Still on XP ?!

whs said:

There must be something to XP that keeps people using it. I never used XP - my first PC was Vista. So I was always wondering what the XP magic is.

Apart from Security issues (IMO, mostly caused by IE6) XP SP1 "just worked".
It had built-in tools that have been (progressively) stripped out of newer versions of Windows (e.g. Context Menu editor).

Even in the past few years, when I've had re-imaging issues, usually XP has "just worked" whereas W7 and Linux Mint have often gone "belly up".

W7 introduced a few new usability tools/tweaks that I can't live without anymore (e.g. Taskbar Jump Lists and most importantly Window Snapping).

The W8 series had nothing I needed.

W10 has a tweaked version of Window Snapping, but (IMO) MS screwed it up after the first W10 preview.

I still use an XP VM for my old games that won't run in later versions of Windows.
I have XP installed in another system (triple boot with W7 and LM17) so that I can use Windows Live Photo Gallery without it "running amok".

Thanks for the answer to my question. It is interesting.

The XP magic as you put it Wolfgang was it just worked.

I started what I call normal computing with Windows 98, 98SE and XP Pro and and jumped over a bunch to Windows 7. The operating system between XP and Windows 7 didn't have anything for me that warranted a Upgrade.

I was very happy with XP and didn't think I was going to change until they made me.
Microsoft made me Upgrade by making Windows 7.

I did a clean install of Windows 7 and had a complete good by to XP.

With the help of this forum it took short time to get use to Windows 7 and I have been learning every sense.

Thanks Jack for sharing your experience.

Admittedly I have had far more malware issues with 7 than I ever did on XP- some of that I can blame on there being nastier malware since the mid-00s, I guess, some I can blame on more security holes because it seems these days every program has massive holes. I remember when using Netscape was the safer option because most browser infection relied on ActiveX flaws that meant using IE to get. Now no browser is safe. Using a combo of an ad blocker and NoScript has helped dodge a lot of the browser payloads now, because even "safe" sites can have infected ad banners, but this is something I fell shouldn't be a necessary step if these software companies just put the effort into security, but then that would kill the antimalware industry, which no doubt makes piles of cash.

I'll reiterate something I have said multiple times- my second PC runs XP because there are a lot of games I like to play that work better on it than 7, such as Shadow Man. Emulators don't need the excessive RAM or extra graphics power so they can run on that as well. I still need DOSbox for some games, which can be a hassle, but the space needed, or the hassle of getting parts for a PC to run 95 or DOS or whatever just isn't happening or I'd probably have that on hand for really old games. DOSbox is not a 100% solution to very old games, really, there are games that don't work well under it but even that I have to make concessions. I am aware I could VM XP for some of those game,s but the games may not like this fancier graphics card for all I know, and having a spare PC can be useful either way. The fact XP can still use the internet with current browsers is a BIG plus.

I know you will bring up the security patches as an issue, but I would wager a lot of early adopters never paid attention to those because they didn't used to be a built-in feature so those who stuck with what they have and maybe never bothered with even SP1 probably never knew about the patches. Places around here are still running XP. Maybe if MS didn't make it so costly to upgrade an OS then businesses would be more likely to switch over and even home users are "what I have works fine, I don't need to upgrade".

This is one big flaw that MS should've dealt with years ago- backwards compatibility of old programs. If each newer OS could just run the older stuff no problem, then upgrading wouldn't be a big deal, yet games and programs of yesterday often will not work, while newer versions of those might have been changed to the point users hated the revisions. From what I hear, 16-bit program support would be trivial to include but MS just didn't want to because there's no money in supporting old programs, and forcing users to rely on an unofficial option like DOSbox is lazy, and DOSbox without a frontend is a bit much for some people to deal with. I'm not hating DOSbox, it does what it does and is free, but it's not totally perfect in the compatibility department, it can be hard for those less familiar with DOS to even work it, and it's something MS could've had working on their own if they wished.

The deal with Vista being a letdown probably also worked to kill upgrades, it was a sting that even 7 didn't totally get rid of for some.

Some people are going to keep XP because it worked and still works.

A lot of compatibility issues both in the past and now are due to lazy developers/programmers who are responsible for writing the third party games and programs.

They use their own personal shortcuts or direct "hardwired" location writes.
These are fine on the original OS but as the systems develop these fail, or at least are no longer valid, if the documented procedure calls and the System variables from the SDK are used the code works fine on later versions.

As an example Microsoft has had to use a strange version number system, since windows XP(ired) to account for developers who couldn't be bothered to check for "is OS version number x.y or higher" they check for is version exactly x.y and anything later fails, and everyone blames Microsoft

Barman58 said:

jadinolf said:

dayone said:

XP? That's waaaaay in the past :P

What's XP?

It's XPired

Now that's a good one!

Haven't used XP in over a year now ........ since my Step-Mother FINALLY upgraded and I don't have to troubleshoot her XP machine anymore.

I've had troubles finding drivers for my HP DeskJet F4185 on Windows 7, disappointing.