Jody Thornton

I mentioned on the Vista forum that soon, I'll be ready "upgrade" to Vista x64 Ultimate in January. For some reason, the bios and SCSI subsystem on my HP XW8200 Workstation doesn't fully support Windows 7, so I'll move to Vista x64 instead (I ran a test installation back last year for a couple weeks and Vista ran REALLY well on my system). So that means I am on my last two months of Windows XP x64 Edition. As I mentioned in the other post, it's almost bittersweet, since I'm looking forward to using something more updated and supported, but my XP x64 installation runs so smoothly. I guess my concerns are two-fold. One is that support for current software will be increasingly dropped week by week, and month by month. Gradually, I won't be able to browse a modern web, and that concerns me. Also, I am concerned about the lack of support when it comes to Windows Updates after April. Now I know there are convoluted workarounds to allowing Windows Server 2003 updates to install on Windows XP x64 Edition, but even then; that's only fixes me until July 2015. So I figure I may as well jump to Vista now and enjoy three years of having a supported OS. That should last the life of the machine. I would love to stay on XP x64. I loved using three specific operating systems in my computing life: OS/2 Warp v3.0, Windows 2000 Professional and now Windows XP x64 Edition. They have been absolutely trouble free (acutally OS/2 had that single input queue freeze up issue but oh well...lol). But I wish there was a direct replacement for XP. I wish there was a newer version of Microsoft Windows that had a low memory footprint, and worked well with a wide variety of apps. XP was also easier to streamline thanks to nLite...lol. Oh well, thanks for the memories Windows XP.

Well, I'm on schedule for a New Year's "upgrade" to Vista x64 Ultimate in January. So I am on my last two months of Windows XP x64 Edition. Almost bittersweet, since I'm looking forward to using something more updated, but my XP x64 installation runs with aplomb!

I guess what REALLY bothers me is that Vista should architecturally be able to run at least IE 10. I believe that as long as an OS receives extended phase support, then it shoould be provided an updated browser by it's own vendor. At the time that IE 10 was released, Microsoft responded to questions about its "no-Vista" policy, They said, "Windows Vista users have a rich user experience in IE 9, so we're not focusing on upgrading the browser for Vista (paraphrased)", but that's no longer true, so they should at least provide something that's usable until 2017.

Well, I was specifically saying that I like the IE9+ UI and look. So I wondered how deficient the browser was. I always love when people answer the question I have asked by saying, "Run Google Chrome" or "Why run IE at all?" LOL!

This is what prompted my post. I had a heck of a time navigating Gmail after I upgraded my girlfriend's Windows 7 notebook to IE 11. Way too slow on Gmail. So I downgraded her machine back to IE 10. But in trying to fix this issue, I came across a similar article to what you've shown us. So you mean to say, Google will actually block you out? I thought it would just "persuade" you to upgrade to a newer browser or use HTML mail. That's too bad if it forces you to upgrade IE 9.

OK so my comments are based on anecdotal experiences. It simply runs smoother on my machine than a comparable x86 install does. Applications don't stall oddly or seem to become overwhelmed every so often. I admit that this problem doesn't happen often on x86 builds but it never does at all on x64 in my experience. The boot time, desktop load and window drawing seems more brisk and instantaneous.

I currently use SeaMonkey, but I am migrating to Vista Ultimate x64 in a month or so. I really like the newer IE interface, and IE9 seems like a speedy browser. Now since I cannot upgrade to IE 10 on Vista, just how outmoded is IE9? Is it still usable?

It's still my daily driver. If you have drivers for all of your hardware, you'll be quite happy with it. It's definitely more stable than XP x86.

http://www.blackviper.com/service-configurations/black-vipers-windows-vista-service-pack-2-service-configurations/

Too bad it's not a modern contender, but I feel Windows 2000 Professional would have been PERFECT for such a machine; it would run substantially better than Windows XP Professional, no?

I found it more bloated. I hated v8 and 9. Once I go with Vista x64 next year, I'll just use Lame (WinLAME) to encode MP3s.

There is a download called Multiple IEs which allows you to take the binaries/DLLs of IE 6 and place them in the local program folder for Roxio. I use this to install MusicMatch Jukebox v6x.

If you can get your hands on an HP xw8200 Workstation, I think you'll be pleased. I'll check the specs when I get home, but here's what I basically have. 7 GB DDR 400 MHz RAM (slower but it works well) Two 73 GB U320 SCSI HDDs (each on their own controller) LG Sata DVD-RW Drive Integrated Sound/LAN/USB 2.0 nVidia PCI 6200 Display Adapter (no worries, the system has a PCI-E slot for a more current card, but I'm not a gamer, so the card I have is sufficient for me)

Given the announcement of Windows 8.1 and its supposed inclusion of Internet Explorer 11, I wonder if Windows 7 will also receive an updated IE version as well. Will Internet Explorer 11 run on Windows 7? I haven't seen any announcements.

I was just curious as to what impressions had about what was coming down the pipe. Will the Start Menu return? What are changes are expected? Personally I'm hoping for a re-inclusion of the classic (non-skinned) desktop, but I won't hold my breath.

That's funny. Similarly, I use music automation and sound editing software that works GREAT! on Windows XP x64 Edition, but there is no further support after April 2014. I don't really want to move to Vista (although Vista x64 does run VERY WELL on my Dual Xeon HP machine. I would like to go to Linux or eComstation, but I need to be able to run these applications (Wine and Odin just won't cut it). I really just wish I could keep using Windows XP x64 Edition, or go back to Windows 2000 on some alternate hardware.

Just to revive this thread, I wonder if we are running more native 64-bit applications than three years ago. Here's what I've run natively in 64-bit (I switched to Windows XP x64 Edition in Novemember 2011). Seamonkey 2.17.1 (Unofficial x64 Build) 7-Zip 9.20 Ccleaner 3.28 ByteEssence Registry Cleaner MSE x64 build for Vista/7 (it installs and works in XP x64) I had run uTorrent 3.0 x64, however it's stability was questionable, and I found it slower than the x86 build. I also liked Media Player Classic x64. However, I browse a site often that uses RealMedia to present old radio airchecks (doh!). The site admin refuses to convert the codec to something more modern, so I have to use MPC's x86 build.

I was able to get SeaMonkey v2.9 running as supported under Windows 2000 (so no KernelEx or anything like that). I can't remember offhand what Gecko revision that is, so I don't know what the comparable version of Firefox is.

So just how stable is Windows 2000 with PAE enabled? Will it work well with 8 gb of RAM? I only thought Server Datacenter Edition supported PAE mode. If I boot a 4 gb system without PAE, and then run a browser and mail app; then I boot an equivalent system with PAE and 8 gb of RAM (using the same apps), will there be a performance hit?

And these included CURRENT updates for IE 5? Yes This I have to check out. So what are the oldest browser/OS combinations supported? (I'm at work so I can't check)

Plenty of reading...when I arrive home from work, I'll try it.

And these included CURRENT updates for IE 5?

Where in heck are you getting updates for Windows 2000, let alone Internet Explorer 5x? The updates should have ended in July 2010.

I can respect that, but how long will Opera v10.10 be able to render these pages properly? Plus, I want to render pages properly, not just passably. I suppose XP will be able to support Seamonkey builds for awhile. I can only hope. But at least I have a migration path with either Vista or Windows 7, if that's not the case. As for the person I previously corresponded with regarding Seamonkey vs K-Meleon, I ran K-Meleon v1.6 and 1.7 alphas with one of the several add-ons and user-agent strings. And without proper HTML 5 support, Google Images doesn't work quite right. So even K-Meleon isn't a modern option really. It's too bad too, because I really liked K-Meleon.

Hi dencorso: I was setting up an old machine for my superintendent's brother. He was wanting a machine just use for six months while he saved up to get a new one. He had a Pentium III 400 MHz CPU. I upped it from 256 MB to 512 MB of RAM, and installed a clean copy of Windows ME on it. I used the unofficial SP for Windows ME and the Revolutions Pack v9 to modernize the interface somewhat. For browsing, I installed Seamonkey v1.1.19 (which as far as I know, was the last release to work with Win9x from 2010). And still, there were SO MANY sites that just do not render properly. It may be a small thing, but when I load Google, the two search buttons should be side by side; not one on top of each other and stretched out. Facebook doesn't work properly. Many sites leave the top part of the page blank, leaving you to scroll down to see the actual page. I could go on, but you get the idea. Sure, the OS is lickety-split fast, and the browser loads quickly. But the rendering issues of supported browsers are too much of an issue for most people (and even though I'm usually quite tolerant, I'm fast becoming one of those who just want the site to work). And what of banking online? The site has to be secure, and I would only trust a modern browser to do that. Which means Win9x is simply out. Sadly that will soon mean Windows 2000 as well. As for my being fixated on ensuring I'm on a supported system, once Windows XP goes the way of the operating system graveyard, the browser vendors will stop releasing for XP as well. So I'll need to use Vista or higher; just to have access to a current browser on Microsoft Windows. Is that not correct?