What?Wrong in Using Windows XP

[Dibya]

Vinifera Wrote In MSFN

Wich I answered ?
Dibya you're too harsh
but as time goes by you will have to switch at some point

if you have any machine bought in 2007 it will run NT 6 just fine
comparing to todays PC's mine is junk, but I'm switching to x64 win7 soon, coz of RAM, as stupid browsers need RAAAAAAM

XP speed vs 7 ?, maybe 1 second
in some cases - this goes on productivity more, w7 is faster as you can switch via favorites directly to given folders
xp, you'd have to stiff shortcuts to quick launch toolbar or some other crappy place for that...
not to mention taskbar being plagued by buttons too easily

3 GB OS is not that big now... s*** even hard disks from 2000 were 50 GB, now you can get cheap 500 GB
so space isn't issue, speed... just freaking defrag your disk
-

and sorry to others for going off topic

until i have knowledge i will never go from xp.

XP is not faster for 1 second but much more than that.

In my laptop(Compaq620) XP boots up in 16 Seconds and whrere Windows 7 takes 1min 67Sec although more softwares are installed in XP partition (Donot belive me I can show you)

In real life if you compared Rendering Softs, 3dMAX,MAYA Runs far more faster on XP .

I am already there is a patch for XP namely fix128 which can make 32bit XP Recognize and use 128GB RAM with PAE no problem founds till now those are found with old 64G Patches.

Now come to productivity everyone knows XP is userfriendly and much more productive OS . If you ever used corporate networks, You can found XP printing , coping , using every thing instantly where 7 takes much times.

Terminal Server of XP is far better than windows 7 , it run very smooth if 10 RDC machines are connected even with a old p4 pc sameway Win7 RDC performances lags behinds even if you use i5 pc as your server.

Now come to secuirity , win7 and higher contain NSA Backdoors .

If recently a goverment office near my house got infected with CRyptologers where 7 / 8 computers got infected but nothing happened with XP ones.

I have talked many secuirity exsperts from well known institution and even some black hats who currently works in a company .They told you are much safer using 2k\XP\2k3 rather using vista\7\8.1\10.

Even Vista Sp2 performs better than your windows 7 sp1 , donot belive me run yourself pasmark.

Being uptodate with technology is good but Remember old is always Gold.

Even if i accept anything as my second most favoured os after XP that will be 8.1 or Ubuntu.

In 2019 , XP will be Bug free OS in the world due to about 20yrs of Patches and 99.99% of ExploitKits will not do anthing.

I am using XP with out Any AV for one year still i not got any virus.

I donot why? you guys are telling XP bad.
you are concerned about secuirity , then MS is putting some nice spyware in your 7/8.1 pc through updates and windows 10 comes inbuilt . If you are talking about memory manager Xp uses a server standard memory manager and xp even being a 32bit os can adress 128Gb ram in PAE(If you are using Sp2/sp3 , you need a patch namely fix128). XP is lighweight and doesnot have crap like mordern windows . MS is making there every version based on Vista after xp , every one know how? miserable is vista . Corporate networking, SQL performance of xp is far higher than mordern os , donot believe me do some bench mark or see here :: http://www.ryanvm.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10539
Now came to ram, XP use less than half of resoarce what your windows 7/8.1/10 uses so wasting your ram and cpu is good , you can have that for games
Telling Newer os is safer read the following
https://tech.slashdot.org/story/15/09/0 ... y-concerns
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/6906/ ... iruses.htm
I belive windows 8 wined there due to latest defender same way we can have a good much better AV software

If you guys like bloatwares then keep it
Last of all friends what wrong in using XP ?
Some guys there at stackExchange saying useless thinks about XP
I really donot know from where they came from?
They are saying XP is slower than new windows like10
onething more whole internet is full of talks that XPx64 is a bad os but i used once in my pc with 5eraphs update pack , it is having ground breaking stability and quite impossible to crash even much faster than vistax64/7x64 and 8.1x64
Believe or donot believe WIndows XP and Server 2003 is gold standard Operating System.
you can even see here in real life xp is more secure http://www.xpforums.com/xp-security-story-t932767.html
Tell me friends how? many of you all used AV spftware in 2006/7 and before that with XP

[mooms]

Lol.
For older hardware, XP is better, that's for sure, but more and more software will be incompatible with it. It's like Windows 98 before.
If you're concerned about malwares and backdoors, you should try a Linux distro, many of them will run fine (even better than XP) on old hardware.

[Dibya]

Are you kidding with me ?
PAsmark shown much higher rate in XP than 7 even new fellow 8.1 given little high (only 34) but 10 drastically reduced that .
Windows 98 is based on 9x kernel reason it died with out api call
only 120Important Api calls are needed to make XP as much compatible as 10.
Reason 9x not that much stable as NT series.
Unless MS is providing Anything Good and Lightweight , XP is never going to die ! Atleast not for pure craps like windows 10

[mooms]

The funny part is that there was a man who saw all this coming back in the early 90s who nobody listened to. His name is Richard Stallman.

Stallman warned everyone that proprietary software turns on the user in the end. People are complaining that Windows now sucks, and they have all these expensive (closed source too) tools they depend on for their livelihood that can't run on any platform besides Windows. Well, I guess they're getting what's coming to them. Stallman tried to warn them, but they didn't listen because they wanted stuff to "just work". Well, Stallman's inconvenient truth can no longer be ignored.

So have fun Windows users. I hope that your short term gains were worth not solving the problem in an open, portable, way.

Quoted from the Slashdot link you've provided.

If you're happy with XP that's fine, but you must know that newer versions of Visual Studio won't compile binaries compatible with XP, we will see more and more programs dropping XP compatibility.

Also, XP had "spywares" as well, it was well documented.

[Dibya]

The funny part is that there was a man who saw all this coming back in the early 90s who nobody listened to. His name is Richard Stallman.

Stallman warned everyone that proprietary software turns on the user in the end. People are complaining that Windows now sucks, and they have all these expensive (closed source too) tools they depend on for their livelihood that can't run on any platform besides Windows. Well, I guess they're getting what's coming to them. Stallman tried to warn them, but they didn't listen because they wanted stuff to "just work". Well, Stallman's inconvenient truth can no longer be ignored.

So have fun Windows users. I hope that your short term gains were worth not solving the problem in an open, portable, way.

Quoted from the Slashdot link you've provided.

If you're happy with XP that's fine, but you must know that newer versions of Visual Studio won't compile binaries compatible with XP, we will see more and more programs dropping XP compatibility.

Also, XP had "spywares" as well, it was well documented.

Actually some one there at CNET Forum said that XP has Spyware .
no where in the world it is mentioned
I am angry on MS , My windows 7 laptop got atomatically upgraded to windowS 10 .
Actually XP Kernel Lacks few mordern API Calls that donot allow it to run
latest apps compiled with latest visual studio. I am already tring to make xp more compatible , i already made netframework 4.6.1 work , i can show you screenshot.
Actually I gonna have some anger , as few people are telling XP is a bad ,useless ,crappy oS. Can you believe it?

[mockingbird]

Yes, XP is better for certain things, but let's be serious for a moment:

1) XP lacks an implementation for garbage collection and TRIM for SSDs. Yes, more SSD chipsets nowaday have automatic garbage collection, but having to manually run TRIM isn't ideal

2) XP lacks a 3D compositor for its desktop. The desktop still runs in GDI+, so you do not have vertical sync when watching videos in a browser

3) XP is limited to DirectX 9. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just that browsers want DX10+ for hardware acceleration. There used to be a very good hack for that on Chrome by our good member here SvyatPro, but no more. And Chrome is no longer being updated for XP

XP has its uses. It's perfect for my 2008-era work computer. For my gaming computer, I wouldn't run anything less than Windows 7. For Youtube viewing, Windows Vista or 7 is essential. The HTML5 acceleration will completely blow XP out of the water.

If someone could hack the XP GDI+ to fix the vsync and fork Firefox to support DX9 as well as find a way to force compositing acceleration without Direct2D, then yes, XP would be perfect. The SSD limitations I could live with by running something in task scheduler to trim every week.

[Dibya]

@mockingbird


Do you have any contact for Svyat?

[Zephyr]

For Youtube viewing, Windows Vista or 7 is essential. The HTML5 acceleration will completely blow XP out of the water.

Yes, the hardware acceleration of HTML5 video using Media Foundation codecs in Firefox and Chrome must be pretty impressive, but you can achieve the same with XP's Direct Show codecs, the Viewtube user script, and the Windows Media Player NPAPI plugin v1.0.0.8 (np-mswmp). Browsers that still support NPAPI and XP include Qupzilla, Midori, Firefox, Seamonkey and Pale Moon.

[Zephyr]

3) XP is limited to DirectX 9. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just that browsers want DX10+ for hardware acceleration. There used to be a very good hack for that on Chrome by our good member here SvyatPro, but no more. And Chrome is no longer being updated for XP

Isn't this hardware acceleration intended for those irritating animated gifs?

[mockingbird]

3) XP is limited to DirectX 9. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just that browsers want DX10+ for hardware acceleration. There used to be a very good hack for that on Chrome by our good member here SvyatPro, but no more. And Chrome is no longer being updated for XP

Isn't this hardware acceleration intended for those irritating animated gifs?

No, it's actually pretty important for HTML5 video and just ordinary browsing.

Svyat has a hack for force-enabling it, but it doesn't work properly with the Chrome/Chromium backports, and he says it does for Opera 36 which is essentially a fork of the last version of Chrome for XP, with continued security updates (by Opera). So theoretically, you could have a fully-accelerated and updated browser in XP with Opera 36...

The problem is that it did not work for me with a Radeon, and SvyatPro says that it does work with an nVidia card. So if anyone here with an nVidia card wants to give it a try, post here and I can send you some info.

[Dibya]

3) XP is limited to DirectX 9. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just that browsers want DX10+ for hardware acceleration. There used to be a very good hack for that on Chrome by our good member here SvyatPro, but no more. And Chrome is no longer being updated for XP

Isn't this hardware acceleration intended for those irritating animated gifs?

No, it's actually pretty important for HTML5 video and just ordinary browsing.

Svyat has a hack for force-enabling it, but it doesn't work properly with the Chrome/Chromium backports, and he says it does for Opera 36 which is essentially a fork of the last version of Chrome for XP, with continued security updates (by Opera). So theoretically, you could have a fully-accelerated and updated browser in XP with Opera 36...

The problem is that it did not work for me with a Radeon, and SvyatPro says that it does work with an nVidia card. So if anyone here with an nVidia card wants to give it a try, post here and I can send you some info.

WineD3d has some allergy with Radeon and Intel GFX drivers.
too bad!

[MichaelPeerm]

I just purchased the app. No matter what I do, I only get one sound, one tempo.
Does this app have to be connected to a midi device in order to work?

[patrickjburt]

What is the name of the app?

Yes i think so i should be....