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 429923
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: XP64 == XP
by nt_jerkface on Sun 13th Jun 2010 08:34 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: XP64 == XP"
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26


seriously nt_jerkface how can we take anything you write seriously when you insist on claiming that Vista is fast responsive and the best OS ever with the possible exception of Win 7.


I've never claimed any OS as the best ever so please don't make stuff up.

I use XP, Vista and 7 all the time and I wouldn't describe one as being far ahead of the others when it comes to speed. They are all plenty fast on new hardware. Various benchmarks around the web show this.

As for your office computer rant that really isn't a fair way of judging an operating system. Wake times and network issues can be caused by a variety of factors. You should test clean installs on the same hardware. I've done it and while I found 7 to be better than Vista the difference is nowhere near what tech hipsters would claim.

In the real world the only complaint about Vista I heard was that it was hard to find things compared to XP, which was really an issue of familiarity. XP has scattered config menus around the system and they tried to clean that up a bit in Vista/7.

I've also never suggested upgrading to Vista or 7 from XP for speed reasons. My position is that XP should be ditched for the security additions in Vista/7.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: XP64 == XP
by Gone fishing on Sun 13th Jun 2010 19:08 in reply to "RE[6]: XP64 == XP"
Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

OK

The experience is adequate but the security is not.


with XP I agree with you absolutely

Now


As for your office computer rant that really isn't a fair way of judging an operating system.....

In the real world the only complaint about Vista I heard was that it was hard to find things compared to XP


How am I to judge an OS other than my experience with it? In the real world - where I live - Vista is appalling and compared with any other OS I've used on our network, XP, Win 2000, Opensuse and Ubuntu much, slower and less responsive.

Please stop saying

the only complaint I heard was..


and include my last post as a series of complaints, if you wish I will post next weeks things that seriously annoyed me about Vista and post them. Now if you say Vista is OK (which I doubt) on a quad core with 8 Gig of RAM the latest 3D card, etc, etc why do I need a serious gaming machine to run an OS?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: XP64 == XP
by nt_jerkface on Sun 13th Jun 2010 23:59 in reply to "RE[7]: XP64 == XP"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


How am I to judge an OS other than my experience with it? In the real world - where I live - Vista is appalling and compared with any other OS I've used on our network, XP, Win 2000, Opensuse and Ubuntu much, slower and less responsive.


By real world I am talking about my own experience, not forum comments from a self-selected group of anonymous people. Benchmarks show that there is no magical application accelerator missing in Vista and network issues could be caused by a dozens of issues, especially in an environment with that many systems. Windows sucks at mixed environments by design and it really has nothing to do with Vista specifically. I've seen weird issues with using Samba and multiple versions of Windows.


Now if you say Vista is OK (which I doubt) on a quad core with 8 Gig of RAM the latest 3D card, etc, etc why do I need a serious gaming machine to run an OS?


All I said was that I have read many comments about how Vista is more responsive than XP on a quad core machine.

I already linked to two ZDNet editors who bashed Vista before SP1 and now both agree that Vista is generally more responsive than XP. Perhaps hardware is the reason behind the mixed opinions.

However I have worked with Vista enough on a variety of hardware to know that it is not awful compared to XP or 7 on a mid spec machine. I doubt half the people who say "vista sucks" are even aware that 7 is really just Vista with a few improvements. The major kernel changes were between XP and Vista, not Vista and 7.

Reply Parent Score: 2