Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 11th Jun 2010 21:56 UTC
Windows Yes, the day is finally drawing closer: the day Windows XP died. October 22, 2010 will be the final and definitive day for the venerable operating system, since OEMs will no longer be able to pre-load it on netbooks after that day. I might not make myself popular around here with this, but thank god, it's about time that pile of junk is taken behind the shed.
Thread beginning with comment 429749
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
XP64 == XP
by phoenix on Fri 11th Jun 2010 22:30 UTC
phoenix
Member since:
2005-07-11

Edit: Whoops, the title should be != and not ==.

The 64-bit version of XP has nothing in common with the 32-bit version of XP beyond the name. You really can't compare the two. One uses the Windows Server core, the other uses the Windows XP core. There's a lot more going on in the 64-bit version than the 32-bit version.

The nice thing about XP is that it is easy to use, easy to discover how things work, and easy to configure. The Control Panel in Windows 7 looks like someone puked code onto a GUI. There's no organisation to it, and virtually impossible to find anything without using the search feature. Configuring anything in Windows 7 takes at least 3 screens to do, and those 3 screens may be located in different places. Things just seem easy to do, as there are helpful wizards that pop up all the time ... but that just masks the configuration, it doesn't actually simplify it.

Yes, 7 looks pretty and is stable. But XP is a lot more functional and easier to manage. And I'll take functional over pretty any day, unless the pretty makes things easier to use.

It would be great if they would take the time to organise and simplify the Control Panel so that it was easier to use than the 2000/XP Classic View. Of all the things they copy from the Mac, why couldn't they copy System Settings???

Yes, the future of Windows is 7. But there's no way you can categorically say that 7 is better than XP.

Edited 2010-06-11 22:30 UTC

Reply Score: 9

RE: XP64 == XP - why ont copy System Settings
by jabbotts on Fri 11th Jun 2010 22:38 in reply to "XP64 == XP"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Microsoft already tried that trick and renamed it Control Panel; years of litigation resulted. Can you imagine how it would go now with Mr Jobs trend the last few years?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: XP64 == XP
by darknexus on Fri 11th Jun 2010 22:49 in reply to "XP64 == XP"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Yes, the future of Windows is 7. But there's no way you can categorically say that 7 is better than XP.

Sure I can, at least in one crucial area: stability. Where as XP crashed on me at least once per day, whatever I think of 7's UI (and I'm not very fond of it as regulars here will no doubt be aware) at least 7 doesn't crash. Me, I'll take stable over simple any day... guess that's why I'm primarily a *NIX user though ;) . I'm glad XP is dying. I think it was a horrible continuation of the NT line from 2000 (which was really awesome for its time), and all XP did was increase the bloatware in 2000 by about a gigabyte and remove most of the stability 2000 boasted. And 2000 was actually fine for consumer use, the problem was most consumers never heard of it. I loaded up 2000 for my family when their XP machine died, and they absolutely loved how responsive it was by comparison (clean installations both times, no OEM bloatware involved).
I'm glad XP is going behind the shed. I only wish I could be the one to pull the trigger. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: XP64 == XP
by pandronic on Sat 12th Jun 2010 06:20 in reply to "RE: XP64 == XP"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

You're doing something wrong there ... XP doesn't crash unless there's a problem with the drivers/hardware.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: XP64 == XP
by galvanash on Fri 11th Jun 2010 22:50 in reply to "XP64 == XP"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Yes, the future of Windows is 7. But there's no way you can categorically say that 7 is better than XP.


Windows 7 is better than XP. Categorically ;)

Windows 7 is not always suitable as a replacement for XP though, so it still has uses. If I had to pick between XP and Windows 7 to run on a PII 600 with 512MB of memory and an old Riva 128 video card - Id pick XP in a heartbeat (or a lightweight Linux distribution). But if the machine has a 2GB or more of memory and a halfway decent video card I cannot fathom any good reason to use XP - even given your arguments. The stability, features, and performance trump the few issues I have with the UI. Ill will agree with you that the control panel UI is pretty bad though...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: XP64 == XP
by darknexus on Fri 11th Jun 2010 23:07 in reply to "RE: XP64 == XP"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

OH, I don't know. I'm running it on one of my Atom machines here, 1.66 ghz and only 1 gb of memory, and 7 outperforms the xp that it came with. I'm not sure I'd run it on an old Pentium II, but the latest version of Windows I'd even consider running on such a machine is 2000. Any functionality beyond that, and I'll pick a lightweight Linux.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: XP64 == XP
by WorknMan on Fri 11th Jun 2010 23:15 in reply to "RE: XP64 == XP"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Windows 7 is better than XP. Categorically ;)


I find Win7 only marginally better than XP. Whoever wrote this article obviously had no f**king clue what they were talking about. Slipstream the latest service pack into your XP installation disc, along with whatever features you want plus your cd key (using nLite), and you can install XP with a couple of key presses. (Is it even possible to slipstream service packs anymore with Vista/7?) And after you install XP, use autopatcher to install whatever updates you need, and you're done. And it's fast too. Win7 takes forever to install, and 10-15gb vs 1gb? Win7 isn't THAT much more advanced than XP to account for all that extra space, so WTF did they put in there?

Then, once you start up Win7, you notice that it's not all that different. They threw in an OSX-style glassy-ass transparent UI (probably to appeal to the iTards), which is the first thing that got turned off. The second thing to get turned off was the new task bar; I guarantee you whoever thought up that train wreck never had more than 10+ apps on his quick launch toolbar, much less 30 or 40. The third thing to get turned off was the 'aero snap' BS, which kept wanting to attach windows to the top/sides of the screen every time I moved it around. Then they went and renamed/moved sh*t around for no apparent reason, so now I have to relearn where everything is.

Esentially, once I had all of this useless crap turned off, I was basically back to something that looked and felt like XP. Well, the start menu is better, but that's hardly worth the price I paid. I'm not saying there's anything particularly wrong with it, just that it's not a huge leap over XP.

In all the years I ran XP, I could count the number of times on one hand that it crashed, that didn't have to do with faulty hardware. It wasn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but I think it stands up quite well to Win7, at least for those of us who knew what we were doing. This is especially true when you consider that XP is almost 10 years old. In all this time, Win7 is the best that MS could come up with? The file manager doesn't even support tabbed browsing, for Christ's sake. Notepad still sucks ass. Most of the built-in apps are gone. Etc, etc.

Unfortunately, old things pass away, and we can't stay stuck in the past forever, so we must move on.... either to a new version of Windows, or to some other OS. Either that, or just hope our hardware holds out for another 20 years.

Edited 2010-06-11 23:19 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 15

RE[2]: XP64 == XP
by WereCatf on Sat 12th Jun 2010 08:07 in reply to "RE: XP64 == XP"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

But if the machine has a 2GB or more of memory and a halfway decent video card I cannot fathom any good reason to use XP

I have an Athlon 64 2Ghz, 2GB RAM and GeForce 7600GT... and guess what? XP DOES indeed run better on it than 7! You people seem to think 7 is comparable to the second coming of Jesus, but it's not. It doesn't provide any significant features I can't get with XP already and it actually runs worse. Since I mostly use my PC for gaming having less resources available for the game does matter.

7 is good, I give that, but I still prefer XP over it.

Reply Parent Score: 11

RE[2]: XP64 == XP
by judgen on Sat 12th Jun 2010 12:57 in reply to "RE: XP64 == XP"
judgen Member since:
2006-07-12

Some errors. the p2 only ran at stock speeds at 450mhz max and was overclockable to 504mhz but after that it got very problematic due to the slot1 slot beeing very less asynchronously adapted than a socket build. But no i would neither use win7 or xp on (if there ever existed a pentium two at 600mhz) such a machine. I would run BeOS on it =D

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: XP64 == XP
by Punktyras on Mon 14th Jun 2010 13:21 in reply to "RE: XP64 == XP"
Punktyras Member since:
2006-01-07

I suppose, this could help in configuring - create new folder on desktop and name it:

GodMode.{ED7BA470-8E54-465E-825C-99712043E01C}

Now you have all configs in one place. I guess it is convenient.

Part till period is up to your taste. This hint works with win7 x86 only.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: XP64 == XP
by Verunks on Fri 11th Jun 2010 23:47 in reply to "XP64 == XP"
Verunks Member since:
2007-04-02

xp 64 just uses a different kernel, but it doesn't mean much though, the overall experience and feeling is still the same, and like Thom I'm happy that xp will finaly die.

Despite what people claims windows 7(and vista too) is much faster than xp, aero makes the ui snappier and not slower since it uses the gpu instead of the cpu to manage the windows(try to fastly move a window with areo turned on and off and see the difference in cpu usage, here it's 15% vs 80%)

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: XP64 == XP
by vodoomoth on Sat 12th Jun 2010 00:02 in reply to "RE: XP64 == XP"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30


Despite what people claims windows 7(and vista too) is much faster than xp, aero makes the ui snappier and not slower since it uses the gpu instead of the cpu to manage the windows(try to fastly move a window with areo turned on and off and see the difference in cpu usage, here it's 15% vs 80%)


Nobody sane can ever say that Vista is faster than XP. Nobody can speak such a blatant lie. Otherwise, they've had NO encounter with Vista.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: XP64 == XP
by phoenix on Sat 12th Jun 2010 00:07 in reply to "RE: XP64 == XP"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

xp 64 just uses a different kernel, but it doesn't mean much though, the overall experience and feeling is still the same, and like Thom I'm happy that xp will finaly die.


Didn't really mention it in the main comment, but this was more about the differences in updates, features, what's running after a boot, etc. XP64 is just an XP GUI on top of the 2003 server, so the services running after boot are different.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: XP64 == XP
by mkools on Sat 12th Jun 2010 09:57 in reply to "RE: XP64 == XP"
mkools Member since:
2005-10-11

XP64 is almost the same as Windows 2003 x64. I ran it for a couple of years, some software even detects XP64 as being Windows 2003 x64. That's why SP3 for XP64 never came, because it didn't came for Windows 2003 as well.

Further more, XP64 was never very popular. It lacked driver support and most people ignored it except people like me and others that wanted to run 64-bit, so you really can't compare XP64 to Windows XP SP3 x86.

I like Windows 2003, I think it's a great OS but if you're going to compare XP with Vista/Windows 7 you might want to install the real XP next time and not Windows 2003 server with an XP GUI.

The part where you say: It's already at the desktop and the harddrive is still busy for 5 minutes, I know that feeling. I still run XP and have that too but the same thing can happen to Windows 7. It just depends on the amount of programs you have installed and run at boot-time.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: XP64 == XP
by nt_jerkface on Sat 12th Jun 2010 04:50 in reply to "XP64 == XP"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


The 64-bit version of XP has nothing in common with the 32-bit version of XP beyond the name. You really can't compare the two.


They share the same kernel but it's an updated version of the XP kernel. It isn't a rewrite so to say that XP 64 has nothing in common with XP 32 is not just a stretch but wrong.

Yes, the future of Windows is 7. But there's no way you can categorically say that 7 is better than XP.

Sure you can, by virtue of security.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: XP64 == XP
by rhy7s on Sat 12th Jun 2010 21:32 in reply to "XP64 == XP"
rhy7s Member since:
2008-08-04

The Control Panel in Windows 7 looks like someone puked code onto a GUI. There's no organisation to it, and virtually impossible to find anything without using the search feature.


I find I prefer the search but that may be because I know what I'm searching for. However icon view instead of category view in the Control Panel can be easier to get around from a point-and-click perspective, as can GodMode http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&q=windows+7+godmode

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: XP64 == XP
by phoenix on Mon 14th Jun 2010 16:45 in reply to "RE: XP64 == XP"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Yes, search is a nice addition, but it's really only useful if you know what to search for.

However, the search field should not become the primary access method. The fact that it has, for a lot of people, just goes to show how poor the organisation of the Control Panel really is.

A well organised control panel would not need a search field. Having one would be a bonus.

MS devs really need to take some time and look at how KDE's System Settings works and how MacOS X' preferences folder thingy (what is it called?) works. And then come up with something similar.

The current path is a dead end.

Reply Parent Score: 2