Man, XP just sucks away your productivity.

Zepher · 17 Apr 2010

I am house sitting/dog sitting for a friend for 2 nights and decided not to bring my PC over since it is such a pain to disconnect and reconnect and it is so heavy. Case was 55lbs last time I weighed it, plus all the cables and 3 external drives.

So I just grabbed my headset and one external drive.

Surfing and watching movies is pretty much the same, but if you need to do any file management stuff, XP needs a lot more clicks to do the same tasks.
Only 1 more night of XP and then I'll be back to Win7 (I am actually home right now posting this since I had to grab a few things I forgot yesterday).

hubris · 17 Apr 2010

peskey critters them clickers.

Everlong · 17 Apr 2010

Yea it's same for me when I'm using XP. The lab computers here at Uni still use XP, and I hate doing my work/programming on them. I prefer just using my netbook to do work in labs, even though it's a smaller screen, it's still easier to do a lot of things on it.

Krispy1 · 18 Apr 2010

that is because windows 7>>>>

:)

i use xp for work its very glitchy compared to 7

jimbo45 · 18 Apr 2010

Hi there

While I LIKE W7 -- I can't actually say that my productivity suffers because I'm using XP.

On XP I always have the "Virtual Desktop" facility enabled -- 4 complete virtual desktops -- this feature STILL doesn't exist to any decent stability in W7.

Most of the applications I use tend to be the same interface whether its XP or W7 so in what area do you actually need a lot more mouse clicks.

Yes I LIKE the W7 tranparent taskbar etc -- but I can't say that I'm slowed down a lot - or at all - with XP -- assuming a DECENT computer of course -- not a slow Pentium III with 384MB of RAM for instance.

I think you'll generally find that using XP on a work computer is not such a pleasant experience because of the AGE of the computer rather than the XP system itself --old graphics card, low powered CPU and lack of RAM. It's not XP per se that is the problem -- at least in 95% of the cases I'm sure.

XP runs BLINDINGLY fast on a MODERN 4 GB RAM computer BTW. -- I'm not suggesting staying with XP but at least don't blame XP for stuff that IT isn't responsible for.

XP is still amazingly fine for a lot of applications on decent hardware -- there's still life in the old dog yet.

Cheers
jimbo

Zepher · 18 Apr 2010

computer is not too old, Core2Duo E6700, 2GB DDR3, 150GB 10K Rpm Raptor OS drive, Asus Mobo, ATI 3870, Matrox RT.X2 HD Editing card, 2x 24" Monitors.

Just navigating around folders and moving files around seemed like a chore in XP.

this is the machine,

Pontii · 19 Apr 2010

xp is good, but slow...
still, as i see it, win 2k was the best os ever created, yeah i know it had some bad ass bugges, but still.. =)

adoase · 25 Apr 2010

OFFTOPIC

Please, Zepher, can you tell me if premiere cs4 is accelerated by the gtx285? Do you use some plugin to activate it or it is working by default? I bought HD5870 and i7 920 and ati stream encoder works only with amd cpu. Now, I have to sell my hd5870 to buy gtx285, but I didn't find any concludent review if I need only the gtx285 or i have to search for any programs or plugins. Thanks a lot I please excuse me for offtopic.

Zepher · 25 Apr 2010

Premiere CS5 uses the Nvidia GPUs. CS4 doesn't so if you don't upgrade to CS5 then you are good with your 5870.
CS5 ships next month and if you upgrade to it then either buy a 285 or the new 470 or 480.

Our editing machine uses the Matrox card to do rendering acceleration.

adoase · 26 Apr 2010

Thanks a lot, Zepher!