I know this operating system is more than 10 years old, but I heard that there are still some hard core followers. OzGameShop has just dropped the price of Windows XP SP3 Home Edition OEM to $29.99 delivered.
Besides, it can be a cheap way to upgrade to Windows 8 Pro later ($40 before 31 Jan 2013 if I remembered correctly).
Or maybe he just knows how to use a computer?
I haven't had a virus for years.
Not so much a problem for consumers and personal users as most of us have moved on and for those few who are still using XP you will find that their system continuity is less critical.
Many corporations are still lagging forward with XP machines enitrely powering their IT infrastructure so this could be problematic for them in the near future if they don't upgrade to a newer OS.
People associate XP with their OLD computer, so these associations influence their perception of XP.
I don't know where the hate is for XP. What do you guys do on the computer that makes XP a bad choice and limiting? The main thing these days is the ability to use more ram with 64-bit versions of Windows, but then again XP sips far less RAM than the newer OSs so you have far more to use and probably far less incentive to go beyond 3GB.
So what is technically lacking in XP apart from this? Some new app or game you have can't run on it? I've never had any problems. No glassy effects?
Some other detail I'm not aware of that you can appreciate in the newer OS? To me, the OS slips away into nothingness once the apps I want are loaded on the machine and the special fx for the mums and dads looking to buy a new computer on the showroom floor are turned off.
What is lacking in XP? Probably only the fact that Microsoft don't encourage it on new machines from their major partners, so you don't associate it with 'new' or 'fast'.
Or am I missing something? :)
One major limitation of XP was that it could only use a maximum of ~3Gbytes of memory (I'm talking the 32bit version here, which is the one almost everyone has/had). Not a limitation to everyone, but programs and games are getting bigger all the time.
Another major limitation of XP was that it was a virus magnet. When XP was written, a lot of the code in it was quite old, and much of it undocumented. Much of the code was written before Microsoft got serious about computer viruses. I believe this is why Vista took such a long time to come out - Microsoft decided they weren't going to use legacy code, and re-created EVERYTHING from scratch. XP probably CAN'T be made virus-proof, MS have even admitted in court that they are aware of thousands of unpatched security holes.
Another limitation is that Microsoft have stopped releasing DirectX for XP. The latest games often require the latest version of DirectX, and it just doesn't exist for XP.
Win7 has lots of extra features too, which aren't just eye-candy. Drive indexing comes to mind.
Yep, I mentioned 3GB thing. But then again for all but specialised uses, this is not a problem, and the 64bit version of XP was around for anything else, just far rarer and probably far less compatible too because of that. I've only seen it in the wild once, but all that is down to Microsoft, and for most users again, 32 bit was not a problem. Neither was it with 32 bit releases of Windows Vista and Windows 7, which are just now starting to get rare.
But my point is XP is not really lacking anything technical in nature that would make it a dinosuar, aside from Microsoft trying to kill it forcefully several times by abandoning certain (small) things or hyping useless features like Readyboost in the shiny New Things which they have wanted to foist on the masses in an effort to make them upgrade (or making exclusive non-essential apps for them while abandoning the other). Of course software gets bigger as time goes on and that old machine starts to chug on the bigger code, which is the main reason people upgrade (and of course they know and forecast for this).
Drive Indexing I always turn off (along with so many other useless services), but I think Microsoft know this doesn't bring in the masses, but of course some will benefit from it. But it's hardly worth writing home about.
I see the most innovation happening with third-party apps and the blazing speed of newer hardware and the different devices (tablets, phones, etc) to fill different needs, which of course makes Windows look good and disguises the relative (to the rest of the industry) stagnation we have seen in Windows over the last decade.
Regarding virus magnet talk, I can't say any of the new stuff is any less immune (anecdotally speaking). Vista and 7 suffer just as much spyware/adware infestations as XP as far as I can tell, and probably expect more as the programmers target it more and become more familiar. I have yet to be convinced (being the guy who fixes others machines in my circle and seeing plenty of newer OSs just as borked ;) Though we often hear that the newer stuff is more secure every time the newer stuff is released (we heard the same thing with XP, remember).
W7 is definitely more secure than XP thanks to ASLR, UAC, kernel patch protection, etc. Sure there are exploits that attempt to bypass the new protection mechanisms, but not all malware can. You're much more exposed with XP.
I think drive indexing is fantastic. Searching for files is way, way quicker.
I ran XP64 for a while. It never got off the ground - it's best to pretend it never existed. It was EOL'ed by MS in 2007.
You'll be surprised at how frugal W7 is when it comes to specs. Two of the laptops at work are Thinkpad X31s from 2003 - they run W7 fine. One of my previous laptops was a Core Solo with 1GB RAM - it ran W7 very well too.
Of course, if you're happy with XP, then by all means stick with it. Depending on how the computer is used, there may be little incentive to go through the hassle of upgrading. However when picking a new OS for a computer, I would never recommend XP today.
"But my point is XP is not really lacking anything technical in nature that would make it a dinosuar"
As time goes on, this is exactly where XP will start to fall behind. It is already falling behind in terms of new technical features that people are starting to take for granted, not to mention different UI changes that people are starting to get used to. Off the top of my head, I can think of many features that Vista/7 have that XP will never get, such as TRIM support, drive indexing, driver model overhaul eg hot loading and unloading of graphics drivers, memory model changes, ASLR, UAC, as well as many new kernel features that will come in Windows 8 such as app restore. These are all at the kernel level and it is very unlikely XP will be updated for any of those features.
That's not mentioning the fact that software that interact with the kernel through windows APIs will no longer interact with the old interfaces in the future. Right now they do, because XP is still very popular, but as old calls are deprecated in the future, software developers will no longer wish to maintain code that specifically calls old API calls rather than the new ones. Games already do this, and I think Photoshop will no longer support XP because developers wish to move forward. It's the same thing as Mac apps only supporting Lion or Snow Leopard, for example.
"Drive Indexing I always turn off (along with so many other useless services), but I think Microsoft know this doesn't bring in the masses, but of course some will benefit from it. But it's hardly worth writing home about."
Why is that? It's a negligible hit in performance normally but a huge increase when searching. Also sure, it's not a killer feature, but all the new ones add up.
Heaps of reasons not to be on XP these days if you are using modern hardware and software. Russ mentions a few which are the main factors. Personally I want to be able to play the latest games (which are often using DX 10/11) and use the latest software which can make use of over 4GB RAM (and it's more like a limit of 3GB on XP 32-bit). If an older game can't run on Win 7 then I'm not too worried as games like those I play on my classic games machine which runs Win 98 for even better 90's gaming support :D
Other than that there are factors people look for in Win 7 like vastly better support for new hardware which in turn leads to the ability to use faster hardware to run currently supported programs people require for whatever it is they are doing whether it's work or play. Proper SSD support isn't implemented on XP either.
Even the most basic user can benefit from 7's superior security and update schedule. On the GUI side of things I couldn't care less between the two, I turn off aero on 7.
I can appreciate some people don't want to move on cause it still does the job fine for them, and I can also appreciate the fact that XP doesn't deserve any hate just because it's older, but XP is certainly lacking in support for current configurations and programs that a lot of people do want to run ;)
To those that don't then go ahead, hell I upgraded the first PC I ever built from 98 to XP and still keep it around today because it can still do so much!
What I've come across in the past is trying to fix (serious) problems on someone's computer with an OLD xp disc, which can't detect newer hardware after reformatting.
But as techies know, slipstreaming more modern drivers on an XP disc makes her good again and no normal user has to be faced with this, and it's not something that Vista or 7 will be immune to as someone pulls out a dusty Windows Vista DVD on newer hardware either…
You probably have a point when it comes to gaming, I haven't done the gaming thing on Windows in ages (sometimes miss it), but there are pros and cons on both sides here, I would imagine (new OS compatibility with existing games, etc). I don't know how graceful (or not) gaming is on XP with most modern games and/or just what eyecandy the user misses out on, or if the game will even play at all.
I've read up a little on SSD and XP, but as far as I can tell it's supported by Intel and other SSD drive makers with suitable 2012 drivers. A quick search on Intel's Support section shows that. Shouldn't that take care of wear-levelling concerns? I doubt they'd support XP if it meant more returns.
Basically everything has drivers for XP. I can't think of one notable thing that doesn't have more mature and stable drivers for XP, which makes sense given the time it's been out.
Microsoft has to abandon certain things on XP in order to finally put it to rest, I guess, but it's far from a dinosaur given the support it's had over the past decade plus, even today.
And there has been comparatively little done to convince the masses to switch, aside from the fact that the biggest PC companies are forced to ship their new stuff with a new Windows OS and a few 'abandonware' odds and ends.
Gaming actually might be the biggest reason to me; I'll have to look into how bad gaming is on XP these days, but I can't imagine it to be that bad.
XP does not support TRIM, which is necessary for SSDs to function well. You could rely on garbage collection if you have long periods of inactivity, but OS-level TRIM support is definitely better.
I find the new Start menu on Vista/W7 far quicker than XP. I can very quickly run programs by hitting the start button my keyboard and typing the first few letters of the program's name. It seemed pointless when I first switched to Vista from XP, but I definitely can't go back now.
Yeah was about to say TRIM which imo means it doesn't "properly" support SSD's. Without TRIM say goodbye to your SSD speed after a few months.
Most companies do still support XP for drivers but as to whether that support is as good or not is another debate, and then there is the fact no doubt they won't be supporting their devices at all in the not too distant future. For example while many users around the world may still run XP that doesn't mean it's worthwhile creating XP drivers for the latest $400 mobo and $600 GPU if <0.1% of users buying said products were going to then go ahead and use them with XP.
RE gaming, XP doesn't support the last two iterations of DirectX which means any game not using DirectX 9 or earlier won't play at all. Most new games can still run in DX 9 mode but have the capability to run in the superior DX 10/11 modes if your OS and GPU support it. Also more and more games are making use of more RAM and your stuck with around 3GB on XP which is the bare minimum for modern games these days imo.
Other than those things there are all sorts of handy additions and updates to 7 that I can't think of because I now take them for granted!
I use the built-in snipping tool all the time. It's an unbelievably handy tool that's free and on every W7 computer (except w7 basic I think), which makes it very convenient.
I use shift-winkey-left/right all the time too - it moves the active window to your other monitor(s). Winkey-left/right snaps the active window to the left/right halves of your monitor too - very useful for comparing specs or referring to something while typing.
All these little things make all the difference. You can hop onto any W7 computer and use all these shortcuts without having to install third party software.
I use shift-winkey-left/right all the time too - it moves the active window to your other monitor(s). Winkey-left/right snaps the active window to the left/right halves of your monitor too - very useful for comparing specs or referring to something while typing.
You just changed my life :-D
I was like wide mouthed when I found out you could do that with keyboard shortcuts. And here I've been dragging windows all this time getting RSI..
One other thing, for users still wanting all of the basics on an older computer without compromising their security I would recommend trying linux out. Far more secure on the net, plenty of distro's that work with slower CPU's and less RAM but best of all it's free along with many of the programs that run on it :)
Nearly 50% of people are still using XP (I'm one of them). Windows 7 only just surpassed XP market share this month.
50% of australians？
If 50% of people were driving cars over 20 years old does that mean people should be looking at buying one now?
What percentage of new machines are XP would make more sense.
please let it die, it came out 11 years ago.
…and is still supported by just about everyone to this day owing to its massive worldwide penetration (companies can't afford to not have something work on XP, basically).
Purchasing windows XP is not a bargain at any price. It is almost EOL, It's like paying for a movie ticket half way through a movie. 10 year old software should be $2.99 not $29.99.
No way I'd connect a windows XP machine to the internet and do anything even vaguely important on it.
I still use xp…
Why wouldn't you connect XP to the net?
Everyone talks of how old it is since the first version came out. Well it's had years of support since then. Is it still considered 'unsafe' and 'old'?
They also forget that you can update it to sp3 totally offline if you want (just download sp3 and save it). If that makes you feel safer (doesn't to me). Common sense and a free antivirus and better browser with ad-blocker add-on go a long way.
It is not less secure than any of the newer Windows versions, in my opinion. At least as far as my experience goes with the regular joe adware and spyware people tend to agree with by default and pick up.
And as time goes on, this newer stuff will be targeted more and the older stuff left alone. Just like Windows 98 was abandoned by most virus authors and spyware shops :)
Here again we have this assumption or irrational fear of the 'old' :D
Windows is inherently insecure by design but Windows XP is specifically - if you look at high profile vulnerabilities over the last few years the majority have been related to XP not Windows 7. Unlike unix like operating systems (Linux/OSX/Freebsd etc) there is no reliable privilege hierarchy which is by far the biggest issue - In XP the vast majority of users are logged in as a user with administrator permissions.
It is not less secure than any of the newer Windows versions, in my opinion.
You don't believe the numbers?
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/windows-7-more-malware-re…
I'm supposed to believe a recent security report by Microsoft, spouted on ZDNET? How objective do you think that will be?
Like I say, I see no real difference in spyware and adware, in the real world. Far from the propaganda arms of the firm and far from a publication beholden to their main sponsors.
Yes. They're more credible than numbers plucked out of thin air, or anecdotal evidence from a tiny sample size.
If you don't think ASLR, UAC, and kernel patch protection make any difference, well … go ahead and stay with XP then. You just shouldn't be spreading misinformation like that.
All I'm saying is I'm not seeing the tangibles in the real world. Average users are infected many different and simpler ways these days, and I can massage any figures to make whatever I'm selling look good, just like that study you linked to was linked to the very vendor selling the OS!
I can't believe you'd take their word over what you see in the real world (or maybe you are seeing different things to me?) Microsoft have a vested interest in promoting any new OS they sell, remember? Who do you think paid for the study? My guess is Windows 8 will again be the last word in security.
And the relationship companies like Microsoft have with media outfits like ZDNET is incestuous of course: they both rely on each other to survive and thrive. If ZDNET wants early access to exclusives, write nice things about the hands that feeds you. If not, you're given the cold shoulder. Welcome to the world of marketing, and Microsoft is by no means the only company that knows good PR.
My real-world experiences are just that. Nobody I know is saying the latest Windows is so much more secure than the previous, so go get it. The usuals apply, like they always did: antivirus, better browser, ad-blocker, common sense.
More and more people are getting infected on websites these days, and many are getting lovely adware and spyware which escalates into full-blown problems despite any additional security measures new Windows versions claim to have. So in the end, are we seeing better security results? Without putting my lab coat on and cooking up some marketing figures out of thin air for the masses to swallow (because they were written on the vendor's website and linked from ZDNET), I'd have to disagree.
With all the extra stuff running under Win7 and so forth, I'd argue there's just far more potential for exploits.
But of course you won't hear that from Microsoft.
My main point is, you are basing the entire argument on anecdotal evidence from a small sample size, i.e. the computers you've seen.
I manage a fleet of XP and W7 (and very few Vista) computers and have seen more infections with XP. Conveniently, this matches up with what the rest of the internet thinks - if you googled forum posts (since you don't believe official stats), you'll find that the general consensus is that W7 is more secure than XP.
Have you looked into any of the new exploit mitigation features of W7? UAC, full ASLR, kernel patch protection, driver signature enforcement, etc? They may not make W7 100% secure, but they are additional hurdles that make exploits more difficult to write. XP is like having locks on your doors, W7 is like having locks on your doors and bars on your windows.
What may have cut it in terms of security back in 2001 no longer cuts it in 2012. The world has changed and attacks are all the more common - the industry has needed to get a lot more security conscious.
Even if we leave the win 7 is more secure than win xp debate behind the point still remains that windows xp is not very useful these days mainly because many developers have dropped support. Lack of direct X 10 is fairly major for one. As a developer it really annoys me that Windows XP is still around. Users who fail to embrace change are very bad for progress in the industry because they either:
a) Force developers to support older platforms making software more expensive and harder to support
b) Force developers to support older platforms limiting developers from making use of features in new operating systems meaning the user misses out on functionality
c) Experience bugs because they are using an outdated operating system that is untested by the developer then blame the developer for not supporting it.
A new, regularly updated operating system is way better for everyone - users and developers alike. You just need to look at how many years web developers had to support IE6 for before it finally died - if microsoft had forced more people off XP by dropping support sooner everyone would be better off.
On an unrelated note this deal was for an OEM version which is not legal to run unless purchased with a new system - as you are breaking the EULA you may as well pirate it…
Bought a copy an hour ago. I shall install this on a separate HDD on my new PC and play older games on it. I can finally have EAX 5 Advanced HD features without Alchemy on my Creative X-Fi Elite Pro again!!!
It's been out of stock since this morning, how the heck did you buy one an hour ago?
Prolly bought the pro ver. thats still in stock for $70? Or maybe they thought they did…? O_o
When I checked a couple of hours ago it said hurry last one left in stock
Ive got a bunch of OEM copies of XP, can't remember if they were pro or home…If anybody is keen for some flick me a email. [email protected]
Happy to post or pickup.
The reason not to use XP/Vista is simple, the UI sucks. 7 was the first half decent OS simply because they blatantly ripped of the OS X dock.
I agree with you about XP but I disagree about Vista. I think Vista's UI was a huge step up from XP and I dislike what they did to the taskbar in 7.
Vista is my favourite Windows.
7 blatantly ripped off the OSX dock?
I think you are to much of a fan boy mate.
Not in looks, but functionality, yes.
Yeah you can keep on believing that if you want to.
I received my copy of Windows XP today. I am very disappointed because it should have been a sealed OEM copy with Certificate of Authenticity and a booklet.
Instead, I got a Dell recovery CD with a mangled serial key label that looked like it had been pried off a public school PC.
Has anyone else received theirs yet?
EDIT: The below link is what my CD looks like. I won't bother showing you the mangled serial key because that's private lol!
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cV4PYHe7pfQ/TRdZuqkXA4I/AAAAAAAACD…
Thanks for being part of the bot-net! I love all those emails you keep sending me! (/sarcasm off)
Seriously, your PC was probably infected if it was connected to the internet. Most viruses and bot-nets don't noticeably affect or slow your computer, or you'd do something about it. They like to stay "under the radar".