I am XP SP2 addict!
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
It annoyed the crap out of me. Not so much the interface but the crappiness of what it was doing. Such a memory whore etc
So you didn't like the fact that you looked at task manager and saw that it was using some of the memory that was normally sitting idle in other OSes?
kinar wrote:
So you didn't like the fact that you looked at task manager and saw that it was using some of the memory that was normally sitting idle in other OSes?
There are actually other ways than looking at the task manager to observe memory whoreeness... Specifically I am talking about performance of applications.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
It annoyed the crap out of me. Not so much the interface but the crappiness of what it was doing. Such a memory whore etc
So you didn't like the fact that you looked at task manager and saw that it was using some of the memory that was normally sitting idle in other OSes?
The problem isn't caching (although the way it was shown in vista was unfortunate); but the base amount of memory needed for the OS to run. Weven will work at an acceptable level of performance on hardware with much lower specs than Vista did.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
-
The problem isn't caching (although the way it was shown in vista was unfortunate); but the base amount of memory needed for the OS to run. Weven will work at an acceptable level of performance on hardware with much lower specs than Vista did.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
Dan Neely wrote:
but the base amount of memory needed for the OS to run
This is mostly a percieved issue and not a real one. I've personally run vista with 256MB system memory with surprisingly "good" performance (surprising to me, I was expecting it to choke and it didn't). Vista allocates more memory based upon what is available. I've used it in just about every aspect of computing...programming, gaming, media encoding/playback, high efficiency realtime data processing (stock market data streams), etc and never had any problems with the OS itself. I'm not about to say that Vista is better than Weven (cause it isn't) but from my experiences, it is certainly worlds better than XP ever dreamed of being. And Weven is even better yet.
-
kinar wrote:
So you didn't like the fact that you looked at task manager and saw that it was using some of the memory that was normally sitting idle in other OSes?
There are actually other ways than looking at the task manager to observe memory whoreeness... Specifically I am talking about performance of applications.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Dan Neely wrote:
but the base amount of memory needed for the OS to run
This is mostly a percieved issue and not a real one. I've personally run vista with 256MB system memory with surprisingly "good" performance (surprising to me, I was expecting it to choke and it didn't). Vista allocates more memory based upon what is available. I've used it in just about every aspect of computing...programming, gaming, media encoding/playback, high efficiency realtime data processing (stock market data streams), etc and never had any problems with the OS itself. I'm not about to say that Vista is better than Weven (cause it isn't) but from my experiences, it is certainly worlds better than XP ever dreamed of being. And Weven is even better yet.
My experience with Vista SP0 (and 1????) with 1GB of ram on a core 1 duo 1.73 laptop was rather poor. It wasn't until I upgraded it to 4(3)GB that I stopped having semi-regular UI responsiveness issues. With enough hardware Vista was acceptable; but that was significantly more than the baseline system when it came out.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
-
I personally can't stand what was done to the file explorer.. I mean - I like it when everything I need to do or may want is just there - instead they graphically mangled the file address bar, hide menu options... you can't get there from here...etc... I found that more troublesome than anything... besides the connectivity bits never working..neededing constant rebooting to talk with other machines on the lan and stuff. In all fairness I am a XP and Linux Fan.. and my Cousin tells me that "Weven" is WAY better than Vista: faster, not in your face so much.. etc. He likes it. I'm actually game for it but I'm not tearing down my development MAIN PC (and game PC) to switch over until I have a better reason then what is on the table now ("it'd be cool to check out")
Know way too many languages... master of none!
-
My experience with Vista SP0 (and 1????) with 1GB of ram on a core 1 duo 1.73 laptop was rather poor. It wasn't until I upgraded it to 4(3)GB that I stopped having semi-regular UI responsiveness issues. With enough hardware Vista was acceptable; but that was significantly more than the baseline system when it came out.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
No one tells jokes in base-16 anymore. ;)
-
I use Windows 7 as a developer with .NET, but still use Windows XP Mode in Windows 7 to support legacy applications, our products, and various development tools such as Studio 6.0 projects. I have a rather expensive scanner that does not work with Windows 7, but works fine in Windows XP Mode on Windows 7. My primary complaint about Windows XP Mode, and Windows Virtual Machine on Windows 7, is the inability to map drive letters to specific folders on the host machine. Windows XP Mode allows me to share entire drives on the host machine, which forces me to drill down to the desired folder each time. On the other hand, Windows Virtual Machine on Windows 7 allows me to connect external USB drives and devices. Without the ability to use external USB devices I would not be able to use the scanner with Windows XP Mode O/S. Aero on Windows 7 is really neat.... for about a week. I suppose I could spend days on end personalizing my desktop "experience". But, I write documentation for our products, which require screen shots of the product in action. Some older screenshots were taken on Windows XP with "Windows Classic" UI. Fortunately, Windows 7 allows me to use "Windows Classic" UI so I don't have to retake all of my screen shots again. I use Windows XP SP-3 (via XP Mode on Windows 7) and Windows 7 almost equally, but for different purposes.
-
OK, OK I admit it. I am still running XP SP2 as my main dev OS. I just haven't seen anything worthy yet of moving on to something else, especially when it involves money. Back when Microsoft initially released XP SP3, I had lots of clients with seriously crashed systems overnight. This was because they had automatic updates turned on and SP3 was automatically loaded at their next reboot. Needless to say, that left a bad taste in my mouth about moving to SP3. I'm sure the kinks have all been worked out by now but.... I like my XP SP2, even if it does have hundreds of patches. Other than lots of "oooh, ahhhh, shiny!" I don't see a justified increase in genuine productivity by moving to the new OSs... yet.
-------------------------------------------- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
-
No one tells jokes in base-16 anymore. ;)
-
Ha ha! I said "no one", not "nobody". Your math joke reminded me of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, in which the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything is 42.
-
I run XP SP3 for speed (independent test shows XP ~15% faster than Win 7 for most applications). But I added the Win 7 Theme to get the look and feel of Win 7, but leave out things like Aero, Visual switcher, etc that eat a lot of CPU. http://techtoday4u.blogspot.com/2009/08/windows-7-theme-for-windows-xp.html[^] But if you want it to slow down just like Win 7, you can install all the visual bells and whistles.
Melting Away www.deals-house.com www.innovative--concepts.com
-
I used XP for ages, swore off Vista based on the reviews, but then grabbed a copy of Vista Ultimate off of the It's Not Cheating promo anyway. Which should never, ever, ever, be done by anyone wishing to stay sane. Computer needed a clean up, so I went the lazy way and formatted instead, then installed Vista. I am not kidding, responsiveness increased by well over 100%. I could rip a movie faster, games performed much better (frame rates went up, settings went up accordingly :P), etc. Having a true 64bit OS was so much better than XP. I also had a dramatic decrease in the amount of popups my firewall gave me notifying that it had done an excellent job stopping an intruder and if I could please pay for it now it would be very grateful and even give me new features. And I sense I'm off topic.. Morale of the story is.. x64 Vista is a much better choice than XP will ever be on any machine where performance is highly regarded. It's also more secure, which is rather nice. Then you have 7, 7 is like a Vista with the system resources set up so that it looks better. :P It will run on an XP machine with Vista performance. In order of level of cool points in regards to gaming for each OS we have x64 7, x64 Vista, XP, Mac/Linux. This may not hold true for all machines, on a 32bit system then XP may very well win, but any 64bit based system with more than 512MB of VRAM and 1.5GB of RAM, then 7 is definitely recoomended, and Vista is ok too.
-
Ha ha! I said "no one", not "nobody". Your math joke reminded me of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, in which the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything is 42.
-
OK, OK I admit it. I am still running XP SP2 as my main dev OS. I just haven't seen anything worthy yet of moving on to something else, especially when it involves money. Back when Microsoft initially released XP SP3, I had lots of clients with seriously crashed systems overnight. This was because they had automatic updates turned on and SP3 was automatically loaded at their next reboot. Needless to say, that left a bad taste in my mouth about moving to SP3. I'm sure the kinks have all been worked out by now but.... I like my XP SP2, even if it does have hundreds of patches. Other than lots of "oooh, ahhhh, shiny!" I don't see a justified increase in genuine productivity by moving to the new OSs... yet.
-------------------------------------------- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
RickRoc wrote:
Needless to say, that left a bad taste in my mouth about moving to SP3
I had the same problem with SP2 and had to reinstall Windows. For that reason I put off SP3 until I had to in April. I was forced to reinstall Windows again so I thought I may as well apply SP3 at that point.
RickRoc wrote:
I like my XP SP2, even if it does have hundreds of patches
Well, a couple of reasons to install SP3 now... 1. SP2 is being obsoleted next month which means you won't receive any more patches via Windows Update. (You can download manually but this is unsupported and may not work.) 2. If this is important to you .NET 4/VS 2010 requires SP3.
Kevin
-
Well, we all have our skeletons in the "closet"...........don't let too many people know.. :laugh: