Author Topic: Still running XP? (Read 10962 times)

dankles · « **Reply #80 on:** August 03, 2009, 02:36:01 PM »

Quote from: sdedalus83 on August 03, 2009, 02:33:35 PM

I just wish the new acers were available with the hd4330 in the states.
A 13.3" led backlit, 3.5lb laptop with a core 2 duo, discrete graphics, and 5 - 8 hours of battery life for around $1k would be perfect.

Unlike the netbooks, I wouldn't feel the need to run XP.

Actually, Win 7 is shaping up quite nicely for netbooks. Over all, its only a very little bit slower than XP according to benchmarks.

fohfoh · « **Reply #81 on:** August 03, 2009, 02:56:26 PM »

Quote from: dankles on August 03, 2009, 02:36:01 PM

Quote from: sdedalus83 on August 03, 2009, 02:33:35 PM
I just wish the new acers were available with the hd4330 in the states.
A 13.3" led backlit, 3.5lb laptop with a core 2 duo, discrete graphics, and 5 - 8 hours of battery life for around $1k would be perfect.

Unlike the netbooks, I wouldn't feel the need to run XP.
Actually, Win 7 is shaping up quite nicely for netbooks. Over all, its only a very little bit slower than XP according to benchmarks.

Agreed.

However, mine is a turbo cache graphics laptop. I can choose either the intel 945 graphics card, or the NVidia Go 7400. I can understand the 945 for battery life, but the Go is kind of meh. It works as a discreet, but I wish it was a little more powerful. Even on the Go I can pull the 3 hour range, so it's not that much better than the 945 on power, but the performance is good yet bleh.

xShadow · « **Reply #82 on:** August 05, 2009, 05:59:41 AM »

Quote from: dankles on July 31, 2009, 02:28:05 PM

Quote from: mgz on July 31, 2009, 02:26:11 PM
when people start paying for linux you will see it get real developing thrown into its UI
Well... There is Red Hat and Novell. And Many of the software projects are funded from outside sources. But I'm hoping that google and it's new linux distro will help to contribute even more.

You know, I never thought Red Hat actually "existed" anywhere near me, but I was surprised. One time, I went into my math professor's office (at least this is where I think I saw it) here on campus, saw him bring up something similar to the start menu, and it had "Red Hat" somewhere on there. I haven't seen it since then, but that was one extremely random encounter... in the place I least expected to see it. I wonder if they simply bought all of the math professors (in that building) computers that had Red Hat on them. We have an absolute shitload of computers on campus, so I guess it's not surprising you'd find one like that eventually, but meh...

As for XP, I'm still running it on my desktop... mostly because I think my desktop has enough problems as it is, not to mention one gig of ram. That aside, I used to not even want to upgrade to XP from 2000, and I hated it when I first got it because I didn't like changes. Naturally, I got a little more open minded since then, because I have XP. Then, I heard all the bad stuff about Vista, and decided not to upgrade. However, this laptop came with it. At first, I was a bit skeptical (and annoyed), but I turned off UAC and whatnot, and I really found it to be great. I can play games just fine on it, at least... which is what this laptop was made for. As for the OS, it's been running much more stable than any XP installation I've ever had, it looks better, and it works better. That's pretty much it.

With all that said, though, if this computer had XP originally, I probably wouldn't bother upgrading (even though my college has that thing where I could get it for free). Reformatting and whatnot is a hassle I seriously don't want to bother with. >_>

Mag-X · « **Reply #83 on:** August 05, 2009, 08:08:46 AM »

Quote from: xShadow on August 05, 2009, 05:59:41 AM

You know, I never thought Red Hat actually "existed" anywhere near me, but I was surprised. One time, I went into my math professor's office (at least this is where I think I saw it) here on campus, saw him bring up something similar to the start menu, and it had "Red Hat" somewhere on there. I haven't seen it since then, but that was one extremely random encounter... in the place I least expected to see it. I wonder if they simply bought all of the math professors (in that building) computers that had Red Hat on them. We have an absolute shitload of computers on campus, so I guess it's not surprising you'd find one like that eventually, but meh...

Red Hat is used mostly on servers hidden away in data centers. The more user friendly everyday people version is called Fedora.

fohfoh · « **Reply #84 on:** August 05, 2009, 08:12:26 AM »

Quote from: Mag-X on August 05, 2009, 08:08:46 AM

Quote from: xShadow on August 05, 2009, 05:59:41 AM
You know, I never thought Red Hat actually "existed" anywhere near me, but I was surprised. One time, I went into my math professor's office (at least this is where I think I saw it) here on campus, saw him bring up something similar to the start menu, and it had "Red Hat" somewhere on there. I haven't seen it since then, but that was one extremely random encounter... in the place I least expected to see it. I wonder if they simply bought all of the math professors (in that building) computers that had Red Hat on them. We have an absolute shitload of computers on campus, so I guess it's not surprising you'd find one like that eventually, but meh...
Red Hat is used mostly on servers hidden away in data centers. The more user friendly everyday people version is called Fedora.

Just a question then... did Red Hat move in where Novell use to hold a nice chunk of control?

dankles · « **Reply #85 on:** August 05, 2009, 02:21:33 PM »

Quote from: fohfoh on August 05, 2009, 08:12:26 AM

Quote from: Mag-X on August 05, 2009, 08:08:46 AM
Quote from: xShadow on August 05, 2009, 05:59:41 AM
You know, I never thought Red Hat actually "existed" anywhere near me, but I was surprised. One time, I went into my math professor's office (at least this is where I think I saw it) here on campus, saw him bring up something similar to the start menu, and it had "Red Hat" somewhere on there. I haven't seen it since then, but that was one extremely random encounter... in the place I least expected to see it. I wonder if they simply bought all of the math professors (in that building) computers that had Red Hat on them. We have an absolute shitload of computers on campus, so I guess it's not surprising you'd find one like that eventually, but meh...
Red Hat is used mostly on servers hidden away in data centers. The more user friendly everyday people version is called Fedora.

Just a question then... did Red Hat move in where Novell use to hold a nice chunk of control?

Huh? Novell are the ones that came into the linux game latter on.

And I wouldn't exactly say that Fedora is more friendly, it has all ways had the feel of Alpha(not even beta) software. I've never installed it with out at least one thing to go wrong. So in that regard, I'd rather the older and more solid RHEL on my desktop with the right software repositories setup to get some later versions of packages.

Anyways, I'm OT

naarcissus · « **Reply #86 on:** August 05, 2009, 02:56:02 PM »

I have a c2d 2.0 and 3 gigs of ram that came w/ XP Pro. I was reinstalling the damn thing once or twice a month cause of weird ass problems. Been running Vista X64 sp1 since december of 2008 and have yet to have a serious issue. I love it. 'Course I like OSX better, but I haven't been able to afford another mac since my iMac G5 died :'(. I especially like UAC, I just wish it was a little more customizable and didn't have the option to turn it off cause I've run into alot of programs that specifically tell you to turn it off in order to run. And it would be nice if it had an actual root or godmode account.

and all this BS about people wouldn't switch to Vista because it wasn't compatible w/ either their XP software or hardware(or both) but want to get W7 is bogus, because the XP mode in vista requires a newer machine w/ hardware assisted virtualization extensions like Intel VT or AMD-V. Since a vm it requires even more power to run old programs with W7.

In summary I run Vista and will probably upgrade to W7 by the time it reaches SP1

Sosseres · « **Reply #87 on:** August 05, 2009, 03:00:30 PM »

The thing is that people wouldn't switch to vista since they had a lot of those programs that wouldn't work. Over a few years the amount of those programs has decreased either through newer versions or through different programs.

I had to install a virtual machine in order to run a 16 bit program yesterday, I mounted the ordinary windows XP for that.

fohfoh · « **Reply #88 on:** August 06, 2009, 12:49:13 PM »

Quote from: Sosseres on August 05, 2009, 03:00:30 PM

The thing is that people wouldn't switch to vista since they had a lot of those programs that wouldn't work. Over a few years the amount of those programs has decreased either through newer versions or through different programs.

I had to install a virtual machine in order to run a 16 bit program yesterday, I mounted the ordinary windows XP for that.

I have many "IT problems" to deal with at work due to Vista based grief. Display errors, screwed up calculations etc. in certain accounting programs. It also comes with funny XP vs Vista issues (where an ip address is shared for some odd reason. Think 2x computers with let's say xxx.xxx.x.104, because the router pays attention to vista's ipv6 but ignores of the v4).

It took me a LOT of discussion with them to install Windows server 2008 over 2003 on their i7 920 Server. "2003 is based on XP and more proven, etc. etc. etc. vs But I don't think 2003 fully supports i7 hardware etc. and 700 vs 900 dollars is not worth the savings if you need to upgrade the software later on due to ms dropping support etc."

itemno23886 · « **Reply #89 on:** August 07, 2009, 05:14:45 AM »

I use being cheap as an excuse not to use vista. But in reality, I'm prolly berrter off running in some Linux distro simply because I'd rather pack terabytes upon terabytes of data than play a game.

fohfoh · « **Reply #90 on:** August 07, 2009, 05:25:16 AM »

Vista and XP are ok if you don't have issues. But if you have issues, XP is a lot harder to deal with than Vista. or what I mean is... Vista isn't has catastrophically unstable... usually...

sdedalus83 · « **Reply #91 on:** August 07, 2009, 07:27:19 PM »

6 months into using vista I got to watch as it ate itself during a routine disk clean up cycle. In more than 7 years of using xp I've never had any problems close to as catastrophic as that.

morrefule · « **Reply #92 on:** August 07, 2009, 07:48:52 PM »

I'm still paining through my XP machine. Love Mac(don't hate). I have hopes for Widonws 7 (*cough Lepard for Windows)

Noboru_san · « **Reply #93 on:** August 07, 2009, 07:53:57 PM »

i no longer use xp now vista

leonasenshi · « **Reply #94 on:** August 11, 2009, 04:14:41 PM »

XP is more stable for me... Vista always sucks ass, plus Microsoft is just going to bring up some other OS i think the new one is OS 7?? i got no clue but it's just a marketing strategy >.>

Till there's a stable OS i'll keep using XP! HA!

DemonSupra · « **Reply #95 on:** August 11, 2009, 07:50:09 PM »

I'm still on XP because it just feels better to me. My uncle has Vista on both his desktop and laptop and I'm annoyed using it every time I'm at his house. There are some changes to the UI that I don't really like (the start menu) and the pop-ups whenever I'm running an exe or installing something are really annoying. Also, a lot of my uncle's old software doesn't run on Vista. The only thing that XP lacks is DirectX 10 support, which isn't that big of a deal for me anyway. Finally, I don't feel the need to spend another $130 (yes, I actually buy my software

) when XP is doing the job fine. If anything that you can do in Vista can also be done in XP, why bother switching?

bloody000 · « **Reply #96 on:** August 12, 2009, 06:00:00 PM »

>I've got no clue but I'm going to say it's just a marketing strategy.

Impressive.

Also, tearing-free desktop = win.

Damaar · « **Reply #97 on:** August 13, 2009, 02:30:53 AM »

Vista and windows 7 will have their time, we are just too far behind on hardware atm to make use of either of them.

As is xp is sleeker and faster on low end and even current high end machines. The only real advantage the new os's have is scalability and right now we just aren't running the hardware necessary for them to overtake xp.

Vista and windows 7 are like pepsi and coke, they are pretty much the same thing, but they do have some differences. *i'm not getting into a but pepsi/coke is way better then the other argument they are the same friggen thing for the sake of this example* they did make a few improvements in windows 7 but honestly the main reason they made it was to shed the bad stigma attached with vista mostly caused by low end machines trying to run something they don't have the resources for.

anyways that's the impression I get from all this based on my use of vista as one of my duel os's and what I've read. I haven't personally used windows 7 yet but from what I've read it really doesn't seem like a whole new os compared to vista.

Xemnarth · « **Reply #98 on:** August 13, 2009, 02:45:09 AM »

I will still use Windows XP even if I got a supercomputer. =) It never failed me and it outperforms Vista.

Stsin · « **Reply #99 on:** August 13, 2009, 07:29:21 AM »

I've already pre-ordered Win 7. Don't see how I can regret it. I thought Vista stopped being a worthwhile option since Win 7 Beta came out, which was free for everyone? It's the most stable OS from MS that I've used. Don't know about you, but that means a lot to me. What will bring any XP system down, Win 7 survives through. It even resets my video drivers after getting screwed by a bad app. Only had two blue screens since I've been using Beta

Well, another big reason is to switch to a 64 bit operating system. XP x64? No thanks.

Recently, I came across a bot script, but the main program QTP needed to run on XP, and use specifically IE7. No problem. Just use Windows Virtual XP. And while normally this bot effects the use of the computer since it's opening Excel sheets and constantly switching IE screens and entering passwords. It doesn't interfere with main desktop when running in a virtual environment. I just start it, then minimize, and it's out of the way. Even with those point and click bots. And I'll be damned that the browser in it is quicker than my main OS (due to less bloat and lower depth desktop).

Sure, you can use Virtual PC 2007 or VMware. But this has gotten a major overhaul and so easy to install and use that ANYONE can do it within minutes. Comes with free XP Mode for Win 7 so don't have to find and install that OS. Also previous virtual versions only use one core, but this will use all. Plus hardware virtualization allows it to access more effortlessly, like USB ports.

It's another one of those features that I didn't know I wanted. And I do like Win7's aero previews and prefer not to go without either. Plus Aero is more accelerated if have the proper video drivers.