| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 127748 | 2012-11-11 05:38:00 | Anyone still using WinXP? | Nomad (952) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1311897 | 2012-11-11 21:12:00 | Still using XP here as well why pay out to fix something thats not broken? Laptop we were given has windows vista in it and the old dinosaur still going strong after 12 years has windows 98 in it mainly for the software we could not upgrade into XP. Frankly it seems pointless upgrading to a newer system when your software you paid many bucks for becomes obsolete because it is no longer compatable. |
coldfront (15814) | ||
| 1311898 | 2012-11-12 07:59:00 | I still use XP and am quite happy with it. Where I work part time at a multi national co. they still on XP pro. (must be about 100 users) |
gradebdan (2186) | ||
| 1311899 | 2012-11-12 08:59:00 | I find 7 far superior to XP, one thing that REALLY gets me is aero snap. Love it when trying to work with 2x documents/windows on widescreen monitors. Aero snap suck on 4:3 units though. Really no point. | The Error Guy (14052) | ||
| 1311900 | 2012-11-12 10:21:00 | I find 7 far superior to XP, one thing that REALLY gets me is aero snap. Love it when trying to work with 2x documents/windows on widescreen monitors. Aero snap suck on 4:3 units though. Really no point. XP (and I believe earlier) does have a similar feature: right click on the taskbar and choose "Tile windows vertically" However, snap does make moving windows between multiple monitors nice. Hardly 'far superior' in my book but a nice feature. Of course, Linux has that feature too, already. |
Agent_24 (57) | ||
| 1311901 | 2012-11-12 10:29:00 | I've got XP on mum's PC, simply because it would be a slug with anything newer. But I would personally never go back to XP. Windows 7 is just so much better in every way. | goodiesguy (15316) | ||
| 1311902 | 2012-11-12 20:10:00 | I'd still be using Win95 if it had the hardware support 95 was blazingly fast on older PC's if you put enough RAM in it, eg a full 256M On new PC's it would run so fast there would be time dilation issues :cool: |
1101 (13337) | ||
| 1311903 | 2012-11-12 20:13:00 | I'd still be using Win95 if it had the hardware support 95 was blazingly fast on older PC's if you put enough RAM in it, eg a full 256M On new PC's it would run so fast there would be time dilation issues :cool: It ran fast, sure, but the lack of decent USB support and the memory leaks would kill me. I lost two PCs because I left them on for a month without reboot (by accident, while on holiday) and Windows 95 did some very weird stuff to them. In one case half the OS just vanished, and in the other I got a duplicate of my D drive that I couldn't access. O_o Mostly though, I couldn't live without my USB sticks. |
Zara Baxter (16260) | ||
| 1311904 | 2012-11-12 21:37:00 | In one case half the OS just vanished, and in the other I got a duplicate of my D drive that I couldn't access. O_o And people say Vista was bad :p |
pcuser42 (130) | ||
| 1311905 | 2012-11-12 21:41:00 | And people say Vista was bad :p Vista was very bad ...for gamers. For most other folks, it was fine. |
Zara Baxter (16260) | ||
| 1311906 | 2012-11-12 23:35:00 | Vista was very bad ...for gamers. For most other folks, it was fine. Vista was bad for everyone until SP2 |
Agent_24 (57) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||