"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 2/3/2014 5:20 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 15:02:20 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 13:48:52 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/3/2014 11:13 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/3/14, 10:04 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
Maybe I'll stick with XP even after the support stops.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...are-in-january


Or you could buy an upgraded motherboard with a fast 80286 CPU.



Windows XP is still used in many non-personal computer applications like
gas station pumps, ATM machines and other "transparent" applications.
XP may be retaining a market share because the cost of upgrading both
software and hardware to support Win 7 or 8 is expensive for these
applications.

As a user of XP, Windows 7 and 8 (and now an iMac) I think XP was (is)
a very good and stable OS but Windows 7 has it beat hands down.
Even this Vista machine runs faster and has more capabilities than XP,
as good as it is.


Who cares if it is faster, as long as the XP machine is going as fast
as it needs to go?
Most of the delay is in "calling home" on those applications, not
handling the local transaction.
Games and video processing are the main power hogs on a PC. If you are
just "computing" your old 4.77 mz PC/XT went as fast as you needed to
go. (Visicalc spread sheets etc)
We ran a quarter million dollar business on one.

I can't type faster than my machine can display. I figure that's good enough.



If you browse and shop on the Internet XP's age will begin to show.
Actually it has already. Graphic displays on websites are getting more
and more complex and Win 7 and 8 simply handle them better. I could see
that on the Compaq I had running XP before it died. I had this Vista
and the Win 7 also when it worked. All three were basically the same in
terms of CPU speed and RAM and all three were/are "Multimedia" models,
supposedly optimized for multimedia, something a computer guru suggested
to me when I was buying the XP machine years ago. He said that a
computer optimized for multimedia (what the optimization is ... I don't
know) would generally run faster and better for all applications and
uses. I can't verify that except my laptops run a heck of a lot faster
than my wife's Dell desktop. Then again, I am not sure how her Dell is
populated in terms of CPU and RAM.

If all you use your computer for is email and newsgroups, Win 3.1 would
probably still work. :-)

I think part of the problem with Win 7 was if you picked to run 64 bit and
not 32 bit. Prevented a lot of legacy programs from running. Was a major
shortfall for MS. If you ran Win 7 Professional, you could get an XP
emulator, but not the Home version.