Windows XP turns 11, still not dead yet

[LuzTeTT]

It's always worked for me ... too bad for those who just decided it didn't work, period!

I didn't even install Vista because of the propaganda. I don't think I gave it the chance to begin with! Kept XP x64 until Windows 7 came out, promptly upgraded, now I've done the same with Windows 8, but this time I'm having a good laugh at all of the nonsensical spouting.

Yes, surely this "Tablet OS" deserves all of the flack it has coming to it!
Just like Vista was in the days of XP — new things are definitely flawed design! Avoid at all cost!

Funny.

 

[AC]

Windows Vista was a great OS, people just decided it was bad before giving it a chance on good hardware, and disabling that nagging UAC....

 

[Katanyavich]

What about 64k?

Atari 400 8K? Hello? I remember upgrading to 32 and thinking it was overkill.

My first computer from 1985 (yes, it was a real computer....)...

A Casio PB100 with a MASSIVE (wait for it....) 512 BYTES...!!

It could be upgraded to a whopping 2kb, and progs were saved
to a standard cassette-player.

It still runs today, and gets regular use as a calculator...

 

[TekBoi]

I haven't personally used it or allowed it to run on any of my machines in years. I usually install Linux when I need to use an older machine, but I install XP on a daily basis in my tech shoppe. Google Chrome makes the internet come to life, and no one ever complains with a computer running on XP. Even high end suites like CS6 work perfectly on it.

However: I do recommend using a slip-streamed installer w/ updated baked-in as you'll be spending abt 30-45 mins installing XP then abt 3hrs+ updating if you decide to go with a naked XP install. A silly thing to mention but not even IE8 was officially baked into any MSFT direct XP img!

Long live XP! *(seig heil)*

 

[TekBoi]

I still do that...

and disabling that nagging UAC....

One of my "optimizations" that I do for some customers is to set the UAC setting to the lowest on Win7/8 machines (effectively disabling it). This does two things:
1] Faster, more responsive computers due to the fact that UAC uses Direct3D to darken the screen and this is a big deal on older machines that I upgrade to Win7/8.
2] More virus infections. Which, in turn, brings me more return customers.

This is also one of the reasons why I don't recommend Kasperksy to anyone :devil: it's nagging Application Filtering is the same damn thing (but better) than UAC.

 

[smarteyeball]

2] More virus infections. Which, in turn, brings me more return customers.

This is also one of the reasons why I don't recommend Kasperksy to anyone :devil: it's nagging Application Filtering is the same damn thing (but better) than UAC.

Cheek

 

[jimbo45]

Hi there
still using daily Windows 2003 server as a VM -- Windows 2003 server was better than XP although XP shared a lot of features with Windows 2003 server. Note that some editions of Windows 2003 server 32 bit versions can use > 4GB RAM too.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[x BlueRobot]

I'm going to get myself a Windows XP Desktop from eBay, just for testing and tweaking the hardware around, and maybe playing a few low-end games on too.

 

[Layback Bear]

What about 64k?

Atari 400 8K? Hello? I remember upgrading to 32 and thinking it was overkill.

My first computer from 1985 (yes, it was a real computer....)...

A Casio PB100 with a MASSIVE (wait for it....) 512 BYTES...!!

It could be upgraded to a whopping 2kb, and progs were saved
to a standard cassette-player.

It still runs today, and gets regular use as a calculator...

I had one of those Casio and still have the cassett player. Now I have to look for the console.

 

[Carl Lawrence]

I still use Windows XP for my old games etc.

 

[Colonel Travis]

My first computer from 1985 (yes, it was a real computer....)...

A Casio PB100 with a MASSIVE (wait for it....) 512 BYTES...!!

Funny. Bet you remember the first calculator watch. It was at the jewelry store when it came out, and I remember it was under glass with all the other fancy expensive watches. The linked story said the stainless steel version cost $750, which is about $2,550 in today's dollars.

 

[indianacarnie]

Jacee: You know someone is going to badmouth vista. You and I might be the only ones who like it. I think it was a solid OS, UAC nagging drove people mad, mad I tell ya, absolutely insane!

Anyway, I feel just a little more sane knowing that I'm not the only person on the planet who likes Vista.

Well, I've always said Vista suffered from over-hype when it came out. But with some tweaking it was a very good O.S.. I know I'm in a distinct minority here but I much preferred it to XP. Running 7 now and will probably stick with it for a few more years. Tried 8 but .......

 

[gregrocker]

Many Vista lovers don't realize it was saved by developments for Win7 that were rushed into it's SP, mainly the genius element of turning off all services not absolutely needed at boot, while suffusing Manual mode with "Fast Triggers" so there is no reason they need to all be sucking up much of an older system's resources.

I learned about this reading the Win7 developers blog and was hoping it would work, realizing if it did Win7 would become the new Black Viper which so many of us where using at the time to make XP and Vista tolerable. It did, and the rest is history of the greatest OS ever.

 

[Slartybart]

You're correct that Vista benefited from Win7 through SP1 and SP2. But "rushed" and "saved"? Development of Win7 required backward compatibility.

New development is generally based on previous code. You could equally say that Win7 benefited from Vista through SP1 and SP2. And to extrapolate - every Windows OS after Win98 benefited from Windows ME (1st NT based Windows).

But this thread was about XP and that OS was the first really viable NT Windows OS. We'll see how business migrates to Win7 and Win8 - if they rebel, MS will have to push out the end date - it wouldn't be the first time MS extended support.

Many Vista lovers don't realize it was saved by developments for Win7 that were rushed into it's SP......

 

[King Arthur]

And to extrapolate - every Windows OS after Win98 benefited from Windows ME (1st NT based Windows).

The first NT family of Windows was Windows NT 3.1 while Windows ME was the last of the Windows 9x family.

My apologies if I came off as a smarty pants, I just wanted to correct your information for the benefit of future readers.

 

[Fantail]

Awe. Me and XP have the same birthday. It is a good OS I still use it everyday with my job.

Happy Birthday. I'm using XP at work as well, as are many of the companys customers who run business apps and could care less about the latest toys from MS.

I prefer 7, passed on Vista. XP dispite it's plain - ness, was a decent OS. I used to dread reinstalling XP knowing the time it would take for updates. With an SSD though, no so bad. haha.

 

[Slartybart]

No apologies necessary, but... NT and Windows were two different beasts.

Windows NT 3.1 (Microsoft marketing wanted Windows NT to appear to be a continuation of Windows 3.1) arrived in Beta form to developers at the July 1992 Professional Developers Conference in San Francisco.[5] Microsoft announced at the conference its intentions to develop a successor to both Windows NT and Windows 3.1's replacement (Windows 95, codenamed Chicago), which would unify the two into one operating system. This successor was codenamed Cairo.

In hindsight, Cairo was a much more difficult project than Microsoft had anticipated and, as a result, NT and Chicago would not be unified until Windows XP—albeit Windows 2000, oriented to business, had already unified most of the system’s bolts and gears, it was XP that was sold to home consumers like Windows 95 and came to be viewed as the final unified OS.

Parts of Cairo have still not made it into Windows as of 2009 - specifically, the WinFS file system, which was the much touted Object File System of Cairo. Microsoft announced that they have discontinued the separate release of WinFS for Windows XP and Windows Vista[6] and will gradually incorporate the technologies developed for WinFS in other products and technologies, notably Microsoft SQL Server.

The first NT family of Windows was Windows NT 3.1 while Windows ME was the last of the Windows 9x family.

My apologies if I came off as a smarty pants, I just wanted to correct your information for the benefit of future readers.

 

[gregrocker]

It's amazing that most users don't seem to know now that Vista was a pitiful resource hog on older hardware and ran like a dog. That changed with SP1/2 which incorporated genius developments from Win7 that saved Vista.

Trying to install XP on modern hardware is like trying to get an old car to start and stay running. It won't even install without the SATA drivers slipstreamed into installer. We've seen this evolve over 3 years helping in Dual Boot Installation with Windows 7 and XP which with 2+ million views and nearly 5000 comments may be the top tech help thread on the web.

 

[Slartybart]

Greg: Ok, I'm in awe of many things - that's not one of them though

 

[prospero]

First used 3.1, then upgraded to 98se, plenty of crashes but it helped me to learn about the OS.
Then came XP, what a breath of fresh air. Nothing better until 7, still the best IMO.