Interesting Updates Coming for WinXP

[BobF]

Read it <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071130.wgtosspeed1130/BNStory/Technology/home" target="_blank">here</a>. Interesting that M$ continues to upgrade XP well after Vista has been on the market. Reading the article I'm not sure how you achieve a 100% lower speed in some tasks with Vista vs. XP as to me that would mean the task didn't run at all but that's a minor nit. I don't recally significant upgrades to Win98 after XP came on the market. <br><div></div>

[Dayo]

Surprising that they are doing an upgrade.<br><br>Maybe they'll get some positive press for once.

[Bobfireman]

I often wonder if new OS's from Microsoft's camp were motivated by new technology or by the desire to increase revenue (which is legitimate if you're running a company).<br>In the past, some OS's were due to rapidly changing technology, but it seems that WinXP is a very solid, flexible, and fixable OS, especially after SP2. SP3 will increase speed even further, and one has to wonder why to even bother with Vista? There have been reports of lots of corporate users shunning Vista entirely (and many that are upgrading, too). If the corporate world sees no need to upgrade, one has to wonder why Joe PCuser should.<br>I've got a 4 year old system running XP SP2, and I cannot even recall the last time I had a system crash. Why mess with stability?<br><div></div>

[Davidw]

<div>To get these service packs, do you have to buy them, or can you download them for free?</div>

[AstroImager]

<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>
<HR>
Davidw wrote:<BR>
<DIV>To get these service packs, do you have to buy them, or can you download them for free?</DIV><BR>
<HR>
</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>They're free downloads, David.&nbsp; You can have Windows Update take care of getting them automatically if you want to, but I always turn that off and do manual checks.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Paul<BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>

[DrJalapeno]

<DIV>Thanks for the heads up, Bob.</DIV>
<DIV>I have no intention of migrating to Vista, so this is great news! </DIV>
<DIV>At least once&nbsp;a year, I re-install XP Pro for a 'fresh' start and I'm really quite pleased with its performance and stability.</DIV>

[dll927]

<div>Sounds interestng. I haven't converted to Vista - I'll probably let that ride until I need a new computer. My understanding is that XP can still serve for a while. And I don't always need the latest razz-ma-tazz, anyway. They love to do that for 'revenue' purposes, of course. How often does Adobe PS or Elements come out with an 'update'? Surely more than necessary.</div><div> </div><div>They need more revenue like I need another row of toes. Supposedly, Gates plans to &quot;retire&quot; some time next year and &quot;devote himself entirely to philanthropy&quot;. But I'll bet he'll still be paying attention to the store. And seriously, I do give him and his wife credit for the good work they are sponsoring. </div><div> </div><div>There are so many updates for these systems that, unless one is a dedicated computer expert (I'm not!!), it can be hard to know just what is worth the trouble. But if they're free, that does help. And I have yet to hear of any software that doesn't have &quot;updates&quot;. I just wish somebody would come up with a foolproof way to elkiminate 'spam'.</div><div> </div><div>------------</div><div> </div><div>It's not the camera, stupid, it's the EYE.</div>

[rotay44]

<div>Most of you are talking about the stability of XP but for me it has to be Windows 3.1 was the most stable of all. There was no reason to replace it with another operating system as it was perfectly possible to add new technology to it.</div><div> </div><div>Unix and its various clones have been around for decades. Some mainframe systems like IBM CICS have been around since the 1960s and 1970s and have been progressively upgraded with new technology.</div><div> </div><div>Windows 98 I found almost unbreakable. I made the mistake of upgrading it to Windows ME and cursed the day I did it. The only reason to migrate to XP was that you couldn't by a new system without it.</div><div> </div><div>I once spent 3 months working on an Apple Mac for some client and it crashed every day.</div><div> </div><div>- Roy</div>

[AstroImager]

<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>
<HR>
rotay44 wrote:<BR>
<DIV>Most of you are talking about the&nbsp;stability of XP but for me it has to be Windows 3.1 was the most stable of all. There was no reason to replace it with another operating system as it was perfectly possible to add new technology to it.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<HR>
</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>You mean no reason other than that&nbsp;3.1 was a hybrid 8/16 bit OS, required DOS to run, had to use hacks to access memory over 640k, and had no security of any kind? ;)</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I'm still on XP, will probably go to Vista around Service Pack 2.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Paul</DIV>
<DIV><BR>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>

[ChanTran]

<div>Good news! I stay with XP until I change computer. Only upgrading the OS most of the time it felt like downgrading as the new OS would run slower.</div>

[pixeldawg]

<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>
<HR>
rotay44 wrote:<BR>
<DIV>Most of you are talking about the&nbsp;stability of XP but for me it has to be Windows 3.1 was the most stable of all. There was no reason to replace it with another operating system as it was perfectly possible to add new technology to it.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<HR>
</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>You ARE kidding with this, right Roy? You're comparing an 8 bit GUI-DoS OS to a 32/64 bit OS- a HUGE difference and level of sophistocation. Also, Win98 SE was upgraded well into the introduction of WinXP, and it's quite common for Microsoft to publish an OS upgrade into the interduction of newer OS versions. If memory recalls correctly, Win98 wasn't considered a "dead" OS until about 3 years ago. This means that Microsoft no longer supports it and ceases to publish new updates.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<DIV></DIV></DIV>

[rotay44]

<div></div><div><blockquote><div>pixeldog wrote:</div><div><hr>rotay44 wrote:<div>Most of you are talking about the stability of XP but for me it has to be Windows 3.1 was the most stable of all. There was no reason to replace it with another operating system as it was perfectly possible to add new technology to it.</div><div> </div><hr></div><div> </div><div>You ARE kidding with this, right Roy? You're comparing an 8 bit GUI-DoS OS to a 32/64 bit OS- a HUGE difference and level of sophistocation.</div><div><hr></div></blockquote><div>Nope!! I am not kidding at all!</div><div> </div><div>I used it with 'Windows for Workgroups' on my home network of three PCs (I desktop plus 2 laptops) as did many of my clients in the software industry. The migration to Windows 95 was quite slow amongst that group as we appreciated the stability. </div><div> </div><div>Most of us moved on to Windows NT or Unix clones anyway for PC hardware, again for the stability. Windows 95 onwards would only be used to test our products for a wider market than NT or Unix. Any software can be recompiled or rewritten to take advantage of new hardware whether 8/16/32/64/128 bits. Even MSDos!</div><div> </div><div>Mainframe and minicomputer software platforms like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CICS" target="_blank">IBM CICS,</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix" target="_blank">Unix,</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MVS" target="_blank">IBM MVS,</a> and others have been around since the 1960s/1970s, but were upgraded, sometimes rewritten, for the new hardware. They didn't see it necessary to write a new operating system for the new hardware levels. Some of these have had 40 years of development and improvement.</div><div> </div><div>I still say that Windows 3.1, migrated to newer hardware technology, and with an additional 12/13 years of development would be far more stable and a lot more secure, than buying into a new and untried operating system. </div><div> </div><div>As for DOS, like Unix and its later clones, it started as a command line controlled system. There is no reason why it wouldn't be as sophisticated given another 15 years development, which of course it didn't get. Remember also that DOS hosted Windows until fairly recently, just as Unix/Linux/AIX hosts X-Windows.</div><div> </div><div>Don't buy into the marketing hype that new hardware means you have to have new software platforms. My 1997 publications software still works fine on my 2007 hardware as do my 1989 DOS word processor, TurboBasic, PowerBasic, and PC assembly code compilers. (I just checked to make sure!)</div><div> </div><div>Anyway, what's this to do with photography?</div><div> </div><div>-- Roy</div></div>

[Davidw]

<div></div><div><br><blockquote><div><hr>rotay44 wrote:<div><div>Anyway, what's this to do with photography?</div><div> </div><div>-- Roy</div></div><br><hr></div></blockquote><br><div>Most of us use computers to edit photos.</div></div>

[flashgumby]

<div></div><div><blockquote><hr>rotay44 wrote:<br> <div>... I made the mistake of upgrading it to Windows ME and cursed the day I did it...<br></div><div> </div><div>- Roy</div><br><hr></blockquote>Fortunately I missed out on the joys of running Me - I reckon Me was a 'sneak peek' at Vista, and I'm going to try real hard to miss that one as well <span>;) A truly forgettable O/S.<br><br>I still like using 2k when I come across it, but that's not real often, since it's not as flashy as the others it mostly got the flick when the eye-candy salesmen struck.<br></span></div>

[Swimmerjoe2]

Well, this is good news for me as my computer does run XP Pro, which I have had an overall excellent experience with.<br><div></div>

[Gabrielb]

<div>I must say that I am surprised at all of the negativity toward Vista. I have been using Vista Ultimate 32 and 64 for months not and find it as fast as XP and at least as stable as well.</div><div>I have been supremely impressed with the 64bit version.</div><div> </div><div>I am a computer tech and many of my customers run Vista now with no complaints.</div><div> </div><div>I tries Beta2 of Vista and hated it, but I knew enough to give it another chance when it went gold and am loving it.</div><div> </div><div>Don't believe everything you read, Vista kicks ass.</div>

[Davidw]

<div></div><div><br><blockquote><div><hr>Gabrielb wrote:<br><div>I must say that I am surprised at all of the negativity toward Vista.</div><br><hr></div></blockquote><br><div>You mean the nagging nanoobs of negativity? :D</div></div>

[flashgumby]

<div></div><div><blockquote><hr>Gabrielb wrote:<br><div>I must say that I am surprised at all of the negativity toward Vista.<br></div>...<br> <br><div>Don't believe everything you read, Vista kicks ass.</div><br><hr></blockquote>That may well be the case, but it's not just a few people here that aren't sold on vista. Sure there will always be the nay-sayers that bag any and every product, but there is so much smoke about that there's certainly a fire there somewhere.<br><br>Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing more of MinWin - see <a href="http://www.crn.com.au/News/66153,microsoft-partners-minwin-could-soothe-vista-headaches.aspx" target="_blank">here</a>.<br>I especially like this quote from the CRN write-up: &quot;<span>the operating system has gained a reputation in the channel as a bloated memory hog that many companies are avoiding like a trip to the dentist.&quot; <span>:D</span> A little harsh maybe, but a neat line anyway.<br><br>With so many photographers having their livelihood tied to their computer (and more specifically it's reliability, stability and usability) XP makes plenty of sense at least for the moment.<br></span><br>Regards,<br>Gordon<br>(Senior IT Technician by day, borderline Luddite at all other times <span>;)</span> <span>:D</span>)<span></span><br></div>

[rotay44]

<div></div><blockquote><div>flashgumby wrote:</div><div><em>&quot;With so many photographers having their livelihood tied to their computer (and more specifically it's reliability, stability and usability) XP makes plenty of sense at least for the moment.&quot;</em></div><div><hr></div></blockquote><p>It's not just photographers, but many other professions too. I've worked with some two dozen operating systems in my time in the computer and software industries and know that if you want reliability, stability, security and usability in an operating system then there is one feature you need - longevity. Releasing a brand new operating system every four years or so is cheating users of everything that comes with a mature system.</p><p> </p><p>Perhaps the real problem is that there is no real competition for Windows. Oh sure there's Linux for us techies, but I don't think ordinary users (like my family for example) want to go down that route. The day IBM killed off <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_OS/2" target="_blank">OS/2</a> was a bad day for the PC market. Always technically years ahead of any Windows release it suffered from IBM's lack of vision. They saw it as a PC OS for their commercial users rather than a mass market consumer product. It was also extremely expensive.</p><p>- Roy</p>

[flashgumby]

<div></div><div><blockquote><hr>rotay44 wrote:<br><div></div><blockquote><div>flashgumby wrote:</div><div><em>&quot;With so many photographers having their livelihood tied to their computer (and more specifically it's reliability, stability and usability) XP makes plenty of sense at least for the moment.&quot;</em></div><div><hr></div></blockquote><p>It's not just photographers, but many other professions too...<br></p><p>- Roy</p><hr></blockquote>Yeah, I agree it applies to a lot of people, but I was trying to make sure we kept it 'photography-related' in keeping with the forum's purpose (and to keep our friendly mods happy).<br></div>

[JMS]

<div></div><div><br><blockquote><div><hr>rotay44 wrote:<br><div>I made the mistake of upgrading it to Windows ME and cursed the day I did it.<br><hr></div></div></blockquote>I know what you mean.<br><div></div></div>

[peirceman]

<div></div><div><br></div><blockquote><div><hr>JMS wrote:<br><div></div><div><br><blockquote><div><hr>rotay44 wrote:<br><div>I made the mistake of upgrading it to Windows ME and cursed the day I did it.<br><hr></div></div></blockquote>I know what you mean.<br><div></div></div><br><hr></div></blockquote><div>Jesse,</div><div> </div><div>Just how old were you when ME came out? 10? 11? I mean, ME came out in '99 if I remember.</div><div> </div><div>You are definitely a prodigy if you can relate to ME upgrade headaches.<br></div><div></div>

[JMS]

<div>We went to it in 2000- I didn't have upgrade headaches, the Dell came with it. I just had ME headaches. Constant crashes, terrible performance, insecure... the list goes on and on.</div>

[Gabrielb]

<div>I agree, I used ME for about 3 hours and went back to XP lol.</div><div> </div><div>While I admit that XP is fast and stable, I am just saying that I am finding Vista to be just about as capable.</div><div>I easily run CS3, Lightroom, Outlook, 5 IE7 Windows etc etc etc all at once and it purrs like a kitten.</div><div> </div><div>I also use a 4 monitor system off of 2 video cards and it runs great. I agree that Beta and the original release was riddled with issues, but Vista has come a loooong way a short time.</div>