"OK! OK! We'll Support It!" LOL

[vinifera]

hehe fair enough
but comment still stands as in having major "known" exploits unpatched

I know I always loved XP SP1, because it was so light while for some reason SP2 was system hog
but later when all those viruses like sasser and others started to annoy
I just had to get the fixes, and things like this no AV or firewall CAN FIX nor prevent

as these are backdoor exploits on system level

Edited January 20, 2014 by vinifera

[submix8c]

@RacerBG - Heh, you didn't specify it was the Win7 and -implied- it was applicable to XP. BTW, you ARE aware of the folder "SoftwareDistribution" of which MS uses (fror the Windows/Microsoft Update Websites) to download to? It kind of "doubles" the space used by the Updates. The contents of the folder can be safeley deleted and is sometimes necessary (AFAIK) to "fix" WU/MU. In addition, -if- you manually find and download the Full Fix Installers, there -is- a method of Updating that precludes any chance of "uninstalling" them -but- if space is -really- a consideration, then it's not unlike "slipstreaming" them.

Don't have a running Win7 ATM, but I believe the FolderName is the same -

x:\Windows\SoftwareDistribution\Downloads|<a lot of downloaded and totally unnecessary stuff>

Turn OFF AutoUpdates and ENSURE that none a "Pending" (by rebooting a couple of times) before deleting.

(Yeah, O/T, but thought I'd clarify a misconception.)

[RacerBG]

@RacerBG - Heh, you didn't specify it was the Win7 and -implied- it was applicable to XP. BTW, you ARE aware of the folder "SoftwareDistribution" of which MS uses (fror the Windows/Microsoft Update Websites) to download to? It kind of "doubles" the space used by the Updates. The contents of the folder can be safeley deleted and is sometimes necessary (AFAIK) to "fix" WU/MU. In addition, -if- you manually find and download the Full Fix Installers, there -is- a method of Updating that precludes any chance of "uninstalling" them -but- if space is -really- a consideration, then it's not unlike "slipstreaming" them.

Don't have a running Win7 ATM, but I believe the FolderName is the same -

x:\Windows\SoftwareDistribution\Downloads|<a lot of downloaded and totally unnecessary stuff>

Turn OFF AutoUpdates and ENSURE that none a "Pending" (by rebooting a couple of times) before deleting.

(Yeah, O/T, but thought I'd clarify a misconception.)

Interesting fact. Maybe this is the case for my anger against the updates. Anyway looks like the things are now clear.

[Tommy]

I fail to see why Microsoft can't release a new OS that is somewhat like Windows XP, light on resources and hard drive space. Just because modern hard drives are at least 250GBs+ in new computers doesn't mean you have to fill it all up on an OS that does nearly the same things like Windows 98 or Windows XP did, just better. I have many complaints from clients using Windows 7 that it slows down even on some of the newest computers. Why can't Microsoft release a barebones OS for people who want to continue using their older computers and have a fancier one for people who like that kind of stuff? Windows Vista/7 is a joke on anything older than the newest Pentium 4 computers. That and the fact it's hard to upgrade to nearly a whole new codebase when their infrastructure is so massive. As many people say, if it's not broken, don't mess with it. The reason people continue to use Windows XP is because it works, it's not very hardware intensive, and certain applications and devices simply don't work on Windows Vista+. It might not be just a matter of upgrading the OS. If the computer is old enough, it would mean replacing the entire computer, maybe your printer, sometimes even software applications, and so on. In this hard pressed economy, people need the economical choices as well. I just don't see why so many things just stop working with newer versions of Windows. Microsoft chooses to remove certain things out of their newer versions of Windows so you run into compatibility issues. Windows 98 to Windows XP is a hard thing to compare though since it's a completely different system base, but Windows XP and Windows 7 are both Windows NT products and so why shouldn't something that works on Windows XP work with Windows 7 unless they purposely remove whatever it is from their product to make your product incompatible. Just like I think their OSs become more hardware intensive on purpose so people have to either upgrade their machines or replace them all together. I know a lot of people will probably disagree with me on some of my points of view but as I said before, why not release two completely different versions of Windows to make both sides happy? That way Microsoft can migrate people off of Windows XP a lot more easier while still making money and keeping their clients happy at the same time. What is really in Windows Vista+ that requires so much hardware requirements except for fancy themes and whatnot? Even turning Aero off and going completely with Windows Classic as a theme, it's still slow even on some of the newer machines. I just think a new, lower end OS for the economically strained folks would be an excellent and cost effective solution. How many normal users really use all the stuff included in newer versions of Windows anyway? Most people just want to get on and get what they need done and be done with it. Anyway, that's my entire take on this. I'm not even that big on Windows XP but I can totally see why people are clinging onto it. The jump from Windows XP to even Vista is a big one in hardware requirements and when people are still using computers for the early 2000s, I can see why they don't want to upgrade, considering how word probably spreads about how slow the new OSs are on older computers.

[jaclaz]

I fail to see why Microsoft can't release a new OS that is somewhat like Windows XP, light on resources and hard drive space.

You mean "like Windows 2000", I believe .

jaclaz

Edited January 21, 2014 by jaclaz

[Tommy]

I fail to see why Microsoft can't release a new OS that is somewhat like Windows XP, light on resources and hard drive space.

You mean "like Windows 2000", I believe .

jaclaz

Haha, that too jaclaz! Hence why I still prefer Windows 2000 myself because of the awesome members of this community helping keep it up to date and it just runs awesome. Of course after unofficial updates and newer programs now being able to run, it starts taking a bit of hard drive space but it's still just as awesome as ever.

[Jody Thornton]

I fail to see why Microsoft can't release a new OS that is somewhat like Windows XP, light on resources and hard drive space.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, but Microsoft is now trying to convey a COMPLETELY different vision for Windows, one that is not congruent with the vision conveyed with XP. In fact, when it comes to this vision, Windows 7 and Windows Vista are no longer in line with current product offerings.

When you think of "Windows" in 2014, Microsoft wants you to visualize the "Metro" Start Screen. Notice in it's Windows 8x/Surface commericals that even though the Explorer style desktop shell still exists; they NEVER show it? That's because Microsoft want users to disenfranchise themselves with that image. Microsoft wants you to envision Windows as a place to run apps and use on a tablet, akin to Android or iOS.

So XP, Vista and 7 do not fit that image of Windows. So they will not revive it. They want you to stop using it. And they're hell-bent on letting you know it's unsafe to run.

Consider this: as much as you may love a 1965 Ford Mustang, Ford will never make another vehicle of that fashion EVER AGAIN. It would likely pose safety concerns. Now you may say as an experienced driver, "I know how to protect myself in an older car and how to avoid the hazards it may impose." However, that wouldn't make Ford build an old-style vehicle, since it compromises safety.

[CharlotteTheHarlot]

Consider this: as much as you may love a 1965 Ford Mustang, Ford will never make another vehicle of that fashion EVER AGAIN. It would likely pose safety concerns. Now you may say as an experienced driver, "I know how to protect myself in an older car and how to avoid the hazards it may impose." However, that wouldn't make Ford build an old-style vehicle, since it compromises safety.

Further complicating it is the fact that MetroTards ( and Microsoft itself ) use the new math, where both that '65 'Stang, AND the 1964 original, AND even the 2015 model are all 50 years old.

( Of course I'm referring to the "Windows XP is 12 years old. Kill it with fire!" mantra even though the most recent release is from 2008 and many parts are Windows Update refreshed to 2013 and now 2014 )

Lookin' good for a 50 year old!

Math is hard.

[Guest]

Consider this: as much as you may love a 1965 Ford Mustang, Ford will never make another vehicle of that fashion EVER AGAIN. It would likely pose safety concerns. Now you may say as an experienced driver, "I know how to protect myself in an older car and how to avoid the hazards it may impose." However, that wouldn't make Ford build an old-style vehicle, since it compromises safety.

As an owner of a '64 Mustang, I agree with you. There are still plenty of aftermarket products for those who wish to make their daily driver into a safer ride like four-wheel drum to disc brake conversions, frame-stiffening components, et cetera.

[Jody Thornton]

Consider this: as much as you may love a 1965 Ford Mustang, Ford will never make another vehicle of that fashion EVER AGAIN. It would likely pose safety concerns. Now you may say as an experienced driver, "I know how to protect myself in an older car and how to avoid the hazards it may impose." However, that wouldn't make Ford build an old-style vehicle, since it compromises safety.

As an owner of a '64 Mustang, I agree with you. There are still plenty of aftermarket products for those who wish to make their daily driver into a safer ride like four-wheel drum to disc brake conversions, frame-stiffening components, et cetera.

Still, you get what I mean. Ford itself will not fuel sales of an older automobile model. And Microsoft will not create a new "XP". Now comparing aftermarket auto parts sales train of thought with Microsoft Windows, there is ReactOS. I wish that project would mature and stabilize, because I would use that operating system in a heartbeat!

[Ponch]

The "new" Mini Cooper is a success. The "new" Fiat Cinquecento is a success. Both more than 50 years old.

People see their "always on" Android phone on which they can surf the Internet instantly, then look at their 7 year old PC that boots XP or Seven in 2 minutes and what you can buy from Microsoft today is new technology that's 10 times faster but still takes minutes to boot? That's OK for an office, not for home. Oh, and that interface that mimics a phone on a 22" screen ??? Great.

[ZortMcGort11]

I fail to see why Microsoft can't release a new OS that is somewhat like Windows XP, light on resources and hard drive space.

That's funny, because when it was released I thought XP was the bloatware and Windows 98/Me were the light, efficient computers. Never understood the fuss about XP. It always seemed to take longer to do the simplest tasks... everything involved more clicking and folder scouring, and general time wasting... compared to the elegance of Win9x. And XP seems more like your only "borrowing" or "renting" your own computer. Oh, microsoft is so generous to allow me to "Activate" my own computer. I love the fact that I purchase a computer, then I have to purchase a copy of Windows to rent, then I have to pay for the internet... by the time that's all done, I have nice advertisement box stationed in my living room. I'm paying money so microsoft can "loan" me an operating system to use (until they deem it obsolote), then I'll be forced to buy another computer so I can "rent" the latest version of windows for it's pre-planned life cycle. Screw that. Windows ME is the last microsoft version I "own." That's right, I own it! I can copy the discs and install it on 500 computers if I felt like it, and microsoft will never know about it. So, good luck to the all Windows 8.1 "renters" out there. Enjoy your pre-planned 6 year life cycle in your rent contract to microsoft... and you better start saving money for the next computer down the road. Can you tell I hate XP?

[ZortMcGort11]

As an owner of a '64 Mustang, I agree with you. There are still plenty of aftermarket products for those who wish to make their daily driver into a safer ride like four-wheel drum to disc brake conversions, frame-stiffening components, et cetera.

Owner here of a 1974 Ford F-100 (and yes, it's F-100, not F-150, to all you kiddies out there, it's not a typo) pickup, duel fuel tanks, 360 ci V8... basically a real tank and gos hog. And yes, it's rusted like heck, and no I don't care who or what I park next too, or how far my door swings (watch out, rich fancy car owners), and the best thing about it is, no computers or GPS built into it. Global warming is B.S. so I'm going to not lose sleep over the fact my vehicle spews about 10 times more pollution into the air than everyone elses. My vehicle also has about 10x more torque and pulling power, and therefore a purpose and usability than all these foo foo cars on the road.

[Tommy]

I fail to see why Microsoft can't release a new OS that is somewhat like Windows XP, light on resources and hard drive space.

Can you tell I hate XP?

XP was never my 'favorite' OS either. I still prefer Windows 98 and Windows 2000 which I still use on a daily basis. I've honestly never touched Windows 8 outside the public beta release but when I used it, I didn't like it. I do not like Metro and I do not own a mobile device or tablet for that very reason. I want to use the classic interface because that's what I'm used to and I can get my work done with it. But Windows XP is at best a light OS on the newest computers, at least 2006+ which is equivalent to Windows 98 on a computer from 2003+. I was never a fan of activation either. I understand the software pirates out there steal software daily but there will always be a way around it. So what's the point of adding more and more activation features to make it much more of a pain for the end user? I frequently install Windows (at least I used to) on my computer and it was a pain to go through activation because back when I did use it, I didn't even have an internet connection so I actually had to call Microsoft every time I did this. I got to the point I didn't activate it at all until my time was almost up. Windows 98 in my opinion with KernelEx is still a fantastic OS and the fact very little new stuff runs on it by default, I consider it more of a secure OS than say Windows 7 which more people are using so it's gaining a lot more attention. Who's honestly gonna make a virus to wipe out 98 machines in 2014? I'm not saying it's impossible but it's unlikely it will happen unless it's so basic that it runs on Windows 98. As for Windows Me, I'm not a big hater on it but I usually avoid it. It's a cool product if it wasn't riddled with bugs but maybe you found a way to patch a lot of them up since you probably update your machine from the basic out of box version. I give you credit though because you're using what you love and that's how it should be! I use Windows 2000 because that's what I want to use. It still runs many new things with the kernel extension installed and so I'm using it until I can't any longer. I still have plenty of older computers it will run on too. But honestly, I feel Windows XP is buggier than Windows 2000. I've had more crashes with XP and many times I had to literally force 2000 to crash just to have it happen.

[Guest]

LostInSpace2012, you should try Win2K. I hated it when I first tried it from 98SE but hell it's stable and light as hell!

Below is what I had when I totally stripped it down.

Memory

Services

Space used by OS. 837 Files, 87 Folders, 124MB!

Edited January 27, 2014 by -X-