R.I.P. XP

[zzzone.net]

My 2008 full-tower XP computer with an AMD quad-core processor just gave up the ghost.  I suspect that the second and only-remaining video card died.  I was able to remove the hard drive and salvage all my data so at least I'm not mourning the loss of data AND the old reliable computer.  Ironically I was in the middle of backing up some .flac files that I had ripped when the machine gave up the ghost via the infamous Blue Screen of Death.  Is there a better or more honorable way to die for an XP machine?

Fortunately I was in a position to have purchased a customized machine a few months ago to have in position to succeed the dead one:

i7 Sandy Bridge-E 3930 processor with 6 cores
Vertex 256 GB SSD
6 TB of hard disk storage
EVGA GeForce GTX 660 video card with 3 GB RAM
16 GB system RAM
Soundproofed full-tower case
Blu-ray Burner/Reader
Windows 7 64-bit
USB 3.0

I decided to go with the motherboard's sound via S/PDIF to an external DAC and likewise with the Ethernet connection.

While I have enjoyed the relative reliability and speed of XP for now over 10 years over multiple computers, the difference between these machines in terms of functionality and speed is pretty marked:

1.  Multiple downloads simultaneously do not noticeably slow the machine
2.  Unraring 30 GB of files now takes less time than unraring 10 GB of files on the old machine
3.  In fact, nothing I have done seems to slow the machine and I'm running all of Windows 7 "window dressing" and running a number of apps in the background at all times including the inevitable antivirus solution
4.  The one problem I ran into is that the eSATA connector does not seem to work but the one device I use for that connection is an external hard drive dock and it has a USB 3.0 connector also.  With the USB 3.0 connector, I'm getting speeds pretty comparable to what I was seeing with eSATA.
5.  My old large-format photo-quality printer would just not work with the 64-bit driver; fortunately I had an updated one in the wings also.  My old flatbed scanner's 64-bit driver seems identical to the 32-bit one.

Re-installing all my necessary software is somewhat of a drag and time-consuming but I have had a chance to reconsider all of it and find better alternatives in some cases.

So R.I.P. XP.  You served me well.

However...

Happy Holidays.

Jim

np: Rigel Orionis - Centrifugal (wow!!!) on zzzone.net

[mgriffin]

Win7 is actually a slightly slower operating system than XP. The big increase in speed you're seeing is because of the hot rod hardware you're using now. XP machines might start to have more and more problems as Microsoft stops updating them with security patches, and newer software insists on a more recent OS in order to install.

Enjoy your new machine. Like you, I'm just in the process of getting ready to switch my primary computer from an old, reliable machine to an entirely new one.

[chris23]

You've inspired me to do the overnight backup this evening.

[zzzone.net]

You've inspired me to do the overnight backup this evening.

If I inspired just ONE backup, the effort to write the message was worth it.  L L

[mgriffin]

Everyone must do backups!

Also I should explain my above comment about Win7 being slower than XP. That's not a criticism of the OS - I actually think Win7 is a much better, more stable and modern operating system than XP. It's just that newer operating systems are inevitably larger and more complex. Installing your OS on an SSD drive probably makes the biggest difference of all, though your machine is faster in several respects (processor, RAM, video card) than anything that was available in 2008.

[zzzone.net]

Everyone must do backups!

Also I should explain my above comment about Win7 being slower than XP. That's not a criticism of the OS - I actually think Win7 is a much better, more stable and modern operating system than XP. It's just that newer operating systems are inevitably larger and more complex. Installing your OS on an SSD drive probably makes the biggest difference of all, though your machine is faster in several respects (processor, RAM, video card) than anything that was available in 2008.

Yes, I agree with all of your assessments on Win 7 and the new 'puter.

For the first time since I started personal computing in 1992, I can now buy and use as much RAM as I need due to the 64-bit OS.  I think that this helps with the multitasking improvement that I mentioned also.

As far as speeding things up the most, the SSD is likely the culprit, particularly with WinRAR. 

I didn't expect to use or appreciate USB 3.0 as I have.  It seems quite fast with transfers at 80-100 Mbps.

If you haven't upgraded in a few years, now is the time.  Get a low end i7 proc, plenty of RAM, a SSD, USB 3.0 and you're in for a treat.

[Immersion]

Win7 is actually a slightly slower operating system than XP. The big increase in speed you're seeing is because of the hot rod hardware you're using now. XP machines might start to have more and more problems as Microsoft stops updating them with security patches, and newer software insists on a more recent OS in order to install.

Enjoy your new machine. Like you, I'm just in the process of getting ready to switch my primary computer from an old, reliable machine to an entirely new one.

Windows 7 have superior memory management.  This reason alone is worth upgrading.

It is true the file copy is slow on windows 7 but there is programs like extremecopy etc...that will  make file coppying fullspeed.

7zip is faster then winrar..

Windows 8 is faster on very old machines (and new) compared to windows xp.
So there is now absolutely no reason be stuck with XP anymore.

Windows 8 work better for DAW computers...Lower DPC latency etc

XP will soon stop offering free security updates... they will only be available for people who pay for 1 year subscription...

[zzzone.net]

Win7 is actually a slightly slower operating system than XP. The big increase in speed you're seeing is because of the hot rod hardware you're using now. XP machines might start to have more and more problems as Microsoft stops updating them with security patches, and newer software insists on a more recent OS in order to install.

Enjoy your new machine. Like you, I'm just in the process of getting ready to switch my primary computer from an old, reliable machine to an entirely new one.

Windows 7 have superior memory management.  This reason alone is worth upgrading.

It is true the file copy is slow on windows 7 but there is programs like extremecopy etc...that will  make file coppying fullspeed.

7zip is faster then winrar..

Windows 8 is faster on very old machines (and new) compared to windows xp.
So there is now absolutely no reason be stuck with XP anymore.

Windows 8 work better for DAW computers...Lower DPC latency etc

XP will soon stop offering free security updates... they will only be available for people who pay for 1 year subscription...

I have Windows 8 on a notebook and I find it unintuitive and confusing after having used every other version of Windows including 3.1.  Also the touch interface is NOT needed on a desktop computer and there should be a way to dispense with it; I believe there is in 8.1.

It is very quick to boot though.

[Immersion]

Win7 is actually a slightly slower operating system than XP. The big increase in speed you're seeing is because of the hot rod hardware you're using now. XP machines might start to have more and more problems as Microsoft stops updating them with security patches, and newer software insists on a more recent OS in order to install.

Enjoy your new machine. Like you, I'm just in the process of getting ready to switch my primary computer from an old, reliable machine to an entirely new one.

Windows 7 have superior memory management.  This reason alone is worth upgrading.

It is true the file copy is slow on windows 7 but there is programs like extremecopy etc...that will  make file coppying fullspeed.

7zip is faster then winrar..

Windows 8 is faster on very old machines (and new) compared to windows xp.
So there is now absolutely no reason be stuck with XP anymore.

Windows 8 work better for DAW computers...Lower DPC latency etc

XP will soon stop offering free security updates... they will only be available for people who pay for 1 year subscription...

I have Windows 8 on a notebook and I find it unintuitive and confusing after having used every other version of Windows including 3.1.  Also the touch interface is NOT needed on a desktop computer and there should be a way to dispense with it; I believe there is in 8.1.

It is very quick to boot though.

Well I suggest you find ways to navigate away from the metro, I only use it to open programs and search... it is rarely I have it open more then 5 seconds...
I can understand people feel confused though..

[mgriffin]

I have Windows 8 on a notebook and I find it unintuitive and confusing after having used every other version of Windows including 3.1.  Also the touch interface is NOT needed on a desktop computer and there should be a way to dispense with it; I believe there is in 8.1.

It is very quick to boot though.

Zzzone.net -- you should install Classic Shell. It helps you avoid most of the unpleasant aspects of Win 8 and makes it function more like Win 7 as far as user interface. I install this on all the new Windows 8 machines at work, and everyone who users it asks me to help them set up the same thing if they get a Win 8 machine at home.

It's free, and I endorse it. Just stay away from the Start screen and the Metro apps completely, if you don't like them.

http://www.classicshell.net

[zzzone.net]

I have Windows 8 on a notebook and I find it unintuitive and confusing after having used every other version of Windows including 3.1.  Also the touch interface is NOT needed on a desktop computer and there should be a way to dispense with it; I believe there is in 8.1.

It is very quick to boot though.

Zzzone.net -- you should install Classic Shell. It helps you avoid most of the unpleasant aspects of Win 8 and makes it function more like Win 7 as far as user interface. I install this on all the new Windows 8 machines at work, and everyone who users it asks me to help them set up the same thing if they get a Win 8 machine at home.

It's free, and I endorse it. Just stay away from the Start screen and the Metro apps completely, if you don't like them.

http://www.classicshell.net

Thanks.  I think Win 8.1 remains unintuitive despite the classic shell but I'll give it a try.  Also I typically multitask up to 10 apps.  I believe that Win 8.1 puts a limit on the number of multitasking apps; if that is true, I'll likely never switch to it.

Hopefully I am wrong.

[mgriffin]

I think you might have read something about the limit to the number of multitasking Metro (full-screen touch-interface) apps, not Windows programs. MS would be insane to limit the number of Windows programs you can run at once.

In fact, the number of Metro apps you can run at once increased with Win 8.1 from Win 8.0.

[chris23]

You've inspired me to do the overnight backup this evening.

If I inspired just ONE backup, the effort to write the message was worth it.  L L

And thank goodness, too. I had to restore from this backup this morning! Long live tech advice from the Hypnos Forums!

[zzzone.net]

I think you might have read something about the limit to the number of multitasking Metro (full-screen touch-interface) apps, not Windows programs. MS would be insane to limit the number of Windows programs you can run at once.

In fact, the number of Metro apps you can run at once increased with Win 8.1 from Win 8.0.

God.  Win 8 is awful and so unintuitive.  I installed a Start button replacement to free myself from the "Metro" apps at boot.

And although you can run as many non-Metro apps as you want, the task switching is different.  Also the number or format in which you can display multiple running apps side-by-side is different; once again, so unintuitive that I cannot remember the details right now.

It's a mess.  I've been with Windows since 3.1 and this breaks all the traditions.

I can see where the Metro apps might be nice with a tablet but even with a touchscreen laptop like the one I have, it's buggy and not as functional as regular Windows applications.

This may be the first bit in my conversion to the Mac.

Jim

[Immersion]

I think you might have read something about the limit to the number of multitasking Metro (full-screen touch-interface) apps, not Windows programs. MS would be insane to limit the number of Windows programs you can run at once.

In fact, the number of Metro apps you can run at once increased with Win 8.1 from Win 8.0.

God.  Win 8 is awful and so unintuitive.  I installed a Start button replacement to free myself from the "Metro" apps at boot.

And although you can run as many non-Metro apps as you want, the task switching is different.  Also the number or format in which you can display multiple running apps side-by-side is different; once again, so unintuitive that I cannot remember the details right now.

It's a mess.  I've been with Windows since 3.1 and this breaks all the traditions.

I can see where the Metro apps might be nice with a tablet but even with a touchscreen laptop like the one I have, it's buggy and not as functional as regular Windows applications.

This may be the first bit in my conversion to the Mac.

Jim

I think really I like the cross platform stuff..but really the metro should be disabled if windows sense no touch input..
this is my opinion... However I still like windows 8 cause it has a better and faster core...this is all that really matters really,...