• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Back to XP64 for me!

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mathewmatics

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 16, 2011
Messages
208
I waited a long time to try 7. I messed with it on many customer machines but any tech running XP fully tweaked will have a hard time leaving it for anything soooooo....I waited a long time.

Well I installed it....played with it for a few days....and now back to XP64 on SSD...seems faster to me and I saw no reason to stick with 7...... DX9.0c -vs-DX11 didn't bother me at all and I see no reason to have a OS sit idle on over 700MB of RAM.

I have not read all of this but I am the only one?


Just my .02
 
The RAM usage is pretty typical these days. Windows isn't the only OS that does it.

If you do not feel DX11 has any benefit for you, and you don't feel that things like IE9 only working on Vista and higher are a concern to you (or a hint of things to come), then use XP64.
 
Whatever works for you. Not everyone wants to use an ancient OS anymore. ;)
 
Yet another person who doesn't seem to understand the memory usage of Vista and Windows 7. Unlike Windows XP, Windows 7 actually uses the memory for something while idle. It's used for pre-loading applications into memory and optimizing the disk drive for those applications you use most frequently. This way it can actually improve your application launch times. Though it does take a week or two before it really gets disk and memory optimization right. It releases the memory in the event you need to use it, instantly. There is no reason to stick with an ancient OS, or an obscure variant of it like Windows XP Professional x64 Edition. Furthermore, having to tweak the damned thing as much as someone might want to blows.

I believe you don't get Eyefinity / Surround support on it either, so in addition to being stuck in the Direct X dark ages, there is that. XP also can't align itself on an SSD without third party applications and the list of reasons why that ancient OS should be replaced goes on and on. If your happy, then great but there are plenty of reasons why a "tech" would leave that ancient OS behind and never look back. That's not to say XP didn't have a good run because it did. However there comes a time when we must move forward. I can't believe any "tech" would want to keep using something so damn old if they had another choice.
 
Dan_D said:
Yet another person who doesn't seem to understand the memory usage of Vista and Windows 7. Unlike Windows XP, Windows 7 actually uses the memory for something while idle. It's used for pre-loading applications into memory and optimizing the disk drive for those applications you use most frequently. This way it can actually improve your application launch times. Though it does take a week or two before it really gets disk and memory optimization right. It releases the memory in the event you need to use it, instantly. There is no reason to stick with an ancient OS, or an obscure variant of it like Windows XP Professional x64 Edition. Furthermore, having to tweak the damned thing as much as someone might want to blows.

I believe you don't get Eyefinity / Surround support on it either, so in addition to being stuck in the Direct X dark ages, there is that. XP also can't align itself on an SSD without third party applications and the list of reasons why that ancient OS should be replaced goes on and on. If your happy, then great but there are plenty of reasons why a "tech" would leave that ancient OS behind and never look back. That's not to say XP didn't have a good run because it did. However there comes a time when we must move forward. I can't believe any "tech" would want to keep using something so damn old if they had another choice.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
There's also the small matter of the lack of TRIM in XP (yes, you can work around it with GC and what not, but the fact is that it's not built in).
 
LOL I knew this would get some opinions...

I can't imagine and OS using software to speed up what I do....I disable all of that in 7...and it still is a mem hog..

I run XP64 on a SSD with no problems and I only run the OS and BFBC2 and soon BF3 so I don't need the OS to "do" anything for me at all.

I do understand and have read all the claims...but if can hit the power button and be on my home page in 40 seconds flat and I only game I see no reason for all of the new stuff. DX11 maybe but not worth it IMO....not on this machine...not now.....I still left 7 on another machine...
 
biggest reason to ditch the dinosaur known as xp is NO MORE SECURITY updates........
 
Updates?? LOL?? What are those?

I install redistrib SP3 and kill everything auto...

Yuk I have never actually went to MS site for updates in 15 years I bet....
 
You can hit the power button and be on your home page in 40 seconds with Windows 7. In fact, you can do it in less than 10 - that's what Standby/Sleep mode is for. XP Pro x64 wasn't quite as advanced as things are today. While there's a standby and sleep mode for that older OS, it won't come back up anywhere nearly as fast as Windows 7 does.

As for the memory thing, you're stuck in the past, seriously. We get this on an all-too-frequent basis. And just for a little history, for a very long time I myself was probably the single most outspoken proponent of XP Pro x64 here at this forum, for several years (was under a different account in the past - but that's another story, and everything is kosher, I assure you). I used XP Pro x64 from the day it was available on MSDN (since it was never a retail product), until the very day I first got my hands on the first leaked beta (actually a very late stage alpha that was a beta 1 RC) in October of 2008.

After that, I switched to Windows 7 and I haven't looked back since.

I'm normally known for making some mega posts around here (I have two stickies about Windows Vista/7 as well in this particular subforum also), but I'm going to cut this one short:

You don't know what you're talking about. :D

Seriously. You're spouting off your personal opinions, which is fine, and we get that - and you're completely entitled to do such a thing by creating this thread but, there's a point where it just turns into something else and not quite an opinion thing anymore, it becomes more of a bashing-trolling type thread.

If you want to continue using XP Pro x64, so be it, great, more power to you. But you're missing out on several things, including TRIM which will help that SSD last longer (unless it has native TRIM support on a hardware level, of course, which is entirely possible).

Everything works better with Windows 7, but if you're not willing to move on from XP Pro x64, then that's that.

Good luck...

(Ghost edit: based on the post above, it's clear we can see where this thread is going... and XP Pro x64 doesn't have an SP3... so... IN BEFORE THE LOCK!) :D
 
mathewmatics said:
Updates?? LOL?? What are those?

I install redistrib SP3 and kill everything auto...

Yuk I have never actually went to MS site for updates in 15 years I bet....
Click to expand...

Wow. There have been more than a few serious security vulnerabilities since SP3. :eek:


Joe Average said:
If you want to continue using XP Pro x64, so be it, great, more power to you. But you're missing out on several things, including TRIM which will help that SSD last longer (unless it has native TRIM support on a hardware level, of course, which is entirely possible).

Everything works better with Windows 7, but if you're not willing to move on from XP Pro x64, then that's that.

(Ghost edit: based on the post above, it's clear we can see where this thread is going... so... IN BEFORE THE LOCK!) :D
Click to expand...

I think that basically sums it up this thread (and all the others like it).
 
"You can hit the power button and be on your home page in 40 seconds with Windows 7"

It should be half the speed of XP! It is 7 afterall. I only cold boot and at 40 seconds I can't think of a reason to leave it running or sleeping..


I have a feeling you 7 lovers do a lot more than me software wise and you needed something with more.
 
and everytime i'm forced to go back onto a windows XP machine, i cringe in disgust at the ancient OS....and love every minute i can either be in linux or Win 7.......

just my .02


-In before the lock as well-

ghost edit: from cold boot to being able to open the internet is ~50 seconds, and thats only due to BIOS/boot manager time...
 
Neb said:
Wow. There have been more than a few serious security vulnerabilities since SP3. :eek:
Click to expand...

I don't know what to say here.....its pretty easy not to get a virus even with XPSP1 if you are tweaked and set up properly...I have been concerned with EVERY single security update....just SP2 and sometimes 3 for me...
 
Dan_D said:
-snip-
Click to expand...
Regardless of the philosophy that unused memory is wasted and thus better to use it than not, it isn't rocket science that Windows 7 still actively REQUIRES more memory. 2GB is barely enough for Windows 7 -- yes, you can run Windows 7 and get away with 2GB, but that's still pushing it. For Windows XP, that would be essentially the equivalent to having about 768MB. 2GB in Windows XP is not the same as 2GB in Windows 7; XP blows out the roof while for Windows 7 it's barely just enough. Even Linux doesn't go by the philosophy to use all unused memory.

XP users are not really missing out on anything.

A properly configured and tweaked Windows XP with the right lifestyle beats Windows 7. XP64, being notably faster than XP, would have all the more glory.
 
Last edited:
mathewmatics said:
I run XP64 on a SSD with no problems and I only run the OS and BFBC2 and soon BF3 so I don't need the OS to "do" anything for me at all.
mathewmatics said:
You might want to rethink this statement.

mathewmatics said:
I do understand and have read all the claims...but if can hit the power button and be on my home page in 40 seconds flat and I only game I see no reason for all of the new stuff. DX11 maybe but not worth it IMO....not on this machine...not now.....I still left 7 on another machine...
Click to expand...

40 second boot time? I have two Windows 7 machines that boot and will bring me to a web site faster than that.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I can get XP to sit at 128MB! LOL....

I can get 7 to sit at 500 but it bounces to 7xx randomly and this is with a lot disabled...basically everything that I can.
 
mathewmatics said:
I run XP64 on a SSD with no problems and I only run the OS and BFBC2 and soon BF3 so I don't need the OS to "do" anything for me at all.
Click to expand...

you forget that BF3 wont be supported on XP....IIRC they are dropping DX9 support in total, and XP with it..
 
mathewmatics said:
LOL I knew this would get some opinions...

I can't imagine and OS using software to speed up what I do....I disable all of that in 7...and it still is a mem hog..

I run XP64 on a SSD with no problems and I only run the OS and BFBC2 and soon BF3 so I don't need the OS to "do" anything for me at all.

I do understand and have read all the claims...but if can hit the power button and be on my home page in 40 seconds flat and I only game I see no reason for all of the new stuff. DX11 maybe but not worth it IMO....not on this machine...not now.....I still left 7 on another machine...
Click to expand...

It's your thinking that is flawed, not Windows 7. Your lack of imagination is irrelevant. The fact is that Windows can and will speed up your applications when it's allowed to work properly. Many of Windows 7's features should not be disabled. If you disabled services and features (which you clearly don't understand) then you didn't give the OS a chance to work as it's intended to. This may very well be the reason why you experienced it the way you did. Windows 7 doesn't need the tweaking that Windows XP does. For example; You do not need to disable the System Restore feature in Windows 7 because unlike Windows XP, the feature doesn't kill system performance. As for only running BFBC2 and later on BF3, you should be looking at Windows 7 unless your graphics card and other hardware are as ancient as your operating system of choice. BFBC2 can't be seen in all it's glory without DX10 / DX11 support. Now of course you could argue that the minor shader differences between DX9 and DX11 in BFBC2 may not be noticeable to you. Fair enough. If you don't use a multi-monitor setup then of course your Windows XP choice won't hold you back but when it comes to Battlefield 3, you'll be completely screwed. While Frostbite 1.5 doesn't support the full range of DX11 features, Frostbite 2.0 will. It will not support DX9 and therefore won't be Windows XP compatible at all. So you'll have to move that machine to Windows 7 anyway if you want to play it.

As far as the SSD goes, of course you aren't experiencing problems with it and Windows XP. This is because you don't seem to grasp what the lack of TRIM support means and what partition alignment means. These are things Windows XP can not do. This is fact. You aren't getting the most out of your SSD. This is fact. You aren't going to be able to get the most out of your hardware using a dated OS. This fact is inescapable.
 
Cerulean said:
2GB in Windows XP is not the same as 2GB in Windows 7; XP blows out the roof while for Windows 7 it's barely just enough.
Click to expand...

2GB is PLENTY for Windows 7 with the exception of gaming and other higher-end tasks. But sure, an 8 year old OS that's significantly smaller and less complex uses less memory. It also has a tendency to manage it badly compared to Windows 7.
 
mathewmatics said:
I can get XP to sit at 128MB! LOL....

I can get 7 to sit at 500 but it bounces to 7xx randomly and this is with a lot disabled...basically everything that I can.
Click to expand...

You clearly did not read Post #4, Dan_D is correct about the way Windows Vista+ handles memory management much more efficiently, and you can't take the task manager numbers at face value.
 
mathewmatics said:
Updates?? LOL?? What are those?

I install redistrib SP3 and kill everything auto...

Yuk I have never actually went to MS site for updates in 15 years I bet....
Click to expand...

Please tell me where you work so I can avoid it at all costs.....
 
Dan_D said:
The fact is that Windows can and will speed up your applications when it's allowed to work properly.
Click to expand...
You are so full of this stuff:

bullshit_pile.jpg


You say it as though it doesn't work properly because people start "tweaking" and configuring their Windows rather than leaving it defaults, as is.

My Windows 7 is defaults. This laptop that I install Windows 7 is notably -- or shall I say, significantly more powerful than the laptop I had Windows XP on, and yet with the same amount of RAM Windows runs slower than my significantly less powerful laptop that runs Windows XP.

Quite the flipside.

Oh, and I am also using a MicroSD for ReadyBoost on my Windows 7 lappy.

(EDIT: And I should mention that my Windows 7 is installed from scratch rather than using preinstalled Windows 7.)
 
mathewmatics said:
I don't know what to say here.....its pretty easy not to get a virus even with XPSP1 if you are tweaked and set up properly...I have been concerned with EVERY single security update....just SP2 and sometimes 3 for me...
Click to expand...

There is a significant difference between "tweaked and set up properly" and properly reducing your vulnerability. It seems obvious that you're not going to change your mind about anything after reading this thread, so whatever works for you, works for you. I'll stick with my opinion that not patching past a service pack is a TERRIBLE IDEA.
 
Man some of you little geeks seem to take my decision personally or something.

I don't need the "most" out of my SSD.

I don't care about DX11.

I don't need my OS to "speed up" my applications??? What a crock. "Speed" them up...lol.....
 
Again....we are talking about my gamer here...NOT my customers machines...

You mouths that get worked up and take personal shots get the threads locked I imagine....
 
Neb said:
There is a significant difference between "tweaked and set up properly" and properly reducing your vulnerability. It seems obvious that you're not going to change your mind about anything after reading this thread, so whatever works for you, works for you. I'll stick with my opinion that not patching past a service pack is a TERRIBLE IDEA.
Click to expand...
I have never done Windows Updates except until my Windows 7 installation on my newer lappy. Of all infections I have had with the exception of MSBlast, I have never had an infection over the past 10 years due to a security hole in Windows.

Read my posts at http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1600220
 
mathewmatics said:
Man some of you little geeks seem to take my decision personally or something.

I don't need the "most" out of my SSD.

I don't care about DX11.

I don't need my OS to "speed up" my applications??? What a crock. "Speed" them up...lol.....
Click to expand...

but you do need your OS to support BF3 if you want to play it that is ;)

obviously you wanted opinions or else you wouldn't have made a post about it...and well you got yourself a bunch of opinions
 
Clarification: I bought 7 in prep for BF3....just went back to XP64 until I have no choice....

And I will MISS XP64 bad!
 
heatlesssun said:
2GB is PLENTY for Windows 7 with the exception of gaming and other higher-end tasks. But sure, an 8 year old OS that's significantly smaller and less complex uses less memory. It also has a tendency to manage it badly compared to Windows 7.
Click to expand...
I am using over 2gb right now with 25 tabs open in Chrome and no other programs open at all. 2gb is the very minimum even for most basic users. plus just think of all the junk that comes on pre built comps or with stuff they install that most people never remove.

EDIT: oops I do have Steam running too
 
Last edited:
Cerulean said:
I have never done Windows Updates except until my Windows 7 installation on my newer lappy. Of all infections I have had with the exception of MSBlast, I have never had an infection over the past 10 years due to a security hole in Windows.

Read my posts at http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1600220
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your posts about tweaking/configuring XP has to do with this thread?

Without knowing how well a computer is protected (firewall/router), I prefer to recommend keeping Windows updated. Of course, you're welcome to your opinion.

mathewmatics said:
Man some of you little geeks seem to take my decision personally or something.
Click to expand...

mathewmatics said:
You mouths that get worked up and take personal shots get the threads locked I imagine....
Click to expand...
You seem to be taking other peoples' opinion personally as well...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top