Why is Microsoft making it seem bad to have XP in 2012?

So I'm on the Microsoft website looking for a Windows 8 Release Preview download right, and I look down and it says "Still have Windows XP?" To me that kind of seems rude in my opinion. Like the way it's written, Still have it? Making it seem that you're behind 2-3 generations is bad. http://windows.microsoft.com/en-GB/windows/downloads is the link in question. It maybe just me or is Microsoft getting a bit more aggressive with people on XP to move to Vista-7-8, or not even Vista, 7 or 8. Since XP and Vista are apparently getting just the basics to survive. I still like XP and Vista no matter what, those were the editions of Microsoft we geeks know like the back of our hands. What do you guys think?

alt text

move up is having it microsoft to bad editions in xp making seem why aggressive 2012

asked Jul 15 '12 at 15:53

DJ Scooby Doo
9.5k●232●279●379

17 Answers:

oldest newest most voted

12next page »

people who talk about XP being old generally only have that as their reason and logically it is the equivalent of telling someone too stop using the wheel because it is old and possibly invented be cavemen. If your only reason for upgrading is because the OS is old, then you don't have a good reason.

PS (the road on the side of your house is old, stop using it)

If a OS meets all of your needs, then why upgrade it? Windows 7 is not any more secure in terms of the incidents of exploitation (in fact many trustworthy security researchers such as Steve Gibson argue based on the history of exploits that windows 7 is less secure because most security holes found effect both windows 7 and windows XP (showing that a similar code base was used for both OS), furthermore, many new exploits that only effect a single OS, generally only effect windows 7 as it will be an exploit for a new feature that was added and is not present in windows XP to be exploited.

On top of all that, not everyone needs the latest direct x, and even on current gen hardware, windows XP is still faster on the same hardware than windows 7 is, especially if you are running a HDD as all of the resources on windows XP are less IO intensive (smaller OS designed at a time when hard drive IO performance sucked so you could not have explorer or other elements in the OS calling a huge library)

On my PC I dual boot windows XP and windows 7. I have both OS optimized for performance and windows 7 for me boots faster than it did on a fresh install)

On my 7200RPM WD black 1TB drive, windows XP boots in about 13-14 seconds (to get to a 100% usable state when all loading stops (the hard drive light stops blinking and no additional loading is needed)

Windows 7 takes almost twice as long to get to that same state.

I use a Phenom II X6 CPU overclocked to 4.1GHz

8GB RAM though 32 bit windows XP only sees 3328MB of RAM and the rest is allocated to a RAM disk for use with photoshop and a few other professional applications that allow multiple cache levels.

I also have a 120GB sandisk SSD where I install most of my applications to (as well as about 60GB of steam games)

At startup, windows XP with all non microsoft startup items are disabled, takes about 40MB of RAM while the same setup will take close to 1GB of RAM on windows 7

(my current windows XP setup takes about 70-80MB of RAM at startup since I have avast antivirus and MSI afterburner in my system startup)

For both windows Xp and windows 7, all applications are installed to the same SSD for the most part (all 32 bit apps are installed to the same folder (overwriting whats already there so for example, my firefox program files entry takes only 36.3MB of storage for both windows 7 and Xp since they are being run from the same exact folder (most applications can be shared this way especially since most of the other data more tailored to the OS are put in the app data folders and registry.

This can be done for games and even applications such as adobe audition so both OS get the benefit of the SSD

The only time when extra space is taken is when I have to install a 64 bit specific application which requires it's own dedicated folder since my XP install is 32 bit.

Overall, I regularly use both windows XP and windows 7 and in switching between then, the snappiness of the and general performance of the OS is clearly in windows XP's favor. Overall, this noticeable difference is enough to keep me using windows XP as my primary OS and windows 7 for direct x 10 and 11 games and the latest adobe aftereffects, and maya 3D (the 64 bit mental ray render engine renders faster than the 32 bit engine)

I have also tested dualboots of windows XP and windows 7 on the current gen ivy bridge systems and the difference between the 2 is still noticeable.

PS you can not tell the difference in CPU performance (windows XP benchmarks higher in some test of CPU performance and windows 7 benchmarks higher in others, but the margin is so small that there is no way you can actually notice any difference. The main area where you notice a difference is when you do anything within the OS using the OS'es own resources, eg opening a folder, or menu, or setting or other things, things that are instant if close enough to it for it to feel instant, take a considerably longer amount of time in windows 7 as more data has to be read from the hard drive to display the same content (mainly because windows 7 likes adding special effects and other graphical elements to folders and other elements that don't need them for any functional reason.

Overall, in terms of performance you can consider windows 7 to be less snappy and it is entirely due to it not being as IO friendly as windows XP ( an OS designed for a time when a hard drive that could read and write at 30MB/s was seen as really good)

answered Jul 15 '12 at 19:39

Razor512
15.6k●34●80●242

edited Jul 15 '12 at 19:44

This was a really good read from a technical point of view. Since I have modern OpenGl and shader model support It made me think twice. But as far as security I'm still concerned. Don't get me wrong. I have confidence in the OS itself and just about anything Microsoft has ever developed. But one thing we all have to realize and admit to ourselves is that while sitting at our desks we'd need a mirror to see the most common exploit in the vicinity. Highly customisable UIs thwart fake system messages and fake log ins. A social engineer can make them but they can't guess what theme, window configuration and fonts your using. XP doesn't SM what programs access. I have to find out later by checking processes and event logs which is time consuming. I think that makes the newer OSs faster and more secure. I love the performance of XP it's just becoming cumbersome.

(Jul 15 '12 at 21:47) ClosetFuturist

Most of the new malware is designed with windows vista and 7 in mind so most of them will never throw up a warning, they simply start off with not requesting anything special and thus windows will not see the app trying to make any change, then a privilege escalation exploit is used to fully infect the system and run code with administrator privileges (there are even many free tools that allow you to run some of these exploits)

furthermore, for the malware that requires a user to provide permission, they will pretty much always allow it because probably 999 times out of 1000 that dialog pops up for something that the user wants to do that is safe and there is a lot of research backing the psychological principle of classical conditioning.

Simply showing a message that a application will possibly make a change is not enough, it needs to tell the user exactly what changes were attempted, eg any registry changes (if so then what are the attempted changes and their values)

any hex edits to certain dlls, then list the ones that it would have changed and the hex output of both files and highlight the differences.

the current windows UAC does not provide any security as most applications can get around it and for the ones that cant, the user will often give it permission anyway because they have been conditioned to always give permission because more often than not the UAC warning comes up for safe things that the user wants to do.

While having different themes can work, not all UI elements are themed, and a possible improvement to handling fake message boxes will be to have message boxes always show some transparency to the desktop background (out of focus and icons and all for the entire window a slight 10% or so transparency should do it as while most people never change their theme, almost everyone changes the desktop background (and the ones that don't will usually not know how and will have a store bought system where dell or acer or hp or some of the other random companies will have their own stock background) and also has icons on the desktop and a fake one that is basically a popup ad on a website will not be able to fake that.

while windows 7 did take steps to improve security (provided the user is security minded) the current steps have so far proved to be ineffective with the majority of computer users.

(Jul 16 '12 at 16:55) Razor512

Yes security is a game of cat and mouse. Targets get exploited no matter what measures they take. What it boils down to is still the proficiency of the human asset. I've even considered Window 8 because of its requirement for Execute Disable bit support in the BIOS. I like that it forces a closed door on some of the lower level malware exploits.

I can't stand OEM setups on my personal machines. When I'm wanting remove some of the built up clutter with a clean install; not only do I have to begin it manually because IE6 is no longer supported by Microsoft Update, but also it has become painfully time consuming because of the sheer volume of updates for XP. I may have the minority opinion among us XP <3ers but it's become a chore for me to use in many ways. I'm eventually going to have to give it up any way just like I had to give up DOS mode with the end of 9x. Which is a bit of a farce because I'm still using command line utilities on flash drives that use file allocation tables. Chances are that I'll be able to get what I want from 7 or 8.

(Jul 20 '12 at 15:51) ClosetFuturist

for my windows XP, I have a custom ISO that includes most of the updates so if I do a fresh install, I only need to do about 8 or so months of updates. have not updated that build since I use an acronis image that is faster to restore if I ever need to.

(Jul 22 '12 at 19:15) Razor512

There's kids younger than XP that can build an OS. It's really outdated.

answered Jul 15 '12 at 21:51

Cameron
1.8k●103●127●134

Not that outdated though.

(Jul 16 '12 at 23:03) DJ Scooby Doo

heh I don't know I was teaching my oldest daughter how to install linux and programming when she was 6 years old and even at that age she learned impressively quick she is not much older then XP now ...

keep in mind when your talking about operating system your not talking about the big picture all the bloatware with it your talk just the kernel that is the part that controls the hardware the important part ..

keep in mind even with out an operating system any computer is a great calculator and word processor Microsoft office was not ever a miracle on 34th street the only thing it cant do with out an OS is spell check or even without an OS the processor has basic start and stop for a drives, print and such logging on to a network is nothing more then 4 lines script so many people have for the lat 18 year sat in the easy life some learned to fear the command prompt but there was a day when more then it was an old friend to a good many of many of us :)

i guess today after years of mouse clicking lots for got that the processor is the brains of the computer not microsoft they build the OS to work on the processor computer is far from nothing without it ..

(Jul 16 '12 at 23:42) jadtechnic

upgrading is a good choice, however. XP was a Great OS, but people seriously need to let go. (And when XP came out, if you had 64 bit XP sucked, so if you have a 64 bit PC running XP I'm sorry for you.) Just like Corporations still rely on XP SP2 and IE7. It's time to upgrade.

(Jul 16 '12 at 23:57) Cameron

Because XP is a behind system. People need to move on. Windows 7 is an excellent system - and in many cases, actually runs as smooth as or even better than XP. Its a 10 year old system. Leave it. 7 is fine. Windows 8 is a different matter though - That will be a huge problem for many people.

answered Jul 15 '12 at 16:40

SkinnyBill
656●14●18●27

Microsoft NEEDS you to think having XP in 2012 is bad. If they didnt get people to think you should upgrade, no one would feel the need to and therefore, they wouldn't make 1/8th of the money they do today. Its all marketing. Microsoft also works with some software companies to get them to stop compatiblilty with their older OS's so that when. their printer or something like that stops working, they will then be forced to find a third-party solution, or upgrade to a newer version of windows, such as windows 7 or 8. The truth is, Windows XP is still a viable option as an operating system, however as previously stated, many software companies have stopped support for legacy operating systems, you may have to find third party solutions for your new hardware, or just skip all that and use Windows 7. XD

answered Jul 15 '12 at 20:57

swagmanT
540●32●41●54

erm it is bad to have XP in 2012 it was not great having it back when it first came out , I'm not one who thinks it great to have the latest greatest of everything at all, how ever when it comes to computers and program technologuy if you bought a new computer in the last 4 year 5 years and still run win XP you cant even use 30% of what the computer is capable of ..

or wasting 70% of the $$ invested on new hardware and software not to mention letting that 70% of processing tech go to the way side this is just part of it ..

Microsoft needs to prepare people for the reality that is coming in the next few years its going to become harder and harder to get PC that even runs windows or to by a copy to install on outsider brands :)

once the surface comes out its not gonna be noticed right off because there is still so much unsold back stock but the PC is a dead issue lap top as well all computers for person use are going to be hand held cloud ran devices with mini Bluetooth keyboards and touch screens they are going to be built into things like your tv set , were you can access your programs file music video even cable and phone ..

the line is already blurring but is gonna blur even more between your phone computer and TV game unit ..

there are things out there in the pipeline much of it in hopes of arriving over the next 5 years Microsoft use to be a leader in this technology over the last 11 years it had become an ancor its time for them to move ahead and prepare all to move with them or become the past ..

answered Jul 15 '12 at 16:16

jadtechnic
2.0k●5●18

if mircosoft can't get everyone still useing windows and believe me is 60% less then in the past they I dont think as far as a pay for profit os they will be around in personal software for another release..

I say personal because I think it will take a bit more time to kill of the business side though that is losing alot faster and faster too, they are supporting win 7 business till 2020 but after that who knows where it goes ..

answered Jul 15 '12 at 16:24

jadtechnic
2.0k●5●18

edited Jul 15 '12 at 16:26

Because there is the expecation for support.

The problem with XP is that it was a product they did right.

It provided what many users did, and still need from a PC OS. Therefore there is little incentive for many who are using a product which meets their needs to spend money on a software and potentially hardware upgrade.

answered Jul 15 '12 at 17:06

EnvoyOfTheEnd
1.2k●1●8●21

that hardware you speak of has no doubt been replace 3x or more since xp becsause it became useless broken or obsolete long ago , the excuses are long over gone .upgeade beyond over due :)

believe me there is more tied to win8 then meets the eye not only will you be locked in with with there bit lock system, but you are going to find there will be no more hold outs for upgrade they will be scheduled auto up grade there is gonna be no hold outs no expectation of support 20 years after the software has out lived it usefulness ..

I would not even be suprised to see such features added to win 7 through updates after win8 or just before it release ..

(Jul 15 '12 at 17:18) jadtechnic

I feel Microsoft is starting to become like apple, not only in their childish new ui in windows 8 but Windows was, from ym perspective always, more or less supported between versions, keeping enough old and introducing the new, however in late that have been changing everything and forcing people to even upgrade from 7 as soon as 8 comes out, have you tried finding a gadget on their website, they jno longer support gadgets... I, who am a Microsoft fanboy, think that Microsoft is starting to become that big brother figure, almost as bad as apple is, in dictating what people should think and do

answered Jul 15 '12 at 17:16

pjob797
2.6k●38●49●82

they are changing and something is up they are all but offering to give win 8 away ..

its not just Microsoft there is a big push on by all the big players for these changes in computing to happen , its more then just where the $$ are the internet is great but it need some self correction in areas that have been neglected that all the encryption and cloud computing can go a long way in fixing ...

have ya all heard sopa is back on the table this week

answered Jul 15 '12 at 17:32

jadtechnic
2.0k●5●18

edited Jul 15 '12 at 17:41

Mountain Lion is going to be $30

(Jul 15 '12 at 18:12) ClosetFuturist

1	I'm still using windows xp on one of my PCs and I believe it's the best windows ever, But I must go with the flow when they stop supporting XP... (-_-) answered Jul 15 '12 at 17:42 Ali Almajbary 16●1●1●3

12next page »

Your answer

toggle preview

community wiki

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

Markdown Basics

*italic* or __italic__
**bold** or __bold__
link:[text](http://url.com/ "title")
image?![alt text](/path/img.jpg "title")
numbered list: 1. Foo 2. Bar
to add a line break simply add two spaces to where you would like the new line to be.
basic HTML tags are also supported

learn more about Markdown

Join Us in the Chat Room

Tags:

microsoft ×563
to ×346
is ×272
xp ×220
why ×160
in ×144
it ×134
up ×107
bad ×104
2012 ×54
making ×27
move ×21
having ×4
editions ×2
aggressive ×1
seem ×1

Asked: Jul 15 '12 at 15:53

Seen: 2,079 times

Last updated: Jul 23 '12 at 21:00

Why is Microsoft making it seem bad to have XP in 2012?

Follow this question

Related questions

Lockergnome.net

Lockergnome