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 429950
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: XP64 == XP
by Gone fishing on Sun 13th Jun 2010 19:08 UTC 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

RE[9]: XP64 == XP
by Gone fishing on Mon 14th Jun 2010 08:26 in reply to "RE[8]: XP64 == XP"
Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

By real world I am talking about my own experience


Well I think that says it all, real world means your own exclusive unbiased opinion.

Vista is more responsive than XP on a quad core machine.

Possibly - and it damn well should be - XP is old - only designed to work with single or dual processors. MS in 1998 - 1999, didn't envisage multi-core processor designs. So Vista might be insignificantly faster at artificial benchmarks than XP an OS that was designed over 10 years ago and is only really capable of using half the processor - Well that is fantastic and the point remains why do I need such power to run the OS Adequately?

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


Why do you always have to find excuses for Vista - its not Vista's fault its because of x,y, or z. The network thing is using Vista business and it performs poorly, I assume that it is legitimate to use the business edition in a network environment? I could have commented on numerous other Vista failings but every one you find an excuse for, 40 seconds plus to wake up thats not Vista's fault, the print management thats HPs fault etc etc etc

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.


I think you'll find that most OS News readers are aware - and yes, although I don't think that Windows 7 is that good, it is remarkable how MS has changed the basic OS only slightly and produced a reasonable, if not stunning OS in comparison with the horror show that is Vista.

Reply Parent Score: 4