How to avoid Windows 10

[huhn]

the search for the lesser evil like always

[LigH]

I guess most Windows users can't avoid switching to Windows 10 eventually. But we can try to postpone it until there are more reliable tools to protect us from the most blatant features of WorldDominance™... ;)

[huhn]

i guess this fix is what you searched for first:
http://www.wintotal.de/tipparchiv/?id=2220

the DisableOSUpgrade part of course.

[raffriff42]

I have Window 8.1 and have avoided Windows 10 nag screens, hidden downloads etc by turning off automatic updates completely. This also avoids annoying reboots at inconvenient times. I go to Windows Update manually every so often, and carefully examine every "important" update (the others I ignore). If the update does not have a clearly stated purpose - and is something I want - I do not install it. I Google periodically for known intrusive updates and uninstall them (if present) and hide them from future Windows updates.
KB971033
KB2952664
KB2990214
KB3021917
KB3022345
KB3035583 "Update installs Get Windows 10 app in Windows 8.1 and Windows 7 SP1"
KB3044374 "Update that enables you to upgrade from Windows 8.1 to Windows 10"
KB3058168 "Update that enables Windows 8.1 and Windows 8 KMS hosts to activate Windows 10"
KB3068708
KB3075249
KB3075851
KB3080149 "Update for customer experience and diagnostic telemetry"
KB3083710
KB3112336
Stop: Diagnostics Tracking Service
DisableOSUpgrade (see post #1 (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=173049))

[Wilbert]

Is disabling GWX not sufficient (see first post of this thread)? Works for me.

[raffriff42]

Is disabling GWX not sufficient (see first post of this thread)? Works for me.I wish I had seen this before I did all the other things....

[chainring]

I'll be leaving this little tidbit of a great utility here.

http://ultimateoutsider.com/downloads/

Specifically, http://ultimateoutsider.com/downloads/GwxControlPanelSetup.exe

edit: Oops, damn, that was on the first post at the bottom. I have to learn to read the whole post. Regardless, GWX Control Panel does a good job of nuking the Win 10 stuff from Win 7, 8, 8.1.

[LigH]

Hehe ... thank you for confirmation. ;)

[movmasty]

If you haven't go 'radical=change the os' yet, this is the time imho.
Do you think that so many ppl, home users specially, were on windows if there would have been any Real alternative?

Linux is a bad toy, Mac OS needs that you change all your PCs,
ReactOS have been in development since 20 years, that could become also 40...

Wondering why not any state in the world produced some real, free, alternative to m$.

[smok3]

Do you think that so many ppl, home users specially, were on windows if there would have been any Real alternative?

Short one: yes.
Longer one: I don't know.
Even longer one: Good question.

Again: not interested in vague opinions or OS wars, but what most people do is usually wrong (at least my experience).

[movmasty]

Short one: yes.
Longer one: I don't know.
Even longer one: Good question.

Again: not interested in vague opinions or OS wars, but what most people do is usually wrong (at least my experience).
Like vote for Hitler, or join the ISIS?......ok

But who would install a pay version of Virtualdub exactly the same as the free?

Windows has many bad spots,and for low commercial reason,
e.g: if one version of windows is perfectly functional, who would install a new version in the short time?
You would keep a good OS for 10/15yrs,
m$ wants you to change every 3 yrs....

And this is also the reason why it would be easy to do better, also Microsoft could do better if wanted to do.
But none did

Torvalds took a paycheck from Microsoft shortly after that launched Linux ...
The odd fact is that also strong states like France, Germany and even China didnt do.

[hello_hello]

I haven't read through the whole thread but I did find myself wondering.....

Slowly software support for XP is coming to an end. Well.... if a new version of software doesn't run on XP as expected there seems to be less and less interest in fixing it. I've asked "why" a couple of times, and the reply usually mentions Microsoft ending XP support and a quote from the Microsoft security rhetoric handbook. Never about the number of people using it though.

Not that I'm complaining as such, because I get it. The world has to move on etc etc, but I was reading about ReactOS today and found myself wondering.... what if the majority of developers of free software supported it? What if they said "okay, I'll make sure my software runs on Win7 because that's what most people use, and I'll make sure it runs on Win10 because not everyone has a choice, but I'll also make sure it runs on ReactOS". I wonder how hard that'd be..... relative to maintaining say, versions for Windows and Linux, or versions for Windows and OSX and Linux etc.

I ask, because I don't write software, so I don't know. Maybe it's a very naive question, or maybe it'd be the path leading to a time many of us could ditch Windows forever and never have to install Win10. All I want the OS system to do is be an OS and run the software I want to run. It's a fine line at times, but I've no interest in my PC being a portal to the Windows Marketplace any more than I was interested in Active Desktop or having my files display like internet links in Explorer. All I want is an OS, which of course isn't much good without software that'll run on it. Just some thoughts....

[StainlessS]

but I'll also make sure it runs on ReactOS

That really is the job of the ReactOS devs, not other application devs.

(An application should not really be aware that it is not an M$ OS it is run on, but of course there will be ways to tell)

[Asmodian]

All I want the OS system to do is be an OS and run the software I want to run. It's a fine line at times, but I've no interest in my PC being a portal to the Windows Marketplace any more than I was interested in Active Desktop or having my files display like internet links in Explorer. All I want is an OS, which of course isn't much good without software that'll run on it. Just some thoughts....

The problem with this line of reasoning is that DOS 5.0 is an OS that runs the software you want to run. If there are very useful new features in a new OS software developers will want to use them. I would hate to restrict developers to only use features that were available in DOS 5.0.

This holds true for Microsoft's newer OSes as well. Do not assume that the only new features in Windows 10 are the MS Store or Cortana. There are new features for developers as well and not using them to maintain XP compatibility is going to limit what developers can do (or they have to do a lot more work for the same functionality, work that could have been improving the software in other ways).

An OS that never changes is not going to be good in the long term, the pace of change is starting to slow down but we are still very far away from understanding everything an OS can and should be. It is still early days when it comes to humans understanding the potential of software. We are sure to try bad ideas but you have to take risks and make mistakes to figure out what works.

To me an open source OS really does make the most sense for the long term, otherwise the desire to make money will probably corrupt functionality. Saddly it needs to be the default OS, like Windows is now, to actually work well (drivers, applications, etc.). A catch 22 type problem. :p

[manolito]

One of the problems IMO is that MS makes the operating system as well as the development tools for this OS. Amost everyone who develops for Windows use Visual Studio. And I see this as a conflict of interest.

One of the reasons why some software does not work under XP any more is that the devoloper also uses the latest updated version of Visual Studio, and XP support is disabled there by default. What I am saying is that in many cases the missing XP support is not because the developer used some new features in the OS API, but because he was too lazy to tick XP support in the compiler options.

I sure agree with hello_hello about what an OS should be and what it should not be, but I probably belong to a dying species. If MS had published something like Win10 thirty years ago, the public outcry would have been enormous. Too bad that people have gotten used to IOS and Android for some time, so it seems OK for most to get spied upon.


Just my 2 cents...
Cheers
manolito

[Asmodian]

I sure agree with hello_hello about what an OS should be and what it should not be, but I probably belong to a dying species. If MS had published something like Win10 thirty years ago, the public outcry would have been enormous. Too bad that people have gotten used to IOS and Android for some time, so it seems OK for most to get spied upon.

If MS had published something like Win10 thirty years ago people would have been amazed and, if there was hardware that could run it, everyone would have used it. Win10 compared to Win1.0? :p

I agree that there is a conflict of interest with Microsoft trying to make money with their OS (beyond the licence fee) but there really are things that XP (or 7) cannot do well. Staying on XP forever would not be good, XP will be as useful as Win1.0 is now eventually.

We have to have evolving OS environments. I think too many people got used to computers when XP was the only OS because it was the main OS while computers went from somewhat rare to ubiquitous. Now people are not used to changing OSes.

[movmasty]

but there really are things that XP (or 7) cannot do well.
e.g: if one version of windows is perfectly functional, who would install a new version in the short time?
You would keep a good OS for 10/15yrs,
m$ wants you to change every 3 yrs....
They dont want them to do well.

XP if well maintained could last better until now,
and now would be the time for a new OS,
but we have had 4 new OS from ms, 5 counting 8.1

[huhn]

and each of these 5 OS have brought us new possibilities.


thanks to vista we got DXVA2. support for 23p just to count some of them.

[manolito]

And all these improvements would have been possible without a new OS, it's just that M$ did not want it this way...

I still remember how they wanted us all to upgrade to Vista just to be able to play BluRays. Turned out that a simple third party UDF 2.50 driver was all you needed.

[hello_hello]

The problem with this line of reasoning is that DOS 5.0 is an OS that runs the software you want to run. If there are very useful new features in a new OS software developers will want to use them. I would hate to restrict developers to only use features that were available in DOS 5.0.

I realise there's a fine line between what could be considered OS "architecture" (for want of a better description at the moment) and the software running on it. There's no point software developers re-inventing the wheel over and over if they can use a functionality of the OS.

I guess what I was originally referring to was the various attempts Microsoft have made over the years to use Windows as a portal to Microsoft-Land, or when they wanted to use IE to own the internet etc. Remember when installing Windows involved being hassled to sign up for a passport account? None of it has ever worked. I wonder if that'll change eventually. I hope not. I just want an OS.

An OS that never changes is not going to be good in the long term, the pace of change is starting to slow down but we are still very far away from understanding everything an OS can and should be. It is still early days when it comes to humans understanding the potential of software. We are sure to try bad ideas but you have to take risks and make mistakes to figure out what works.

The computers on The Enterprise appear not to run Windows. In fact I don't think I've never seen a sci-fi show set in the future where a computer runs Windows, so I take comfort in that. ;)

I sure agree with hello_hello about what an OS should be and what it should not be, but I probably belong to a dying species. If MS had published something like Win10 thirty years ago, the public outcry would have been enormous. Too bad that people have gotten used to IOS and Android for some time, so it seems OK for most to get spied upon.

I tend to look at a mobile device and a desktop PC as two different worlds, so what I'll put up with for one isn't necessarily what I'll tolerate for the other (although that doesn't mean there's plenty about Android I don't like), but maybe I'm the previous generation now, or people have short memories when it comes to Microsoft, and the lines between the desktop and mobile PC are becoming more and more blurred, and Microsoft has the coattails of an OS such as Android to ride upon.... in respect to what they can get away with.

We have to have evolving OS environments. I think too many people got used to computers when XP was the only OS because it was the main OS while computers went from somewhat rare to ubiquitous. Now people are not used to changing OSes.

For me it's kind of the opposite. I've been through upgrades since Win3.1 (very briefly, mostly since Win95) on my PCs, and often also my family's and friend's PCs. Back when if the PC ran properly after you installed Windows and the necessary drivers you were doing well. Then, if after installing all your software, everything still worked, you made a sacrifice to the gods and an image of the system for when it stopped working properly a week later. Every OS/software upgrade was an adventure. I probably even enjoyed it a little 20 years ago, but now I just want to use the damn thing, which is one reason why I've been hanging on to XP with bleeding fingertips.
Apparently the next Windows upgrade is supposed to put my PC completely in the hands of Microsoft and let them see everything I do. That in itself is one massive leap from XP. It probably is time to move on, and if Win10 worked just like XP, ie it didn't force me to apply updates or spy on me and as a bonus it was free.... I'd be running it already. As I said though, I'm probably the previous generation now.

and each of these 5 OS have brought us new possibilities.
thanks to vista we got DXVA2. support for 23p just to count some of them.

Couldn't Microsoft have introduced those features for XP?
I mean.... they'll have to do just that for the rest of time won't they, given Win10 is apparently the last version of Windows?

Anyway..... they were all just some thoughts. It seems I'll be using Win7 for the next few years, and during that time I'll have to work out what OS I want to migrate to, because at the moment, I really can't see it being Win10.

[manolito]

It seems I'll be using Win7 for the next few years, and during that time I'll have to work out what OS I want to migrate to, because at the moment, I really can't see it being Win10.

+1

Right now I stick with XP on my desktop, and for my notebooks I use Win7 plus an alternate XP installation. And it always amazes me again and again how much faster these notebooks feel under XP.


Cheers
manolito

[huhn]

Couldn't Microsoft have introduced those features for XP?
I mean.... they'll have to do just that for the rest of time won't they, given Win10 is apparently the last version of Windows?

and who pays the developer for these feature? and no i'm not sure if they could have done that without doing the same as windows 10 is doing right now.

there is now a different way to make money.

[hello_hello]

and who pays the developer for these feature? and no i'm not sure if they could have done that without doing the same as windows 10 is doing right now.

there is now a different way to make money.

Every new PC comes with a Microsoft tax. The question would be whether Microsoft makes money from upgrading existing Windows PCs because that currently requires the user to buy an upgrade. If generally people aren't doing so, and I suspect the fact Microsoft are now giving away Win10 for free might indicate they don't, it wouldn't make much difference.

I'm not sure if there's a different way to make money now than there was ten years ago. Most of it's "been there, done that" for Google, so maybe it comes down to PC users in general finally achieving a level of apathy that allows Microsoft to do what they like.

The way Microsoft is making that money now from Win10..... we wouldn't have even contemplated the possibility of considering letting them get away with it ten years ago. Now we're expected to dump XP for it or our software won't work. I think that's the difference.

[huhn]

you forget the windows store.

[hello_hello]

What makes you say that?

[movmasty]

and each of these 5 OS have brought us new possibilities.


thanks to vista we got DXVA2. support for 23p just to count some of them.Could be done in a service pack...
Anyone think that Vista was really a new OS? And in fact was a commercial flop,
Win7 is quite good, 8yrs after XP
Who bought the win8 CD realized then that he needed the 8.1 cd
And do you remember win98/win98SE ?
As usual only 1 out of 2 OS changes by ms is any good, but could be done with a service pack,
but ms insists to throw out an OS every 3yrs...

I imagine the stomach pains for "5 years without a new OS" after XP :D

I am on an old(2009) pc with XP, both OS and cpu still do their job,
im getting a new pc, and asking to have Win 7 on it,

[movmasty]

and who pays the developer for these feature?
Now dont tell me that m$ is short on money! :thanks:
With half the revenues than they had ms would be still a super wealthy company

We are talking about monopoly here, and exploitation of users, serfdom. :o

[hello_hello]

Someone over at the VideoHelp forum pointed out this article today.

Skylake users given 18 months to upgrade to Windows 10
And next generation processors, including Intel's Kaby Lake, won't be supported in old Windows (http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/01/skylake-users-given-18-months-to-upgrade-to-windows-10/).

First Microsoft release Win10 to discourage me from upgrading the OS, now they're using it to try to prevent me from upgrading the hardware too.

Oh well..... it's been three years since I've run Windows update for XP and the sky still hasn't fallen. I guess for a while I'll have a similarly pleasant non-updating experience when I'm running Win7.

[Groucho2004]

Oh well..... it's been three years since I've run Windows update for XP and the sky still hasn't fallen.
I usually make a custom image with nlite for my XP install CDs including SP3 and post SP3 updates. The latest updates on my current install are from 01/2011.
No, I don't use AV software and no, I don't get malware, viruses, etc. except once, "blaster" worm (~15 years ago) which was solved in 5 minutes by restoring a Ghost image.
It remains a mystery to me how people catch worms and other crap despite using "fully up-to-date" Windows 7/8/10 and constantly running AV software.
I guess I'll eventually have a similarly pleasant non-updating experience when I'm running Win7.
Ditto.

[hello_hello]

I wasn't planning on upgrading XP on the older PCs as I didn't want to pay hundreds of dollars to do so when I'm happy with XP anyway, but I was thinking today....
If the new PC has to run Win7, and I'd probably prefer to run the same OS on all the PCs in the house, maybe it's time to start looking at garage sales and pawn shops for old junker PCs I can buy for next to nothing for their Win7 licenses.

[Groucho2004]

I wasn't planning on upgrading XP on the older PCs as I didn't want to pay hundreds of dollars to do so when I'm happy with XP anyway, but I was thinking today....
If the new PC has to run Win7, and I'd probably prefer to run the same OS on all the PCs in the house, maybe it's time to start looking at garage sales and pawn shops for old junker PCs I can buy for next to nothing for their Win7 licenses.
I recently bought a W7Pro64 license for just 20 Euro. I guess I'll get another two, who knows how long these will be available...

[LigH]

I just read that the support for newest CPU generations by Microsoft may only be certain on newest Windows Versions (e.g. Windows < 10 may not work well on Skylake and following generations)... will PCs get the average life spans of gaming consoles now? Mass purchasing power is finite! — Oh, scratch that, Apple already refuted this law. ;)

[foxyshadis]

Couldn't Microsoft have introduced those features for XP?
I mean.... they'll have to do just that for the rest of time won't they, given Win10 is apparently the last version of Windows?

Anyway..... they were all just some thoughts. It seems I'll be using Win7 for the next few years, and during that time I'll have to work out what OS I want to migrate to, because at the moment, I really can't see it being Win10.

At what point does a bundle of new features turn into a new OS? Microsoft isn't going to let you update quartz.dll (DirectShow) plus random pieces of the new video driver framework for 23p without updating everything else to a stable configuration that they test. Even XP isn't XP, SP2 was a big set of changes and you still see the occasional calcified guy refusing to update past SP1; meanwhile Win7 is universally acknowledged to essentially be Vista SP2. All the major Linux distros have moved away from a free-for-all and toward having only security and minor functionality package updates between major OS releases, so there's no reason Microsoft should go the other way since people are demanding more integration as the OS becomes more complex, not less.

[hello_hello]

At what point does a bundle of new features turn into a new OS?

I don't know, but it's Microsoft saying Win10 will be the last version of Windows, not me. :)

[huhn]

Could be done in a service pack...
Anyone think that Vista was really a new OS? And in fact was a commercial flop,
Win7 is quite good, 8yrs after XP
Who bought the win8 CD realized then that he needed the 8.1 cd
And do you remember win98/win98SE ?
As usual only 1 out of 2 OS changes by ms is any good, but could be done with a service pack,
but ms insists to throw out an OS every 3yrs...

I imagine the stomach pains for "5 years without a new OS" after XP :D

I am on an old(2009) pc with XP, both OS and cpu still do their job,
im getting a new pc, and asking to have Win 7 on it,

Now dont tell me that m$ is short on money! :thanks:
With half the revenues than they had ms would be still a super wealthy company

We are talking about monopoly here, and exploitation of users, serfdom. :o


think about this.

BTW. it quite funny when people are switching to windows 7 now. now it is good enough right?

I don't know, but it's Microsoft saying Win10 will be the last version of Windows, not me. :)


yeah because they switch to making money from the store.

new windows version are simply called build 11099.

such a new build is installed over the old one. so it just marketing with the name. the OS will change like never before and that faster than ever before.

[manolito]

BTW. it quite funny when people are switching to windows 7 now. now it is good enough right?

People are switching from XP to Win7 because they often do not have a choice. A lot of software which folks rely on suddenly stops working under XP...

Recently my banking software started to give me nag screens that I use an unsupported OS and I should upgrade it. There is no technical reason for this, it's just Microsoft's lobbying.

And for many folks the more they read about the wonderful new world of Win10, the more they realize that in comparison Win7 doesn't look that bad after all.


the OS will change like never before and that faster than ever before.

And it also will screw up your installed software faster than ever before... :devil:


Cheers
manolito

[Sharc]

I recently bought a W7Pro64 license for just 20 Euro. I guess I'll get another two, who knows how long these will be available...
Good move. It paves the way to the PRO version of W10 when you decide to change.

[foxyshadis]

Recently my banking software started to give me nag screens that I use an unsupported OS and I should upgrade it. There is no technical reason for this, it's just Microsoft's lobbying.

Users always seem to think this. From the developer side, there are plenty of good reasons: Adding support for any new OS features (like DXVA2 or newer crypto in Vista+) means having two separate paths to write and test and debug, which is absolutely a technical reason, and even with exactly the same code, older systems have to be kept around to spend more time testing on just to make sure it's still fully functional, that something that works on everything newer didn't somehow break on an old system hardly anyone still uses.

The closer to console development software gets, with a single hardware platform, the faster and less stressed programmers are.

[hello_hello]

BTW. it quite funny when people are switching to windows 7 now. now it is good enough right?

It has to be when there's no other choice. There aren't any XP drivers for the newer Intel chipsets.

such a new build is installed over the old one. so it just marketing with the name. the OS will change like never before and that faster than ever before.

Imagine what it'll be like when build 11353 installs overnight without asking and your start menu has gone again because Microsoft have decided you don't need one.
Previously when they did something like that in a new version of Windows, nobody used it, so they were forced to re-think the next version. There won't be another Windows ME, or another Vista, or another Win8. No more versions of Windows that flop because they're bad or people don't like them. You'll be using them anyway, and they'll just be called something like build 22765.

I'm not against upgrading. I get it. XP is old and had it's day and I've had a pretty good run with it. In fact to be honest, I'm fairly sick of looking at it. There's just been no incentive for me to upgrade until now, and right at the time when I would have (XP support ended, building a new PC), even if somewhat reluctantly, Microsoft released a new version of Windows I dislike the thought of so much I'm going to go out of my way to avoid it, even if it means I'll eventually switch to Linux or maybe even ReactOS. If only Win10 had been the new XP instead of something that puts your PC in the hands of Microsoft and spies on everything you do. I'd be running it already.

[hello_hello]

At what point does a bundle of new features turn into a new OS? Microsoft isn't going to let you update quartz.dll (DirectShow) plus random pieces of the new video driver framework for 23p without updating everything else to a stable configuration that they test.

Given Microsoft are moving away from DirectShow, I wonder which Win10 build will take quartz.dll away, and how much warning you'll get?

[hello_hello]

Good move. It paves the way to the PRO version of W10 when you decide to change.

I wonder how long there'll be a distinction, before eventually it's just the version of Windows Microsoft decides to let you run?

[Ghitulescu]

Strange hysteria ...

It appear that most people consider that their windows XP won't work once its official support ended.

In medicine this would have been identified as hypochondria.

Well, the officila support for my 98SE ended much earlier, that of my W2K also, but neither my music PC nor my tablet ceased to function.

[hello_hello]

Strange hysteria ...

It appear that most people consider that their windows XP won't work once its official support ended.

How'd you come to that astounding conclusion? Did you reach it after realising many of us still run XP despite the fact official support has long since ended?

Are you blissfully unaware it's not just about XP working, but the software you wish to run on it?
Are you not aware of the fact newer hardware doesn't have XP drivers?

In medicine this would have been identified as hypochondria.

That'd be a fairly dumb diagnosis.

Well, the officila support for my 98SE ended much earlier, that of my W2K also, but neither my music PC nor my tablet ceased to function.

Ahhhhh.... now I see. We must all run a PC dedicated to playing music and this thread's restricted to discussing them.....

[manolito]

Users always seem to think this. From the developer side, there are plenty of good reasons: Adding support for any new OS features (like DXVA2 or newer crypto in Vista+) means having two separate paths to write and test and debug, which is absolutely a technical reason, and even with exactly the same code, older systems have to be kept around to spend more time testing on just to make sure it's still fully functional, that something that works on everything newer didn't somehow break on an old system hardly anyone still uses.

The closer to console development software gets, with a single hardware platform, the faster and less stressed programmers are.


Ok, I should have been more specific...
My banking app is browser based. The bank did not complain about the browser (still good old Opera 12), they nagged me about WinXP. And the only reason for this is that they want to cover their ass.

In case some bad guy plays Man in the Middle and steals money from my account then they want to be able to say that I was using an unsupported and insecure operating system so it will be me who is responsible for any damages. The burden of proof will be upon me to show that my computer was secure.


Cheers
manolito

[movmasty]

BTW. it quite funny when people are switching to windows 7 now. now it is good enough right?
Was good from the beginning, 8 years after XP, that is almost the time for 3 new OS at the usual speed, still could be done a couple of years later.
Vista was a cosmetic change, 8 and 10 a regression.
if an OS is good, what could you do of new after 3 years?
Tell me what in the 10, through 8-8.1, could not be implemented into 7.(or even XP)
The real changes were from the 1 to windows 95(10 years)
then to XP(6 years)
Since then really no dramatic changes
But i understand that after 10 years some refresh could be justified,
the CD itself gets old.

-
PS. if they take away DirectShow, would be a good reason to upgrade :D

Ever wondered why VirtualDub is nearly perfect for VFW, but to have an almost good one based on DShow you must pay 400 bucks at least.

PPS. well, they could do even worse than DirectShow :o

[pandy]

People are switching from XP to Win7 because they often do not have a choice. A lot of software which folks rely on suddenly stops working under XP...

Worse - open source began ignoring WinXP (and this is purely marketing decision as compiler is guided in makefile to not use XP API).

I'm example of such guy that is forced to move to Windows 7 not because i want but because i must... - still prefer Windows 2000 and can't understood why XP need almost 3 time more memory to work with same speed as Windows 2000. What kind of technology in XP is so revolutionary that require 3 times more RAM with no increase in processing speed...?

Windows 7 is even bigger fail on this - 2GB for 32 bit system alone and 3GB for 64 bit system - i see frequently people using 64 bit system on 3 - 4GB physical RAM HW... Why? You anyway have no RAM to support application that require more than 2GB RAM... and Windows is so slow when swapping RAM to HDD...

So what is so revolutionary in modern OS that require 3 - 4GB RAM to provide same processing time? Security? (i don't know how huge code can be better on term of security from significantly smaller code - i can only explain this that it is secure because is new so hackers didn't yet started digging seriously on it).

[LigH]

and Windows is so slow when swapping RAM to HDD...

The slowest part about swapping is the HDD access, not the OS.

So what is so revolutionary in modern OS ... ?

Just as example: The fundamental support of modern multi-core CPU architectures and SIMD instructions (I doubt Win2K would still run without problems on CPU generations of the last year, not to mention outperform Vista+ in every place).

Yes, true, XP already supported multi-core CPUs too; but you had to have one of those present during the installation already so the matching kernel would be installed (I remember how I installed XP in VirtualBox on an uni-core system, and it still used only one core after I changed the number of emulated CPUs from 1 to 2 or 4).

And there is also a collection of hardware I would not dare to use under such obsolete systems. Using SSDs under XP was already a kind of risk.

[Ghitulescu]

Are you blissfully unaware it's not just about XP working, but the software you wish to run on it?
Does this software equally start to malfunction? :) :)
Are you not aware of the fact newer hardware doesn't have XP drivers?
Which new Hardware is extra needed in order that a functional system to continue to work after MS ceased her support for XP?
Ahhhhh.... now I see.
Finally http://www.tapeheads.net/images/smilies/bravo-1.gif
We must all run a PC dedicated to playing music and this thread's restricted to discussing them.....
Creating music.

Now to the point.
It was already bad when people moved to the new OS just because it was new and not for its merits whatsoever.
But it is infinitely worse when someone forces people to a OS made to spy on people as its main purpose.

To my point.
I don't think it's a big investment to have a secondary computer wherein all the software and hardware are fine tuned to a particular purpose - and therefore any upgrade (or downgrade) is unnecessary.
Disclaimer: This does not apply in or for Australia.

[filler56789]

What kind of technology in XP is so revolutionary that require 3 times more RAM with no increase in processing speed...?

The eye-candy for the n00bs :D

[hello_hello]

Does this software equally start to malfunction? :) :)

I can't believe your still wanting to argue about this.
Yes, if you update software and the new version doesn't run on XP, it could be considered that it doesn't work.
There's more and more of it. Even simple utilities like MKVToolNix and L-Smash no longer work on XP. And yes, before you state the obvious, the old versions will continue to work, but sometimes you don't want to run an older version. I don't think the last MKVMergeGUI version for XP will mux h265, or if it does, there's been several changes.

Which new Hardware is extra needed in order that a functional system to continue to work after MS ceased her support for XP?

USB3 for one.
As per my previous example, if I want to mux h265 I probably need a newer OS than XP. That could be wrong.... I'm going from memory, but it's just an example. Should I not use x265 for encoding or should I think about upgrading? And what about h265 hardware decoding and 4K video? I need a new video card for that and there's no XP drivers.
Bits of MPC-HC have started falling off when it's running on XP, but while it's still quite usable, it'll need to be updated at some stage unless the old PCs are only ever used for older video formats. I want to use at least one of them primarily as a media player though. Despite the fact PCs weren't originally intended for that.... etc. etc.

Finally http://www.tapeheads.net/images/smilies/bravo-1.gif

Really? Even the sarcasm went by unnoticed?

Now to the point.
It was already bad when people moved to the new OS just because it was new and not for its merits whatsoever.
But it is infinitely worse when someone forces people to a OS made to spy on people as its main purpose.

Hence this thread.

To my point.
I don't think it's a big investment to have a secondary computer wherein all the software and hardware are fine tuned to a particular purpose - and therefore any upgrade (or downgrade) is unnecessary.
Disclaimer: This does not apply in or for Australia.

What's different about Australia?