Why do you still use Windows XP?

In message
,
Industrial One writes:
Give your reasons.

Do you plan to upgrade ever? If so, when and why?

At present, I have no plans to change (I wouldn't use the word
"upgrade"); however, I'm not wedded to not doing so.

If you use both XP and 7, do you ever plan on ditching XP for good?

I can't honestly answer that as I _don't_ have 7; however I'm in the
slightly unusual position of having had a 7 machine for 4 to 6 weeks (we
were buying a new PC for a non-computer-minded person, and we decided
[since she was/is unlikely to change again for many years] that a 7
machine was probably more future-proof. I was to "set it up" for her). I
found 7 not at all as hard to get on with as I expected; I found the
search-box-in-lots-of-places actually quite useful, in contrast to what
lots of people have found: possibly I found that the search function
actually worked better than I expected.

I will agree that they seem to have "moved the furniture around", as
someone else in this thread has put it, for the usual little good
reason. I also find the eye candy spurious, though not actually
irritating. (I have certainly noticed, from Windows 3.x on, that as
monitors have got higher resolution, icons etc. have got bigger and more
complex, so that the number on the average screen remains about the
same! And colour schemes have got more and more pastel - initially
that's because they could, originally there being only 16 colours, but I
genuinely find the default text colours in lots of Office 2010 - which
we've just moved to at work - harder to read, as they seem to be a
mid-grey. [I know I'm speaking of Office 2010, but it shares much of the
philosophy of Windows 7, IMO.])

What will you do when support is dropped to the point where this OS
will be problematic with new hardware?

Probably switch. That's what moved me from '9x to XP - though I went out
of my way to find an XP machine rather than, as was becoming the norm
when I bought this machine (netbook), Vista. (I think that's recognised
as wise in hindsight!) It was getting just too much hard work to make
new kit work with '9x (or to find kit that would).

I'm not a must-have-every-latest-gadget person, which is possibly why I
was able to stay with '9x for as long as I did. Similarly, I don't need
the latest in software tricks - particularly games, though unlike many
old-OSers, I don't have antagonism for those who _do_ enjoy games.

I must admit that XP seems a lot more stable (once I'd stopped using the
latest video driver that is buggy), though as another has said, 98
crashes were rarely catastrophic.

Personally I'm waiting for Windows 8 to release a second service pack.
XP sucked when it first came out until SP1. Even then, I find the

Certainly, each version - 3, 95, (98 to a lesser extent,) XP - have
always been better after a service pack or three.

Actually my own philosophy - though I'm not actually as organised as
this implies - is that the OS to have _for me_ is the one Microsoft are
trying to kill off; it's been around a long time, and there is a huge
body of people who know how to beat it into submission. XP is more or
less in that position; '98 was, maybe four or five years ago.

moron-babysitting idiot trend really annoying. It took me forever to
figure out how to shut off that piece of **** UAC on Win7 because
simply disabling it didn't work, it had to enabled then disabled to be
disabled for real. Sigh...

For us, yes. But for the ever-increasing numbers of new computer users
(at least I _think_ it's still increasing), such protection from self is
perhaps desirable - and it's for them that new OSs are mostly being
written. (Plus, as well, there's the move towards walled gardens like
the app. store, and the cloud, and similar; I dislike these trends as
much as anyone here, but there are sound commercial incentives driving
them. And many people new to computing, especially those who think they
have no use or want for a computer, it's what they want: I wonder, are
there more Apple users - including of those computers that pretend to be
telephones - than Linux users?)

Remember, half the population is of below-average intelligence ...

There, that's probably stirred things up a lot, especially with the
cross-post ... (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Rule 46, Oxford Union Society, London: Any member introducing a dog into the
Society's premises shall be liable to a fine of one pound. Any animal leading a
blind person shall be deemed to be a cat.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in
:

Remember, half the population is of below-average intelligence ...

There, that's probably stirred things up a lot, especially with the
cross-post ... (-:


I'll just go with that bit... more than half, if it's a bell curve. If it's a
sharp thornlike peak, much more than half.

The cloud/walled garden thing is what bothers me. It was never really so much
what OS we choose, but why we choose it. Choose one to live by, is my advice.
Make it home. Otherwise it will always someone else's home. Anyone who is
unaware of the perils of the walled garden should watch an X-File called
'Arcadia'. Never mind the tulpa bit, those CC&R's are REALLY scary.
That's where 'trusted computing' will lead. We have to figure this out for
ourselves. Even stupid people are expected to look and cross the road in a
manner that protects their own safety. If this were not so, then everyone
else, smart and stupid alike, would be diving into traffic like lemmings off
a cliff, trying to save those who won't save themselves.

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:13:34 -0600, Lostgallifreyan
wrote:

The cloud/walled garden thing is what bothers me. It was never really so much
what OS we choose, but why we choose it. Choose one to live by, is my advice.
Make it home. Otherwise it will always someone else's home.

I think you're in the tiny minority, though. Most people use
applications, not an OS, so endless OS customizing isn't something
most people are interested in. Does it do what they need? If so, then
they use it and move on. Most people I deal with couldn't care less
which version of Windows is running, as long as they can do what they
want to do, such as get their email and Facebook updates.

IMHO, of course, based on what I see.

Char Jackson wrote in
:

I think you're in the tiny minority, though. Most people use
applications, not an OS, so endless OS customizing isn't something
most people are interested in. Does it do what they need?

That specifically is true, but think through the implications. People expect
what they pay for to last, especially these days that Europe looks like
splitting up or dragging the OS down with it. People have been sold a
disposable way of life and come to realise how extreme the cost is.

If an OS fails to support their applications they won't use it. That cuts
both ways! It's not just about programs that won't run on W98 anymore, if
people are forced into expenses they can't afford, they will keep their
programs, and reject any new OS that fails to run them. So if people dig
their heels in a bit, they will not only protect themselves, but the rest or
us too.

If people believe promises more than the reality in front of them when it
comes to technical stuff, we're in trouble. We've already sleepwalked into a
global financial nightmare. How many more nightmares must we walk into before
we wake up?

Lostgallifreyan wrote in
:

dragging the OS

US... I guess that particular typo comes with the territory.

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Char Jackson wrote in
:

I think you're in the tiny minority, though. Most people use
applications, not an OS, so endless OS customizing isn't something
most people are interested in. Does it do what they need?

That specifically is true, but think through the implications. People
expect
what they pay for to last, especially these days that Europe looks like
splitting up or dragging the OS down with it. People have been sold a
disposable way of life and come to realise how extreme the cost is.

If an OS fails to support their applications they won't use it. That cuts
both ways! It's not just about programs that won't run on W98 anymore, if
people are forced into expenses they can't afford, they will keep their
programs, and reject any new OS that fails to run them. So if people dig
their heels in a bit, they will not only protect themselves, but the rest
or
us too.

If people believe promises more than the reality in front of them when it
comes to technical stuff, we're in trouble. We've already sleepwalked into
a
global financial nightmare. How many more nightmares must we walk into
before
we wake up?

Now,now, was that a rhetorical question??? (I, for one, already know the
answer, based on my observations of mankind over time)

"Bill in Co" wrote in
:

If people believe promises more than the reality in front of them when
it comes to technical stuff, we're in trouble. We've already
sleepwalked into a
global financial nightmare. How many more nightmares must we walk into
before
we wake up?

Now,now, was that a rhetorical question??? (I, for one, already know
the answer, based on my observations of mankind over time)



No. Practical. Specific to the notion of human development using technology.

Want a really BIG example of why this matters? Tech is runnijg so fast ahead
of people's willingness to catch up that thry put blind trust in in it like
in a preisthood. Meanwhile (as Radio 4 on the BBC recently aired a program
about) some smart kid knowing little more that basic electronics and with 400
bucks to spend on eBay can get a gene sequencer together and make self-
replicating, modified biological organisms. Never mind computer virus, this
is the real deal! people REALLY need to wake up, or the price will be a LOT
heavier than paying some big firm for a 'solution'.

Never mind that people find it hard. Technology hasn;t softened our world,
Easy oil has done that. When it runs out, life will be as tough as it ever
was before. Maybe tougher, because all we did was built reasons to understand
our lack of control as well as merely having them thrust on us as before.

The idea that we are bound to extinction has been with us a long time, but
now we have means that make nukes irrelevant. Same goes for border crossing,
etc. it may be that 'waking up' to all this won't save us from our own
disasters, but acting like the future will magivcally make solutions in clean
white shiny boxes sure as hell won't. This is true for little computer apps
and big nasty outbreaks of lab-engineered diseases too.

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:34:31 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

STILL USE XP????

I still use Win98.
I never liked XP, and never used it on my home computer. It came on my
laptop, and I found that the built in wifi dont work with anything
earlier. But that computer is just for use on the road. I can run
firefox and agent. Thats all I need on the road.

I can tolrate Win2000, but nothing later.

----
Alcoholics Anonymous - Created Under the Influence of Belladonna & LSD

In ,
wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:34:31 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

STILL USE XP????

I still use Win98.

How? While I still have a warm spot in my heart for Windows 3.1, 95, and
98, although I cannot use them for about the last 10 years or so. Lack
of drivers is probably the worst. And lack of application support is
probably number two. Another problem with Windows 98 that really
bothered me was constantly running out of System Resources. How do you
put up with that?

Windows 2000 was a godsend. That Resource problem disappeared, but it
was a slow bloated pig on a Celeron 400MHz with 192MB of RAM (maxed out)
on my Windows 98 machine. And Windows 2000 didn't normally need drivers
for such things like USB devices like Windows 98 always did. But Windows
98 really did play DVD movies really well even on modest machines. Only
if Linux could do so well.

I never liked XP, and never used it on my home computer. It came on
my laptop, and I found that the built in wifi dont work with anything
earlier. But that computer is just for use on the road. I can run
firefox and agent. Thats all I need on the road.

I can tolrate Win2000, but nothing later.

I never liked the early XP. But around 2005, I thought it was ready for
primetime and I loved it ever since. And with SP2 and SP3, I believe
Microsoft really did a very good job with XP (and it had taken them long
enough). And I believe Microsoft made a huge mistake marketing-wise with
XP by making it so good.

As earlier versions of Windows, always lacked a *must* have feature that
made me to want to upgrade. Although Vista and Windows 7 doesn't have
any must have features that I need. And I believe this is true of
millions of others as well. And thus Microsoft made XP too good.

Windows 3.1 lacked long file support. Time to upgrade.

Windows 95 lacked USB support. Time to upgrade.

Windows 98 lacked unlimited System Resources and limited USB support.
Time to upgrade.

Windows 2000 does very well, but lacked the support that XP enjoys. And
Windows 2000 is more focused on business use rather than consumer use.

Windows XP does everything I want to do and run.

Vista and Windows 7 takes a step backwards for me. As they run less
applications and has less driver support than XP has. Plus Vista and
Windows 7 runs slower than crap on a single core CPU (they really need
multi-core machines to run well). Plus they don't run games as well
either as well as XP can.

I say this after having three Windows 7 machines too. And I updated two
of them back to XP once again. ;-)

"We're thinking about upgrading from SunOS 4.1.1 to SunOS 3.5." -- Henry
Spencer

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

"BillW50" wrote in :

I still use Win98.

How? While I still have a warm spot in my heart for Windows 3.1, 95, and
98, although I cannot use them for about the last 10 years or so. Lack
of drivers is probably the worst. And lack of application support is
probably number two. Another problem with Windows 98 that really
bothered me was constantly running out of System Resources. How do you
put up with that?


Easily. Run code that does not wastefully consume them, and which returns
them properly to be used again. W98 had a huge base of software. Shortage was
never the problem. Drivers can be a problem, but even there ways can be
found. Sound Forge and Cakewalk and many other things like LnS firewall all
depend on their own drivers). Same goes for decent hardware, the maker
usually supports it with their opwn driver. If maker doesn't care enough to
do that, it's a BAD idea to use their hardware anyway.

Last but not at ALL least, W98 SE can be small, stable, fast, and it's a 32
bit OS with an extremely powerful API. The advances from W98 SE till now are
small, incremental, compared to the jump between DOS and W98 SE. W98 won't
ever become useless, even if the distant future sees lots of people still
around with decent living standards, and fast computers that make today's
stuff look like 1980's gear, there will still be people running W98 on a
virtual machine because it does what they want.

The only current development likely to make W98 anythign like obsolete is the
huge growth in ARM chips instead of i386 chips. And this doesn't apply to
desktop machines.