It’s hard to leave XP — Is it just me or what?

Topic

New Reply

I find myself still using XP (a lot more) than Win7.

I guess any OS is a software development methodology that encompasses the entire lifecycle of a project but the $$$ are still march’s on.

I kind of know Win7 will start rubbing on me!!!!

Reply | Quote

Replies

I seldom use XP any more. Only when I have to because of the machine I’m using. It looks and feels very dated to me now.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

I find myself still using XP (a lot more) than Win7.

I guess any OS is a software development methodology that encompasses the entire lifecycle of a project but the $$$ are still march’s on.

I kind of know Win7 will start rubbing on me!!!!

“Jagster”
Hello….I have just recently ( month or so ) installed XP-Pro ..As i have only started with “home PC’s” with “Vista”.. Just wanted to see what all the fuss was about..So now i multi-boot XP-Pro, Vista, and “7”and LINUX things…(mix of 32 and 64 bit OS’s)… When comparing them on the same PC,with most all the same software.. I have reached the following conclusions….

1. With some “Tweaks ” you can make them all look alike…

2.They all do the same basic function (running the same programs ) Internet “stuff” etc.

3. XP-Pro is the slowest booting up followed by Vista and “7” up in like an “eye blink” ( 32 bit OS’s for comparison )

4. Running wise …XP-Pro is “wicked fast” .. ( clicking on stuff observation).. It’s so small backups take longer to input, than to finish (hyperbole) ….Like about half the size of the rest…

5. With a good security strategy applied to all…. NIS 2012 and Malwarebytes PRO…I’m not worried one bit staying with XP-Pro…Think that MS wants to just “Dump” XP so they can get you to switch to a new and improved OS.. As for the rest …Just “Eye Candy”.. Who really cares about “Memory Management” or whatever reason they give you “Why you should switch”.. Who knows maybe there correct … when i E mail my “Aunt Betty” my latest recipe…. i should be concerned about memory management:lol: Regards Fred

Reply | Quote

I’m with Joe – working on XP is like going back in time. It feels dated and outdated. Even Vista looks a bit weird.

Reply | Quote

I’m with Joe – working on XP is like going back in time. It feels dated and outdated. Even Vista looks a bit weird.

Hi rui,
Like i said “Eye Candy”….. Fact is you can make XP look like Vista or “7”… Mix and Match
Regards Fred

Reply | Quote

I’m with Joe – working on XP is like going back in time. It feels dated and outdated. Even Vista looks a bit weird.

I live in a funny world. My work computer is still using XP Pro, though they will be upgrading to Win 7 in the spring – 10,000 plus pc’s and hundreds of applications take time to convert and test. But it is fast as lightning and works perfectly even though we apply patches three weeks after release due to testing them against our applications – government work you know? I had intended to keep my home XP Pro Sp3 until Microsoft stopped supporting it in 2014 but a fried motherboard with the cost of repair nearly that of a new pc caused me to move to Win 7 Home Premium 64 bit. Since I work from home sometimes (we are in what is called a ROWE – Results Only Working Environment – in which where and when you work isn’t important as long as you produce the required results, this began in Best Buy Corporate but is spreading) and have both machines on at the same time, moving back and forth, and to be honest, functionality isn’t an issue, I tuned my Win 7 to my liking and my work pc, HP Laptop actually, is tuned to IT requirements, but working on either or surfing or searching the internet (I use a Cisco hardwired router – don’t trust wireless yet and maybe never will) (of course my work pc is behind a virtually impenetrable firewall too, I connect to that network using NetMotion) I find no real difference everything works, seamlessly, whichever system I am using. And I’ve grown fond of Win 7, it automates some functions better than XP, but both are still easily usable in the Internet world and I hardly notice a difference between them at all. :^)

Reply | Quote

Agreed. As I wrote in another thread, I have just streamlined and stripped down my old Dell XP machine so that I can use it strictly for things that don’t run on Win7. Couldn’t believe how ‘clunky’ it seemed. Like Jagworld, I was a big hold-out to coming in to the Win7 scene….. well, I always have been reluctant to leave the security of a comfortable OS, but almost 2 years ago I bought a laptop with Win 7 and found that I liked it. Now this will probably cause a lot of hootin’ and hollerin’ but the simplicity of operation reminded me of Win 3.1. Then I bought my husband a Win7 laptop for Christmas and finally this past January the 6 year old Dell was getting crankier and crankier so I bought a new desktop with win7. Very happy with it. I DO not want to even think about Win8, [Don’t like what I have seen of the screens].

BJ

Reply | Quote

There are certain things W7 does better and certain things XP Pro does better, but by far and large, if we were looking at the DNA matches, like comparing Chimpanzees and Humans, they’re almost identical; even more so with third party support, which neither can do without, unless one is willing to rely solely on the inferior performance (again, compared to third party offerings) of many of the built in improvements (DVD burning, disk/partition management, security, etc.).

Mary Jo Foley and Paul Thurrott were discussing it a bit on the last WW podcast; Paul sighed very deeply and said people just need to move on! Mary said something to the effect that Microsoft outdid themselves and created something that was too successful, so successful that they were having a heck of a time killing it.

Both statements ring true for me, especially the later, and I think Paul just doesn’t have the patience required to see his exasperation through to fruition. Windows 98, Win2k (even though it may have been every bit as good or better than XP in the day) is not really usable anymore…the day will come when XP is in a similar boat…granted it might not be for another half decade or so but its coming.
In the meantime, I’m firmly in the OPs camp, use both all the time but given the choice I’d wave 7 on down the road, its a little too monolithic for me (I have many systems of both flavors running) and doesn’t have the same intuitive navigation that I’ve become so accustomed to in XP…and if that hasn’t rubbed off on me in two years of use…doesn’t seem likely it will.

A big part of this is Microsoft’s fault too…they didn’t let Win7 fly her full colors (potential) by restricting function in certain uses. For instance I use Windows a TON in remote desktop situations….how sick do you think I am of staring at the same basic blue theme of W7 in remote for two years now…and no peek either; restricted restricted restricted in W7…funny thing is, with third party programs, I have peek in XP and of course themes are not stripped in remote desktop either.

So that’s my final point….don’t shoot yourself in the foot Microsoft, might get somewhere a bit quicker if you don’t do that.

Reply | Quote

I don’t think I’ll ever find myself with a use for XP anymore. 64 bit computing is where it’s at.
What a huge difference going from windows 7 back to XP. XP is just flat no matter what you do to spruce it up, it just doesn’t measure up anymore.
To me, dumping programs that only worked in XP is a total non issue.

Reply | Quote

Fred,

No amount of plastic surgery can make an old thing younger. It may look younger on first sight, but beyond that surface layer, the old age will show no matter what.

Regards

Rui

Reply | Quote

Instead of speaking anthropomorphically, or in vague pronouncements, maybe a few examples of things you need to accomplish, that you can only accomplish or draw a distinct advantage in UI in using W7, and that which a third party application/utility is not equally or more adept at accomplishing, would speak to reason.
Otherwise it just sounds like harummph harumpphhh harummphh! XP harumppffff, harummpffff!

I have two to start, rename/tab function in W7 helps my productivity, just a little, but a distinct advantage over XP. However, whole line file selection in W7 slows me down as much or more, not nearly as convenient as field selection in XP for someone who processes many files every day because in W7, open file windows are almost never wide enough to multi-select with just a quick mouse swipe, and be especially careful using drag and drop cuz its easy to put stuff inside a folder in the folder you intend it for, and lose it or double up cuz one wonders why it didn’t copy over (when it actually did), or have an executable attempt to execute the data because the drop was not quite to free space. XP don’t have to worry about that, just don’t drop on the name field and everything is copacetic.

So tell me why whole line selection is better; one has to scroll vertically to locate a file right? So its really inconvenient to have to scroll in the name field to make a selection instantly when found or what’s the theory? And how do you handle multiple contiguous file selection? Check boxes, non-details view, hold control or shift key down? Hopefully not because all of those methods are not as efficient or informational as the XP method I’ve described which is not available in W7.

I’ve already described how short I feel W7 falls in the remote desktop department so give me some good arguments for whole line selection…Ok…go!!…

Reply | Quote

or in vague pronouncements, maybe a few examples of things you need to accomplish, that you can only accomplish or draw a distinct advantage in UI in using W7, and that which a third party application/utility is not equally or .
Otherwise it just sounds like harummph harumpphhh harummphh! XP harumppffff, harummpffff!

.Ok…go!!…

“Ifc”,
Hello.. OK ..Here’s my ….XP”harummphh”
For the average person ..(like me) Who only run one OS at a time …Who also only use their PC for
1. E-Mail
2. Internet Research (various topics)
3. On line purchasing, Banking, etc.
4. Running our favorite programs…. your choice.

It does not matter what OS you run with …Other than you like some particular OS “Eye candy” ..XP, Vista , “7” , Linux…
What…… does “7” run any “Normal Human” ( non Geek) program any better than XP?… Answer NO! unless you can differentiate uSec’s from mSec’s. Please us normal “folk” don’t run space shuttle calculations….:cheers: Regards Fred
PS: Final thought… The only good (real) reason for an average person to upgrade from XP… is that you want to.

Reply | Quote

Fred,

You should not presume everybody is like you…

Now, replying to the challenge, here goes.

The killer feature in 7 for me is resource usage:
– 7 really is the first Windows 64 bit version that can be used and is compatible with even older hardware;
– 64 bit means that you can go over that 4 GB RAM limit, which is very good for someone like me, that tipically have:
– one webserver running several development sites
– a SQL Server database server
– a MySQL database server
– Visual Studio 2010 open with some web or windows app
– Windows Media or other music streaming app;
– Internet Explorer with several tabs open (this includes WSL and some other places I administer);
– 7 is much more effective running on multicore CPUs, which means that this usage pattern is handle much better than it would be on XP.

– UI features I really like and are helpful in 7:
– pinned apps – my most frequent apps are there, which means I access them much faster than having to go through the start menu;
– search feature from the Windows Orb
– Jump lists from the Start menu
– For apps in the Start menu, it’s great to start them while opening a file, a project, or ftpying to a recently used site;
– Taskbar previews: great to jump to the proper app window, be it in IE, Word, Powerpoint or Excel (for example);
– In Windows Explorer (and file choosing dialogs), I really like the possibility to check select one or more files.

These are probably the ones I like and use most of the time.

Reply | Quote

You should not presume everybody is like you…

rui,
Hello… Neither should you presume that everyone is like you either …. I would be willing to wager that there are millions like me and two of you (Infiicore and you) Sorry I’m never going to agree …also have two 64 bit OS’s ….No difference for us “unwashed” in running the day to day…. sending my “potato salad recipe’s” to my Aunt Betty.:cheers: Regards Fred

Reply | Quote

One of the biggest draws to XP, and drawback to 7 is the fact that you can still do an image backup to a single DVD.
When it comes to memory management Windows 7 is superior to XP, add 64 bit computing and you have a whole new life on graphics
related computing.
Windows 7 also refines taking advantage of more CPU cores and threads than does Windows XP’s antiquated os code.

One of the biggest things you hear people drizzle and whine about between XP and 7 is supposedly user interface related issues.
Windows explorer as an example does basically the same thing aside from a few minor inconveniences.
Get over it, it’s still very functional and it’s a totally minor issue.

Reply | Quote

Not a bad list, I do take issue with again trying to minimize U.I. shortcomings because while correct that they are relatively minor inconveniences, its day after day after day 24/7/365 that they are minor inconveniences….meanwhile I have both 64bitW7 and XP Pro running on 4 gig 4 and 6 core systems and with 12-15 applications and windows open, cannot tell a bit of difference in memory management. It probably is superior, but how would I notice…point is, its not affecting me in the slightest if it is inferior.

For ruirib, I like your list, shows how you use W7 and the very reason there is even a discussion, there are many ways to get the same task accomplished in Windows. I didn’t even think of the excellent position of the search feature because I’m lucky if I’ve used it 6 times in 2 years and I’m always moving forward through a mountainous stack of data so jumplists aren’t terribly effective for me except where remote desktop is concerned…I liked that so much in W7 that I added a toolbar of remote desktops to the XP taskbar. I also don’t really care for pinned apps in among the running apps so I pin them to the start menu instead or put the ones I use all the time in quick launch. Also I can’t stand check box selection, when I find the files I want, possibly among hundreds to look through, I don’t want to have to stop and start checking each one, I want one quick mouse sweep gesture and then I’ll use the ctrl key/hover for any that are not contiguous after that, something that is difficult to do in W7 with whole line selection without pulling the window out wider to begin with.

I agree completely with taskbar previews…unfortunately for me, they don’t work in remote desktop (unless the server is Ultimate and the client is W7….now accepting donations to upgrade the fleet!), which still wouldn’t be a problem as the labels would be enough, EXCEPT, I open different source folders of images with FastStone and XnView (which also allows multiple instances), and I cannot remember which app I have open on which source folder as I move back and forth between two image editors. So the preview windows show XnView, XnView and FastStone; no images, really frustrating, but with a little 3rd party app for XP, I do have taskbar preview; not clickable but all I need is the visual clue to folder identity; so this is a case where a supposed feature of W7 is disabled and useless but can be added to XP and is not disabled.

So, I completely respect your list and how you’ve made W7 work excellently for you, and I hope I’ve demonstrated how for someone else, the W7 interface can come up quite lacking and not as responsive as XP modifications. Its not like I sit here and try to dream up ideas on how to show W7 in a bad light, these things just come up for me all the time…if I could make W7 work for me exclusively, I certainly would because it does have a sense of modernity that XP does not have (64 bit for the future for example), and finally, I don’t base anything on emotional responses (just ask any of my former girlfriends!).

Reply | Quote

Like most old people, I’m reluctant to change, especially when it’s something that works as well as XP. From the first try of Win7 I was hooked. The “eye candy” as you yanks call it, is a definite winner, but there are so many other things you find as you go along, you also will be hooked. I troubleshoot for all the pcs in my retirement village & when it comes to networking, Win7 is a clear winner. So, Mate, my advice to you is get in there now before Win8 steamrollers you! Good luck.

Reply | Quote

I have a harem Windows XP, Windows 98SE, and from Apple Power box with OS X and a 1400 CS. Marrying Ubuntu Linux this month. I am engaged to Windows 7 still in the box, haven’t her garment yet.
I dont throw away an old love because she aint young anymore. 98 runs my kitchen now, seldom goes out, and stays healthy.

http://exuberant.ms11.net/98sesp.html

Reply | Quote

Well Jagworld, in response to your original question….IT’s You….

Reply | Quote

I am one of those “average persons” that Fred talks about. I came up through the ranks so to speak, starting with 3.1 and now “playing” with Win 8 DP. Perhaps it is all just “eye candy”, but I like it! I used XP for as long as it was out, both at work and home. I have totally switched to Win 7 on my home PC’s. No one will EVER convince me to go backward in time to XP, period. I like the feel of the way Win 7 works. When I’m in Win 8 DP I usually work in the desktop mode, which I have set up almost identically to my Win 7.

I do not care about listing what works best for me day to day because no matter what I say someone will dispute me on it. I just like it better. I do still use XP at work, and yes it does feel cluncky and aged when I use it. Perhaps it’s because i am not allowed to change it to suit me, who knows. The point is Win 7 just feels right to me now and XP does not.

They call these things Personal Computers for a reason. We choose what we use in the way of OSes and apps. We find something we like and we stick with it. For those of you still using XP day to day, if it feels right to you then stick with it and good for you. For those of us using Win 7, same thing. Those of us using Win 7 will never convince those of you sticking with XP to convert and vice versa. Eventually you will have to convert, but as stated, that is likely still several years away, and by that time you will likely have a different PC with a more advanced OS than Win 7.

Those of us that read forums such as the Lounge are typically not average users, we are users that like and want to get the most from out PCs. We tweak and try new things and “play” with our PCs, I suspect even those that work heavily with their PCs every day. We find something we like, and stick with it. For me right now that is Win 7! Period!

Reply | Quote

Fred,

I do not presume anything and it’s because I don’t, that I think people, especially less knowledgeable, are better server by 7 than XP. It is exactly for the same reason that I think windows updates should be applied, especially the security related ones. W7 is better security wise and it’s not me saying it, it’s the stats on infected PCs.
You say you are “unwashed”, but there is a world of difference between you and a common user regarding the knowledge you have about computing. Regular users do not dual boot or run 4 OSes. Most of them would have difficulties configuring NIS or other security apps to suit their needs.
That’s why I think people are better served by W7. They start to be, right out of the box.

Infinicore,

I totally respect your views (as of Fred, make no mistake about it, even disagreeing with him :)). Each of us uses computers in a different way and we have preferences regarding the way the different versions of Windows cater our usage. I could write about aspects of Windows 7 I really don’t like.
I have a different experience regarding memory. I find my system disk swapping a few more times than it should, so my life would be much worse on 32 bit XP. It also means I will need to consider getting a PC that can take more than 8 GB RAM :).

Regards

Reply | Quote

I agree and I respect all of your veiws and opinions as well. We tend to have a wide set of opinions and varying ways of computer usages.

For me, there is not one aspect of Windows XP that I miss with the exception of XP’s very conservative total size on disk.
I can do evrything I need to do and more with windows 7 and do it with far more sophisticated hardware.

I guess the UI differences just don’t have the impact on me as they seem to with others. To me the operating system is just a means to an end.
My main complaint with windows 7 is that it is so big and takes up so much hard disk drive space for an operating system.

So forgive me if my opinions are a little on the strong side.

Reply | Quote

I also respect all views and these great forums are why we’re here.

Fred’s post is exactly where I’m at, almost.

Hello.. OK ..Here’s my ….XP”harummphh”
For the average person ..(like me) Who only run one OS at a time …Who also only use their PC for
1. E-Mail
2. Internet Research (various topics)
3. On line purchasing, Banking, etc.
4. Running our favorite programs…. your choice.

I also think that I’ll be moving to Win7 and beyond — as we all will one day.

It’s great to vent our views—- isn’t it 🙂

BTW:
I’m in XP pro (32bit) right now and it hauls A** — even thou it shows 324gig RAM. My PC actually has 8 gig’s running a quad 4. I also love Intel.. whoops!! That’s another story.

But Hea, I might boot over to Win7 for my next post LOL.

Later !!

Reply | Quote

Things I really miss about Windows 7 when I have to run XP:

1) Jump Lists. I use them constantly in 7, probably my favorite feature.

2) Snap. Especially the ability to vertically resize the window. Comes in very handy especially since I run in a variety of different screen sizes and vertical resizing is a quick way to get the window resized fit in the screen. I also use maximizing, but not quite as often (with my large screens I prefer not to run maximized).

3) Task Bar. I also use Quick Launch bar in Win 7, but it isn’t quite the same. It’s nice knowing that the icon for a particular app will always be in the same location in the task bar. And adding Jump Lists to icons in the taskbar makes a wonderful combination. And I also like the additional controls that some apps offer when they are minimized to the taskbar.

4) 64-bit Support. While I could run 64-bit XP, finding drivers for certain hardware can be a challenge. But nowadays any piece of typical consumer hardware comes with 64-bit Win 7 drivers.

5) Peek. Often I want to see what is in another window in the background, but I don’t want to switch to it. Peek makes that possible.

6) Libraries. I use them to good advantage on my home desktop, mainly to organized my music and videos because both tend to be scattered at several locations (files in progress in one location, final cuts on on hard drive, backup copies of the final cuts on a different hard drive, and then the files that I actual play in yet another location).

Reply | Quote

I’m in XP pro (32bit) right now and it hauls A** — even thou it shows 324gig RAM. My PC actually has 8 gig’s running a quad 4. I also love Intel.. whoops!! That’s another story.

But Hea, I might boot over to Win7 for my next post LOL.

This posted from XP Pro Virtualized install.

Reply | Quote

This from XP Pro host.

Reply | Quote

This from W7 Pro VM…last 3 post all from one system…can’t stand multibooting anymore!! 😀

Reply | Quote

I agree with ‘Just Plain Fred’
I use my machine for e-mail, on-line purchasing and word-processing, with some slight desk-top publishing.
XP was fine (and so was Word before those stupid ribbon menus – I could find what I wanted much quicker before).
The XP processor packed up, and I was unable to get an XP machine (and I didn’t want to build another one).
I have Vista and & 7 on portables/laptops, but they are not a patch on XP. Both keep going down. Everything since, for me, has just been a hassle.

Reply | Quote

Can’t stand using XP now, and for multiple reasons:
First among them is the search in start menu. I love that little bar more than I love many of my siblings.
Second is Peek.
Third is wireless support/robust networking/homegroup.
Fourth is hardware support; I plug it in, it generally goes.
Fifth is the improved Event Viewer.

There are others, but I leave those to the reader as an exercise. (Sorry, exam season, I can’t help but write like my textbook authors.)

Reply | Quote

I took the cautious route to decide whether or not to switch (dual boot XP & 7) but soon made the decision to go whole hog 7. I wish I had just gone for it in the first place though because undoing the dual boot without having to do a clean slate reinstall of 7 was such a pain in the butt (messing about with the MBR for example – thank you EasyBCD!) that I wish I had bitten the bullet at the time and just gone for it. Because of this my system drive is still F: rather than C: to this very day which can cause problems with some software that assumes everyone uses C:

I have to admit that I am somewhat bemused to see people making their choice base on the functionality of Windows Explorer — I haven’t touched that thing since they replaced the excellent dual-pane File Manager with it, it’s useless to me as a single pane and I don’t see why I should have to run two instances of what is a mediocre tool at best. FreeCommander has been my file manager of choice both in XP and now in 7 and until the demise of WE that’s how it will stay!

Regards,

Jim.

Reply | Quote

I may be admitting to dinosaur status, but I mainly use my computer for bookkeeping functions, including Quicken & spreadsheets, other Office applications, online financial transactions, research on the Internet, and e-mail. My primary reasons for sticking with the XP OS is that I know how to navigate it well, it doesn’t have significant glitches, it’s reasonably secure, and I’ve already paid for it! Of course, if I buy a new computer, I’ll go with the most current system. The one exception was when I bought my current system at the last moment, while OEM’s still had XP, SPECIFICALLY to avoid Windows Vista. Should I need or desire to buy a new computer before XP support runs out in 2014, I will, of course, embrace Win7, as is seems an excellent OS. I’ll also be looking at Win8 and Windows Phone iterations as they develop. If Win8 hits the sweet spot of an OS that operates seamlessly between smartphone and laptop, I’ll go for it whole hog. If it sacrifices laptop function to maximize smartphone function, however, I will once again buy my new system “early”, to be sure to get a Win7-compatible system, as I’ll then wish to avoid Win8 as much as I wanted to avoid Vista.

Reply | Quote

Many, with a few exceptions, seem to completely ignore XP Pro x64. It seems only older hardware can be a bear to find drivers for. Usually the same hardwares that Vista didn’t support. XP x64 does offer better memory support than XP x86, up to 24GB which should be more than enough for most users. Software that supports Vista and Win7 x64 versions usually also support XP x64 except for Microsoft. As for performance, I run Seti@Home 24/7 at 100% CPU time on all my machines (6 now) and get the best performance from the XP x64 boxes. The bells & whistles with later Windows versions do come at a performance cost based on what I’ve observed. My combined Seti average is currently70K work units per day with a total completed of 27.2 million (23.47 quintillion floating-point operations). I’ll eventually have to move to another OS, but not before XP support ends. After that we’ll see.

Reply | Quote

Many, with a few exceptions, seem to completely ignore XP Pro x64. It seems only older hardware can be a bear to find drivers for. Usually the same hardwares that Vista didn’t support. XP x64 does offer better memory support than XP x86, up to 24GB which should be more than enough for most users. Software that supports Vista and Win7 x64 versions usually also support XP x64 except for Microsoft. As for performance, I run Seti@Home 24/7 at 100% CPU time on all my machines (6 now) and get the best performance from the XP x64 boxes. The bells & whistles with later Windows versions do come at a performance cost based on what I’ve observed. My combined Seti average is currently70K work units per day with a total completed of 27.2 million (23.47 quintillion floating-point operations). I’ll eventually have to move to another OS, but not before XP support ends. After that we’ll see.

The problem with XP x64, as you stated correctly, is hardware support. Windows 7 has no such issues.

Regarding performance, on my oldest hardware, a tablet PC from 2005, Windows 7 is faster than XP.

Reply | Quote

I suspect for a lot of people, “hard to leave” is probably not the right phrase – try: ” if it ain’t broken, why fix it?”
At this point, there is no burning need to stop using my XP machine, and good financial reasons for keeping XP alive. Still works when I want to: web-surf, email, word process, create the occassional basic poster or newsletter, score and transpose music, do some basic photo editing, etc. When I have to replace the machine, I’ll be replacing several older programs at the same time, which will come close to doubling the cost of the new computer. In our house, this is not an insignificant extra expense.
I’m willing to bet a lot of people (including Loungers) are in the same boat: very hard to justify spending the extra coin when money is tight, and something still works “good enough”.
FYI: Two kids in college, and five computers in the house – a desktop and two laptops running Windows 7 64 bit, an older Acer single core running XP (Dad’s machine), and an ancient HP running various flavours of Linux (Dad’s toy). I manage security, software, networking and hardware support for everything under our roof. Occassionally, if I talk extra nice to the wife, I may be allowed to use our new laptop, and play in Windows 7.

Reply | Quote

The reason that I am moving away from Windows is that Microsoft can think of only one customer, the humongous mega-corporation. They completely ignore the fact that many users still exist who are perfectly capable of handling security better than Microsoft can. The Redmond control freaks simply will not allow the option of letting me take care of security in my own way. THEY know how I should be using my computer and they are ABSOLUTELY DETERMINED to FORCE me to use my computer the way THEY deem appropriate, and no other way. Thus the ENDLESS parade of “Access denied”, you are violating this or that “Policy”, and the myriad of other control issues you see posted in this forum with desperate pleas for help from the more knowledgeable. Microsoft’s intense focus on controlling exactly how you use your computer MAY make sense in some mega-corporate environment, but it most certainly does not in the privacy and security of my own home.

I have a simple recipe for securing my personal data, writing, and engineering work which has never failed once. My secure computer is never connected to the internet except when I am absolutely FORCED to. And when would that be? Why when the Microsoft Corporation forces me to, as in updates. Since I have no security problems, I ignore the vast majority of updates since they are focused on security flaws in Microsoft’s bloated op sys. My internet access is exclusively by a “sacrificial” computer which is imaged regularly and contains no sensitive information. Files from the internet are scanned by multiple security apps and transferred by USB dongle to the secure machine, where I do my work. Even if worms and such get thru my scans, they can’t “phone home” because there is no “phone” for them to use!

My problem with Win7 is that this plethora of denied access and policy violation rubbish has been crafted in a way which very effectively prohibits me from turning them off on my secure computer. After all, Microsoft, and only Microsoft, knows how my computer should be used. I would argue that THIS is why XP and older versions of Windows live on. I do not have to spend hours of my time in forums like this most excellent one, begging for help in getting around Microsoft’s endless control efforts. If you back off and take in the overview, I think that you will see that the majority of the issues discussed in this forum revolve around people’s desire to get around Microsoft denying their efforts to do what they want to do.

Mass media has stories about how we damaged Iran’s enrichment facilities with the Stuxnet Worm and that retribution is likely coming in the form of similar attacks on our power distribution grid, and so on. Hey folks, just don’t connect these machines to the world wide internet! Instead, just use dedicated lines connected only to these sensitive machines. That’s what our military does. You can bet that’s what Iran is doing now. The very best protection from internet attack and damage is don’t connect your machine with sensitive information to the internet! I wonder why Microsoft assumes that every computer on the planet is so connected!

Reply | Quote

One of the best things about Windows, irregardless of operating system, is that it can be configured and run as one wishes , for the most part.
The pretense that MS is controlling or forcing users to adapt to their security is a completely false & subjective veiwpoint. [whine]

It is well known and has been well established over the years that the vast majority of Windows users comprise the very least knowledgable user base
in all of [computingdom] when it comes to using and understanding computers. This is no surprise coming from the company that nearly single handedly brought computing to the masses. The response to protect those millions of clueless users over the years is finally begining to pay off imo.

It is therefore welcome that the latest incarnations of Windows has taken on a more Linux style form security in terms of access and policy restrictions.
This is a very very good thing in terms of security for all those millions of users who don’t understand computers and computer security that this has been done for them.
These restrictions can largely be circumvented to a degree by the advanced and more suave user if one wishes, it’s not rocket science. You can still configure your computer the way you want it, but you have to at least be motivated to make an effort to learn and research these things…even if you have been using computers for a long time.

Nobody says UAC has to be on.
Nobody says the WU has to be run in it’s default full throttle on mode.
Nobody says settings can’t be modified in gpedit.
Nobody says that file & folder restrictions can’t be removed with a quick download and a single click.
Nobody says you can’t turn off features you don’t want, like Home Group or Libraries.

Reply | Quote

I agree there’s nothing approaching anything resembling overlording force, and all the real improvements are welcome, even if some do infringe somewhat on ease of use. Radical viewpoints aside though, there is an increasing puff (mark that, puff, not breeze, not wind, not gale force…puff) of “Apple-ization” (the “my way or the highway” Jobsian approach) that an advanced user can bump into, and find it lacking because those settings are no longer available or its been changed to work another way that isn’t quite as copacetic for that user; and there just is no way to get that approach back again…often for the good of the whole but still, not available for the power user or efficiency minded user who doesn’t have a use for the good of the whole approach.

Hmm, difficult to render that concept without sounding like a nob!

Some would say, ho, well, yes, obviously that means LINUX…but, there’s a reason Microsoft charges a pretty penny for their OS and LINUX OS distros are free for the most part…and Microsoft is standing at the bar getting a cold one after the mile long race and LINUX is still on the track.

Back to XP and W7 though; it was another great point a user brought up again about using a third party explorer for both XP and W7 because for him it was superior to both…and that’s the point I’ve made before, about 90% of everything I do in XP I’m doing more efficiently or adroitly than either XP or W7 can do on its own. Third party software is the GREAT EQUALIZER period. Example, what if the newest version of that same explorer came out and suddenly now it doesn’t support XP, only W7; suddenly there is a rift and depending on what stages of subsequent development that software goes trough from that point on, significant differences may come about between the newest version and the static version that is still compatible with XP. That is happening, to no significant degree that I can tell, but nonetheless, fostering slowly but surely.

In the meantime, ignoring that for bare metal comparisons between XP and W7 is like ignoring an elephant in a very small room. You go up against me with either with no third party support and I’ll knock one to the moon before you even get your baseball uniform on.
So very much in keeping with the axiom that an OS should just be a means to an end, I just happen to like XP’s underpinnings a bit better than W7’s, others will like W7’s better; save the bigotry for something else.

Regarding performance, on my oldest hardware, a tablet PC from 2005, Windows 7 is faster than XP.

Part of the reason I use XP is its speed and nimble intuitive navigation panes. All evidence that I have refutes this notion and while I do not have statistical data, every test I’ve done points to XP as the winner there. Only because I’ve taken memory and CPU bandwidth away until I see the difference which is to say in normal use on everyday capable systems, one is not going to notice a difference. I also made test beds (only two, so again, not statistical data but in line data that does not contradict) with W7x64 as host and XP Pro as host and put two VMs on SSDs on each and limited RAM to 4 gigs on each, so W7x64 should have an extra .75 to 1.25 gigs of usable RAM compared to XP Pro…its not enough extra, the W7x64 system runs out of resources and starts hitting the pagefile much harder than XP PRo when I get a couple rendering and conversion programs going on the VMs and start also tasking the hosts. Render times in the W7x64 host VM’s can be as much as double those in the XP pro host VMs.
Now of course, I can go to 8 gigs of RAM in the W7x64 system and smooth that difference out and maybe even perform a bit better than the XP Pro host because it is limited to 3 gigs of RAM no matter what I do, but still on a resource equalized playing field, no, XP is more efficient, faster, more nimble; in my experimentation at least. So I will put in more RAM and see if there is any justification for adopting a 64-bit OS for more systems or not…again based on means to an end. I’m quite satisfied with the processors utilization to work accomplished ratio presently but who knows, I might get blown away, I certainly have the open mind to accept that if it does happen.

I certainly was skeptical about SSDs adding anything more than somewhat falsely perceived speed just because the OS and programs start faster, but it turns out there’s a definite sinusoidal curve in the difference between mechanical access and SSD access and interaction with RAM that sheds a whole new light on running VMs. Quite literally it went from something that was an infrequent test bed and lacking responsiveness, to a full blown viable alternative to multiboot AND imaging. I don’t expect to get THAT blown away again any time soon!

Reply | Quote

It’s not just you.

Microsoft has been desperate to get people to switch from XP SP2 to XP SP3 or Vista or Win7 because they can’t get full control of your computer with XP SP2. They can get partial control with SP3, or if you succumb to using any of their “LIVE” incarnations, but it takes Vista or Win7 and the fritz-chip (that is built into “Vista-Ready” (and beyond) machines) for them (and their “cooperating” vendors) to take over full control of your PC. Read on….

Any OS from Microsoft after XP SP2 is spyware and controlware under the cover of an “OS” and (mark my words) it will eventually cost you. I will use XP SP2 as long as it continues to meet my needs; when it fails to do so, then I will be moving completely to Linux. I will not use Microsoft’s “live” ANYthing, because it is Microsoft’s entry into your machine (even if you are using XP) (ask if you want specific examples). I will not be putting ANY Microsoft OS (beyond XP SP2) on ANY computer in my home. To do otherwise means YOU no longer control your own computer – it isn’t yours anymore – it’s a platform for Microsoft, to be controlled by Microsoft – YOU just get to PAY for it!

With the assistance of the “fritz-chip” and post-XP OSs, Microsoft and other “cooperating” vendors can (believe it or not) turn your machine ON from standby, hibernate, or OFF!!! in the middle of the night while you are sleeping (as long as it has access to electricity and an internet connection). When you turn one of these PCs off, they aren’t completely off, they still run a small amount of power through the unit to maintain power to the fritz-chip. They (MS & their coop vendors) can find your PC, turn it on, “examine” everything on it that is not encrypted, modify or delete your files, disable your software (technically THEIR software now), and then return your machine to it’s previous state.

They claim they won’t use the technology to do this, but they have already done it, so far in a limited way, but the technology to do whatever they wish with your PC is built into the hardware and the OS – and no, you cannot remove it. If you try to remove or disable it, it can restore everything it wants for remote operation, bringing your machine into what they call “compliance.” Eventually, they will disable/remove functionality from your software whenever they want an injection of funds (moving money from your pocket to theirs). And they call this “Trusted Computing.”

I am at a loss why people don’t read up on something or follow the technical information newsletters & vendor white pages (like Intel) before they turn their computer over to Microsoft. All I know is, I did my research, and it ain’t happenin’ to me.

I also advise staying as far away as you can from “the Cloud” – trouble? Just wait and see. If you use an app “in the cloud” you are paying by the month (or whatever unit) and you create and use data with this app. – well if you ever decide you don’t want to continue paying – guess what? Kiss all your data goodbye – even if you have saved copies on your own PC, you won’t have access to the software to view it!! Welcome to “The Cloud” – great idea for vendors – horrible idea for users. I want all my programs and all my data where it belongs – on MY PC. And I want programs that will function forever with the data I have, should I decide to stop updating/upgrading. I want to be able to read my old Money/Quicken files.

I canned Quicken because they started trying to force updates down my throat, whether I wanted them or not. I probably upgraded 5 times or so, but now they get NO money from me at all, and never will again. I pay bills on the web, and keep web statements and reports saved on my PC. Works better and is actually much quicker.

I built my present machine so I would be able to upgrade it as I wished, and although I could have used a builder version of XP SP2 (or SP3), I chose instead to purchase a full retail box copy of XP SP2 so I can always reinstall as needed. XP SP3 was cheaper, as were all later versions of Windows (that should tell you something). The dealer first sent me SP3 and I called and sent it back and they sent SP2. They were trying to hold onto their SP2 copies because that’s what their customers who knew better wanted.

And no, I have NEVER allowed Microsoft to “update” my machine. I downloaded and saved several “hotfixes” that I would want if I ever had to reinstall the OS (new machine). I have been running this install for four years with NO viruses, NO other malware, and no reason to change anything so far – I don’t even get spam email with gmail funneled through Outlook Express with all its mail rules. I have good security and I’m reasonably careful, but so far, no problems, even though I have no MS “updates” past SP2 except for a few specific items that I downloaded, installed myself, (and saved for the future). So… Microsoft is “ending support” – WHAT support?? I have never found Microsoft to be “supportive” – there are a number of great support forums, however.

Reply | Quote

Geeez, I guess i’m lucky that I quit slip-streaming after SP2 🙂

I’ll also have to say that my XP Pro does have SP3 with all patches installed running just fine but now wonder a bit about your statement.
I’ve used Outlook Express for so long that I find it hard to like anything else — and i also have Gmail configured inside of OE6.

Reply | Quote

Microsoft has been desperate to get people to switch from XP SP2 to XP SP3 or Vista or Win7 because they can’t get full control of your computer with XP SP2. They can get partial control with SP3, or if you succumb to using any of their “LIVE” incarnations, but it takes Vista or Win7 and the fritz-chip (that is built into “Vista-Ready” (and beyond) machines) for them (and their “cooperating” vendors) to take over full control of your PC. Read on….

Any OS from Microsoft after XP SP2 is spyware and controlware under the cover of an “OS” and (mark my words) it will eventually cost you. I will use XP SP2 as long as it continues to meet my needs; when it fails to do so, then I will be moving completely to Linux. I will not use Microsoft’s “live” ANYthing, because it is Microsoft’s entry into your machine (even if you are using XP) (ask if you want specific examples). I will not be putting ANY Microsoft OS (beyond XP SP2) on ANY computer in my home. To do otherwise means YOU no longer control your own computer – it isn’t yours anymore – it’s a platform for Microsoft, to be controlled by Microsoft – YOU just get to PAY for it!

With the assistance of the “fritz-chip” and post-XP OSs, Microsoft and other “cooperating” vendors can (believe it or not) turn your machine ON from standby, hibernate, or OFF!!! in the middle of the night while you are sleeping (as long as it has access to electricity and an internet connection). When you turn one of these PCs off, they aren’t completely off, they still run a small amount of power through the unit to maintain power to the fritz-chip. They (MS & their coop vendors) can find your PC, turn it on, “examine” everything on it that is not encrypted, modify or delete your files, disable your software (technically THEIR software now), and then return your machine to it’s previous state.

Your post is totally negative and contributes nothing to the overall discussion in the least. If you are this paranoid perhaps giving up technology all together would make you feel safer. Or perhaps a change to Linux immediately would do you better. Jeez, it has been a long time since we have seen anything this negative in the Lounge.

I do not believe MS is desperate to get people to switch from XP Sp2 to XP SP3 or Win 7. People are flocking to Win 7 by free will, in the millions. And the thought that MS can turn your PC on at will and get at all your stuff is just ludicrous. Did you forget to take your meds today? The “fritz-chip”, come on!

Reply | Quote

When someone hands me the money to get a new box, one that can actually run Win7, why, sure, I’ll run it.

Until then, I have to make do with a 1.1 GHz CPU, 1.5 GB RAM box that’s running WinXP SP3 just fine.

In about a year and a half, due to Microsoft’s support ending, I won’t have much choice about getting Win7 and the hardware to run it, unless I go with Linux Mint (already set up on this box) exclusively. Until then, I’ve learned to love the “trailing edge.”

Reply | Quote

For me the answer is simple.

When I used XP I would get BSOD’s, lock ups etc. Over time the incidence of such events diminished, but they never went away entirely.

In the two years I’ve been using Windows 7 I have only had one such problem, and it turned out to be a flaky graphics adapter.

I run the same software doing the same things, including writing my own software, in C, C++ & C#.

With respect to user interface changes and peoples constant complaints. They’re all better than a teletype, which is where I started life with computers.

Reply | Quote

I’m totally set aback, by the title of this thread. I’m sitting here running Windows 8 right now, with Firefox 8.
My XP drive is only inches away as is my Windows 7 drive and a whole stack of DOS boot disks sit on top of the PC, with various DOS programs on them. So, ‘Why leave?’ “No OS is ever left behind!”
Just put your new love on a new HD and “Keep on Truckin’ ”

Cheers Mates!
The Doctor 😎

Reply | Quote

Why are people saying they have to change from XP when the support ends in 2014?
It sounds as if MS are going to completely disable XP on users machines, forcing them to use a newer OS!

Surely not?

So, I have 2 printers and a scanner (Epson’s and HP’s, all about 5 yrs old, so good for another 5 or so) that have zero support for W7, so the wife’s laptop cannot print, she has to email docs/links to me so I can print them.

Why is it that MS cannot make backwards-compatibility work for even quite recent equipment?
Some of you will say “It’s the manufacturer’s fault, they need to write a W7 driver for it” – well I say “The equipment and driver were working fine in XP, and that it’s W7 that is broken!”

And am I wrong, or is ‘pin to taskbar’ not the same thing as ‘put shortcut here’?

….and aren’t ‘Jumplists’ just a folder of shortcuts?

………..and how is ‘Peek’ quicker than selecting a window, surely they are both one-click operations?

Not attacking these things, just wondering, as sometimes different peoples’ Terminology makes something identical sound different!

I agree that the ‘Fritz-chip’ is pure fantasy – in the BIOS you can completely disable any ‘Wake-on-Blah’ to isolate your machine from remote-booting.

Reply | Quote

What does Extended Support End Date mean exactly..?

Looks like we’re good till 2014…… according to google/ms thread.

http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-gb&C2=1173

Reply | Quote

What does Extended Support End Date mean exactly..?

Looks like we’re good till 2014…… according to google/ms thread.

http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-gb&C2=1173

Extended support means that they will continue to provide security patches and paid per incident (by the hour!) support. Nothing else. For power users, that’s really all that’s needed. See http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifepolicy

Reply | Quote

Interesting thread, and save for the conspiracy theory posts, most people’s thoughts are well articulated and make a lot of sense. The recognition that we all have different needs and can leverage the various versions of Windows to our liking is really a big part of what using Windows is all about. For my part, aside from a few things, I really hate when I have to use an XP machine. Some of you have may not noticed any difference in memory management. I have. I pound my machines, both at home and at work. At home I often run PhotoShop PS2, ACDSee Pro, Bibble 5 Pro, Neat image, and Firefox all at the same time. I couldn’t do that with XP, it would just choke. Bibble 5 wants all the memory it can grab when running batch conversions of RAW photo files. All I could do on XP was run the batch and walk away. With 7, I just switch to another task like keywords and tagging in ACDSee until the B5 batch is done. Win 7 is so much smoother and glitch free due to many of the fine grained memory management features that were added. However, one of my favorite Win 7 features is the fact that I can leave machines running for weeks without a reboot. I rarely reboot my Win 7 laptop, I have it set to hibernate when I close the cover. At work, I often have too many things I’m in the middle of to shut it off at the end of the day, so it just stays up and running pretty much all of the time. I could never do that with XP though SP3 was miles better than previous service packs.

All that said, if XP is working well for you, by no means would I try to dissuade anyone from continuing to use it. My net books are both running XP and I really see no reason to run anything else on them. Based on how they get used, I’m not convinced there would be any benefit to running Win 7. Its sort of like an old car that has served you well. It doesn’t always make sense to get rid of it even though something newer would probably be better.

In response to the whole “Microsoft is trying to control your PC” thing, it just simply ain’t true. The additional security features are in response to complaints that the OS was insecure out of the box. Now people are complaining its too secure? Really, if it bothers you, don’t use it, or learn how things work and turn off the annoyances. As said earlier, it ain’t rocket science. Nobody is controlling my PCs but me. As far as the military not being connected to the ‘Net, really? That’s the first I’ve heard of it. And I have worked with many Network and System admins that did IT work in the military. Lest we also forget that the Internet was invented by the US Military.

Reply | Quote

When I used XP I would get BSOD’s, lock ups etc. Over time the incidence of such events diminished, but they never went away entirely.

In the two years I’ve been using Windows 7 I have only had one such problem, and it turned out to be a flaky graphics adapter.

That’s too bad you didn’t have good luck using XP, it was probably hardware or configuration related but still, it was the only thing available (for the masses) for a long time. I run several incarnations of both XP and W7 for months on end and don’t have any stability problems with either, and in this case, I DO have a statistical sample. :p . I’d be grumbling if there were even a slight problem because I have a bad habit of starting projects and then forgetting about them for days and when I come back there they are, patiently waiting. It was XP that gave me that bad habit….not ME!:o:

Why are people saying they have to change from XP when the support ends in 2014?
It sounds as if MS are going to completely disable XP on users machines, forcing them to use a newer OS!

Surely not?

Well some people will feel uncomfortable with new exploits that come along and not having MS Updates to address possible vulnerabilities. Its of some concern but the real end will come when third party software doesn’t support XP well.

….and aren’t ‘Jumplists’ just a folder of shortcuts?

Pretty much but for those using a limited number of files repeatedly, the UI arrangement can fit thier use a bit better than opening the program first and going to the most recent file list from there…just a different arrangement of the same thing that some people prefer…it sort of defines Windows, half a dozen different ways to do the same thing.

………..and how is ‘Peek’ quicker than selecting a window, surely they are both one-click operations

Its not quicker when there’s just a few windows open and they have clearly differentiated taskbar icon looks. The advantage comes when there are many explorer windows open or several instances of the same program open that contain very different data. In that case a so called visual menu helps a lot instead of clicking through the list until I hit the right one. Or one could use the Alt-Tab method…again many ways to do the same thing and peek is like Alt-Tab without having to go to the keyboard.

I do not believe MS is desperate to get people to switch from XP Sp2 to XP SP3 or Win 7. People are flocking to Win 7 by free will, in the millions.

Not desperate at all, but, I get a few newsletters from MS and some are corporate focused and they push push push PUSH…always trying to convince corporate America that now is the time to switch over…ok, now is the time to move over…ok, now is the time to move over…ok, now…
Consumers do not flock to Windows, a small percentage build thier own and choose thier OS but by and large Windows users get a new system when its time to move on…what does that new system have on it for an OS? That’s how it happens (by default), and as long as its a good OS, it works. Vista blew chunks so there was much turmoil in the land and that did not work so well, as its running a distant third to XP and Win7 would attest.

Reply | Quote

At home I often run PhotoShop PS2, ACDSee Pro, Bibble 5 Pro, Neat image, and Firefox all at the same time. I couldn’t do that with XP, it would just choke. Bibble 5 wants all the memory it can grab when running batch conversions of RAW photo files. All I could do on XP was run the batch and walk away. With 7, I just switch to another task like keywords and tagging in ACDSee until the B5 batch is done. Win 7 is so much smoother and glitch free due to many of the fine grained memory management features that were added. However, one of my favorite Win 7 features is the fact that I can leave machines running for weeks without a reboot.

Me too except I run more stuff than that at the same time (more photo programs and a couple video render or edit programs), though I am not familiar with Bibble, and I have no problem whatsoever and I love taking my two sets of 6 processors on two seperate machines up into the 72-86% utilization all the time with projects and continue using the computer for other trivial things (like this) as well. Run mine all the time too, except its months at a time, not weeks, until there’s an unexpected loss of power from the electrical supply company, if that didn’t happen it might be years 😀 ;no issues with either. Here and there I get the occasional hardware failure but that certainly isn’t the OS’s fault.

Opps, forgot to say the key to either/both being excellent multitaskers is the multiprocessor schemes of today, otherwise you’re right I would have to set a task and walk away in the single processor days. And indeed I think you are right in that Win 7 feels silkier/smoother when heavily multitasking but I get more processor utilization per application in XP, and as a power user, that’s what I’m after with so many processors at my disposal. If I only had a couple then I would want the slight edge on smoother over shoveling the coal bricks in. Also if it ever gets to the point that I can’t char the processors because the RAM just isn’t adequate anymore, then my choice will be limited to W7x64.

Reply | Quote

though I am not familiar with Bibble

I shoot in RAW with a dSLR. Bibble is a 3rd party RAW processing and conversion package. Like Lightroom only without the Adobe tax. http://bibblelabs.com/

Run mine all the time too, except its months at a time, not weeks, until there’s an unexpected loss of power from the electrical supply company, if that didn’t happen it might be years 😀 ;no issues with either. Here and there I get the occasional hardware failure but that certainly isn’t the OS’s fault.

Really the only times I reboot is when an app hangs and won’t die nicely. Firefox has given more grief in this respect for the last few versions before 7.x. 7 seems pretty good and is starting to restore my faith in Mozilla.org.

Reply | Quote

Well, bottom line as you guys understand it;

Are we (XP user’s) going to receive the free security updates/patches till 2014 ??

Reply | Quote

Well, bottom line as you guys understand it;

Are we (XP user’s) going to receive the free security updates/patches till 2014 ??

You will receive security updates until the XP SP3 end of extended support date – April 8, 2014. No other new updates unless you pay for them.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

I know several people with older computers using Win XP. They do email, internet browsing, some MS Office, dabble in a little photo editing or video, maybe play a game or two, listen to a little music or watch some Youtube. After I showed them how to run CCleaner once in a while they all said pretty much the same thing “Hey, it runs pretty good; think I’ll keep it a few more years …”
Personally, I use Win 7 64-bit about 95% of the time. But, I understand where these people are coming from – why change a good thing if it ain’t broke, especially since it was paid for long ago!

Reply | Quote

This is a question that does not require an answer. “Doesn’t anyone ever look at their Startup folder in MSCONFIG?
Things will jump in there from time to time, like that Adobe updater, Java updater, MS Messenger, etc.
Every time I have to work on someone’s PC, I go right to the Startup folder and DE-Select everything that’s not Absolutely Necessary for the operation of the PC. If I’m in doubt about something, I’ll ask the owner of the PC, “Do you need this running all the time?”. or “can you just run it from the programs menu when you need it?”

Many times I’ll ask the client about something and they don’t know what it is or even where it came from.

I’ve seen so many icons, for running programs, in the system tray, that they extend half way across the screen. That’s ridiculous!

😎

Reply | Quote

I understand and appreciate the “if it ain’t broke” sentiment but the point is for the average user the XP architecture is broken. It is a security nightmare. You can’t run the most current version of IE which is by far the most secure. The driver model for XP allows all sorts of bad stuff to happen with impunity. If you search around you can find information in Microsoft’s Technet & MSDN forums about problems which can’t be fixed because of the XP architecture. I point this out to keep people from believing that all is OK with XP if they just do one, two, or just a few things with the PC.

All that said, if a user is very vigilant and very careful they may be OK.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

You can’t run the most current version of IE which is by far the most secure.

True if one can only run I.E., and I’m all for folks going to W7 if that alone makes them better “netizens.” If XP were a security nightmare though, I should have been infected long ago…at least once. I am very vigilant about PC performance on an ongoing basis but only semi-careful, but I am aware of most attack vectors and watch them pretty closely.
Fortunately since Microsoft dropped off the support wagon for new versions of I.E., there’s a faster (or at least as fast) and even more secure browser with common addons already to go, and it even spell checks on the go, all readily available for XP users. GoGo Google Chrome! Love my sign in home page background image also. 😮

Reply | Quote

I have XP on one drive and W7 on another…
I still use XP but only because I have a few expensive programs, like Photo-desk and a cad program…
The cad program works on W7 now but I keep XP because I don’t want to buy certain programs again that I only use occasionaly…

My HP Vertical scanner works on W7 but all the features only work on XP like the Photo negative and slide scanner attachment…

Other then those few things, I could do without XP now that I’m comfortable with W 7…

Reply | Quote

Perfect description of what most of my friends have and/or faced. It seem that most every new Microsoft version has caused these similar issues (except maybe ME …. Ha!!).

I have XP on one drive and W7 on another…
I still use XP but only because I have a few expensive programs, like Photo-desk and a cad program…
The cad program works on W7 now but I keep XP because I don’t want to buy certain programs again that I only use occasionaly…

My HP Vertical scanner works on W7 but all the features only work on XP like the Photo negative and slide scanner attachment…

Other then those few things, I could do without XP now that I’m comfortable with W 7…

Reply | Quote

On XP, there is a little leach that starts from the Startup folder, called CTFMon. If you De-Select it, then reboot, it’s back again.
It’s a parasite, of no earthly good at all, but yet it wants to run in the background, sucking up resources. Cheeech!

So one day, I went Googling for a means to kill that thing….permanently. I found a little program that will do it.

It’s actually a tiny batch file that Un-Registers the .dll files that run ctfmon. Here’s the text of that batch file.

Rem: This is the text for the batch file KillCTFMON.bat
cls
Rem Disable CTFMON and prevent it from loading on boot-up.
Regsvr32.exe /u msimtf.dll
Regsvr32.exe /u msctf.dll

Of course, if you will only be doing just ONE PC, you can run those two lines from a command prompt.
I always put stuff like that in batch files, so I can run them multiple times on Many PC’s.

Cheers mates!
😎
PS: I work on PC’s with multiple cores all the time, but I’ve yet to see even one, where Windows has been told to use all the available cores. By default, it will use only one. I always set it to use all available cores.
I’ve seen it posted, that that’s not necessary, but I do it anyway. Can’t hurt!

Reply | Quote

PS: I work on PC’s with multiple cores all the time, but I’ve yet to see even one, where Windows has been told to use all the available cores. By default, it will use only one. I always set it to use all available cores.
I’ve seen it posted, that that’s not necessary, but I do it anyway. Can’t hurt!

By default, Windows does use all the cores. Observe Task Manager on a running system and you’ll see. If you mean the setting that can be made by changing boot.ini on an XP system, that setting is used to debug problems on a multi-core system. For a brief period during the startup process Windows only uses one core regardless of the setting. When that is finished by default Windows uses all cores unless limited by the setting.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

DrWho;
“”I always set it to use all available cores. I’ve seen it posted, that that’s not necessary, but I do it anyway. Can’t hurt!””

Not that I want to chg anything but would like to know how this is done !! Can you explain (if you have time) or point me to a URL?

Reply | Quote

I’m sure this post will blow a few minds:

Way back in ancient history, when XP first came out I bought an XP Update CD and ran it on my Windows 98/SE computer.
Right from the Git-Go, it asked me if I wanted it (the installer) to reformat the HD as NTFS.
Hmmmm! Do I want to stay with something I’ve been familiar with since the DOS days, or take off down a dirt road?
For me, that was a no-brainer. I stayed with FAT-32.

I let it know I wanted to stay with FAT-32 and the install continued. I wound up with XP happily installed on my FAT-32 hard drive.
It’s run perfectly ever since. In fact XP runs GREAT on a FAT-32 hard drive and I still have full access to every file on my HD, from a DOS boot disk. When I boot up my PC with my Ghost boot disk, whether it’s with a floppy disk, flash drive or CD, I can run a series of batch files to clean out all the junk on my HD, including the pagefile and old Restore points, before actually running Ghost to do the backup. This keeps the size of my backup image file as small as possible.

I was horrified to find out that Vista and later OS’s from MS, will not run on a FAT-32 hard drive. OH Yukkkk!
But as for running my cleanup batch files from my Ghost boot disk, I have added a little program called “NTFS4DOS” which allows me to access the NTFS hard drive from DOS and go ahead and do my Cleanup before doing the Ghost backup. I think that’s called a “Workaround”.
I’ve used that technique when doing a Ghost backup on my Windows 8, test drive.

I don’t give a flip about the so-called ‘Security’ of NTFS over FAT-32. That means nothing to me. So even after ten years or so, I still run my windows XP-Pro-SP3 on a FAT-32 hard drive and I love it. With my ‘Package’ of Security software, I stay 100% virus and malware free.

I hope it’s not too early to wish everyone a very “Merry Christmas”

The Doctor 😎

Reply | Quote

I still use XP but only because I have a few expensive programs, like Photo-desk and a cad program…
The cad program works on W7 now but I keep XP because I don’t want to buy certain programs again that I only use occasionaly…

Yes, that’s one of the reasons I virtualized a W7 install, spread it around, now I can run the same programs on 4 different systems. Photoshop CS5 Extended, PSP X4, etc., several video editing programs and NERO Media Suite HD has a nasty habit, checks in to see if its on the same computer each start up, and I have to use Vision 11’s sharpening mask (its by far the best I know of) and using it on just one system is not enough horses at work to get everything done in a timely manner. Like I keep saying, third party programs and utilities have never been more comprehensive aids. As long as they run on a particular flavor of OS it equalizes them and that’s power to the people and why its taking sooooooo long for XP to turn to dust.

Reply | Quote

With my Cad program it worked fine on XP until I bought a new laser printer and then when I went to print the program crashed…
Cad support told me my cad version wouldn’t support the Laser printer driver and it was too complex to write a driver for it…

Anyway, when I finally installed Windows 7 my Cad program printed fine on W7 with the same laser printer…Go figure!

Reply | Quote

before Win8 steamrollers you!

Ick, I have no interest in becoming a finger painter! :o:

Networking and W7, I nudge it that way yes, unless you need workgroup differentiation which W7 doesn’t do; its the whole kit and kaboodle, or domains, so multilevel home networks are more difficult in W7 but I know I’m an outlier there for sure. Plus there’s a way to surpass both, just make yourself a network places toolbar embedded in the taskbar and you go instantly to whichever network location your heart desires without waiting for either the network window or network places. Bada bing.

Reply | Quote

Heck, I kicked and screamed as I was dragged from 2000 to XP! After a similar experience, I bought my first Win7 computer less than a month ago. The new OS is growing on me, even though I’m still somewhat baffled by its version of Windows Explorer.

Reply | Quote

If ever i have to go back to do work on an XP system, one thing i find really annoying is the inability to just simply have two windows open at the same time, with the split screen 50:50. It’s such a useful feature to have your banking site page, say open on the left, & your pdf bill open on the right, without having to actually toggle, slide or cack handedly try to compare two things at once. If this was the only reason to upgrade to Windows7, for me that is enough.ARRGHH!

Reply | Quote

Getting back to the thread title….. I see no reason to leave XP at all.

It just works! And properly tweaked and tuned, it works GREAT!

😎

Reply | Quote

If you are referring solely to the drag to side and expand window feature, yes that is convenient, but XP has the same split screen tiling capability from the taskbar menu and for some it may be quicker to auto tile from there rather than drag and drop each window to the sides. Also I think when dealing with stacking more than two windows side by side or vertically both W7 and XP have to use the taskbar menu correct? I think the drag and drop resize is only for full or half screen.

It certainly is more visually pleasing to drag and drop resize. I go both ways and don’t really have a preference. Now the navigational/selection/display content inside explorer windows, that I do have a preference for and I’ll have to start looking into some of the third party explorer replacements so see if I can get something that I’m more efficient in than the stock W7 explorer. Someone wrote a utility that killed whole line selection in Vista but I can’t seem to find the same thing for W7 and is a pain in the butt when one always uses details view and drag and drop like I do…especially when windows are narrowed by tiling!!

Reply | Quote

Yes, i believe it is the drag drop feature that i mean. It is not even available in Vista either & it seemed to be a fairly late addition to W7 too. Naturally you can usually achieve anything by using ‘bolt ons’ or additional third party programs but we are talking purely ‘native’ here without cheating by adding bloatware. Such an incredibly useful facility like being able to view two fully open pegged windows simultaeously without resorting to scrolling or manipulation or ‘bringing to top’ means being able to efficiently & accurately compare spreadsheets, statements or even just read two webpages at once properly like you always do with an open newspaper or book in the real world.

Sometimes it just amazes me that complex ubiquitious terms or features are embedded within archaic or obsolete things (think DOS before windows itself), when all along all a user really needs is something with basic direct useabilty by function just existing in the first place. Its like a modern smartphone having to be unlocked, & then a camera app shortcut having to be hit on, just when you want to quickly take a picture (as an example by analogy). It just seems obvious or almost an afterthought that the the camera should be a more ‘useable’ function by basic design & some kind of unforgiveable overlooking has occured on the drawing board that has left evolution to take its course!

Reply | Quote

I believe the Windows 7 feature is called Snap.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

Naturally you can usually achieve anything by using ‘bolt ons’ or additional third party programs but we are talking purely ‘native’ here without cheating by adding bloatware.

Agreed, except for this. Its not cheating in any way, shape or form. If we waited for Windows to innovate all our changes and modifications that came about, Windows would not be nearly as far along in its progressive development. Instead they borrow from many superior developments in third party software and incorporate components of those into their own utilities and programs.
Windows if a whole complex platform of interacting programs so by its very nature, can’t change or be developed as quickly as a third party program so generally, and don’t get this wrong, there’s megatons of crap too, but in general, there are select programs that are always going to be superior to, have better function, be quicker, do more things, etc., than Windows can ever offer and for me, both XP and W7 would fare far less favorably without them. Image (the photographic kind) and video manipulation for instance, sure W7 is better than XP but, third party programs negate both of them to clumsy and feature poor. So if the price I have to pay for sound and superior performance is a couple extra gigs of consumed space and a couple extra seconds to load, I say bring on the bloatware!

Reply | Quote

Third party applications are the staple of all Windows operating systems.
They have provided the user with the choices that most other operating systems have lacked.
One users garbage is anothers gold.

Reply | Quote

The evolution indeed has rolled toward the ‘app’ era, despite Windows 7 probably having had more ‘taken out’ of it than it had ‘put in’, such as windows mail, movie maker & picture viewers etc. It’s plain to see that an app based system is beginning to shape the next ‘design stage’ – proving the point that moving forward is the only way to go.

Reply | Quote

Thank you, I can protect my own computer, I don’t need MS trying to do it, by blocking everything I might want to do with my own PC.
That’s not protection, that’s just blatant interference.

How about if the state put speed-bumps every 100′ down the interstate? Then they told you, “it’s for your protection”.

If I find anything blocking me, I either go over it, around it or through it.

I hate it when I hear (or read) someone saying that they don’t use AV software because it slows down their PC too much.
I just want to scream at the top of my voice “clean up your F’n mess and nothing will slow down your PC! ”
I have five programs on my PC that can run scans, and I can start them all up and let’m run, concurrently, and still sit here and work the forums or surf the net. No problemo.
Why can I do that? Because my PC is not bogged down with tons of peripheral BS.

I’ve run Windows 7 and now Windows 8 on this same PC and neither run any better than my XP-Pro-SP3.
So I think I’ll just keep XP….. like, for maybe the next 20 years. rofl

Happy Holidays Mates!
😎

Reply | Quote

I run several incarnations of both XP and W7 for months on end and don’t have any stability problems with either, and in this case, I DO have a statistical sample. . I’d be grumbling if there were even a slight problem because I have a bad habit of starting projects and then forgetting about them for days and when I come back there they are, patiently waiting. It was XP that gave me that bad habit

.

Arggghhhh!!! I just had to reboot one of my XP systems that’s been up since about July…reason, explorer took a dump…and what made explorer take a dump (even though I restarted it the taskbar was still locked)? That darn auto Adobe flash update. Y’all probably know all about that, whenever I have a computer that starts to act strange in the last year or so, sure enough turns out it was the adobe flash update trying to muscle in; this time it klunked explorer.

Reply | Quote

I have seen one screen shot with 28 apps starting with Windows, 28!!! I do look in msconfig from time to time, but I find it easier to permanently delete apps that start with Windows using What’s in Startup. msconfig works, but the wrong click will allow things to start again. I also use msconfig for the wait to boot time (30 seconds is ridiculous. 3 seconds is plenty) and setting number of cpu’s (I know Joe, this is only for T/S).

Reply | Quote

Good link on what’s in startup……… Thanks TM 🙂

Reply | Quote

Thanks Jag! You are very welcome. Hope the site helps.

Reply | Quote

Rather than how many cores are used, I pay close attention to how efficiently the cores are utilized. Its fairly even in many cases between W7 and XP but very often I’ll get higher utilization from XP for the same program workload, which I think is good as long as the load doesn’t go to 100% on all cores for an extended period of time, which works very well on my 4 and 6 core systems. I’ve maxed out my dual cores and noticed some performance issues from that when using XP. Windows 7 seems to work just a bit better on those systems, probably due to better multitasking protocols; which keep the utilization at a lower level in general.

The only program I’ve found that pegs all cores to the red is VLC media player’s conversion component…its an awesome display of computing power on a consumer level.

Reply | Quote

We should be well into the era where software is writen to handle the multiple threads of 4 and 6 core processors.
I know my Terragen 64 bit will alow me to specify the number of threads (up to 16 in my case) to use with any particular render.
So I can utilize anywhere from 50% CPU usage right up to 100% and have the load spread out evenly amongst the cores.

Older operating systems like XP, and poorly writen/older software, will have difficulty maximizing efficiency with regard to threading in multi core processors.

I don’t ever recall having to change any settings in my old XP quad core setup to ensure it utilized all the cores. It would largely do so by default,
although some cores would have a higher load on them than others. Thread utilization was less efficient in XP than Windows 7.
I rarely recall my older XP system utilizing 100% cpu, unless I ran very specific programs or attempted to deliberately tax the system.

Reply | Quote

Yes, I like where XP goes by default better than W7. I wished there was a way to specify utilization in general in W7; I fiddle with priority and affinity but it pays me no heed and I don’t know what else to adjust.

When XP goes to 85% on a render I think that’s perfect, W7 only getting up to about 65 to 73% on the same render seems a bit wasteful or lazy to me.

Reply | Quote

Let’s examine this utilization issue a bit. You have a certain amount of work to do that is the same whether it is done on XP or Win7 – some rendering. To accomplish that work XP must use more of the available CPU power to accomplish the task. To do the same work Win7 uses less CPU power than XP did. That to me means that Win7 is using the system more efficiently than XP. This is a good thing. This means you can do other things while the rendering is being done.

It also means that if you are using a multi-core system that the rendering program should be investigated to see if it takes advantage of a multi-core system. Many programs have not yet been updated to take advantage of the multi-core systems of today. It is not up to Windows alone to take advantage of a multi-core system.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

Many programs have not yet been updated to take advantage of the multi-core systems of today. It is not up to Windows alone to take advantage of a multi-core system.

Extremely true!! I run into such a wide variation, even the ones I can set the number of cores to use are being limited in some other way…I need to investigate to see what other limiting factors there are, could be I/O speed.

To accomplish that work XP must use more of the available CPU power to accomplish the task. To do the same work Win7 uses less CPU power than XP did. That to me means that Win7 is using the system more efficiently than XP.

I’m going to investigate this with some better quantitative measures. W7 is probably more efficient overall (but is it seconds or milliseconds?) but I had the impression that one program running a render on the same processor was completing sooner in XP that it was in W7.
If you are talking about utilizing other resources while the render is going on (multitasking) I’m just going to take your word for it, don’t know how I would measure that, though there seem to be a few more processor cycles available for other work most times…so if the renders are completing at nearly the same time that would lead me to conclude by interpolation that W7 is more efficient, perhaps by a significant margin if it gets the same work done with more reserve.

later…:p

Reply | Quote

I’ve listened to that sad old tale for over ten years now, and not once have I ever had any data integrity problems, no more than I did with Windows 98, Windows 95, Windows 3.11 or even dos.

I find that those who bemoan FAT-32 are those who have never used it. Or those too young to even remember it.

Cheers Mates!
The Doctor 😎

Reply | Quote

64 bit computing is the primary reason to get away from Windows XP. If you have no reason to use 64 bit and all that that entails, then their is little
need to move away from XP at this time.

Reply | Quote

If you have no reason to use 64 bit and all that that entails, then their is little
need to move away from XP at this time.

Except for the significantly improved security of Windows 7.

Most other things boil down to preferences and ease of use features. While these features will appeal to many, a number of people will stay behind because they have become comfortable with XP and its way of implementing things. That is understandable and is a normal human reaction to change. However, security should be taken very seriously: Windows 7 employs a much improved security model over XP and this should not be overlooked.

Reply | Quote

Except for the significantly improved security of Windows 7.

Except it makes it more difficult to use not only locally but in a network; I have media players that just can’t log in at all to what is an otherwise share and security open W7 location…I have to move everything to XP so the media player can get in. There’s always a trade off; for the masses good; for a power user…get that crap out of my way!!!

Dr. Who described it best in another post:

Win-7 is a lot more enjoyable if you take out your software baseball bat and beat the heck out of it.

I go berserk when Windows tells me I don’t have permission to do something on the computer I built and own 100%.

Oh so true!

Reply | Quote

Except it makes it more difficult to use not only locally but in a network; I have media players that just can’t log in at all to what is an otherwise share and security open W7 location…I have to move everything to XP so the media player can get in. There’s always a trade off; for the masses good; for a power user…get that crap out of my way!!!

An interesting debate!

No trade off is required on a correctly configured network. If your media player can’t handle a modern secured network built on Windows 7, that’s not the fault of the OS is it? Perhaps there is a firmware update for the media player that will allow it to play ball.

A somewhat tongue in cheek simmile: some years ago now the UK changed from using leaded to unleaded petrol. There was a huge outcry because many old cars could not run on it without modification. Was that a fault of running the {somewhat} cleaner unleaded gas or was it the fault of the older car that, when it was designed, had no requirement to meet modern emissions requirements?

Let me be clear: Windows 7 is far from perfect. However, it is a huge step forward from XP. Over the years, with XP, we have often unknowingly become complacent with our security. In many cases, network devices we currently employ may have been built at the low end of the capability spectrum to reach a consumer price point.

If peoples’ problem is with the eye candy, the explorer windows, or libraries, I would concede – because that ultimately boils personal preferences, and everyone has their own preference for the way they like to do things.

However, there are now observations that Windows 7 places unnecessary hurdles in the way of experienced users. I would counter that: experienced users should understand of the reasons for these features, be glad that they are now included as standard and build their systems accordingly.

/there, that feels better! Soap-box mode off.

Reply | Quote

First test results (I’ll put together a chart later with the full test parameters and results)

WinXHD conversion of a 10 gig file, setting, source and destination same in all cases, nothing else running, same computer booted into each OS to run the test.

XP conversion time 7 hours and 27 min. Windows 7 conversion time 8 hours and 35 minutes.

2nd test on another computer is underway…so far it looks like the XP conversion is running one frame per second faster.

Reply | Quote

I would only add that there is almost invariably a sweet spot to all things; and when I say sweet spot I mean the intersecting lines between what’s good for ya and what you’ll put up with. That is going to have a huge variance but in general it will be a bell curve. We do understand why those features are there, but W7 doesn’t need protection from my media players. I’m in the tail end of that bell curve and needs my freedom!!

A good analogy might be why isn’t the predominate open highway speed limit 10 or 16 kph? It certainly is much much safer than a 100 or 120kph limit. Yet it does not seem like a reasonable limit does it? That’s because the intersecting lines between what’s good for ya and what you’ll put up with does not meet at 15kph.

Virtualization is the answer, not “improved security.” So you think you got a foothold Mr. Virus? Oh no, you got right in past my improved AV wall!….ok enough fun and games, sorry, you’re dead Mr. Virus….bye! Unfortunately Microsoft killed virtualization in Vista and W7, hope they bring it back sometime. With today’s hardware it certainly is a much less onerous thing to run than “improved security.” Imagine going 1000kph…straight into a wall! Oops, reset!

Reply | Quote

I thought long and hard before replying to this thread because there seemed to be a bit of heat last night. However, I’m sure nothing posted previously has caused real issue. I do think it is important to explore these discussions if only because non-technical users do read these forums and need to have a balanced position offered.

So, I wanted to explore the contention that Microsoft has killed virtualisation in Vista and Windows 7. How so? I run multiple virtual OS’s on top of a native Windows 7 and so do many others here. Indeed, with Windows 7 Pro and above you have a built-in virtual platform. Limited a grant you, but then Virtual PC was never a particularly capable host before. Of course there are also third party platforms available and it’s one of those that I use on my Windows 7 host in the office.

Maybe the contention is that performance of the virtual platform is lower on a host running Vista or Windows 7? I can’t argue that point as I haven’t any data either way, but it seems to me that if VM performance is critical, then one should be running a bare metal hypervisor rather than a full blown host OS.

Turning to malware security and virtualisation: it doesn’t prevent malware infection, merely contains it. The guest OS’s are just as likely to be infected, but the malware must achieve a leap to exit the guest into the host or other network devices. That can be achieved by malware executing a network attack, but is less likely. If the guest is Windows 7 rather than XP, such a leap is made all the more difficult because the malware would need to overcome the protection embedded by Windows 7 which is not present in XP.

If one wants to go the whole hog however, one might run a hardened distro of Linux, but that’s for a different forum perhaps.

:
:

In summary my position is, that as experienced users, we should try educate less experienced users in using their systems safely. Windows 7 is a significant step forward from XP in terms of security. Whether or not it can be tweaked or adjusted to run faster or cleaner or look like or perform like a different version is personal choice and, even though I have my own views, I can’t argue with those choices people make.

Reply | Quote

VM are the same as they’ve always been except now the performance of a VM can be almost identical to the host with adequate RAM and disk I/O speed in either W7 or XP.

SteadyState virtualizes the native operating system so that all actions and functions are saved to virtual disk space so if anything at all goes wrong (except hardware failure), simply reboot and all those changes are gone including any infections that may have gained access. They think they got in, set up shop and the living is good but such is not the case; they are as easily eliminated.

One drawback is that SteadyState takes up a lot of disk space to handle the virtualization so perhaps with the much larger install size of Vista and W7, it was impractical to create and manage such a large virtualized space and an alternate method is needed or something. Returnil seems to handle it on a more dynamic basis but that program comes with its own baggage that Microsoft would hopefully eliminate if they adopted something similar.

So if push came to shove, I could set up someone with XP and SteadyState and W7 without SteadyState is like Wiley Coyote when the Roadrunner double pumps the tongue and kicks it into high gear leaving poor Wiley in the dust. Personally I don’t want that though, I want Microsoft to figure it out and bring true, easy, real security to W7, not “improved” security. They’ve demonstrated they have the ability to eliminate half measures. Of course it would put malware techs out of business but that’s a small price to pay.

Reply | Quote

Fair enough. Steady State is a different take on virtualisation than I had read into your earlier comment.

Steady State is no longer supported by Microsoft, though it may still be available on 3rd party sites for use on XP and Vista. The Steady State product is not compatible with Windows 7.

Nonetheless, the features and functions of Steady State can be implemented on Windows 7 by following this Microsoft Technet article. That gives the same functionality, with arguably a finer degree of control, but not the nice GUI control.

Reply | Quote

We should see virtualization start to take off like never before considering the latest hardware improvements, Windows XP will eventually be left far behind.
There will come a point where XP won’t be worth running anymore except on antiquated hardware, and that won’t be too far into the future.

I think at some point in the future we’ll see virtualization become more commonly built into operating systems.

Reply | Quote

We should see virtualization start to take off like never before considering the latest hardware improvements

With today’s hardware it certainly is a much less onerous thing to run than “improved security.”

Beat ya by 4 posts 😉

Also agreed….XP e-v-e-n-t-u-a-l-l-y….outta here when Microsoft can pry it from the corporation’s tightly purse-stringed expense accounts; and I’ll still be running it…I’m getting some very interesting results comparing several systems render times for a program that allows core specification and one that does not…my first posted result is the anomalous one for some reason, since that one, core specified runs are neck and neck with a non-statistical edge going to W7 and in non core specification runs; maybe a statistical number, maybe not, and the winner is…

Reply | Quote

29549-Image2

Well there’s some pseudo-scientific measurements. If I had the gumption I would have run the tests again for Computer A; at first it seemed it was going to be a blowout for XP but that in general has not been my experience using both. Computer B played no favorites even though its an almost identical computer!
Computer C and D, which is contained on the former as a VM, demonstrated the sense I had that XP was getting the job done a little bit quicker, though it was interesting that when running a program that can assign cores, performance was almost identical. It was only when left to their own processing scheme that XP was a bit nimbler. Also interesting that the VMs performed almost identically to the hosts?

So while it might be argued that the results are not conclusive or very extensive, XP still seems more than capable. I also noticed that the programs were consistently allocated a bit more RAM per with XP than they were with W7; don’t know what that means, just a consistent observation.

Reply | Quote

Good work Infinicore and appreciate your time and effort, Thanks!!

Reply | Quote

I’ve heard that one could get slightly better performance from FAT32 in Windows XP than NTFS, but how does it stand up
in terms of file system errors over NTFS?

Reply | Quote

I’ve heard that one could get slightly better performance from FAT32 in Windows XP than NTFS, but how does it stand up
in terms of file system errors over NTFS?

Not only does NTFS offer recovery mechanisms not available on FAT32, but you couldn’t ensure security over files with FAT32. Saying that FAT32 is faster, when there are no mechanisms to ensure integrity or security, is comparable to using a database without primary and foreign keys and other constraints – it sure runs faster, but then do not complain if you cannot ensure the quality of your data.

Reply | Quote

Always appreciate your experience and comments DrWho.

I was running Fat32 with my XP for long time but now it’s on a NTFS partition and don’t remember why or when I changed but was a few yrs back. I really can’t see any difference.

Reply | Quote

I have had enough errors with FAT 32, and I won’t even mention other obvious limitations, but hey, use it to your hearts content. The technical advantages of NTFS over FAT 32 have been clearly established in the last 10 years.

Every modern operating sytem uses a journaling file system. I suppose that’s because they are technically inferior to the great FAT 32 file system, right?

You can use whatever you want, but this is a technical forum. Please use sound technical arguments to defend your positions. In a world where there are around one billion Windows users, pretending that a few examples of using an old file system should be proof that ulterior file systems are unneeded, to me looks like a situation where someone who still drives an animal traction vehicle will argue that it beats ulterior vehicle technology, just because the rate of accidents of animal traction vehicles is much smaller and the injuries likely to be incurred in case of an accident are less serious than with recent automotive technologies.

Reply | Quote

I don’t give a flip about the so-called ‘Security’ of NTFS over FAT-32. That means nothing to me. So even after ten years or so, I still run my windows XP-Pro-SP3 on a FAT-32 hard drive and I love it.

Me no give flip about that either, but, data integrity over time has been much better for me with NTFS, especially surviving unexpected shutdowns, which I get now and then during the summer when the lights go out. Several times I lost the OS upon first boot after such an event. Maybe there was some other cause but there’s a clear coincidental demarcation between FAT32 and NTFS if so. Also had to have more than 32 gig partitions personally and I know there are workarounds but not native to Windows right? Also had to have the ability to create and toss around files larger than 4 gigs all the time.

After a while all these advantages add up to the point that its like the difference between Win98 and XP Pro to me…what, I don’t have to reboot my computer once or twice a day and restore pionts are built in!? DONE! Mallet-size problems disappeared for me when I went to NTFS. 🙂

Reply | Quote

Try copying a 4GB + file to FAT32. Oh wait, can’t do that. I deal with files this size on a regular basis.

DR Who, I’ve used FAT, FAT32, HPFS and several iterations of NTFS. NTFS is by far the most superior and most forgiving of the lot. First thing I do with a new USB drive (thumb or otherwise) is reformat in NTFS. I’ve had more compatibility issues with removable FAT32 drives. NTFS is critical for corporate networks. Its what allows me to control 1000+ PCS with Group Policy and lock down the file systems so users (and malware) can’t install software. Can’t do that with FAT32 either. If you are still having to access data when booting to a Ghost boot disk, you might want to rethink your process. There are far easier ways to do it. Automating the process with VB Scripts and task manager comes to mind.

I have a better analogy, saying on old outdated OS and file system is better than new because of a perceived limited advantage (READ: because we’re used to it), is like saying driving a 60’s muscle car is superior because they were so easy to work on. I still admire those old cars for what they achieved, their looks, and high performance of the day. But I’ll take a new high performance car for day to day driving over any of the old. Why? Safety, superior technology, ease of working on, and so many other reasons. Likewise, who here would go back to Win 98SE (drawing on Infinicore’s reference)? But when XP came out, bet at least some of you were making the same types of arguments about staying with 95/98. If you want to stick with old technology, be my guest. But you’ll have a hard time convincing me that XP is better.

Reply | Quote