66% Of All Windows Users Still Use Windows XP

[safan80]

It looks like Windows 7 is mostly eating at windows vista market share

So how many of you guys still use XP as your main windows OS?

http://www.conceivablytech.com/3227/business/66-of-all-windows-users-still-use-windows-xp/



Windows XP has dropped in market share from 70.48% to 60.03% since the launch of Windows 7. When Windows 7 was introduced, Windows XP had a 76% share among all Windows users; now it is estimated at 66%. Windows 7 has already a 19% share among all Windows users and is likely to overtake Windows Vista in this discipline within the next two months: Windows Vista never had a greater share among Windows users than 20.35%, according to Net Applications. Vista had a share of 14.66% among all Windows systems that have been counted by Net Applications in September.

Windows XP drops less than 1 point in overall market share every month. Given the fact that it still has about 60% of overall share it could take another year until the operating system will drop below 50%, unless some miracle happens or we are finally seeing ancient computer systems in business environments being replaced. It is simply amazing that an operating system that will celebrate its 10th birthday next year is still, by far, the most popular operating system worldwide. To be fair, I should mention that Windows XP is still actively sold and will be kicked to the curb, this time for real, this month: The deadline is October 22.

[Circaflex]

I still see no reason why people are using windows xp and not 7...

[Mad Pistol]

The only reason I can see that people aren't using Windows 7 is because Windows 7 uses a lot more resources, even though it's still better than Vista.

Other than that, I agree. Windows XP is nearing the end of its life cycle and Windows 7 is it's rightful heir.

[CraptacularOne]

Peoples love affair with this antiquated OS is just silly really. It's time to let this old and weary OS walk off into the sunset and make way for newer and better things to come. As long as this old dog still lingers around we are going to be hamstrung by it. Let it finally rest in peace Micro$oft.....

[zanzabar]

I still see no reason why people are using windows xp and not 7...

upgrade costs, corporate networks with universal imaging, resistance to change since it works. its like nt4/98 when xp or 2000 came out there was no real drawback to upgrading but it had a cost and the old OS worked,

also xp is much more secure since it dose not do ipv6 and u cannot disable ipv6 with vista or 7 (u can disable v4 and v6 conversion but not v6) and most firewalls will let ipv6 through since its an encrypted packet so u can get some nasty stuff on a large network that will bypass the network security.

for a home user there is no reason not to go 7 if u have the option or have the $80 to upgrade but most computers are not home user.


The only reason I can see that people aren't using Windows 7 is because Windows 7 uses a lot more resources, even though it's still better than Vista.

Other than that, I agree. Windows XP is nearing the end of its life cycle and Windows 7 is it's rightful heir.

i found that it used less than stock XP, it will use more ram if u have it but if u put it on a box with 512 or 256MB of ram it wont use much ram, if u have like most here 4-8GB it will pre cashe alot of stuff and use like 1.5-2GB of space for the OS but its not for system files and it will flush it if needed. then for cpu win7 uses less, the only thing that XP wins is HDD space.

[ScottALot]

People still use Windows XP because it did its job... simple as that. Not so many people went for Vista and as for 7... I guess people just don't feel the need to upgrade when their XP systems are still running strong.

[mrcape]

Yup all of my corporate clients' IT departments are still rolling out XP, and these are software companies! : p

It sucks balls for web development as many corporate IT use an image of XP that comes with IE6. IE6 MUST DIE!

[lkiller123]

upgrade costs

Definitely agreed. AFAIK, all the computers there are open for public use are XP. Most of those machines are already pretty old, upgrading them to 7 will mean a hardware upgrade, which again means replacing everything with new PCs.

[safan80]

also xp is much more secure since it dose not do ipv6 and u cannot disable ipv6 with vista or 7 (u can disable v4 and v6 conversion but not v6) and most firewalls will let ipv6 through since its an encrypted packet so u can get some nasty stuff on a large network that will bypass the network security.


You can remove ipv6 in windows 7 and vista.

[Frisch]

Ever heard of the concept, money.....

[sdsdv10]

I still see no reason why people are using windows xp and not 7...

Because they haven't bought a new computer yet! :yepp:

[zanzabar]

You can remove ipv6 in windows 7 and vista.

no u cannot, u can disable addressing the computer but u cannot disable it, ipv6 will use spv4 addressing.


go and disable it and all things that u can find about it and then run wireshark and u will still get ipv6 traffic.

[Sparky]

Let's see... Main PC is running 7 Pro, laptop is Vista Business, my Intel dual socket is Server 2008, the AMD quad socket is linux.

Nope, no XP here :D

[rintamarotta]

Still running windows xp on older machines that are idling untill i install wcg on them, waste of power tough :)

3 Old Athlon 64 4200+ machines running 24/7 without any use in my server room :)

Rest are servers with Windows Server 2008, Windows 7 Pro, Windows 7 Enterprise, Windows 7 Home Premium and Windows 7 Ultimate for the love of all different windows versions :), guess it would be easier to just run Windows 7 Enterprise and have one of my servers for lisencing of all machines trought MAK keys or something like that.

Edit: Oh yeah forgot 2 operating systems.. Linux and MacBook Pro with Mac OS 10.6.4

[Loque]

I can't upgrade on my shop because the software and some older hardware I use there won't work with w7.. and to upgrade everything would cost thousands and take countless hours to migrate.. everything works just fine as it is :)

[red]

I still am. By 2012, Sandy Bridge and friends will be well-entrenched, as well as UEFI, so I might as well upgrade then. BTW, screw Microsoft for making IE9 W7 only.

[Buckeye]

I don't think it's a question of why people are not using Win 7 but more about what computers people are using XP on, that really could not handle Win 7.

I think all of us have seen our share of old machines that people are still using when they ask us to fix it for them.

Lots of older Pentium 4 machines, Dells, HP's that people hang on to for ever and keep installing new stuff which slows them down so much.

To me Win 7 is really nice because I no long have to worry about driver disks (for the most part), and the speed of install.

I do still run into problems with Win 7 and bugs, but I had the same on XP.

[chew*]

I use my Xp still for many reasons , it works........I have a legit version of win 7 64 still sitting here collecting dust from the AMD MS win 7 launch tour......it will reamain there till I have a problem with compatability with XP.

If it's not broke why fark with it.

[The_Beast]

If it ain't broke why fix it?


My next rig will be win 7 (or whatever is the current windows OS) but this rig will never see win 7 (or whatever is the current windows OS). I'd rather upgrade component than the OS

[sin0822]

windows 7 doesn't support my photosmart printer, and im not going to go buy another printer. Plus i feel like xp is faster. but i do use 7, only because i have to get used to a new OS.

[zanzabar]

windows 7 doesn't support my photosmart printer, and im not going to go buy another printer. Plus i feel like xp is faster. but i do use 7, only because i have to get used to a new OS.

there is nothing on the winupdate beta catalog or for vista, as vista and 7 use the same drivers

[MrMojoZ]

Same thing happens every time. People held onto 98 with all their might too. The "if it ain't broke hurhurhur" attitude just seems silly to me though. I love learning and playing with new stuff.

[mrcape]

Yeah I'm running Windows 3.1 and FoxPro 2 and kicking ass cause I'm so old school.

[tbone8ty]

avoid XP like the plague, every system i see having issues is running xp with massive viruses and trojans, this is for home users and small business


a win7 upgrade and a ssd and possibly more memory will do the trick if they cant afford a new system

[highoctane]

I use them all but why would I pay to upgrade the os on a dual core box I use for a bedroom htpc, XP works fine with a dual core, 2gb ram, tv card & raid 5 array. Also the win7 software for the tv card I have is only a half baked beta release so far which while displays a picture is not correct and pretty much an annoyance compared to stable versions for xp & vista. So to get this rig working correctly again probably need to upgrade the TV card as well as buy the os, not worth it.

I can't upgrade the os on my work pc to windows7 since the cad version I run doesn't support windows7 and simply will not install on an unsupported os, nor am I shelling out a couple grand to upgrade to the version that does just to have a new os that will function the same. The plotter I use is a non current model which means it no longer gets specific driver updates with new os's, its last official driver was for XP although I managed to use an alternate driver for another plotter with vista with probably 95% functional use but is qwerky with ink/pen selection. Nor does the cnc & nesting software we use have any official support other than XP unless you want to pay another couple grand to upgrade to the latest version. So why is my work PC or other work related pc's not windows7, it simply costs too much in a nutshell for no productive gains.

My main gaming rig is still vista since it works fine and again what specific gain would I see that is worth the $100 upgrade.

The only rig I have with Windows7 is my family room gaming htpc, while I like it probably the best of all the OS's its simply not worth the money or effort for me to upgrade all my machines for the sake of having the latest.

[Sparky]

windows 7 doesn't support my photosmart printer, and im not going to go buy another printer. Plus i feel like xp is faster. but i do use 7, only because i have to get used to a new OS.

You can probably blame HP for that one. I have a Laserjet 1012 (not using it atm) that HP was going to release drivers for Vista. Then Vista came out, and HP pulled the drivers, and told people to buy a newer printer instead :rolleyes: Yeah, that didn't go over well. And I got my printer working anyway, screw you HP :slap:

They have the Laserjet 1012 Vista driver available now :lol2:

Wouldn't surprise me if they're doing the same thing with your printer. Is there a Vista driver available for it? That would probably work just fine.

[One_Hertz]

I prefer XP so that is what I use... Yes, tried windows 7 for months; nothing is better besides aesthetics but everything is slower.

[Manicdan]

i blamed the netbook boom that was too weak to handle 7 for a while. even though 7 was awesome, people couldnt really pay for a full computer upgrade these last 2 years, and had to go with a smaller cheaper netbook.

win7 is growing fast, im kinda shocked how weak vista really was.

[cyberspyder]

XP worked, people hate change, and it was a drastic one at that.

[eBoy0]

Xp for me, too lazy to reinstall everything... Plus, no LAN bluetooth drivers for W7 yet :(

[Brother Esau]

Peoples love affair with this antiquated OS is just silly really. It's time to let this old and weary OS walk off into the sunset and make way for newer and better things to come. As long as this old dog still lingers around we are going to be hamstrung by it. Let it finally rest in peace Micro$oft.....

Perhaps when you have thousands invested in software for XP then moving to Windows 7 means having to re-invest that money once more you might be inclined to retract your statement besides XP is still Microsofts best O.S for Business.

Also this is assuming that you also will not have to upgrade your Hardware as well (Most Will)!

Taking a guess here but judging by your avatar I would say that you are to young to realize these important aspects that you have conveniently overlooked:ROTF:

[takamishanoku]

XP is ancient history and i still can't understand why anyone would still use it. Win 7 is better (for me) in every respect. Heck even visa was just as fast as XP on my machine. The ONLY thing i do find XP faster is transferring of files (USB esp). Not sure why it takes so damn long on Vista and now 7 compared to XP (yes i disabled Remote Differential Compression, applied a hotfix - helped but still slow).

[Kingcarcas]

The ugliness of XP makes me sick to my stomach, no PC should have to endure that anymore.

[randomizer]

There are clearly some people here who buy into the idea that if there's a new whiz-bang piece of glassware that Microsoft wants to sell you, you must go and purchase it. Fortunately there are also some people who have common sense. I'd still be running XP if I didn't get Vista and Win 7 for free. There is simply not enough reason to fork out the money until planned obsolescence kicks in, which it is starting to now.

[lkiller123]

The ugliness of XP makes me sick to my stomach, no PC should have to endure that anymore.

XP + Zune skin, FTW.

I still use that on an old laptop, circa 2005.:up:

[Jokester_wild]

I don't find this surprising, even though I use windows 7 now on my main computer. Win xp just worked. When doing anything from file sharing to general networking. I run into problems far more often with 7. Its shiny, looks pretty and is flashy. But it has more problems then xp.

[Spectrobozo]

I'm using XP here, I also have 7x64 (and I have this since the 7000 beta) on dual boot, but for most of the time XP is what I'm using, it just works well, is not like Windows 98 or something from these days, for the daily use it's very stable, compatible and complete, it's lighter than 7 to,

the biggest clear disadvantages in terms of interface are the search and aero on 7, search is much improved, and aero makes things quite "smoother"

but I don't care to much about appearance, although I think my XP with the royale noir skin doesn't look to bad :)

[RejZoR]

The ugliness of XP makes me sick to my stomach, no PC should have to endure that anymore.

Default Luna Blue is a bit harsh on the eyes, but if you just switch to a Luna Silver, it looks so much better. I use WinXP in VMWare for testing purposes and on netbook since i got it bundled with WinXP. Have tried Win7 on it and worked pretty well, however wireless was just randomly dropping. Surprisingly, signal was like totally better than with WinXP so i think the wireless module was in "overclocked" mode under Win7 for some reason and that's why it was randomly dying.

[T_M]

My company of ~25,000 PCs still all use XP SP2.
We are only just now globally rolling out SP3.

[Syn.]

I still am. By 2012, Sandy Bridge and friends will be well-entrenched, as well as UEFI, so I might as well upgrade then. BTW, screw Microsoft for making IE9 W7 only.


nternet Explorer 9 Beta is available in many languages. You can download Internet Explorer 9 Beta in the language that matches your version of Windows or choose the English version, which works with all versions of Windows Vista and Windows 7.

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/internet-explorer/download/ie-9/worldwide

Windows XP is 10 years old. If a company didn't save enough money to upgrade its IT system in those 10 years and are now blaming things on 'costs'... seriously stop the bs, just pony up the cash and upgrade. You are holding the rest of us up because you cant plan and adopt/evolve. The real reason why IT departments dont want to update is because all those highly paid IT executives have to go back to school to learn Win7. If that is the case why not hire a younger IT exec who already knows Win7 and takes half the salary.

Win7 is a great OS. There is no need for WinXP anymore. I cant wait for the day when MS completely retires the old OS.

[Spectrobozo]

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/internet-explorer/download/ie-9/worldwide

Windows XP is 10 years old. If a company didn't save enough money to upgrade its IT system in those 10 years and are now blaming things on 'costs'... seriously stop the bs, just pony up the cash and upgrade. You are holding the rest of us up because you cant plan and adopt/evolve. The real reason why IT departments dont want to update is because all those highly paid IT executives have to go back to school to learn Win7. If that is the case why not hire a younger IT exec who already knows Win7 and takes half the salary.

Win7 is a great OS. There is no need for WinXP anymore. I cant wait for the day when MS completely retires the old OS.

He can upgrade his windows to run IE9, or just use Opera, Chrome, Firefox or something, is there any reason to not support XP with IE9, or this is just something like "Halo 2"?

while win7 is a great OS, I think the same about windows xp.

[Darakian]

also xp is much more secure since it dose not do ipv6 and u cannot disable ipv6 with vista or 7 (u can disable v4 and v6 conversion but not v6) and most firewalls will let ipv6 through since its an encrypted packet so u can get some nasty stuff on a large network that will bypass the network security.

Raw bull:banana::banana::banana::banana:. IPv6 can be stopped at a firewall no problem. You can disable ipv6 in win 7 no problem (probably vista as well).

[zanzabar]

Raw bull:banana::banana::banana::banana:. IPv6 can be stopped at a firewall no problem. You can disable ipv6 in win 7 no problem (probably vista as well).

i said most firewalls, and no u cannot disable it. u can get software to stop ipv6 but u cannot stop windows from using it.

get wireshark, monitor your trafic and u will see ipv6 out if u have the stuff for it enabled or not, the only thing that u can stop is dhcp addressing and converting ip4 to 6 or 6 to 4

[Darakian]

i said most firewalls, and no u cannot disable it. u can get software to stop ipv6 but u cannot stop windows from using it.

get wireshark, monitor your trafic and u will see ipv6 out if u have the stuff for it enabled or not, the only thing that u can stop is dhcp addressing and converting ip4 to 6 or 6 to 4

http://www.addictivetips.com/windows-tips/how-to-disable-ipv6-in-windows-7/

As for the firewalls, anything made in the past 10 years should understand IPv6 and even if not they should drop the v6 packets if they can't deal with them. XP is in no way more secure than 7 or vista.

[Tuvok-LuR-]

XP nowadays is mostly on company PCs.
Among gamers Seven is going fine and xp is dying, just look at Steam survey:
Windows XP 32 bit 33.78%

Windows 7 64 bit 28.65%

Windows Vista 32 bit 14.09%

Windows 7 32 bit 12.64%

Windows Vista 64 bit 7.46%

[Dahmer]

XP nowadays is mostly on company PCs.
Among gamers Seven is going fine and xp is dying, just look at Steam survey:
Windows XP 32 bit 33.78%

Windows 7 64 bit 28.65%

Windows Vista 32 bit 14.09%

Windows 7 32 bit 12.64%

Windows Vista 64 bit 7.46%Very true, the vast majority of the pc's at work here still use XP but every new pc that arrives comes with Windows 7 and the people working with those just have to adjust :)
When 7 was in it's beta stages there were a few programs that didn't work but those problems are fixed now.

[kuroikenshi]

My company of ~25,000 PCs still all use XP SP2.
We are only just now globally rolling out SP3.

Its such an investment to change platform... 25k strong puters would incurr a few hundreds of thousands to upgrade...
plus the process...

[RaV[666]]

I tried Win7 three times already, every time stumbled upon few things that in the end made me go back to xp64.
You cant disable cleartype entirely (i have a crt).It feels slower than xp, most probably due to a lot more disk access.It gets more bloated and quicker.I had problems with my truecrypted disks, read operations would pause for a 15sec once in few minutes ,its most probably solvable, but it just isnt a problem on XP.
And for the love od god, why there isnt a classic start menu?
Pretty much every system tweak/changing settings is more clicks than on xp.
I dont get MS, people really got used to the XP system, MS should have an option to leave the user interface same as it was, it worked, most people are used to it.Not everything HAS to change.
Xp64+trim+Advanced format+Dx11 would be a killer for me ;-), aero would be nice, but far from necessity.

[Mechanical Man]

Corporates dont have reason to upgrade. There are many industries that have sw that just does not yet run on win7 + lots of old hw that would not run it well anyway. But ipv6 is not reason not to upgrade, u can disable it from network side. I have to admit I have been surprised how well it has gained marketshare.

[Tomasis]

xp is pretty fast :D though i do use it only for OC

[Clint]

XP64 SP1 on workstation, 2003 SP1 on WSUS box and win 7 on laptop. My Vaio couldnt handle the network switching app and SSD trim properly in XP, otherwise I'd stay on that there as well (and get a 1h longer battery-time). I see absolutely no value in a fancy UI, I don't sit and stare on the desktop nor flipping windows all day. I work in applications 98% of the time, and once there it's just not visible anymore (except ridicoulus semi-transparent borders). XP is simply a too good product, thats why corp stays on it. Only thing MS can do is force me/them over is with leave out support in IE and DX tech. My WSUS box has some 50GB of updates for all win versions, I will stay on the XP/2003 until it gets unbearable, which still is far away. Probably will go Linux anyway.

[flopper]

windows 7 is a great OS.

[s1nykuL]

I can only speculate as to why others still use XP. But I don't think I will bother, as it's already been said.

I know why I still do, however bear in mind my first computer was a Spectrum 48 and my first PC ran DOS 3.2. I wasn't born into a world where PC's were made for consumers. I wasn't even born into a world with PC's :eek:

Why I still use XP:
It works and it works well and it is fast, I can't remember the last time I had a blue screen, perhaps I am not over clocking far enough ;)
I know XP very well and it is tweaked, locked down, and set up just the way I like to work.
I like to know what my OS is doing and where and how it does it. Win 7 is another step towards isolating users from that knowledge. Yes I know that for the consumer user this is probably for the best, it certainly cuts down support calls if the user cannot break the OS.
I don't want or need all the bells and whistles in Win 7.
With the exception of DX11 Win7 offers me nothing over XP.


I have a triple boot system.. Ubuntu/Win XP/Win 7
So I do use Win 7, and it runs well on my PC. But I only use it for games and that usage is very rare as the vast majority of PC games are ports and only use DX9, and the majority of games that do utilise a DX10/11 code path look little different from their DX9 versions.

In all honesty, if Cubase and PC games ran natively on Linux I wouldn't use MS software at all.

[ewitte]

People hated Vista. In fact we never had a big rollout with Vista. Now 90% of the new machines going out have windows 7 on it and 10% Windows XP. I wouldn't be surprised if we were responsible for putting 500-1000 windows 7 machines out this year. Still only about 15% 64-bit though. Usually people with high memory needs and newer software. We have an entire 35-40 user site going out with minimum 4GB, 8GB and even 16GB on some workstations.

XP breaks really easy these days for people with bad surfing habits. These are the first people we recommend getting off XP.

[FreeRadical]

Why I still use XP:
It works and it works well and it is fast, I can't remember the last time I had a blue screen, perhaps I am not over clocking far enough ;)
I know XP very well and it is tweaked, locked down, and set up just the way I like to work.
I like to know what my OS is doing and where and how it does it. Win 7 is another step towards isolating users from that knowledge. Yes I know that for the consumer user this is probably for the best, it certainly cuts down support calls if the user cannot break the OS.
I don't want or need all the bells and whistles in Win 7.
With the exception of DX11 Win7 offers me nothing over XP.


This. Exactly the same reason _I_ am still on XP. Have installed Win 7 x64 too but it would take me ages to tweak it the way I have done my XP.

I dislike what they have done with WinSXS (also on Vista) too although I can vlite it.
Plus the beep hardware and several such stuff which I can do on WinXP but can't on Win 7/ Vista since some wiseguy at MS decided what hardware I can run and what I can't.
My XP install is 4 years old. It doesn't break if you know what you are doing and have weekly backups (offline ones and not crappy system restore)

For people with bad surfing habits, Firefox + NoScript and a good antivirus software like Kaspersky is my best suggestion, and not a change in OS.

[Sparky]

XP is "fast" because it was designed to be able to run on a pentium 2 :rofl:

[Den Leiw]

Still using XP on my main rig. It's fast and stable, that's all I want from an OS. Plus I haven't seen any bluescreen in like 3-4 years...
My secondary rig with Win7 just feels overall slower and I'm having occasional bluescreens and a few older games don't even work.

[FlawleZ]

Windows 7 is great. We currently run it in every machine at home except 1. I have a 6400+ rig that I use for when I work at home that has a slough of productivity software and for just general toying with. Its the only PC I use and own that runs XP anymore.

I finally upgraded my Dell work PC with 7 which originally came with XP but with an E4600 and 4GB of ram it runs smooth as butter on Win 7. I was just avoiding having to resinstally 20+ programs and the other inconveniences that come with a reformat. I personally feel any modern PC (at least dual core and 2GB+ RAM) can run Windows 7 just fine. However in the corporate environment its inevitably a large cost to incur to upgrade the OS when many times it will require a hardware upgrade as well. At home, there will always be exceptions, but only for very low end computers, legacy hardware, or for the few exceptions of software incompatibilities should they be running Windows XP.

Also probably one of the biggest factors to maintaining support for XP from OEMs and software companies is the advent of the Netbook.

[Aielman]

There's some very real cost issues with corporate rollouts for those companies that don't have software assurance. There's also a rather huge learning curve for your run of the mill, dumber than a bag of hammers, user that are slowing some deployments.

In our environment, for example, buying cals for 54k machines is a big nut during a time when we're in serious budget straights.

[FlawleZ]

There's some very real cost issues with corporate rollouts for those companies that don't have software assurance. There's also a rather huge learning curve for your run of the mill, dumber than a bag of hammers, user that are slowing some deployments.

In our environment, for example, buying cals for 54k machines is a big nut during a time when we're in serious budget straights.

Exactly.

Someone earlier mentioned money. Newsflash: We're in a global recession, budgets are tight and costs are cut. For many companies what was once a standard step forward in periodic equipment upgrades is now being postponed or cancelled to make room for other expenditures.

[s1nykuL]

For people with bad surfing habits, Firefox + NoScript and a good antivirus software like Kaspersky is my best suggestion, and not a change in OS.

Absolutely.

I also recommend using a different media player, a different email client and a different software firewall. A firewall that cannot have exceptions added by an installer or other software.

[s1nykuL]

XP is "fast" because it was designed to be able to run on a pentium 2 :rofl:

Sure was, and don't forget the 128Mb RAM requirement.

That's why it flies on a c2d @ 3.4ghz with 4Gb RAM.
Now it's my turn to :rofl:

;)

[ThugsRook]

XP here on all my rigs, and all my laptops have been reverted to XP.

i cant stand Vista or 7.

[Syn.]

Exactly.

Someone earlier mentioned money. Newsflash: We're in a global recession, budgets are tight and costs are cut. For many companies what was once a standard step forward in periodic equipment upgrades is now being postponed or cancelled to make room for other expenditures.

Newsflash: The companies have had 10 years to prepare to upgrade their IT systems. The recession today is overly used as an excuse to cut the number of jobs and make every working person who does not hold a managerial position a slave.

Upgrading the IT systems to Win7 would bring a new boon to IT industry with more jobs being offered/needed. How quick would a company cut the number of jobs in the IT department if they are needed to redeploy hardware/software through out the company? Also who is going to help the tech oblivious masses and re-train them?

The only way out of the recession is if everyone spends MORE money! By everyone i mean every major corp and thieving banker.

Upgrading to Win7 will:
- Create more jobs in IT industry, manufacturing and education.
- Increase the revenue in consumer products as people buy new PC's and new accessories.
- Create a much happier working atmosphere as working in an office will become a lot more entertaining.
- Increase work efficiency.
- Help the world get out of the recession
- Get more geeks laid as the tech newbies have to ask for help again!
- Update the geek stereotype to the much better modern version where geeks become everyone!

Windows7 is a great OS, there is nothing about WinXP that is better. If you have the hardware to run it then you are just letting your self down, your PC deserves better. The whole world will benefit if everyone upgrades to Win7.

If that's not enough then remember, it will finally kill IE6 once and for all!!!!!!!!!

[FischOderAal]

As long as the PC is fast enough, I see no reason to avoid Win 7. It's a very good OS that has brought many enhancements. Up until Win 7 Microsoft was way behind OS-X and Linux in terms of useability.

My sister's laptop is still running XP and my father's is running Windows 2000, because they are rather slow.

[Xoulz]

I still us XP, though it is not my main rig, same with family members. Their new systems are 7, their secondary is still XP.. people own more than 1 computer now. Flawed premis.

[mutantmagnet]

I still see no reason why people are using windows xp and not 7...

You still have to pay for it. Not interested until I'm ready to get a new rig.

[ewitte]

Sure was, and don't forget the 128Mb RAM requirement.

That's why it flies on a c2d @ 3.4ghz with 4Gb RAM.
Now it's my turn to :rofl:

;)

I've seen similar systems grind to a halt on XP because of what users did to it.

[Frisch]

"I'm still on DOS 5.02 and considering an upgrade to DOS 6.1 ....It's just that I have get used to making coffee while it boots, and I won't break that pattern....and I like my commands....."

[Behemot]

Newsflash: The companies have had 10 years to prepare to upgrade their IT systems. The recession today is overly used as an excuse to cut the number of jobs and make every working person who does not hold a managerial position a slave.

Newsflash: MS had 10 years to creat OS which will be really worth of migration. Somehow they epicly failed (again) and had to make new repaired version really fast (again).

They even still didn't make better filesystem instead of old NTFS which they stole from IBM (that's maybe the actuall reason they just still talk about it, again).

[mrcape]

I think part of the problem is green IT staff which is a product of using one OS for ten years straight. The guys I speak to are shaking in their boots about a mass OS upgrade - wimps! It's not Vista, and it's up to SW developers to adapt to the new OS. Plus XP mode solves 99% compatibility issues. A lot of this hold up is corporate fear.

Imagine moving from DOS to 3 to workgroups to NT in like 4 years - we did it. Come on sissies!

[sergiu]

I have a laptop IBM T60 CPU Core 2 duo 1.66Ghz,3GB ram with XP Professional. It uses ~250MB memory at a cold startup. It is used for internet browsing, music, movies and software development. My question is: do I get any advantages if I switch to windows 7 ? My needs are max battery life which is obtained by CPU undervolting via RMClock (no win7 support), fast response times and as much memory free as possible for my applications (I disabled memory swapping to avoid hdd activity and decrease response times)
I am using windows 7 at work on a core i7 860 with 8GB ram and sometimes I have the feeling that is not working faster than my laptop.

[mrcape]

I dunno about the battery, but I upgraded two 2006 asus coreduo laptops to Win7 pro on Intel SSDs and it was like night and day. I'll never purchase a spinning drive or install XP again unless I'm playing SuperPi 32M.

[Behemot]

It uses ~250MB memory at a cold startup.

You can push it as low as 150 MB with TinyXP:up: It also eats me some 3 GB's from disk at maximum (with Documents folder and swap file on another partition).

[SimonD]

Its such an investment to change platform... 25k strong puters would incurr a few hundreds of thousands to upgrade...
plus the process...

Actually I kinda disagree with this, if a company has 25k computers then they sure as hell should have purchased the SA when they purchased the OS CALS.

As far as XP is concerned, everyone I know (in a personal capacity, business is different) has stopped using XP years ago.
In the corporate world I am seeing XP deployments decline year after year, more and more Win 7 deployment experience is being required in the roles I am looking at now.

XP had it's time, it's time that it rolled over and died the quiet death it deserves.

[sergiu]

You can push it as low as 150 MB with TinyXP:up: It also eats me some 3 GB's from disk at maximum (with Documents folder and swap file on another partition).
Clean install tweaked for what I need with drivers is about 70-90MB (on older systems without fatty drivers I had about 60). Unfortunately the difference is used by my other applications. I still don't understand why an entire OS uses 50-60MB as core memory and Yahoo Messenger about the same only for texting feature.

[Aerwidh]

Running XP/Linux dual-boot on my main rig and 7/Linux on my notebook.

Not sure why anyone would need to switch from XP to 7 when XP does everything the vast majority of users need it to, while being a familiar experience and not very resource hungry.

[Syn.]

Newsflash: MS had 10 years to creat OS which will be really worth of migration. Somehow they epicly failed (again) and had to make new repaired version really fast (again).

They even still didn't make better filesystem instead of old NTFS which they stole from IBM (that's maybe the actuall reason they just still talk about it, again).

They spent 5 years trying to reinvent a lot of the components that make up Windows. In the end the scope of the Vista project was too wide so they changed the guys in charge and started the project again. Just like Windows 2000 was groundwork on top of which WinXP was created Vista was the preparation for the Windows7. Neither Windows 2000 or Vista where bad OS'es. Vista it self was not an epic failure. The marketing around it was. If Vista was a very poor OS do you really think that Apple would have bothered to launch such a massive Ad campaign to make you believe Vista was rubbish.
That being said there where only 3 things wrong with Vista:
1) The marketing (All the mainstream media companies ate up all the bs Apple had to offer)
2) The hardware driver support. It seemed like most hardware companies believed it was never going to come out. When it did they had to run around and hack their XP drivers for Vista. This was the cause of 99% of issues people had with Vista.
3) The Gap. Windows XP was in the market for too long. This allowed people to become so attached to it that they refused to believe they had to give it up.

(I didn't include UAC because I think its just lazy to complain that its that annoying to make that ONE MORE mouse click :shakes:)

Windows7 is not a quick fix but a planned release when Vista project got re-started. Windows7 takes all the ground work set up by Vista (Just like Win2000 did for XP) and takes it that one step further. This time it also came with a much better marketing campaign. The real key feature being is that MS let so many users try it them self before release which made the reviews a lot less important.

That being said I don't mind answering any points you want to bring up. Please if you can give me your reasons why Win7 is bad and why you should use XP instead. I am interested in reading them.

[Manicdan]

yeah i have a question

why did they stop using justin long. they should have him playing with an ipad and showing the PC guy fumbling around on a laptop or something (as much as that would not be a good comparison, its just interesting they stopped that campaign. i hate the new ones)

[Blindsay]

i havent touched xp in a long time and never will again, good riddance.

maybe it was mentioned already but from a gaming prespective isnt xp almost if not already then almos useless in high end gaming.

32bit xp has that nasty limit of 4GB (well usually less usable and i know thats any 32 bit o/s but given that xp is primarily only a 32 bit o/s....) and with video cards comming with more and more onboard memory you could easily have 2GB of VRAM (or more) and that doesnt leave u much left for system ram?

And isnt xp stuck on dx9 (officially)?

[sergiu]

That being said I don't mind answering any points you want to bring up. Please if you can give me your reasons why Win7 is bad and why you should use XP instead. I am interested in reading them.

It's not that Win7 is bad, but compared with XP, is no longer an OS, but a complete package with different interface and more applications. An OS job is to manage resources and it performs best when you don't feel it. XP offered good enough management with a graphical interface at a low resource cost. Win7 offers the same functionality plus a different interface and many features that maybe most of us will never use. All of these for at least 6 times more resources. This is not evolution, but waste! I personally would be interested in the OS itself for the ability to assign threads to real cores first and then to virtual cores after and maybe other minor changes. I and not interested in the whole package with whole "features" and I have no option to install just OS with exactly same XP interface and exactly same features, nothing more. I'm sure my whish is not technically impossible, just that M$ business model does not promote this kind of usage.

[Behemot]

It's for masses. The same with Ubuntu. That's the reason why I'll choose Ubuntu server for my next system reinstallation: it's a tabula rasa, I'll install what I want which is far faster than the other way, unisntalling all the crap in K/Ubuntu.

Syn.: you know, the more you push people into "7 is best XP is crap", the more some of them resist and the more they won't migrate in the next future. As was said, when it offers nothing over XP but less free resources, why use it?? Because somebody says we should?

[Scorpio[pt]]

It's not that Win7 is bad, but compared with XP, is no longer an OS, .

ahahahhaha :ROTF:

seriously? no longer an OS ?
sorry but your reasons smell fanboy all over the place , or someone who refuses to uses old hardware

Win7 its not that resource intensive your comparing a 10 year old os based on old tech of course its lighter , its lacks a lot of features that i cant live with
you can run win7 nicely with a decent pc

[Syn.]

It's not that Win7 is bad, but compared with XP, is no longer an OS, but a complete package with different interface and more applications. An OS job is to manage resources and it performs best when you don't feel it. XP offered good enough management with a graphical interface at a low resource cost. Win7 offers the same functionality plus a different interface and many features that maybe most of us will never use. All of these for at least 6 times more resources. This is not evolution, but waste! I personally would be interested in the OS itself for the ability to assign threads to real cores first and then to virtual cores after and maybe other minor changes. I and not interested in the whole package with whole "features" and I have no option to install just OS with exactly same XP interface and exactly same features, nothing more. I'm sure my whish is not technically impossible, just that M$ business model does not promote this kind of usage.

Complete package of what? It is nothing more then an operating system that comes with drivers and IE so that you can download other browsers. My installation of Win7 Ultimate comes with less applications then XP did. WMP has to be downloaded after installation. Besides that most of the other software MS has bundled in Windows Live Essentials which is again something you download your self. The new GUI is designed to adopt to evolving trends. Search and the Touch interface. That means that the GUI it self had to be finger friendly. Also with most agreeing that the OSX app bar is a good design MS made a compromise and done a mixture of app bar and task bar. Besides that search has been integrated through out the OS. Instead of "looking" through folders you can just type and the OS will find it for you, you can blame google for that one. Besides that hardware management and troubleshooting is amazing. The structure of Win7 is much more rock solid then XP. With its support for latest tech and future tech it just seems a waste of time not to up upgrade. You can take advantage of the much more efficient work flow of Win7. All that it takes is for you to open your mind and accept that you will have to change something.

You see you think you will never make use of the new GUI and its new features, but that is only because you are use to the XP GUI and functions. If you where to use Win7 for longer periods of time you would start to "get" its new features and how they help you. When ever i have to use XP i find my self hitting my head against the wall.

Lastly saying that it uses more resources is simply stating the obvious. However it is really more on which numbers you look at. Its easy to look at WinXp MB vs Win7 GB but that is not what matters. You said it your self Win7 features a lot more functions then XP at its core. These features don't come for free. WinXP used a lot of resources compared to Win2k when it came out. Its a natural evolution. As its been stated before WinXP is designed for PII and 128mb ram. Win7 is designed for C2D and 1GB/2GB (32/64bit) ram. If you look at memory usage % wise Win7 uses its minimum memory space much better then WinXP. WinXP 128mb min (250~ actual). My Win7 64bit after browsing the net with 2 different browsers, 2 different email clients, playing games on steam and listening to music is using 1.35GB out of the Minimum required 2GB. That is 67% efficiency for Win7 and -195% for WinXP. Most systems that had XP installed came with 512mb of ram. That is 4 times the minimum amount. Most Win7 installations come with 2GB of ram. Which on the 64bit installations is the exact minimum amount, 2 times for 32bit. Which means that Win7 actually uses less, and is sold with less RAM then WinXP, minimum specification speaking obviously.


It's for masses. The same with Ubuntu. That's the reason why I'll choose Ubuntu server for my next system re-installation: it's a tabula rasa, I'll install what I want which is far faster than the other way, unisntalling all the crap in K/Ubuntu.

Syn.: you know, the more you push people into "7 is best XP is crap", the more some of them resist and the more they won't migrate in the next future. As was said, when it offers nothing over XP but less free resources, why use it?? Because somebody says we should?

I am not pushing people, I just don't like the "X product is crap because it is" argument. I have asked you nicely to explain why you don't like Win7 and you prefer WinXP. So far you only mentioned that Win7 is "epic fail" and that MS stole NTFS from IBM. Yet again i ask you to tell me your reasons "why not?".

[sergiu]

;4575306']ahahahhaha :ROTF:

seriously? no longer an OS ?
sorry but your reasons smell fanboy all over the place , or someone who refuses to uses old hardware

Win7 its not that resource intensive your comparing a 10 year old os based on old tech of course its lighter , its lacks a lot of features that i cant live with
you can run win7 nicely with a decent pc

Ok, lets say I am a XP fan with the risk of getting a warning/ban for offtopic. Following your logic, it means that I should throw away my 10 years old car that uses only 8 liters of gas for every 100km and buy one with same max speed, some features that I don't use and that uses 50 liters of gas for same distance.
My computer would run 7 decently, but why to have only 80% of memory resources free when I could have 95%? If I would like to impress my girlfriend with the graphical interface, if I would not know anything about security and I want to feel safe on my computer, if I never used a computer before or if I do gaming at highest possible settings, then probably I would not care if more resources are used. But I believe its really dumb to recommend Win7 without knowing the use case scenario and assume that the newer OS is better than a 10 years proven technology in every situation. Or maybe somehow, by magic, pdf files have much higher quality, or suddently mp3 files have better quality on Windows 7. It may not have better quality, but sure old Winamp buttons look better :D

I would prefer a major change to current operating systems: I would release a interface specification that an OS should implement and I would make it an international standard. In this way I could choose to use Mac GUI with Windows kernel or Windows GUI with a microkernel like L4 or any other combination.

[Nightstar]

XP is for me superior to 7 in all ways.

Faster 2D desktop performance from full hardware accelerated GDI.

Smaller footprint.

Uses fewer CPU cycles.

Uses less RAM.

Supports write filtering from XPE(secure windows)

I've customized my XP over the last 10 years to the point where I've culled all the unnecesary components and services. I've moved my profile directory and program files to separate drives. My C: drive only has Windows on it and that is under 1GB in size. I can re-image it in less than one minute and not lose any functionality.

So in addition to not having to spend money on an operating system "upgrade" I have a faster system that is more secure and easier to maintain than any other Windows OS save perhaps a fully embedded install, a PE or an SDI. Furthermore my custom XP works on all my hardware with all of my software.

IF and when I need to "upgrade" my OS I don't think I'll be using anything from MS. I understand I can have new versions of DX and D2D with Linux even though MS denies those to XP users.

A better question might be "Why switch to Windows 7 from XP?"

I know some of you really like the GUI and others see merits in DX10/11, yet others will preach the virtues of trim, the new driver models etc. From a user perspective none of that improves my experience one iota. In fact I like my custom GUI better and there are SSD mgmt tools superior to TRIM. As for DX10/11 the game studios are so preoccupied with consoles that I couldn't really give a :banana::banana::banana::banana: about new versions of DirectX and the new Hardware I'd have to buy every 2 years to support them.

[lkiller123]

I bet 85%+ consumers switched to Win7 because "it looks cool."

95% people doesn't switch from XP to 7. Most of them just get 7 right out of the box, or clean installs for a new rig, but none of them will bother throwing away all their files just to upgrade from XP to 7. I for one will never do it.

Reason why I use 7?

[Manicdan]

that is a pretty xtreme GUI u have there

[Kingcarcas]

V-sync on the desktop alone makes 7 worth it for me, first OS to work with LAN and everything out of the box for me, XP 64 couldn't get SP3 and i believe without it you have WPA2 issues so 7 was the way to go. Just remembered that when i went back XP-64 in order to get higher PPD in crunching.

7 has also been installed on ancient PCs in Windows 7 forum, and they claim it runs smoother on them than XP ever did.....Installed it myself on my dads laptop with 512MB of RAM and after going through tweaks it runs just fine, don't use it often enough to tell if it's faster than XP or about the same.

Are these more "resources" people the same ones who think using RAM is a bad thing?

[Nightstar]

I have a laptop IBM T60 CPU Core 2 duo 1.66Ghz,3GB ram with XP Professional. It uses ~250MB memory at a cold startup. It is used for internet browsing, music, movies and software development. My question is: do I get any advantages if I switch to windows 7 ? My needs are max battery life which is obtained by CPU undervolting via RMClock (no win7 support), fast response times and as much memory free as possible for my applications (I disabled memory swapping to avoid hdd activity and decrease response times)
I am using windows 7 at work on a core i7 860 with 8GB ram and sometimes I have the feeling that is not working faster than my laptop.

If you want more battery life strip down your XP with Nlite by removing all unnecesary services. Disable unwanted startups. You can then actually remove a stick of RAM which will increase your battery life.

I don't expect you'll actually do this but it works.

SSD will probably save you some battery. 7 won't extend your run time at all.

[Nightstar]

V-sync on the desktop alone makes 7 worth it for me, first OS to work with LAN and everything out of the box for me, XP 64 couldn't get SP3 and i believe without it you have WPA2 issues so 7 was the way to go. Just remembered that when i went back XP-64 in order to get higher PPD in crunching.

7 has also been installed on ancient PCs in Windows 7 forum, and they claim it runs smoother on them than XP ever did.....Installed it myself on my dads laptop with 512MB of RAM and after going through tweaks it runs just fine, don't use it often enough to tell if it's faster than XP or about the same.

Are these more "resources" people the same ones who think using RAM is a bad thing?

I've never experienced screen tearing on any of my XP machines but if 7 fixes that problem for you then I think thats a pretty good reason for adoption.

I am surprised to hear that 7 has full 2D desktop V-sync. My understanding is that DWM uses D2D acceleraion for some desktop items(browsers, taskbar, explorer) the rest are actually rendered the same way VISTA did. I could be wrong but thats how I interpret the articles about the subject on MSDN and if that's the case how can you have full 2D desktop V-sync?

The aforementioned DWM function actually causes some of the memory use problems that 7 is percieved to manifest. If an application isn't one profiled for acceleration DWM buffers a copy of the allocation in system memory creating a duplicate resource.

RAM is only a bad thing if you don't need it or don't know what to do with it. I expect that applies to most PC users who allow themselves to be sold 4-8 GB when their PC will never use 2GB. Strobing all those rows and columns happens with every tick regardless of the contents. That translates to electricity turned into heat inside your PC.

Extra RAM can be allocated to a RAMdisk and if used correctly can really speed up your system responsiveness regardless of which flavor of windows you use. Thats one of the reasons i like XPs compatibility with certain XPe components.

[aqualab]

The TRIM is one of the reasons why I prefer windows 7 , but I have few rigs with XP too...

[Sadasius]

I moved from XP to Win 7 and do not regret it at all. I love the new interface and how it checks for compatibility problems etc. Win 7 is the best damn OS I have tried. Mind you it was expensive as I bought the Ultimate retail version. My reasoning was that I got to try it out first and I fell in love with it and when I went and tried XP on my other systems it really lacked that awesome feel that Win 7 has. Now I cannot stand my XP boxes and especially the one at work that I kick around a lot. XP has that familiar feel but once you get familiar with Win 7 it is very hard to go back to anything. I think price sets people off the most. If it cost about $80 or even less it would be the only damn OS around because I am sure everyone would snatch it up in a heart beat. Nobody likes to pay almost $400 for an OS. I know I sure did not but I am still glad I did. It is that good! :yepp:

[FreeRadical]

Someone asked what XP can do and Win 7 can't.
Anyone know how to route the beep sound through the motherboard (system) speakers in Win 7?
(yeah I know I can disable the beep sound but I want it as audio feedback for some of my apps)

[Clint]

V-sync on the desktop alone makes 7 worth it for me, first OS to work with LAN and everything out of the box for me, XP 64 couldn't get SP3 and i believe without it you have WPA2 issues so 7 was the way to go. Just remembered that when i went back XP-64 in order to get higher PPD in crunching.

7 has also been installed on ancient PCs in Windows 7 forum, and they claim it runs smoother on them than XP ever did.....Installed it myself on my dads laptop with 512MB of RAM and after going through tweaks it runs just fine, don't use it often enough to tell if it's faster than XP or about the same.

Are these more "resources" people the same ones who think using RAM is a bad thing?

This is so typical. Benching is done on XP "to gain points", but when comparison is made then "it's as good as or even better than XP". Same with gaming, once compared it's as good as or even better than XP. While confronted with numbers reply is "a couple of FPS doesn't matter".

Emo attachment is what it is..:D

[Nightstar]

Since I don't own a copy of 7 I've only tested the 311 preinstalls XP vs 7.

XP is faster than 7 on every game I've tried it on on my 311. Seems to be the consensus on the myhpmini311 forum based on mucho testing.

Perhaps that all changes on a quad core 4+GHz.

[sergiu]

If you want more battery life strip down your XP with Nlite by removing all unnecesary services. Disable unwanted startups. You can then actually remove a stick of RAM which will increase your battery life.

I don't expect you'll actually do this but it works.

SSD will probably save you some battery. 7 won't extend your run time at all.

OS is stripped of all services that I do not need. With a clean install I would have about 7-8 hours of battery life in idle and about 3 in full load on a 9 cell battery. Unfortunately, I need my memory so I cannot remove any stick. My CPU is running at 0.95V for all steps, so my next step would be a pinmod for lower VIDs in idle and full load. I am also thinking at an efficient SSD (power usage <1W).

[zanzabar]

V-sync on the desktop alone makes 7 worth it for me, first OS to work with LAN and everything out of the box for me, XP 64 couldn't get SP3 and i believe without it you have WPA2 issues so 7 was the way to go. Just remembered that when i went back XP-64 in order to get higher PPD in crunching.

7 has also been installed on ancient PCs in Windows 7 forum, and they claim it runs smoother on them than XP ever did.....Installed it myself on my dads laptop with 512MB of RAM and after going through tweaks it runs just fine, don't use it often enough to tell if it's faster than XP or about the same.

Are these more "resources" people the same ones who think using RAM is a bad thing?

xp x64 is not xp its stripped server 03 and its not the same os or kernel base/


This is so typical. Benching is done on XP "to gain points", but when comparison is made then "it's as good as or even better than XP". Same with gaming, once compared it's as good as or even better than XP. While confronted with numbers reply is "a couple of FPS doesn't matter".

Emo attachment is what it is..:D

that may be true with vista but with 7 SPI gets the same range of results and XP u dont get dx10-11 so no free MSAA, and if u go 64bit 7 is a must since server03 was crap and so its bastard sibling xp 64 unless u just want to brute force computations but then if u strip down 7 u would get the same.

and on the desktop speed, disable animation, if u do that it (vista or 7) is the same or faster on the desktop but u get the windows+tab and live previews on the start menu (7 only), and maybe best of all u can move the position of open items on the taskbar


OS is stripped of all services that I do not need. With a clean install I would have about 7-8 hours of battery life in idle and about 3 in full load on a 9 cell battery. Unfortunately, I need my memory so I cannot remove any stick. My CPU is running at 0.95V for all steps, so my next step would be a pinmod for lower VIDs in idle and full load. I am also thinking at an efficient SSD (power usage <1W).

do the ssd it makes a difference in a desktop but on a laptop its like a whole new class of device

[Behemot]

XP 64 couldn't get SP3 and i believe without it you have WPA2 issues so 7 was the way to go.
What? XP x86-64 is based on Win 2003, different system which of course has most known vulnerabilities repaired. So SP2 for it is like SP3 for XP. You cannot mess XP SP2 with XP x86-64 SP2, they are two different things.

I am not pushing people, I just don't like the "X product is crap because it is" argument. I have asked you nicely to explain why you don't like Win7 and you prefer WinXP. So far you only mentioned that Win7 is "epic fail" and that MS stole NTFS from IBM. Yet again i ask you to tell me your reasons "why not?".
Several people already said the reasons and I pointed you to them, What else do you want? I did not say I don't like 7, just it has nothing good over XP for me now. E.g. on laptop I have OEM licence of XP Pro and even 768 MB of RAM is not enough for some apps, why on Earth I should install 7?

Maybe I'll use 7 on my main rig together with Ubuntu server in dualboot. I'll use Linux for work and 7 for gaming (but I game like a once per month) just because it's better to loose few FPS than have third OS on HDD (Ubuntu, 7, XP) since I plan 36gig 15k SCSi drive and every GB is needed.

[randomizer]

You are holding the rest of us up because you cant plan and adopt/evolve.

I have a feeling that most companies don't care about "holding back" an industry that they are not a part of. They don't need glassware to type up documents. If you want to use an OS that constantly evolves, use Linux. It is what you want it to be.

I personally enjoy using Linux far more than Windows 7 or XP (although I still use Windows for the most part, slowly changing to Linux). Windows is boring and a pain to configure how I want it (so I usually don't bother). I like config files, they're far simpler.

EDIT: Oh, and I agree with some others that a new filesystem would be nice, or even support for other existing filesystems. MS is stuck in the past with their latest OS still running a 9-year-old filesystem.

[Rava6e]

Still using XP. I just cant be bothered with having to modify the registry to get out features i use, which are there by default in XP. Yeah i format quite often.

[drnip]

XP hell I'm still on Win98.

[eXa]

i format way less now on w7(since beta 7000) than what i did with xp...

[randomizer]

Unless you're doing an OS upgrade, you shouldn't need to format at all.

[zanzabar]

Unless you're doing an OS upgrade, you shouldn't need to format at all.

i have never had that with xp, it always seamed to break something or slow its self down, but with vista and 7 i have not had any problems except for changing hardware platforms and even then i can get into windows and it works (i never had xp be able do that)

[Sparky]

Unless you're doing an OS or major hardware upgrade, you shouldn't need to format at all.

fixed for you. Not sure on Win Vista/7 but with XP not reloading windows when doing a major hardware overhaul was just asking for trouble.

[Nightstar]

fixed for you. Not sure on Win Vista/7 but with XP not reloading windows when doing a major hardware overhaul was just asking for trouble.

My experience is exactly the opposite.

Once when I had a HDD failure and didn't have a backup drive available a friend gave me his old HDD. We both had S939 systems, mine DFI NF4, his Biostar. After installing the HDD I didn't hit the delete key quickly enough to enter BIOS and whaddaya know, XP boots reports new hardware found requests a reboot and voilla working PC.

Quite remarkable the Nforce 4 chipset was the only component common to our systems. You'd never see that happen with a previous version of Windows.

XP brought us working plug&play. Since then I've been waiting for Microsoft to deliver a feature that makes my experience better or easier. No love with Vista or it's new version 7. Just more bloat and makeup.

[randomizer]

fixed for you. Not sure on Win Vista/7 but with XP not reloading windows when doing a major hardware overhaul was just asking for trouble.

I was not making the point that Windows will normally let you get away without a reformat. It doesn't, that's the problem. You should not have to re-install an OS for something as common as a hardware upgrade. If you must then the design is flawed.

[Sadasius]

I has been my understanding that certain non-retail Windows OS's are bound to hardware and that retail versions are not. So perhaps some might get some joy while others do not might apply to the version they have and may be a user's inexperience that caused problems. For instance the Win 7 retail version I have I can change all the hardware I want to without a problem. But if I were to buy it lesser brethren then its attached to the mainboard I believe.

[Kingcarcas]

Thanks for telling me it's Server, already knew that, bottom line is it makes "XP 64" worthless and who would want 32? Nice try defending XP. Last i checked the latest video cards with latest drivers were FASTER in Vista/7 for gaming, but even if they weren't who cares? XP is DX9 only.
These threads should just be banned, it always turns into "XP is better whaaa" and "Vista/7 are better noob", people can use whatever the hell they want. Will never make any sense to me to get all these high-end parts to just install that hideous XP on it, it's like using the insides of a DC-6 on a 787 Dreamliner

[Nightstar]

Thanks for telling me it's Server, already knew that, bottom line is it makes "XP 64" worthless and who would want 32? Nice try defending XP. Last i checked the latest video cards with latest drivers were FASTER in Vista/7 for gaming, but even if they weren't who cares? XP is DX9 only.
These threads should just be banned, it always turns into "XP is better whaaa" and "Vista/7 are better noob" people can use whatever the hell they want.

No need to get all upset and whiney we've been exchanging opinions and experiences about the virtues of the two OSs. Last I checked that was consistent with the intent of this topic and within the boundaries of this forum.

[randomizer]

I has been my understanding that certain non-retail Windows OS's are bound to hardware and that retail versions are not. So perhaps some might get some joy while others do not might apply to the version they have and may be a user's inexperience that caused problems. For instance the Win 7 retail version I have I can change all the hardware I want to without a problem. But if I were to buy it lesser brethren then its attached to the mainboard I believe.

So in that case it is a deliberate design restriction to force upgrades. Business as usual for Microsoft though I guess.


Thanks for telling me it's Server, already knew that, bottom line is it makes "XP 64" worthless, nice trying to defend XP. Last i checked latest video cards with latest drivers were FASTER in 7 for gaming, but even if they weren't who cares? XP is DX9 only.

I've never understood why tech forums are full of people who can't think outside of the gaming box. Is Windows capable of being used for real work or is it just a toy?

[chinaguy]

Same arguments, XPs is going to be around for a while.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=255492

[Sadasius]

So in that case it is a deliberate design restriction to force upgrades. Business as usual for Microsoft though I guess.


Oh very much so. I had to pay nearly $400 for my retail version of Win 7 Ultimate. It came with both discs of 32 bit and 64 bit. Like I said though, to me it was worth it.

I have several boxes at home running XP including 2 servers. It's a great OS but it has its limitations such as no TRIM and DX11 and good 64bit support. Win 7 covers these areas really well and moves ahead. XP had it's time and place and when I hop on one of my other boxes it is all too painfully obvious.

[highoctane]

Once an app is loaded and I'm actually using the computer for something other than staring at the desktop or taskbar there is hardly anything distinguishable, as the saying goes its all pink in the, ah who cares...

Windows7 simply isn't going to magically turn the average sally into a highly optimized power office user no more than staying at a holiday in express is going to make you the next man on the moon.

[chinaguy]

For 66% of the people using a PC, XP is all they need to surf the web and look at :banana::banana::banana::banana:.

[jmke]

XP + Zune skin, FTW.

I still use that on an old laptop, circa 2005.:up:

thanks for the tip, looks good! and comes from microsoft themselves, no third party software required:)

[jmke]

For 66% of the people using a PC, XP is all they need to surf the web and look at :banana::banana::banana::banana:.
and next to that... gaming of course.

triple monitor gaming under XP works nicely, this is under XP with single GTX280&7300GT: http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/2007/softth14519937.jpg

http://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/f22/triple-monitor-gaming-cheap-softth-74908/

[WaterFlex]

win7 for about 1 year already :up:

[Tackleberry]

running vista on my business comp and there arent enough of mad emoticons here to express my frustration with this :banana::banana::banana::banana:e.
i used XP for many years before and got more then satisfied.

[m^2]

I use XP x64. I tried Vista and it was utter crap. While many say Vista 2 (sometimes called 7) fixed many issues, it didn't fix them all (mandatory driver signing and DRM are the most painful that I know to be there) and I'm very weary about going there. Actually I touched several linuces recently and saw that they improved A LOT over the years - and I'm gonna try lubuntu when I buy the next PC. So it's likely there will be no Vista 2 for me. Ever.
BTW, I just noticed that my sig still rants about Vista. I should update it I guess. ;)

It sucks balls for web development as many corporate IT use an image of XP that comes with IE6. IE6 MUST DIE!
Recently I saw an ARM netbook running Windows CE. You know what? IE CE is based on IE 6. I won't try to guess the reasons, but for some machines IE 6 is the most up to date version available.

avoid XP like the plague, every system i see having issues is running xp with massive viruses and trojans, this is for home users and small business
I have totally different views. In recent years I've touched a dozen or 2 pf PCs, most with XP. And I was clearing an XP machine from a virus. Reason? A kid decided that playing a (pirated) game is more important than an antivirus warning. Vista / Vista 2 wouldn't change anything.

[Aielman]

Newsflash: The companies have had 10 years to prepare to upgrade their IT systems. The recession today is overly used as an excuse to cut the number of jobs and make every working person who does not hold a managerial position a slave.



Wow...that's....really naive.

We've faced an average cut of operating budget of 8-10% every year for the last 3...and the majority of people being laid off are middle management, not blue collar.

The recession is quite real and anyone who thinks it isn't doesn't know very much about the economy, nor have they ever had to prepare a budget for a large department.

[LiquidFiction]

Is XP Even able to support SSD's?

[rockfella]

Some people format just for the heck of it like me... i used to format XP almost every week, sometimes multiples times a day! :ROTF: using windows 7 for almost it's first beta realease and now i format once in two months but still format just for the heck of it. Seems fun :yepp:

Unless you're doing an OS upgrade, you shouldn't need to format at all.

What's stopping you to switch to 7? I could not bear vista for even a week! :up:

running vista on my business comp and there arent enough of mad emoticons here to express my frustration with this :banana::banana::banana::banana:e. i used XP for many years before and got more then satisfied.

[zanzabar]

I use XP x64. I tried Vista and it was utter crap. While many say Vista 2 (sometimes called 7) fixed many issues, it didn't fix them all (mandatory driver signing and DRM are the most painful that I know to be there) and I'm very weary about going there. Actually I touched several linuces recently and saw that they improved A LOT over the years - and I'm gonna try lubuntu when I buy the next PC. So it's likely there will be no Vista 2 for me. Ever.
BTW, I just noticed that my sig still rants about Vista. I should update it I guess. ;)

Recently I saw an ARM netbook running Windows CE. You know what? IE CE is based on IE 6. I won't try to guess the reasons, but for some machines IE 6 is the most up to date version available.

I have totally different views. In recent years I've touched a dozen or 2 pf PCs, most with XP. And I was clearing an XP machine from a virus. Reason? A kid decided that playing a (pirated) game is more important than an antivirus warning. Vista / Vista 2 wouldn't change anything.

windows vista and 7 dont force driver signing since vista sp1 u can disable it and u can right click an installer and disable signing for that drivers installer and it works. there is also no more drm than xp, there is the windown media player that it comes with that supports drm for music services but if u want on that on XP u have to update WMP and enable it, and it wont do anything by default.

winmo/windows phone are both windows ce and so are most garmen devices with touch screens. and windows CE as opera that works awesomely even with flash on windows CE (sure its mactromedia flash with IE and opera but its still flash)



Is XP Even able to support SSD's?

yes it dose but no trim and u have to manually align your drive, then vista has no trim and 7 is good (for now)


and anouther reason why xp sucks is that u cannot use gigabit networking as the netstack is broken (it tops around 350Mb/s), but then vista and 7 have broken audio stacks, so u cannot win.

[Aerwidh]

and anouther reason why xp sucks is that u cannot use gigabit networking as the netstack is broken (it tops around 350Mb/s), but then vista and 7 have broken audio stacks, so u cannot win.

What? I'm certain I've managed to transfer files at higher speeds than that, using a gigabit switch. :confused:

[zanzabar]

What? I'm certain I've managed to transfer files at higher speeds than that, using a gigabit switch. :confused:

did u have differential compression on, that will give u a huge boost in transfers but not in throughput

[Behemot]

Every Windows sucks the balls in terms of storage. Even my handmade Ubuntu server NAS with some 1/20 the power of my primary rig is able to supply every computer with at least 10 MB/s on Fast Ethernet. Unfortunatelly none of my Windows PC's is able to download/upload at that speed for longer period of time.

Remember the problems with first SSD's, the controllers had to be remade for Vista. WTF? SW has to be written for HW not otherwise.

[Aerwidh]

did u have differential compression on, that will give u a huge boost in transfers but not in throughput

I don't think so, but it was a long time ago.

[zanzabar]

Every Windows sucks the balls in terms of storage. Even my handmade Ubuntu server NAS with some 1/20 the power of my primary rig is able to supply every computer with at least 10 MB/s on Fast Ethernet. Unfortunatelly none of my Windows PC's is able to download/upload at that speed for longer period of time.

Remember the problems with first SSD's, the controllers had to be remade for Vista. WTF? SW has to be written for HW not otherwise.

the 1st gen jmicron ssds were bad for anything that had multiple IO sources even linux as they had 16kb of cashe and that was not even large enough for a write buffer with mlc nand, hence why the sucked and shuddered if u wrote anything to them.

[SexyMF]

Is XP Even able to support SSD's?

Yes. I support many XP machines. Why, because they run software which simply doesn't work on Vista/7. Compatability mode doesn't cut it.

Most new machines I purchase (HP's in this instance) come with Win7 + XP downgrade.

[Nikolasz]

i got celeron 466 with 256 ram 50gb hard drive and win xp pro only for, programing eeproms chips, flashing devices and using serial ports, and usb for new stuff, many more.

Win7 for internet,games,music..

[Coldon]

one thing people havent mentioned is that even though W7 looks like its using more ram, its doing it for a reason. Its called pre-caching, I didnt buy 8GB of RAM just to use 200mb of it, then sit waiting for the OS to load programs into it from the HDD when I run them. W7 and vista's agressive caching was a major pro for me. Having often used apps start up instantly is a major time saver, try start 3dsMAX on XP and only windows 7 after using it regularly then tell me if an upgrade is worth it... Also the memory management in W7 is a lot better than in XP, its always funny to see guys stare at their task manager's used memory and freak out... Honestly if you have the ram it should be used... if you want an OS to take up only 200MB of ram WTF did you buy 4GB?

Also the reason IE9 wont run on XP is due to its native D2D hardware acceleration which is based on a DX10 renderer. I'm currently using the IE9 beta and its blown all the other browsers out of the water, even FF4 beta which I was loving... The only downside to IE9 is no built in spell checker but other than that the new features are just epic!! especially the custom site menus when you pin sites to the task bar...

[Aerwidh]

if you want an OS to take up only 200MB of ram WTF did you buy 4GB?

Because other applications might need it?

[rado992]

Because other applications might need it?

Fail post wins at failing. We've been having this conversation for how many years now? Two? Three? The core os DOES NOT use 4 GB of ram. It pre-emptively fills it with the programs you use regularly. It can, of course, free the ram if another app needs it more. So what is your point exacty?

On topic: In the sense of being aware of today's hardware capabilities, XP is dead, no doubt. It was released at a time when the average PC was a Pentium 3 800MHz with 256MB of sdram and a 5400RPM hard drive. Today's systems are tens of times faster. XP only lives because of its huge legacy. For five years it was the only choice for a Windows desktop OS so everything had to be made compatible with it. For new systems, however, it is a complete waste IMO. If you want XP so badly, why upgrade? Your corrent PC might just feel as fast under XP as the upgrade. If you want to run legacy apps that don't even start under Win7, they'll probably run well enough on the old hardware, anyway, so that point is moot as well.

[randomizer]

Some people format just for the heck of it like me... i used to format XP almost every week, sometimes multiples times a day! :ROTF: using windows 7 for almost it's first beta realease and now i format once in two months but still format just for the heck of it. Seems fun :yepp:
I format every 6-12 months and usually only because of a disk upgrade or excessive slowdown (not an issue with my SSD, so that's one less reason). I have not formatted since February this year and have no intention of doing so again unless I buy another SSD, Windows kicks the bucket or I decide to stick Windows on my spinner and Linux on my SSD.



What's stopping you to switch to 7? I could not bear vista for even a week! :up:

I'm running Windows 7, I never said I wasn't. I only said that I wouldn't be if I had to pay for it, same goes for Vista.

On the topic of prefetching and application startup time: I have some cross-platform applications that start up faster on Linux from a spinner than they do in Windows 7 with an SSD. I don't need aggressive prefetching there. Prefetching is a band-aid fix to an underlying problem (which partially involves bloated, multi-GB Windows-only applications). It makes a minor difference but having an SSD makes far more of a difference than Super-duperfetch.

[RaV[666]]

Prefetch has to read from disk also ,at bootup or other time, it isnt magically appearing in ram.
And prefetching things slows down another tasks IO.Personally i want a control of how and when things go into ram.
If i want some programs to be lightning quick i load em to ramdisk.But for the most part ssd is enough.
Major problem with long startup times for software is net framework virus.Software written in framework is so badly optimized.Nero 9 starts from a HDD about 30seconds! ,From SSD it still takes 5 secs.When i was using nero 5-6 in the olden days.It took 3-5secs from a slower than todays HDD`s...Im talking about just burning rome of course, and not the whole package.
I mean really, in the last ten years, hardware has gotten MUCH MUCH better, yet still, software works roughly the same.
If someona asked me how it will look in ten years, ten years ago, i would think that whole pc bootup will take few seconds, and software is gonna be lightning quick in response.What a downer reality is.

[HWaddict]

The broken Audio stack in Win7 sucks for it's other merits but I still use it for the Main PC often; often because the bad habit of manicly rebuilding and reinstalling when I'm bored or try to improve something.

The old PC with PIII and 512MB RAM use XP but it's slow as a snail in Antarctica but I have some cool stuff like a 5.25" floppy too:yepp:

The upgrade cost for Win7 could be a pain but if people did care about all support on their old XP machines cluttered with sh*t they should reconsider a change and save them the grief.

As long as it works it's more or less a matter of taste and comfort.
And Linux still lacks in Hardware support.

[randomizer]

And Linux still lacks in Hardware support.

Windows 7 lacks support for my scanner and barely supports my printer (I need to get Windows Update to retrieve all printer drivers, no OOTB support). Linux has zero support for my printer thanks to Canon not supplying drivers since about 2000. Not sure about the scanner, I haven't tried it. Hardware support across OSs is patchy in general.

[PatRaceTin]

I use XP more than 7

[chinaguy]

As I said before 66% of PC users just want to send emails, Facebook, surf the web and watch :banana::banana::banana::banana: or someone falling off their skateboard! You don't need anything more then XP for this. I would say 99.9% of that 66% are using XP because it was pre installed on their HP/Toshiba/Dell POS they purchased at BestBuy/PC World.

Most people buying a PC or Laptop decide what to buy with the colour of the machine. Why do you think they make all those nice Netbooks in those modern colours to match lipstick! Most users of a PC are concerned about large Breast support instead of large packets.

So as long as most PC users can see large breast they are not concerned with what OS they are using.

The people who use this forum are a different matter!

I for one am using Windows 7 64 to write this, my wife is using XP to download the Telly Tubbies for my 2 year old son.

How many users of a car know the difference between 2 valves per cylinder or 4!

My wife does not even know how to open the hod of the car, never mind how to check the oil. All she knows is how to turn the engin on and use D and R.

She can however install Windows XP in ENglish and Chinese!!!

[m^2]

windows vista and 7 dont force driver signing since vista sp1 u can disable it and u can right click an installer and disable signing for that drivers installer and it works.
It seemed there were hacks that worked at some point, but it seems they are fixed (at least some of them).
http://www.sevenforums.com/drivers/26799-driver-signing.html
They don't mention the flaw that everybody could become a trusted party, I wonder how is it....Either way, I don't want to rely on bugs, I want things to just work.


there is also no more drm than xp, there is the windown media player that it comes with that supports drm for music services but if u want on that on XP u have to update WMP and enable it, and it wont do anything by default.
No, there are also processes that have more privileges than the others, for example Windows doesn't let you play with their memory. Which means that in some ways media companies have more rights to your PC then you do. Which is a big WTF.
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/vista/process_vista.mspx

[Calmatory]

And Linux still lacks in Hardware support.

Stop pulling statements out of your ass please. :mad:

[MrMojoZ]

Stop pulling statements out of your ass please. :mad:

Linux hardware support isn't at the same level as Windows support, he is absolutely correct. Nothing to be mad over.

[Calmatory]

Linux hardware support isn't at the same level as Windows support, he is absolutely correct. Nothing to be mad over.

Are we talking about working-out-of-the-box, or that Windows has better drivers? I claim that the Linux drivers suck ..., but most of the hardware work out of the box on Linux. Especially legacy hardware. But then again, talking about legacy hardware on XS is shooting oneself on the foot. :)

[Aerwidh]

Fail post wins at failing. We've been having this conversation for how many years now? Two? Three? The core os DOES NOT use 4 GB of ram. It pre-emptively fills it with the programs you use regularly. It can, of course, free the ram if another app needs it more. So what is your point exacty?

On topic: In the sense of being aware of today's hardware capabilities, XP is dead, no doubt. It was released at a time when the average PC was a Pentium 3 800MHz with 256MB of sdram and a 5400RPM hard drive. Today's systems are tens of times faster. XP only lives because of its huge legacy. For five years it was the only choice for a Windows desktop OS so everything had to be made compatible with it. For new systems, however, it is a complete waste IMO. If you want XP so badly, why upgrade? Your corrent PC might just feel as fast under XP as the upgrade. If you want to run legacy apps that don't even start under Win7, they'll probably run well enough on the old hardware, anyway, so that point is moot as well.

Nice rant there, except I never claimed Win 7 uses 4 GB of RAM. I'm writing this from a Win 7 notebook I've owned for ~10 months, so I am well aware of how it behaves, thank you. In my experience the caching doesn't help much (and it can occasionally be detrimental to performance if one's RAM is around the minimum specs), but I suppose that could be dependent upon what applications I use.

My point was simply that I prefer when an OS uses as little resources as possible, since I want as much as possible available to whatever applications I choose to use.

In case someone wants an example...
With my current configuration, XP (+ antivirus, DaemonTools, firewall/intrusion prevention and some more stuff) uses ~500 MB, whereas 7 (+ antivirus and DaemonTools) uses ~ 850 MB (not counting whatever it's using for caching, which is besides the point). That's 350 MB more that I can use in XP for my photo editing, gaming, etc, even though I have more applications running in the background under XP.

I don't care if people want to use XP, Vista, 7, Linux, OS X, BSD, Solaris or whatever else they please. I just think it's silly when anyone on a tech forum argues that pretty much everyone needs to use an OS that might be (but isn't necessarily) more resource hungry, or slower, or full of unnecessary features that some/many users have no use for, just because it's new or because that specific forum poster likes it. To me, it's like saying that I have to start spending more money on food every month, not because I need it, but because I happened to get a pay raise and now have more money in my wallet. :shrug:

[Sparky]

I don't think that is a valid comparison, but whatever :p:

[Calmatory]

My point was simply that I prefer when an OS uses as little resources as possible, since I want as much as possible available to whatever applications I choose to use.

In case someone wants an example...
With my current configuration, XP (+ antivirus, DaemonTools, firewall/intrusion prevention and some more stuff) uses ~500 MB, whereas 7 (+ antivirus and DaemonTools) uses ~ 850 MB (not counting whatever it's using for caching, which is besides the point). That's 350 MB more that I can use in XP for my photo editing, gaming, etc, even though I have more applications running in the background under XP.


..But you DO understand that caching does not affect what is "available to whatever applications" you choose to use? There's a difference between "memory free" and "memory available".

That cached ram, it's just cached in case it happens to be used. If not, it will be overwritten by whatever needs more RAM.

[GeorgeStorm]

I still use XP cos I don' wanna have to pay to get win7, considering XP does the job fine?
And having used win7, I defo don't think its worth my monies.

[Nikolasz]

The old PC with PIII and 512MB RAM use XP but it's slow as a snail in Antarctica

:ROTF: :rofl: So is slow as time rlly gows rlly slow hehehe

[Behemot]

My wife does not even know how to open the hod of the car, never mind how to check the oil. All she knows is how to turn the engin on and use D and R.

WTF, we even have questions for this during driving licence exams, it's basic knowledge for using a car:confused:

Anyway, if people use computers only bor boobs, why on earth they buy those icredibly small netbooks, you can see nothing there:ROTF:

[Aerwidh]

..But you DO understand that caching does not affect what is "available to whatever applications" you choose to use? There's a difference between "memory free" and "memory available".

That cached ram, it's just cached in case it happens to be used. If not, it will be overwritten by whatever needs more RAM.

Yes, I know. Perhaps I expressed myself in a less than clear manner (English not being my native language and all), but with the following


(not counting whatever it's using for caching, which is besides the point)

I meant that the amount of RAM I mentioned (~850 MB) did not include the amount used for caching (another ~1.5 GB). Since I was only talking about the amount of RAM that was more constantly being used for the OS itself, (plus a couple of applications), the amount of RAM temporarily used for caching was irrelevant. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused.

[sergiu]

..But you DO understand that caching does not affect what is "available to whatever applications" you choose to use? There's a difference between "memory free" and "memory available".

That cached ram, it's just cached in case it happens to be used. If not, it will be overwritten by whatever needs more RAM.

Caching uses cpu cycles thus waking it from deep sleep modes. It is also using memory and harddrive, so it would imply a raise in power consumption for a laptop because of CPU, RAM, HDD and MC not being able to remain in idle all the time.

[Calmatory]

Caching uses cpu cycles thus waking it from deep sleep modes. It is also using memory and harddrive, so it would imply a raise in power consumption for a laptop because of CPU, RAM, HDD and MC not being able to remain in idle all the time.
How it works(at least in Linux, which definitely does it the right way), is that when you open a program, it is loaded from the HDD to the RAM, and when the program is closed, the RAM isn't free'd, just marked as cache. When you open the program again, no need to access the HDD because the data is already in the RAM.

But I agree that PREFETCHING is the root of all evil. ;)

[Syn.]

Windows 7 64 bit 32.25% +2.63%
Windows XP 32 bit 27.93% -3.56%
Windows Vista 32 bit 13.87% +0.65%
Windows 7 12.13% -0.69%
Windows Vista 64 bit 8.25% +1.44%

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

[Kingcarcas]

Down with floppies, AGP, PS/2, PCI, XP, legacy anything

[sergiu]

How it works(at least in Linux, which definitely does it the right way), is that when you open a program, it is loaded from the HDD to the RAM, and when the program is closed, the RAM isn't free'd, just marked as cache. When you open the program again, no need to access the HDD because the data is already in the RAM.

But I agree that PREFETCHING is the root of all evil. ;)

My mistake... I was talking more about Prefetching. Caching mechanism is present also in Windows XP and is working just like in Linux. Linux also has another advantage: a better file system!

[randomizer]

My mistake... I was talking more about Prefetching. Caching mechanism is present also in Windows XP and is working just like in Linux. Linux also has another advantage: a better file system!

I still don't understand why so many people whine about XP holding us back when they are quite happy to install Windows 7 onto a filesystem that is also 9 years old.

[SexyMF]

Down with floppies, AGP, PS/2, PCI, XP, legacy anything

Stop only thinking about home users. Business is the massive part of computer usage. Why do you think industrial computers can still be had with ISA slots (S775 specs with ISA slots). Legacy is still important.

It is not only legacy gear which requires XP. I'm installing an XP machine to run automation software (Rockwell). Why? because it works and has far less issues than Vista or 7.



I still don't understand why so many people whine about XP holding us back when they are quite happy to install Windows 7 onto a filesystem that is also 9 years old.

To that end I don't know why people are not embracing SSD's (other than pricepoint). Substantially faster - and the only attention paid to a major subsystem. Drives got bigger but not really faster.

[WangChung]

I have 2 laptops and a file server running XP x64. It works for what I need, and it was "extremely low cost." Hell, I still have a laptop running Windows 2k just because all that laptop does is run VAG-COM for my car, and it's got a small HDD. I'm not switching anything anytime soon because I have no need. I Usenet and Torrent daily, zero problems with viruses or trojans, but I'm not stupid either. When I build a new rig it'll have Win7 x64, but for now I'm content. :)

[IanB]

Add education to businesses as key users who have a large pre-installed base of machines that it would be too costly and unnecessary to upgrade. I'm still buying XP licenses for our network to add new machines. XP works well in an education setting because it locks down hard leaving a very simple and clear, uncluttered interface for pupils to access resources. We don't need or want the bells and whistles of Win7 to distract them and encourage tinkering that breaks machine settings.

There is also the issue of ancient educational software that works on XP (was probably written for Windows 95 :p: ) and needs to keep running without issues year after year as it's part of teachers' schemes of work. And retraining them to use something new, and a new OS interface as well, would be... :rolleyes: Let's just say I was shocked at the level of technical illiteracy in my organisation. :shakes:

As individual users we can do what we want with our machines and have the time and inclination to fix problems, tweak and teach ourselves new skills. There's no explicit cost associated with downtime as we radically reconfigure the way we work and we don't have to consider the needs of anyone else. In a business or education setting, quite apart from the cost of upgrading, there's a very important maxim: If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

[rado992]

Add education to businesses as key users who have a large pre-installed base of machines that it would be too costly and unnecessary to upgrade. I'm still buying XP licenses for our network to add new machines. XP works well in an education setting because it locks down hard leaving a very simple and clear, uncluttered interface for pupils to access resources. We don't need or want the bells and whistles of Win7 to distract them and encourage tinkering that breaks machine settings.

There is also the issue of ancient educational software that works on XP (was probably written for Windows 95 :p: ) and needs to keep running without issues year after year as it's part of teachers' schemes of work. And retraining them to use something new, and a new OS interface as well, would be... :rolleyes: Let's just say I was shocked at the level of technical illiteracy in my organisation. :shakes:

As individual users we can do what we want with our machines and have the time and inclination to fix problems, tweak and teach ourselves new skills. There's no explicit cost associated with downtime as we radically reconfigure the way we work and we don't have to consider the needs of anyone else. In a business or education setting, quite apart from the cost of upgrading, there's a very important maxim: If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

True, many organisations, including educational ones, cling on to XP because it simply works. However, at my place of education, everyone's experiences with XP have been.. well, let's say, less than stellar. Never-ending problems with hardware compatibility with our newer machines were a regular thing. Ultimately, this (and the fact that our school finally got windows 7 licenses) led to the upgrade of our more modern computers to windows 7 x86. So far, there have been almost zero issues of any kind, be it networking or compatibility (I would know, i've been voluntarily helping support these machines).

As for old software holding upgrades back, that may be partially true, but teachers at my facility are growing quite fond of windows 7 and newer versions of our educational software. They even scrapped an old dos-based program that they were using (which was really the only thing that didn't work after the upgrade) and replaced it with more up-to-date ones. So in a sense, windows XP itself is contributing to holding back the progress at educational facilities. To XP's credit, though, it still lives in a couple of our computer rooms based on Coppermine P3's and Northwood celerons, simply because of the age of those machines. In my view, that's exactly what XP should be doing, at least in the non-enterprise sector - keeping old machines incapable of running anything newer alive.

The business sector, as many before me said, however, is a completely different affair and should not be discussed here as things are pretty clear there. Software upgrades are associated with extensive compatibility testing and monetary investments. Which is exactly why businesses only upgrade once they need to.

[Behemot]

For educational usage you should have installed Linux rather than overpriced 7 dude. Some offices in some states finally found it's much cheaper...

Anyway, XP didn't have major problems with drivers when it was new. However new hardware was released and problems came. It will be the same with 7 so you got some time in the best case, it's all. Is it worth the money? You could rather have better computers for the money (at my former school we had the cheapest craps which of course started to fail after 3 years due to so bad PSU's and displays with bad components).

[randomizer]

True, many organisations, including educational ones, cling on to XP because it simply works. However, at my place of education, everyone's experiences with XP have been.. well, let's say, less than stellar.

My university doesn't have a properly set up system image. They just installed some software and that was it. Every time you run a program it is running for the first time and needs to be reconfigured...

Then you have the few Core 2 iMacs in one of the labs. They run great with OSX but if you run XP on them they will randomly turn off :ROTF:

[lkiller123]

They just installed some software and that was it. Every time you run a program it is running for the first time and needs to be reconfigured...


Same case for me.. Say you ran a flash update on the system, the second day the update notification pops up again.:shrug:

[randomizer]

Same case for me.. Say you ran a flash update on the system, the second day the update notification pops up again.:shrug:

The worst part is when one of the images (each lab seems to use a different one) has Firefox just updated. Obviously this means that it will go off and check for updates to each of the addons, as well as take you to the same release notes page as usual. The problem is that each of these tasks causes the proxy server to request authentication to leave the internal network (so they can monitor bandwidth usage and cut your connection as soon as you've used 419MB in one semester). Every time I start firefox after having had the machine rebooted I get about 4 authentication dialogs popping up all over the place :rofl:

[kjeldoran]

At my university we upgraded to Windows 7 campus wide this fall semester. It has been a fairly smooth transition and really there are no major issues. A couple bugs here and there because we didn't catch it in image testing, but over it has been smooth.

We actually went to windows 7 due to better security and restrictions the admin could place on the image when compared to XP.

[Coldon]

For educational usage you should have installed Linux rather than overpriced 7 dude. Some offices in some states finally found it's much cheaper...

Anyway, XP didn't have major problems with drivers when it was new. However new hardware was released and problems came. It will be the same with 7 so you got some time in the best case, it's all. Is it worth the money? You could rather have better computers for the money (at my former school we had the cheapest craps which of course started to fail after 3 years due to so bad PSU's and displays with bad components).

are you kidding me? firstly linux isn't cheaper than windows, thats a huge misconceptionm, just because a product is initially cheaper doesnt make it so in the long run. Go a head and buy a cheap secondhand car and compare the running costs and relilability to a new car. For any serious business transititioning to opne office is a complete pain in the ass and ms office is a phenomenal product. Numerous businesses have tried it locally and have lost customers and revenue due to it.

As for XP, when it released the situation was worse than vista, its out of the box support for various systems was shocking. I personally had to run a bios flash just to get the OS to install on my configuration. The OS was ridiculously slow and "bloated" compared to my sleek 98SE and I had issues with a ton of my applications. What you said just isnt true, the 98 -> XP swapover was just as bad as the XP->vista change.

[N19h7m4r3]

are you kidding me? firstly linux isn't cheaper than windows, thats a huge misconceptionm, just because a product is initially cheaper doesnt make it so in the long run. Go a head and buy a cheap secondhand car and compare the running costs and relilability to a new car. For any serious business transititioning to opne office is a complete pain in the ass and ms office is a phenomenal product. Numerous businesses have tried it locally and have lost customers and revenue due to it.

As for XP, when it released the situation was worse than vista, its out of the box support for various systems was shocking. I personally had to run a bios flash just to get the OS to install on my configuration. The OS was ridiculously slow and "bloated" compared to my sleek 98SE and I had issues with a ton of my applications. What you said just isnt true, the 98 -> XP swapover was just as bad as the XP->vista change.

That is so true, my college tried putting linux on all of our Lab computers and it was a massive failure.

In the end they put xp back on and we're just running linux through virtual machines as needed.

Also I find it strange that so many people have forgotten just HOW BAD Xp was at release.
It was far worse than Vista as I recall, not to mention it was dog slow for quite some time compared to 98SE.

Now people say Windows 7 was rushed out to replace Vista? Hell before XP Microsoft had a new OS every 2-3 years. So 7 was released on time I think.

[XSAlliN]

Doh... no surprise here considering the accommodation with windows XP - many people simply don't need more.

[Revv23]

The slow adaptation is a direct result of how good XP was.

Going from 3.1 to 95 was a huge change, much needed GUI Change. 95 -> 98 Stability. 2000/XP. Stability and GUI... XP- Vista? Nothing but a small GUI refresh with bugs (imo) ---> 7 A really refined and stable GUI release with lots of added ease of use features. Fact is nothing is really wrong with XP. It works; and unless you have to upgrade, why would you?

[Manicdan]

^ good summary

i loved 98SE, and XP, and win7 definitely took a few weeks to learn all the new things. and i dont blame the general public for being scared of something new, when they are happy with what they have.

[jmke]

XP works.
2000 worked okish, but not as good as it XP.
NT was the only Microsoft option.

why upgrade to Windows 7/Vista for a business if it will only create issues, while you have none with XP ;)

[KoHaN69]

"if it ain't broke don't fix it" - a pretty hypocritical thing to say on an XTREME OVERCLOCKING forum, isn't it?

[chinaguy]

The only thing that would kill XP for me is when M$ stop their support and patches for security issues. This is what killed Windows 2000 for me when the security threats became to great as M$ stopped their support.

[takamishanoku]

Xp just works.. so i wouldn't upgrade anything that is still working on my computer then. No need to change the monitor, gfx, cpu - heck they all work. Granted i understand what is really meant by the statement (i.e. XP is pretty on par in most functions). Seriously though 7 (and vista for me) have so many little tweaks that not only does the OS work faster, but you do too. The task bar changes, homegroup (for networking), access to personalisation, the new start menu (with recent doc built in), jumplists (awesome idea btw), search and the many individual 'small' tweaks mean that in reality Xp may feel snappy but it takes way more steps to do something similar than in 7. So benchmarks and youtube vids of opening windows only tell part of the story in terms of speed and productivity is an intangible form of speed that one cannot measure without some time spent on both OS.

Again XP is ancient history and i find it amusing how on an xtreme forum, many are simply deciding to stick to it.

[randomizer]

are you kidding me? firstly linux isn't cheaper than windows, thats a huge misconceptionm, just because a product is initially cheaper doesnt make it so in the long run.

If a school is installing Free software simply to save money they are doing it for the wrong reason. The choice should be made primarily on ethical grounds, not financial grounds, otherwise there's little point in making that decision.

[Nightstar]

The slow adaptation is a direct result of how good XP was.

Going from 3.1 to 95 was a huge change, much needed GUI Change. 95 -> 98 Stability. 2000/XP. Stability and GUI... XP- Vista? Nothing but a small GUI refresh with bugs (imo) ---> 7 A really refined and stable GUI release with lots of added ease of use features. Fact is nothing is really wrong with XP. It works; and unless you have to upgrade, why would you?

My alternative summary of MS consumer OS version evolution.

3.1 to 95: a new GUI and 32 bit address space! A significant advance.

95 to 98: extended FAT32 support for "large disks". IMHO a real improvement.

98 to 98SE: integration of IE to escape prosecution. Despicable legal tactic and of no value to the consumer.

98 to ME: Microsoft added a handy memory leak along with some consumer oriented crapware. It was really just a foil for the upcoming XP.

ME/98 to XP: NT kernel and file system with Plug&Pray(working) cursed forevermore by the hassle of product activation. A huge improvement but one that required significant adjustment and met with resistance from IT departments everywhere.

XP to Vista: Fancy Mac look desktop! Protected processes(protected from you), irritating warning popups in place of real security and new DX10(new marketing technique employed by Microshaft denying DX versions to the faithful) all in a huge slow install footprint.

Vista to 7: TRIM (a bandaid for SSD), and DX11(we're familiar with this scam by now). otherwise it's Vista with good PR.

[Syn.]

My alternative summary of MS consumer OS version evolution.

3.1 to 95: a new GUI and 32 bit address space! A significant advance.

95 to 98: extended FAT32 support for "large disks". IMHO a real improvement.

98 to 98SE: integration of IE to escape prosecution. Despicable legal tactic and of no value to the consumer.

98 to ME: Microsoft added a handy memory leak along with some consumer oriented crapware. It was really just a foil for the upcoming XP.

ME/98 to XP: NT kernel and file system with Plug&Pray(working) cursed forevermore by the hassle of product activation. A huge improvement but one that required significant adjustment and met with resistance from IT departments everywhere.

XP to Vista: Fancy Mac look desktop! Protected processes(protected from you), irritating warning popups in place of real security and new DX10(new marketing technique employed by Microshaft denying DX versions to the faithful) all in a huge slow install footprint.

Vista to 7: TRIM (a bandaid for SSD), and DX11(we're familiar with this scam by now). otherwise it's Vista with good PR.

:rofl: :brick:

[Sparky]

98 to 98SE: integration of IE to escape prosecution. Despicable legal tactic and of no value to the consumer.

Correction - Proper USB support was in 98SE. 98 was lacking in that department.

[Aerwidh]

If a school is installing Free software simply to save money they are doing it for the wrong reason. The choice should be made primarily on ethical grounds, not financial grounds, otherwise there's little point in making that decision.

Just curious, what is it about installing free software for financial reasons that you find wrong?


My alternative summary of MS consumer OS version evolution.

3.1 to 95: a new GUI and 32 bit address space! A significant advance.

95 to 98: extended FAT32 support for "large disks". IMHO a real improvement.

98 to 98SE: integration of IE to escape prosecution. Despicable legal tactic and of no value to the consumer.

98 to ME: Microsoft added a handy memory leak along with some consumer oriented crapware. It was really just a foil for the upcoming XP.

ME/98 to XP: NT kernel and file system with Plug&Pray(working) cursed forevermore by the hassle of product activation. A huge improvement but one that required significant adjustment and met with resistance from IT departments everywhere.

XP to Vista: Fancy Mac look desktop! Protected processes(protected from you), irritating warning popups in place of real security and new DX10(new marketing technique employed by Microshaft denying DX versions to the faithful) all in a huge slow install footprint.

Vista to 7: TRIM (a bandaid for SSD), and DX11(we're familiar with this scam by now). otherwise it's Vista with good PR.

A nice summary overall, imo :)

Some interesting info may be that there were basically 4 "versions" of Windows 95 (4.00.950, 4.00.950a, 4.00.950B and 4.00.950C, with some features overlapping between updates to one edition and the next edition), the 3rd having added FAT32 support and the 4th having basic, but somewhat unstable, USB support. :D

[randomizer]

Just curious, what is it about installing free software for financial reasons that you find wrong?

It is not inherently wrong, but it is not the best reason. People who install Free software for financial reasons alone are likely to be the first to go back to proprietary handcuffs when they can't double-click a .exe and install some useless software.

That said, the vast majority of GNU/Linux distros are not entirely Free software anyway. Heck the pure Linux kernel isn't entirely Free.

[SBB]

No TRIM on XP ;)

[zanzabar]

My alternative summary of MS consumer OS version evolution.

3.1 to 95: a new GUI and 32 bit address space! A significant advance.

95 to 98: extended FAT32 support for "large disks". IMHO a real improvement.

98 to 98SE: integration of IE to escape prosecution. Despicable legal tactic and of no value to the consumer.

98 to ME: Microsoft added a handy memory leak along with some consumer oriented crapware. It was really just a foil for the upcoming XP.

ME/98 to XP: NT kernel and file system with Plug&Pray(working) cursed forevermore by the hassle of product activation. A huge improvement but one that required significant adjustment and met with resistance from IT departments everywhere.

XP to Vista: Fancy Mac look desktop! Protected processes(protected from you), irritating warning popups in place of real security and new DX10(new marketing technique employed by Microshaft denying DX versions to the faithful) all in a huge slow install footprint.

Vista to 7: TRIM (a bandaid for SSD), and DX11(we're familiar with this scam by now). otherwise it's Vista with good PR.

vista also got dx11, and u forgot that vista upgraded the netstack to make gigabit and 10k work, changed the sound to openAL (breaking the audio stack,) improved drivee functions, fixed 64bit. then 7 added home group, but most of the improvements benefited the server editions as server08 and r2 domains are much better and thread out much nicer with exchange and sql, made clustering and fall overs work properly and more.

[Timmay]

Yeah I can believe that.

[XSAlliN]

The only thing that would kill XP for me is when M$ stop their support and patches for security issues. This is what killed Windows 2000 for me when the security threats became to great as M$ stopped their support.

You'll be ok for next 4 years (if the worlds doesn't end sooner). :)


Extended Support until 8 April 2014 (only Service Pack 3 x86 and Service Pack 2 x64)

Who knows, Windows 8 could be better... :) Yet, Windows 7 is pretty decent, best OS from M$ so far - but being a commercial OS I agree "it's not necessary for everyone to go from XP to 7".

[Aerwidh]

It is not inherently wrong, but it is not the best reason. People who install Free software for financial reasons alone are likely to be the first to go back to proprietary handcuffs when they can't double-click a .exe and install some useless software.


Interesting point. In some cases, I'm sure such behaviour can be seen. However, I would argue that most people who take the time to actually install free software for personal use aren't going to be deterred quite so easily (assuming said software is somewhat user friendly).

In a properly run school/business environment, it's not like the users necessarily have any choice over the software used, and one doesn't just jump from one thing to another, anyway.

[FlawleZ]

Sure XP is dated and long in the tooth, but the fact remains that it still has many uses for today. Most gamers, power users, and home users could and should easily get along with Windows 7, but by no means is XP not a viable solution for the occasional exception.

[zanzabar]

on the no disabling ipv6 in vista/7


ping ::1

u will get a response on the loopback for ipv6, but on xp unless u installed an ipv6 protocol u wont get anything (u have to use ping -6)

[Revv23]

My alternative summary of MS consumer OS version evolution.

3.1 to 95: a new GUI and 32 bit address space! A significant advance.

95 to 98: extended FAT32 support for "large disks". IMHO a real improvement.

98 to 98SE: integration of IE to escape prosecution. Despicable legal tactic and of no value to the consumer.

98 to ME: Microsoft added a handy memory leak along with some consumer oriented crapware. It was really just a foil for the upcoming XP.

ME/98 to XP: NT kernel and file system with Plug&Pray(working) cursed forevermore by the hassle of product activation. A huge improvement but one that required significant adjustment and met with resistance from IT departments everywhere.

XP to Vista: Fancy Mac look desktop! Protected processes(protected from you), irritating warning popups in place of real security and new DX10(new marketing technique employed by Microshaft denying DX versions to the faithful) all in a huge slow install footprint.

Vista to 7: TRIM (a bandaid for SSD), and DX11(we're familiar with this scam by now). otherwise it's Vista with good PR.

Haha you win.

ROFL

[takamishanoku]

Here's a couple..



Microsoft sells 240 million Windows 7 licences in first year Fastest selling OS in history
By Marc Chacksfield


Microsoft is celebrating Windows 7's first birthday this week, revealing that there have so far been 240 million Windows 7 licences sold.

This impressive number is made more impressive with the news that this makes Windows 7 the fastest selling OS ever.

The operating system, according to Microsoft, is on 97 per cent of new PCs and it has 17 per cent of the global OS market share.

Windows 7 Family Pack

A blog has been released celebrating the birthday and it has some, er, interesting facts and figures in it.

Did you know that Windows 7 users have used Jump Lists 339,129,958 times in the last month? Nope, we didn't know that either.

And apparently Aero Snap has been used 150,957,478 times in the last month as well. Who'd have thought it?

Microsoft has also announced a new addition to its Windows 7 range - Windows 7 Family Pack. This allows the OS to be installed on three PCs in a household.

Source (http://www.techradar.com/news/computing/microsoft-sells-240-million-windows-7-licences-in-first-year-902820)






Last day for Windows XP preloads arrives Gold watch readied for XP's retirement
By Marc Chacksfield


Windows XP - no longer on new PCs

Today (22 October) is the final day that PC makers can pre-load Windows XP on to computers.

This marks the end of an era for an OS which stood the test of time, mainly because its successor, Windows Vista, was royally criticised for not actually being very good.

This meant that many stuck to Windows XP instead of updating.

According to NPR, OEMs were told back in 2008 that 22 October would be the last day that Windows XP would be allowed on to new computers – a date which also happens to be the one-year birthday of Windows 7.

Still supported

Windows XP was launched nine years ago and while it is not being put on to new computers, as long as you have the most up-to-date version of the software (service pack 3) then the bods at Windows will still support the OS.

In fact it will keep supporting Windows XP all the way up to 2014.

That said, Microsoft recently announced that its latest version of its web browser, Internet Explorer 9, will not run on XP.


Source (http://www.techradar.com/news/computing/last-day-for-windows-xp-preloads-arrives-902897)

[Kingcarcas]

R.I.P. XP *salutes* they should put it in one of those viking boats and send it down the river on fire:scope:


Vista, if nothing else, brought us DX10, also it aint that bad...

If 7 is "Vista with better PR" have you actually tried it guy? Come on now, it's a fine OS with DX10 and 11, don't get stuck in the past.

[randomizer]

If 7 is "Vista with better PR" have you actually tried it guy? Come on now, it's a fine OS with DX10 and 11, don't get stuck in the past.

I've been using it for a year and I still maintain that it is little more than that. There's a few nice tweaks compared to Vista, but also some terrible changes, like Aero Peek (or whatever the thumbnail preview thing is called), which is horribly inefficient for quickly switching windows.

[Rava6e]

Tried win7 again. And it seemed better, untill it started crashing randomly, Explorer crashing so i gotta force reset sucks ass. Crashing when watching MPEG4. Crashing when using winamp while playing bad company 2. Guess my combination of pc hardware just cant run with windows 7. Its too bad cause id love to try dx11 and all that. But i guess ill have to wait a while untill i get a new pc again. XP works still so at least thats nice :-)

[Mungri]

I've been using Win 7 since release and I've found it unbelievably more stable, faster, and reliable than any windows OS I'ves used before including XP.

Vista was a POS. I had to format and reinstall my Vista partition every 3-6 months because it kept on getting corrupted and wouldnt boot up or recover. I've not had anything even 5% as bad as that with windows 7.

The only teeny problem is when I feel nostalgic and look for old 2D video games, find them and download and they dont work on 64 bit OS's. But I can live without those.

[Sparky]

Tried win7 again. And it seemed better, untill it started crashing randomly, Explorer crashing so i gotta force reset sucks ass. Crashing when watching MPEG4. Crashing when using winamp while playing bad company 2. Guess my combination of pc hardware just cant run with windows 7. Its too bad cause id love to try dx11 and all that. But i guess ill have to wait a while untill i get a new pc again. XP works still so at least thats nice :-)

Sounds like an unstable overclock to me :p:

[Rava6e]

Sounds like an unstable overclock to me :p:

I actually underclocked to see if that would help, it didnt. But no i dont have OCd CPU and my RAM is actually underclocked all the time.
Im wondering if the fact that having been using 32bit xp for a long time with 4gb ram, and then going to 64 bit and all the ram will be used can cause unstability. Like with 32 bit only 3,25gb is used so the last 0,75 gb have never been used, and now i start using them. I have no idea about any of this lol, but it was just a thought. I dont know what else can cause all this unstability in win7, specially because after a clean install it also crashed haha. However memtest showed no errors.

[defect9]

possible that your ram has an errored section of it. have you done a full (slow) memory check on startup? I had this issue with one stick of my ram, and after replacing the ram, no issues since.

have you done a checkdisk to make sure your HD doesnt have errored sectors on it? those two things are all i can really think of without knowing your system

[crackhead2k]

Tried tweaking the network settings etc...
Win 7 is as slow as hell when it comes to copying over network. Xp is much faster and feels much more responsive on the same system.

maybe I screwed something up. but my system is completely updated.
I'm not green friendly either I don't like the idea of hard drives powering down as "default"

If I really want a computer for low power consumption, I'll just build another one just for that =/

[zanzabar]

I've been using it for a year and I still maintain that it is little more than that. There's a few nice tweaks compared to Vista, but also some terrible changes, like Aero Peek (or whatever the thumbnail preview thing is called), which is horribly inefficient for quickly switching windows.

how is that bad to switch, if u use the default grouped then sure it sucks but grouped windows always sucked to switch, if u have it set not to or only when full the aero peak and enhanced alt tab are great

[randomizer]

how is that bad to switch, if u use the default grouped then sure it sucks but grouped windows always sucked to switch, if u have it set not to or only when full the aero peak and enhanced alt tab are great

Aren't Windows UI designers paid to make the defaults sane?

[zanzabar]

Aren't Windows UI designers paid to make the defaults sane?

no, they are paid to keep me in biz with fixing their mistakes. otherwise i would not beable to get paid to optimize (mostly UI settings now) and they would make it easier to set up networks and manage the domains/servers.

on a serious note, i do agree though that they should make things as nice as they can by default and not try to emulate apple who is emulating them so then it continues in a loop and then u get a useless UI.

try this in the task bar properties. i can promise that u will like the aero peak better than the stock settings.
http://i56.tinypic.com/2ueh9fp.png

but with it almost imposable to not get a 16:9 screen i see no reason to combine objects on the task bar by default or atleast not until its full

[randomizer]

but with it almost imposable to not get a 16:9 screen i see no reason to combine objects on the task bar by default or atleast not until its full

Change for the sake of change of course ;)

The combine only when full option causes applications pinned to the far left of the taskbar to push other pinned applications that are not running halfway along the length. I think that's the reason i didn't bother to enable this option the last time I re-installed Windows.