A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » General XP issues or comments
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why do you still use Windows XP?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #46  
Old February 16th 12, 03:47 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default Why do you still use Windows XP?

| Same goes for decent hardware, the maker
| usually supports it with their own driver. If maker doesn't care enough
to
| do that, it's a BAD idea to use their hardware anyway.
|

I think that's a bit optimistic. I switched to XP from
98 because of hardware. There simply isn't a market
for companies to write drivers. And some, like video
hardware, are products that depend on forced
obsolescence. If they're not constantly convincing
teenagers that their video games are suffering under
last years' chip then they're out of business. And even
the few people who might be running Win98 wouldn't
have any reason to update to such advanced graphics
hardware. But they also can't just go and buy an 8MB
ATI card with Win98 drivers at Staples. The hardware
just isn't there anymore.

I had an interesting experience at one point before I
siwtched to XP. I had just built a new PC. The board was
either Asus or MSI. I've forgotten which. It had a Via
chipset. I went to the site for the board and it said that
Win9x was no longer supported. I then went to the Via
site, which was clear, informative and helpful. It turned
out that Via only had one driver package, and Win98 was
one of the supported systems. So the motherboard maker
apparently just saw a chance to reduce support costs
by lying.


Ads
  #47  
Old February 16th 12, 04:19 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default Why do you still use Windows XP?

| Sounds nice, but not very convincing to me. I am still using Word 2000
| and I have tried many others. But nothing does what I need better than
| Word 2000.
|

Just as well. MS is trying to move to a rental system.
I saw an article the other day explaining that the next
Office Academic version will require a Windows Live ID.
(Read "online tracking collar".) Then the student will have
to register online with a valid school email address. There
will be no activation code. It will be a machine-locked
download.

It's a very clever strategy. MS just brings in one little
limitation or intrusion at a time: Constant automatic updates;
services that go online without asking; product activation
that provides an excuse for calling home, and establishes
a tradition of OEM licensing that essentially locks a Windows
license to the hardware it comes on; system lockdown
that allows MS to access files that you can't access...
There are good excuses for all of the above. Nevertheless,
after all these years Microsoft have got an OS that they can
control remotely, allowing them to control what runs on it.
And most people never actually bought Windows, so it's
not much of a stretch to tell them that "this is how PCs work".

People are becoming so accustomed to the intrusion that
MS can begin converting software to paid service. It's
reported that IE and MS Office will be pre-installed on
Win8 Metro on ARM chips, and will be the only compiled
software allowed on ARM. (Tablets, phones and perhaps
eventually low-end PCs.) That sounds to me like a subscription
plan. And they won't have to worry about Libre Office. It
can't be installed unless it's a web-app trinket approved for
sale through the online Microsoft Store!

....Which doesn't even address the bloat and ridiculous
prices for MS Office. It's the same situation as with Windows:
No one with any sense "upgrades" simply because there's
a new version. They upgrade because the office workers
in the company down the hall have a newer version and
they're embarassed. They don't want to have to say, "Can
you convert that file to the old type? We don't have Office
Current here because we're losers."

(Sounds snide, I know, but I've known a number of people
who have told me as much. People are quick to feel stupid
if they don't know about Office, and to feel cheap or
unsuccessful if they don't have the latest version. When you
think about it, the MS Office market altogether is mainly
built around the desire of people in offices to write files that
look as official and logo-festooned as the files they write
on paper -- files that make them look like important people.
The lingua franca of the white collar world is officiality. And
MS Office is an officiality standard. To have an outdated version
of an importance-creation device like that is a unique sort of
embarassment.


  #48  
Old February 16th 12, 04:47 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Lostgallifreyan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 194
Default Why do you still use Windows XP?

"Mayayana" wrote in news:jhj4qk$fdv$1@dont-
email.me:

| Same goes for decent hardware, the maker
| usually supports it with their own driver. If maker doesn't care enough
to
| do that, it's a BAD idea to use their hardware anyway.
|

I think that's a bit optimistic. I switched to XP from
98 because of hardware. There simply isn't a market
for companies to write drivers. And some, like video
hardware, are products that depend on forced
obsolescence. If they're not constantly convincing
teenagers that their video games are suffering under
last years' chip then they're out of business. And even
the few people who might be running Win98 wouldn't
have any reason to update to such advanced graphics
hardware. But they also can't just go and buy an 8MB
ATI card with Win98 drivers at Staples. The hardware
just isn't there anymore.

I had an interesting experience at one point before I
siwtched to XP. I had just built a new PC. The board was
either Asus or MSI. I've forgotten which. It had a Via
chipset. I went to the site for the board and it said that
Win9x was no longer supported. I then went to the Via
site, which was clear, informative and helpful. It turned
out that Via only had one driver package, and Win98 was
one of the supported systems. So the motherboard maker
apparently just saw a chance to reduce support costs
by lying.




Sounds like you found a way to keep a good thing going.

Forced obsolescense should be a crime. People are being put out of work then
beign punished for being jobless, in an economy that seems to be dying of
multiple organ failure. Firms who force obsolescense for private profit are
the lowest of the low, it's the same as peddling hard drugs at school gates,
or bribing kids into sex games with the promise of a 'sweetie'.

To resist that crap we have to recognise the value of what we have, and not
reject it lazily or stupidly. I usually post in the W98 group so I'm not sure
how much of my thoughts on this get seen by people in the groups this thread
is crossposted to, but I suspect that many using WXP are thinking this way
too, now that Microsoft is telling them they have to move or die.

FIGHT THE POWER. It's more fun that way, almost always.

One good way to resist is to go for recent top-end gear that has fallen in
price and come within reach. If fools want to reject multichannel audio I/O
gear that used to cost a grand, and now sells for a few tens of bucks because
too many people reject it foolishly, I'm ok with that, all the more choice
for me. But apart from selfish reasons like that, I think they should value
it more.
  #49  
Old February 16th 12, 05:48 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,556
Default Why do you still use Windows XP?

In ,
Lostgallifreyan wrote:
98 Guy wrote in :

I have Opera 11 when I absolutely need
to access a handful of web-sites, but otherwise FF 2 is my default
browser.


Do you find that FF makes a pig's ear of eBay CSS rendering? That was
what drove me to use OperaUSB 10.63.


I don't know why they said FF2 renders ok? As I rather use Xandros EeePC
any day over than Ubuntu. But Xandros EeePC has an older kernel that
only works with FF2 tops. And FF2 just doesn't render the web pages I go
to worth a darn since the last year or two. I have some computers here
that still has IE6 installed. And IE6 does a far better job than FF2
does.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3


  #50  
Old February 16th 12, 06:04 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Lostgallifreyan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 194
Default Why do you still use Windows XP?

"BillW50" wrote in :

In ,
Lostgallifreyan wrote:
98 Guy wrote in :

I have Opera 11 when I absolutely need
to access a handful of web-sites, but otherwise FF 2 is my default
browser.


Do you find that FF makes a pig's ear of eBay CSS rendering? That was
what drove me to use OperaUSB 10.63.


I don't know why they said FF2 renders ok? As I rather use Xandros EeePC
any day over than Ubuntu. But Xandros EeePC has an older kernel that
only works with FF2 tops. And FF2 just doesn't render the web pages I go
to worth a darn since the last year or two. I have some computers here
that still has IE6 installed. And IE6 does a far better job than FF2
does.


I bet none really work as well as they ought. Turns out that even at low
level C compiling, there are as many silly headaches as web designers face
when coding for compatibility between browsers. (And I just stayed with
OperaUSB v20.63 because it offended me least. I don't think I ever saw a
browser I actually liked. They all have the appeal of a gum-soaked seat on a
train. I pick a moderatly clean one that gets me where I need to go.
  #51  
Old February 16th 12, 06:05 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Lostgallifreyan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 194
Default Why do you still use Windows XP?

Lostgallifreyan wrote in
:

20.63


10.63...
  #52  
Old February 16th 12, 06:20 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,556
Default Why do you still use Windows XP?

In ,
Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"BillW50" wrote in :

I still use Win98.


How? While I still have a warm spot in my heart for Windows 3.1, 95,
and 98, although I cannot use them for about the last 10 years or
so. Lack of drivers is probably the worst. And lack of application
support is probably number two. Another problem with Windows 98 that
really bothered me was constantly running out of System Resources.
How do you put up with that?


Easily. Run code that does not wastefully consume them, and which
returns them properly to be used again.


I don't see that working for me. As I need Microsoft OE6, Microsoft Word
2000, and the Windows Media Player v9 at least. And those by themselves
were enough to drain all of the W98 System Resources.

W98 had a huge base of software. Shortage was never the problem.
Drivers can be a problem, but even there ways can be found. Sound
Forge and Cakewalk and many other things like LnS firewall all depend
on their own drivers). Same goes for decent hardware, the maker
usually supports it with their opwn driver. If maker doesn't care
enough to do that, it's a BAD idea to use their hardware anyway.


Yeah you are probably right. But I have been down those roads many times
in my youthful days. But now I am older and I rather take the easier
route. There was a time in my life when it was a big thrill to do the
things that the experts said couldn't be done. Sure it wasn't easy, but
it was fun. Although it still isn't easy, although it is no longer fun
either. :-(

Last but not at ALL least, W98 SE can be small, stable, fast, and
it's a 32 bit OS with an extremely powerful API. The advances from
W98 SE till now are small, incremental, compared to the jump between
DOS and W98 SE. W98 won't ever become useless, even if the distant
future sees lots of people still around with decent living standards,
and fast computers that make today's stuff look like 1980's gear,
there will still be people running W98 on a virtual machine because
it does what they want.

The only current development likely to make W98 anythign like
obsolete is the huge growth in ARM chips instead of i386 chips. And
this doesn't apply to desktop machines.


I would love to run Windows 3.1, 95, and 98 once again. And I am not
talking about under a virtual machine. As that just isn't the same thing
to me. But I don't see myself getting too much done with them anymore.
As the XP world allows me to do what they can, plus tons more. ;-)

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3


  #53  
Old February 16th 12, 06:49 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Lostgallifreyan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 194
Default Why do you still use Windows XP?

"BillW50" wrote in :

I would love to run Windows 3.1, 95, and 98 once again. And I am not
talking about under a virtual machine. As that just isn't the same thing
to me. But I don't see myself getting too much done with them anymore.
As the XP world allows me to do what they can, plus tons more. ;-)


What might help this is those ARM chips because they are aimed at small
machines, efficient code, not too much stuff between the API and the user
dode. They're even trying to get them into schools ('Rasperry PI' and such)
to teach kids to code. The gap between the low level and high level had
become all but unmanageable, and those new chips might be the answer. They
won't run our old Windows software, I imagine, but they do give a way out of
a mess.

About big software and resources, while there can be a correlation, I'd
rather run a big program that cleans up after itself than a small one with a
GDI leak. Making sure that code does behave well is the real key, and
those ARM chips will help a lot with that, but the same skills apply equally
to W98's API so I guess all will benefit from each other. (Coding at low
level on any machine is a gateway into the heart of another).
  #54  
Old February 16th 12, 06:59 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,556
Default Why do you still use Windows XP?

In ,
98 Guy wrote:
BillW50 wrote:

STILL USE XP????

I still use Win98.


How? While I still have a warm spot in my heart for Windows 3.1,
95, and 98, although I cannot use them for about the last
10 years or so. Lack of drivers is probably the worst.


Lack of drivers has only really affected win-98 since maybe early
2006.

More than 75% of the hardware (motherboards, video cards) available at
retail in early 2006 still came with win-98 drivers.


I see. And that would bother me. As early 2006 machines just doesn't cut
it for me today. Although later 2006 to 2008 are my favorite machines. I
am not impressed with newer machines than that.

My own win-98 systems have socket-478 or socket-775 intel pentium
CPU's running anywhere from 2.6 to 3.5 ghz, with 512mb and 1 gb ram,
with SATA hard drives up to 1.5 tb in size, with Nvidia 6200 and 6600
AGP 8x video cards.


You are running W98 with SATA drives? How do you get that too work? And
what good is 512MB or even 1GB of RAM for a W98 machine? Sure I have
added more RAM than 64MB to a W98 machine before. But I never saw any
advantages to using more.

Take a system like that, add KernelEx, and there isin't much software
that you can't run on it.

And lack of application support is probably number two.


KernelEx.


You see, something just doesn't sound right to me. As my experience with
such stuff in the past was they are never quite as great as the claims.
Remember Lindows? Yes impressive, not.

But truth be told, Firefox 2.0.0.20 (the last "win-9x/me" version) can
still correctly render 99% of web pages today. But with KernelEx, you
can go to higher versions of FF. I have Opera 11 when I absolutely
need to access a handful of web-sites, but otherwise FF 2 is my
default browser.


The last year or two, using FF2 I thought it stunk. People say using IE6
is bad at rendering nowadays. Heck that is nothing compared to how bad
pages look under FF2.

Another problem with Windows 98 that really bothered me was
constantly running out of System Resources. How do you
put up with that?


It's no issue, because you're recalling the days back in 1999 - 2001
when your average win-98 system was running with maybe 62 or 128 mb of
ram and had buggy hardware drivers AND application programs. Over the
next 2 to 4 years drivers and software improved.

I simply don't have resource problems - and I have a taskbar with
usually 10 or 20 apps running at any given time.


Yeah I could open 50 Notepads with Windows 3.1 too. I am not sure who
would want to, but you could. Although one Yahoo Instant Messenger would
pull down the whole W98 system. That isn't too useful to me either.

Windows 98 lacked unlimited System Resources and limited USB
support. Time to upgrade.


There are universal USB drivers for win-98.


Really? Since when? That would be really sweet. As it would be wonderful
if I could plug in any FAT32 formatted flash drive and W98 could
actually read it without a special driver for that flash drive.

System resources are no problem.


I don't see how? W98 uses 128kb heaps if I recall correctly. And
enlarging them is said to be only possible with a major OS rewrite. And
I don't see this as being worth anybodies time to do so.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3


  #55  
Old February 16th 12, 07:14 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Colin B.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default Why do you still use Windows XP?

Industrial One wrote:
Give your reasons.


Because I bought it when I bought my computer.

Do you plan to upgrade ever? If so, when and why?


Upgrade, no. But when I replace the computer, It'll probably have Windows 7
(or 8) on it, and the old one will get retired.

I rarely see a need to upgrade an OS, when a computer has a 3-5 year
lifespan.

If you use both XP and 7, do you ever plan on ditching XP for good?


Of course. And 7 after that.

What will you do when support is dropped to the point where this OS
will be problematic with new hardware?


I get a current OS with a new computer. They stay together, other than
patches and in-system hardware upgrades.

Colin

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ---
  #56  
Old February 16th 12, 07:16 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default Why do you still use Windows XP?

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:47:23 -0500, "Mayayana"
wrote:

I had an interesting experience at one point before I
siwtched to XP. I had just built a new PC. The board was
either Asus or MSI. I've forgotten which. It had a Via
chipset. I went to the site for the board and it said that
Win9x was no longer supported. I then went to the Via


Maybe they meant that they no longer supported that OS. That wouldn't
have been a lie.

site, which was clear, informative and helpful. It turned
out that Via only had one driver package, and Win98 was
one of the supported systems. So the motherboard maker
apparently just saw a chance to reduce support costs
by lying.



  #57  
Old February 16th 12, 07:42 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Lostgallifreyan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 194
Default Why do you still use Windows XP?

Char Jackson wrote in
:

Maybe they meant that they no longer supported that OS. That wouldn't
have been a lie.


I agree with that, they can do what they like. That cuts both ways... If
people tend to avoid expensive upgrades in hard times, that might make firms
a bit more willing to support older things. The main reason they drop the old
is because they feel compelled to spend all their time money and effort on
the new. Maybe a big slowdown is the best thing for all of us, it's time to
catch up, to think about what matters before assuming that we don't already
have what we need.

Suppose a lot of people get wind of Via's supporting W98 with drivers for
stuff, and people take the time to know this. That could embarrass other
firms into not acting like it's not true. And when it really IS time to
upgrade, the process will be a lot less irritating (or even traumatic) for
everyone because compatibility will be better.

  #58  
Old February 16th 12, 07:53 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Lostgallifreyan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 194
Default Why do you still use Windows XP?

"BillW50" wrote in :

You are running W98 with SATA drives? How do you get that too work? And
what good is 512MB or even 1GB of RAM for a W98 machine? Sure I have
added more RAM than 64MB to a W98 machine before. But I never saw any
advantages to using more.


Rudolph Loew managed to make 4GB work, but natively it doesn't need so much.
I have 1 GB in my boards, and I use some of it for a RAM disk to put a swap
file on. That sounds REALLY perverse, but it works very well because as far
as the OS is concerned it thinks everything is optimally configured, and I
get all the speed that RAM can give me, and no disk thrashing. I can shut
disk motors down at will (on a solar powered system) and know that unless I
use the machine, the OS will not keep forcing them to start up again, so I
save power and get long disk life.

No advantages to more than 64 MB? Curious. I'd set between 256MB and 512 MB
as standard, based on seeing how large audio files and programs handle when
they have it.

I use a small tool called RAMpageto monitor RAM use. It also recovers RAM if
too much is used, but I set it to do that very gently. it rarely does it now
I have more than 256 MB. Currently there is more than 570MB free, and 200MB
of swap usage, so my best (simplest correct) move there is to increase the
RAM disk size.

About SATA, I try to avoid it, but there are very small and cheap adapters
that will connect to EIDE and let SATA plug to the adapter. I bought a couple
in case of need, but they're still unused except for testing.
  #59  
Old February 16th 12, 08:00 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Lostgallifreyan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 194
Default Why do you still use Windows XP?

"BillW50" wrote in :

There are universal USB drivers for win-98.


Really? Since when? That would be really sweet. As it would be wonderful
if I could plug in any FAT32 formatted flash drive and W98 could
actually read it without a special driver for that flash drive.


Google for 'NUSB'. It replaces a few core files, and may be best done on a
new install, but it is good, it has proper support for TWAIN stuff like
cameras and scanners, much wider generic USB mass storage support, and it
reliably flushes caches and reports when it's safe to eject the device.

Just remember that if you have a VIA chipset, you need the Via USB driver's
copy of USBHUB20.SYS instead of NUSB's copy, which is a generic one taken
from Windows 2000. Similar conditions may apply with other chipsets, so this
is the first thing to try if NUSB appears not to work after install.

(Ideally, image the whole OS to a file with Ghost or Acronis, because NUSB is
not designed to uninstall as far as I know. This way you can try it safely).
  #60  
Old February 16th 12, 08:05 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default Why do you still use Windows XP?

| And
| what good is 512MB or even 1GB of RAM for a W98 machine? Sure I have
| added more RAM than 64MB to a W98 machine before. But I never saw any
| advantages to using more.
|

Why not? Though I never went above 256 MB RAM
on Win98 and it was plenty for me. There's also a
patch to allow CPUs over 2.2 GHz:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;[LN];312108

(Unfortuanely MS has removed the download link.)


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.