what i really hate about windows 7 i86 or 32bit is its pentium III support ended before the end of its lifecycle. It actually didn't care about downloading mmx2 (pentium 4) only patches and that ground my pentium III to a halt. It also kept going through an endless update route of the things it didn't commit!

I just want to point out that practically every software vendor other than Microsoft still supports Win7. All major browsers work on Win7. Minecraft, World of Warcraft, and Steam all work on Win7. Cyberpunk 2077? Call of Duty: Cold War? The System Shock remake? Win7. Avid Media Composer? Win7. Even the handful of programs that CLAIM to require Win10 can usually be run on Win7. Furthermore, hardware that supports Win7 is still widely available on the primary market (Newegg), even if it hasn't been made since 2016. There is absolutely nothing "retro" about Win7. It is still a modern OS.

XP is in the same boat in terms of hardware support, but a different boat in terms of software support. Pretty much the only newly made software that runs on XP, like Mypal, is made by the FOSS community. The activation servers have been turned off, which is why you have to activate by phone now. If you use XP as your only operating system, you WILL be cut off from a significant part of the rest of the Windows-using community. XP can only realistically exist on multiboot systems, or side by side with other computers running newer operating systems.

However, that's not what makes something retro.

I think we're neglecting the most important question: WHY do we still use XP? Is it out of nostalgia? Is it because we want to revisit the early 2000s and re-live our childhood memories of that time period? Or is it because WinXP is simply better than every version of Windows that came after it, and we'd use it exclusively if we could, and the only reason why we put up with anything newer is because we're forced to? I think most people are in that latter category. For something to be "retro", its appeal needs to be driven by nostalgia, not by practical concerns like the ability to display animated GIFs correctly in Windows Photo Viewer.

So, no. I do not consider either OS to be "retro".

XP is retro if you wanna do an original release install on a system with 256-512MB RAM and keep it in it's own little world, cut off from the present. XP is modern foolishness if you wanna run it with all updates and service packs up to when they cut off embedded support (ATMs etc) and you wanna pretend it can still cut it. Windows 10 will run on a 1GB/1Ghz system better than the most up to date that you can get XP, it needed over 512MB by the time SP2 was out and it only got worse. Even with a full RAM build out to 3.5GB it's a thrashy POS. At 2GB even Vista seems better than XP, but both 7 and 10 are better on 2GB than Vista. 7 needs 1.5 to smooth out. W10 1GB is about equal to 7 on 1.5GB... mainly the only reason to be on 7 is graphics drivers.

you can get XP, it needed over 512MB by the time SP2 was out and it only got worse.

Unfounded myths.

WDStudios wrote on 2021-06-20, 14:33:

I just want to point out that practically every software vendor other than Microsoft still supports Win7.

That is because Win7 still supports all the modern Win32 APIs people use to write programs. Other than the modern app UI (UWP, etc.) there is nothing that Win7 lacks. For most projects, dropping support for Win7 requires actively going and breaking it. No reason for vendors to do it, when it still has a pretty solid user base. For XP, this is not the case. A lot of code compiled targeting Win7 cannot run on XP because of missing libraries, function calls, etc. And a lot of nice APIs are not available if you want to target XP.

For Vista it was sort-of in between for a while, but a few years ago the default settings of Microsoft toolchains changed in a way that made build Vista-incompatible. For a while you could easily restore support, but given that Vista's user base was somewhere around 1% at that point, is is obvious nobody bothered.

WDStudios wrote on 2021-06-20, 14:33:

Or is it because WinXP is simply better than every version of Windows that came after it, and we'd use it exclusively if we could, and the only reason why we put up with anything newer is because we're forced to? I think most people are in that latter category.

Well, if you put "we think that" or "we feel that" before 'WinXP is simply better', then, yes, I'd agree with you. I certainly know quite a few folks who feel this way, even though I disagree with them.

BitWrangler wrote on 2021-06-20, 14:59:

XP is retro if you wanna do an original release install on a system with 256-512MB RAM and keep it in it's own little world, cut off from the present. XP is modern foolishness if you wanna run it with all updates and service packs up to when they cut off embedded support (ATMs etc) and you wanna pretend it can still cut it. Windows 10 will run on a 1GB/1Ghz system better than the most up to date that you can get XP, it needed over 512MB by the time SP2 was out and it only got worse. Even with a full RAM build out to 3.5GB it's a thrashy POS. At 2GB even Vista seems better than XP, but both 7 and 10 are better on 2GB than Vista. 7 needs 1.5 to smooth out. W10 1GB is about equal to 7 on 1.5GB... mainly the only reason to be on 7 is graphics drivers.

All versions of Windows scale on RAM usage to some extent, and XP is not different. Give it more RAM, it will use more, give it less, it will do the best with what it has. On one hand, there were certainly many optimizations after WinXP, on the other hand, the core OS itself became more resource-hungry, simply because those resources are there. Why would someone bother to strip down an OS to work well on 512MB of RAM, when the most low-end PC has 4GB and 16GB is average? It would be a sheer waste of time.

I still think the trick is 'contemporary hardware'. Take some old P-III with 256MB, and XP can run OK on it, probably even with SP2. It will thrash like crazy if you try to use memory-demanding tasks, but most such tasks would be CPU-bound anyways. But put XP on modern hardware, and it wouldn't know what to do with it. And most likely it will be slow and power-hungry because of lack of optimized drivers. Same in reverse for Windows 10.

WDStudios wrote on 2021-06-20, 14:33:

However, that's not what makes something retro.

I think we're neglecting the most important question: WHY do we still use XP? Is it out of nostalgia? Is it because we want to revisit the early 2000s and re-live our childhood memories of that time period? Or is it because WinXP is simply better than every version of Windows that came after it, and we'd use it exclusively if we could, and the only reason why we put up with anything newer is because we're forced to? I think most people are in that latter category. For something to be "retro", its appeal needs to be driven by nostalgia, not by practical concerns like the ability to display animated GIFs correctly in Windows Photo Viewer.

So, no. I do not consider either OS to be "retro".

Oh gosh... I only use Windows XP for nostalgia, and because certain nostalgia-inducing software (Far Cry 1) work better on it. I have my XP-based systems connected to 4:3 monitors so I use XP for early/mid-2000's games that from the pre-widescreen era. But man oh man IMO Windows XP isn't better than subsequent releases... not by a long shot!

But yes, I appreciate your definition of "retro." By that definition, Windows XP is retro to me and Windows 7 isn't (I don't have any Windows 7 systems currently).

BitWrangler wrote on 2021-06-20, 14:59:

XP is retro if you wanna do an original release install on a system with 256-512MB RAM and keep it in it's own little world, cut off from the present. XP is modern foolishness if you wanna run it with all updates and service packs up to when they cut off embedded support (ATMs etc) and you wanna pretend it can still cut it. Windows 10 will run on a 1GB/1Ghz system better than the most up to date that you can get XP, it needed over 512MB by the time SP2 was out and it only got worse. Even with a full RAM build out to 3.5GB it's a thrashy POS. At 2GB even Vista seems better than XP, but both 7 and 10 are better on 2GB than Vista. 7 needs 1.5 to smooth out. W10 1GB is about equal to 7 on 1.5GB... mainly the only reason to be on 7 is graphics drivers.

I can tell you from personal experience that Windows 10 on a dual-core 1.6GHz AMD E-350 laptop (with 6GB of DDR3 and an SSD) is basically unusable. The reason is the absurd CPU load required for background tasks spawned by the OS, primarily the non-defeatable Windows Update services. I never run out of RAM... but I see the CPU utilization pegged at 100% for half an hour every time I cold boot the damn thing after a month powered off (because surprise, there are Windows Updates to download/install).

IMO Memory size is not the issue... it's so easy to add more RAM to systems because typically the motherboard accommodates more RAM than the target OS could dream of, and sticks of retro RAM are relatively cheap/plentiful. DDR1 based motherboards can take 4 sticks of 1GB which is enough to max out what 32-bit Windows XP can address anyway. Even my Intel 440BX based Pentium III could take 3 sticks 256MB of PC-133, to the point where my CPU (Pentium III 700MHz) would be the limiting factor again (hence I use that particular system with 512MB RAM in Windows 98SE).

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2021-06-20, 16:08:

you can get XP, it needed over 512MB by the time SP2 was out and it only got worse.

Unfounded myths.

Nope, experience.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2021-06-20, 16:08:

you can get XP, it needed over 512MB by the time SP2 was out and it only got worse.

Unfounded myths.

This. XP SP2/SP3 never required more than 512 MB. It depends on what you do on it, but XP itself is very lightweight.

I use XP Pro SP3 everyday with 512 MB, both on a real machine and in VMWare.

It's Vista and later that required at least 1 GB (2 to be realistic about it), "thanks" to all the services it added compared to XP.
The latter OSes didn't trim things by much.

XP would try to keep 64MB free whatever RAM you had it running on from 128MB upward, therefore it hadn't loaded everything, and would swap out on demand, to actually get more than 64MB free, towards the end of mainstream lifespan, you had to go to 768MB installed, which would get you about 128ish and least amount of swapping. If it's on SSD you probably won't notice it swapping, or realise that it's wearing out your SSD at probably 10x the speed of anything else.

Back in the day, I ran Windows XP with 384 MB of memory and I thought it was fine. These days I never run it with less than 2 GB (2 sticks of 1GB DDR400)... I have the RAM available, so why not? I even have an XP overkill system with 2*2GB of DDR2-800.

BitWrangler wrote on 2021-06-20, 19:17:

XP would try to keep 64MB free whatever RAM you had it running on from 128MB upward, therefore it hadn't loaded everything, and would swap out on demand, to actually get more than 64MB free, towards the end of mainstream lifespan, you had to go to 768MB installed, which would get you about 128ish and least amount of swapping. If it's on SSD you probably won't notice it swapping, or realise that it's wearing out your SSD at probably 10x the speed of anything else.

So why are you trying to run Windows XP with less than 512 MB of memory? Sure maybe the original release of XP says the minimum requirements are 64 MB (128 MB recommended). Some people seem to be willing to use XP with less RAM, and you aren't. If you are dissatisfied with less than 512MB, why don't you just put more RAM in the system and be happy?

BitWrangler wrote on 2021-06-20, 14:59:

Windows 10 will run on a 1GB/1Ghz system better than the most up to date that you can get XP, it needed over 512MB by the time SP2 was out and it only got worse. Even with a full RAM build out to 3.5GB it's a thrashy POS. At 2GB even Vista seems better than XP, but both 7 and 10 are better on 2GB than Vista. 7 needs 1.5 to smooth out. W10 1GB is about equal to 7 on 1.5GB

No, Win10 is garbage no matter what hardware you run it on, for reasons that have nothing to do with speed.

bZbZbZ wrote on 2021-06-20, 17:58:

Windows XP isn't better than subsequent releases... not by a long shot!

I could post pages of examples of why you're wrong, from the redesigned Start menu (XP and Vista could go back to a Classic start menu; Win7 couldn't) to Windows Photo Viewer not displaying animated GIFs correctly, to UAC, to the inability to edit anything in the "Program Files" directory unless you took ownership of it (which itself is a pain in the ass), to Explorer removing "Type" and "Size" from the "Arrange icons by"/"Sort by" menu and adding bullshit like "Artist" and "Album" because it saw 3 WAV files in a directory and assumed you were using that directory for your music collection... XP was pretty obviously the last version of Windows that anybody with a properly functioning brain helped to develop.

WD Studios... you don't like Windows 10 and that's perfectly fine. You are entitled to your opinion. Why do you feel the need to tell me my opinion is wrong? I understand the advantages the older OS had, and the advantages than the new OS has. The pros and cons need to be weighed against the user's personal values. Your opinion is based on your values, I hope you can recognize your opinion as valid without feeling the need need to dispute mine.

Oh good, another XP fanatic. 😀

WDStudios wrote on 2021-06-20, 20:48:

XP was pretty obviously the last version of Windows that anybody with a properly functioning brain helped to develop.

Not really. It's more that some people's brains stopped developing some time during the XP era.

xcomcmdr wrote:

It's Vista and later that required at least 1 GB

Also possible to work with 512 Mb, but SSD is required for smooth experience. Microsoft also implemented into Vista additional caching system on storage mediums with fast access times, like Compact Flash for example.

BitWrangler wrote:

Nope, experience.

Additional software may require that, especially games, but not lightweight stuff like office, multimedia or period correct browsing.

or realise that it's wearing out your SSD at probably 10x the speed of anything else.

And yet another unfounded myth straight back from early 2010. Don't forget to migrate pagefile to HDD 🦞

dr_st wrote:

Oh good, another XP fanatic.

Windows XP is like a religious cult now.

dr_st wrote on 2021-06-20, 20:55:

Oh good, another XP fanatic. 😀

WDStudios wrote on 2021-06-20, 20:48:

XP was pretty obviously the last version of Windows that anybody with a properly functioning brain helped to develop.

Not really. It's more that some people's brains stopped developing some time during the XP era.

Facebook came into existence in 2004. Totally unrelated 🤣

dr_st wrote on 2021-06-20, 20:55:

some people's brains stopped developing some time during the XP era.

I'm pretty sure most of those people were Microsoft employees.

kolderman wrote on 2021-06-21, 03:09:

Facebook came into existence in 2004. Totally unrelated 🤣

Facebook didn't open to the general public until 2006 and most people (including me) stayed on Myspace for a few years after that.

WDStudios wrote on 2021-06-21, 06:17:

Facebook didn't open to the general public until 2006 and most people (including me) stayed on Myspace for a few years after that

Let me guess, it was because Facebook's new UI was a disaster and it didn't display animated GIFs properly? 😉

dr_st wrote on 2021-06-21, 06:25:

WDStudios wrote on 2021-06-21, 06:17:

Facebook didn't open to the general public until 2006 and most people (including me) stayed on Myspace for a few years after that

Let me guess, it was because Facebook's new UI was a disaster and it didn't display animated GIFs properly? 😉

Yes. The site was difficult to understand and navigate (in particular, the fact that you had a relatively stable wall/timeline AND a constantly updated news feed full of random garbage was confusing), and for the first several years of its existence, it didn't support GIFs at all, animated or otherwise. And also there's the formatting thing. Myspace let you take advantage of the full power of HTML whereas Facebook didn't permit any kind of formatting at all until recently (and it's still extremely limited).