After XP....

[Magnum]

How accurate are these comments.

|

Code Select Expand

After XP, Windows got SSSSLLLOOOOOWWW.

  That makes sense. There's a lot more running on
NT6 by default, and Win8 adds the Metro mess,
which seems to need a multi-core CPU and 1 GB
RAM just to sit there.

  Some may remember the scandal and court case
around "Vista Capable", which is a good example of
what NT6 takes to run:

Microsoft was planning Vista as a bloated mess that
would require people to buy new computers. That
was great for the OEMs. MS warned them to make
sure they were ready, with more powerful machines
that could handle Vista. As it turned out, the minimum
Intel chipset that could handle the Aero techno-kitsch
GUI was the 945. But Intel had truckloads of their 915
chipset that they wanted to dump. Finally MS decided
to create Vista Capable as a second "approved for Vista"
logo to go on machines that couldn't handle Vista. Then
OEMs could install Vista with no Aero on those machines,
and Intel could sell off their 915s. There was lots of
confusion. All the more so given that the new GUI was
the only notable selling point of Vista in the first place.
It had been 6 years coming, after the total failure of their
plan to create Windows as an even more bloated .Net
OS, yet it wasn't even really needed.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/2008/02/27/full-text-microsoft-execs-on-vista-problems/

[dedndave]

each version of windows is typically slower than the preceding one
well - windows 7 seems ok, for the most part

but, yah....
the chip manufacturers, computer manufacturers, and software manufacturers all
work together to make sure everyone has to upgrade, somewhere along the line

if you go back in time a little, windows 98 was pretty fast
windows 95 was really fast

but, you can't find windows 95-compatible drivers for todays hardware
anymore than you can make yesterdays' hardware run windows 7

planned obsolesence is how they make money
if everyone was happy running windows 95 on a pentium III, they would be out of business

[Magnum]

each version of windows is typically slower than the preceding one
well - windows 7 seems ok, for the most part

but, yah....
the chip manufacturers, computer manufacturers, and software manufacturers all
work together to make sure everyone has to upgrade, somewhere along the line

So, corporate greed.

if you go back in time a little, windows 98 was pretty fast
windows 95 was really fast

but, you can't find windows 95-compatible drivers for todays hardware
anymore than you can make yesterdays' hardware run windows 7

planned obsolesence is how they make money
if everyone was happy running windows 95 on a pentium III, they would be out of business

[sinsi]

A friend and I built our computers at the same time, with the same parts (Q6600, 8GB, 1TB). He bought Vista 64, I stuck with XP, thinking it would fly on the new box. After enduring the taunts for a couple of weeks, I went out and bought Vista too.

On good hardware, Vista was streets ahead of XP - booted in half the time, programs started faster, overall faster.
Now, I use Windows 8 on two SSDs, power-on to usable in about 8 seconds. Even with the fast boot tricks Win8 uses turned off, boot time is around 15 seconds.

There is a trick to getting updates still for XP, you pretend your copy of XP is POS (embedded XP). Supposed to be good for 5 years of updates.
Now that the hack is out there, watch Microsoft somehow disable it...

[dedndave]

a friend of ours wanted to buy a new computer
she had been running a real dinosaur
originally a win 98 machine, running XP - painfully slow
anyways, she wanted me to advise a little bit (moral support - lol)
she's a bit elderly - "checks her e-mail, looks at religious stuff, signs off" kind of user

we went out to a few hardware stores in the Phoenix area
we couldn't find any machines with win7 on them - you have to buy win8
she wasn't ready to make that step - and i don't blame her

we found a decent used machine on Amazon with win7-64 pro (cd included)
we got her a new monitor at one of the local stores
came up running - and she's happy as hell

probably not much different from what i would do for myself
i'm actually a little pissed that ms is forcing people to buy win8
win7 seems like a decent os

[Gunther]

Dave,

i'm actually a little pissed that ms is forcing people to buy win8
win7 seems like a decent os

but that's MS policy since decades. That's not new.

Gunther

[dedndave]

win7 was a good os
and, it was short-lived
they released win8 before anyone wanted or needed the next os

[KeepingRealBusy]

I'm still on 7 on my laptop, wife is still on XP on my old AMD system (dual core, 4GB memory) - both run fine.

Dave.

[Gunther]

Dave,

win7 was a good os

no doubt about it.

they released win8 before anyone wanted or needed the next os

This is the curse of the evil deed, as the poet says.

Gunther

[TouEnMasm]

After XP ?
He is not dead.Just change Internet Explorer.
I have XP and installed google Navigator (google chrome).
This navigator is faster,actual,and offer more than the Internet explorer.
The google one can translate a web page,not the Internet Explorer.
Slow ?
Seems that microsoft is more interested to sale new OS (Windows 9 is in prepare)
than to give the best performance.

[Magnum]

If Windows 7 and 8 are faster than XP, I would be interested in seeing some test results from both systems using the timing code that I saw around here.

Proof in in the pudding.