when you say that 7 is better technologically, that is a perfectly valid statement and one which I can agree.

However, I don't think I'm quite making myself clear. Think about it like this; XP fills a niche. Vista/7 could never fill the same niche, indeed, 7 will never fill the same niche as Vista ( although I'd be hard pressed to come up with a reason to use Vista over 7, I am sure there are some ). So while 7 is technologically better than XP, it might not perform the same functionality that XP does ( or indeed, 2k for that matter ).

Further, I think you are dismissing the importance of the interface. For you and I? Ya, we can adapt and adjust. This is what we do, so a new interface is just something to get used to. Me? I wish MS would leave the major elements alone, or at least give me a way to get back to a 2k-type interface. The new interfaces, in a lot of cases, don't provide me with an additional benefit.

For your average user? You change the interface, they wig out. Vista was a radical departure from the 2k theme which XP was merely continuing ( which I suspect is one of the major reasons for it's negative reception ). Why would I want to subject my mother, for instance, to such a radical change ( and myself in the process ) when she's comfortable with xp? If all she's doing is email/web/pictures, vista and 7 offer no benefits above and beyond xp does.For her, and for many like her, XP is the 'better' OS, even if it's not the technical best.

Now, if I could go off on a tangent for a moment, this is why IT and computers in general have a bad reputation with average people; there is too much of a drive to change things ( usually the interface ) for change's sake. To me, that's all Vista/7's interfaces changes have been. I'm sure there is added functionality, I don't dispute that. But USEFUL added functionality? Not for me. And not, I bet, for a majority of people who use vista/7.
 
Most of this is logical and yes I do agree that often change is for change's sake. But there is the other side of that phenomenon, fear of change because its change. If we only do the things we are used to then how to we as people grow and learn? There's almost ALWAYS a better way to do something if we only are willing to try and I think that's the thing that bothers those like me.

Much has been said of the radical change in the Superbar. I've put Windows 7 betas on 6 machines that people have asked me to rebuild because they were running like crap, 4 XP machines and 2 Vista machines. Just ordinary non-IT folks from 20 to 53 and not ONE of them had a problem figuring out the Superbar. Not one.

And if you think that things like Aero Snap or the ability to type in "password" in the Start Menu box and have the Start Menu actually pop up "Change your Windows password" is change for the sake of change I think that you're mistaken. It's MUCH easier to find things in Windows 7, even more so than Vista. As much as one may like XP's interface these are things that it simply doesn't do out of the box.

So if you like the XP interface over Vista/7 that's personal choice. To miss out on the things that the new interface does better than the old one is blindness.
 
Try playing a DTS encoded audio disc thru your computer and decode at your home theater reciever with Vista. Easy task with XP.

The fortune 500 company I work for just upgraded from 2000 to XP, I think it will be supported for a while by MS or other companies.
 
glen said:
Try playing a DTS encoded audio disc thru your computer and decode at your home theater reciever with Vista. Easy task with XP.
Click to expand...

You're kidding right? Even easier with Vista/7....

Insert disk > Open DVD in player > play movie

The DTS signal is sent out over S/PDIF...
 
Last edited:
glen said:
Try playing a DTS encoded audio disc thru your computer and decode at your home theater reciever with Vista. Easy task with XP.

The fortune 500 company I work for just upgraded from 2000 to XP, I think it will be supported for a while by MS or other companies.
Click to expand...

Out of the box, 7 KILLS XP on the media play front. XP won't even play DVD's out of the box.
 
glen said:
The fortune 500 company I work for just upgraded from 2000 to XP, I think it will be supported for a while by MS or other companies.
Click to expand...
Then your Fortune 500 needs to higher new IT Staff. Since you are throwing around that title as if to say it holds some weight in what Microsoft will do, then you need to realize they can throw around the same weight to get very very good discounts. I wouldn't give the name of that company, because it would be an embarassment that they are just now upgrading to an 8 year old OS.
 
glen said:
Try playing a DTS encoded audio disc thru your computer and decode at your home theater reciever with Vista. Easy task with XP.

The fortune 500 company I work for just upgraded from 2000 to XP, I think it will be supported for a while by MS or other companies.
Click to expand...

n00b! :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top