Goodbye Windows XP

[digsys]

Right, but his job is system administration. 
I think it's sad that he's not interested in even looking at better ways to do his job.  Either he's too lazy to look for an easier way, he is not really interested in his job at all, or he really does think that his way is the best way available.
All three options depress me.  I'd find a new job if I was in a rut like that. 

LOL .. PMSL .. You know me SO well :-) Definitely impressed (opposite of depress) :-) ..

[G7PSK]

Historical reference for those that don't remember (myself included!):

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

- Presumably, this is aggregated either from w3's viewing stats, or from stats sent to them in some manner.
- Data goes back to 2003 and is split up by OS, not just vendor.
- Just guessing, ME is probably rolled into 98[SE] stats.

The reason ME is not listed on those stats. is no computer loaded with it made it on line. I bought a new computer back in the days that came with ME installed, it never ever made it past boot up before I got the BSD. I rang the support line of the seller ( PC World) many many times, It never could be got up and running, they even had me re-install the OS while I was on the phone to them and as the phone line was not a free phone it cot a lot it may even have been a premium line. In the end I returned it to the shop where they told me that as I had re installed the OS they would not refund me but only exchange the computer, I had a long argument with them in the end after threatening going to court they hit on a compromise, they would issue me a new computer which I could then take to the tills and get a refund on, which I did. This was my first ever new computer and the last one ever from PC World.

[nctnico]

Right, but his job is system administration. 

I think it's sad that he's not interested in even looking at better ways to do his job.  Either he's too lazy to look for an easier way, he is not really interested in his job at all, or he really does think that his way is the best way available.

If you have ever been involved in system administration you should know that you really don't want to fix some that is not broken. Besides that moving an entire company to Windows 7 is a major operation which needs man power and budget. For starters you need to test if every software package works and educate the users about the changes in Windows 7.

[Rigby]

Right, but his job is system administration. 

I think it's sad that he's not interested in even looking at better ways to do his job.  Either he's too lazy to look for an easier way, he is not really interested in his job at all, or he really does think that his way is the best way available.

If you have ever been involved in system administration you should know that you really don't want to fix some that is not broken. Besides that moving an entire company to Windows 7 is a major operation which needs man power and budget. For starters you need to test if every software package works and educate the users about the changes in Windows 7.

Yet I've done just that several times, and have been glad at the change each and every time.  there were a few issues, yes, but nothing that I could not get around relatively easily.

Being administrator of a system does not completely explain being scared of new software, hardware, or new situations.  You simply cannot grow as a sysadmin unless you put yourself into situations that you've not been in before.

We're well off-topic, now.  PM me if you want to continue this conversation.  I'm happy to do so, but I am not sure this topic is the place to do it.

[Homer J Simpson]

....and Windows 8 begins to look more like Windows 7.

http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-updates-windows-8-for-desktops-2014-4

[Skimask]

The reason ME is not listed on those stats. is no computer loaded with it made it on line. I bought a new computer back in the days that came with ME installed, it never ever made it past boot up before I got the BSD.

That is odd...and I hear it a lot but I don't know why.
My very first PC got Win95, Win98, Win98SE, and every version, service pack, etc., up to WinME.  Never wiped the drive, just installed the new OS over the old OS, like I said, right up to WinME.  Sure it had hiccups, but no more than I do right now on Win7.  Not saying WinME was perfect.  Far from it.  That machine is still running over on a back bench, using it for 'interface work', when I want to whip something up in VisualBasic to talk to something over a serial port or parallel port for that matter.  And it's still got that annoying sticking menu bug that the Windows 95-ME never did get fixed...annoying as hell.
Skipped over Win2K, right to XP.  Still using that machine, and plan on continuing to use it for programming MCUs, etc.
Both of those machines will see use until they die horrible deaths, but I'd doubt that's going to happen anytime soon.  Spare mobo's, ram, drives, got a couple of everything, including backup images.

[TMM]

Every Windows version is crappier than the previous one... go figure. Windows7 gets just as slow over time as any Windows version has been done before.

PEBKAC. Windows 7 still runs like a dream on a 3 year old install here. Ditto with XP - i only ever needed to reinstall because of upgrading hardware or because the hard drive with the OS installed on it failed.

Whenever a friend/relative asks me to look at their PC because it's running slowly it's one of the following 99% of the time:
-malware installed by the user
-bunch of harmless crapware(tm) installed by the user that spends an eternity launching at OS startup:
   -bloaty/multiple anti-virus/anti-malware programs
   -apps that launch in the system tray at OS startup in order to reduce the time taken from the user clicking the icon to the app being ready. Yes they make that app start faster but they hog RAM and significantly increase OS startup time.
   -updater tray apps (e.g. adobe reader updater, java updater, etc)
   -other unnecessary tray applications (e.g. manufacturer-specific peripheral control panels which are installed with hardware drivers)
Especially with low end PCs that don't have a lot of RAM it's not uncommon to find them with very little or no RAM free at initial startup which causes it have to shuffle the contents between the RAM and the pagefile on the hard drive which is orders of magnitude slower.
-filesystem is badly fragmented
-hardware fault with the hard drive
-other hardware fault, e.g. thermal-throttling CPU

[Rigby]

Every Windows version is crappier than the previous one... go figure. Windows7 gets just as slow over time as any Windows version has been done before.

PEBKAC. Windows 7 still runs like a dream on a 3 year old install here. Ditto with XP - i only ever needed to reinstall because of upgrading hardware or because the hard drive with the OS installed on it failed.

Whenever a friend/relative asks me to look at their PC because it's running slowly it's one of the following 99% of the time:
-malware installed by the user
-bunch of harmless crapware(tm) installed by the user that spends an eternity launching at OS startup:
   -bloaty/multiple anti-virus/anti-malware programs
   -apps that launch in the system tray at OS startup in order to reduce the time taken from the user clicking the icon to the app being ready. Yes they make that app start faster but they hog RAM and significantly increase OS startup time.
   -updater tray apps (e.g. adobe reader updater, java updater, etc)
   -other unnecessary tray applications (e.g. manufacturer-specific peripheral control panels)
Especially with low end PCs that don't have a lot of RAM it's not uncommon to find them with very little or no RAM free at initial startup which causes it have to shuffle the contents between the RAM and the pagefile on the hard drive which is orders of magnitude slower.
-filesystem is badly fragmented
-hardware fault with the hard drive
-other hardware fault, e.g. thermal-throttling CPU

this, a thousand times.  Thank you.

[SeanB]

Bingo on all that, plus assorted drivers for printers they no longer have, all with the crapware bundled with that particular printer still running as well. Even Real Player spyware, which was uninstalled really fast as well, and replaced with VLC. Made a big difference in the next reboot to install only the printer that was needed. HP, why a 350M installer for a printer?

[echen1024]

Win 8 will soon be just an upgraded windows 7. The beloved start menu is coming back! Win 8 has some new, nice features such as the file copy window.

[Skimask]

HP, why a 350M installer for a printer?

No Kidding!!!
I've shitcanned two perfectly good HP printers (one home, one office) practically brand new, for that reason alone.

[echen1024]

HP, why a 350M installer for a printer?

No Kidding!!!
I've shitcanned two perfectly good HP printers (one home, one office) practically brand new, for that reason alone.

I recently shitcanned my 7 year old HP. It would print a half page, spit it out, and then print the next half on another sheet.

[SeanB]

Funny enough many older HP printers ( aside from the braindead ones that use the host as a rasteriser engine) just work fine in Linux, no driver required as it is either built in or available from your repo, and is both small and usable.

[Rigby]

consumer IT gear is almost always absolute rubbish.  that's where the 350MB installer comes from, bundled BS that no one needs.

any LaserJet supported by their unified driver (which is pretty small in comparison, < 20MB) will perform well at home.

you can often find off-lease laser printers that are of amazing quality and that have tons of life left.  and even when they don't, a $120 "replace the moving parts" kit that I forget the name of will get it right back to brand-new print quality. 

in that way, it is pretty easy to get a printer capable of double-sided printing, 20 pages per minute and 100,000 pages left before maintenance is due for just a couple hundred bucks.

[amyk]

This is why I've refused to "upgrade":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_features_removed_in_Windows_Vista
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_features_removed_in_Windows_7
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_features_removed_in_Windows_8

I never needed MS's support, in fact I used 98SE until only a few years ago. There's a community of users who have produced fixes for it that even allow running programs designed for newer versions, and if the size of the userbase of XP is any indication, there will be even more interest in doing this for it.

[T3sl4co1l]

Speaking of software at runtime... I had a Dell Inspiron 6150 or so with a P4 and all of 512MB RAM.   Its default configuration (XP) used 544MB at the desktop.  I haven't seen an XP machine sitting at less than 250MB, and that's with nothing else, even minimal services.  (Less I'm sure is possible, but probably not practicable.)

Tim

[GreyWoolfe]

Every Windows version is crappier than the previous one... go figure. Windows7 gets just as slow over time as any Windows version has been done before.

PEBKAC. Windows 7 still runs like a dream on a 3 year old install here. Ditto with XP - i only ever needed to reinstall because of upgrading hardware or because the hard drive with the OS installed on it failed.

Whenever a friend/relative asks me to look at their PC because it's running slowly it's one of the following 99% of the time:
-malware installed by the user
-bunch of harmless crapware(tm) installed by the user that spends an eternity launching at OS startup:
   -bloaty/multiple anti-virus/anti-malware programs
   -apps that launch in the system tray at OS startup in order to reduce the time taken from the user clicking the icon to the app being ready. Yes they make that app start faster but they hog RAM and significantly increase OS startup time.
   -updater tray apps (e.g. adobe reader updater, java updater, etc)
   -other unnecessary tray applications (e.g. manufacturer-specific peripheral control panels which are installed with hardware drivers)
Especially with low end PCs that don't have a lot of RAM it's not uncommon to find them with very little or no RAM free at initial startup which causes it have to shuffle the contents between the RAM and the pagefile on the hard drive which is orders of magnitude slower.
-filesystem is badly fragmented
-hardware fault with the hard drive
-other hardware fault, e.g. thermal-throttling CPU

Been there, done that.   My first question is, "Do you want a faster computer or all your quick start links on your desktop?"  Then I give an easily understandable reason that the first is better than the second.  I only ever had 1 person not opt for the faster computer.  I didn't please everyone but I sure came darn close

[echen1024]

consumer IT gear is almost always absolute rubbish.  that's where the 350MB installer comes from, bundled BS that no one needs.

any LaserJet supported by their unified driver (which is pretty small in comparison, < 20MB) will perform well at home.

you can often find off-lease laser printers that are of amazing quality and that have tons of life left.  and even when they don't, a $120 "replace the moving parts" kit that I forget the name of will get it right back to brand-new print quality. 

in that way, it is pretty easy to get a printer capable of double-sided printing, 20 pages per minute and 100,000 pages left before maintenance is due for just a couple hundred bucks.

I have learned that the hard way. My first PC, an off lease Dell Pentium M from my dads office ran perfectly fine for 8 years, until it finally gave out. I then (stupidly) purchased the latest flashy HP entertainment PC. Worked for about a month then the motherboard crapped itself. It felt of awful quality as well. Now I use a ThinkPad X230 Tablet purchased with the corporate EPP.

[Rigby]

• registry cleaning is for suckers.  a billion billion orphaned keys wouldn't slow it down; it's indexed.  if you don't believe me then you've been sold some snake oil. (you've been conned.) The placebo effect is strong with registry cleaners, and everyone "knows" they work.  They don't, really, everyone just thinks registry cleaners improve performance, so everyone says they improve performance.
• as I said before, most of the changes in recent windows versions are not user-noticeable, as they're mostly "under the hood" and architectural or administrative in nature.  there are plenty of noticeable changes, but the majority of the work has been into stability and overall OS design and implementation, and those changes have been significant.
• the changes I mention won't affect a single user at home, much, but in the enterprise the changes are VERY MUCH WELCOMED.
• If you follow the development of the operating systems as news of their development is released, the number of changes is simply mind-blowing.  they work their asses off on new versions of windows, whether anyone believes that or not.

All of that being said, if you find that Windows XP works for you, then I agree; there is little incentive to upgrade.  Power to ya.  I'm a developer and a lot of those newer frameworks that don't work under XP or don't perform well under XP serve me very well under Windows 7 & 8.

[SeanB]

Only registry cleaner I use is from Microsoft Sysinternals, which only does one thing, and makes the entire registry a single block on the drive, so that it is easier to read from for the OS. That does make a difference, and probably will also make a difference on a SSD as well by reducing the amount of different small block fetches instead of a single large block read. Runs once at startup, and as it is made by a developer who now works at Microsoft ( but made this for his own use and offered it for free along with an entire suite) where it is free. Google Microsoft sysinternals and you will get it.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb842062.aspx

For those who want it, download the entire suite if you like it. There are a lot of good utilities there that work well, and are well written. Nothing like a buggy crash reporter that crashes to spoil your day.

[rsjsouza]

+1 to Mark Rossinovich's utilities. Another set of utilities that helps me a lot is from Nirsoft.

[rdl]

I have Windows 7 on my living room computer and I like it a lot. It's been running since 2012. I've never paid for Windows 7, I haven't pirated it either. 95% of the software I use runs in "portable" mode. No registry needed, no "installation" needed. The only draw back, if you want to call it that, is that I have to re-install Windows 3 times a year. I actually consider this a good thing and it's much less trouble than you would think.

[echen1024]

I have Windows 7 on my living room computer and I like it a lot. It's been running since 2012. I've never paid for Windows 7, I haven't pirated it either. 95% of the software I use runs in "portable" mode. No registry needed, no "installation" needed. The only draw back, if you want to call it that, is that I have to re-install Windows 3 times a year. I actually consider this a good thing and it's much less trouble than you would think.

After a few times, it's significantly faster than you think.

[Skimask]

The only draw back, if you want to call it that, is that I have to re-install Windows 3 times a year. I actually consider this a good thing and it's much less trouble than you would think.

Even less trouble if you've got an external drive with a basic Windows load on it and a program like Acronis True Image or whatever to do the restoration with.

[Jarrod Roberson]

Here is the most effective way to secure Windows! ( Any version )