Simple Hack Gives Windows XP Users 5 More Years Of Support

[RedQualia]

It will only be temporary imo, Microsoft will close the loophole. The title should read "Simple Hack Gives XP Users Something To Clutch At Straws With"

Intelligent people will (already have) just updrade(d) to Win 7+

totster

So, because some of us still use Xp you need to make wild assumptions about our intelligence --- your the man! Just for your information I dual boot 32 bit Xp SP3 with W7 Ultimate on my machine with most of my software available on both systems. Does that increase my rating?

My default and prefered OS is Xp SP3 and will remain that way into the foreseeable future.

Wow! You are AWESOME !! Dual booting eh?? Why do you persist on using outdated software ? As you say, most of your software is available on both, so what's the issue? I really hope you don't use your preferred OS for internet banking or any other data sensitive operation.

totster

The issues are first, that XP runs rings around Windoze 7, and second, that Windoze 7 has a serious, serious "designed by committee" feel, built on top of Vista. For now, I use Windoze 7 64-bit, when I need to run 64-bit applications. Otherwise I'll boot XP every time (unless I need to boot DOS for some reason or other). The Ubuntu partition crapped out on me a while back, and I've seen no need to rebuild it, so no... Not booting that again anytime soon.

Sure, some day I may stop using XP. But I'm in no hurry whatsoever. And yes, I do use XP for internet banking. In a virtual machine, not using Internet Explorer. Said virtual machine is used only for banking, and always for banking. The browser there has never visited a non-banking site.

[Jiu-Jitsu]

I've got 2 of those small netbooks that I really like the size of for travelling.

Tried putting 7 on one of them, runs way too slow.

The other one still has XP and I do use it a little bit.

So, hopefully this is good news.

Otherwise I just throw them away. (or try Linux)

Which Netbooks are these? My Acer Aspire One ZG5 run smoothly with Windows 7 Starter.

Maybe you need to max out the RAM and to use Starter as opposed to another version.

[Totster]

The issues are first, that XP runs rings around Windoze 7, and second, that Windoze 7 has a serious, serious "designed by committee" feel, built on top of Vista. For now, I use Windoze 7 64-bit, when I need to run 64-bit applications. Otherwise I'll boot XP every time (unless I need to boot DOS for some reason or other). The Ubuntu partition crapped out on me a while back, and I've seen no need to rebuild it, so no... Not booting that again anytime soon.

Sure, some day I may stop using XP. But I'm in no hurry whatsoever. And yes, I do use XP for internet banking. In a virtual machine, not using Internet Explorer. Said virtual machine is used only for banking, and always for banking. The browser there has never visited a non-banking site.

A couple of things..

Can you explain how XP 'runs rings around' Win 7? And where did you read/hear this '"designed by committee" feel'? 55555555

What's all this about using a virtual machine, are you trying to outdo dual boot guy ? Why go to all the bother of swapping between OS's when you can just use one that works very well. Yes, the basic bones of Win7 is the same as Vista, but Microsoft made significant changes to make Win7 what Vista failed to be, making a statement that it was 'built on top of Vista' is misleading.

totster

[Rascaljay]

Methinks you both didn't read the actual article by Forbes. In it, it states:

Microsoft also hasn’t helped its case after releasing misleading data earlier this month suggesting Windows XP is safer than Windows Vista and Windows 7.

I wouldn't do it. Microsoft have already said that they don't test the updates with XP. Plus you might find you download a DLL meant for the Embedded version that screws your XP up.

Mind you, if you are still using XP on the Internet, then you're asking for it. If you're not it's relatively easy to protect.

Me thinks you didn't read this:

Windows 7 And Windows Vista More At Risk To Viruses Than Windows XP, Says Microsoft

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2014/05/12/windows-7-and-windows-vista-more-at-risk-to-viruses-than-windows-xp-says-microsoft/

[alfalfa19]

XP is a fine OS. It may not be as cute as win 7 or 8, but it was a very functional OS. I work on a lot of government and commercial enterprise computers, and a lot of them are still using XP. Some have Win 7, none have win 8 or vista.

[RedQualia]

The issues are first, that XP runs rings around Windoze 7, and second, that Windoze 7 has a serious, serious "designed by committee" feel, built on top of Vista. For now, I use Windoze 7 64-bit, when I need to run 64-bit applications. Otherwise I'll boot XP every time (unless I need to boot DOS for some reason or other). The Ubuntu partition crapped out on me a while back, and I've seen no need to rebuild it, so no... Not booting that again anytime soon.

Sure, some day I may stop using XP. But I'm in no hurry whatsoever. And yes, I do use XP for internet banking. In a virtual machine, not using Internet Explorer. Said virtual machine is used only for banking, and always for banking. The browser there has never visited a non-banking site.

A couple of things..

Can you explain how XP 'runs rings around' Win 7? And where did you read/hear this '"designed by committee" feel'? 55555555

What's all this about using a virtual machine, are you trying to outdo dual boot guy ? Why go to all the bother of swapping between OS's when you can just use one that works very well. Yes, the basic bones of Win7 is the same as Vista, but Microsoft made significant changes to make Win7 what Vista failed to be, making a statement that it was 'built on top of Vista' is misleading.

totster

"All this about using a virtual machine" relates to my fundamental distrust of the Internet, and more specifically, banking on the Internet. For the purpose of banking, I use only hard wires from the router to the computer, from the keyboard to the computer, and etc. NEVER wifi anything! And too, I only do banking from within a virtual machine. Never from a browser used for games or email or general purpose web browsing. And again, the virtual machine and browser within are used ONLY for banking and money purposes. For the most part, this consists of visiting about five different financial institutions, and no others. I will sometimes use the virtual machine to order things on the Internet (typically only from amazon). But that's usually after I've found something I'm interested in using a browser outside the virtual machine, so that hoping around pages in the virtual machine is minimized.

The slowness of Vista (and by extension, Windoze 7) has been well documented, and one need only do a few searches to find the details. One of the very first complaints from the community was that the file system on Vista was slow. You can find discussions of such here: http://beta.slashdot.org/story/82311

And here: http://www.tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7

One of the primary reasons has to do with digital rights management, it seems. Restore points and such for system restore is also likely a factor, and there may be other reasons as well. I can't say whether the problems have improved under Win 7. I can say that my heart is simply thrilled when I see that Win 7 has "discovered" a mess of files to copy, and I can go make another pot of coffee to wait for those files to be copied. And I can say that said copying happens much more quickly on XP.

Aero? There are web pages debating whether it makes a machine slower or not. Aero defenders like to say that all the video crap is offloaded to the graphics card, and that turning off Aero may actually slow one's machine. Well that's a really great topic, for those who use Aero. Those who use XP see that their OS screen interface suffers from no slowdowns to speak of, and are therefore permitted the luxury of asking, "Why Aero?"

"Designed by committee:" the perceptions of different people will vary, but on top of the messed up file system and Aero stuff, someone gummed up Windows Explorer itself, so that while it kinda mostly looks the same, it just doesn't do what I would want or expect it to do with regard to expanding trees, positioning "the cursor" when sorting files in different ways, and etc. When copying and resizing files, and etc., it certainly likes to keep things alphabetical, rather than putting new copies of files at the bottom of the display as does XP, for example. Working overtime to keep things alphabetical (for example) is one of the most useless things I can think of, and from my point of view, actually seems user hostile.

A "user hostile interface" appears to be a Microsoft tradition, and a primary reason for the hatred of Windoze 8.x is that they've reached new heights in the user hostile interface department. I can't say for sure, since I haven't installed any versions of 8.x.

As I said, I have 7 installed. I use it for the (very few) 64-bit applications I use, if I think I would get a performance benefit from using the 64 bit version of a program rather than the 32 bit.

You are all welcome to defend Windoze Vista, 7.x, 8.x. If you like it, are happy with it, etc., then good on you! But I have XP and other OSs installed side by side. It's no trouble at all for me to compare the crisp, smooth and fast performance of XP to that of the slow and goofy in comparison Windows 7.

I've read before that when upgrading a processor, said CPU needs to be at least an order of magnitude faster for the user to notice it. Maybe true, maybe not. But if I'm noticing how slow Win 7 is compared to XP, it sort of suggests that 7 might be an order of magnitude slower?

Here's hoping Windows 9 will be an actual, honest to goodness improvement. I'm not gonna hold my breath, but I can hope.

Edited May 29, 2014 by RedQualia

[Chicog]

I run Win 7 on an ASUS ee PC1000 Netbook with an Atom processor and 2Gb of RAM. It understandably takes a while to start, but once it's up and running it is perfectly usable and far faster than both the Linux build the machine came with AND Windows XP.

Not the XP wasn't good in its day, but now it's like an elderly aunt, sitting in the corner mumbling and occasionally peeing itself.

[Pib]

Here's hoping Windows 9 will be an actual, honest to goodness improvement. I'm not gonna hold my breath, but I can hope.

The latest OS, the latest smartphone, the latest whatever is always a honest to goodness improvement! The manufacturers' hype advertisements confirm it. Honest...it is an improvement (too their revenue stream). 'nough said!

[Chicog]

I'm sorry, but notwithstanding the awful interface which is easy to circumvent, Windows 8.x is by far the fastest, most stable and most secure iteration of Windows to date.

[Pib]

I'm sorry, but notwithstanding the awful interface which is easy to circumvent, Windows 8.x is by far the fastest, most stable and most secure iteration of Windows to date.

Above is pretty good...but I prefer Microsoft's description quoted below...taken from their website...how can a person resist buying Win 8.x...it's Beautiful, Fast, & Fluid. By the way, I run Win 8.1 and Win 7.

Beautiful, Fast, Fluid

Windows has been reimagined to focus on your life. The beautiful, fast, and fluid design is perfect for a range of hardware: From compact, touch-enabled tablets and lightweight laptops, to PCs and large, powerful all-in-ones with high-definition screens.

[Chicog]

Great on phones I'll give you that; maybe tablets at a push, not that I have one. But I have it on three PCs and two laptops, and I use Classic Shell on all of them. Never use the touchscreens on the lappys.

[i claudius]

Good luck with your confidence in 3rd party protection. What are you using?

Avast with Maximized Security. Many years without problems.

Yep, that just doesn't cook it.

But good luck to you.

you worry to much ., chill out.

[Chicog]

Good luck with your confidence in 3rd party protection. What are you using?

Avast with Maximized Security. Many years without problems.

Yep, that just doesn't cook it.

But good luck to you.

you worry to much ., chill out.

I'm quite chilled. I'm not running an inherently insecure OS with an antivirus program that's as useful as a foreskin in a jewist nudist camp.

[Mosha]

XP is a fine OS. It may not be as cute as win 7 or 8, but it was a very functional OS. I work on a lot of government and commercial enterprise computers, and a lot of them are still using XP. Some have Win 7, none have win 8 or vista.

I've friends who went to Win 8 and hate it. Far too intrusive for their liking.

[Chicog]

XP is a fine OS. It may not be as cute as win 7 or 8, but it was a very functional OS. I work on a lot of government and commercial enterprise computers, and a lot of them are still using XP. Some have Win 7, none have win 8 or vista.

I've friends who went to Win 8 and hate it. Far too intrusive for their liking.

Intrusive?

How do they come to that conclusion?

[Pib]

My guess is intrusive to their pocketbook...it cost them money to upgrade.

[quandow]

I worked IT for 15 years, and will run XP til the day I die. The search function on Window$ 7 is WORTHLESS so I have a remote XP machine I connect to search for files (I have to have a Window$ 7 machine for certain programs, no way around it). And, let's not even get STARTED on that Frankenstein called Window$ 8.

A little over a year ago, I discovered the ultimate machine - a 2010 Mac mini that runs both Mac and XP FLAWLESSLY using Apple's boot camp. 4 usb ports, reasonably easy access to install hard drives, REAL easy ram upgrades, even a slot for my camera memory card. I use it daily at work and it's been a trooper!