The Big Windows 7 Problem: XP Holdouts
Microsoft hopes that the release of Windows 7 will solve problems ranging from desktop clutter to what Vista did to Microsoft's public reputation. But the toughest challenge may be to win over the group of people that arguably represent the software giant's biggest obstacle to success: Windows XP users.
View full article »
Esther Schindler
If the comments are ugly, the code is ugly
claird
SVG a graphics format for 21st century
pasmith
Take Chrome OS for a test spin
Sandra Henry-Stocker
Solaris Tip: Have Your Files Changed Since Installation?
jfruh
Android fragments vs. the iPhone monolith
mikelgan
What Gizmodo missed about the Pro WX Wireless USB disk drive
Sidekick: The Good News & the Bad News
Either way you look at it Microsoft Data Center management did not follow standards or best practices in this failure. In which case it makes me wonder more about the outsourcing of corporate data much less personal data.
- mburton325
Join the conversation here
Quick, practical advice for IT pros. Made fresh daily.
Want to cash in on your IT savvy? Send your tip to tips@itworld.com. If we post it, we'll send you a $25 Amazon e-gift card.
I'm an XP SP3 user, tried
I'm an XP SP3 user, tried Vista for a few days, then wiped it off my HDD, with its bloody requirements and poor stability. After I read some first insights on Win 7, I couldn't wait to get my hands on it. I guess the users sticking to XP won't be a big issue, since already on beta-all (I mean OS itself plus the tailored drivers, all of them beta as of now), Windows 7 beats the sh|t out of Vista, and considerably outperforms XP. You got yourself a deal, Mr Gates =))windows 7
Not to upset you but from what ive seen windows 7 is basically and upgraded vista with a nice looking guiI agree, see this
I agree, see this :))http://windows7news.com/forum/index.php/topic,242.msg1764.html#msg1764
Windows 7 - Opportunity of Curse?
The majority of Windows XP users are families, using their computers - dare I say it - to play massive multi-user games such as "World of Warcraft" (WoW) or to run any of the thousands of other graphics-intensive software titels that are available.Always in the past, stability of graphics drivers and top of the range graphics hardware has been a major issue. Unless Mictrosoft can address the graphics intensive games market and guarantee compatibility of graphics and sound device drivers, they are onto a loser with Windows 7.
So, please can Microsoft publish compatibility tables for Windows 7 Beta running WoW and Doom on the latest graphics and sound hardware?
Until the compatibility tables for legacy software titles are published by Microsoft, then home users won't go there.
I've been playing World of
I've been playing World of Warcraft on a Windows Vista PC for a year now without a single issue. Now I'm playing WoW on a Windows 7 PC again, without a single issue.Why Bother?
XP works, it does a good job of what I use it for. Why would I spend all that money for something I don't need? Microsoft just tells me I need a new OS and I'll just hand them my money? I don't think so...I was very dissapointed when they didn't release DX10 for XP, only showed me how little they think of their customers.
Why Bother
Amen Brother, you are wise and articulate. I could not have said it better. I hope Microsoft will end up seeing things our (XP Users) way. If not; May they be on their knees beside the U.S. Auto Industry Executives, begging for Government handouts. Microsoft needs to be eat humble pie, and I hope all XP users will stick to their guns and jamb Win 7 and Vista down their throats. Nuff Said??????your both retarded
XP is going out the door. You better get used to that. "I used vista for three days and hated it" well to freakin bad. What you don't like 7 either? Then don't buy MS OS products. We don't need haters like ya all. Better yet why not just send your machines to me when MS stops supporting XP so I can install 7 or Vista... if the hardware is even up to spec I bet its not on your machine, cause your cheap.think before you speak.
alright speach-impediment-boy, like Microsoft, you jumped into the conversation not paying attention to what the issues were, and just started name-calling.Not to get into things like your misuse of the word "your" but the spec requirements for Vista were, simply put, nearly impossible to meet. the idea that i owned a dual processor dell at 1800 mhz each, with 2 gig of ram, a Nvid graphics card with 512m ram, 3d, and a hdd with 300 gig space was barely able to meet the minimum reqs, and many of the "features" of Vista were disabled, is why many of us tried it, stepped back, and asked for something better. The fact that Microsoft IS releasing 7 so soon after vista is proof that the Customers opinions matter. Just as Win98 was what win95 was supposed to be, this is the same. Vista was a good idea, but Microsoft didn't work hard enough to make it work for what the market wanted.
If you're not able to afford
If you're not able to afford a PC with the requirements of the OS you want to use there are plenty of other options available. Windows XP is a good OS, but Windows Vista is better. And Windows 7 is better still.I used to think Vista was junk until I actually used it for a little while. Sure, I bought a new PC but it was time to upgrade the 5-year old PC I was using anyway. Vista rocks if you have the hardware for it.
And how is it impossible to have the hardware to run Vista? I've had a PC that runs Vista flawlessly for a year now. I know people who were using 3-year old laptop's to run Vista when it was in the beta stage. Don't blame Microsoft for your inability to keep up with technology.
true true
its true I did also hated vista but did buy new hardware and had xp then I try vista learn to use it case its different then fell in love with the sp1 of vista runs great I my pc no issue there but i think if you want something good make sure you can pay it remember xp original release had the same problem that vista had and after 2 service packs was finally working the way they wanted also legacy games are excellent but if you want to run one of those make sure you have a legacy pc to run itTrue
You got a point, most people that say Vista sucks havent even used it , they only watched youtube videos of what bad CAN happen.I just built a new PC that is over the recommended requirements.
in other words dont try to play a Play a PS3 game on a Atari 2600
xp
I think you're the one who's retarded, judging by your attitude and inability to write properly, you silly little Vista evangelist. XP runs great on my system - AMD XP2600 Barton, 2GB DDR400, SoundBlaster Audigy, 256mb NVidia 6200,GigaBit LAN card, etc. Not the latest hardware I know, but it's a surprisingly fast and stable system that does exactly what I want it to do. Sure, I'll 'upgrade' to Vista/7 when I build a new system, but even then I'd probably still try to get XP.
Why? Because it works. I already know that my soundcard and HP printer drivers aren't Vista compatible, there's bound to be some incompatible programs too.
If it ain't broke, why try fixing it?
It's not that you need it...
You could go back to windows 1.0 for all anyone cares. The point is both hardware and software are constantly evolving. Supporting legacy products is important, but at some point, it becomes less important than moving forward. Hardware vendors are making hardware optimized for new standard formats and new formats are created to take better advantage of that hardware to add new features... the cycle keeps going. Programs that do not keep up with these updates are usually do to a lack of support, and that's not Microsoft's fault. If you want to get off the merry-go-round of innovation, go ahead, but don't believe that Microsoft is forcing you to stay on. You want to play the latest games, you get the latest software and hardware.How about an analogy. Imagine if Lego's never, ever invented new types of bricks, like Technic. Yes, some pieces do work together, but for the most part, original bricks were very limiting because you could only connect on the top or bottom (or rarely the side). Obviously they did not abandon their original line, but even the classic brick sets have changed substantially since introduction.
And honestly, if you really want to go "M$ is Evil!!!", there are much better examples than they have created a new OS better than XP and Vista and getting the drivers ready before release... I don't love Microsoft's business tactics, but I certainly don't list constantly trying (not always succeeding) to improve as a fault.
People also complained a lot about Vista's footprint; could you imagine how bloated an OS would be that had to support ever format ever to date? Visualization programs basically remove this obstacle anyway.
P.S. You know that after SP3 issues are resolved XP is virtually unsupported by MS, right?
P.P.S. And don't even start on they should support it indefinitely; you made a one-time purchase of what, $500 MAX (you got hosed), so 5 years of free updates isn't enough for you?
Bottom line, you don't need it, but you probably want it.
moving forward
Moving Forward??? To what??? XP is (finally) a decent OS. For years MS has constantly been shoving new operating systems down our throat that weren't ready for prime time. Vista is the ultimate in their arrogance. It sucked... it still sucks and will continue to suck. Have you EVER seen a company put out a replacement product so soon after the release of their latest and greatest? We all know the reason is that even MS knows how bad Vista is. What really pisses me off is that they still won't admit any wrong doing and continue to try and sell this piece of crap. Wouldn't it be great to see them fess up to their mistake and ADMIT they screwed up? Why not offer EVERY VISTA CUSTOMER a FREE upgrade to W7 as an appology?My point, though, is that an operating systems primary purpose is to support applications. Not necessarily MS apps, but any app that you think you need. When you buy a new OS, most times you have to also spend bucks on replacement software that no longer works on the new OS. Why is it the responsibility of the third party app mfg to update their stuff? They're not a giant corp like MS. They don't have unlimited resources like Bill Gates and company. But they put the onus on everyone else but themselves. MS has been releasing sub-standard products for years and WE'VE been letting them get away with it. There's no other company in the world that operates like MS. I've never been happier to see the public finally wake up and say enough is enough with Vista. If Mr. Gates wants me to buy another OS, it's going to be up to HIM to convice me that it's better than the one I'm using now.
Staying put
I will use XP until I no longer can. Plain and simple. XP SP3 is sort of the third version and basically/fundamentally changed as an OS from the original.Doesn't MS get the fact that we all upgraded to XP from 2000 because it gave us new capabilities, new performance to take advantage of, and a great new UI? I don't see any of this as a reason to change. Plus, the UI still feels modern and up to date, seven years later.
seriously?
Give me a break, does apple support a 8 year old os? ie: make every new feature available for their 8 year old os? i think not, how would they stay in business... get a clue.reply
Yes, Apple will do what in can for all of there costumers! I run an old and I mean OLD 1993 G3 w/ OS9 and a new Mac Pro w/ SL side by side. Apple is there for me all the time and at NO CHARGE. Wake up people!Why bother?
Amen on your comment.About every 2 to 3 years Microsoft comes up with a new OS that is invariably filled with bugs and security holes and then tries to lure their customers to be guinea pigs.
I'd rather they spent 10 years and come up with an OS that works, then ask for $150 every 2 to 3 years for an OS that doesn't do anything significantly new for me except cause me grief until SP2 comes out.
for profit?
Microsoft, just like any other company is in business to turn a profit. If your firm had spent millions developing new software expecting it to bring returns would you continue to spend millions supporting your old outdated applications? Microsoft knows that Vista was a huge flop. They are certainly not interested in releasing yet another. If your system is as outdated as your OS then stick with XP. If you have the resources to run Windows 7 then I suggest you upgrade as this new OS is a far better performer and you will be pleasantly surprised at how much better your system and applications run.XP
Yeah!... This comment talks for millions of user. XP is doing what it is intent to do. So why should I spend money just because microsoft is building new versions every now and then. And if they treat the users of the old but recent users as garbage, linux is going make good stride... let us seeagreed
I'm an XP 'holdout' and glad I am. XP works and can be made virus-proof with the right software. It's fast enough and a pleasure to use. My advice is wait til 7 proves itself one way or the other. Personally I think that 7 will fail in its quest to outdo XP. Anyway, I don't need to fix what ain't broken. Vista was a dog. The problems with 7 are already surfacing via user blogs. XP users know the value of XP. It rules! Simply because it doesn't mess you around. Videos play fine, software is compatible and debugging is easy. But w7? Not convinced. Video issues and upgrade issues, incompatibility issues, all are here already, and the price is outrageous!Windows XP Lives - Wait for Windows 7 SP1 to upgrade!
You and I are on the same page. I have equipment that could work with Windows 7 fine but the fact is we like Windows XP because it works so well. I am a computer / network consultant and 98% of my customers DEMAND that Windows XP is put in their new equipment and want to continue to use Windows Server 2003 vs 2008. The fact that MSFT refused to release DX10 for XP really angered me as that is just a dirty trick to try and FORCE upgrades to Vista and now Windows 7.Economy, it is not the best time for companies to dump a bunch of money on a new OS for clients and servers which also requires much migration time. Roaming profiles and redirected folders do not work with the same with Windows 7 as they do with XP - more work for me which is welcomed but again would cost the clients and they are just looking at Windows 7 as waste of much needed funds.
Windows XP is one of the best OSes ever made and likely the best Windows OS ever. It is a shame that MSFT didn't see that only 21 percent of the population uses Vista and instead of making Windows 7 based on Vista they should have made the new OS more like XP to make an easier transition among others.
I have been using Windows 7 on a test partition on a desktop and laptop as I must get familiar with it for some clients will surely use Win 7. I must admit that Windows 7 is much better then Vista by leaps and bounds however as neat as some of the features are it feels as if I am visiting a foreign desktop and when I reboot into XP I feel that I am "home" again! Perhaps we are just all so used to how great XP works which has created a strange bond but one things is for sure MS should keep working XP and if they are smart they will give the XP clients DX10 and one last service pack, SP4. Eventually, those that love XP will move along as technology demands change and by that time say perhaps Windows 7 SP1 or SP2 XP users will take another look at Windows 7. Let me add, by then we should have a better economy which will open up IT budgets as well!
I agree
I agree with you totally roogaboo, Not everyone wants or needs to run 10 apps at a time. I don't get it. Why does it always seem that the new OS's are rushed to market? Microsoft are their own worst enemy. All the windows 7 commercials were just plain creepy. They have over 90% of the OS market, just keep improving an existing OS, or don't rush a new one out. I'm buying a brand new laptop in a few week. I'm getting a XP downgrade. For what I do on my computer XP pro works great.Would like to try the Win 7 Beta, but...
My wife and I both use Win XP Pro XP3 32 bit due to many reasons, but I was looking forward to looking at Windows 7 to see whether I would think about purchasing it. However, the beta requires a copy of Vista...The reasons are long for why our computers use XP:
1. I prefer the classic "gray taskbar" look of Windows 2k and prior. This isn't available in Vista. (Colors are a distraction and irrating to me since I am colorblind.)
2. We both play older games, and XP had enough game incompatabilites...more or less Vista.
3. XP, with its Control Panel, Display Properties, etc. has existed how long? If I want to change something, I know where it is.
4. 3rd party programs do some things better than Windows.
a. My wife uses Google Chrome instead of IE, I use Firefox.
b. Google search works much better than Windows Search. (Even the new version.)
c. We both don't like having gadgets on our desktops. (Desktop clutter...)
d. OS harrassment about me doing an action that "might be a security risk..."
e. My wife uses Media Monkey for music, I used to use ITunes (haven't reinstalled a music program yet due to a recent computer upgrade/reinstall).
f. New games still work with DirectX 9.0c.
5. I have to be able to Remote Desktop into my pc. (Thus, no Home version of Vista for me...)
6. Lastly, why pay a minimum of $100 for software that...not only doesn't do anyting that I want it too...but makes things more complicated?
The only thing that is making me look into Windows 7 is "forced change" and the move to 64 bit. (Since both computers already have more physical system ram than the 32 bit OS can address.) And, Win XP 64 bit is notorious for being unstable and having driver difficulties.
And, how do I get rewarded by Microsoft for wanting to look at the new OS? By them not allowing me to look at it since I didn't buy Vista. I even left an empty drive partition on my system during the reinstall where I could.
And, the above user is correct. Until the typical computer user...Wow (MMO), instant messenger, photo editer, etc...requires a new OS, most won't touch it unless they are forced to with a new computer.
Microsoft, price the 64 bit retail version (read, transferrable...not OEM) of Windows 7 "Ultimate" at a decent price (meaning, less than $200), and you will get people to purchase the product. Don't, and we will continue to wait until we are forced to upgrade by the other software that we want to play...or new OEM computer.
past truth
So I like your comment however there are some gripes I have with it. First you could run Vista with Virtualization NO PROBLEM. I have a vista box running virtual machine XP. Here is what you're gunna love both OS's successfully run not only almost every nintendo emulator I through at it but also and old dos word game. I can get commd. games like windham's Alice on XP but alas not so much on the vista. Have not tried this with 7 yet. Second you can use third party apps like Tuneup Utilities to get the display set to old school. I also use everything but IE save with 7 cause it works better then firefox or others on the beta. Don't give up fam! You sound like even tho you know your OS switch is by force I think your upgrade will be satisfactory and pleasing... it pleased me.Win 7 Beta requirements
You are totally wrong about needing Vista to install the Win 7 beta. I don't even run windows (I use Ubuntu 8.10) and I installed the 64 bit Win 7 beta on a blank SATA HDD that I had laying around from an old notebook computer. It's very pretty and quicker than I thought it would be. About 45 seconds to the log in screen and then another 40 seconds to totally load the desktop with a time and weather widget installed. This is with a triple core AMD 8750 and 4 gig of ram. It's worth noting the HDD is only 5400 RPM, because its a notebook drive, so with a decent 7200 or 10000rpm drive it should load faster. Still I'm impressed so far. I installed open office 3.0 and gimp 2.6 without problems. The media center is nice. I'm having fun playing with it, although I feel a bit lost in the UI. Still can't figure out networking. But I digress. You can install the beta without any other Microsoft OS's being present.Installation with no Vista?
Every article and review that I have read has stated that the beta required an installation of Vista to be installed. I'll investigate further. Thank you for the information.Windows 2007 and Vista
I installed 2007 on a XP machine no problemo....W7 install
I think you might've gotten confused (understandable considering the large amount of mostly rubbish information on the web)You can install w7 on any computer that doesn't have windows.
You just can't update from another OS.
If you have Vista, you can just update to w7 without many problems.
if you have a different OS, however, you'll need to do a clean install.
Meaning that your HD will be formatted and you start from scratch.
Not a big problem. Just have to make sure you back up your files before you install.
Win7 beta doesn't need
Win7 beta doesn't need anything apart from the minimal required hardwareVista in Lipstick
What i have heard and seen is that 7 will be what Vista should have been (and what touted as being) - fast and stable. I would rather a rebuild proper from scratch, fixing the serious problems rather than looks. But the fact of the matter is the money comes from the 90% of users who really don't know jack about computers and just buy a package deal from best buy. It is these people to whom the operating systems usability and features are targetted.XP, Vista and 7 GO!
So I don't knwo where some of these guys are getting the info in these posts but for sure XP is used in a lot of businesses as well as homes. I know of a good amount of large companies that did not switch to vista originally due to apps not running on first release. I have watched Vista become a secure, STABLE OS, not to mention the functionality is wonderful. Over XP it is BETTER (vista and 7 i mean). I don't care what you say do some bench tests, go buy the same laptop put vista on one and XP on the other load your apps and see what happens. I have a all dell shop and everytime vista is on top. I am running the beta 7 on a test business laptop and I LOVE IT. I use it over my linux box, vista and XP. If you have used 7 I don't need to get in to detail cause you know how bad ass it is. SO good luck if you don't like vista or 7, you won't have support soon for XP anyway so you minght wanna think about another choice of OS cause that is here to stay. Maybe you just don't want to upgrade your old computer... go get linux and get a headache. Nock 7 or Vista... hope you get a virus you and your computer.you are dreaming!
No way is Vista better, in any way, than XP. And the pros/cons just simply do not stack up to warrant any change. You strike me as an apologist paid by microsoft to sell this bad product. What's your kickback? Real users who are disgruntled are too many to count. Readers should be aware that microsoft pays many people to troll around these sites and post to sway potential customers. It's called 'marketing'. Don't get sucked in! Or like so many Vista users, you will regret it.7 up
Windows XP with a wubi install (www.wubi.com) is an easy way to try out a free os (Unbuntu Linux) without leaving windows out of the picture completely. It installs under windows and sets up a dual boot system. World of Warcraft and most windows programs can be launched when running Linux thanks to wine (the windows interpreter). I even get less program crashes then I normally experience running those same apps under windows, and you get a 100% free full featured office suite that is compatable with office (you can get it for windows also: openoffice.org).7 up
Windows XP with a wubi install (www.wubi.com) is an easy way to try out a free os (Unbuntu Linux) without leaving windows out of the picture completely. It installs under windows and sets up a dual boot system. World of Warcraft and most windows programs can be launched when running Linux thanks to wine (the windows interpreter). I even get less program crashes then I normally experience running those same apps under windows, and you get a 100% free full featured office suite that is compatable with office (you can get it for windows also: openoffice.org).Windows 7 is a GO
After a hard drive crash in my main workhorse laptop I decided to try something fresh and installed Windows 7 Beta with full suite of all the apps I use on the daily basis (I am a web developer/owner of Zealus Web Design) - 5 browsers, few development environments (for .NET and PHP/mySQL), FTP/SCP software, image editing, etc, etc. No games, though, sorry.So far it's been a pleasant experience with W7 32-bit running perceptually not a bit slower then XP on my 2.5 years old IBM T60p laptop with 3GB of RAM.
Yep, there are some glitches and crashes (it's still a beta, you know), but I was prepared for that. In any case the overall system performance, responsiveness and my own subjective perception suggest that W7 is a full body ahead of Vista.
On the other hand, even on my gaming rig Vista was mercilessly dumped in favor of WinXP 64-bit - because it isn't stable and fast enough. Go figure.
Lucky 7
These are my thoughts. I'm a previous XP and Vista user. I gotta tell you, not only do you have an ease on resources but such a greater smoother feel. There are tons of plug-ins for this system. I've had it installed since the day it was released and have yet to find anything to complain about. Although this OS is new and need drivers for other applications, the stability is far greater than I expected it to be. Windows 7 was made to have a touch-screen feel to it. We all know that's the next step, to tile windows and have somewhat the Itouch feel. Well, all I have to say is WINDOWS 7 HAS BEEN THE BEST OPERATING SYSTEM OUT YET BESIDES LINUX, UNIX, AND MAC.Government Adoption
Currently, only Windows XP is certified for use by federal computers on PC computers running Microsoft Windows. No effort was made to upgrade the government to Vista due to cost and compatibility. I see no likelihood that the feds or state and local governments will make the costly efforts to adopt and certify a new operating system to run on their computers.XP will continue to be used by these public entities and Microsoft will continue to support them or run the risk of losing to an open source OS for government business.
Just because the government isn't...
A LOT of hardware is outdated; it's the nature of such large changes. They WERE all new and up to date years ago (decades even for some things), but as long as they still work at a government "safe" standard, the politicians will spend the money elsewhere. Just look how much grief is given over updating 60+ year old planes. Saying it still works is not the same as saying it is the best option, or even a good option. An abacus still works in calculus classes, for example.Not just the government.
I work at a hospital that has been awarded both most wired and most wireless awards. None of our clinical applications, that I am aware of, have been certified with Vista, or for that matter IE7. I think most business users just want their applications to run, the OS is just something that is there, the less it's seen or heard from the better.We can't just turn off our Windows but we have to upgrade
We are still promoting the Official Microsoft Store with over three hundred products. Upgrade download boxed or non boxed Windows. Get your software and license on the download or upgrade at http://dlservicesincservices.comWin7 vs XP Pro
I dont think anyone is really addresssing the point Vista , Win7 it is the same and as a business user it is worthless the functionalty dosnt stand up to XP and it is just a toy we need software that is light and fast and gives the user control that is the only issues that needs to be addressed and win7 dosnt do that.Agreed
No one mentions the hassles with volume licenses on Vista. XP is easy. Most IT shops are stretched thin, why add more work just to satisfy Microsoft's need to ensure they get every dime possible. God forbid a unauthorized volume license is used at home by an employee.Make it cheap, and I'll think about it.
I'm a programmer, and our business has access to use Vista for free. I recently upgraded my workstation from XP due to a hard drive failure (if I'm starting over, why not try Vista Business?).I was impressed for a little while, then I started having issues. I use a large desktop-replacement notebook, complete with a GeForce Go 7600, and I've experienced way too many issues with overheating and BSODs for little things, like watching Flash movies. I had to shut off themes in order to improve the speed of things (on a dual core AMD Turion with 2GB RAM).
With themes off and the sidebar gone, Vista is the same as XP, except for the annoying UAC and requirement to right-click and choose to run programs as administrator.
Basically, I would not pay the going rate for Vista if I did not get it for free. And I certainly cannot recommend it for businesses, as it adds too much overhead and a learning curve for the IT department. It was too much of a departure from the standard way of doing things.
If they want people to switch, remove annoyances like UAC, and make the OS cheap. They can increase the cost of it once they have redeemed themselves; they really can't afford another bum OS that sits on store shelves.
The Bigger Windows 7 Problem
The problem I have with Vista/W7 is that it's architecture and performance has been compromised by the DRM demands of the content providers.Because of RIAA litigation, I have not purchased (or downloaded) any music for years. I buy videos, but find the thought of needing a server for them rather silly.
The only other uses I have for a PC is for web browsing, office documents, and hobby applications.
I have been using Firefox a my primary browser for a few years now. I've found that OpenOffice works fine for my light office document needs.
My hobby applications are already mostly available for Linux and the remainder don't and won't work with either Vista or W7 (they are now abandonware), so there's nothing keeping me on Windows once it's time to replace my XP system.
At this point, Microsoft is not a requirement for me; it's merely an option, and an expensive and not particularly desirable one at that. Linux will be the sole OS on my next PC.
Personal computers were once very 'personal' - they worked for the computer's owner. These PCs ran the software you wanted, when you wanted. Increasingly, however, Microsoft has changed the personal computer OS for the benefit of 3d parties - and not necessarily for the benefit of the PC's owner. I fundamentally disagree with that. And I'm voting with my wallet.
-- Bill
RE: Bigger Windows 7 Problem
Amen, brother. I just experienced ANOTHER XP failure due to an unremoveable worm. It is set to dual boot now, and once I get Ubuntu installed, I will be saying adios to Microsoft and hello to a slim OS and open source office-ware. When MS wants to really innovate, rather than pad their balance sheets with expensive incremental OS improvements, the customers will come flooding back.As an aside, why does XP have 50,000 files that need to be installed to run the OS. Why do they have 20-30 processes running at all times? I used to work on a VAX box that had a 1/1000th the speed of modern day PCs and could only address 256MB of memory; yet it could support 100 users comfortably. How is it that with my freshly loaded, dedicated 2GHz box with 4GB memory, serving just me, that it takes so stinking long to open anything (even the start menu sub-directories)? Two reasons: poor chip design and poor OS design. It seems that CISC technology actually was better than RISC...
unremovable?
XP is great, mine is totally clean, nothing is unremovable once you have the right knowledge of registry and the right antivirus software. Eductae yourself.But yeah, if XP is not an option, I'll go to Linux. But I want to stay with XP - because it WORKS!!!!!!!!! And what more do u need.
XP RULEZ
XP RULEZ!!!!!! When MS decided to hire Ex-Mac designers to emulate Mac OS and user interface, that's when things turned sour. XP will b around 4 a long time because if it isn't, we will all go somewhere else than MS. Vista and 7? NO THXDirectories
So, let me get this straight. Microsoft still can't develop an operating system that will handle file directories easily and well? That is, a user still has to click on their little directories twice, three or more times to find the file they want?I started using DOS in the 80s on a dual floppy computer. No Windows, no mouse. The Dark Ages, but it was fun and the operating system stayed out of my way.
And then came Windows. And lo! Mice! To tie up the screen and get in the way! Does anyone else remember Windows 3.1 with their cute little icons? And lookee! Vista and 7 have cute little icons, too! But they're better for some reason? es'splain to me how?
There's not much difference that I can see between 3.1 and Vista or 7...just more artificial bells and whistles. Sure, you can play more games, eat up more memory and not have the system crash. Most of the time. But for those of us using a computer for writing and graphics...eh...not seeing much fundamental differences here, guys.
I'll grant the processors are faster (and Windows takes credit for that? I don't think so), but I'm still waiting for that easy-access directory feature. Directories and file folders are used constantly by some of us, ya know? It'd be nice to have a way to access them that doesn't date back to Windows 3.1
Still waiting....
And waiting.
And waiting.
The more Windows updates, the more it fundamentally stays the same. That's disappointing.