Windows XP: The truly unstoppable OS

[AnX]

Its downright amazing what this, now 14 year old OS can do. I run a dualboot of WIndows 8.1 and XP. With the RAM patch installed, Windows XP can use all of my 8 gigs of RAM. I run an 8 core processor from AMD (FX-8320) and XP sure does fly on that. I can use it as an everyday OS and have not one single issue. The updates 'til 2019 fix is jsut icing on the cake. Windows XP has done the impossible, what no other OS could do.

 

And I am 99.9% sure that you will see plenty of XP users in ever 2020.

 

Now if only XP could support DX 11 (or perhaps the new DX 12?  ), then it would be the perfect OS.

[submix8c]

To tie it together -

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/171482-get-windows-xp-x86-to-recognize-more-than-4gb-with-pae/#entry1094603

I assume that you *only* applied the patch, or did you add certain parameters in BOOT.INI?

You never specifically said over there.

[bluebolt]

XP’s “unstoppability” is especially impressive when you consider how its own creepy maker is trying to kill it off.

 

I wish the filicidal creep would officially abandon XP altogether so the world could legally download the student version, which, like Windows 2000 Professional, requires no activation.

[TELVM]

... XP sure does fly ...

 

And you've not even bothered to disinfect your SSD to install XP on it.

[MagicAndre1981]

I had to install a XP VM to install drivers/software for my old phone to backup all messages/contacts. I can't undestand why someone still uses this ugly UX (look&feel and the ugly way of using it like no search in Start) of Windows XP :no:

[AnX]

I had installed that Chinese patch. It works flawlessly. Don't even need to set parameters.

@MagicAndre You may apply another theme of your choice if you don't like the XP one.

[vinifera]

I can't undestand why someone still uses this ugly UX (look&feel and the ugly way of using it like no search in Start) of Windows XP  :no:

 

I never used vistas nor 7's search as they both suck a**

so does of 8 and 10

 

indexer is garbage, and MS never uses MFT search which is instant and no resource hungry at all

as for XP UI, whats wrong with it ? - don't misplace ugly theme and UI itself, 2 big different things

[TELVM]

XP is much nicer after switching to some non-Playskool theme like Royale Remixed.

 

[Jody Thornton]

I loved Royale Noir.  I made some mods to it and used it for the longest time.

[Guest]

Still using Royale Noir. Sometimes I'll use Embedded. Built addons and an installer for them.

[Outbreaker]

I loved Royale Noir.  I made some mods to it and used it for the longest time.

Please share.

[Jody Thornton]

Sounds like an idea.  I have a few I modded (but without permission), so I wonder what fair use rights would be entailed there.

But when I get home, I can upload them.

[HarryTri]

Well, I (really!) got in love with Windows XP the first time I saw their default desktop and start menu.

[Tommy]

XP’s “unstoppability” is especially impressive when you consider how its own creepy maker is trying to kill it off.

 

I wish the filicidal creep would officially abandon XP altogether so the world could legally download the student version, which, like Windows 2000 Professional, requires no activation.

I have a non-activation version of Windows XP Professional since I was in an IT class and we used it, but I still use Windows 2000 mainly because I still prefer it over XP. I do agree though that certain things are getting harder to do on Windows 2000, even with KernelEx, such as using newer drivers or even a few programs. I still don't know if and when I have to abandon 2000 as my main computing solution if I'll switch over to Windows XP or if I'll bite the bullet and just use Windows 7. I like XP over 7 because it isn't so sluggish. I don't care what people say about 7 or even 8 for that matter, if you have an older computer from the mid to late 2000s, Windows 7 will always be a bit sluggish. I really can't imagine how they have 1GHz as a minimum processor. That's a Pentium 3 coppermine....apparently the minimum is kept in mind with people who have a lot of time on their hands. But when something stops responding in 7, I hate how it turns white and basically holds up the entire computer. So I do think XP is a better choice overall to use.

[j7n]

"Minimum" requirements are meaningless with most software products. I'm not familiar with Windows Eight, but it does defy common wisdom that software gets more bloated inefficient with every release, and less compatible with older systems that have no commercial value anymore. According to Wiki, Win98 "requires" 16 MB of RAM. Let's bump it to 32 MB. The naked OS with very lean drivers (implies ancient hardware) will boot, but you won't be able to add any applications or allow to for registry growth. Software publishers seem to have a vague definition of what constitutes a functional computer, and leave options open to stretch the facts with cherry picked cases.

For example, we can see here a demonstration where Win Eight is supposedly faster or on par with XP, and of course more "secure" than anything that came before it.

And yet, it takes the multi-core PC more than a minute to open the Event Viewer with its logs fully parsed. A similar amount of data is read with the older XP's management console in seconds.

That is unless you were to compare a Pentium II doing the same operation. Microsoft somehow manages to get away with taking credit for faster processors, video cards, HD audio and megapixel pictures, as if their OS somehow was crucial in enabling these parts to work.

I've had a rather "upbeat" first experience with XP's GUI. I think I was impressed by its warm color scheme. The PC in question had the standard reddish Luna theme, but also the brown "Autumn" wallpaper. In retrospect this was rather silly. But that is how I remember. The PCs I got to work with were a generation behind with quarter the memory (64 MB) running Win2K.