Close-Up: Windows 7 XP Mode

[thearm]

[citation][nom]Razor512[/nom]1 copy of windows is slow enough, try running 2, the business users will love that. [/citation]

Windows is slow? That's news to me. We have over 500 desktop and laptops here and they are pretty quick. Especially our Dell GX620's. They boot in maybe 25 seconds from power on to log on. All they have it a Pent 4 3.4 Ghz (775) processor. Maybe you're doing something wrong w/ your Windows machines. Just a thought.

 

[Scotteq]

For the Gamer Trolls and Linux Fans: You're right - This isn't for you. Not at all. It does not do what you want it to: Magically turn the OS into XP 2010. And therefore there is no reason to change what you're doing.

With that settled: XP Mode is there to provide a Transition path. It's not a be-all or end-all. Nobody in their right mind would upgrade an old box to 7, then install XP mode back on it. You're spending money and wasting time just so the poor machine has to work even harder. Anyone who did this is either a moron, or purposefully sabotaging the effort so the project fails. Maybe both.


It *is* there so that when you finally do take that old Pentium HT out behind the barn and put a well-earned bullet in it's little silicon head - (as probably should have been done years ago except nobody wanted to spend the money on the replacement) - you have the means to (1) have the new Win 7 machine run the same apps which your company *still* haven't upgraded; (2) The new Win 7 box can present itself to all of the other junk that hasn't been shot yet as "On Of Their Own". And (3) Over time - and on *your* schedule - you can shut the old stuff off once the new is in place.

It serves as a free bridge so the IT guys at smaller businesses can transition over time rather than have to do everything at once. I say 'small' because large corporations whould/should have access to superior virtualization products as part of their service contracts.

 

[Tomsguiderachel]

Many people have weighed in on their perspectives about XP mode as business owners/buyers or as gamers. What about regular old consumers? People who've grown comfortable with XP for their relatively simple computing needs? I know you guys are the exception to the rule--but many people are not gamers or business users (they're students, teachers, retirees, homemakers, general Web surfers, email checkers, etc.).

 

[CptTripps]

Regular old consumers will probably just buy an upgraded app vs. installing and running XPMode as it would intimidate them. My less tech oriented friends would rather spend some extra cash than sail uncharted waters I guarantee.

 

[kato128]

Yeah I've gotta agree most occaisional computer users I've encountered (which is a lot since I do onsite support) aren't overly wedded to any particular program unless it's a game for the kids.

 

[duckmanx88]

[citation][nom]joedoe[/nom]Here is a better idea:Run linux and VMware with XP home on top(VirtualBox would also do).That's what I do for 2+ years now,and I am happy.Linux is free and more flexible and secure.XP is there only for my girlfriend's Word needs...[/citation]

yeah lets have the millions of people around the world do that. why does every single windows or apple article have some douche talking about how much they use linux.

 

[razor512]

[citation][nom]thearm[/nom]Windows is slow? That's news to me. We have over 500 desktop and laptops here and they are pretty quick. Especially our Dell GX620's. They boot in maybe 25 seconds from power on to log on. All they have it a Pent 4 3.4 Ghz (775) processor. Maybe you're doing something wrong w/ your Windows machines. Just a thought.[/citation]

for me, windows xp boots in about 17 seconds, and it took a lot of tweaking and removing bloat and services and core windows items to get to this point. when I build a gaming PC , I want as much performance as possible, windows benchmarks much higher than vista and windows 7. sure a pc can still be fast running windows xp or vista or windows 7 but wouldn't you want whats faster.

core i7 920 can run windows xp very quickly. (the last system I build for a customer was able to boot windows xp in just over 10 seconds after I stripped the OS down and did many tweaks, and overclocked the CPU)
it runs fast
but a core 2 e8400 can also run windows xp fast, if you had to choose to get one for free which would you pick?

i bet it will be the i7 920 because even though both run fast, the i7 is faster

remember, most businesses that don't require top of the line workstation systems will often have low end systems that they never really upgrade because it gets the job done quickly already

the last company that I did a job for, installing new servers and running additional ethernet cables, they were using old 2.4GHz P4 dell computers with 512MB memory running windows xp, (around here, queens NY, many businesses often will not even have a full time IT staff due to the cost, what are the odds of them buying new computers that can run windows 7, just to install a windows xp virtual machine and run windows xp, if a business has apps that need windows xp, why not just run windows xp directly instead of going through another OS so you have the slowness of both OS combined just to run the same apps

other than some direct x 10 only apps, pretty much everything else runs perfectly on windows xp, cant say the same for windows 7 or vista.

all of this comes down to why would a business put them self in debt upgrading all hardware and software just to do the same thing there doing now.

if they have no need for a new OS then theres no reason to upgrade. a local bottling factory that fills bottles with pepsi still runs windows 95 on the main system that controls the automated machines.

 

[razor512]

PS i wish they would add a edit feature for comments

anyway.

when properly tweaked, windows xp on a system with a core i7 920
and a western digital black 1TB can boot windows xp a little over 10 seconds

I have a opteron 170 and a crappy 80 gig drive and i am able to manage about 17 seconds

much of the boot process is hard drive intensive but there are a few chunks of the boot process that are cpu intensive, so a faster CPU does small boot speed improvements and a good hard drive does large speed improvements.


also as for linux, I feel that Microsoft should include a ubuntu live cd with every copy of windows.

you wouldn't believe how many people have thanked me for getting them to get a copy of ubuntu, because for them especially many students, they will run into problems where windows will not boot or it will be infected and they will still need to get work done and a simple boot from the ubuntu disk will allow them to continue working and even typing papers and other work (as theres also wine for other apps ) and after that they will be able to access the drive c to backup all important data and reformat and reinstall, it basically allows the average user to easily fix their own problems)

and best of all it is free, all computers should come with copy

 

[kato128]

Why would MS include a competing product in their bundle? You're recovery point is valid to a degree however windows comes with system restore functionality and if their hdd is stuffed then nothing will help.
As for businesses they'll upgrade if upgrading serves a purpose. In this case it does. Win 7 is more secure, easier to manage and quicker to install when it comes to rebuilding. This leads to a sizeable decrease in time required to carry out maintenance which will save money in IT support costs and lost productivity. The only reason to hold off would be if you're still using 16bit software or old 9x era software as most XP era software now have compatible versions.

 

[Guest]

All you computer 'experts': some guy here that gave whole history of gaming was right when he talked about old tires on a new mustang. But from a business perspective, if you work in the IT department then i can't understand why you guys think reactive and not proactive....it's called planning: With 7 coming out this october, manufactureres will stop spending money on developing/supporting xp drivers/software...so all new machines that you buy or build yourself will need at least vista in order to recognize all the hardware. The only problem then is that you cannot always upgrade your productivity software...hence XPM!

 

[chripuck]

[citation][nom]Razor512[/nom]1 copy of windows is slow enough, try running 2, the business users will love that. most businesses don't need anything other than xp because it does what they need, upgrading to vista or windows 7 will just reduce their performance, the article also failed to mention that you need at least 2GB memory to use the featureit also has little to no hardware accelerationif a business has no app that needs windows 7, but they have apps that need xp, then why would they upgrade to windows 7 just to downgrade back to an even slower windows xp by running it in a virtual machine.windows 7 benchmarks lower than windows xp, running windows xp inside of windows 7 will be much slowerin the business world, time is money, why would they want to waste time on a slower OSif microsoft wants businesses to upgrade then they need the system requirements for windows 7, just as low as the requirements of windows xp. businesses don't like having to upgrade computers as it is expensive to do.also would you upgrade to something slower. a upgrade has to offer more speed and performance, compared to windows XP, both vista and 7 fail to do this[/citation]

If that were the case then why would business ever upgrade? I mean when XP came out why did they upgrade to it from 2000? Why 2000 from NT? The reason is their new programs are compatible with only the new OS. The same will happen to Win 7 and business will upgrade as they've always done.

You act as this release of Windows has introduced some brand new phenomenon to the business world. Stop dramatizing...

 

[pocketdrummer]

[citation][nom]joedoe[/nom]Here is a better idea:Run linux and VMware with XP home on top(VirtualBox would also do).That's what I do for 2+ years now,and I am happy.Linux is free and more flexible and secure.XP is there only for my girlfriend's Word needs...[/citation]

Linux still isn't ready for prime time.

Flame on, but there's a reason it hasn't taken off yet. I mean, it's not like there's a money issue, the thing's free. That means there's another reason.

Figure that out and more people will turn to Linux. Until then, people will still sigh when they see the "Linux Witness" pitch in his $.02

I'm not saying Linux is bad, there's just too many issues that stand in it's way at the moment.

 

[pocketdrummer]

[citation][nom]Tomsguiderachel[/nom]Many people have weighed in on their perspectives about XP mode as business owners/buyers or as gamers. What about regular old consumers? People who've grown comfortable with XP for their relatively simple computing needs? I know you guys are the exception to the rule--but many people are not gamers or business users (they're students, teachers, retirees, homemakers, general Web surfers, email checkers, etc.).[/citation]

Ha, you got thumbed down for making a legitimate point. Yay for comments sections.........

 

[Guest]

In the early 90's, Microsoft set about owning, what was at the time, the main interface, the Application Programmers Interface. Around this same time IBM was pushing the OS2 operating system which was at least 10 times better and faster. Microsoft was actually working with IBM on this OS, but at the last moment they released their own OS upgrade and captured the API for themselves.

In recent years Microsoft has been doing the same thing, but now it is with the new API, the Client/Server Interface. As the incumbent in this game they hold all the cards in the form of ".NET" and the language which was created to support it, "C#". It's the same fundamental tactic, but now applied at a higher level.

I don't think they can be challenged at this game unless they screw up badly allowing someone else a chance to get in and change the current rules. So, if you are a large business, Microsoft is the only game in town.