XP vs. 10 - Some Contrasts

[NoelC]

I had occasion to boot up both a Win XP VM I keep on hand for testing and I also happened to boot up a Win 10 TP installation I've been experimenting wtih.  Both are updated, both are set up to be stable and functional.

 

What a poignant difference when viewed and actually used side by side...

 

Simple vs. Bloated.  Small vs. Large.  Functional vs. Fluffy.  Utilitarian vs. Fun & Games.  Clunky vs. Polished.  I can think of a bunch of other metaphors, usually - but not always - complimentary to XP and detrimental to Win 10.

 

I'm no great fan of XP (my personal favorite system so far has been Win 7), but it's a quite interesting experience to jump all the way from one to the other in literally seconds in an equivalent hardware environment.

 

Some contrasts that jumped out at me...

 

• Both booted up in a few tens of seconds.

 

• Under two minutes after bootup and login, with just the Task Manager and a Clock application running on the desktop XP had settled to 24 processes running in just 190 MB of RAM. 
  
  After 20 minutes Win 10 finally settled to 39 processes and 1.1 GB of RAM used.  And this is after having run through and disabled unnecessary processes/services.

 

• On XP, the Details tab of the old tech Task Manager showed the 24 processes in about 1/4 of the vertical space of the screen.   I think one of the reasons we often feel XP was more "serious" or "utilitarian" than the newer systems is that the UI elements and text were generally more densely packed, which was often a good thing in my opinion.
   
  The 39 processes in Win 10 took most of the vertical space on the screen to show in Task Manager.  And there was no one screen that would show the RAM used and the list of processes. 

 

• In the same vein as the above, items in Explorer are more densly packed in XP.  Again, usability over dumbing-down.
   
  I have been able to get the items in Windows 10's Explorer more densely packed, so that it is more usable, through the use of not one but two augmenting 3rd party tools - Classic Shell and T800 Productions' Folder Options X package.  However, they're still not as dense as in XP.

 

• The MSFN main web page is a bit messed up on XP's IE 8.0, though the forum pages seem okay.  It bleeps on every page as MSFN wants to install an Add-on I won't allow.
  
  Win 10 seems to display the whole site fine with IE in Experimental mode.  The add-on message is there on every page load, but it doesn't bleep. The fonts are darker and a little more readable on Win 10's browser.

 

• XP's "Classic" start menu right out of the box gives a functional, rational cascading menu experience.
   
• Win 10's out of the box Start Menu isn't worth using.  However, it can be completely replaced by Classic Shell, which is better than XP's implementation.

 

• Overall XP seems a bit choppier or clunkier to use, with occasional slight delays in the UI.  However, the UI elements (e.g., scroll bar thumbs) are easier to recognize visually.
   
  Win 10 seems to deliver a more fluid UI experience, without the noticeable slight delays, but the metrics aren't quite right, and I find myself occasionally missing (e.g., when resizing windows). Aero (with augmentation by Big Muscle's software) gives the desktop more feeling of depth.

 

 

 

 

 

If you get a chance to run XP and the latest Windows side by side, take the time to do so and try some operations with both of them so as to get an objective view of the differences.  Time has a way of making old things seem different than they actually were, and of course the machine you may have run XP on way back when likely didn't have the same capability as the one you're using now.

 

Win 10, out of the box, is not really better to use.  With a lot of tweaking and augmentation it's a bit better.

 

-Noel

Edited January 5, 2015 by NoelC

[xpclient]

XP is the best at usability and everything after it is bloated crap.

[MagicAndre1981]

no, I had to create a new XP VM to run an old software 2 weeks ago. It was the pure horror in terms of UX. I would even prefer the ugly Win8 (without StartIsBack or Aero Glass) over XP.

 

 

Your baby duck syndrome is extreme.

[jaclaz]

I would even prefer the ugly Win8 (without StartIsBack or Aero Glass) over XP.

 

By any chance do you also find the ribbon interface of post 2003 MS Office to be "better" and more productive?

 

jaclaz

[vinifera]

XP is the best at usability and everything after it is bloated crap.

 

best answer ever

[MagicAndre1981]

I like the UI of LibreOffice which the tools on the right side. The idea of the ribbon was ok, but with 16:9 screens today it wastes too much vertical space, so LibreOffice is better here.

[HarryTri]

Windows XP was - and still is - the ultimate user eXPerience but we can't stick to it forever - things are going forward. Yet I still enjoy seeing its desktop and start menu when logging in my old Pentium III. I hope that Microsoft won't lead as to a day that we'll have to turn to Linux or anything else but Windows. They must understand that the power of Windows, as of every commercial product, is satisfied customers. 

[NoelC]

Can't say I agree completely with xpclient, but I also don't think the newer systems are a wholesale improvement either.  It's a mixed bag.

 

Many of us strive to reconfigure the new systems to restore the "to work" experience of XP AND keep the smoothness and elegance possible (but not actually implemented out of the box) by the newer systems.  Hence great projects like Aero Glass for Win 8+.

 

That being said, of course everyone has slightly different needs and desires, and we're not going to all agree on what was best.  But there's room for all of us - as long as the UX is configurable.  When that goes away - and make no mistake, it IS going away - we're ALL screwed.

 

Besides the UX, XP under the covers is just clunky and old by today's standards.  It was headed in the right direction and made for real work on 32 bit systems, but the kernel was still growing up and simply wasn't the workhorse the newest systems can be.

 

-Noel

Edited January 7, 2015 by NoelC

[vinifera]

I don't think kernel is the issue as much as underlying system bloat

there are too many dependencies on useless junk that they are forcing on

 

you still have OS that is now MORE dependant on IE than ever before

you have OS that NEEDS .net framework

you have OS now that has tons of "online" aka live services

and all this bul***** is connected with "metro"

 

both 8 and "10" are just fast spitted out products made to compete with iOS (and very poorly i must say)

but name branding change and stupid visuals obviously work on these days people

 

lets talk about useful stuff ...

ONLY NOW do they provide in "10" support for MKV and FLAC file format - oh my gawd - took them only 10 years

ONLY since year and half ago they implemented ISO mounting into explorer - *facepalm

 

what else is useful there ... ehm ... nothing, integrated skype ? lol

Edited January 8, 2015 by vinifera

[CamTron]

This screenshot (build 9926) explains itself.

[NoelC]

What does it explain?  That Microsoft is promoting its cloud services?  That's not really surprising.  They stand to make a lot of money there.  Whether it's useful to us - yet - is debatable.  Give it some years and I imagine most sheeple users won't be able to do without it.

 

Did you notice the link that says "Sign in without a Microsoft account (not recommended)"?

 

-Noel

Edited January 27, 2015 by NoelC

[CamTron]

Did you notice the link that says "Sign in without a Microsoft account (not recommended)"?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about!

It's like a "normal" local account is the exception to the rule. When I installed Windows 10, I did whatever I could to not associate my local account with the MS account. When the Feedback app asked for my MS account, I clicked the "sign into each app separately" or something, and it was all well. What surprised me was that after finally being forced to associate with my MS account in order to test out Cortana, I can no longer log in to Windows with the password I set up. I have to use the password for my Microsoft account! And there appears NO way to disassociate the MS account!

[NoelC]

I didn't find testing Cortana worth joining the cloud myself.  And (at least with Win 8) there was a way to go back to using a local account, but I don't know where it is.  They're surely not going to make getting out of the trap easy!

 

Hate to point out the obvious, but having a local account has been considered unfashionable since Windows 8 came out.  And no, I don't mean to say that makes it right.  But those of us who resist will likely ultimately be assimilated.  Microsoft is raising the heat slowly, so we frogs will not jump out.

 

I've been considering a career change to farming.

 

-Noel

[bphlpt]

I've been considering a career change to farming.

 

Let me guess, sheeple farming?

 

Cheers and Regards

[CamTron]

By any chance do you also find the ribbon interface of post 2003 MS Office to be "better" and more productive?

jaclaz

 

On a positive note, I actually like the ribbon UI on the file explorer, but only the file explorer. Wordpad, Office, and especially Paint, have a terrible ribbon. I find it as a more easily accessible replacement for the "Tools" > "Folder Options" dialog. Not to mention that you can now open a cmd prompt from any folder. And you can customize the Quick Access toolbar to add just about any command! I also find the task manager in Win10 much more powerful than the one in XP or 7. But this still doesn't outweigh the awful usability regressions elsewhere.