Why is it that...?

[djbon2112]

...Ubuntu people seem to LOVE Windows XP? It just seems a lot of people are Ubuntu + XP, or are comparing the speed of this and that to XP. But I don't get how ANYONE could like that piece of garbage... We had to suffer with it for 6 years and people STILL won't give it up!? It's from 2001. That's 8 years old! It's an outdated, buggy train wreck that barely works at the best of times and is a security nightmare at the worst of times!

I loved what Microsoft did with Vista and 7. Definitely a step in the right direction. It won't move me back from Linux (at least not on my laptop), but it's given me a bit of respect for Microsoft again. It's time for XP to disappear like 98 before it. Anyone else agree?

[dragos240]

It's opinion. Some people have things that NEED windows to run, like photoshop, or games, or other things. I don't.

[djbon2112]

It's opinion. Some people have things that NEED windows to run, like photoshop, or games, or other things. I don't.

I don't mean Windows in general, I mean Windows XP specifically. I love 7, and Vista was pretty good (better than XP IMO). I'm just wondering what makes XP so "great"? I hated it when it was the only kid in town, and I definitely hate it now!

[dragos240]

It's well.... faster. Vista uses 1 GB of memory, 7 Uses 2, and XP uses 512MB. See the difference?

[ElSlunko]

IMO, it ran applications better. More of my systems resources were used for my applications rather than my OS.

[djbon2112]

It's well.... faster. Vista uses 1 GB of memory, 7 Uses 2, and XP uses 512MB. See the difference?

Memory that isn't being used is memory wasted. Windows Vista and 7 use it to cache applications and files. And when you need it, they free it up. I didn't know that FUD was still going around...

[NoaHall]

Vista does not use anywhere near 1GB if you run it right. 7 is the same. XP doesn't use as much as 512MB, either.

[Paqman]

I use Windows solely as a gaming platform, so for me XP is good stuff. It's lightweight, boots quickly and everything runs well on it. The horrid old interface isn't an issue, as i'm only in it long enough to launch my game, and security isn't a biggy either, as I could probably count the number of servers I connect to on one hand. Why spend money on a copy of Vista or Win7 that's just going to run my games slower?

[-grubby]

It's well.... faster. Vista uses 1 GB of memory, 7 Uses 2, and XP uses 512MB. See the difference?

Windows 7 uses less RAM than Vista does. Fact.

[Crunchy the Headcrab]

It's well.... faster. Vista uses 1 GB of memory, 7 Uses 2, and XP uses 512MB. See the difference?

That's not really true. Vista/7 use more memory if you have more memory to optimise performance. It's basic computing, ram is faster than an loading off the hdd. Thus you get better performance by actually using your ram instead of letting it sit there empty. Obviously if you had a ton of ram for video editing or something intense like that, you might use it all up, but most people with 3Gig+ don't come anywhere near using it all even in Vista/7.

Anyway, probably the reason that so many people are still attached to XP is because Vista never really caught on in the business place/schools. In fact, a lot of companies that make specialized programs never even bothered to port them to anything greater than XP. A lot of the people on these forums that use XP probably use it because they are business or IT professionals and it's what they use the most. As for me, I like Seven or even Vista better than xp, but a lot of other people just like XP for whatever reason. So a lot of it just comes down to preference also.

I like to think the reason that people got so attached to XP was because it was a vast improvement over 98, which was pure garbage. (I'm intentionally ignoring win me, etc.)

[SomeGuyDude]

UF users are anti-Vista. As a function of this, that means pretending that XP was the best version of Windows, so as to further denigrate Microsoft in a "they had a decent product and ruined it" kind of way.

When users like me point out that Vista worked way better for them, it gets ignored by and large.

[Crunchy the Headcrab]

For the record. I loved Vista and the only thing that made me angry was that I was going to have to pay to upgrade to 7 so soon after purchasing it.

[BuffaloX]

I once used Vista for 15 minutes, then I had no patience for it anymore.
What a load of cr4p.

I tried to be open minded and patient, but the number of annoyances are staggering.

Constant permission requests.
Programs separately asking for updates.
Hard to find programs in the start menu.
Extremely slow reboot times, even on a very high end laptop.

The driver problem I was asked to fix was easy, but I never want to touch Vista again.

Maybe 7 is better, but that doesn't take much, and to think MS spend billions making Vista, what a joke.

[Crunchy the Headcrab]

I once used Vista for 15 minutes, then I had no patience for it anymore.


I tried to be open minded and patient.
Sure sounds like it.



Extremely slow reboot times, even on a very high end laptop.


Not on mine. It booted very fast...for a windows product.

[SomeGuyDude]

Maybe 7 is better, but that doesn't take much, and to think MS spend billions making Vista, what a joke.

It's partly because Linux users take it as an unwritten agreement that YOU are responsible for making things work. If some plugins are missing, you install them. A driver isn't right, find a workaround.

MS is trapped by having to make an OS that works for everyone on every machine with no need for user interaction. So it turns into a bloated behemoth.

[djbon2112]

I once used Vista for 15 minutes...

Constant permission requests.
Programs separately asking for updates.
Hard to find programs in the start menu.
Extremely slow reboot times, even on a very high end laptop.


15 minutes... sounds like an "open-minded" chance! Considering the OS IS slow for the first week or so as it learns and caches your settings and programs, only to get better later.

FUD. It only asks for permission when installing something or changing settings. After the first week, once you have everything installed and set, it rarely ever asks you again. And blame programs for violating Windows safety standards, instead of blaming Microsoft for securing them.

Huh? Which programs? All mine update through Windows Update, except the ones that updated themselves under XP too.

As soon as you press it, type what program you want and press Enter. Voila, even quicker than a mouse.

Crapware. Reinstall it and it'll be better. Big virus scanners are especially bad.

...or, install 7, since it fixes these "issues" by being even better.

[Nerd King]

I like Windows 7. I dislike Vista. However, XP makes more sense as my Windows OS as it runs the programs I need. XP runs my games, I don't let it go online so the security issues are negligible. XP is an excellent part-time OS, but if I was on Windows full-time it'd be windows 7.

[BuffaloX]

It's partly because Linux users take it as an unwritten agreement that YOU are responsible for making things work. If some plugins are missing, you install them. A driver isn't right, find a workaround.

MS is trapped by having to make an OS that works for everyone on every machine with no need for user interaction. So it turns into a bloated behemoth.

Windows never did that for me, I always need extra drivers, except for pre-nstalled systems. So that's not it, but I'll grant you, that Linux has a reputation for being hard, so some problem solving is expected, and not seen as an unforeseen problem.
But for me, I just install Ubuntu, and everything works. I only need to make Theme changes, and install my favorite programs. But not everyone is so lucky.


15 minutes... sounds like an "open-minded" chance! Considering the OS IS slow for the first week or so as it learns and caches your settings and programs, only to get better later.


This install was several months old, they just switched to wireless.
The machine was only used for gaming and internet, surprisingly no weird stuff was on it.
There is no excuse for the slow reboot time, for maintenance reboot is much more important than just boot time, but both shutdown and startup were pretty slow.



FUD. It only asks for permission when installing something or changing settings. After the first week, once you have everything installed and set, it rarely ever asks you again. And blame programs for violating Windows safety standards, instead of blaming Microsoft for securing them.


I downloaded and installed a driver, and changed some settings, every single step of this operation required confirmation.



Huh? Which programs? All mine update through Windows Update, except the ones that updated themselves under XP too.


Yep XP has the same problem, doesn't make it OK for Vista to have it too.
The programs were Norton something, Acrobat reader, Firefox, and some I don't remember.



As soon as you press it, type what program you want and press Enter. Voila, even quicker than a mouse.


???



Crapware. Reinstall it and it'll be better. Big virus scanners are especially bad.


Do you want to remove virus scan on a Windows system, for a non tech user?
It did have some IE bar extension, which was I uninstalled.




...or, install 7, since it fixes these "issues" by being even better.


Can't possibly be worse. :P

[Crunchy the Headcrab]

Haha, you were running Norton? No wonder it was slow. For good antivirus without a huge cost to performance try Kaspersky.

[afeasfaerw23231233]

Why do you love Vista and Windows 7? They are all bloadted. In fact I hate all MS products.

[joebodo]

I decided to stay with XP based upon the numerous benchmark comparisons of XP and Vista. Vista was shown to be significantly slower in areas such as database operations and generally slower for just about everything else.

[hoppipolla]

I just dual-boot with it as it allows me to use Windows apps that don't work in Wine, and it also allows me to run games that don't work in Wine or a VM. I don't much care for it though which is why I am sitting here on Kubuntu :)

[BuffaloX]

Haha, you were running Norton? No wonder it was slow. For good antivirus without a huge cost to performance try Kaspersky.

Yes I think Norton sucks too, except I'm not up to date on the state of antivirus software for Windows.

Back in the days when I used antivirus, I think I would actually have preferred a couple of viruses over Norton. :P
Do they still have crashguard? What a joke. :rofl

I removed Norton after it annoyed me a couple of times. and installed AVG.
Maybe not much better, but much less annoying and it's gratis.

Anyways, my experience with this system, was that it was in my face constantly for the duration.
As a pure user experience I saw no improvement, only the contrary.
It may have minor improvements to the user, and maybe even major technological improvements, but the overall experience was horrendous.

Microsoft cannot be blamed for Norton or the other 3rd party programs, and I have to admit they were part of my problem, but the 3rd party programs are an important part of the complete system functionality seen from a user perspective, just as they are in Linux, and with Linux I don't have similar problems.

[CharlesA]

Generalize much?

I know that businesses have no reason to switch over to Vista or W7 if XP works for them. They are unable to justify the costs of "upgrading" to Vista or W7, be it due to hardware or license cost or training time.

Linux "zealots" try to shove a different OS down people's throats then whine when they don't want to use it. Linux isn't the "end-all, be-all" OS, it's a Windows world for the "average user," and said average user isn't going to want to spend the time to learn a new OS when their current one works fine for them.

I'm quite amazed with all the Windows bashing that goes on around here, sure it's a Linux forum, but still, right tool for the right job.


It's opinion. Some people have things that NEED windows to run, like photoshop, or games, or other things. I don't.


See this. ^

[Arthur_D]

I run some older games that won't work in versions newer than XP, or properly in Wine.

[djbon2112]

Generalize much?

I know that businesses have no reason to switch over to Vista or W7 if XP works for them. They are unable to justify the costs of "upgrading" to Vista or W7, be it due to hardware or license cost or training time.

Linux "zealots" try to shove a different OS down people's throats then whine when they don't want to use it. Linux isn't the "end-all, be-all" OS, it's a Windows world for the "average user," and said average user isn't going to want to spend the time to learn a new OS when their current one works fine for them.

I'm quite amazed with all the Windows bashing that goes on around here, sure it's a Linux forum, but still, right tool for the right job.

See this. ^

Well, I replied directly below him.

I'm not anti-Windows (I'm anti-Microsoft but I can still acknowledge that Windows is a good OS), but I don't know why so many people seem to LOVE XP over the (much better) recent choices (Vista, 7). And I'm not talking about businesses at all, but individual users. I know exactly why a lot of businesses are using XP, and I understand it completely.


I run some older games that won't work in versions newer than XP, or properly in Wine.

I'm just curious, which games? And have you heard of 7's Windows XP Mode? It fully emulates XP for the application to use.

[pelle.k]

I'm just curious, which games? And have you heard of 7's Windows XP Mode? It fully emulates XP for the application to use.
I'm running XP for gaming as well, and vista certainly doesn't cut it. W7 does so with little margin. But i see no reason to install W7 (in my case) when i know XP inside out. It works very well without tinkering (for gaming, that is).
Look at it this way, XP is the openbox (or whatever) of the windows world. It's the bare essentials, and it's fast. That said, i probably would run W7 if i was using it as my everyday machine. But i'm not. I'm dual booting for games and stuff.

[CharlesA]

I'm not anti-Windows (I'm anti-Microsoft but I can still acknowledge that Windows is a good OS), but I don't know why so many people seem to LOVE XP over the (much better) recent choices (Vista, 7). And I'm not talking about businesses at all, but individual users. I know exactly why a lot of businesses are using XP, and I understand it completely.

I see your point.

I know XP has been for a lot longer then Vista or 7, so maybe it's familiarity? I don't know tbh, I have to use XP at work and it sucks, but it's not due to XP, but due to the POS machines they have us using: P2 400MHz with 256MB RAM running XP Pro *shudder*

I didn't use Vista when it was released mostly due to bad media. I ended up grabbing it after I had to build a new machine. It's been running fine for me (after SP1) with no major problems.

I am looking forward to running Windows7 when I get it.

[Chronon]

I opted for XP because I had it on my previous desktop. It was a known factor. My brother had installed Vista and had a bad experience with it (difficulty with installing other OS side by side, IIRC), so I was gunshy about purchasing it since I knew my main OS was going to be some kind of GNU/Linux.

I have little interest in spending money on another version of Windows now.

[lisati]

I use Windows (both Vista and XP) for video editing and the occasional download, and Ubuntu for web-related stuff (email, surfing and the occasional download). Frankly I don't know what the anti-Vista sentiment one sees on the UF is all about - works well enough for me, sometimes even better than XP. Remember, a bad worker blames the tools.

[tacantara]

I run XP in a VM because it was the only version of Windows I had available when I decided to make Ubuntu my main OS (it replaced Vista Ultimate, which was factory installed on my laptop, hence no Windows retail disk/key). I now have a valid retail copy of Vista Basic, and I might go ahead and run it as a secondary VM. This way, when XP is no longer supported, I will have Vista to fall back on. Right now, XP works for what I need it for, regardless of its asynchronous status in the PC world. All I know is that I need some form of Windows for the very few things I run that have no suitable Linux alternative and/or will not run in Wine.

[misfitpierce]

Not all do. I left windows years ago and do not even run Wine to run windows apps. Its all a matter of preference and some use both because they still need XP for work etc or specific programming etc. It is compared to XP in some cases because XP runs smoother and lighter than Vista and 7 etc. Its all matter of preference.