• Opinion: "Why I'm keeping my Windows XP machine"
    285 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Mike Tyson;41660898]ever heard of driveby malware? not every virus is a shady exe file, but can be caught by just visiting a site. most malware comes from legit sites which are infected.[/QUOTE] well again i don't see this as an issue, as(i am assuming here) all security holes that exist in windows have been patched, and the only real vulnerability is people who download and run such files. and NSA-stole-cryptkeys-from-MS-and-used-their-servers-as-exploits viruses would remain the only threat to systems that no longer get patched.
[QUOTE=W00tbeer1;41661259]XP was such a great operating system for its time. It's getting outdated now though and you need to upgrade.[/QUOTE] It will become a need next year when Microsoft stops supporting it. That means no security updates, which means you'll be easily exposed to viruses if you're still using it
[QUOTE=willtheoct;41661620]well again i don't see this as an issue, as(i am assuming here) all security holes that exist in windows have been patched, and the only real vulnerability is people who download and run such files. and NSA-stole-cryptkeys-from-MS-and-used-their-servers-as-exploits viruses would remain the only threat to systems that no longer get patched.[/QUOTE] not everything is known, they will use zero days. they will stop at nothing to get people who think theyre fine infected
[QUOTE=Mike Tyson;41661718]not everything is known, they will use zero days. they will stop at nothing to get people who think theyre fine infected[/QUOTE] I can't find any information on a virus that used an OS exploit within the past couple of years. almost all exploits are based around java and IE. excluding the NSA viruses (flame, stuxnet, duqu)..
I kept XP for the longest time, mainly out of stubbornness and my dislike of Vista. But you can't really deny that you'll have to upgrade eventually.
[QUOTE=Generic Monk;41661029]who would voluntarily buy a netbook in 2013 lol[/QUOTE] I like to do all my development on a tiny machine that is also pretty robust. This is something that cannot be done on a tablet, at least, not in a very comfortable way.
[QUOTE=willtheoct;41661620]well again i don't see this as an issue, as(i am assuming here) all security holes that exist in windows have been patched, and the only real vulnerability is people who download and run such files. and NSA-stole-cryptkeys-from-MS-and-used-their-servers-as-exploits viruses would remain the only threat to systems that no longer get patched.[/QUOTE] back when I used XP I had a great antivirus, firewall and browser. i still ended up with shitloads of viruses and adware just through browsing the internet. the situation with XP is probably better now, but the fact remains I can browse some of the shadiest shit on W8 with chrome for months on end with no antivirus but the built in one, then run multiple scans with malwarebytes and spybot and find nothing
[QUOTE=cqbcat;41656107]I'm gonna stick with Windows 7 because it's well established and millions if not billions of other people have it. No sane developer would make a program only for Windows 8 cause the market is still to young and small.[/QUOTE] I'm sticking with 7 because I was dumb enough to not take advantage of the discount when it came out :v: Plus I'd still like to get my money's worth out of 7 since nothing I do at the moment requires 8, I'm no fool buying it just for the sake of having it.
[QUOTE=mastersrp;41662088]I like to do all my development on a tiny machine that is also pretty robust. This is something that cannot be done on a tablet, at least, not in a very comfortable way.[/QUOTE] I don't think I could spend most of my time on the 1366x768 resolution my 15" laptop has, let alone whatever excuse of a resolution they'd be putting on netbooks these days.
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;41656431]win XP is vastly faster than windows 7 or 8, plus there is also the issue about 3rd world countries that can't exactly keep up with new PCs all the time, PCs aren't exactly cheap. if you use PC only for internet and office crap, XP does that pretty well and runs in a toaster. i myself have win XP installed in another hard drive, aside from windows 7. they wanna see people abandoning win XP faster? they gotta lower the costs of PC building, especially in developing countries(not gonna happen).[/QUOTE] Microsoft has no control over the cost of building your own PC, the only thing they control is the cost of their OS. Which, sure its a little expensive.
I have Windows XP installed on my of my harddrives, I only really use it when i'm having trouble running DX9 games on Windows 7 or 8, which occasionally happens.
I just had to install XP on a machine due to the requirement of using a 16 bit program on it.
[QUOTE=Oicani Gonzales;41663095]when i was at school nobody used the pcs because they legitimately took 15 minutes to boot everything was always new but the HDD it was a 20gb hdd they kept recycling since like 2001, but the rest of the components weren't as bad it was great when they upgraded to widescreen lcd monitors and the resolution was kept at 800x600 i talked to the pc manager, said "hey you could up the resolution, these pcs have graphics cards, you could pump it to 1400x900 and true color, maybe consider getting that new windows 7?", got suspended for 3 days for being disrespectful[/QUOTE] They had the Intel graphics manager on the desktop shortcuts at my high school, so you could up the resolution even though the desktop context menu and control panel were both inaccessible. It was sweet. Only kid in the class rocking a 1600x1200 resolution on those fat ass CRTs.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;41659744]My house still has 4 machines running WinXP, and until we throw them out it will continue to have them, 2 are old as shit laptops from '05 and the others are netbooks that we don't really use anymore, and none are really worth upgrading to a newer OS. We also have one machine on Vista and another 4 on 7. I don't really intend to get Win8.[/QUOTE] You have 8 computers in your house?
[QUOTE=assassin_Raptor;41663184]You have 8 computers in your house?[/QUOTE] 10, including my mom's work machine on 7, the remaining 9 I mentioned are all ours though, and 4 of them are mine. It may go up to 11 by the end of the year too, thinking about building a new one and using my old gaming machine as a Linux box.
[QUOTE=danharibo;41662728]I don't think I could spend most of my time on the 1366x768 resolution my 15" laptop has, let alone whatever excuse of a resolution they'd be putting on netbooks these days.[/QUOTE] My laptop I did all my uni work on uses that resolution, and it is entirely workable as long as you move toolbars around and hide certain things in as many programs as possible to give yourself some room. It's not the nicest thing ever, but it is totally workable.
[QUOTE=assassin_Raptor;41663184]You have 8 computers in your house?[/QUOTE] We have 9 in our house. 4 of them are running Loonix though.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;41663334]My laptop I did all my uni work on uses that resolution, and it is entirely workable as long as you move toolbars around and hide certain things in as many programs as possible to give yourself some room. It's not the nicest thing ever, but it is totally workable.[/QUOTE] Not if you work with a text a lot, compared to 1080p you just can't really fit a good ammount of text on the screen without making it unreadable.
[QUOTE=Generic Monk;41661029]who would voluntarily buy a netbook in 2013 lol[/QUOTE] Asus makes nice ones with non-shit hardware
If I was still rocking an old machine, I'd definitely dualboot windows with Lubuntu or something. Windows for serious work, Lubuntu for internet stuff. Though I can see how that wouldn't be an option for plenty of people.
I hope they make a W8 without all the metro crap, but still with the Live Store and all the new features in W8. (Just in Desktop format)
[QUOTE=danharibo;41663425]Not if you work with a text a lot, compared to 1080p you just can't really fit a good ammount of text on the screen without making it unreadable.[/QUOTE] Hey, I never said it was perfect, or even good. But it is workable with some effort.
[QUOTE=tirpider;41660147](-way too long rant deleted because fuck that.) It's not networked, and I am not going to buy a new machine so I can run a desktop in a window. I see that as a waste of money. A friend once joked about plugging an mp3 player into a cassette adapter and using that in an 8-track/cassette adapter so he could listen to his itunes in his old Ford Pinto. That's how I feel about VM's. Why virtual when native is working fine? [/QUOTE] Its more to save space and maximize computing power more than anything. For businesses, its a heck of a lot cheaper to run several virtual servers on a single Xeon-based server. For personal use, its more convenience. Like mentioned, much easier to maintain. And there's no real "commitment", since the machine only exists as data on your hard drive. Of course, if you want the old hardware for the sake of having the old hardware, nobody is stopping you. Also for the sake of correctness, you don't have to run it in a window. You could run it in full screen if you pleased. VM hypervisors and computer hardware are so good nowadays, its pretty much like sitting at an actual WinXP machine. Give it to a computer illiterate and they wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
[QUOTE=danharibo;41662728]I don't think I could spend most of my time on the 1366x768 resolution my 15" laptop has, let alone whatever excuse of a resolution they'd be putting on netbooks these days.[/QUOTE] That's actually the resolution my netbook has, although you can get "full hd" resolution netbooks as well. Granted, if the resolution is very important, then perhaps a netbook is not what you'll be looking for. It was also more as a flexible, cheap, and functional solution.
[QUOTE=mastersrp;41666097]That's actually the resolution my netbook has, although you can get "full hd" resolution netbooks as well. Granted, if the resolution is very important, then perhaps a netbook is not what you'll be looking for. It was also more as a flexible, cheap, and functional solution.[/QUOTE] 1366x768 isn't the worst resolution going for netbooks. I have a 10" netbook and I find it really handy. I don't plan on doing my college work on this, I'll save that for my PC. (1920x1080 and 1440x900 screens)
[QUOTE=Oicani Gonzales;41663095]when i was at school nobody used the pcs because they legitimately took 15 minutes to boot everything was always new but the HDD it was a 20gb hdd they kept recycling since like 2001, but the rest of the components weren't as bad it was great when they upgraded to widescreen lcd monitors and the resolution was kept at 800x600 i talked to the pc manager, said "hey you could up the resolution, these pcs have graphics cards, you could pump it to 1400x900 and true color, maybe consider getting that new windows 7?", got suspended for 3 days for being disrespectful[/QUOTE] this was my school they were all like 2002 pentium 4 xp PCs, loaded down with so much shit that it legitimately in one media studies class (i took media studies as an extended break to piss about) took almost an hour to turn on and login.
[QUOTE=danharibo;41661224]AMDs hybrid graphics don't even work properly in Windows, I remember trying to play Just Cause 2 on one laptop and for some reason the display was lagging behind by a whole second, there's no point in running a game at 60 fps if it can't even get it on screen in a reasonable time.[/QUOTE] There's a guy running a site at [url]http://leshcatlabs.net/[/url] who hacks switchable graphics support into the latest AMD ref drivers, bringing along their fixes and improvements. HP only made drivers for Win7 for my model, and putting them on 8 was a disaster, but that guy's packages fixed everything and I still get an update every few months.
I'm still running Windows 3.1 because I don't understand that technology changes as time progresses and I'm too stubborn to adapt to subtle changes to the UI.
[img]http://puu.sh/3QLlv.jpg[/img] 250 million signed into SkyDrive, eh? [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1295061]Not anymore they're not.[/url] [editline]31st July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sungrazer;41667887]I'm still running Windows 3.1 because I don't understand that technology changes as time progresses and I'm too stubborn to adapt to subtle changes to the UI.[/QUOTE] Windows 98 to XP? Subtle. XP to Vista? Subtle. Vista to 7? Subtle. 7 to 8? Fuck no.
8 with Start8 (or comparable apps) makes it behave pretty much exactly the same as Windows 7, but you still get the improvements that Win8 brings.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.