B
BillW50
What a great article, this one is a keeper. ;-)
http://atlantiswordprocessor.blogspot.com/2012/06/is-it-time-to-dump-windows-xp.html
http://atlantiswordprocessor.blogspot.com/2012/06/is-it-time-to-dump-windows-xp.html
P
philo
I mentioned recently that I had a few machines in my shop that had no
Windows updates past SP2 and they were quite clean. The did at least
have up to date virus checkers.
My conclusion is that XP will still be quite viable after the support
ends. As long as one keeps a good virus checker and an updateable
browser, XP should have quite a few years left.
Of course sooner or later wanted hardware and software is going to come
along that will require newer versions of Windows so I do recommend to
my friends they move up to win7 or win8...but I tell them not to panic
about it.
B
BillW50
Old, but good. I will keeping my XP Pro. SP3 until the machine dies, and
softwares and hardwares don't support it anymore.
Yes, I feel exactly the same way. I have 21+ machines that are either
running XP or could be very easily (most do have XP running on them).
And I too feel there is a lot of life left in XP for many years to come.
In fact, if I had the live with only one OS, XP would still win for me
hands down. As it runs everything I want to run. Meaning 100%! I can't
say that for any other Windows version.
I do sort of have my bases covered though. As I prefer reliable machines
that will run XP, Vista, 7, or 8 without problems. Like this machine
will run any of them just fine. Most of them come from the era just
before Vista came out. So they have XP drivers and came with XP, but
most were also Vista ready. Which in turn many are 7 and 8 ready too.
B
BillW50
Yes I do agree with this. As I have lots of XP machines here with either
SP2 or SP3 on them. The ones with just SP2 runs just fine as far as I am
concern. Although most of my SP2 machines also requires the hibernation
hotfix (it is included in SP3, so those don't need it). One of the best
article I have read about avoiding SP3 was here.
http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2008/...p3-still-not-ready-news-flash-do-not-install/
Yes that is my belief too. Some of my XP SP2 machines haven't had any
updates since 2006 and they are doing just fine.
Ah... that is why I really like machines that has no problems running
XP, Vista, 7, or 8. Most of my XP machines are this way (most come from
the later 2006 era). This one originally came with XP SP2, and runs 7
and 8 just fine. The drivers come with the Windows install discs for
Vista, 7, and 8 too.
P
philo
On 02/04/2014 10:44 AM, BillW50 wrote:
X
The only machines that might have a problem are those on-board Intel
video chipsets. If the machine has an AGP or PCIe slot I sometimes have
to add a video card to get decent results with Win7.
I even have upgraded some PCI-only machines but have now used up most of
my decent PCI video cards.
X
The only machines that might have a problem are those on-board Intel
video chipsets. If the machine has an AGP or PCIe slot I sometimes have
to add a video card to get decent results with Win7.
I even have upgraded some PCI-only machines but have now used up most of
my decent PCI video cards.
P
Paul
Bill said:
Incomplete DX9 support perhaps ?
End user wants to experience Aero Glass in all its glory ?
There were some Intel chipset (motherboard) graphics solutions,
that didn't quite measure up to the Aero Glass requirements.
There was a small stink about it, way back when. The OEM PC
came with stickers indicating they were capable, but the
reality was otherwise.
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/microsoft_could_lose_85_billion_“vista_capable”_lawsuit
http://blogs.windows.com/windows/ar...le-and-premium-ready-system-requirements.aspx
If you turn off all the animation effects you find in Windows,
you can probably get by with some pretty decrepit graphics
solutions.
I have a PCI FX5200 here, and in testing, I've found just
one instance, where there is too much bus traffic. PCI
can manage around 110MB/sec on a good day. If you opened
a QuickTime Player window, and attempted to drag it around
the screen, the refreshing of rhe frame buffer, caused
that window to stutter. That's one example, where an
inefficient software program, exposes the bus limitations
of your video card. You can kinda sorta get by with PCI
cards, as long as things like that don't happen. Compositing
(storage of windows pixmaps in GPU memory), is one way
to avoid bus traffic for dragging of windows around
the screen. But in the case of things like QuickTime,
the version I had was just writing to the frame buffer,
and bypassing a lot of Windows APIs.
Paul
P
philo
There are no Win7 drivers for those older Intel video chips and Win7
uses the standard VGA driver. Usually that "standard vga" driver does a
pretty good job but often not good enough to use the machine for
multi-media.
For anyone who would want multi-media capabilities a card with a
manufacturer's driver usually gives better results and more choices of
resolution.
Just for an example, if one is using a wide-screen monitor..the
"standard vga" driver may not have the needed resolution setting to give
a non-distorted image.
P
philo
Yep , I turn off the effects in all machines I work on.
So far no one has ever wanted me to put them back.
B
BillW50
OMG! I never heard about it until today. And you never mentioned it
before? From what I have heard, even v1.0 was quite good.
--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v12
Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 8 Pro w/Media Center
Nope! Nothing besides cool gadgets with Windows 7 and 8 (with a hack).
But I can do the same under XP differently. Otherwise there are Metro
Apps that I like, but really could be done under XP or higher desktop
anyway (just that it is just a cool new look).
But so far, like I said many times before, since 2005 to the present XP
is the one I would stick with if I had to pick one OS. Even after using
Windows 7 since 7/2009 and Windows 8 since 2/2012 I still would say the
very same. Sure Windows 7 and 8 are fun and cool and all. But so far
nothing gets the job done better than XP for me.
Newer hardware? Yes I have some of those too, but they mainly are for 64
bit Windows. Otherwise nothing new for me (I stay away from 64 bit
Windows and I am waiting for 128 bit Windows).
So is there any software that I use that requires Vista or higher?
Besides gadgets and Metro Apps, absolutely nothing. And neither of them
is really a big deal. Just don't take away my XP! ;-)
G
Good Guy
Old, but good. I will keeping my XP Pro. SP3 until the machine dies, and
softwares and hardwares don't support it anymore.
I thought all software and hardware have stopped supporting XP. Have
you seen any software recently that runs on XP or any new hardware that
supports XP? I haven't.
I guess you might have to pay somebody to take away your old XP machine
to create space in your house
You should play your part in supporting the new guy at Microsoft, Satya
Nadella. It is the biggest story in the papers and TVs. Gt Windows
8.1!!!!!!!
B
BillW50
What? Intel makes GPUs? They might for all I know but what they are
known for is integrated graphics. The ones I know very well are the
915GM and the 945GM ones. The 915 ones are stuck with single core
processors, don't ask I don't know why? And while the hardware is fully
capable I am told to support Aero, the driver wasn't ever enabled to do so.
The Intel 945GM was totally different, it could and so could the driver.
And they supported either single core or duo core processors. If the
motherboard had a socket, almost always you could plug in either or.
IMHO any machine with a single core processor just doesn't do it for me
with Vista or higher. A duo core changes everything and now we are talking.
This machine for example has an Intel T7400 2.16 GHz duo core processor
with Intel 945GM. It works beautifully with XP, Vista, 7 or 8. That is a
lot of Windows versions right there. I never tried, but Windows 2000
might even run fine too. Although the Intel drivers are supposed to work
back to Windows 98, I never went back that far with them. But that is
pretty great if you ask me.
G
Good Guy
I use mostly Microsoft and Adobe software and all ther new versions are"Stopped supporting" is one thing. "Not being able run" on XP is another.
I think there still are quite a few programs out there that will run on XP,
although admitedly, the list is shrinking. I certainly wouldn't say ALL
recent software requires Win 7 or better. Then again, I haven't been
looking too hard, since most of the newer software is just even more
bloated, with features I have little interest in - including social media.
Sometimes Less Is More.
for Windows 7 and above.
For example, you don't get IE for XP after 8; You can't get Office 2013
for XP; You can't get Adobe CC for XP. So your only choice is to get a
new machine and get the new software or remain with XP and be like
Windows 98 users. There are still many out there using Windows 98.
Hot-Text who comes here regularly is one of them.
P
Paul
Good said:
Simple. VPC2007 runs on WinXP. Virtual machines are available
for free. I have WinXP, Vista, Windows 7 running in VMs here
(until the activation comes into play). These OSes aren't
activated, so you effectively have to "re-install" once in a while.
I can't run Windows 8, because VPC2007 doesn't support Win8 properly.
That takes a different hosting software, such as VirtualBox.
VirtualBox runs on WinXP.
http://www.modern.ie/en-us/virtualization-tools#downloads
I also have a copy of Visual Studio in yet another VM, which
was capable of compiling from source, an old version of Firefox.
It means, if I had source code to something, I might just
be able to compile it using the library appropriate for
Win2K/WinXP OSes.
You're right, that Adobe is rapidly "becoming an island", by
going to a rental software model, and switching to 64 bit only
executables. That could be a problem. For a short time,
there was a set of downloadable Adobe software, after one
of their license servers was being shut down. Which again,
means there is a generation of Adobe software floating
around out there, already activated and ready to go.
It's only if you want the latest and greatest, you have
to upgrade everything.
The degree to which this is a problem, is a function
of your own creativity. Just like the Win98 community
found or made stuff to extend the life of their OS,
there'll be similar efforts for WinXP. If they aren't
here already.
Paul
P
philo
On 02/04/2014 06:25 PM, BillW50 wrote:
I am sure it's not Intel only...but most of the machines I'm upgrading
are older Dells and all of them have on-board Intel video chips.
Like I said, Win7 does a good job of probing the chip and installs a
standard VGA driver. Going to Intel's website, they do not offer a Win7
driver.
Off the top of my head I do not recall which chips specifically do not
have Win7 drivers but anything going back ten years or more is not going
to have drivers past XP.
Like I said, it's not that the standard VGA driver does not work...it's
more a case of not having a full range of resolutions to chose from.
The dual core CPU's are obviously going to work better than single core....
however since most of the older machines I'm working on are not going to
be doing much more than just running "Office" they will do just fine.
Here is the absolute minimum hardware I will use for Win7:
P4 1.8ghz
1 gig RAM
40 gig HD (compressed)
Ideally though I'd want at least a dual core CPU, 2 gigs of ram and an
80 gig HD
Note: I am setting these machines up for a local NPO with a tight
budget. Money is so scarce that they have been understaffed for several
years. They recently moved one employee up from part time to full...so
things are slightly looking better.
I am sure it's not Intel only...but most of the machines I'm upgrading
are older Dells and all of them have on-board Intel video chips.
Like I said, Win7 does a good job of probing the chip and installs a
standard VGA driver. Going to Intel's website, they do not offer a Win7
driver.
Off the top of my head I do not recall which chips specifically do not
have Win7 drivers but anything going back ten years or more is not going
to have drivers past XP.
Like I said, it's not that the standard VGA driver does not work...it's
more a case of not having a full range of resolutions to chose from.
The dual core CPU's are obviously going to work better than single core....
however since most of the older machines I'm working on are not going to
be doing much more than just running "Office" they will do just fine.
Here is the absolute minimum hardware I will use for Win7:
P4 1.8ghz
1 gig RAM
40 gig HD (compressed)
Ideally though I'd want at least a dual core CPU, 2 gigs of ram and an
80 gig HD
Note: I am setting these machines up for a local NPO with a tight
budget. Money is so scarce that they have been understaffed for several
years. They recently moved one employee up from part time to full...so
things are slightly looking better.
A
Andy
That is not a problem because there are alternatives like LibreOffice, etc.
We are not Microsoft's slaves anymore.
Andy
B
BillW50
Andy said:
We never were. And too bad I can't use LibreOffice, I find it too weak.
<sigh>
B
BillW50
Bill in Co said:
Yes I mentioned Kingsoft Office here from time to time. And I have the
commercial version and I like it much better than LibreOffice.
D
dora.smith.e
I'm not going to tell you to upgrade. Windows 7 is just as good, and highly stable, and it's updateable. You can get the upgrade edition for $80 or so, I think.
I wouldn't get Windows 8 unless you've been born again in your new reincarnation as an outer space alien.
Dora
J
J. P. Gilliver (John)
In message <[email protected]>, Good Guy
Yes.
OK, I'm _beginning_ to see software - and, more so, hardware - that
doesn't support XP, but I'd still say it's the exception rather than the
rule. (Probably slightly filtered by the fact that I tend not to buy the
latest whizzy hardware/software.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
And in that bloodieth of centuries, the 20th, [US researcher Matthew White]
says, more than 95 per cent of all deaths were from natural causes. Andrew
Marr in RT 22-28 September 2012
[]
Yes.
OK, I'm _beginning_ to see software - and, more so, hardware - that
doesn't support XP, but I'd still say it's the exception rather than the
rule. (Probably slightly filtered by the fact that I tend not to buy the
latest whizzy hardware/software.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
And in that bloodieth of centuries, the 20th, [US researcher Matthew White]
says, more than 95 per cent of all deaths were from natural causes. Andrew
Marr in RT 22-28 September 2012
B
BillW50
I actually don't find Windows 7 as good as XP myself. If it were just as
good, why did Microsoft even bother with creating Windows 7 XP Mode?
I use Windows 2000, XP, 7, 8, Linux, Android, Palm OS, etc all the time.
And using Windows 8 isn't a big deal. And Windows 8 does everything that
Windows 7 can do plus tons more too. So I see Windows 8 as better than
Windows 7 myself. Even little things like the Task Manager is so much
better than Windows 7 Task Manager. Plus there are dozens of other
examples like this.
ROTFL!
good, why did Microsoft even bother with creating Windows 7 XP Mode?
I use Windows 2000, XP, 7, 8, Linux, Android, Palm OS, etc all the time.
And using Windows 8 isn't a big deal. And Windows 8 does everything that
Windows 7 can do plus tons more too. So I see Windows 8 as better than
Windows 7 myself. Even little things like the Task Manager is so much
better than Windows 7 Task Manager. Plus there are dozens of other
examples like this.
LOL. No debate on the last two points. The first one may be (and I
think is) debateable, however.
ROTFL!