Windows XP Still using XP

[Radenight]

"so screw it, let's all go back to Windows 95. "



NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!! If I had broken a law every time I performed an "Illegal Operation" in Windows 95, I would be in jail for 13 lifetimes. Millenium would be 100 times preferable to 95. (HP printer drivers and a weekly system crash was the only problems that I ever had with Millenium) I have never obsessed over speed, but Windows 2000 was far and away the "smoothest" and POSITIVELY most stable of ANY OS I've ever used, including XP and Windows 7. Windows 95 was the most unstable and Vista is running a close second to 95. (I have used most MS desktop OSs since DOS3)

Yes Windows 2000 was indeed good.. but it was good for it's time.. now is a different time and Windows 7 is taking that spotlight for it's time in my opinion..

 

[john3347]

Windows 7 in the Spotlight

"Yes Windows 2000 was indeed good.. but it was good for it's time.. now is a different time and Windows 7 is taking that spotlight for it's time in my opinion.. "



Windows 7 may become as "smooth" and as stable as Windows 2000 by the time it is 2 or 3 years old. But, 7 is not without a significant learning curve that is just not natural. I was a truck driver for a few years and drove several different brands and models of trucks. Of these trucks, only one just seemed to have everything right. When you put your left foot where you thought the clutch pedal should be, your foot was on the clutch pedal. When you reached where you thought the light switch should be, your hand was on the light switch; and it flipped the direction that felt natural to turn the lights on; etc., etc. MS operating systems moved little by little toward getting things "all in the right places" through 2000, then began moving to "creative stuff" that actually ran counter to intuition from XP on through and still including Windows 7.

Vista Windows Explorer, for instance, was and still is nothing better than a major disaster in which the typical, non-professional home user cannot find their files that they want to access. Windows 7, rather than fixing the nightmare added libraries which does, with some studying and practice, allow one to find most of their lost files but does not reorganize the file system to something logical.

It is true that "times change" but change for the sake of change that takes away from the serviceability of a product is not progress. While Windows 7 is a giant step forward from Vista, it still lacks a lot of the user friendly, intuitive features that Windows 2000 offered. The addition of libraries which indexes files that should be indexed logically to start with, eliminating the need for libraries, is an example of "better, but still terribly wrong".

Having said all the above, I do realize that it is not practical to try to use Windows 2000 as a "main" OS because as the world moves along, software needs change and 2000 does not keep up with these new software needs. But a lot of the features of current OSs are simply counter to productivity and counter to intuitiveness.

And that's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.

 

[JohnTheGreek]

I'm using Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005.I hate Windows Vista because need 2Gb+ of ram to run and Vista cannot run games!You must have 4Gb of Ram to run games.

 

[magic177]

Windows Vista has been working fine since the SP-1; but I would not waste my time because windows 7 is a lot better.All in all I still prefer to work on Windows XP.

 

[Brandon]

I was using Windows XP until I got a hold of the RTM version of Windows 7. So now I`m using that. But for the last 8 years, I`ve been using Windows XP. And had no problems with it at ALL.

 

[mp3sgt]

Laptop needs XP

My Emachines MX4625 has had a few upgrades throughout its current 3 years of life. from 512MB DDR to 1.5GB....from 40GB 4200RPM HDD to 100GB 5400RPM HDD....from AMD Sempron 3100+ 1.8GHZ to AMD Turion ML-37 2GHz. The laptop still uses XP because that is what came installed. I did try Windows 7 RC on a separate HDD on this laptop and had really good results, even Aero worked on the ancient ATI Radeon Express 200M as well as a good HDD score...WITH THE EXCEPTION OF...No sound. I tried everything and installed different drivers but alas, had a soundless Windows 7 laptop. So, in conclusion, laptop stays on XP until I either sell it or it dies. The custom built desktop, however, is happily running Windows 7 x64 Ultimate.

 

[tourettes]

"Yes Windows 2000 was indeed good.. but it was good for it's time.. now is a different time and Windows 7 is taking that spotlight for it's time in my opinion.. "



Windows 7 may become as "smooth" and as stable as Windows 2000 by the time it is 2 or 3 years old. But, 7 is not without a significant learning curve that is just not natural. I was a truck driver for a few years and drove several different brands and models of trucks. Of these trucks, only one just seemed to have everything right. When you put your left foot where you thought the clutch pedal should be, your foot was on the clutch pedal. When you reached where you thought the light switch should be, your hand was on the light switch; and it flipped the direction that felt natural to turn the lights on; etc., etc. MS operating systems moved little by little toward getting things "all in the right places" through 2000, then began moving to "creative stuff" that actually ran counter to intuition from XP on through and still including Windows 7.

Vista Windows Explorer, for instance, was and still is nothing better than a major disaster in which the typical, non-professional home user cannot find their files that they want to access. Windows 7, rather than fixing the nightmare added libraries which does, with some studying and practice, allow one to find most of their lost files but does not reorganize the file system to something logical.

It is true that "times change" but change for the sake of change that takes away from the serviceability of a product is not progress. While Windows 7 is a giant step forward from Vista, it still lacks a lot of the user friendly, intuitive features that Windows 2000 offered. The addition of libraries which indexes files that should be indexed logically to start with, eliminating the need for libraries, is an example of "better, but still terribly wrong".

Having said all the above, I do realize that it is not practical to try to use Windows 2000 as a "main" OS because as the world moves along, software needs change and 2000 does not keep up with these new software needs. But a lot of the features of current OSs are simply counter to productivity and counter to intuitiveness.

And that's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.

You could not have said that any better. I'm a XP user and will never upgrade as long as I have a say. Most people upgrade just for the aesthetics, I can just skin mine for free. lol

 

[webdesignfolkz]

I have a bad experience regarding Vista. I need a stable and much tested OS that demands my profession and XP provides that much better. I think a well know enemy is better than a unknown friend. I will think for Win -7 after its trial and test is over and probably it would take more time to be reliable.

 

[Kylethedarkn]

I have a bad experience regarding Vista. I need a stable and much tested OS that demands my profession and XP provides that much better. I think a well know enemy is better than a unknown friend. I will think for Win -7 after its trial and test is over and probably it would take more time to be reliable.

I've actually found Windows 7 to be more reliable and stable than XP ever was for me.

Not only has every piece of hardware I've thrown at Windows 7 worked but most if not all of the software. I would also like to say Windows 7 was released in beta forever ago and was well tested by thousands of people, all giving feedback to Microsoft.

 

[tourettes]

I've actually found Windows 7 to be more reliable and stable than XP ever was for me.

Not only has every piece of hardware I've thrown at Windows 7 worked but most if not all of the software. I would also like to say Windows 7 was released in beta forever ago and was well tested by thousands of people, all giving feedback to Microsoft.

That's funny I threw AIM 5.2 and 5.9, Zdaemon, and Wolfenstein 3d and it didn't run, XP seems to have no problem...

 

[cybercore]

Tourettes, did you try them in XP compatible mode ?http://windows7forums.com/members/tourettes.html

 

[tourettes]

Tourettes, did you try them in XP compatible mode ?

Yes, Aim 5.2 and 5.9 will not run, neither will Wolf3d.

Zdaemon runs but the colors are completely screwed up. The same problem would happen in Vista but changing the compatibility mode helped. Not in Win 7.

 

[R®USSHIMI]

Better use Win7,Win7 have TroubleShooting Compatibility now and they create program to make old program on XP to make it working on Win7.DL it(around 400mb) and u can run old program from XP into Win7

 

[robinson]

I am currently using Windows XP.
Points that I dislike vista:
The scroll down start menu is terrible.
The errors in vista.
And that it requires more ram.

 

[Radenight]

I still use Windows XP regularly on 3 of my 7 PC's.. Primarily on 2 of them and as a 'back up' OS on the other.. XP just can't be beat for some of the older games.. And older apps for that matter.. In my opinion, Windows XP is one of those OS's that even after ALL support is gone, it will still take a while before it is completely dead..