|
Windows 7 was the natural evolution of Windows XP. I still use Windows XP virtual machines for running tons of JScripts that mimic xml-http clients that interact with the server products I write/maintain. I use 32 bit XP VMs mainly because the memory requirements are low and it runs well in a sandbox under Hyper-V. I still have some 64 bit XP installations backed up, but no need to run them any more due to the limited usage I require.
I don't do any PC based gaming. I spend enough time on computers while working.
|
|
|
|
|
For my Money the best version of Windows, the 'embedded' version XPe worked nearly every time even if the board had damage if it could. The desktop version aside from the odd BLue Screen was stable, all was right with the world 
|
|
|
|
|
XP is super for me. Once a year. I run it in a VM to print my Christmas card labels in Visual Foxpro. Then, I shut it down for a year.
10 is fine, runs faster because it is on much faster hardware. I can still run my Office 2000 on it (except LookOut)
I think my favorite was 2K.
None are my main OS. All via VM. Whatever works, works 
If you can keep your head while those about you are losing theirs, perhaps you don't understand the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
I thought 7 was a definite improvement over XP. I don't want to have to learn enough to be qualified for tech support. But XP sometimes required that, whereas 7 rarely did. So I also didn't think 10 was much of an improvement on 7.
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: First I have to admit I am a Microsoft apologist
Perhaps the best response possible to your own post.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
I hardly used XP at all...just for testing. There was no need to move from 2K which I used until Win7. As for Win10, the only complaint I can think of is the forced updates/restarts.
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
"Hope is contagious"
|
|
|
|
|
XP with the classic UI (none of that Fisher Price thing) was pretty good back in its day, but I wouldn't run it today because by now there's gotta be hundreds of known exploits that are never gonna get patched. 7 is also headed down that road.
I tolerate 10, but looking at the process list in Task Manager is appalling to say the least, and more and more apps are making things worse - if there's a memo that went out that said it was now okay to have 8 instances of the same EXE running (I'm looking at you, Chrome, Edge and Teams) then I didn't get it. In terms of UI, it's definitely a step back. Hiding scrollbars, window edges so thin I have a hard time grabbing onto them to resize windows, the lack of contrast so you can't even tell where one window ends and the other starts, undiscoverable UI elements...none of these increased usability.
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: So please come at me with your anecdote why XP is better than W10!
It's not; it's just really quick, because lots of functionality that I'm used to is missing/not being loaded in XP. Because it didn't exist back then.
And got more programs open now than in the XP days; alt-tab away. Two different browsers, each with some tabs, Oxygen not included and Warcraft in the background, plus their respective launchers. Some messengers, discord, spotify, and an application that I'm testing to stream my games on youtube.
Yes, it takes it's time to boot, where XP was there in under 20 seconds. But then I stopped turning the machine of, and resuming an active session takes less than 20 seconds.
Lots of bloat? True. Do I care? Nope, not a bit
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
This (and the update issue, which hasn't affected me in the last 6 months) is the biggest detriment to Win10 I have: The Weird and The Wonderful: SSD use - run one of the programs in that thread and you will think things have gone insane!
|
|
|
|
|
I KINDA get that performance standpoint. MS surely took their time with Vista, so the period in time between XP and Vista was way longer, than between XP and 2000 or between Vista and 7. Meaning with XP, that "I'll never need to upgrade"-stance was way more likely to stuck than with any other Windows version. Same goes for the start menu, the "me n0 likey change"-crowd got quite a lot of time to get accustomed to XP, way more time than to any other Windows version. I agree with you, starting programs is way easier. That didn't really change since Vista though. In looks yes, in functionality barely if at all.
As for 10's performance, it runs absolutely fine on contemporary work/hobby-grade hardware. Even on my bathtub-reading-grade low-end Atom tablet (although I think some minimalistic Linux would yield better performance)!
Where 10 REALLY sucks though, is HDDs. Never ever again will I try to run Windows 10 off an HDD. This OS is soooo not working on a system HDD, it's incredible. If someone doesn't know the difference between an HDD and an SSD, I totally get how they would get the impression Windows 10 runs like an old lady through molasses, despite the CPU & RAM having Big Numbers on the discounter product box (because Big Numbers on the box is often all that matters, which leads to amoral companies stuffing huge HDDs into their boxes, instead of smaller but better SSDs). I bet, that would barely matter if at all unter Windows XP.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, in XP we don't need to investigate the screen with 2 or more people to find out what row is the selected row...
I like how W10 works (except the spyware off course) but I hate how it looks.
We got all that PC power, we got graphical cards that have more power then old PC's, but we have such a limited GUI. Finding a button to push is sometimes a real challenge.
In in that regard, XP is superior to W10
|
|
|
|
|
Delphi.7.Solutions wrote: we got graphical cards that have more power then old PC's, but we have such a limited GUI
One of my main complaints about Windows 10. Now that it's safe to assume everyone's got the hardware to render (at least) 24-bit color, MS went back in time and Windows 10 wouldn't look all that different rendered on a CGA card from 1982.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, in XP we don't need to investigate the screen with 2 or more people to find out what row is the selected row...
I like how W10 works (except the spyware off course) but I hate how it looks.
We got all that PC power, we got graphical cards that have more power then old PC's, but we have such a limited GUI. Finding a button to push is sometimes a real challenge.
In in that regard, XP is superior to W10
|
|
|
|
|
|
XP is so much better because:
- more frequent BSODs mean I know my OS cares about me and wants to interact!
- new installs on internet-connected machines are so vulnerable, they are typically taken over before the latest updates can install! This truly is the OS for everyone (well, everyone else)
- the duplo-inspired theme keeps me child-like all day long!
------------------------------------------------
If you say that getting the money
is the most important thing
You will spend your life
completely wasting your time
You will be doing things
you don't like doing
In order to go on living
That is, to go on doing things
you don't like doing
Which is stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: a very quick search box
Exactly! You have to search for stuff, even when you know exactly where you put it! I use W10 with Classic Shell installed, giving me an XP-like start menu. I organise it the way that is logical for me, and I can access every application, tool and setting I need with a few mouse moves (don't need to click to show submenus, just hover). Whilst most of the time I know exactly where an item is, there are a few tools I use rarely that I forget the name of. E.g. why would my android emulator be called "bluestacks" for heavens' sake? Even if I forget the name, I know it's in the "emulators" folder and is therefore almost instantly accessible. Using the W10 search I'd need to remember the name of the blessed thing, then faff about typing it's name (hopefully without errors).
I've noted before on here that I believe Windows went downhill when it switched from Program Manager to File Explorer; that was the point at which the user lost control of their system, and Windows became an un-knowable jungle of stuff you had to hack through to find or do anything.
FWIW, best Windows op.system of all time? Windows2000. Installed in under 10 minutes, never once crashed, just gave me everything I needed.
|
|
|
|
|
Monster modern CPU? I have one on an Atom tablet, another one on a Raspberry Pi 3B.
|
|
|
|
|
You know... a monster DESKTOP machine! ^_^
Always works so well!
Only 16Gb of RAM though... not a single Gb more than my work machine! 
|
|
|
|
|
i like the ui of xp so much more, to be precise i use the old classic theme on xp, the one that looks like windows 2000. in my opinion that was the best windows, the 2000.
and i am better with something that has known quirks and workarounds (be that xp or whatever) then with something that constantly changes, fixes old quirks and introduces new ones (be that win10 or whatever)
when i buy something i want the thing as it is at that moment. end of story. no mandatory upgrades. it is mine, i have paid for it.
|
|
|
|
|
Windows XP, for desktop, for the business accounting software that I have developed over the years, is the best OS the Evil Empire ever created. It was / is quick, stable, and runs non-stop.
Last year I moved one of my clients from XP to Windows 10. Result, unexpected errors requiring a lot of workarounds. The program is written in VB6. Windows 10 is supposed to support it. It does but not well.
We moved from MS-DOS to 2000. no problems. From 2000 to XP no problems. Changed the database from Access to SQL Server no problems.
Went from XP to Windows10 lots of problems.
Newer isn't better, just different and usually full of bugs. 
|
|
|
|
|
Look, I will gladly defend Windows XP. I am still sad I had to give it up.
I installed Classic Shell into Windows 10.
Speed. Since I upgraded directly from XP to Windows 10, on the same hardware.
1) Don't be fooled by the fast "login screen", which does not mean windows is ready!
2) XP had cruft in it, after years, but booted up really fast (All SSDs)
3) Fewer Program issues with HDR and other resolution/monitor problems (having run 4 monitors)
5) Everything worked, the 20yrs of Windows experience MEANT something on XP. You could find stuff
Windows 10. They hijacked EVERY Win+ key combination. And while I LOVE the splash login screen, and NOT having to use Ctrl-Alt-Del. I DESPISE the file search feature/indexing crap, the search/cortana, the Windows 10 Start Button (thankfully they gave normal uses RIGHT CLICK). The Panels.
So, I don't feel I gained much on performance DIRECTLY.
Indirectly, my NEW machine has 64GB of Memory, and USB-C [And I get varying results, depending on the cable and the device], but I/O is significantly faster.
I drive a 55" 4K Monitor, logically divided to 4 monitors with special software. Seamless. And takes LESS desktop space because I push it to the back of the desk. And the USB-C extra monitor I have to plug in to share my screens, because many programs PUKE sharing the big screen.
I have grown to appreciate Windows 10. Updates are working better, less likely to hog all available CPU, etc.
But I load Classic Shell, and VoidTools Everything, then I turn off Win+S so it runs Everything for me.
That Microsoft got me to use Edge (because it's Chromium Based) is a huge win-win. I no longer trust Google/Chrome for things. Have stripped all browsers of knowing ANY passwords (directly), unfortunately, I don't know if we can trust them to handle the pages any more. But I use different browsers for different levels of security (no longer to test compatibility).
Would I go back to Windows XP? (No, I love my new setup). But I would love to be able to navigate Control Panel and other items like I could back then. And Classic Shell fixes most of the annoyances for me.
|
|
|
|
|
Windows NT was popular due to the filesystem it used (NTFS) being more secure in those days. However, once NTFS was no longer considered secure the NT technologies became outdated and less popular. So, windows 7, 8 and 10 replaced it. If you like stand-alone systems that are not internet connected and can remain stable then that is what NT was good for in it's day. You could probably manage that with windows 10 by working out how you could run the OS with a minimal build.
|
|
|
|
|
I prefer Windows 10 UI way over XP, but if we were talking about an OS that uses way less resources historically I would have gone with Windows 2000, for the lightest footprint but still a decent desktop for developing on.
Would I want to go back to W2K? heck no. But I do miss it's lightweight install and system requirements, XP was heavy compared to it, W7 nearly gave me shock with the install size. Win10 although heavy in some ways has some pretty good features that I would miss going backwards
|
|
|
|
|
64 bit that's mainly why. Old 32 bit programs becoming increasingly extinct
|
|
|
|
|
Tried calling the provider. Got stuck in a vicious loop of. If you are needing to report a problem with your internet. Please go to our website and chat with a real live person.
People If I had internet I would gladly go to your website. The fact that I am calling means I don't have it. What the elephant! Seriously who the heck thought this thru?
To err is human to really elephant it up you need a computer
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
