Ten years of Windows XP: how longevity became a curse

Re:Ten years of Windows XP: how longevity became a curse by dmpk2k on Tuesday October 25, 2011 @04:38PM (#3155776)

Faster and more efficient than what? They've been saying this every single release since at least as far back as Windows 95.

Strangely enough, Windows 3.1 sure seems a lot smaller and snappier than Windows 7...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ten years of Windows XP: how longevity became a curse by chadzawistowski on Tuesday October 25, 2011 @05:38PM (#3155991)

I get the feeling that Windows 7 takes more resources, but utilizes a powerful computer more effectively than Windows XP does.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ten years of Windows XP: how longevity became a curse by TruthElixirX on Tuesday October 25, 2011 @05:12PM (#3155901)

Seven is faster and more efficient than Vista. I have it running (with Aero off) on a 6 year old Thinkpad. It workss great, just as well as XP.

I also used Vista for 3 years, and recently moved to 7. It boots much quicker and uses less resources on a consistent basis.

Of course I realize that the plural of anecdote is not data but I haven't heard anyone contradict what I said.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ten years of Windows XP: how longevity became a curse by megablast on Tuesday October 25, 2011 @11:33PM (#3157026)

Faster than Vista? High praise indeed.

Vista is what drove me to Mac OS, Windows 7 does not seem like much of an improvement in my limited testing. I hated the fact that Microsoft would just move everything around for no good reason, so I had to relearn to do everything I could do in XP. I managed with Dos v3.3 -> XP.

[ Parent | on HN ]