4 ms·

What I don't understand is... why? I understand keeping alive software for the sake of hardware compatibility, but browsing the web and running Discord? Is it a

What I don't understand is... why? I understand keeping alive software for the sake of hardware compatibility, but browsing the web and running Discord? Is it all really just to save a few hundred dollars over... 24 years?

acuozzo 9mo ago
Familiarity, I suppose. I'm not a part of the Windows XP community, but I've gotten close. I love that I can make it look just like Windows 2000 and that I know where all the little knobs and dials are. I can get a Windows XP installation configured to be exactly as I want it to be very quickly and I know it won't suddenly change on me.
robinsonb5 9mo ago
Perhaps because the level of respect that Windows has for its users has dropped with each successive version? Not to mention bloat: I have a keyboard with a dedicated calculator button. On a machine with Core i5 something or other and SSD it takes about 2 seconds for the calculator to appear the first time I push that button. On the Core 2 Duo machine that preceded it, running XP from spinning rust, the calculator would appear instantly - certainly before I can release the button. But also WinXP was the OS a lot of people used during their formative years - don't underestimate the power of nostalgia. Also, for some people the very fact that Microsoft don't want you to would be reason enough! Personally if I were into preserving old Windows versions I'd be putting my effort into Win2k SP4, since it's the last version that doesn't need activating. (I did have to activate a Vista install recently - just a VM used to keep alive some legacy software whose own activation servers are but a distant memory. It's still possible, but you can't do it over the phone any more, and I couldn't find any way to do it without registering a Microsoft account.)
- refulgentis 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - OsrsNeedsf2P 9mo ago
    Why is it impossible?
    - refulgentis 9mo ago
      Tl;dr reaction time, 300 ms is the golden rule for reaction speed, and apparently there was actually a sports medicine study that came to that #. I was surprised to see that, 300 ms comes up a lot in UX as “threshold of perceptible delay” but it was still surprising to see.
      - yjftsjthsd-h 9mo ago
        I was curious, so did a quick web search, which claims that 300ms is the average reaction time and plenty of people run faster than that. But I think the question was the other way: Why couldn't calc.exe launch in 300ms?
        refulgentis 9mo ago
        300 ms is way longer than they budgeted; separately, I was alive then and it's a ridiculous claim, like, it takes a general bias we all have towards seeing the past with rose-colored glasses and takes it farcically far. Don't want to clutter too much, I'm already eating downvotes, so I'll link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46642003 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46642003
        chungy 9mo ago
        I have Windows 95 on a Pentium 120 MHz and calc.exe is instantaneous enough that it's probably much less than 300ms to launch. XP's calculator is hardly any different than 95. It's easy to believe that launching it on a Core 2 Duo of all things is also instant.
        hnlmorg 9mo ago
        You’re both kind of right. On the average consumer hardware at launch, 95 and XP were slow, memory hungry bloats. In fact everything that people say about Windows 11 now was even more true of Windows back then. By the end of the life of Windows 95 and XP, hardware had overtook and Windows felt snappier. There was a reason I stuck with Windows 2000 for years after the release of XP and it wasn’t because I was too cheep to buy XP.
- Borg3 9mo ago
  Win2003 Enterprise does NOT need activation either. It runs smooth offline.
  - piperswe 9mo ago
    There are tools out there (like UMSKT) that can activate MS software from that era fully offline too. They cracked the cryptography used by the activation system and reimplemented the tool used for phone activation, so you can “activate by phone” using UMSKT instead of calling MS.
    - Borg3 9mo ago
      But you do NOT need to.. Read about Volume Licencing. You just enter the KEY and vioala....
unleaded 9mo ago
It's fun and interesting. most people don't actually daily drive it
badsectoracula 9mo ago
I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with money and plenty to do with the same reasons as people who preserve Commodore 64s, Amigas and DOS and Win9x PCs.
p1necone 9mo ago
The high point is a toss up between XP and 7 for me, but imo Windows UX peaked then (although the 98 visual style is peak for nostalgia) and has either stayed the same or gotten worse ever since. Personally I just switched to using Linux full time as soon as gaming compatibility became basically the same as Windows but I totally understand why you'd want to maintain the ability to use older Windows versions.
reactordev 9mo ago
Wait till everything you do is exfiltrated by copilot…
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
userbinator 9mo ago
It may be more savings than that, if you count all the hours wasted with fixing things that broke in a newer version or finding workarounds that will never be as efficient.
efskap 9mo ago
A lot of medical devices still run XP as well unfortunately, because of old proprietary software for expensive equipment that doesn't receive updates anymore.
jlarocco 9mo ago
Why not? I strongly prefer Linux, but if somebody wants to use Windows, why not use XP? It was definitely a better user experience. I stopped using Windows at work as Win7 was rolling out but got another job using it again as Win11 started rolling out. Having missed out on the slow decline, it's very obvious to me how much better the older Windows were. The new ones have a dumpster fire UI with built-in advertising that shoves Microsoft web crap and AI down your throat at every chance.
rootsudo 9mo ago
Why not? XP was formative for many people who are in the profession now. For me, it's knowing what I know now, what could I've done back 25 (wow!) years ago. It's a fun exercise.
2b3a51 9mo ago
In my case I have an old Thinkpad that is chugging on reliably into its third decade soon, that ran XP when it left the factory. Newer linuxes don't work too well (accelerated graphics components such as mesa have accelerated beyond the hardware's capabilities) and the BSDs are a little spartan (very little software for i386 now for understandable reasons). So I'm thinking of putting an XP install back on the thing with my licenced MS Office 2000 and a few other bits and pieces of software just for retro fun, and a reminder about how things were 20 years or so ago to avoid the rose tinted glasses effect.
itopaloglu83 9mo ago
Well, I can give you millions of reasons in the form of industrial hardware that’s running Windows XP and will continue to run for another 10 years at least.
akka47 9mo ago
It is actually incredibly fast and already does basically everything you want from an operating system I guess.

acuozzo 9mo ago

Familiarity, I suppose. I'm not a part of the Windows XP community, but I've gotten close. I love that I can make it look just like Windows 2000 and that I know where all the little knobs and dials are. I can get a Windows XP installation configured to be exactly as I want it to be very quickly and I know it won't suddenly change on me.

robinsonb5 9mo ago

Perhaps because the level of respect that Windows has for its users has dropped with each successive version? Not to mention bloat: I have a keyboard with a dedicated calculator button. On a machine with Core i5 something or other and SSD it takes about 2 seconds for the calculator to appear the first time I push that button. On the Core 2 Duo machine that preceded it, running XP from spinning rust, the calculator would appear instantly - certainly before I can release the button. But also WinXP was the OS a lot of people used during their formative years - don't underestimate the power of nostalgia. Also, for some people the very fact that Microsoft don't want you to would be reason enough! Personally if I were into preserving old Windows versions I'd be putting my effort into Win2k SP4, since it's the last version that doesn't need activating. (I did have to activate a Vista install recently - just a VM used to keep alive some legacy software whose own activation servers are but a distant memory. It's still possible, but you can't do it over the phone any more, and I couldn't find any way to do it without registering a Microsoft account.)

refulgentis 9mo ago
[flagged]
- OsrsNeedsf2P 9mo ago
  Why is it impossible?
  - refulgentis 9mo ago
    Tl;dr reaction time, 300 ms is the golden rule for reaction speed, and apparently there was actually a sports medicine study that came to that #. I was surprised to see that, 300 ms comes up a lot in UX as “threshold of perceptible delay” but it was still surprising to see.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 9mo ago
      I was curious, so did a quick web search, which claims that 300ms is the average reaction time and plenty of people run faster than that. But I think the question was the other way: Why couldn't calc.exe launch in 300ms?
      - refulgentis 9mo ago
        300 ms is way longer than they budgeted; separately, I was alive then and it's a ridiculous claim, like, it takes a general bias we all have towards seeing the past with rose-colored glasses and takes it farcically far. Don't want to clutter too much, I'm already eating downvotes, so I'll link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46642003 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46642003
        chungy 9mo ago
        I have Windows 95 on a Pentium 120 MHz and calc.exe is instantaneous enough that it's probably much less than 300ms to launch. XP's calculator is hardly any different than 95. It's easy to believe that launching it on a Core 2 Duo of all things is also instant.
        hnlmorg 9mo ago
        You’re both kind of right. On the average consumer hardware at launch, 95 and XP were slow, memory hungry bloats. In fact everything that people say about Windows 11 now was even more true of Windows back then. By the end of the life of Windows 95 and XP, hardware had overtook and Windows felt snappier. There was a reason I stuck with Windows 2000 for years after the release of XP and it wasn’t because I was too cheep to buy XP.
Borg3 9mo ago
Win2003 Enterprise does NOT need activation either. It runs smooth offline.
- piperswe 9mo ago
  There are tools out there (like UMSKT) that can activate MS software from that era fully offline too. They cracked the cryptography used by the activation system and reimplemented the tool used for phone activation, so you can “activate by phone” using UMSKT instead of calling MS.
  - Borg3 9mo ago
    But you do NOT need to.. Read about Volume Licencing. You just enter the KEY and vioala....

unleaded 9mo ago

It's fun and interesting. most people don't actually daily drive it

badsectoracula 9mo ago

I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with money and plenty to do with the same reasons as people who preserve Commodore 64s, Amigas and DOS and Win9x PCs.

p1necone 9mo ago

The high point is a toss up between XP and 7 for me, but imo Windows UX peaked then (although the 98 visual style is peak for nostalgia) and has either stayed the same or gotten worse ever since. Personally I just switched to using Linux full time as soon as gaming compatibility became basically the same as Windows but I totally understand why you'd want to maintain the ability to use older Windows versions.

reactordev 9mo ago

Wait till everything you do is exfiltrated by copilot…

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

userbinator 9mo ago

It may be more savings than that, if you count all the hours wasted with fixing things that broke in a newer version or finding workarounds that will never be as efficient.

efskap 9mo ago

A lot of medical devices still run XP as well unfortunately, because of old proprietary software for expensive equipment that doesn't receive updates anymore.

jlarocco 9mo ago

Why not? I strongly prefer Linux, but if somebody wants to use Windows, why not use XP? It was definitely a better user experience. I stopped using Windows at work as Win7 was rolling out but got another job using it again as Win11 started rolling out. Having missed out on the slow decline, it's very obvious to me how much better the older Windows were. The new ones have a dumpster fire UI with built-in advertising that shoves Microsoft web crap and AI down your throat at every chance.

rootsudo 9mo ago

Why not? XP was formative for many people who are in the profession now. For me, it's knowing what I know now, what could I've done back 25 (wow!) years ago. It's a fun exercise.

2b3a51 9mo ago

In my case I have an old Thinkpad that is chugging on reliably into its third decade soon, that ran XP when it left the factory. Newer linuxes don't work too well (accelerated graphics components such as mesa have accelerated beyond the hardware's capabilities) and the BSDs are a little spartan (very little software for i386 now for understandable reasons). So I'm thinking of putting an XP install back on the thing with my licenced MS Office 2000 and a few other bits and pieces of software just for retro fun, and a reminder about how things were 20 years or so ago to avoid the rose tinted glasses effect.

itopaloglu83 9mo ago

Well, I can give you millions of reasons in the form of industrial hardware that’s running Windows XP and will continue to run for another 10 years at least.

akka47 9mo ago

It is actually incredibly fast and already does basically everything you want from an operating system I guess.