Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

10 Years of Windows XP

Soulskill posted about 3 years ago | from the time-to-defenestrate-it dept.

Microsoft 471

Julie188 writes "Windows XP – the XP stood for 'Experience' — was released October 25, 2001. With Windows XP, Microsoft hoped to have one codebase that would span everything from consumers to corporate desktops. Microsoft was fairly ambitious with XP. There was an embedded version that went everywhere, from phones to information kiosks. Banks in particular embraced it as a way to migrate off IBM's dead-end-but-once-great OS/2. Consumers have been quicker to ditch XP for Windows 7 while businesses hem and haw and slowly test a decade's-worth of custom apps on Windows 7. Some estimates show that XP still has a hold on 48% of the Windows market."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

"XP" (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37837888)

Bah, everyone knows "XP" stands for "Xtra Problems"

Re:"XP" (5, Informative)

lgw (121541) | about 3 years ago | (#37837922)

I thought XP stood for Chi Rho (the greek letters it looks like), a pun on the project name "Cairo".

Re:"XP" (3, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | about 3 years ago | (#37838308)

Well at any rate, it stood for a much better pair than Windows ME. (Might Explode)

Re:"XP" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37838394)

Wait, so it wasn't the meant emoticon for when it crashed? I always imagined that was an emoticon and that the proper sound would be Nelson's "Hahaa" from the Simpsons (although never got the licensing to do so).

Re:"XP" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37838674)

And there i thought XP was for eXPeriment

Re:"XP" (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 3 years ago | (#37838052)

Anyone who has used XP can tell you that the abbreviation is also an emoticon.

Toasting another TEN! (0, Offtopic)

Chriscypher (409959) | about 3 years ago | (#37837898)

(I Am an OSX user... I do not share your pain)

Re:Toasting another TEN! (2)

DangerOnTheRanger (2373156) | about 3 years ago | (#37837918)

(I am a Linux user... I do not share your pain)

Re:Toasting another TEN! (1)

Lisias (447563) | about 3 years ago | (#37838284)

(I am a Linux, Windows *and* OSX user - I share all the pains)

Software development used to be easier when I started this life...

Re:Toasting another TEN! (4, Insightful)

White Flame (1074973) | about 3 years ago | (#37838370)

Software development used to be easier when I started this life...

I don't know when you started yours, but I got going in the 80s 8-bit home computer era. Everything of consequence was assembly language, and every platform was completely incompatible. Even on the mainframes, you still had a variety of HLLs and completely different OSes & architectures.

Everything nowadays is x86/x64, everything runs C++ and hence most interpreted languages, and most everything runs Java. Graphics are fast, storage is gigantic, libraries are mature, and connectivity is pretty much a given. Software development is MUCH easier nowadays.

Re:Toasting another TEN! (2)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about 3 years ago | (#37837938)

Or much of anything?

Re:Toasting another TEN! (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 3 years ago | (#37838030)

I was an OSX user, but with the current snit between Apple and Adobe, I switched to Windows 7. I'm a heavy Adobe user, and it used to be that Mac was the platform of choice for that.

Re:Toasting another TEN! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37838408)

What?

You switched to Windows7 because there's some problem b/w Apple and Adobe?

You are weird.

Re:Toasting another TEN! (3, Insightful)

roc97007 (608802) | about 3 years ago | (#37838524)

Repeat after me: "It's just an OS. The purpose of an OS is to load programs and manage resources. The OS is not the application."

Re:Toasting another TEN! (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 3 years ago | (#37838466)

If you're a heavy Adobe user, you don't need anyone else's pain. You have plenty of your own.

Re:Toasting another TEN! (2)

roc97007 (608802) | about 3 years ago | (#37838542)

Wow, remember when, if you were a Photoshop user, you were automatically a Mac user? I'm trying to remember what the killer app is for Macintosh now. (Hint: It's not "lion".)

Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37837900)

XP was for eXperimental Prototype as in test aircraft. The kind that crashed a lot.

btw.. last post

Re:Wrong (4, Funny)

arth1 (260657) | about 3 years ago | (#37837916)

XP was for eXperimental Prototype as in test aircraft. The kind that crashed a lot.

No, I'm pretty certain that they only crashed once...

Re:Wrong (4, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 3 years ago | (#37838376)

Even prior to SP1, XP never threw a BSOD (and rebooted) unless it was something hardware or device driver related. Even Anti-Virus programs which needed to install a driver could trip a BSOD. Which was hardly surprising because it's based off the NT lineage and not MSDOS. In fact, it's quite miracle that random bits of hardware and peripherals could be slapped together with near infinite permutations and still had XP provide all the extended functionality for that specific device with as little problems as it has. Microsoft shouldn't have caught hell for this, but rather praised.

Re:Wrong (4, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | about 3 years ago | (#37838082)

XP itself never crashed(BSOD'd) unless you had serious hardware (or later, malware when it became sufficiently virulent) problems. It also otherwise Just Worked(TM).

Compare that to the stinking unworkable piles of shit that were the average Linux distros at the time, hell, I remember Gnome back when XP was released and it looked like some horrible blocky IRIX knockoff. That was back when ISP's gave you shell accounts and the only sane uses of Linux were running servers and taking IRC channels. As far as the speed, stability, and usability of Linux distros go; they are still playing catch-up to Windows XP, especially with respect to the dominant third-party applications.

And I'm a hardcore Linux/UNIX fan.

not happy to ditch for windows 7 (1, Interesting)

cinnamon colbert (732724) | about 3 years ago | (#37837924)

but that was all they had at the store; I was perfectly happy with XP; my hardware died and I didn't see anything I like with XP on it, so got one with windows 7 IMO, and in the opinion of everyone here at my office, XP was MS's best OS; most of us like it a lot more then windows 7 ymmv

Re:not happy to ditch for windows 7 (1)

lgw (121541) | about 3 years ago | (#37837966)

I'm very happy with Windows 7 now. Microsoft always moves everything between releases, and it always sucks having to (so pointlessly) learn where everyhting is again, and where the geek-friendly(er) UI settings are scattered, but now that I'm equally comfortable with both: Win7 is worlds better for everything except the file manager - somehow that has gotten worse in every release since 3.1.

Re:not happy to ditch for windows 7 (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about 3 years ago | (#37838126)

Perhaps they are going in a different direction away from file managers so that mainstream users can use the file system but what do i know *shrug* there's plenty of free alternatives out there. Treesize or something is a good one.

Re:not happy to ditch for windows 7 (4, Informative)

rwade (131726) | about 3 years ago | (#37838212)

Win7 is worlds better for everything except the file manager - somehow that has gotten worse in every release since 3.1.

Perhaps my single largest annoyance with Windows 7 -- and there are few, honestly -- is the file manager's sorting "memory".

Let's say that:

  1. I have one folder that's full of spreadsheets in which the most relevant of them is the most recent -- in such a case, I would want that folder sorted by the "date modified" field.
  2. I have another folder in which there are files of a few different types with which alphabetical sorting is more appropriate.

In Windows XP, if I set folder #1 to be sorted by the "date modified" field, it remembered it for that folder. If I left alphabetical sorting for every other folder, it remembered that too.

In Windows 7, if I set folder #1 to be sorted by the "date modified" field, it applies that setting to any folder I should happen to look at.

Annoying.

Re:not happy to ditch for windows 7 (4, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 3 years ago | (#37838058)

I wouldn't say consumers were quicker to ditch XP because they wanted to ditch it. Typically consumers get new versions of Windows when they get new computers. Businesses on the other hand have to evaluate whether it is in their best interest and most decided Vista wasn't good enough to ditch XP. Some of them were probably a little miffed about the SA deals. Windows 7 is actual usable and stable compared to Vista.

Re:not happy to ditch for windows 7 (2)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about 3 years ago | (#37838150)

Yep, saves $$$$$ on licensing too, the machine license is included with the machine so on like a 5 year cycle, everybody would run windows 7 in 5 years, but we've had to make exceptions to that and use open license to upgrade some. Expensive, but compared to the bs that was going on back in the day, this is just fine.

Re:not happy to ditch for windows 7 (1)

Cryacin (657549) | about 3 years ago | (#37838354)

Yeah, I work for a bank. They've been "evaluating" windows 7 since it was released in pre beta to them. We're still waiting for the holy IT dept of doom to give it's sanctimonious blessing that we may have something a bit more modern than XP. I for one, however, would be delighted if we *finally* could move from Lotus Bloats... Apparently the cost of moving to an exchange server was guestimated at somewhere around £100m.

Re:not happy to ditch for windows 7 (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 3 years ago | (#37838562)

that we may have something a bit more modern than XP.

I'm sorry, but I just don't understand this "it is more modern, we must use it" attitude.

As long as it does what you need done, WHY do you care how "modern" it is? The only reason I can see that "modern" matters is because of the idjits who also think "modern" is important and deliberately write software that won't run on older systems. I'm facing that because I run a server that uses someone like that's code. The important part runs on 2K, which I have a license for and the server runs just fine. The newer parts run only on XP, and I've had to freeze versions where I am because they chose to make it incompatible. (They use the newer features of .NET that are deliberately NOT backwards compatible so that people are forced to update not only the code they are running, but the OS AND the hardware. For a system that is run totally by volunteers. And software that has no real increase in functionality.)

Especially in a business environment where what is important that it runs your business code, why does it matter if that code runs on Vista or 7 or XP?

Re:not happy to ditch for windows 7 (4, Interesting)

tsotha (720379) | about 3 years ago | (#37838268)

This time frame also coincided with a big increase in the proportion of web apps businesses deployed for internal use. It's a lot less important to keep your machines up to date if you're basically using them as browser-terminals.

Re:not happy to ditch for windows 7 (3, Insightful)

ADRA (37398) | about 3 years ago | (#37838124)

Windows 2000 was XP minus the play school look and feel (more or less like the classic look and feel on XP) and I think it was the last pure Windows OS that I liked without substantial customization.

Re:not happy to ditch for windows 7 (1)

lgw (121541) | about 3 years ago | (#37838478)

Pulg-and-play was crap in Win2000 though - over the strong objections of the kernel team (maybe resigned), MS crammed the Win95 plug-and-play system into Win2000 so that there'd be some possibility of using it on a laptop. It wasn't until WinXP that they soert out that mess. XP with the classic look was fine, though I've come to like Win7 now

Re:not happy to ditch for windows 7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37838380)

Actually, I am really liking Win 7... It's what Vista should have been - speedy, looks good and pretty stable.

And yet... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 3 years ago | (#37837928)

And yet, those recycling kiosks at the grocery store are still running Windows 98.

God enough (2)

Pentium100 (1240090) | about 3 years ago | (#37837940)

Compared to previous versions of Windows (especially those that ran on 9x codebase), XP was much better. Compared to Windows 2000, it ran games better.

Vista compared to XP is worse, or at least it was worse just after the release. Windows 7 is about the same as XP, just a new UI, but it is not that much better for people to buy it (and probably upgrade their PCs), because XP is stable and does everything they want. The computer is fast enough for hat they use it for, so no need for an upgrade until it breaks down.

Re:God enough (1)

jameskojiro (705701) | about 3 years ago | (#37838056)

Only reason I went to windows 7 was because Xp won't recognize more than 4Gb or memory.

Re:God enough (1)

Delarth799 (1839672) | about 3 years ago | (#37838134)

Incorrect. It was the fact that you were running a 32 bit OS that it wouldn't recognize more than 4GB of memory.

Re:God enough (5, Informative)

PRMan (959735) | about 3 years ago | (#37838328)

Incorrect. Windows Server 2003 32-bit goes up to 64 GB. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa366778(v=vs.85).aspx [microsoft.com]

The reason XP/Vista/7 32-bit is limited to 4GB is because there are so many badly-written drivers that assume they will be in a physical 4GB address space, that there was no way for Windows to change it without massive bluescreens from old drivers.

To use up to 64 GB, apps and drivers have to be written to access all memory through a 2GB sliding Physical Address Extension window. [brianmadden.com]

Re:God enough (3, Insightful)

Pharmboy (216950) | about 3 years ago | (#37838136)

Only reason I went to windows 7 was because Xp won't recognize more than 4Gb or memory.

XP comes in a 64 bit flavor as well, although it never was supported very well by other vendors, which should have supported more RAM, assuming the mother board did (another problem altogether).

The real issue with XP vs 7 isn't 4+ GB of RAM so much as having better support for multiple processors. XP wasn't written for 6 or more CPUs/cores, and while it will run, it was never optimized for it. Originally, vanilla 2K only was "licensed" for two CPUs, not sure about XP before SP1.

Re:God enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37838648)

Actually XP recognizes and runs 6 cores more efficiently than both Vista and Win 7.

Take a look:

http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/generation-gap-windows-multicore-273?page=0,2

They added the X for the ratings. (1)

www.sorehands.com (142825) | about 3 years ago | (#37837998)

They added the X in the title, because everyone knows, if you have an X in the title, you get better ratings.

Re:They added the X for the ratings. (1)

gmhowell (26755) | about 3 years ago | (#37838430)

They added the X in the title, because everyone knows, if you have an X in the title, you get better ratings.

Imagine how much better it would have been if they had also prepended Windows with a lower case i...

What is my overriding reason to migrate off XP? (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 3 years ago | (#37838004)

Of our four most used machines at home, the media center is running Windows 7 because I was told Media Center works better than in "Windows XP Media Center Edition". (Only partially true -- the surround doesn't work right.) My machine is running Windows 7 because I thought I needed more than 4 GB of ram. And then I found that the machine wouldn't boot with more than 4 GB of ram, so that was kinda a bust. (Maybe with a different motherboard?) The others are still running XP and the programs wife and child use still load up and work fine.

That's the point people seem to forget. The OS isn't important. (Well, maybe for Windows 2000 and up -- nobody in their right mind, except for the people who designed those can and bottle recycling kiosks, still runs Windows 98.) What's important are the applications the OS runs. Sometimes these applications need resources unavailable to that particular OS (sometimes for marketing reasons) and then an upgrade may be unavoidable. But until then, why bother? The OS is not the application.

Re:What is my overriding reason to migrate off XP? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about 3 years ago | (#37838098)

There's no problem with using XP per se, but I'd like if people would just please stop using IE on it, since it's basically the only OS/browser combination which doesn't support SNI, and which forces SSL websites to get a dedicated IP.

Re:What is my overriding reason to migrate off XP? (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 3 years ago | (#37838364)

IE 9 fixes that. Leaving XP behind is a necessity as business users will never leave IE ever. But I doubt that would help.

My fear is that your grandchildren who want to get to do I.T. 50 years from now will need to learn IE 6 racing conditions, minimal CSS 1.0 support, and many bugs for intranet apps still being developed in 2061 will still require IE 6 in run in 2 emulators ala COBOL is today. Major banks run 40 year old software with IBM 360 emulators still.

I want to laugh but it is not fair to the poor sap in the future who you know will do this. ... and yes IBM 380 apps in COBOL will still be running in emulators too as well as SCO. Cost accountants just wont let anyone upgrade.

So your rant on SNI support wont matter as the big corps plan to run IE 6 for the next 30 to 50 years so they can save on upgrade costs and commercial portals and sites will still need to support XP and IE 6 then.

Re:What is my overriding reason to migrate off XP? (1)

lgw (121541) | about 3 years ago | (#37838536)

IE6 is quickly being moved intranet-only by sane businesses - there are several clever ways to keep IE6 around for the intranet but leave XP behind. It's such a security disaster that big shops have a strong incentive to get to IE9 for everyhting but legacy intranet apps.

And I don't think there ever was a System/380. System/370 was the big legacy pool (which really started to die off after the Y2K scare, when businesses realized that "just works" can still be expensive), and System/390 was the next big IBM mainfram architecture.

Re:What is my overriding reason to migrate off XP? (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about 3 years ago | (#37838166)

If you want more than 4GB RAM you need the 64-bit versions of XP or Win7.

Re:What is my overriding reason to migrate off XP? (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 3 years ago | (#37838500)

Thanks, I *do* have the 64 bit version of Windows 7, according to the media, and according to Computer -> Properties. I have four identical 2 gigabyte sticks and four memory slots. I put any two sticks in A1 and B1 or A2 and B2 and it boots up with 4 GB. If I populate one or both of the remaining slots, it won't boot. The manual indicates that the memory (Kingston) is supported and the motherboard supports 8 GB and more. (Up to 16 or 32, I forget.) It's a mystery.

Re:What is my overriding reason to migrate off XP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37838556)

It's not a mystery, it's a very common problem. Run a BIOS update on your motherboard and it should take care of that.

Re:What is my overriding reason to migrate off XP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37838578)

Hmm,
tried running memtest86+ on the beastie and seeing what it reports?

On the plus side... (2)

Lord_of_the_nerf (895604) | about 3 years ago | (#37838006)

...it's just about ready for release now.

Windows 3 please... (1)

DdJ (10790) | about 3 years ago | (#37838034)

I still miss Windows 3.11 (for workgroups) on the desktop, and Windows NT 3.51 on the server. Sigh.

Re:Windows 3 please... (4, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | about 3 years ago | (#37838234)

I don't miss 3.11

I don't miss watching Winsock eat itself in the debug window while connected to the internet.

I don't miss the dumb Program Manager.

I don't miss one crashed program taking down the entire "OS".

You forget how clunky it is. Go install it in a VM.

I also installed NT4 inside a virtual machine recently, out of misplaced nostalgia.

Without stealing DLLs from Windows 2000 and XP, good luck getting any software from the last 10 years to install. It was like pulling teeth just to get Opera installed, and even then, it still complained.

WordPerfect won't even install on 2000. No way, no how.

I used to be a big OS/2 fan. I have Ecomstation in a VM. Yeah, I'm sticking with Linux and not going back to OS/2.

--
BMO

xp or die (1)

pinfall (2430412) | about 3 years ago | (#37838044)

I once got fired by a client because I didn't downgrade a windows 7 laptop to xp. No, they didn't have any custom _anything_. They just had a policy.
Stupid is as stupid does.

Re:xp or die (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 3 years ago | (#37838392)

Lesson #1 when a customer tells you to do something you do it. They have your paycheck in their wallets. If they say jump you say how far, so you can get that paycheck. In this economy you have to suck it up.

Re:xp or die (2)

drsmack1 (698392) | about 3 years ago | (#37838450)

I think that you meant:

I got fired because I refused to do what a customer was paying me to do.

You see, that is more concise, don't you agree?

Re:xp or die (1)

Toonol (1057698) | about 3 years ago | (#37838480)

I once got fired by a client because I didn't downgrade a windows 7 laptop to xp.

Stupid is as stupid does.

At least your story had a moral.

Re:xp or die (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 3 years ago | (#37838652)

A policy that they use the software that they're used to/have been trained on/know how to circumvent the bugs/has been verified to run all their standard software?

Doesn't seem too unreasonable.

M$ nonsense (1)

omb (759389) | about 3 years ago | (#37838066)

The story content was "XP wont die in the Enterprise", no it wont, and is you are in the Enterprise, you or your vendor can do a spin for your hardware ... no fuss.

Ugly GUI (1)

zixxt (1547061) | about 3 years ago | (#37838078)

I stayed with Windows 2000 for the longest because XP's UI was beyond ugly. Not until you could get the Media Center themes that it became a good looking UI and I finally settled on XP.

Re:Ugly GUI (1)

Shoe Puppet (1557239) | about 3 years ago | (#37838160)

You know you can choose the 2000-like classic style even in 7?

Not the same. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37838312)

"2000-like" is not the Win2k UI.

The only reason I moved from Win2k to XP myself was due to gaming and the requisite driver/Direct X/et cetera support.

Hell, that's pretty much the way of Windows. My only reason for moving off Win 3.11 (For Workgroups! Woo!) was that 16-bit executables were dying, and the h4x that Microsoft enabled to allow 32-bit programs on 3.11 weren't as awesome as indicated. Still, I managed to skip the abomination of Windows 95 entirely, going directly to 98. I stuck with 98 for years after its lifespan, because everything worked awesomely except for the need to reboot once every three months. win2k solved that, was perfectly cromulent for awhile (and most importantly, allowed me to avoid the abortion that was ME), but then driver/peripheral issues started happening with more modern hardware (ohgodRAIDsupportorlackthereof) - so it was off to XP.

XP was decent - but it had a short viable lifespan left at the time I switched. I had one of the original socket 940 Opterons, and damned if I was going to run a shitty 32-bit OS on my glorious 64-bit processor. XP x64 Corporate solved this solution (and got around a lot of other XP problems) - but driver support never materialized. The basis worked well enough, but good fucking luck if you didn't want to buy a new printer. Or even if you did want to buy a new printer.

That and Direct X drove me to Windows Vista, which I've been quite happy with. Yes, I know, hurr, durr, Slashdolt rage, but Vista is no worse than XP was in terms of stability and annoyance. As for UAC, I'd like to know why it's a horrible thing on Vista, but perfectly acceptable to have idiot proofing on OS X and Ubuntu. Vista's UAC nonsense is no more intrusive than any other operating system that has an equivalent.

I suppose I'll be moving to 7 soon, as my current workstation is getting long in the tooth and I need something to run VMWare's management bullshit on. But this is it. I've seen Windows 8, and I will not partake in that frothing, chair-throwing monkey's dream. My kingdom for the return of Gates.

Re:Ugly GUI (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37838516)

You know you can choose the 2000-like classic style even in 7?

No, you cannot. They fucked with it and made subtle changes for the worse, especially in the Explorer shell. I'd be happy if I could graft Win2K's GUI onto XP and 7, but that isn't possible.

Did it stand for X-Perience or for Chi-Rho? (4, Interesting)

dpbsmith (263124) | about 3 years ago | (#37838080)

I thought it was a pun on Cairo, [wikipedia.org] the vaporware, or head-fake, or whatever it was that Microsoft claimed would be so great but never released... and that the claim that it was a reference to user "x-perience" was a later concoction.

Re:Did it stand for X-Perience or for Chi-Rho? (1)

Phrogman (80473) | about 3 years ago | (#37838186)

I dunno if thats true, but it sure is clever. Well done sir or madam. I can easily imagine developers giving it the nickname XP as a pun, then the marketers taking over and changing it to be "experience". Marketers are evil :P

slow pace of features on newer windows? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37838084)

The last windows I actively used was XP, and I kind of liked it. But when I jumped the Linux bandwagon, the productivity of multiple desktop got me crying every time I had to use windows thereafter. Ten bloody years have passed, and only now is windows getting something that resembles multiple desktops. It can't possibly be that hard.

Experience?? (1)

Drunkulus (920976) | about 3 years ago | (#37838096)

I'm pretty sure XP stands for Xtra Proprietary.

Actually it stands... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37838388)

...for Experience Points. This version was supposed to have AD&D natively encoded into it.

icon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37838106)

What happened to the bill gates borg icon?

Re:icon? (1)

nullchar (446050) | about 3 years ago | (#37838146)

I want the editor's note on why the BillGatusOfBorg icon has been changed! Rob Malda leaves and the humor with him!?

Re:icon? (2)

Smallpond (221300) | about 3 years ago | (#37838316)

What happened to the bill gates borg icon?

It was assimilated.

Re:icon? or where is BillG Borg? (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 3 years ago | (#37838422)

It was replaced with Flying Chair Ballmer.

Re:icon? (1)

lgw (121541) | about 3 years ago | (#37838580)

What happened to the bill gates borg icon?

Bill mostly runs his charity now, and has very little to do with MS day-to-day. Plus the joke was old 10 years ago.

I'll keep XP alive. (2)

Toonol (1057698) | about 3 years ago | (#37838112)

I have two laptops and three desktops in my household that are probably going to be running XP for at least another year. I don't want to upgrade one of them to window 7 until I'm ready to upgrade most/all of them to 7.

Kind of the same reason I still use DVDs instead of Blurays, I guess.

Re:I'll keep XP alive. (1)

tverbeek (457094) | about 3 years ago | (#37838282)

"Kind of the same reason I still use DVDs instead of Blurays, I guess."

Same here. Sure the newer stuff is technically better, but the old stuff is good enough. I'm primarily a Mac user, but there are things I need Windows for, and for me Windows XP is still the answer that makes the most sense. For example, I have an old TabletPC slate that I use for drawing. Win7 would walk like a crippled dog on it. Besides, I hardly spend any time interacting with the OS; I just load it then run my drawing program. The handful of Windows apps that I use on my iMac once in a while all run on WinXP, so I just load an instance of that OS via VMware and run them on that.

The bottom line is that Windows 7 offers me nothing at all that I need, and precious little that I want, compared to WinXP. Upgrading would be change for the sake of change (which Microsoft excels at, altering things for no apparent reason with every version), and simply isn't worth the hassle. I'll stick with it until that is no longer true (i.e. when developers start dropping support for XP as a platform).

xp deserves more credit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37838118)

Many people don't give XP any credit. The UI was BIG BUTTANS! ms blaster shred some of its reputation. but it was a huge leap from Microsoft previous operating systems.

I would definitely pick it over any other OS Microsoft currently has. Disable unneeded services, use Wehntrust, Sygate, Kaspersky. It was decent.

-Slackware, Red Hat, OSX user.

Re:xp deserves more credit (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 3 years ago | (#37838476)

I give it credit ... 10 years ago.

Time to move on seriously. What if the world hung on to Windows 3.0 and Mosiac when XP came out? Thats what was hot 1991 and the net would not have Yahoo, ... maybe a simple Google, nor Amazon in 2001 when XP came out if corps and people acted that way back then.

Old standards are holding technology back. XP is keeping flash alive and HTML 5 out. Even Windows 7's IE 8 is 2.5 years old? That is old now since even IE is on an anual update schedule as much as the PHBs want to cry and whine.

XP was a fine but insecure OS when it came out. But it is time to move on as we are entering a different age in computing.

How times change (2)

nebaz (453974) | about 3 years ago | (#37838170)

I remember when XP came out everyone was complaining about its online activation requirement. They said they would stay with Windows 2000, which didn't have that requirement. Nowadays, barring Windows 7, it's everyone's favorite OS. Funny how things change.

Re:How times change (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 years ago | (#37838458)

I remember when XP came out everyone was complaining about its online activation requirement. They said they would stay with Windows 2000, which didn't have that requirement. Nowadays, barring Windows 7, it's everyone's favorite OS. Funny how things change.

XP took off when MS stopped offering any updates for (the only 1-year-older) win2k. Soon other companies followed suit and stopped supporting 2k for their software and it died abruptly while XP, with very few actual advantages beyond software support, took off.

Re:How times change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37838504)

Just the least of all available evils. If Windows 2000 ran IE7 and the later versions of the .NET framework (which it technically could), and was still receiving patches (it might AFAIK) people would still use it.

XP can stay, IE can't. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37838214)

XP is still a good OS, and will probably still be popular in the mid 2020s. But IE needs to go unless Microsoft relents and releases version 9 and above for it. Unless you have a corporate web app that requires IE, you should be using Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Safari or any other updated browser.

Speaking of OS/2... (1)

Abalamahalamatandra (639919) | about 3 years ago | (#37838222)

Discovered two boxes running Warp on my network today, still being used in a mission-critical capacity.

So yeah, good luck getting rid of XP!

Dear friends, here's to 10 years ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37838232)

... of you bugging me every damn time when your WinXP PC crashed/got extremely slow...

You know I've been using Mac since dawn.
You know I've never ever got a serious software problem and bugged you...
You know I've always tried to persuade you to get a better OS for your consumer IT adventures,
You know Mac, because I showed you my machine and you laughed and wondered in awe if you too could be a happy user,

But still you persisted, and kept buying that crap only to be pleading me later on to solve your trivial problems.

PS: I am not a Mac-zealot: I've got a Win7 PC too. And in a lot of cases, Windows is the only professional solution...

Well im still using it. (1)

unity100 (970058) | about 3 years ago | (#37838290)

Light, gets work done, all games run on it, this that.

The gaming underground loves it even more. Xp Sp2 is the preferred version for seeking max fps on 3d games it seems. There are 'stripped/edited' slipstream versions of xp sp2 being traded in underground, which apparenly consumes only 84 mb of system memory or something.

it seems its here to stay for a loong loong time with its huge software base.

Re:Well im still using it. (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 3 years ago | (#37838584)

On my hexcore box with an ati 5750 there is a huge FPS drop on XP compared to Windows 7. Even an older game like World of Warcraft gets only 19 fps on XP. With DirectX11 it gets 40 fps.

With 8 gigs of ram saving 64 megs is laughable much like installing 15k cache cards from the early 1980s on pcs that came out later. With crappy drivers for XP like NVidia who actually states it wont release drives for newer hardware for it and my experience with ATI I can say games will ditch XP. IN the US less than 1 out of 4 people use XP anymre and I bet 1/3 of those are corporations.The rest are older systems which gaming companies do not want to support. The Chinese skew the statistic since they have more pcs as the entire US that run pirated XP.

XP is dying. It will stay like COBOL does in an array of emulators for decades to come in server rooms across the world but running it on the actual iron is dying. Newer CPUs like the Bulldozer suck on XP, and even Windows 7, but run great on Windows 8. Hardware just doesn't run faster on older operating systems.

Re:Well im still using it. (1)

lgw (121541) | about 3 years ago | (#37838634)

I suspect that, like dos4gw-on-dosbox, there will eventually be an open, reverse-engineered version of XP that just matches the most-stripped-down version and goes fast indeed for gaming, especially once the 32-bit PC gaming era moves into emulation the way 16-bit games are now.

Windows 7 is the new XP windows 8 is the new vista (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 3 years ago | (#37838372)

Windows 7 is the new XP windows 8 is the new vista.

windows 8 will bomb big time.

Re:Windows 7 is the new XP windows 8 is the new vi (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 3 years ago | (#37838496)

Windows 8 will bomb, but not for king of technical reasons that ME and Vista had. Win8 will bomb because MS decided to change shit around so much, that people still stuck XP may say something along the lines of... "I was going to replace my XP computer with Win7, but now that Win8 out, fuck it. I'm going Mac. I'm tired of MS moving the bar". I really think MS is slitting their own throat here with such an early release of -yet- another OS overhaul.

XP stands for eXtinction of Profits for MSFT (0)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 3 years ago | (#37838402)

Look, I'm typing this on a WinXP machine. I've got a WinXP laptop at home.

Sure, I make quad-core or octo-core Win7 dual boot machines for playing WoW, but why bother downgrading to a slower OS like the "upgrades" from WinXP?

We have Linux if we want real additional features.

IE7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37838418)

The reason XP will continue to hold on is the Internet Explorer dependence that some large organizations have (IE 6 & 7 in particular). Microsoft really set internet development back by not continuing to keep their browser current, and when they finally did it was too late.

XP SP2+ was Microsoft's last decent computer OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37838444)

Everything that came after is just dumbing down for the clueless masses.

still with XP (1)

statsone (1981504) | about 3 years ago | (#37838460)

business machine works. Windows 7 is resource heavy and would require a new machine. For now, will stay with XP. In a couple of years, when I get a new machine, I will get Windows 7 with it.

Microsoft Logo?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37838484)

On *MY* slashdot?

Come you lame assholes. At least make a Steve Ballmer Borg logo.

Whoever made this decision has single-handedly caused slashdot to Jump The Shark [wikipedia.org] , if this is not undone.

Games will drive some upgrades (1)

sho-gun (2440) | about 3 years ago | (#37838508)

Funny this story came out today. I just put a new hard drive in my desktop today and installed Windows 7 on it. I have
been using XP since beta. Now its going to be a bit of a pain to migrate my data over. There's no 1-step upgrade path
from XP to 7. Yes, I know about Windows Easy Transfer and will use it to copy the profiles over.

The primary, and just about sole reason for the new OS?

Battlefield 3.

No XP / directx 9 support. It also supports Vista, but I tried it in the past and hated the performance.

I have a feeling there are going to be many more "no DX9" games soon, including M$'s own "Flight".

XP Embedded (1)

rapidreload (2476516) | about 3 years ago | (#37838510)

There was an embedded version that went everywhere, from phones to information kiosks

Indeed, some of our lab's test equipment (specifically the Agilent oscilloscopes and network analyzers) use Windows XP embedded. When I saw what they were running it was a bit of a shock as I was conditioned to believe Linux was king on embedded systems and Windows didn't have anything to compete, but I guess that's what you get for reading Slashdot/Linux sites too much. Still, seems to work reasonably well.

Although I admit it's funny to turn on a AUD$50,000 network analyzer and see a system tray balloon complaining that automatic updates is not enabled. :)

at the current price (3, Interesting)

drolli (522659) | about 3 years ago | (#37838532)

of about 15-20 Euro for an XP Professional license, its an excellent price/performane ration when it comes to selecting something for your VM to browse occasionally under IE. Most Software still supperts XP and the Hardware requirements are modest, so that its not a pain in the ass to run it just for printing, scanning, browsing incompatible websites, updating my phone, programming FPGAs or microcontrollers where the SW primarily supports windows.

It set the bar (1)

FyberOptic (813904) | about 3 years ago | (#37838540)

It was a great operating system. I used to dual-boot between Win98SE and the original XP (in the pre-service pack days) on a 200mhz machine with 64MB of ram. 98 had the performance at the time, but XP had this rock-solid feel to it. I used it for development to avoid crashes, and played all my games and stuff over in 98.

But times change. It's not safe to run as administrator anymore, and XP handed that out by default. Doesn't matter how safe you think you are about running potentially bad stuff or opening attachments like in the old days. The vector for attack is the web, and any vulnerabilities your software will offer are going to get taken advantage of sooner or later. Didn't matter if you had IE or Firefox, they were both riddled with holes over the years. Even Opera, the security pro it was, had its share of problems too.

Vista introduced new technology to help with that, but was obviously a P.R. flub, allowing Windows 7 to come in and save the day. 7 is their greatest operating system to date. Granted, I disabled their OSX-wanna-be style of launcher and reverted it to the XP style quick launch icons. But the fact that they left me do that speaks to the configurability Microsoft still offers to people. You won't see Apple letting their users do anything to change the overall appearance like that. Hell, aside from adding a dock, even Apple themselves haven't really changed their appearance from the earliest Macs. Talk about being scared to try anything new.

Anyway, as someone who deals with Linux on a daily basis, and has every personal machine multi-boot to a Linux distro, Win7 is still my primary OS. But XP still set the bar for what I look for in a stable desktop operating system. My main PC can even still boot to XP, because on occasion I need hardware access I can't get in 7 as easily, for interfacing with custom electronics with Windows-based software. I have a feeling many other people will still find it useful for years to come, too.

Still waiting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37838566)

Still waiting for a convincing reason to "upgrade" to Windows 7. Lots of flash but no speed increases a bunch of built in apps I didn't want + tons of annoying little changes that feel completely pointess (End Task - End process instead of End Task - Yes)

X's are about equal (0)

wrencherd (865833) | about 3 years ago | (#37838606)

No one cares, but IMHO XP was (is) not really too bad.

I use Mac OS X––after having used DOS, and all of the previous Mac Systems thru 9––and frankly I don't like it so much.

Apple's hardware––regardless of what anyone says about it––is the best, but OS X is the least of the BSD's and ought to be replaced with a real one of those.

Consumers don't make a conscious choice. (1)

owlnation (858981) | about 3 years ago | (#37838622)

Consumers have been quicker to ditch XP for Windows 7 while businesses hem and haw

That's not exactly true. Or rather, it's spun in this sentence in such a way that suggests consumers are choosing 7 over XP -- they are not. They buy a new computer, it comes with whatever it comes with. There's no informed, nor conscious, choice for the most part. Most consumers don't have the skills to find an old copy of XP, wipe off 7 and re-install XP.

Businesses are making a conscious, informed decision. For the most part, there is no compelling business reason to upgrade to Windows 7. It adds very little utility, it's mostly an eye-candy shell for XP.

I miss the old slashdot logo for Microsoft... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 years ago | (#37838666)

The "borg" Bill Gates was much better than just the Microsoft name.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?