Windows XP Still Dominates the Desktop, What's the Hold Up?

Windows XP has secured its spot in history as perhaps the most beloved version of Windows ever, and it's certainly a fan favorite to this day. That might be understating things. More than just a fan favorite, Windows XP, for better or worse, is the most used operating on the planet, according to data by Net Applications.

The decade old OS can be found on almost half of all PCs with a 48.03 percent share of the OS market. That's down from 69.99 percent in November 2009 -- as far back as Net Applications allows us to look -- and down 50.5 percent in the month of September, but still well ahead of Windows 7, which is now on 34.62 percent of all PCs.


Windows XP might be a dead OS walking, but it simply refuses to lay down and die.

Vista, meanwhile, has dropped it's market share to 8.85 percent, down from 9.09 percent at the end of September and from 18.8 percent in November 2009. Vista lost its lead over Windows 7 back in July 2010, but never managed to threaten Windows XP.

What's interesting about these figures is that it's conceivable Windows 7 might not catch up to Windows XP before the launch of Windows 8 next year. It's hard to imagine that XP will retain its lead over Windows 7 forever, however, as Microsoft will finally stop supporting the legacy OS in April 2012 2014, and "there's absolutely no chance" of extending that date, InformationWeek reports Rich Reynolds, general manager for Windows Commercial marketing, as saying.

Which OS(es) are you rocking at home and/or at work?
Comments
MMcCutcheon 3 years ago

XP Pro all the way..only 32-bit version though...I was going to buy Windows 7, but Windows 8 will be out soon enough so there is no point and directx 12 will probably be in it as well.

RTietjens 3 years ago

I think you'll hate Windows 8 "out of the box." When you can easily switch back to the classic Start menu and desktop it's OK, but the Metro UI sucks for anyone over the age of 6.

MMcCutcheon 3 years ago

The main reason I haven't grabbed Windows 7 though is because I'm still running a X2 4200 and SLI 8800GTSs..I'm in need of a whole system upgrade which will be soon...mainly waiting on LGA 2011 sockets to see how they turn out and hoping the LGA 1155 sockets will drop in price then too. Oh and my parents labtop runs Vista, I've used it a few times...HATE IT!! And I have ALWAYS used classic start menu, I can't stand any other start menu.

Drake_McNasty 3 years ago

I rock 7 at home on multiple systems, I love it. Unfortunately I'm stuck in leopard at work. In case anyone is wondering I prefer windows to osx.

jonation 3 years ago

i made the jump to 7 about 1.5 years ago, until then XP all the way (Vista lasted one day on my box). Havent looked back.

But i also have osx on my laptop. where it lacks in allowing me to have full/any control, it makes up for with easy browsing/light computing. still prefer 7 though.

raysfan81@gmail.com 3 years ago

I have:

2 computers running Windows 7

2 Running Windows 8 Dev

1 on Ubuntu 10.10

1 on Ubuntu 11.10

2 on OSX Leopard

1on OSX Snow Leopard

1 on OSX Tiger

1 on OSX Panther

RTietjens 3 years ago

Microsoft has long claimed that the OS "lives and dies" with the computer on which it is installed. As long as PCs which came from the OEM with Windows XP continue to run, there will be "working" Windows XP units.

Remember, Microsoft *deliberately* made it impossible o do a direct XP-to-Windows-7 upgrade, and most people are not willing to spend $90 for a copy of Windows 7 *and* pay someone reasonably competent another $100 to install it.

So if MS wants XP to go away, they'll have to make it easy, painless, and much less expensive to make the transition. With most "big name" games selling for $60, that's a reasonable price point for Windows 7 Home Premium. They'd also have to provide a free-of-charge upgrade path from XP to 7.

And that's not going to happen. We all know it.

I am running:

1 file server using FreeNAS

1 domain controller on Windows Server 2003 R2

1 "garbage dump" and backup server on Windows Home Server 2003

3 desktops on Windows 7 (one Home Premium, one Professional, one Ultimate)

1 laptop on Win 7 Pro.

and a Roku box which runs Linux, and is easy for my non-techie wife to operate.

acarzt 3 years ago

1 laptop running Win XP Home

1 laptop running Win Vista Premium

1 desktop running Win 7 Ultimate

1 Android Tablet

1 Android Phone

1 WP7 Phone

and my Work laptop is Win 7 Enterprise

I've been thinking about trying out the new Windows Home Server 2011. How about a HotHardware review???

soldier1969 3 years ago

Its almost 2012 if your still using XP you need to be taken out back and beaten and left for dead! GET with the program people!

acarzt 3 years ago

XP is reliable, stable, and very nearly the same thing as Win7 and Vista. it's just not as pretty.

Soooo why should I or anyone not use it?

And i'm hoping you're not assuming it's none technical people who don't know about computers who are using it... Because I know a great deal about computers and I still use it.

dejasoul100 3 years ago

It's those who are more technical whom I think still use XP. Frankly Win7 is only a prettier version of XP, with DX11. Most basic computer tasks (email, browsing, facebook, msoffice, etc) still work fine on XP, so unless you love Micro$oft so much you don't really have to buy every version. And I do agree with RTietjens that they have made it tough to directly upgrade to 7 from XP, even considering the fact that Vista was a disaster.

imAcpufan 3 years ago

I've still got Windows XP running on my desktop, and Windows 7 Home Premium on a laptop. I plan to upgrade to a Direct X 11 card next summer, so I've just waited to upgrade XP on the desktop.

It's stayed useful so far....I hate how you can't drag and drop files in the specific order you want on Windows 7(except within folders on the desktop), a feature that's right there in XP.

AKwyn 3 years ago

I'm mostly the only person in my family running Windows 7... I see much benefits from it's use such as the enhanced security, interface, DirectX 11, improved multi-threaded usage, future proof (in terms of RAM and CPUs) Don't get me wrong, Windows XP is reliable and they have been using it for a long time but I'm a Windows 7 guy.

Also many people seem to forget that they let people upgrade from Windows XP to Windows Vista when it was released, the result; tons of bad publicity due to incompatibilities when they've upgraded they're system. While that move might of migrated the bad publicity from Windows 7, it made XP users hesitant to upgrade (they could upgrade from XP to Vista to 7 but that'd be redundant and likely expensive.)

Still... People should be getting with the program to upgrade to Windows7

rapid1 3 years ago

Whats the hold up, well the first post on here tells that story "XP Pro all the way..only 32-bit version though...I was going to buy Windows 7, but Windows 8 will be out soon enough so there is no point and directx 12 will probably be in it as well." As far as it goes Sarah is still running XP Pro on her PC as well. There are not any issues DX11 works fine on XP as do the other drivers so not much of a point really for a lot of people software for now is generally still 32 bit max in the market in general. I like 64 bit Win 7 personally but it is not a neccesity as of yet. Another thing is or will be the cloud as anything running from the cloud would work fine on XP as well although it won't be nearly as integrated as Win 8. It will change pretty quick moving forward I would think when interaction becomes a different thing though.

IOlsen 3 years ago

You guys flub up again. "Lifecycle fact sheet" (http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/products/lifecycle)

XP SP3, mainstream: Apr 14 2009. Extend: Apr 8 2014

Vista, mainstream: Apr 10 2012. Extend: Apr 11 2017

7, mainstream:To be determined . Extend:Not applicable

If i'm wrong please kindly list a Microsoft URL for proof.

paul_lilly 3 years ago

The end of life date for Windows XP was a typo, which has been corrected. The point, however, remains the same.

DHampton 3 years ago

depends problem is windows 7 doesnt have anything that you cant get on xp unless a high end machine that you confiqure perfectly xp will outperform 7 constantly. boot up load times in games fps in games zipping unzipping.

7 isnt bad I use it on my main computer but ones that dont have the juice can still do everything 7 can. Heck any of the features the widgets skins ect for windows 7 can be on xp too.

Mike Coyne 3 years ago

I has runs on Windows before on my former PC. Windows XP never gave me an problems. NOW i did made a move to new Windows 7. Windows 7 is rock! I love Windows 7. Much better than Vista. I know that Windows 8 come out soon. I rather to wait to find what the problems with Windows 8. I can wait for Windows 8 come out with Service Pack 1 or 2 unless Microsoft find any bugs in new Windows 8 OS.

JGaspardo 3 years ago

You need windows seven for a lot of pc games! I multitask like a mother so yes i need the extra ram that 64 bit 7 gives me. Besides that the pretty graphics make use of this years hardware why else did i spend 1500 bucks on hardware to run xp? i think no. If you want old tech and aren't a power user or don't want to spend money on licences for your extra boxes than just put a version of Linux on it. I recommend Linux mint it looks good runs well on junk shop hardware and it's free not to mention all the free software that you can download for it

InfinityzeN1 3 years ago

I have a ton of systems in my house running a huge range of OSes.  I also have a bunch of stuff stashed in my parents guest house, which I decided to throw in at the end.

Laptop running Windows 7 Home Premium (ASUS G73)
Laptop running XP Pro (Gateway NX860XL,  old laptop I keep around for backup)
Netbook running XP Pro (used for tuning cars)

My Desk
Desktop running Windows 7 Ultimate (This is the monster LANShark in my sig)
Desktop running UBUNTU 11.10 (Old A-64)
Desktop running FreeBSD 8.2 (another old A-64)

Desktop running XP Pro (wifes computer, its a piece of crap but she won't let me replace it)

Server Closet
Domain controller on Ubuntu Server 10.4 LTS
File and backup server running Windows Home Server
NAS running FreeNAS

Stashed stuff
Laptop running Windows 98SE (its got a freaking P4)
Desktop running Slackware(Athlon XP 2600+)
Desktop running Redhat (Pentium 3)
Desktop running Windows 95 (Pentium Pro)
Server running Windows NT4 (Goliath quad Pentium Pro)
Desktop running MS-DOS 6.22 / Windows 3.1.1 (Am486 DX4-120)
Desktop running DR-DOS 6.0 (486DX2-66)
Apple IIc
Tandy 2000
Commodore 64

realneil 3 years ago

There are 5 PC's in the house that run Win-7. I have another with the current version of Ubuntu on it.

The Mac is gone now, but I have an iPad that works well.

I quit using XP a year and a half ago. I don't miss it.

siennamiller 3 years ago

 

Windows XP Still Dominates the Desktop, What's the Hold Up? - I still run XP on my netbook at home.... why would I want to pay to install Windows7?


Windows XP has secured its spot in history as perhaps the most beloved version of Windows ever, and it's certainly a fan favorite to this day. That might be understating things. More than just a fan favorite, Windows XP, for better or worse, is the most used operating system on the planet, according to data by Net Applications.

The decade old OS can be found on almost half of all PCs with a 48.03 percent share of the OS market. That's down from 69.99 percent in November 2009 -- as far back as Net Applications allows us to look -- and down 50.5 percent in the month of September, but still well ahead of Windows 7, which is now on 34.62 percent of all PCs.


Vista, meanwhile, has dropped it's market share to 8.85 percent, down from 9.09 percent at the end of September and from 18.8 percent in November 2009. Vista lost its lead over Windows 7 back in July 2010, but never managed to threaten Windows XP.

What's interesting about these figures is that it's conceivable Windows 7 might not catch up to Windows XP before the launch of Windows 8 next year. It's hard to imagine that XP will retain its lead over Windows 7 forever, however, as Microsoft will finally stop supporting the legacy OS in April 2012 2014, and "there's absolutely no chance" of extending that date, InformationWeek reports Rich Reynolds, general manager for Windows Commercial marketing, as saying.

Molsonolson 3 years ago

Desktop 486 - Win95

Desktop AMD k62 - Win98

Imac - OS8

Desktop P4 - XP Home

Desktop Athlon 64 - XP Pro

Laptop Core2duo - Vista Home Premium

Desktop Phenom II - Win 7 Ultimate

Laptop i7 - Win 7 Home Premium

Tablet - Android 2.2

Various legacy computers - Apple II, Comodore 64, Tandy's, etc...

lifeasjosh 3 years ago

One the major issues I have with windows vista, 7 is that every single driver you install has to be windows signed aka: a Singed driver. XP doesn't care. You can get a product that joe smoe made in his garage and install the drivers and windows will just take it! Which is awesome! Also, you don't need 451gigs of ram to  run windows xp, just put in a 1 gig stick, run msconfig, and your good.

Also, windows xp will let you delete about any folder or file you want, given that another program is not using it. With windows vista/7, even in safe mode and UAC turned off, it still tells you that you are not authorized to delete files, which is crazy! Its my computer, I own it, if I want to delete this folder dang it, let me!

What windows should have done was just leave the GUI as is and just kept adding support for more and more devices, as well as directx35+. The reasons windows XP has stuck around for so long it because of one fact, it works so well. Imagen F1 cars being replaced with semi-trucks and saying that they both drive the same..........exactly. When I turn on my computer with windows xp on it, its like saying hello to your best friend who is always willing to listen, go places with you, and just be there. Windows 7 is like the jerk you knew in high school who did dip and beat up the freshmen, then went and stole your lunch and took your car and said, "Hi! I'm windows 7, Nice to screw you over."

AKwyn 3 years ago

[quote user="lifeasjosh"]One the major issues I have with windows vista, 7 is that every single driver you install has to be windows signed aka: a Singed driver. XP doesn't care. You can get a product that joe smoe made in his garage and install the drivers and windows will just take it! Which is awesome![/quote]

Wait... This was a big issue; I mean it certainly is big if you're using a 64-bit OS (but then again, the signed drivers have allowed manufacturers to provide more decent support for 64-bit OS users like me, I mean when have you seen Windows XP 64-bit get that kind of support? That OS also required you to have "signed" drivers btw.) but the 32-bit version of Windows 7 would allow you to install drivers similarly to Windows XP, except that some may work due to the major changes in the architecture. I do have to agree that Windows XP remains viable for those with really old hardware though.

[quote user="lifeasjosh"]Also, windows xp will let you delete about any folder or file you want, given that another program is not using it. With windows vista/7, even in safe mode and UAC turned off, it still tells you that you are not authorized to delete files, which is crazy! Its my computer, I own it, if I want to delete this folder dang it, let me![/quote]

Funny, I have never had this exact problem happen to me in Windows 7 or in Windows XP. These moments should not define your OS experience, I mean there are tools to get past this and it's not like it's limited to Windows 7, Windows XP has been known to act that way as well...

[quote user="lifeasjosh"]What windows should have done was just leave the GUI as is and just kept adding support for more and more devices, as well as directx35+. The reasons windows XP has stuck around for so long it because of one fact, it works so well. Imagen F1 cars being replaced with semi-trucks and saying that they both drive the same..........exactly.[/quote]

I have to disagree, the Windows XP GUI at this point did look well, dated and it's functionality was getting undercut by the fact that new buyers were finding it a bit convoluted to use. The Windows 7 GUI is a bit of fresh breath but it wasn't without it's controversy; it eliminated the classic toolbars, classic start menu and well, the classic look; I mean you can try to mod it but the native support for it is gone without a trace. Also your comparison doesn't make much sense, technologies and the general public perception of PC's are getting more and more advanced and we can't rely on the same old XP forever, how are you going to support new technology while maintaining the compatibility XP is known for?

I understand that you like Windows XP more then Windows 7 but most of what you're spreading around is erroneous, I mean you're making Windows 7 sound like the second coming of Windows ME.

lifeasjosh 3 years ago

Quoted:

Funny, I have never had this exact problem happen to me in Windows 7 or in Windows XP. These moments should not define your OS experience, I mean there are tools to get past this and it's not like it's limited to Windows 7, Windows XP has been known to act that way as well...

Response:

The only thing that windows xp restricts you on is the System Volume folder. However, you can easily get past this by adding yourself under the properties selection, security, and making yourself an admin. However, the issue comes when removing or editing files in the windows folder on windows vista and windows 7. Don't believe me, go into your windows folder and try to delete system32 folder, It won't let you. Says something like files required for windows to operate, can't delete. Which is crazy! And yes, windows XP will gladding let you delete this folder in safe mode. Also, why would i need software to manager my computer? Heck NO! Waste of RAM usage and Drive space. I manage everything myself. Getting rid of all the junk windows gives you, the noises, the default backgrounds, the processes that don't need to run by default, to get every ounce of power out of the computer. Taking an old window 95 computer and putting windows xp on it and have startup times in the 10 second range is amazing! There have been two phrases I have heard about what the XP stands for in windows XP: Experience and/or Extreme Performance. Either of which are current. You just can't get the same level of customization you can in windows xp from windows 7. It really is the worst OS ever since ME.

Quoted:

I have to disagree, the Windows XP GUI at this point did look well, dated and it's functionality was getting undercut by the fact that new buyers were finding it a bit convoluted to use. The Windows 7 GUI is a bit of fresh breath but it wasn't without it's controversy; it eliminated the classic toolbars, classic start menu and well, the classic look; I mean you can try to mod it but the native support for it is gone without a trace. Also your comparison doesn't make much sense, technologies and the general public perception of PC's are getting more and more advanced and we can't rely on the same old XP forever, how are you going to support new technology while maintaining the compatibility XP is known for?

Response:

It is simple really. Software updated. Just keep updating the system with service packs and your done! Its that simple. And as for the GUI, thats what makes XP so amazing. You don't need a gtx 580 to run the desktop icons. Its crazy. Being flexible is the key to staying on top within the market, making initiative products, new thins..ect. However, it was not initiative to come out with a whole new OS, thats expected. What would have been initiative was to say, hey, we have an awesome OS that is extremely flexible, light weight, and can run on almost every computer. Now, they have a product that can run on well on......nothing really. Ok, maybe a few computer, but not the amount of computer that can run windows xp. Take an old HP for example, 560mhz CPU, 256 ram, and an old VIA chipset to run the graphics, OH and 5400 10 gig HDD. Now, in order for this computer to run windows 7, we would have to install more ram, change the motherboard, new processor, get a dedicated GPU, New PSU, and while we are at it, might as well get a new HDD too. So, in total after its all said and done, its no longer the same computer, literally. However, with windows XP, we don't have to make any changes at all. Just install windows XP, streamline the OS, remove all visual junk, luna theme, desktop images, and remove all sounds, defrag the drive after install about ten times or twenty times, run cleanmgr.exe, run msconfig to turn all the junk processes off that aren't needed, restart, and your good to go. Honestly, way cheaper faster and took a ton of less time than waiting for parts to arrive. You could have this done in one day, heck even within like five hours. Also, even if you were to buy a game that says Windows 7 only, I bet you could get that game to run on XP.

Conclusion:

XP runs lighter, faster, and works on a ton more computers, and even if some didn't have windows xp, minimal effort required to have it run xp. 7 however, takes up space, lags, and doesn't even let you remove your own files, also, you have go buy a nuclear power plant just to give it enough power to turn on.

AKwyn 3 years ago

[quote user="lifeasjosh"]However, the issue comes when removing or editing files in the windows folder on windows vista and windows 7. Don't believe me, go into your windows folder and try to delete system32 folder, It won't let you. Says something like files required for windows to operate, can't delete. Which is crazy! And yes, windows XP will gladding let you delete this folder in safe mode.[/quote]

I agree that the issue is a big one when in your position want to get the most out of your system, however it doesn't entriely prevent you access, you can modify the permissions to give yourself access to the folders and all...

Also, you mean to tell me someone actually tried to delete system32? There is a reason they don't let you delete the entire folder (and partly the reason why they restricted access to similar folders as well), essential system files are needed in that folder and without it, Windows would not run and any updates you had would need to be reinstalled if you used the restore function on the XP CD. I can understand that if anybody was stupid enough to tinker with Windows XP without knowing what they were doing well, they'd have a dead OS in their hands.

[quote user="lifeasjosh"]Also, why would i need software to manager my computer?[/quote]

Um... The software I was referring to was "Unlocker", a lightweight program which took control of folders from uncoperative apps and the like. I don't know of any apps that are a major waste of RAM and Drive Space but I guess a program like "Unlocker" doesn't fit in with your definition of performance.

[quote user="lifeasjosh"]You just can't get the same level of customization you can in windows xp from windows 7. It really is the worst OS ever since ME.[/quote]

I tend to digress... Safe Mode in Windows 7 runs similarly to your super customized Windows XP; It's proof that Windows 7 can be customized but your somewhat right in the fact you can't get it exactly the same, due to the increased number of services that serve a purpose. Trust me, I've checked.

[quote user="lifeasjosh"]It is simple really. Software updated. Just keep updating the system with service packs and your done! Its that simple. And as for the GUI, thats what makes XP so amazing. You don't need a gtx 580 to run the desktop icons. Its crazy.[/quote]

Service Packs contain patches for the systems, you can't majorly update the kernel using a Service Patch but you can fix major holes that are a threat to systems. I mean if Mac OS X could include major upgrades in it's updates then we wouldn't have to buy a new version every year now would we? Also a 580... Really? You don't need a super powerful GPU to run the Aero interface, just something like a GeForce FX 5200 or a Radeon HD 9200 (which are the earliest cards introduced with DirectX 9 by the way.)

[quote user="lifeasjosh"]Being flexible is the key to staying on top within the market, making initiative products, new thins..ect. However, it was not initiative to come out with a whole new OS, thats expected. What would have been initiative was to say, hey, we have an awesome OS that is extremely flexible, light weight, and can run on almost every computer. Now, they have a product that can run on well on......nothing really.[/quote]

Tell me, if a product couldn't run on nothing then nobody would be running it. There are tons of systems running Windows 7, if it didn't run at all then people would not buy it, install it on their systems and give it praise. Granted it's not Windows XP but did you think that Microsoft would forget about the flexible, light weight market? Remember Windows Embedded and/or Windows Starter (this is with the latest kernel)... Designed specifically with the least features and at least one of them can run on any system.

[quote user="lifeasjosh"]Ok, maybe a few computer, but not the amount of computer that can run windows xp. Take an old HP for example, 560mhz CPU, 256 ram, and an old VIA chipset to run the graphics, OH and 5400 10 gig HDD. Now, in order for this computer to run windows 7, we would have to install more ram, change the motherboard, new processor, get a dedicated GPU, New PSU, and while we are at it, might as well get a new HDD too. So, in total after its all said and done, its no longer the same computer, literally.[/quote]

Again, disagree... You are right about Windows 7 requiring more powerful hardware but I think that the reach thing is understated due to the fact that most PC's out there have the newest hardware and the PC's you listed above are getting scarcer and scarcer. (Remember, Windows 7 is not only aimed at the consumers looking to upgrade, but to system builders and buyers of new systems.), and adding to that is the fact that an old PC with a Pentium 4 processor and the minimum amount of RAM would be able to install Windows 7, though they would not have the performance of later systems. The graphics thing is not required for the system to run but you won't get Aero. (either a plus or a minus depending on which side of the fence your on.)

You're also overstating the new computer thing... I mean that system is like really old, you're using it to portray your point that Windows 7 is very bad for many reasons... On a PC like that they would stay on Windows XP but I doubt that they'd upgrade the system entirely... Well they would because of the fact that it's a very, very outdated system... Sure, a stripped down Windows XP will run but you can't multitask as much as you want; I took a Levono laptop, disabled most of the unnecessary stuff and it takes about 100MBs max; the web browsing takes up most of the RAM (since there's only a 1GB stick in there, way more then your 256 and way less then the 4GBs I currently have.); adding to that is the fact that the PC isn't powerful enough to run most of the newer stuff, even if Windows XP is blazing fast; just try to use Firefox with all the bells and whistles on this computer...

[quote user="lifeasjosh"]Just install windows XP, streamline the OS, remove all visual junk, luna theme, desktop images, and remove all sounds, defrag the drive after install about ten times or twenty times, run cleanmgr.exe, run msconfig to turn all the junk processes off that aren't needed, restart, and your good to go. Honestly, way cheaper faster and took a ton of less time than waiting for parts to arrive. You could have this done in one day, heck even within like five hours. Also, even if you were to buy a game that says Windows 7 only, I bet you could get that game to run on XP.[/quote]

From the sounds of that, it seems like whoever does that is taking it a bit to the extreme... I mean the disk has been freshly formatted, and there is barely any junk files on the system for it to clean... It doesn't make sense to do the defragging and MS config but I do admit that it kind of makes sense to remove all of the visual junk if your hard drive is really small... Also I don't think that the parts thing holds up much merit seeing as how they can just buy a new PC with Windows 7 preinstalled. As I said before, computers like that for personal use are becoming more scarce for obvious reasons

[quote user="lifeasjosh"]Also, even if you were to buy a game that says Windows 7 only, I bet you could get that game to run on XP.[/quote]

Well they did get Halo 2 to run on the PC but other then that, I don't know... I'm guessing it's going to be near impossible for Battlefield 3 to run on Windows XP due to the lack of support for DirectX 9 (which is the highest Microsoft supports on Windows XP.)

[quote user="lifeasjosh"]XP runs lighter, faster, and works on a ton more computers, and even if some didn't have windows xp, minimal effort required to have it run xp. 7 however, takes up space, lags, and doesn't even let you remove your own files, also, you have go buy a nuclear power plant just to give it enough power to turn on.[/quote]

Again, complete overstatement... Including the stuff that you said above (the computer novice is not going to know which files to disable to enhance the performancef of Windows XP.), it's not going to be easy to install XP and get the maximum performance from it. Windows 7 does not require a lot of power and that is just blatant misinformation. I mean if I had a Killawatt meter I can measure that it's not going to use up a lot of power... The lag part can be from system to system but personally, I have never experienced any lag, ever...

[quote user="lifeasjosh"]You just can't get the same level of customization you can in windows xp from windows 7. It really is the worst OS ever since ME.[/quote]

That's not what the people who bought it, installed it on their systems say... Windows ME was terrible in the fact that people didn't upgrade to it (people still used Windows 98), if it was truly terrible then why is there a market share comparable to Windows XP? OS's should not be judged based on how customizable it is to get the best performance possible, it should be about the user experience.

And it's possible that someone could take Windows 7, mod it to remove all the unnecessary bloat and then re-release it out onto the wild, I mean there are people and tools that/who can do that you know... In my day, I remember tons of versions of XP's that claimed major performance increases over the retail version, and I remember at least one version of 7 that had major performance increases over the retail version... Windows can be modded, don't assume Windows 7 can't be modded to be the same way as Windows XP.

lifeasjosh 3 years ago

Customize:

When I say customize, I mean streamline. What is the difference? Customized would be like adding new icons, changing the background, new sounds...ect. What I am talking about is turning off processes, defraging, turning off sounds, taking the shadows off menu's and the mouse cursor, and finally, removing everything that is not needed from OEM. Games, all the sounds, removing all the added mouse cursors, going through and removing all the wall papers, turning Luna off, changing the color down to 16 bit instead of 32 bit (Faster for CPU to process 16 bits of color rather than 32 bit, however, this step is not needed if dedicated GPU.) And yes, the reasosn why I mention system32 folder is because it has the screen saver programs in it(Windows XP, not sure where the screen savers are in vista/7.). Yes, i remove those as well. I even turn off the settings to turn off or dim the monitor, to save on processing power. The only change I make to my windows is I remove the word, "start" from the start button and the windows logo. This gives you more start bar space for opened programs. I also remove the clock, google has a clock you can use. Oh, I also remove all the start menu folders as well. All windows xp does is display the items in your C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Start Menu\ folder. That is a waste of ram. Just put the icons you need in there, no folders, just streamlined usage. I remove windows media player, movie maker using the windows components in the appwiz.cpl (CPL is the extension for control panel items) executable in the control panel. And ultimately here is the reason why, every computer I have seen, in person, and my own computer, with windows vista/7 on it, takes 2+ times as long to boot to the desktop than with windows xp on. Try It some time. When/If you buy a new computer, just for fun, take a stop watch to the boot time of vista/7, make a note, then install xp, do the same thing. I promise you that the boot time will be a ton less. My computer, when new took about 2+ minutes to start on widnows 7 stock, with windows xp streamlined took about, honestly, less than 16 seconds, from cold boot to desktop. Talk about a performance change. Thats what I mean by light weight and streamlined. Also, look at how much disk space windows 7 takes up, (from microsoft.com) 16 gigs on 32 bit! WOW! And windows xp...(microsoft.com) 1.1 gigs!!! 7 has a 1350+ % increase in disk space required!! Thats insane! So, the os takes longer to boot, takes up more disk space, requires newer hardware, which cost more money.....7 really doesn't sound that great. I remember when vista first came I out, I went up to best buy and bought the home premium version. Got home installed it, at this time has core 2 duo e8400 3.0Ghz Dual core processor, 8 gig of OCZ reaper ddr2 800 5-5-5-5 timing, with dual SLi 8800 GTS, the 320meg version from EVGA, has an 122-ck-nf68-AR 680i EVGA board. Put vista on, used 60% graphic usage just on idle with the desktop opened and was useing 2.5 gigs of ram, nothing opened. Crap! I put xp back on, streamlined, ran less than 1% GPU usage on idle and 100 megs of ram, Aw much better. Windows 7 came out, my brother got a new laptop with 7. Looked at ram usage... 2.2 gig on idle and 30% GPU usage. Thats insane. No thanks.

Defrag;

It is always best to defrag a pc after an OS install and here is why. A defrag doesn't clean up the pc as far as removing junk. What a defrag does is fix fragmented files. A fragmented file is a file that is spread across the platter of an HDD that causing the sector to have to be read more than once for a single file. Here is a visual of a fragmented file.

Fragmented:

| 01011 | 000101 | 01101 | 00011 | 0010 | 01011100 |

......a............. b............ c........... a ............c............... b

As you can see file a, b, and c are not together. This caused the sector to have to take multiple trips around the read/write head of the HDD. What defrag does, is it will re-arrange the sectors on the HDD to make them all read sequential. So after defrag this is what we are left with:

After Defrag:

| 01011 | 000101 | 01101 | 00011 | 0010 | 01011100 |

......a .............a............ c............. c.......... b............ b

Now you might think that having the files in an A, C, B configuration may still be fragmented, however, this is not so. The HDD spins in a circle and only reads the file that it needs regardless of what is in front of it or behind it, as long as it is all together. This is why you also defrag after installing an OS. If you don't your left with bits of file scattered all over the platter. However, the only way I have had a defrag complete in windows 7 has been through cmd.exe. What is nice about the command line version is that it will show you the amount of file fragmentation as a percentage. Now, if you do this, you will notice that a percentage will also be fragmented. This is the MBR, master boot record, I don't believe this can be defraged, it just is what it is.

Hey, TaylorKarras, this has been a great discussion topic. Seem as though we have a lot to learn from each other. HOwever, this is my last post to this blog. Honestly, the debate about which OS is best will never be solved because it all boils down to personal opinion. The discussion has been great and I look forward to other discussions to come.

AKwyn 3 years ago

[quote user="lifeasjosh"]When I say customize, I mean streamline. What is the difference? Customized would be like adding new icons, changing the background, new sounds...ect. What I am talking about is turning off processes, defraging, turning off sounds, taking the shadows off menu's and the mouse cursor, and finally, removing everything that is not needed from OEM.[/quote]

That what's I meant. When I was using customize I wasn't meaning to change the background or the mouse pointer, I was using what you described up there. I mean customization can apply to almost anything really...

[quote user="lifeasjosh"] I remove windows media player, movie maker using the windows components in the appwiz.cpl (CPL is the extension for control panel items) executable in the control panel. And ultimately here is the reason why, every computer I have seen, in person, and my own computer, with windows vista/7 on it, takes 2+ times as long to boot to the desktop than with windows xp on.[/quote]

Wow... You do alot of stuff that seems to be unnecessary. I mean even on my XP system which still has Windows Media Player and a bunch of programs installed, it takes up only the same amount as your supercustomized Windows XP... I mean I get the possible reasoning that it'll take a lot shorter to search through the hard drive then if you had the programs installed but still, it's unnecessary. Even the clock wouldn't impact the system's performance to a notable degree.

[quote user="lifeasjosh"]When/If you buy a new computer, just for fun, take a stop watch to the boot time of vista/7, make a note, then install xp, do the same thing. I promise you that the boot time will be a ton less.[/quote]

Okay... On my XP system, nearly 36 seconds from cold-boot to desktop; my built Windows 7 system, a minute or so but it's not terrible; I mean it only takes me the same time as my Windows XP system for it to boot up to the log-on screen... A simple optimization is all I need. Previously it took 6 seconds or less to get to the desktop, adding to the cold boot time of course.

[quote user="lifeasjosh"]My computer, when new took about 2+ minutes to start on widnows 7 stock, with windows xp streamlined took about, honestly, less than 16 seconds, from cold boot to desktop.[/quote]

Something must be really, really wrong with your system, if it takes 2+ minutes for it to boot up. (assuming you installed it from the instillation disc and didn't use a computer with Windows 7 already installed.) I mean I read up on the Windows startup process, I understand how the whole thing works and yet I don't know how you can have a 2+ minute boot time?

[quote user="lifeasjosh"]Also, look at how much disk space windows 7 takes up, (from microsoft.com) 16 gigs on 32 bit! WOW! And windows xp...(microsoft.com) 1.1 gigs!!! 7 has a 1350+ % increase in disk space required!! Thats insane![/quote]

Did you gloss over the comment mentioning that you can customize (aka streamline) Windows 7... I mean Windows 7 can be streamlined and streamlining it sort of defeats the purpose between that and a streamlined XP.

[quote user="lifeasjosh"] I remember when vista first came I out, I went up to best buy and bought the home premium version. Got home installed it, at this time has core 2 duo e8400 3.0Ghz Dual core processor, 8 gig of OCZ reaper ddr2 800 5-5-5-5 timing, with dual SLi 8800 GTS, the 320meg version from EVGA, has an 122-ck-nf68-AR 680i EVGA board. Put vista on, used 60% graphic usage just on idle with the desktop opened and was useing 2.5 gigs of ram, nothing opened. Crap! I put xp back on, streamlined, ran less than 1% GPU usage on idle and 100 megs of ram, Aw much better.[/quote]

Do note that NVIDIA released less then subpar drivers for Windows Vista... Those drivers caused unusual graphics usage, tons of system crashes and just plain sucked... In fact, NVIDIA was the reason Vista sucked. I seriously don't know how you can have 2.5GBs of RAM idle, it's like a freaking mystery to me... Even when I was running Vista, it didn't take up the unusually high amount of RAM that your system did. Granted, it did take up 1GBs which does seem a bit much but it's not unreasonable or anything...

[quote user="lifeasjosh"]Windows 7 came out, my brother got a new laptop with 7. Looked at ram usage... 2.2 gig on idle and 30% GPU usage. Thats insane. No thanks.[/quote]

Your brother is unaware that there is crapware on his system which makes it run really slow; hell even Windows XP systems had crapware on them that hindered their performance... Don't judge it based on it's out-of-the-box performance, it just skewers the whole perception of the system.

[quote user="lifeasjosh"]It is always best to defrag a pc after an OS install and here is why. A defrag doesn't clean up the pc as far as removing junk. What a defrag does is fix fragmented files. A fragmented file is a file that is spread across the platter of an HDD that causing the sector to have to be read more than once for a single file.[/quote]
I know what defragging is, I've used computers for a long time. However, a format overwrites all of the files with blank data, meaning all of the data on there is made available for overwriting by the system; such as which when you delete a file from the recycle bin. Defragging when you first install the system won't do much because there are no files visible to the system that are fragmented... Therefore there is nothing for Windows to reorganize to increase the performance of the drive.

[quote user="lifeasjosh"]However, the only way I have had a defrag complete in windows 7 has been through cmd.exe. What is nice about the command line version is that it will show you the amount of file fragmentation as a percentage. Now, if you do this, you will notice that a percentage will also be fragmented.[/quote]
What? The disk defragmenter program shows the percentage, and right now after analyzing my system, shows 0% fragmented (didn't count the MBR apparently)... Granted the command version is nice but still, you're making the actual GUI out to be non-functional. (Which admittedly it is due to the lack of a display showing the fragmentation of the system but still, it's non-functionality is overstated.)

Now I understand that your perception of Windows 7 is based on what you've witnessed. Unreasonably High RAM and GPU usage, but I chalk that up to something in your system that's gone wrong rather then the OS itself... (I understand that 1GBs is still a lot but still...) I find the disk space usage thing odd but I don't really mind; hard drives are big nowadays and I don't mind the lost 20GBs of space, really I don't.

I can understand the benefits of Windows XP being that it runs on older computers (even the really old ones that don't have a lot of functionality to them.) but I find that to be mostly undercut by the fact that most of the technology out there is new, people are buying new technology and Windows 7 is a major win for consumers because well it offers improved everything... While Windows XP may be the versitile OS as you say, Windows 7 is not as bad as you make it out to be. Honest.

realneil 3 years ago

I use FAST computers with 16GB of RAM in them and GTX570 video cards. Win-7 is not slow for me. Boot time on my slowest PC, the A8-3850, is 16 seconds from the post beep to the full desktop view.

I have a new OS that does more than XP ever will, and I don't have to tinker around with it to achieve stability. Drivers are no problem because the OS already has them, or it goes and gets them automagically every time.

I can run old moldy XP software as well as all of the new titles with ease.

I don't know what system resources are being used where or by what, because I could care less. My system runs great all of the time, so I don't have to sweat the small sh*t.

You can go on and on all day about XP being so fine and capable, and yada-yada, but nobody's buying into it. It's just an ~Old OS~ with hair growing all over it.

As for XP running on older, less capable hardware, UBUNTU does it better by far.

This discussion has been great and I look forward to other discussions to come.

Kiristo 3 years ago

Windows 7 on my laptop and Vista 64x on my Desktop. With the hardware I have in my desktop I've never had any problems, thus no reason to upgrade yet. When I re-install windows to clean it up eventually, I'll probably put Windows 7 on it, though actually, Windows 8 will probably be out by then so who knows.

thunderdan602 3 years ago

At work, the City runs Windows XP Pro.  Will be upgrading to Windows 7 next year.  At home, I was running XP Media Center Edition until last year, when I made the decision to to go 7 64 bit at home.  Before that, it was all XP ME and eventually a dual boot XP ME and Vista Ultimate 64 bit.  My girlfriends laptop still runs XP home edition.

jonation 3 years ago

it seems like most people on this threat are good on computers, so you can just remove them from the contest....ha

shegeek72 3 years ago

XP was a fine OS, but it's showing its age. Win 7 starts fast, is more stable, secure and capable than XP.

1 desktop dual-boot with Vista/7 32-bit

1 desktop dual-boot with XP pro/7 ultimate 32-bit

1 desktop dual-boot with XP HE/kubuntu

1 laptop with 7 64-bit

Manduh 3 years ago

We have:

- XP on our old Dell pc for the recording studio equipment

-Win 7 64bit on the bf's desktop and my laptop.

cooljoebay 2 years ago

I was a huge fan of Windows XP. Yet, I gave it up because it no longer supported important software that I needed to use. But now that I don't use the software anymore, I went back to XP. After a year and half of WIndows 7, I'm sick of it. Such a memory hog and slow as hell. Too many annoyances and hesitations. XP has been the most snappy OS I ever worked with. And I will continue. Forget Microsoft support. There are a number of hackers out there that are supporting it now. We can use it to build our own OS that makes Microsoft obsolete.

MayhemMatthew 2 years ago

This question keeps on coming up and is quite simple to answer. Business.

Every business seems to use XP. Why not? It's safe, been patched to ***, is still being patched occasionally, no more big ones, easier to maintain, enough time to grow into its own as well as allowing IT to create a working configuration.... then roll out. All that stuff takes time and is expensive. Upgrading from a business stand point is dumb and thus XP remains in the lead.

AKwyn 2 years ago

[quote user="MayhemMatthew"]

This question keeps on coming up and is quite simple to answer. Business.

Every business seems to use XP. Why not? It's safe, been patched to ***, is still being patched occasionally, no more big ones, easier to maintain, enough time to grow into its own as well as allowing IT to create a working configuration.... then roll out. All that stuff takes time and is expensive. Upgrading from a business stand point is dumb and thus XP remains in the lead.

[/quote]

Not just that, but it's also compatibility as well; XP contains most of the legacy stuff such as DirectSound that Vista/7 lacks; if they were to upgrade to the newer version then their entire interface may not be compatible and would likely stop working, costing the company millions of dollars. If the company was super rich and could afford to make their entire system compatible then they'd do it but as it stands most of the corporate programs work well with XP, most of the programs are not proven to run when upgraded to 7 and as such, XP (and it's predecessor 2000 even though it's EOL) still retains a highly sizable lead.

Post a Comment
or Register to comment