12 ms·

I personally tried to use Windows XP (for my Windows systems, which is mostly VMs nowadays) for as long as I could. First, it was the first solid (in relative

I personally tried to use Windows XP (for my Windows systems, which is mostly VMs nowadays) for as long as I could. First, it was the first solid (in relative terms) consumer operating system from MS. Second, it was lightweight (in relative terms) in terms of UX and, somewhat consequently, engineering. With Windows Vista (but in particular, Windows 8), MS started to add complexity on every layer. Nowadays, I'm really afraid to update Windows. I don't know what new services and programs are going to be added. I don't know if the tweaks still work. I don't know if I'm imposed some new behavior. I don't know where certain settings (even entire setting domains) are going to be located, and how they're going to be named. In a way, Windows XP is the Windows equivalent of the Linux XFCE/LXDE desktop environments.

ygra 6y ago
For me that actually was Windows 2000. Never really saw a need to switch to XP, and instead switched to Vista and later 7, eventually.
m463 6y ago
I think a lot of people have sort of backed their chair away from the table like you. I remember reading Matt Ridley's The Rational Optimist and it talked about trade. Basically it said with trust, trade is unlimited. But what's been happening with computers and software is that trust been going downhill so quickly that many people don't install anything ever anymore. Privacy, dark patterns, monetization, form over function, qa by customer, and just a general lack of empathy, respect and common sense. It's a shame.
- kmlx 6y ago
  i think you are onto something, but i don't think the market cares that much about privacy, dark patterns etc also see how software has stabilised over the years, both as a product and as a marketplace. there are now clearly defined best in class software that will take years to be disrupted. but one of the major aspects against computer software has come from mobile. lots of development time has gone to browsers and mobile than desktop.
- flyinghamster 6y ago
  I consider XP to be the first instance of Microsoft tightening the screws, as it was the first version to require activation, with the potential for hardware upgrades to require reactivation. Even then, I thought that it would ultimately lead to locked-down bootloaders and other such tomfoolery, and we're now most of the way there, or, indeed, already there for mobile.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  I think you're talking about power users, programmers, and IT. Regular everyday users still don't care and install whatever they like.
  - m463 6y ago
    and parents.
josteink 6y ago
> First, it was the first solid (in relative terms) consumer operating system from MS. That was actually Windows 2000, based on the NT 4 code base. It was near perfect, given the era it was made in. The only reason I upgraded from Windows 2000 was that Microsoft was extremely reluctant to back-port USB- or WiFi-fixes and support, effectively forcing you to upgrade to XP if you wanted to fully use your modern hardware. For that reason alone, XP always left a sour taste in my mouth.
- bayindirh 6y ago
  > That was actually Windows 2000, based on the NT 4 code base. It was near perfect, given the era it was made in. I also remember Windows 2000 fondly. It was really really stable. Even if it looked like it's frozen like a polar ice cap (they weren't melting that bad back then), a short coffee break would give it enough time to normalize itself and continue like nothing happened. Should retry it in a VM sometime. :)
  - mysterydip 6y ago
    I actually ran a series of them in VMs for years because of their quick response and light resource usage, and they still ran all the stuff I needed. Loved that OS
    - bayindirh 6y ago
      I have a Windows XP VM to run the software for my MD player. You're right, the OS from that era is lightning quick in today's hardware, even in a VM. Also, the USB passthhru is problem-free interestingly.
  - oxymoron 6y ago
    I stuck with Windows 2000 for many years after XP was released. XP brought absolutely nothing I wanted and a lot of things I didn’t want. All the truly interesting stuff, like WinFS, never made it in.
    - 6y ago
jacobwilliamroy 6y ago
i changed my windows 10 color scheme to bright red so I always feel like I'm in danger.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  To remind you of how much telemetry they're sending out about you to God knows who? :)
HeadsUpHigh 6y ago
I still have a desktop running windows XP that my parents refuse to upgrade, partially due to a piece of software licensed per computer that costs >300$. Thankfully chrome no longer opens half the websites so they are limited on the web side at least. 14+ years of service, the only times it blue screemed were due to hardware breaking down. Rock solid.
- kwanbix 6y ago
  Did you try to virtualize it and run it into a VM only for that app?
  - dddw 6y ago
    This indeed
  - HeadsUpHigh 6y ago
    No I'm not touching it with a 10 feet pole. Besides the fact that I would need new hardware for that( it's a core 2 duo system) which they are unwilling to fork the money for, anything that happens with it in the future will be my fault.
    - kwanbix 6y ago
      But it would be a time when the HD dies. Are you able to re-install? If no, you should try to backup/virtualize.
      - HeadsUpHigh 6y ago
        No I'm not able to reinstall. I am also not willing to deal with tech support. If and when it dies I'll just order a dell for them and they can sort the software issue themselves.
blablabla123 6y ago
> First, it was the first solid (in relative terms) consumer operating system from MS. I used Windows 3.1 for years and I never had to reinstall it for stability reasons. At some point I also switched to XP and after 2 years it wouldn't boot anymore because of a blue screen appearing before the graphical interface would show up. That made the decision easy for me to use Linux exclusively - which I had on dual boot already for a considerable time. To me Windows 95-XP were really frustrating to use since random parts of the system (CD-ROM, Word, Games...) would stop working at random times. Or for instance on Windows 95 sometimes the system would only boot if I opened and closed the (empty) CD tray. At work I sometimes used Vista and 10, I think they are okay but macOS and Linux are far more fun.
- necovek 6y ago
  Before committing to GNU/Linux in 1998 or 99, I've had a similar experience with moving away from DOS/Windows for workgroups 3.11 to '95: Windows 95 tried to achieve too much in terms of backwards compatibility between 16- and 32-bit software, and was very flimsy as a result. However, I've briefly used NT4 as my "development box" (Delphi addict for a while, though in my defense, I was like 15 at the time) for 6-12 months, that was as stable as anything you could get. But it had the same problems as Linux: it was very specific as to what hardware it supports. The same "soft modems" (called "winmodems" at the time) were equally unsupported in NT4 just like in Linux, so you had to get yourself external hardware modems which were like 5-10x the cost (whatever came out of US Robotics?). So since I was more into the hacker mindset, I moved into GNU/Linux world and never looked back. But I did grow an appreciation for MS engineering: they can develop quality software, and did it even in 96, but their consumer OSes strive for unparalleled compatibility and allow anybody (literally anybody) to write system level code that runs on the kernel ring level due to that. A couple years down the line, I've even seen an article how many workarounds they had to introduce into '95 to allow old software employing their own extended/expanded memory management tricks to continue to function (think stuff like DOS games, WordPerfect...). For all the fun we make of it, Windows 95 was a marvel of engineering when you consider the constraints and requirements. Just oppose that to the new web app approach to software engineering: breaking backwards compatibility is such a common theme that nobody bats an eyelid.
- 6y ago
hnlmorg 6y ago
XP, when it was first released, was a more resource hungry and uglier version of Windows 2000. Win 2000 was amazing when it was released. Games (albeit not DOS ones) worked well, it was stable and really your only other options were worse (Mac OS 9 was less stable than Win 98, ME was a dumpster fire, Linux wasn't quite ready for the desktop and BeOS was awesome but barely supported). Then when XP was released, it had twice the minimum and recommended hardware spec than 2000, it had those stupid skins and it didn't offer anything functionally more beneficial over 2000 (aside faster boot time if you had hundreds of fonts installed). Granted XP got better with SP2 or SP3, but it definitely wasn't the first solid nor even lightweight when it was originally released.
- cm2187 6y ago
  My migration from 2000 to XP meant blue screens. Most likely caused by drivers. But that left me with a lasting impression that 2000 was way more stable than XP.
  - hestefisk 6y ago
    It was largely the same kernel. Issue was largely because drivers for retail hardware weren’t written well enough.
  - stjohnswarts 6y ago
    It wasn't. It was just as stable as 2000 as long as you weren't a tweaker and stuck with stock. Almost every single OS becomes unstable with shitty drivers and/or cheap hardware that wasn't designed for it.
- Piskvorrr 6y ago
  Yup. When saying "XP was great", people mean "XP SP2 and on" - for me, the move from W2k to WXP was "the same thing, now with Fischer-Price aesthetic!"
  - christophilus 6y ago
    > Fischer-Price aesthetic That is the perfect description. It’s one of the ugliest UIs I’ve ever experienced.
washadjeffmad 6y ago
Do people not recall that XP, even after SP3, was the OS of over a decade of botnets, ransomware, and worms that crippled the web? Even Vista and 7 were guilty if you were lax and disabled UAC. All of the things people are complaining about here, like Microsoft becoming the de facto admin of of their Desktop Windows 10 products, are direct results of a period they manufactured. All anyone who waxes nostalgic should do to test is install anything earlier than 10 on an internet facing computer and then wait. It's terrifying how fast they get compromised.

ygra 6y ago

For me that actually was Windows 2000. Never really saw a need to switch to XP, and instead switched to Vista and later 7, eventually.

m463 6y ago

I think a lot of people have sort of backed their chair away from the table like you. I remember reading Matt Ridley's The Rational Optimist and it talked about trade. Basically it said with trust, trade is unlimited. But what's been happening with computers and software is that trust been going downhill so quickly that many people don't install anything ever anymore. Privacy, dark patterns, monetization, form over function, qa by customer, and just a general lack of empathy, respect and common sense. It's a shame.

kmlx 6y ago
i think you are onto something, but i don't think the market cares that much about privacy, dark patterns etc also see how software has stabilised over the years, both as a product and as a marketplace. there are now clearly defined best in class software that will take years to be disrupted. but one of the major aspects against computer software has come from mobile. lots of development time has gone to browsers and mobile than desktop.
flyinghamster 6y ago
I consider XP to be the first instance of Microsoft tightening the screws, as it was the first version to require activation, with the potential for hardware upgrades to require reactivation. Even then, I thought that it would ultimately lead to locked-down bootloaders and other such tomfoolery, and we're now most of the way there, or, indeed, already there for mobile.
stjohnswarts 6y ago
I think you're talking about power users, programmers, and IT. Regular everyday users still don't care and install whatever they like.
- m463 6y ago
  and parents.

josteink 6y ago

> First, it was the first solid (in relative terms) consumer operating system from MS. That was actually Windows 2000, based on the NT 4 code base. It was near perfect, given the era it was made in. The only reason I upgraded from Windows 2000 was that Microsoft was extremely reluctant to back-port USB- or WiFi-fixes and support, effectively forcing you to upgrade to XP if you wanted to fully use your modern hardware. For that reason alone, XP always left a sour taste in my mouth.

bayindirh 6y ago
> That was actually Windows 2000, based on the NT 4 code base. It was near perfect, given the era it was made in. I also remember Windows 2000 fondly. It was really really stable. Even if it looked like it's frozen like a polar ice cap (they weren't melting that bad back then), a short coffee break would give it enough time to normalize itself and continue like nothing happened. Should retry it in a VM sometime. :)
- mysterydip 6y ago
  I actually ran a series of them in VMs for years because of their quick response and light resource usage, and they still ran all the stuff I needed. Loved that OS
  - bayindirh 6y ago
    I have a Windows XP VM to run the software for my MD player. You're right, the OS from that era is lightning quick in today's hardware, even in a VM. Also, the USB passthhru is problem-free interestingly.
- oxymoron 6y ago
  I stuck with Windows 2000 for many years after XP was released. XP brought absolutely nothing I wanted and a lot of things I didn’t want. All the truly interesting stuff, like WinFS, never made it in.
  - 6y ago

jacobwilliamroy 6y ago

i changed my windows 10 color scheme to bright red so I always feel like I'm in danger.

stjohnswarts 6y ago
To remind you of how much telemetry they're sending out about you to God knows who? :)

HeadsUpHigh 6y ago

I still have a desktop running windows XP that my parents refuse to upgrade, partially due to a piece of software licensed per computer that costs >300$. Thankfully chrome no longer opens half the websites so they are limited on the web side at least. 14+ years of service, the only times it blue screemed were due to hardware breaking down. Rock solid.

kwanbix 6y ago
Did you try to virtualize it and run it into a VM only for that app?
- dddw 6y ago
  This indeed
- HeadsUpHigh 6y ago
  No I'm not touching it with a 10 feet pole. Besides the fact that I would need new hardware for that( it's a core 2 duo system) which they are unwilling to fork the money for, anything that happens with it in the future will be my fault.
  - kwanbix 6y ago
    But it would be a time when the HD dies. Are you able to re-install? If no, you should try to backup/virtualize.
    - HeadsUpHigh 6y ago
      No I'm not able to reinstall. I am also not willing to deal with tech support. If and when it dies I'll just order a dell for them and they can sort the software issue themselves.

blablabla123 6y ago

> First, it was the first solid (in relative terms) consumer operating system from MS. I used Windows 3.1 for years and I never had to reinstall it for stability reasons. At some point I also switched to XP and after 2 years it wouldn't boot anymore because of a blue screen appearing before the graphical interface would show up. That made the decision easy for me to use Linux exclusively - which I had on dual boot already for a considerable time. To me Windows 95-XP were really frustrating to use since random parts of the system (CD-ROM, Word, Games...) would stop working at random times. Or for instance on Windows 95 sometimes the system would only boot if I opened and closed the (empty) CD tray. At work I sometimes used Vista and 10, I think they are okay but macOS and Linux are far more fun.

necovek 6y ago
Before committing to GNU/Linux in 1998 or 99, I've had a similar experience with moving away from DOS/Windows for workgroups 3.11 to '95: Windows 95 tried to achieve too much in terms of backwards compatibility between 16- and 32-bit software, and was very flimsy as a result. However, I've briefly used NT4 as my "development box" (Delphi addict for a while, though in my defense, I was like 15 at the time) for 6-12 months, that was as stable as anything you could get. But it had the same problems as Linux: it was very specific as to what hardware it supports. The same "soft modems" (called "winmodems" at the time) were equally unsupported in NT4 just like in Linux, so you had to get yourself external hardware modems which were like 5-10x the cost (whatever came out of US Robotics?). So since I was more into the hacker mindset, I moved into GNU/Linux world and never looked back. But I did grow an appreciation for MS engineering: they can develop quality software, and did it even in 96, but their consumer OSes strive for unparalleled compatibility and allow anybody (literally anybody) to write system level code that runs on the kernel ring level due to that. A couple years down the line, I've even seen an article how many workarounds they had to introduce into '95 to allow old software employing their own extended/expanded memory management tricks to continue to function (think stuff like DOS games, WordPerfect...). For all the fun we make of it, Windows 95 was a marvel of engineering when you consider the constraints and requirements. Just oppose that to the new web app approach to software engineering: breaking backwards compatibility is such a common theme that nobody bats an eyelid.
6y ago

hnlmorg 6y ago

XP, when it was first released, was a more resource hungry and uglier version of Windows 2000. Win 2000 was amazing when it was released. Games (albeit not DOS ones) worked well, it was stable and really your only other options were worse (Mac OS 9 was less stable than Win 98, ME was a dumpster fire, Linux wasn't quite ready for the desktop and BeOS was awesome but barely supported). Then when XP was released, it had twice the minimum and recommended hardware spec than 2000, it had those stupid skins and it didn't offer anything functionally more beneficial over 2000 (aside faster boot time if you had hundreds of fonts installed). Granted XP got better with SP2 or SP3, but it definitely wasn't the first solid nor even lightweight when it was originally released.

cm2187 6y ago
My migration from 2000 to XP meant blue screens. Most likely caused by drivers. But that left me with a lasting impression that 2000 was way more stable than XP.
- hestefisk 6y ago
  It was largely the same kernel. Issue was largely because drivers for retail hardware weren’t written well enough.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  It wasn't. It was just as stable as 2000 as long as you weren't a tweaker and stuck with stock. Almost every single OS becomes unstable with shitty drivers and/or cheap hardware that wasn't designed for it.
Piskvorrr 6y ago
Yup. When saying "XP was great", people mean "XP SP2 and on" - for me, the move from W2k to WXP was "the same thing, now with Fischer-Price aesthetic!"
- christophilus 6y ago
  > Fischer-Price aesthetic That is the perfect description. It’s one of the ugliest UIs I’ve ever experienced.

washadjeffmad 6y ago

Do people not recall that XP, even after SP3, was the OS of over a decade of botnets, ransomware, and worms that crippled the web? Even Vista and 7 were guilty if you were lax and disabled UAC. All of the things people are complaining about here, like Microsoft becoming the de facto admin of of their Desktop Windows 10 products, are direct results of a period they manufactured. All anyone who waxes nostalgic should do to test is install anything earlier than 10 on an internet facing computer and then wait. It's terrifying how fast they get compromised.