yes. I still use it. It is not due to hardware for the most part either. It is due to having a 40GB HDD, and 20GB of MP3's to store on it. Windows 7/8 won't fit the space left, but XP will. Linux is always an option, but why change when the current setup works?
You have a 1TB HDD according to your sig rig?
Originally Posted by 2010rig
Oh you, and your Vista.
A lot of "us" are on Windows 7.
XP users are moving to Windows 8 mainly.
Web-based statistics are never that accurate, they always vary widely.
Originally Posted by sepiashimmer
I miss Windows 98 SE, brings back memories. Why does Microsoft come with stupid things like these they should just keep releasing updates and Direct X 11 for XP. What need was there for Vista and 7?
...The major rewrite of the NT kernel? That was very much needed? The ability to actually use a quad core? (XPs scaling is utter crap compared to Vista and 7s last I heard)
Assuming that there's no shifting between Vista - 7 - 8 at all. Yes.
Originally Posted by 47 Knucklehead
If Microsoft did that, even though I am very anti-piracy, I would have no problems with doing and helping people circumvent the Windows authentication procedure for XP (which is easy). Just shutting off authentication servers for a product that you bought and that the ELUA that you agreed to did not specifically say had an end of use date, it just flat out wrong and I would be all in favor of a customer circumventing that and suing the ever loving hell out of Microsoft.
I never read the EULA, I'm almost sure that something is in there though. These things are written with a bunch of experts, lawyers etc by their side, I'd be surprised if it didn't include some sort of description that could be referred to as being an end date.
English isn't my mother tongue, excuse my phrasing.
In my experience, the practical difference between XP x64 and even Windows 8 is pretty minimal when it comes to multi-core performance, even with hyperthreaded hex core parts. It's measurable in some tasks, but almost never actually perceptible.
I haven't used XP since Vista SP1 and I absolutely hated XP SP3, it caused so many problems and incompatibilities for me so I can't really remember that well. I do remember that when I went from XP to Vista running my Q6600 I saw a boost in performance when it came to the CPU because XP wasn't able to schedule tasks correctly at that time.
Originally Posted by faraz1729
Haha, Liranan, you creep.
Tacitus - The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws
Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money. - Cree Indian Proverb
Wow, I don't recall XP being that bad with quad cores. I can imagine that it might not handle quad+ht, hex, or octocores that well.
Originally Posted by 47 Knucklehead
It isn't. I enjoyed using it on Q6600 and Q6700's.
+2 to this guy. didn't notice a difference going from XP to 7 with my 920 and 950. I mean, I wasn't benchmarking anything competitively, but for day to day tasks, gaming, and F@H and BOINC, I didn't see any differences
My BOINC Stats || Come Join Us and Get Into Shape!! || Join the Gun Club -Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety- -A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed- I know English isn't everyone's primary language, so when I correct you understand I'm not doing it to be rude or mean, I'm trying to help. I apologize to anyone who might think I am trying to be rude or mean, please don't take it that way. On the other side, if you see a mistake in my post, feel free to PM me and I'll be more than happy to go back and correct the error
Yeah...XP handled multiple cores pretty well. I've never tested it really on more than four threads though(I've installed it but I've only ran single threaded applications on the installation). In fact, getting my first dual core CPU was what made my clenched fists finally let go of Windows 2000. To this day I run XP in classic theme so I can at least pretend it is Windows 2000.
If I am running XP on a system...I probably not too concerned about the security of it anyway. Though a lot of businesses are looking at massive bills to upgrade off of XP...I've seen some applications that need Windows NT and SQL Server 1997 in order to operate, but would cost millions to replace and since they still do the job so they run them yet.
Practically this is an announcement from Microsoft that they need money NOW
We all knew the XP support is ending in 2014.
Most of the people that use XP will continue using it if they find it better suited for the hardware they use.
Also most of the people don t care about security updates ,patches and so on ,some users don t even install SP3 .
Most probable 20% of the machines will continue to use XP next year no matter what Microsoft is saying or doing.
XP will end when users will end it.
I will personally continue to use XP to play some games properly also ,even if i may keep it off line.
To bad they made such a good operating system.
What about FM2 motherboards with 2 APU sockets and GDDR5 on-board AMD ?!