• Opinion: "Why I'm keeping my Windows XP machine"
    285 replies, posted
[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] It actually was used up until 2008. [QUOTE]Windows 3.1 was originally released on April 6, 1992; official support for the Windows 3.1 family ended on January 1, 2002, and [B]OEM licensing for Windows for Workgroups 3.11 on embedded systems continued to be available until November 1, 2008.[/B][/QUOTE]
I wonder if there is somebody out there who is still using Windows 95?
I'm still using XP on my netbook because I couldn't find a usb flash drive big enough for windows 7 :downs:
[QUOTE=Binladen34;41655883]But Windows 8 can run on almost [I]ANYTHING[/I]. Shit I even put it on a computer that could barely run XP. That aside, I don't particularly like Windows 8, and I'm kinda off put by what Microsoft feels is the next generation of Windows. I'm comfortable with Windows 7, which I'm probably going to stick with until they kick me off with some programs that are exclusive to Windows 9 or 10 or something.[/QUOTE] They have already started that. The latest Direct X Technology is only available on windows 8 which is total bullshit. Windows 7 is by far the superior of the two versions, especially since they removed the traditional taskbar and tried to push a mobile touch interface at desktop users. Windows XP is very flawed in that it is very dated such most xp users using Windows XP 32bit which means only 4 gigs of ram can be allocated and it's security is not the best in the world, especially without windows defender or Microsoft security essentials being avaliable for the OS. [editline]1st August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=BCell;41670318]I wonder if there is somebody out there who is still using Windows 95?[/QUOTE] There are people who use this in developing countries. I have worked for a Gas Station Technology company that supply hardware and software + support and quite a few customers were still using Windows 2000.
honestly once you disable the metro stuff, get rid of the screen snapping/touch device stuff, and use one of the half dozen programs to bring back the shell interface, windows 8 really isn't that bad [editline]e[/editline] the problem is that there is shit to make it look and act like windows 7 in the first place; if microsoft had done a good job with 8, none of that would need to exist there are no programs to make 7 look like vista or xp because it already does, because it's already pretty much as good as it can be it's worth upgrading from XP to at least 7 but if you're going to do it now you may as well just jump to 8 because if you aren't a web developer and you turn off the metro stuff then you won't even notice anything extremely different, which is the way it should be
[QUOTE=Article]My favorite stupid WinXP trick: Microsoft's very own Windows XP Countdown Gadget, which shows the number of days, hours, and minutes until WinXP gets the ax. It's cute because it only works in Vista and Win 7 -- like all Gadgets, it won't work in Windows XP[/QUOTE] That's actually pretty clever, tiny bits of extra marketing thrown around the place along with the main advertising.
[QUOTE=Doomish;41670998]honestly once you disable the metro stuff, get rid of the screen snapping/touch device stuff, and use one of the half dozen programs to bring back the shell interface, windows 8 really isn't that bad [editline]e[/editline] the problem is that there is shit to make it look and act like windows 7 in the first place; if microsoft had done a good job with 8, none of that would need to exist there are no programs to make 7 look like vista or xp because it already does, because it's already pretty much as good as it can be it's worth upgrading from XP to at least 7 but if you're going to do it now you may as well just jump to 8 because if you aren't a web developer and you turn off the metro stuff then you won't even notice anything extremely different, which is the way it should be[/QUOTE] If you were using Windows 7 in the modern way, i.e. start > type what want (e.g. photoshop or chrome or run or taskmgr), then the jump to 8 would be completely insignificant. I guess a lot of people actually hit start and then use keys to browse through the programs they might want to start instead of actually knowing what they want. It runs faster than 7, boots faster, the file copy dialogues and task mgr are improved greatly. It's not that big of an upgrade from 7 to bother about, but if you're building a new system and you're still going for 7 then I honestly don't understand it. TBH, I think the level of criticism that 8 got was severely misguided. I find it to be a far better OS than any windows iteration before it, and it is a much better experience than running Mac OS X. So yeah, I guess my question is--what are you doing that you'd even want the old windows shell back?
[QUOTE=nigerianprince;41671653] So yeah, I guess my question is--what are you doing that you'd even want the old windows shell back?[/QUOTE] i really need to make a webpage with everything bad about 8 so i can link users to that instead of typing some points out. basically, my problem(and gaben's problem, and businesses' problems) with it is productivity. it puts emphasis on a fullscreen app, instead of "windows", as the name implies. lets say i have a GIF with text in it and i'm writing it down in notepad. the default for GIFs is the photos app, and windows photo viewer does not appear in the list in "open with...". and because the photo viewer isnt even a program, you have to look up some obscure DLL and the command to open a file with it, and add that to 2 places in the registry. what this leads to is using the photos app, and then alt-tab to notepad, write what you remember, alt-tab to photos, wait 0.5 seconds for "pretty-looking transition" to finish, look at photo, and repeat. in windows 1-7, you place the windows side by side, and write it down as you look at it. [B]This is the very principle that windows is founded on[/B], and why businesses use it. now, of course i can spend the 2 hours to figure out how to fix it in windows 8, and 30 mins to tweak it on each subsequent machine, but that's just fan-fucking tastic when my college chooses to switch to win8, and every machine resets to default settings when you log out. plus, certain games(dead rising 2) do not work with windows 8 because GFWL. and, XP mode no longer works. argument: but, windows 8 has metro! for the majority of users, metro is not any reason to switch, because it is awful. argument: well, if you don't like metro, you can just disable it with start8. i conclude that you simply are too stubborn to adapt to new technologies. why waste $100 and lots of time just to make win8 function like win7, when 7 is cheaper, and is more functional than a tweak? as for XP users, the reason not to upgrade to win7 is just because they have no need, and they haven't used win7 enough that they have a want for it. win1-winxp sp2 had stability issues, giving users the need to upgrade, and win7 has more features, but those features don't make XP users "need" to upgrade. as far as i'm concerned, XP is still a modern OS because it is just as stable and functional as windows 7, and superior to windows 8. and windows 8 is the new OS X.
Windows 8 is good for touch screen. XP was in my opinion the best windows platform for it's era until windows 7 came along.
All the little added features of all the MS OS's are actually a down side to me. I want my OS to be an OS. I don't want stupid active desktop or pretty themes or other non-OS overhead interfering with my other tasks. I don't want the OS to have default applications for [I]anything[/I]. As an adult, I am quite capable of picking my own software. Desktop gadgets... no. Just fucking no. I'd rather paint daffodils on my face and start smoking pot. XP has a huge collection of what I call "fuckery" added to it and wish it would just go away. Over the years I have learned what little pieces I like and don't like. The end result is always a clean desktop resembling 2000. Simple, like me. Just hearing about the complaints about Metro is enough for me to wait (yet) another generation before investing in an OS that I may or may not have to spend years trying to de-fuck before it becomes productive for me. Hardware and process management. Throw the rest in the friggin garbage.. (and not the desktop recycle bin.. delete means delete... FUCK!)
Then install Arch or Gentoo and stop fucking moaning? Windows is meant to be a run out of the box, complete system. If you don't want that then stop using Windows.
Most of the times I've seen schools or other groups using XP (even 98 sometimes) did so because they didn't want to update. Sometimes because of "compatibility with software", but also because how the network is set up. It doesn't change anything, it's just that most of the people are lost if they're not using XP :v: Fact is, everyone thinks like this and noone will ever update. I mean, everything I've ever learnt in school about computers and networks was on Windows XP, that's kinda sad. It's not only computers. You know those electronic cash machines? They run on XP too! :v:
[QUOTE=Doomish;41670998]honestly once you disable the metro stuff, get rid of the screen snapping/touch device stuff, and use one of the half dozen programs to bring back the shell interface, windows 8 really isn't that bad [editline]e[/editline] the problem is that there is shit to make it look and act like windows 7 in the first place; if microsoft had done a good job with 8, none of that would need to exist there are no programs to make 7 look like vista or xp because it already does, because it's already pretty much as good as it can be it's worth upgrading from XP to at least 7 but if you're going to do it now you may as well just jump to 8 because if you aren't a web developer and you turn off the metro stuff then you won't even notice anything extremely different, which is the way it should be[/QUOTE] If you want to dual boot with Linux on a machine with 8 pre-installed though, it will be a bitch.
Why so much hate for XP? Its still a great os
[QUOTE=alx12345;41673929]Why so much hate for XP? Its still a great os[/QUOTE] because, get with the times man, jeez! quit using the OS you love and use the one that i'm telling you to!
[QUOTE=willtheoct;41672680]i really need to make a webpage with everything bad about 8 so i can link users to that instead of typing some points out. basically, my problem(and gaben's problem, and businesses' problems) with it is productivity. it puts emphasis on a fullscreen app, instead of "windows", as the name implies. lets say i have a GIF with text in it and i'm writing it down in notepad. the default for GIFs is the photos app, and windows photo viewer does not appear in the list in "open with...". and because the photo viewer isnt even a program, you have to look up some obscure DLL and the command to open a file with it, and add that to 2 places in the registry. what this leads to is using the photos app, and then alt-tab to notepad, write what you remember, alt-tab to photos, wait 0.5 seconds for "pretty-looking transition" to finish, look at photo, and repeat. in windows 1-7, you place the windows side by side, and write it down as you look at it. [B]This is the very principle that windows is founded on[/B], and why businesses use it. now, of course i can spend the 2 hours to figure out how to fix it in windows 8, and 30 mins to tweak it on each subsequent machine, but that's just fan-fucking tastic when my college chooses to switch to win8, and every machine resets to default settings when you log out. plus, certain games(dead rising 2) do not work with windows 8 because GFWL. and, XP mode no longer works. argument: but, windows 8 has metro! for the majority of users, metro is not any reason to switch, because it is awful. argument: well, if you don't like metro, you can just disable it with start8. i conclude that you simply are too stubborn to adapt to new technologies. why waste $100 and lots of time just to make win8 function like win7, when 7 is cheaper, and is more functional than a tweak? as for XP users, the reason not to upgrade to win7 is just because they have no need, and they haven't used win7 enough that they have a want for it. win1-winxp sp2 had stability issues, giving users the need to upgrade, and win7 has more features, but those features don't make XP users "need" to upgrade. as far as i'm concerned, XP is still a modern OS because it is just as stable and functional as windows 7, and superior to windows 8. and windows 8 is the new OS X.[/QUOTE] Please, go on. Tell me how misinformed you really are. Please, list me a variety of reasons that Windows 8 is worse than Hitler without those reasons being something you can fix (default programs), something petty (fullscreen apps being available), or something that isn't a problem (the lack of XP mode (which was terrible when I tried it)). Metro is anything but awful. Not what you're used to? Yes. A strange form factor? Yes. Awful? No. Metro is a design language, a pretty good one too considering it's coming from MS, kings of mix and match UI (there's still Windows 98 stuff lurking in the 8 UI). Now, if you mean the Start Screen, it has numerous advantages over the classical Start Menu, it is easier to navigate for one, faster to navigate, includes a massively improved search function (which I believe is even better in 8.1), provides a lot of options for organisation and stuff. Why use Windows 8 over 7? I dunno, it depends on your needs and reasons, but Windows 8 provides a ton of under the hood improvements, things that should have been in Windows for years (ISO mounting, PDF readers, proper reset functionality). Straight up dismissing Windows 8 because of the reasons you listed is frankly, pathetic. None of the things you listed are forced upon you, fullscreen apps? Just don't use them. Windows is still Windows, you'll spend most of your time on your desktop exactly as you did in Windows 7. As for "Open with" not showing Photo Viewer, it did for me, are you sure you aren't making mountains out of molehills here?
[QUOTE=alx12345;41673929]Why so much hate for XP? Its still a great os[/QUOTE] It's not bad, Windows 7 is just better in ever way.
[QUOTE=alx12345;41673929]Why so much hate for XP? Its still a great os[/QUOTE] XP might still be really stable, and might still work. But it's outdated, technology has moved on greatly since and XP has lost or is losing support from it's developers, meaning it's not going to be secure much longer. There are little to no reasons to stick with XP unless you need software that isn't compatible with newer operating systems (shit software then), or your PC is too old for new operating systems due to a lack of drivers (it's gotta be pretty old then).
[QUOTE=hexpunK;41674038]Metro is anything but awful. Not what you're used to? Yes. A strange form factor? Yes. Awful? No. Metro is a design language, a pretty good one too considering it's coming from MS, kings of mix and match UI (there's still Windows 98 stuff lurking in the 8 UI). Now, if you mean the Start Screen, it has numerous advantages over the classical Start Menu, it is easier to navigate for one, faster to navigate, includes a massively improved search function (which I believe is even better in 8.1), provides a lot of options for organisation and stuff.[/QUOTE] What I like about Metro is that it basically take the whole cover your desktop in shortcuts thing and makes it an entire menu. Same damn layout. People who hate the new Start Screen must also hate desktop shortcuts.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;41674061]What I like about Metro is that it basically take the whole cover your desktop in shortcuts thing and makes it an entire menu. Same damn layout. People who hate the new Start Screen must also hate desktop shortcuts.[/QUOTE] There's no hunting through folders any more, no tiny ass items (they are about 20px tall in the Start Menu) to click and miss, just a massive amount of fairly large tiles, with a greater number near your cursor at any given point in time.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;41674084]There's no hunting through folders any more, no tiny ass items (they are about 20px tall in the Start Menu) to click and miss, just a massive amount of fairly large tiles, with a greater number near your cursor at any given point in time.[/QUOTE] Big candy buttons make a OS great? I though it was part of some sort of infantile regression invading the interface. how I feel about Metro: [IMG]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/58361588/temp/20120321174155.jpg[/IMG] -edit And this is from a guy that's too lazy to figure out [insert random name]linux.
[QUOTE=tirpider;41674735]Big candy buttons make a OS great? I though it was part of some sort of infantile regression invading the interface.[/QUOTE] Big candy buttons don't because we stopped using that shit years ago. Big, flat, readable and easy to click tiles do because they [B]increase usability[/B]. Operating systems aren't meant to be some big, scary thing that only the true saviours of mankind can operate from their basements, they have to be massively accessible today because computing is a common thing. But whatever, you can live in the past if you really need to.
XP works pretty well, and it feels really nice and nostalgic to use, but it's just too old now.
[QUOTE=tirpider;41674735]Big candy buttons make a OS great? I though it was part of some sort of infantile regression invading the interface. how I feel about Metro: [IMG]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/58361588/temp/20120321174155.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] It's literally the desktop grid with squares behind each icon. And automatic tiling.
[QUOTE=tirpider;41674735]And this is from a guy that's too lazy to figure out [insert random name]linux.[/QUOTE] Okay, you can't talk about operating systems staying complicated if you can't even work Linux.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;41675106]Okay, you can't talk about operating systems staying complicated if you can't even work Linux.[/QUOTE] I would hardly call the "tiles" complicated. Having gone through all the pud jerking required to get my environment set up on a variety of Linux platforms, I determined that my time would be better spent working with an OS I am already familiar with. And since I work with and build for XP, why would I want to put Linux in between me and the target OS anyway? Because I need more abstractions? Because of some pedantic BS about security that is not applicable to me? Because I get my own flavor of penguin shell? Meh.. I'll stick to what works and what I know. I'll leave the bashing to the smart people. They love that shit. Perhaps when my eyes start failing, the giant candy "tiles" of "complicated" OS's will seem appealing. I'll have my nurse install it for me after she rolls me over.
Oh, for... Let it [i]die.[/i] Christ. We've moved on. You ever gone back to XP after spending a while with Win7? Friggin' [i]archaic.[/i] Even Vista, now that it's gotten service packs (yes, it had a bad [i]launch,[/i] that's it) is a step up from it.
Fucking XP users, you cunts are responsible for IE8 still being in use.
[QUOTE=Intel 386;41676238]Fucking XP users, you cunts are responsible for IE8 still being in use.[/QUOTE] Fucking linux users. You cunts are responsible for proprietary drivers being in use. Seriously, your point is invalid. Most XP users don't even use IE, but use chrome. Hell, I even used it on the demo virtual machine in the other page. [sp]I actually have no problem with linux, FYI[/sp]:v:
[QUOTE=Mors Quaedam;41677245]Seriously, your point is invalid. Most XP users don't even use IE[/QUOTE] Uhhh...you should check out school districts, governmental offices, the entirety of China. A lot of XP users still use IE. The savvier ones don't, but they tend to not be using XP now.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.