Metropol

Alexia wrote:To echo Cwathen's comments above, I must confess I purchased a new laptop on Monday and it was delivered on Friday. I immediately downgraded it from Vista to XP. As it is a brand new super-powered dual-core etc etc machine I obviously have the ability to upgrade to 7 somepoint in the future, but for now, while XP does everything I want and more, the words are "why bother"?

Because it does them better? I hope you're not lazily expecting us to make the case for you to upgrade.

Oh Sput you old pessimist you. Of course not I just thought I'd contribute to this thread that in the midst of all this Win7 bruhahah some of us are still nicely trundling along with XP; and I echo Cwathen's sentiments that, with most of us in the world still using XP for the majority of our home and work lives, it may encourage Microsoft to not ditch it as willy-nilly as they seemingly intend to.

...which is ALWAYS what people are interested in when you're in a windows 7 thread

but then your reasoning is completely different than Chris's. He has an old PC that doesn't have the hardware to support 7 whereas you having a shiney new laptop do.

Therefore the question is, why install software with a high attack surface and less support when you are able to use a new system that isn't utterly dreadful anymore. Downgrading from Vista to XP is understandable (although to be fair, Vista SP2 is nowhere near as ghastly as vista rtm was) but when you have a free copy of 7 it seems a bit silly.

Beep wrote:

cwathen wrote:

Sput wrote:Tremble before my mighty dual core pentium: 5.3 was my rating

Haven't checked the rating yet, but IIRC I got a rating of 1.6 on the RC!

I thought I was bad when I got 3.2, Install updates and it rockets up.

Damn you all and your working experience index.

I got 3.0 on the laptop and 3.8 on my desktop. Both seem to run everything quite happily though.

Is anyone else noticing a pattern here?

Every other Windows release seems to be good, with all the other ones being the famous anagram of carp.

The various versions of Windows 3 were pretty good. 95 was pretty dreadful. 98 was good and lasted well. ME/2000 was another bad one. XP was pretty damn fantastic. Vista was an anagram of durt. 7, from what we hear, is the next damn good one.

Nick Harvey wrote:Is anyone else noticing a pattern here?

Every other Windows release seems to be good, with all the other ones being the famous anagram of carp.

The various versions of Windows 3 were pretty good. 95 was pretty dreadful. 98 was good and lasted well. ME/2000 was another bad one. XP was pretty damn fantastic. Vista was an anagram of durt. 7, from what we hear, is the next damn good one.

No.

Because ME was shite and 2000 was alright. XP is fantastic. Vista was just... fail.

I agree with Cwathen, I'm wanting to buy a netbook at the moment and am going for a Dell. I held out for a bit to wait in case they start to sell them with Windows 7, but they aren't - they're sticking with XP. I assume that the machines just aren't fast enough to deal with Win 7?

I read somewhere the other day the advice to wait at least a year before plumping with 7 to give it time for all the issues to be ironed out and drivers to be updated.

Beep wrote:

Nick Harvey wrote:Is anyone else noticing a pattern here?

Every other Windows release seems to be good, with all the other ones being the famous anagram of carp.

The various versions of Windows 3 were pretty good. 95 was pretty dreadful. 98 was good and lasted well. ME/2000 was another bad one. XP was pretty damn fantastic. Vista was an anagram of durt. 7, from what we hear, is the next damn good one.

No.

Because ME was shite and 2000 was alright. XP is fantastic. Vista was just... fail.

Windows 2000 was intended for businesses, not homes. If you look at those editions of windows aimed at the home market the pattern holds

Sput wrote:

Beep wrote:

Nick Harvey wrote:Is anyone else noticing a pattern here?

Every other Windows release seems to be good, with all the other ones being the famous anagram of carp.

The various versions of Windows 3 were pretty good. 95 was pretty dreadful. 98 was good and lasted well. ME/2000 was another bad one. XP was pretty damn fantastic. Vista was an anagram of durt. 7, from what we hear, is the next damn good one.

No.

Because ME was shite and 2000 was alright. XP is fantastic. Vista was just... fail.

Windows 2000 was intended for businesses, not homes. If you look at those editions of windows aimed at the home market the pattern holds

There's a nice little illustration of the Windows 'family tree' on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Windo ... y_Tree.svg

I wonder how long it'll be before new Microsoft products stop supporting XP. I seem to recall MSN Messenger was relatively quick to drop support for Win98, ME, and 2000 a few years ago.