Windows XP forever?

[Cabalo]

nice to see so many people here who never saw a DX10 game in their whole life.
Stick with XP and DX9, and let the ones with powerful hardware evolve.
heck, you should even stick with MS-DOS, it's way faster and less resource demanding than XP. Microsoft's biggest problem is having to deal with user's ignorance.
And their ignorance is bliss.

[tesco]

Come on,mbucari,don't be so provocative ! How does it perform better is the right question and will you answer it rationally ? Please ? With Vista and 7,we are experiencing for the first time a regression compared to the previous OS generation.We all read about the "Vista relaoaded" craze,so three years later,we were expecting everything that Vista should've been (Understand:errr,Vista the way it should've been from the start) but no.

I don't know what Vista "Should have been", but I know what I experienced with all 3. I was just as excited as the next person when vista came out. I didn't install until the RTM, and used it exclusively for almost 6 months. My experience was positive in some respects. Most notably, it handled unresponsive programs MUCH better than XP, the UI froze MUCH less than XP and I received fewer BSOD's than with Xp on the same hardware. Points against it were it's high cpu USE. Vista would idle around 10% load and this noticeably effected performance while using the machine. It "rotted" much more quickly than XP. In the 6 months I used it, I felt I needed to reinstall 3 times to fix the extraneous errors and get a speed boost. It might have been 3rd party software instead of winrot, but I'm not in the habbit of installing every piece of software that catches my eye. Oh, and navigation is explorer was VERY user unfriendly.

Enter Windows 7. After my less than pleasurable experience with vista, I went back to XP and had been there until may of this year. I decided I've give windows 7 a chance based on a recommendation made by clocker. I immediately noticed the same benefits that vista had over XP, and quickly noticed that idle cpu use hovered around 1% (on the same cpu). Explorer had been improved over vista and ever over XP imo. Day to day operation was and is smoother and I haven't noticed any performance decrease running other applications. There is the occasional compatablity problem, but that's to be expected. Now, as far as winrot goes I have been stunned. I'm currently running build 7264 which I installed when it was released (don't remember when that was) and am not too much of a hurry to upgrade (cuz I don't want to buy a ned optical drive which I broke).

Yes, vista was slow. I'd rather use XP than vista and did for 2 years, but now I'd rather use 7. Like I said, show me all the benchmarks you want. Prove to me that 7 averages 20% slower than XP all around. In my hands it feels faster.

It's wierd that you saw a 10% cpu load at idle with vista, and also wierd that you see a 1% cpu load in win7.
I see a 0% load in all 3 OSes with this pc or my old one.

[mbucari1]

It's wierd that you saw a 10% cpu load at idle with vista, and also wierd that you see a 1% cpu load in win7.
I see a 0% load in all 3 OSes with this pc or my old one.

I don't know what to tell you there. Vista always idled high. 7 hops back and forth between 0 and 1 at idle, but vista's was always restless.

[golden_3y3]

I`ll use XP until it doesn't support the games I want to play

[Zeus12]

I totally agree. I´ve been running xp since it came out and don´t plan on changing it.
Besides, if the program runs fine why even care. Isn´t the O.S. supposed to be transparent and let the software do the work?