Ten years ago today, Microsoft launched what would become the world's most popular desktop operating system - for better or worse. Its interface colours were... Interesting (trying hard to avoid bias here, folks, bear with me now). Its early performance was... Not always entirely up to par. Its security track record was... Well, it sucked hard in that department (I tried). We're ten years down the line, and thanks to Vista, way too many people are still using this relic.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2011-10-25
Member since:2006-07-25
Barclays in the UK were/still using Windows 2000 Pro!
Although i tend to agree with them, i was a massive NT4 and an even bigger Windows 2000 fan, they were both very lean OS's, which were purely focused on getting work done. Win2k was insanely fast and a lot faster than WinXP.
I put off WinXP until i actually had to use it through software support, but i hated it, it felt and still feels clunky slow and just plain annoying even on a fresh install with SP3 (2GB RAM).
The only XP i will give any credit too is XP x64, it was like Win2K again, fast lean and once you took off that horrible Luna UI, focused on getting stuff done.
Although this post is begining to sound like a big rant against Windows, i love Windows 7, again like Win2k, fast and very productive, im glad to see the back off it and am currently migrating another company to Win7.
I leave this mostly negative comment with a negative last line, the worst thing i found regarding XP was that after 6 months the OS for no reason would slow down, it was visibly noticable on any of my computers and these were clean machines, i.e. no install/uninstall loads of apps, they basically had office, dev tools and that was it, but it still lost it's speed and got slower and slower, Win7 however has kept it's running speed and i have had to reformat/reinstall since installation 2/3 years ago!
Member since:
2007-09-18
Running my 1-2 Windows applications in a productive environment got so much more painful in the last years.
Back in the days, I had a relaxed 4GB VM running WinXP and MS Office, resulting in about 1GB free disk space. Today I need a 16GB image for Win7 and Office, and it also consumes about half my RAM. Also, the huge, inefficient GUI elements are extremely annoying (I might have a large screen but kvm/vnc can't cope with the required resolution. Also, I get a creepy feeling when running Windows fullscreen..)
Open source solutions still barely work for the "standardized" new Word format, while PowerPoint of course does not work at all.
How people can pay money for this software is beyond me. Some day my boss will kill me for secretly preparing all slides in latex. Latex-beamer is a pain, but its nothing compared to Powerpoint in a Win7 VM.
Member since:
2010-10-27
I don't get the hate, to be honest. XP is still the OS that I spend the greatest amount of time in. It's never blue-screened on me, I've never had an activation problem, I've never suffered any security problems, and it still does everything I need it to do.
I'll be using it until Microsoft kills all support for it.
Member since:2011-10-12
I'll be using it until Microsoft kills all support for it.
That's like saying, "it's ok for me to leave my front door open because I've been doing it all this time and I haven't been robbed".
Do yourself a favour and upgrade to Windows 7.
Member since:2005-07-06
If he's happy and it works for him, then why bother?
I was running leopard until about a month ago. I was happy and it worked fine for me. The only reason I upgraded to lion is because I wanted to buy a few games on steam that didn't work on leopard.
Edited 2011-10-26 00:39 UTC
Member since:2010-06-19
Member since:2007-02-17
Au contraire, there are approximately two million new pieces of malware written every year, essentially all of it is targetted at Windows. The very best anti-malware protection only rates a detection rate somewhere in the 90% range. This implies the creation 200,000 new pieces of undetectable malware for Windows every year. If Windows were indeed secure enough for most purposes, then there would be no point to all that malware-writing effort.
While some people are cautious enough to be able to avoid such malware, for non-expert people who use Windows in conjunction with the Internet (which is the majority of Windows users), eventually the chances are that their system will become compromised.
Of all of the non-expert home users of Windows of my acquaintance, who effectively had the task of looking after their own Windows systems, none of them managed to use Windows for more than a year at a time before their systems were compromised. Some of them have asked me to fix their Windows systems, and others just take their system to a computer store every so often and fork out money to have it "fixed".
Edited 2011-10-26 04:04 UTC
Member since:2010-06-19
Most of which is delivered via very specific means, has very specific vectors for attack and most of which gets tripped up by simply not having write access to system files. Unless you're dealing with a lot of sensitive information, you don't even need the anti-* software. As a precaution, it's worth installing a couple twice a year, running a scan and then removing them (since most people still running XP probably don't have the most robust hardware), though.
Member since:2007-02-17
I'll say it AGAIN because it obviously didn't sink in: "Of all of the non-expert home users of Windows of my acquaintance, who effectively had the task of looking after their own Windows systems, none of them managed to use Windows for more than a year at a time before their systems were compromised. Some of them have asked me to fix their Windows systems, and others just take their system to a computer store every so often and fork out money to have it fixed."
To my mind, compared with my Linux systems, this is utterly abysmal. It may or may not be the fault of Windows that it is attacked so much, but regardless of where the fault is, the experience of non-expert self-supporting Windows users is lamentable. Despite having to pay appreciable ongoing costs for security software over-and-above the bare OS, their security is still compromised, they face a significant risk that their finances or identity might be stolen online, they have no privacy and are constantly spied upon, they are routinely bombarded by advertising, their systems work against them in terms of imposing DRM policies and the like, and they have to pay, and pay again, to maintain even this poor standard of service.
Edited 2011-10-26 05:03 UTC
Member since:2010-06-19
Member since:2007-02-17
Of course it is relevant. You are trying to say Windows XP is secure enough. I'm telling you it simply isn't, for the purposes of ordinary non-expert users who are expected to maintain their own systems. The XPerience such users face is abysmal, even when they do correctly follow the well-meaning advice they are given. I see it happen all the time.
The popular view is even that "computers get slower after a while". This is what (Windows) users experience, even though it should not happen (software performance should not degrade with time).
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111016154153AAHD8Rb
PS: It is clear from the above that ordinary non-expert users are not aware that when an anti-malware security extra program they have installed boasts a "98% detection rate", that also means a 2% failure-to-detect rate. A failure-to-detect in turn means that your system has malware even though your anti-malware security software says it doesn't.
Someone else was trying to say Windows was stable, as solid as a rock. I had to deal with a crash and a failure to recover properly less than a minute after I read this. I would have fallen about laughing if it wasn't so annoying to have suffered the crash.
Edited 2011-10-26 05:30 UTC
Member since:
2005-07-06
Heh, I had XP for a few years, then I got sick of all the problems and migrated entirely to various Linux distros (to inherit a new set of problems) and OSX for a few years, then about 6 months ago I got a new pc that happened to have Windows 7 installed and to my amazement, it has been a pretty solid OS.
Member since:
2011-03-03
If not for my last notebook coming with windows 7 pre-installed I'd still be using XP. Windows 7 is great and all but XP still servers me all right. With SP 3 it's fast, reliable and secure enough. Aside from driver support I see no reason to move out of XP if you have to pay for it.
But yeah, congratulations windows XP.
Member since:2005-11-13
Yeah, I loooooove XP, so long as we're talking SP2 or above
Once I install it and turn on the Win32 'classic' theme, the OS just stays out of my way, and I'm good to go. Never had any stability or security issues with it; was always rock solid. I find Windows 7 to be just ... meh. I hated the dock in OSX, and hate it even more in Win7, which is the first thing that got turned off. The second thing that got turned off was the new theme, as I liked classic better. The third thing that got turned off was the 'Aero snap' feature, because I kept having windows snap to the edge of the screen when trying to switch monitors. And don't even get me started on UAC.
By the time I got finished turning off the new 'features' that were pissing me off, I was basically back to XP. Except now the OS is a 15gb install instead of 1gb... WTF did they put in there anyway? There sure as hell ain't 14gb worth of new features in here
Plus, they moved shit around for no apparent reason... the control panel is a complete clusterf**k now. The only good things they introduced in Vista IMO was the calendar app and the startup manager, and they removed both of those in Win7. WHY!?! About the only thing I really like better about 7 is the start menu. But other than that, I still like XP just fine.
Member since:2008-04-07
I can't agree more. XP SP3 serves well. Once properly upgraded it is reasonably fast, reliable and stays out of the way. Of course, the first things I did was disable its theme, the new start menu, desktop.. turning it into an updated version of Win2000.
In fact, I still think W2k was one of the best versions of Windows ever. WinXP improved it, but also came with a lot of "unnecessary" stuff with it.
That's not to say WinXP is the best OS, it is one of the most usable Windows versions!
My netbook came with WinXP when Vista was already around for months. There must be a reason...
Member since:
2005-11-13
Didn't upgrade to it until about 2003. I personally never found anything wrong with the Blue Luna theme, it was actually refreshing change that made the desktop more user friendly rather than the drab gray since Windows 95. Also, you could change the color scheme of Luna Blue to either Silver or Olive and third party themes were available that could make it just the way you want it.
In Regards to the negatives, the only persons Product Activation bothered were those who wanted to pirate it without paying for it. OA activation came into use with Windows XP, which meant that a person who bought a new PC would not encounter product activation at all, even when they reinstall Windows XP.
Businesses don't have to worry either, because volume license Windows XP never required product activation. Where do you think the bulk of pirated XP installs come from. The few that won't budge off XP are those who refuse to pay.
Windows XP had a built in Firewall since RTM, I believe it was not on by default until XP SP2. Much of what was experienced with Windows XP in terms of negatives is true of any new operating system.
Mac OS 10.0 which was released in March 2001 was not a stellar performer, it lacked the performance users were hoping for, compatibility, no DVD playback, no CD burning support, not much new useful native apps (in fact, Apple didn't get OS X right until 10.3). Windows XP on the other hand had all these features working out the box and it worked with a decent amount of legacy applications that most users used and expected to work. I remember my high school lab when I was senior ran Photoshop 6, Office 2000 and 97 on it without a hitch.
The trivial programs when you look back that people complained about like AOL, Roxio CD Burning wizard (a capability already in Windows XP) and the last version of Norton. Come on, seriously.
Linux back then was pretty much something you only associated with geek, hobbyist, waste of time. Windows XP really was a triumph and when I look back on the period, its such an unusual time yet interesting time, it was launched just after 9/11, Michael Jackson was alive and just launched his last major studio album 'Invincible', Britney Spears was going into acting with her first movie Cross Roads, lots of great music, my dad was alive and throughout it all, Windows XP was there.
Its ironic, XP stands for experience and if only I could relive some of them again.
Member since:
2005-12-04
WinSxS addressed all these problems by storing multiple versions of the same DLL in the winsxs directory (in the Windows directory). Executables include an XML manifest (it can also be a separate file) which lists the specific versions of the DLL files it needs - Windows then loads these specific versions.
But does that really fix the problem? In the past, a missing DLL was one that didn't exist. WinSxS allows not just for missing DLLs, but missing DLL versions.
Version conflicts haven't really changed. Windows historically expected that if a DLL had the same name, it must be upward compatible forever (new versions could replace old versions.) WinSxS hasn't totally changed this - it still follows the assumption that a new version of a DLL can be installed, and applications will magically switch the new and improved version, so that version had better be compatible or things will break.
You can have two versions of the same DLL installed side by side that are not compatible, but this is not as simple as it seems. For one, things get interesting when you try to load both DLLs into the same process. That in turn makes things interesting when you're building extensibility points and you can't control what DLLs your extensions might be loading. Developers need to code around these cases with great care.
As a developer, WinSxS creates some interesting quirks. You need to be very careful about servicing Visual Studio, for example. If you build an app one day and have one version of the CRT, your app will run on that version or a newer one. Install a patch to VS and rebuild, and now your app requires the newer one. So if you distribute an update to your app with the newer one, it will stop working on some random set of machines that have the old version without the new version - unless, of course, you understand the situation and always distribute the CRT with every update you ship. And if you were doing that, the historical model wasn't so bad to begin with.
WinSxS is an interesting thing. It certainly does solve a pile of problems. But I think it's a little optimistic to assume that DLL Hell in entirety is completely solved.
Member since:
2006-05-23
That is one of the major reasons people continue to use XP.
- Vista is astoundingly slow even on good hardware.
- 7 performs better but still has kind of absurd hardware requirements, and is rather expensive.
- Linux has an unfortunate inverse relationship between performance and user friendliness; e.g. KDE4 is as slow as Vista, while stand alone WMs are very fast but take some geekiness to use.
Now I'll give you that Linux with Xfce has pretty much the same performance/usability profile as XP (probably better at both, on well supported hardware). But there are other issues:
- Hardware support. Linux support for low-end graphics cards is *bad*, for example. Try any distro on something with a Via Unichrome chipset. *Everything* lags, hardware acceleration or no.
- Software support. There is a ton of specialized software for Windows that doesn't exist for Linux, and Wine cannot be depended on.
- People don't want to bother learning a whole new OS, and may just not have the time.
So I can see very well why some people stick with XP, despite its grotesquely bad default security.
Member since:2006-05-23
Just buy a Linux system as you would buy a Windows system ... buy a system with Linux pre-installed for you. You will then have none of the troubles that some people have with self-installed OSes. *Nothing* lags.
1. "Buy a new computer" is a stupid, wasteful solution.
2. I have a box with Unichrome graphics, and yes, GUIs are very laggy on it in Linux - and not laggy at all in Windows. Hard to say why, though I have a hunch it's mostly down to a) bad 2D acceleration support and b) GTK2's double-buffering habit, which kills performance on older machines.
3. I know damn well how to set up X and video acceleration, and if I didn't, a distro like Ubuntu would do that for me.
Member since:2005-07-20
Check your bit-depth. If your Windows is using 16-bit graphics and X is using 24/32-bit that is a huge difference in memory bandwidth usage.
Also double-check that X is actually using the "via" driver and not vesa. I don't know why it happens, but I've seen X autoconfigure to VESA before. Maybe a PCI identifier that isn't exactly what it was looking for.
Member since:2006-05-23
Yes, I've tried that. VIA 16-bit graphics performance is consistently far worse than Windows 32-bit. As in, windows take three seconds to render to a new size... When smooth resizes are *disabled*.
(And yes, the via driver was enabled. I know how to read Xorg log files too.)
Member since:2007-02-17
VIA graphics support for Linux is atrocious.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ODgxNg
Use anything but. If you have a PCIE slot, do yourself an immense favour, and invest just a few dollars in a low-end ATI graphics card (say one about four years old, should be dirt cheap now).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_AMD_graphics_processing_...
The open source drivers will auto-configure for you, you won't have to touch a thing.
Edited 2011-10-26 23:04 UTC
Member since:2007-02-17
I didn't claim it was a solution for you ... I am pointing out what would be a fair comparison.
"Buy a computer" is what people do in order to get a working Windows installation.
If you wanted a working Linux installation in order to compare the stability and capability of the two systems under the same circumstances, then what you need to do is "buy a new Linux computer".
If you aren't prepared to do that, then fine, don't, but I am pointing out that you are in no position to compare the systems under the equivalent circumstances. You are running a self-installed un-optimal version of some generic Linux distribution running on a machine designed to run (and originally sold with) Windows, and then comparing that to Windows on that machine.
Such a comparison is always going to find that the machine runs Windows relatively well (because that is what it was designed to do). Unless you are an expert, which clearly you aren't, you are crippling Linux out of the gate by self-installing it on an inappropriate machine. Then you have the gall to try to convince people, from your biased non-test, that Linux isn't any good.
...
I know damn well how to set up X and video acceleration, and if I didn't, a distro like Ubuntu would do that for me.
There you go, QED. If anyone was offering to sell you a proper Linux system
http://zareason.com/shop/home.php?cat=
http://www.system76.com/
... you can bet your bottom dollar it wouldn't have Unichrome graphics.
Edited 2011-10-26 22:13 UTC
Member since:2006-05-23
Member since:2007-02-17
Because it is the "X hardware" that doesn't support Linux. You have got the "supports" actor and verb the wrong way around. If you want to run Linux, and run it well, then you should get hardware that supports Linux.
If the hardware you have actually supports Linux, then Linux will run even the fastest and most expensive machines on the planet.
http://www.top500.org/
For example, VIA graphics support for Linux is atrocious:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ODgxNg
Now if instead all you want to do is try to get Linux running on whatever hardware you happen to have on hand, then you need to accept that, although you may be able to get it to run, it may very well not be anywhere near optimal on that hardware.
If what you want to do is to compare "how good is this OS compared to that one" then you need to run each OS on hardware that supports it. Running one OS installed by OEM professionals on hardware that supports it, and another OS self-installed on hardware that has very very poor support for that OS is hardly going to deliver any kind of realistic, objective comparison.
Edited 2011-10-27 02:20 UTC
Member since:2006-05-23
Okay, then VIA doesn't support Linux. Fine. The point is, to the end user, it doesn't make a difference. Joe Schmoe still has his old Powerspec with Unichrome graphics, he can't afford a new computer, and Windows XP still works fine for his purposes... So he stays with Windows XP. And frankly, I can't blame him.
Member since:2007-02-17
Agreed. Joe Schmoe's old Powerspec with Unichrome graphics can be made to run Linux, but it most assuredly isn't ideally suited.
My point is that if Joe Schmoe can't afford to get his hands on a machine that actually can run Linux reasonably, and he can't even get hold of a cheap, low-end, four-year-old ATI graphics card (no more than say $40) to replace the one bit of his aging Powerspec with Unichrome graphics computer that has no (or at least, very poor) support for Linux, then Joe Schmoe is in no position to post on Internet forums that Linux doesn't work, or that Linux is "laggy" when a menu or a icon is clicked.
It isn't Linux that is lagging, it is Joe Schmoe's old and not-suited-for-Linux Powerspec with Unichrome graphics machine that is lagging.
Member since:2008-09-24
- Linux has an unfortunate inverse relationship between performance and user friendliness; e.g. KDE4 is as slow as Vista, while stand alone WMs are very fast but take some geekiness to use.
Oh really?
On my PII 450mhz KDE4 is much faster than XP was.
Edited 2011-10-26 03:31 UTC
Member since:2006-05-23
Member since:2008-09-24
Mind, I've used XP on a Thinkpad 600E with 200 MB of RAM. It wasn't exactly fast, but it was usable and didn't swap too much.
It has a Radeon 8500le, I don't run most of the desktop effects as it bogs down fast. It no speed deomon but it is faster and has much more bounce back than XP, 2000 worked better on it.
Member since:2006-05-23
Member since:2009-08-18
Member since:
2010-09-17
Member since:2007-02-17
Expletive. I just lost an hour and a half of work because MS Office 2010 crashed on my maintained-by-work Windows XP Pro machine. Perhaps it was because I clicked on a ribbon button, nothing happened for several seconds (which happens fairly often), so I clicked again.
It is so very frustrating because MS Office 2010 is so dog slow to re-start on this machine, and when it did come up again surprisingly there was no auto-recovery. I'll have to do it all over.
Edited 2011-10-26 04:43 UTC
Member since:2005-11-13
Member since:2007-02-17
The machine on which Office 2010 crashed on me is maintained by the IT department at work. Whatever is installed is minimal, and it is as installed on thousands of machines worldwide in the company's global network. We are talking about a professionally maintained Windows image here. Office 2010 was rolled out to thousands of machines a few months ago, after many many months of testing.
Edited 2011-10-26 09:38 UTC
Member since:2005-06-29
In all fairness, Windows XP is 10 years old. I challenge you to run the latest OpenOffice on a Linux distribution from 2001. I'll be surprised if you get to run it at all.
Is it really Microsoft's fault that your company is too incompetent to switch to Windows 7? Is it Microsoft's fault that your company switched to Office 2010, while in fact, they should have stuck to 2003 which is a much better fit for XP?
I don't know.
Member since:2007-02-17
In all fairness, Windows XP is 10 years old. I challenge you to run the latest OpenOffice on a Linux distribution from 2001. I'll be surprised if you get to run it at all.
Is it really Microsoft's fault that your company is too incompetent to switch to Windows 7? Is it Microsoft's fault that your company switched to Office 2010, while in fact, they should have stuck to 2003 which is a much better fit for XP?
I don't know. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office_2010
It claims this:
Windows Server 2008
Windows Vista with Service Pack 1
Windows Server 2003 R2
Windows XP with Service Pack 3 (32-Bit only)
Are you saying that Microsoft is making false claims for its flagship product?
Edited 2011-10-26 09:51 UTC
Member since:2009-08-18
Member since:2007-02-17
Yes it has.
That is exactly why I was very surprised indeed when Office 2010 crashed, and then it did not auto-recover the file I was working on when I re-started it.
I was very surprised. I had simply not expected such a major failing in a flagship product, but there it is.
Member since:
2010-05-14
I use XP because all of my video game emulators and Netflix works perfectly with it. The only problem I have is that for some reason XP hates my internet connection. So I constantly find my self typing ipconfig /release ipconfig /renew into the console. Because the "repair" option never works.
If I had the choice I would probably would stick with Windows 98. I never felt XP was worth the money I spent to get the retail version used on Ebay ($100).
Member since:
2006-07-26
Member since:
2011-09-18
I really liked XP (after SP2 of course). It was the last time I used Windows exclusively. When I upgraded to Vista I hated it so much I switched to Fedora and a few years later I found Arch Linux and never looked back. Although I do now dual boot Windows 7 & Arch, but all I really use Windows for anymore is Netflix and occasional gaming. I thought 7 was ridiculously slow when I first used it, probably due to me being used to the comparatively lightning speed of Linux, but then I switched it into classic mode and I must say when you get down to it, it's not a bad OS. The aero theme is just a resource hog.
Member since:2006-07-14
Yeah, you're the first person to mention the stark difference in quality in Xp over its lifetime.
RTM, SP1 => garbage. You could not install patches before your system was affected by malware, when hooked up to the internet after installation without a NAT.
SP2. Incredibly better than the previous one. Drastically more secure and stable. Still sucks compared to the security/stability of win7, but the first sign that Microsoft cared about security.
Side Note: we wouldn't be lauding XP so much if Longhorn hadn't died a terrible death. XP was supposed to only be the flagship OS for 2-3 years. When I installed the first version of XP, I had a grand appreciation and respect for Microsoft. Longhorn/Vista ruined that trust. I wanted a revolutionary OS that would fix the problems I had witnessed since win 95, which still exist to this day.
Member since:2005-09-01
Member since:2006-07-14
Win 2000 came about at the end of the age of innocence. When people connected to the internet via dialup & port scanning random machines was more rare. WinXp was win 2000 + Luna & better 9x backwards compatibility and hardware support.
So I guess the availability of broadband really increased the security requirements of operating systems. Win 2000 and win XP pre SP2 were not designed for that kind of an environment. But otherwise, they were decent operating systems. Better than 9x or NT 4.0, but SP2 was just heads and shoulders above in stability and security, due to the refined development techniques Microsoft developed that eliminated most buffer overflows.
Member since:
2007-03-30
Member since:
2008-08-27
I don't think the default XP theme was that ugly -- it was childish though, like taken out of a Fisher-Price box. But that's what the Olive Green and Silver versions of Luna were for.
But XP was good to me. It saved me from Windows ME and it taught me (the hard way) about security so now I can run a virus-free and spyware-free Windows 7 system without being excessively paranoid. So cheers for a good OS.
That said, like disco music, Windows XP has a place in history; please, leave it there!
Member since:
2006-01-21
Member since:
2007-06-02
People are not keen to change specially when the position is comfortable enough. XP may have been a malware whore, but the fact that many people would love the colours, and also nobody cared in many countries if it was proprietary or not - and apart that many Linux DE's have been trying to emulate it somehow, makes XP the king OS of 2000's. Totally understandable, why not copy XP. Even a project called "xpde" had come up.
I remember seeing it being already deployed as pirated software in Barbadian stores, in 2001. It was heavy. But it was a huge improvement over 9x series. And at that time, Linux having KDE 2/3 and GNOME 1/2 were not potential threats, specially having more difficult installations than today. I remember graduated teachers saying Linux was not user friendly and that Mac was more friendly because didn't have to install programs as in the Windows way.
-
My wife acquired a laptop recently and she didn't want Ubuntu/GNOME 2, but XP, because "the folks in the school where I work can print something there in XP and it just works". And this after converting her to Ubuntu for over 3 years. She even liked GNOME 2 (there was a time I tried really hard after she got some viruses over and over in XP machines).
What makes me mad is "the folks in the school where I work..." up to this day - usually it's a pirated system, deployed by one of these million small stores with doubtful IT never-graduated people. A rubber stamp on the invoice with the saying "Warning: Software not included" to avoid legal problems.
Microsoft even helped piracy to make this thing called XP popular, naysayers go. Hadn't Microsoft been any slack, I wouldn't be sure. None of the computer stores in Brazil have been effectively inspected against counterfeit software deployment. Microsoft never really cared. I guess it is the same for Asian countries and many others.
XP may have had its merits. But it's hard to make people change. Usually you need to force upon them. (Hello, GNOME 3.)
Edited 2011-10-26 14:35 UTC
Member since:
2008-08-27
By the way, Luna is not the ugliest theme ever to be included with an operating system. That honor belongs to the Vista Basic theme also included in Windows 7. I don't mean the intentionally-crippled Aero you get when you run Windows Vista Basic or Windows 7 Starter on decent hardware. I mean, the theme you get on hardware that doesn't support Aero, or when you are running an application that is incompatible with Aero. That without a doubt is THE UGLIEST theme ever!
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/19004216/VistaBasic.png
Member since:2005-07-06
Not even close. GEM, Workbench 1.0, Windows 1.0, Arthur ...plenty to choose from even among such historically important ones (enough to have screenshots here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_graphical_user_interfac... )
Member since:
2006-10-13
One feature of XP that I haven't seen mentioned is the ease of installing input methods for multiple languages.
I sometimes need to type emails or perform web searches in Japanese. Back in the Win9X/2K days I had to spend extra money for either add-on software to allow Japanese text input, or even more money for a Japanese version of Windows.
Starting with XP, adding additional languages is just a matter of a few clicks in Control Panel.. almost as easy as GNOME.
Member since:
2007-12-07
I work and play in XP, Vista, 7 and OS X. New for the sake of New doesn't appeal to me - it does to Microsoft cause that's how they make money (and they have enough money).
Quite frankly Microsoft still does security updates to XP so you drop in your firewall and antivirus (like you need to with all Windows versions) and your good. Overall, compared to Vista and 7 - it stays out of my way the best out of the 3 latest Windows versions (the user experience is much more walled in with Vista and 7, I don't need or want that and its annoying).
For initial Core 2 duo's and below it works just fine and the hardware for those older platforms supports it.
There's very little that you can do on a Windows 7 or Vista machine that you can't do on an XP machine with the right applications - they all run Win32 applications (compatible on all of them if built that way by the vendors).
