XP 64 is notoriously poor. Good luck finding drivers for anything.
anyone still on XP?
- Thread starter builder22
- Start date
XP 64 is notoriously poor. Good luck finding drivers for anything.
On my last PC I had XP, and it was great.
On my current one I have 7 and that's great too. I like some of the new Win 7 features (search is much better, and I wouldn't want to give up aero peek), but I wouldn't say any of them are essential.
If you have less than 4gb RAM, and don't have any use for DX10 or 11 then why not use XP?
On my current one I have 7 and that's great too. I like some of the new Win 7 features (search is much better, and I wouldn't want to give up aero peek), but I wouldn't say any of them are essential.
If you have less than 4gb RAM, and don't have any use for DX10 or 11 then why not use XP?
...Apart from Windows XP 64bit
LMAO.
I believe XP was a good OS but lets be fair it had more updates that anything I've ever known.
Windows 7 is so so much nicer on the eyes, functionality and stable. Much more pleasant for Gaming too.
....still OSX > Windows though
Another embarrassing reply for someone that knows nothing about the OS in question.
Why some of you people even bother getting out of bed is beyond me.
My home PC has XP still, but I only have a DX9 GFX card at the moment.
My netbook came with XP but I bought Windows 7 to put on it and it is a nice OS, I may put Windows 7 on my home PC when I upgrade the GFX card very soon.
I cant say I've noticed any difference stability wise.
My netbook came with XP but I bought Windows 7 to put on it and it is a nice OS, I may put Windows 7 on my home PC when I upgrade the GFX card very soon.
I cant say I've noticed any difference stability wise.
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 1,108
- Location
- Manchester
Perhaps, but even with said ancient kernel i'm still hardware-limited with everything I want to do!
I didn't...just slipstreamed the drivers into the ISO
I think the take-home point here is something is only 'better' if it does something better for you. Search function? I can't remember last using it - I know where everything is. DX10/11 moot point. RAM limit not an issue. Stability not an issue. Loading times bottlenecked elsewhere. Etc.
When I have a card that can max out Crysis in DX9 at 60fps, an SSD and games that need 3GB RAM alone...I'm sure I'll reconsider!! Realistically I think Windows 8 will be out by then though...
Last edited:
LMAO.
I believe XP was a good OS but lets be fair it had more updates that anything I've ever known.
Windows 7 is so so much nicer on the eyes, functionality and stable. Much more pleasant for Gaming too.
....still OSX > Windows though
How is it 'much more pleasant for gaming'?
When I am playing, let's say, MW2, or next week Black Ops, how is my experience playing that game in XP in any way inferior to how playing it in Windows 7 would be?
Last edited:
You'll waste 10ns of your life, the horror
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 9,007
- Location
- Kent
If you look around you'll find very little hardware that supports Windows XP 64 bit, even Microsoft's very own doesn't support it. So therefore drivers won't work. A lot of older software doesn't like XP 64 bit and newer software that supports 64 bit is generally designed for Vista up.
That clear enough for you or would you like links? In which case I can't help you becasue that would generally mean linking to competitors.
From some of your other posts it looks to me like either you have an obsession with XP 64 or are just trolling.
buchtis said:
Yeh. So mature, go back under your bridge.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2003
- Posts
- 6,107
- Location
- Chesterfield, UK
I think you will find generally that Windows 7 is faster than XP especially on newer hardware. All resources are used much more efficiently.
On Windows 7 you should also know that free memory means nothing because the OS will work with the applications. Memory will be allocated and deallocated as and when required.
How come that every piece of hardware and software that I have supports Windows XP 64 bit then? Oh wait, no one supports it any more so I guess I must be lying.
Irritates me that people who have no idea what they're talking about or have never even tried the OS in question make embarrassing statements, that's all.
Feel free to PM them me.
The reason i'm 'obsessing' about XP is because I can't find one good reason to upgrade to Windows 7 apart from DX11, and even that isn't fully fledged technology yet.
Irritates me that people who have no idea what they're talking about or have never even tried the OS in question make embarrassing statements, that's all.
Feel free to PM them me.
The reason i'm 'obsessing' about XP is because I can't find one good reason to upgrade to Windows 7 apart from DX11, and even that isn't fully fledged technology yet.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 9,007
- Location
- Kent
1. You must be lucky. Either that or you ARE lying. Everybody I speak to outside the forums has found the same difficulties in getting XP 64 bit working with everything. Some stuff works, yeh great, but most things don't. Give the majority of people in the world XP 64 bit to use with their computer they will struggle to get it working fully.
2. You seem to be getting confused. I am NOT saying that XP is a waste of time. I dual boot my 7 x64 installation with the 32 bit version of XP as some things just run better on XP (older programs/games mostly). I AM saying the 64 bit version is a waste of time however. Getting a lot of hardware and software to work with it is needlessly difficult, whilst the 64 bit versions of Vista and 7 just work. They are better supported.
I also think that the 32 bit Vista and 7 are a waste of time, as they lack the 64 bit support and are unnecessary as long as 32 bit XP is around, but that is just opinion I'll admit.
Last edited:
Well, if that was true then system requirements wouldn't have gone up from a 300MHz CPU to a 1GHz one, pretty obvious really.
But regardless, even if Windows 7 was twice as quick I'd still use XP as I don't like 7. So many things are broken or worse than XP.
Please elaborate!
Loads of things. Here's a few.
Mouse acceleration. In 7 it is markedly different to XP and it is similar to OSX which I hate. In 7 the distance the pointer moves depends how quickly you move the mouse. In Windows XP, it moves depending how FAR you move the mouse. In XP, I can move the pointer from one side of the screen to the other by moving the mouse halfway across my mouse pad. If I do it very slowly, or very quickly, it takes the same distance. In 7 it is completely different and there is no way of making it behave like XP.
The network activity system tray icon has been broken since Vista. I like it, I use it, in every version of Windows up to and including XP, it worked. If you are sending data, one of the little 'screens' in the icon lights up. If you are receiving the other 'screen' lights up. Etc. Broken in Vista and W7. Not important to you and others, fine, but I want it.
The image viewer is broken in Vista and W7. Broken how? When it resizes images or you zoom in, it doesn't resize using a Lanczos style algorithm like Windows XP does, so the image appears more pixellated than using the excellent Windows XP image viewer.
Creative sound cards sound worse in Vista/W7. They also have less functionality, ie. no EAX effects etc. I have a Creative sound card (a very good one) and this is a serious issue.
No 'up' button in explorer. This is a basic piece of functionality which has been inexplicably removed. No, the breadcrumb thing is not better or as intuitive.
As mentioned previously, Windows Vista/W7 insist on regularly playing with the hard drive for no good reason which gets on my nerves. I don't want it to index anything, update anything, 'fix' anything, DO ANYTHING, until I tell it to.
The start menu. I don't want it to scroll, I want it all to appear at once and then I can quickly select what I want. This is intuitive. I don't need to search. I know where stuff is. Modern monitors are large yet Vista/7 insist on squeezing everything into a little start menu in the bottom left corner, and you have to scroll up/down! No, I prefer XP's way of showing everything in one go thanks.
Last edited:
He's already been asked to near the start of the thread and he just ignored the poster. He's just having a massive trolling session, and enjoying himself immensely by all accounts
He's already been asked to near the start of the thread and he just ignored the poster. He's just having a massive trolling session, and enjoying himself immensely by all accounts
Not at all, it's tedious really. I did suggest reading my previous posts in the Windows forum where I have gone into more detail. It does puzzle me as to why the many glaring flaws in Vista & W7 compared to XP are missed or glossed over by so many people. Perhaps people assume newer must be better, or are overawed by the Aero interface, who knows.
Things I prefer about Vista/W7? I like the Segoe UI size 9 font, it works better than the default XP font and I have adopted it for use on my Windows XP system. I also adopted a basic Windows Vista theme to get the nicer Vista icons and the black taskbar and titlebar which is more pleasing on the eye to me than the Fisher Price style default XP look.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2003
- Posts
- 6,107
- Location
- Chesterfield, UK
Requirements might have gone up but that's just keeping with the times. The memory foot is pretty small and you can run Windows 7 pretty much on any thing. Don't confuse 7 with Vista.
Broken or Worse, how so?
I am a software developer and have used all the Microsoft OS over the years. There is nothing broken in Windows 7, it's a very solid OS. The best yet.