|
|
Post by buzzy on Jan 31, 2014 10:18:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mikkh on Jan 31, 2014 11:57:53 GMT
It's not surprising - if you're still using XP it's because you're clinging to an old PC mostly
I would have thought.
So I read that as 7% are going to bite the bullet and actually buy a new PC with Windows 8, 15% are dreaming their PC's are good enough to take Windows 7 (they're in for a nasty shock) 1% actually have a good idea, but will mostly have that good idea ruined by picking the wrong Linux. 3% have spat their dummy out and are prepared to pay through the nose to fuel their new found hatred of Microsoft. 0% understood what BYOD meant and 74% are basically doing the sensible thing by sticking with XP.
Support ended a long time ago in reality with new versions of IE (and several other Micro$oft programs) not available to XP users for several years now. Luckily Firefox, Chrome etc didn't abandon XP, so it's still usable and lack of official support will make no difference apart from no more annoying updates - hoorah!
|
|
|
|
Post by jojo on Jan 31, 2014 14:21:01 GMT
It could have been a wee bit more for XP, but sadly, I can't seem to vote. Neither Chrome nor Firefox will set the required mark while I'm on Linux. Not sure why.
Incidentally, my intention is to utilize Linux, as much as I can, but use XP for running programs that are exclusively Windows.
I won't be tempted to try W7. My wife uses it and I'm not impressed, especially by the speed. (Lack there off).
W8 is, from what I can see, silly pandering to tablets. Mistake in my opinion. The two are very different and to attempt to compete, M$ are destined to loose.
Then M$ days are numbered anyway. Just a matter of who or what will replace them.
|
|
|
|
Post by vikingken on Jan 31, 2014 14:25:08 GMT
I gave up on XP while Windows 7 was still in BETA, except offline to run some old games that wouldn't run on Windows 7. Support meant nothing to me, I ran XP Pro x 64 SP2 and didn't update at all anyway. It wont be support that kills XP, it will be change in the internet itself. Websites are starting to run stuff that XP cant handle and eventually they all will. Although much bigger than XP, Windows 7 is faster. Anyone who says its slower, cant be maintaining it properly and of course you need enough RAM. It wont run on bare minimum, no matter what Microsoft say. I run Pro on a mini netbook, that is maxed out with 2 GB RAM. It runs perfectly, just a bit slow and I only use it at times when its size is convenient. I wouldn't run memory intensive programs on it. Properly maintained Windows 7 is far superior to XP. and Windows 8. Windows 8 is supposed to be faster than Windows 7 and it probably is, but whats the use of a fast operating system if its crap??
|
|
|
|
Post by jojo on Jan 31, 2014 14:46:18 GMT
Some great points there ken. Thanks.
You are right, of course, with XP. Sadly, for my part, it's what I have for now and I can't justify the cost of W7.
As for W7 being slower, that is undoubtedly right. But it's my wife's computer.
Did you get that?
Wife's.
I touch that and the slightest mistake, she will not only notice but I will soon after.
I just about have to promise to do the cooking for the next million years, just to get onto it.
|
|
|
|
Post by vikingken on Jan 31, 2014 15:25:34 GMT
I think about 90% of users dont maintain their computers often enough if at all Jojo and that goes to 250% of women. If you sneeze near a wifes computer you have probably broke it and will suffer for 5 years if something is actually not right. Touching a wifes computer rates higher than adultery as grounds for a divorce, women have been known to forgive adultery. Daughters are almost as bad. If mine phoned to say something was wrong with her computer, it was cheaper to fly off somewhere for a holiday than to stay and fix it.
|
|
|
|
Post by buzzy on Feb 4, 2014 17:00:49 GMT
I picked up the article on V3.co.uk for interest to members.
I am running Windows 7 Home Premium happily. How on earth amyone can suggest it is slower than XP beats me?
|
|
Dec 2, 2024 6:42:15 GMT
