[PCW]Aged Windows XP Costs 5x More to Manage Than Windows 7 - Page 4

there is no cost to xp user!that was got rid of 2 year after purchase,why you think they dont want to move from xp!it work without fanfare,no issue!why you think so many site feel or seem old ,because a lot of them use xp!lol!i dont say they will never move on!but i aint sure they ll move to ms product when they boot their xp solution!

Hi All,
I normally stay out of discussions like this mainly because there are so many variables as to why or why not a company would upgrade an OS. In the end any company that is properly managed needs to look at the overall gain of any upgrade.

Now on the personal front, if you are going to continue to upgrade hardware and software you will eventually need to upgrade. As for maintenance I never had issues with XP. I did upgrade to 7 and have had no issues with it. 7 loads faster than XP without a doubt. I cam't really say it runs any faster, but it defienetely does not run slower. As for Win 8, well I just don;t see the need.

I remember IBM DOS, MS DOS 2, 3,4, and 5, which by the way was the precurser to Windows with it's shell system, DOS6, Win 3, 3.1, NT, NT SP4, 95, 98, ME (yuk!) 2K, Server, XP, and 7. I left Vista out because I had no need for it. But I know a few people that are running it today and they have had minor issues, but nothing that is earth shattering. What 8 does is take a step or two backwards and that is not consistant with the model that has made MS the only horse in a one harse race. Was that smart or stupid remains to be seen. What annoys me more than anything is what I read in the thread about MS trying to block apps that bring back the start button to 8. If they don't want it in the relaese fine, but don;t stop people who want it there from doing so. I don;t like companies dictating to me what I want or need. That is my choice not theirs.

Have a great day!

I know when I was using XP, I was shelling out hundreds of dollars per month to manage it. I actually went it debt keeping it updated.

My XP netbook hasn't cost me anything since I got it.

My Win7 desktop though: two video card upgrades, two RAM upgrades, extra HDD, H70, more fans...

Lol I work at Lowe's and all our computer OS's are built off of linux. They work perfectly with 4gb of RAM and a single core CPU.
We browse the internet, watch flash video's and never worry about viruses. They have integrated iphones to work with our linux programs.

I can scan a product with the Iphone and send it to my linux terminal, using the terminal I then can print out pricing and other details in a snap.

Actually, it was. It was the same thing people were whining about with 98 > XP. XP was slow on legacy systems, it was buggy, driver support was crap (I specifically remember my $500 Wacom tablet becoming a brick when I installed XP). Windows 98SE continued to fight XP for years after it's release, so I'm going to assume you aren't as old as you say you are. The only updated OS's that really got general acceptance were Windows 95, 98, and 7.

Its the same old cycle. People with old slow computers whine about upgrades, people who have decent computers who don't like change, and those that go with the flow.

I will however, completely and utterly agree with that. Both Windows 2k and ME where steaming piles of garbage that were abandoned VERY quickly. I remember trying to play Half Life on an early RC of ME and it would constantly Alt+TAB to the desktop, without me pushing anything.
Edited by Code-Red - 6/4/12 at 8:47am

Moral of the story = early adopters get shafted, as usual.

My OS transitions have been mostly trouble free because I almost always wait at least 9 months, and frequently a few years, after the release of a new Windows OS to switch to it.

Can't agree with this assesment of 2k.

2k lasted a very long time in professional environments, and after the first few service packs, was almost completely indistinguishable from XP in performance or utility, even with desktop users.

If you have a single or dual core system with less than 3GiB of memory, 2k is still one of the best Windows OSes you can put on it. it will run well on everything from a K6 with 256MiB of ram to a Core 2 Duo with 3GiB, and can run pretty much everything XP can. The initial release was far from ideal, but 2k SP4 is well polished, light weight, stable, and compatible.
Edited by Blameless - 6/4/12 at 8:55am

This.

I think the only "OS" I didn't have trouble adopting was DOS. I came from an Atari 800 XL, and DOS was a dream compared to that clunky interface. Using VisiCalc vs Lotus 123 was amazing.

I think my memory might be fuzzy. Could have sworn I had a home version of 2K...
Edited by Code-Red - 6/4/12 at 8:57am

HaHaHa, A "company-sponsored report ". Anyone that believes this is retarded.

DOS is also a simple OS with no registry or other fancy features, so upgrading it was usually as simple as copying one version over another and rebooting.


There was no "home" vairant of 2k. There was 2k pro and a variety of server variants.