Why You Should Ditch Your Windows XP Laptop Right Now

[ad4mg]

Microsoft's Vista and Windows 7 operating systems are a good deal easier to use than XP.
Vista? Who are they kidding? :yuck:

Interesting article. I'm delighted I took the plunge to learn a little about Linux operating systems a couple of years ago. Windows 8 looks like it will be hideous with it's mobile interface.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/228564/why_you_should_ditch_your_windows_xp_laptop_right_ now.html?tk=out

I wasn't previously aware about the HDD changes ahead ...
(http://www.pcworld.com/article/228564/why_you_should_ditch_your_windows_xp_laptop_right_ now.html?tk=out)

[WØTKX]

Hmm, Windows 7 does rock pretty well, compared to XP/Vista. I do run the 64 bit version, use the 32 bit version of IE. But I use Chrome and FF more. One of my Win 7 installs is upgraded to "Professional" as well, and it's much handier for the geeky stuff. Unlike many, I like the command prompt in Winders, and use it a lot.

Trying to get Ubuntu Studio (32 bit) to run well on my older AMD Athlon 64 (a lot like the bartender's machine), and I'm getting there. That's the only XP I run (dual boot), and I could upgrade it, but I prolly won't... I'm looking for a beefier used AGP video card for it. I do have 4 Gig of RAM in it, which Linux will use. The goal is to make this box into a multimedia box for the bedroom. Mostly to stream music and movies to other PC's in the house, as well as being a file server. It already plays movies in XP fairly well, and the TV tuner on it does OTH HD nicely.

The "phone" user interface in Windows 8 is a little odd, but might be OK if you can hack it to launch other stuff besides social networking. While I am on FB and a few other things, it's kind of boring. I've actually returned to using IRC recently... I find it more fun than other social networking methods. Imagine that. ;)

Of course, I'm not very anti-Windows at all. I like all the OS's.

[suddenseer]

I have win7 pro @ work. It seems to operate my cad software very well. My ex bought a crappy laptop @ Wallyworld with Vista, and 500mb of ram. I waned him how it would operate, but he quit listening to me several years ago. He got his money's worth.:hahano:

[KJ3N]

The whole article sounds like fear-mongering and mis-information.

Vista is NOT easier to use than XP. The horrible UAC BS makes one want to go to Redmond, WA and personally strangle the asshole who invented it. It's a bit more tolerable in 7, but it's still fscking annoying.

There a plenty of "older" laptops that can take more than 2GB of RAM and XP will see up to about 3.5GB. There are also some "older" laptops that came with 4GB and XP 64-bit.

There are also 2 viable work-arounds to the 4K "problem" listed in this article (http://www.anandtech.com/show/2888) from 2009. My guess would also be that any XP install CD that has SP3 on it, will probably not be affected.

All I see are half truths and out-right scare tactics. I'd be willing to bet this is a shill piece for MS to make people panic and buy a new machine with 7 on it, because 7 isn't selling as well as MS wants it to.

[W2NAP]

thank god for linux

[W4GPL]

I think Linus would dispute god had anything to do with it.

[KB3LAZ]

I use windows 7 Ultimate.

[KG4CGC]

I'd like to upgrade to Win7 Pro/Ultimate but for the cost of the OS alone I could buy a used motorcycle.

[KB3LAZ]

I'd like to upgrade to Win7 Pro/Ultimate but for the cost of the OS alone I could buy a used motorcycle.

Cost, lol. xD

[KG4CGC]

Cost, lol. xD
Yo, Homie. Hook a brother up.

[NQ6U]

I'm using Windows 7 Uber-Ultimate Maximum del Mundo. Works great, but requires an 8GHz or better octo-core processor, 40GB of RAM and a 1200 watt power supply that runs off 480 three-phase.

[PA5COR]

LOL
XP-Pro and W7 Pro here on the lappie.
Dual processor 4 gig ram does what i want to do on this 3 year old machine.
I'm done trying to stay up with the latest new fangled machines, i use them up till they fall apart.

[N1LAF]

The whole article sounds like fear-mongering and mis-information.

Vista is NOT easier to use than XP. The horrible UAC BS makes one want to go to Redmond, WA and personally strangle the asshole who invented it. It's a bit more tolerable in 7, but it's still fscking annoying.

There a plenty of "older" laptops that can take more than 2GB of RAM and XP will see up to about 3.5GB. There are also some "older" laptops that came with 4GB and XP 64-bit.

There are also 2 viable work-arounds to the 4K "problem" listed in this article (http://www.anandtech.com/show/2888) from 2009. My guess would also be that any XP install CD that has SP3 on it, will probably not be affected.

All I see are half truths and out-right scare tactics. I'd be willing to bet this is a shill piece for MS to make people panic and buy a new machine with 7 on it, because 7 isn't selling as well as MS wants it to.

You are not alone in your thinking. People reading the article 4 to 1 would not recommend that article.

Also, thanks for the link about the 4K hard drive issue.

[KB3LAZ]

I'm using Windows 7 Uber-Ultimate Maximum del Mundo. Works great, but requires an 8GHz or better octo-core processor, 40GB of RAM and a 1200 watt power supply that runs off 480 three-phase.

Bleh with the multi core processors. <<< Gamer and Ill take a dual core 3ghz over a quad 1.7 any day of the week. For that matter Id rather dual single core 3.6ghz. However I do like a quad in my laptop as it is a multimedia pc. My Dual core seems to out perform my quad with gaming however cant multitask worth a shit. Funny how knowing what you need will save you a lot of hassle.

Gaming PC has 3.2ghz dual core, 8g ram (overkill), and dual 1g GPU. Otoh for multimedia and such I have a laptop with quad 1.7 cpu, 6g ram, and 512 gpu (for good measure, ill never utilize that). Skype+FF=resource hog!

I never buy a maxed out pc however I do check to make sure that it is capable of being maxed out beforehand so I can upgrade down the road if need be.

As far as OS goes. The average PC use has no need for anything above win7 home Prem 64. In fact at the current moment I dont have a use for ultimate but I have it anyway.

Ohhh speaking of silly...maufacturares are selling pcs so far overclocked these days its unreal. Top that off with an open bios..and my fellow gamers wonder why they burnout a motherboard in a week. Balls to the wall overclocking, tri+GPU, lights out the rear, etc...and a 400 watt psu. xD silly ppl.

PS...what is it with ppl offering setups with dual 2TB HD...wtf you gonna do with that? They are called DVDs! Get that junk off your pc. Bleh then your pc is always reading and writing free space, bleh bleh. I think today I am going to download the internet, all of it! :P

[KC2UGV]

As soon as I read this, the article lost all credibility:

"With XP, there's only so far you can go-two gigabytes of RAM, to be precise"

I'll remember that on my Windows XP Pro, with 4GB of RAM that I am using for work right now.

[n2ize]

As soon as I read this, the article lost all credibility:

"With XP, there's only so far you can go-two gigabytes of RAM, to be precise"

I'll remember that on my Windows XP Pro, with 4GB of RAM that I am using for work right now.

To tell you the truth the writer of that article sounded totally clueless.

[KJ3N]

To tell you the truth the writer of that article sounded totally clueless.

The perfect M$ Shill!

[W3WN]

< snip >
Vista is NOT easier to use than XP.
< snip >Sorry. I must respectfully disagree.

I use Vista Professional at work every day, and overall, I find it to be a breeze.

There are two areas where I run into problems: Some older 16 bit apps have their hiccups, but you'd expect that. And our users gripe because the UAC won't let them install apps because they're not local administrators... which is by design. That "problem" is the users', not mine, from a technical standpoint... but when someone gives me grief about installing something they shouldn't, they can go talk to my boss.

I'd run Vista at home if I could. These machines don't have enough horsepower (mainly RAM) to run it properly. And THAT is the real problem for Vista & Vista 2, er, Windows 7 -- they do require more robust hardware to run PROPERLY, even though they will install and run on older machines. That is by design, IMHO, so that Micro$oft can help Intel & AMD sell more processors... but that's another story.

Now, that said... it was an appalling poorly written & biased article. Don't waste any more time on it.

[n2ize]

Sorry. I must respectfully disagree.

I use Vista Professional at work every day, and overall, I find it to be a breeze.

There are two areas where I run into problems: Some older 16 bit apps have their hiccups, but you'd expect that. And our users gripe because the UAC won't let them install apps because they're not local administrators... which is by design. That "problem" is the users', not mine, from a technical standpoint... but when someone gives me grief about installing something they shouldn't, they can go talk to my boss.

I'd run Vista at home if I could. These machines don't have enough horsepower (mainly RAM) to run it properly. And THAT is the real problem for Vista & Vista 2, er, Windows 7 -- they do require more robust hardware to run PROPERLY, even though they will install and run on older machines. That is by design, IMHO, so that Micro$oft can help Intel & AMD sell more processors... but that's another story.

Now, that said... it was an appalling poorly written & biased article. Don't waste any more time on it.

He also is getting the transition to Advanced Format Drives wrong. Most OS's (including Mac and Nix* (Linux)) have added the capability for Advanced Format drives. It may be a smalkl problem for some Windows users in the event you replace a legacy drive with an Advanced drive that the OS can't support. However, i don;t see this as being a major issue for most XP users.

One would think that PC Magazine would supply better writers.

[kb2vxa]

"One would think that PC Magazine would supply better writers."
The article makes it perfectly clear that tech writers are seldom tech savvy. Oh and BTW, when did Rupert Murdoch buy PC Magazine?

[KB3LAZ]

Sorry. I must respectfully disagree.

I use Vista Professional at work every day, and overall, I find it to be a breeze.

There are two areas where I run into problems: Some older 16 bit apps have their hiccups, but you'd expect that. And our users gripe because the UAC won't let them install apps because they're not local administrators... which is by design. That "problem" is the users', not mine, from a technical standpoint... but when someone gives me grief about installing something they shouldn't, they can go talk to my boss.

I'd run Vista at home if I could. These machines don't have enough horsepower (mainly RAM) to run it properly. And THAT is the real problem for Vista & Vista 2, er, Windows 7 -- they do require more robust hardware to run PROPERLY, even though they will install and run on older machines. That is by design, IMHO, so that Micro$oft can help Intel & AMD sell more processors... but that's another story.

Now, that said... it was an appalling poorly written & biased article. Don't waste any more time on it.

Heh, Vista being easier to use than xp would depend on what you are doing. On the tech support end of my gaming services Xp is worlds easier than vista. When we delve into the realm of the more average pc use (most ppl here are excluded from that) they commonly ask questions such as how to extract a self extracting zip file. Vista may have a user friendly interface but below the surface there are many speed bumps.

[w6tmi]

I didn't overclock my system at all and the damn thing heats up the bedroom too much. I7, 8g with the nvidia gtx295 (I think that's the main heat source). Could also be the 4/3 striped 500gb drives. (I use it for video processing as well as gaming)

Ironically people overclocking often seem to want to get 120 frames/sec which they won't see anyways, unless they're doing 3d. Or even using a monitor with a 60hz refresh rate.






Bleh with the multi core processors. <<< Gamer and Ill take a dual core 3ghz over a quad 1.7 any day of the week. For that matter Id rather dual single core 3.6ghz. However I do like a quad in my laptop as it is a multimedia pc. My Dual core seems to out perform my quad with gaming however cant multitask worth a shit. Funny how knowing what you need will save you a lot of hassle.

Gaming PC has 3.2ghz dual core, 8g ram (overkill), and dual 1g GPU. Otoh for multimedia and such I have a laptop with quad 1.7 cpu, 6g ram, and 512 gpu (for good measure, ill never utilize that). Skype+FF=resource hog!

I never buy a maxed out pc however I do check to make sure that it is capable of being maxed out beforehand so I can upgrade down the road if need be.

As far as OS goes. The average PC use has no need for anything above win7 home Prem 64. In fact at the current moment I dont have a use for ultimate but I have it anyway.

Ohhh speaking of silly...maufacturares are selling pcs so far overclocked these days its unreal. Top that off with an open bios..and my fellow gamers wonder why they burnout a motherboard in a week. Balls to the wall overclocking, tri+GPU, lights out the rear, etc...and a 400 watt psu. xD silly ppl.

PS...what is it with ppl offering setups with dual 2TB HD...wtf you gonna do with that? They are called DVDs! Get that junk off your pc. Bleh then your pc is always reading and writing free space, bleh bleh. I think today I am going to download the internet, all of it! :P