Adapting to something new

Post Reply New Topic

I think this is the best place for me to discuss this, I think it's a lot to do with one of my Aspie quirks, my love of routines.

I'm still running Windows XP and by the look of things I'll still be running it in 2014 when Microsoft pull the plug. I'm running it on a 4 month old laptop and didn't even attempt to use the installed copy of Vista. With upgrades from 95 to 98, or 98 to XP, I got used to them relatively quickly and was glad to make the move. However I hated Vista and I'm not much happier with 7 either. Simply put, I hate the user interface. Very little of the core UI has changed from 95 to XP but Vista and 7 feel completely different to me, it almost feels like I'm not using Windows at all. I've also stayed away from other Microsoft apps for the same reason, examples being Windows Live Messenger 14.0 (still using 8.5... until they disable it soon) and Office 2007 (still using Office 2003). I managed to get used to IE7 over a period of a few months and still don't particularly like the Vista-like interface; but the removal of the inline AutoComplete function in IE8 has ensured that I will stay away from it.

So now I'm starting to get my head round the fact that I will have to change eventually but I know I'm putting it off for as long as I can. In the immediate future the impending disabling of Windows Live Messenger 8.5 is going to hit me, I absolutely can't stand version 14.0 - I'll probably have to switch to a third party client like aMSN or Trillian. I guess another thing I'm wondering is whether to even bother sticking with Windows and channelling the effort into learning something different altogether. But since I've been using Windows for 11 years I know it'll be extremely difficult to take the plunge into a Unix-based system. The only other OS I have any real experience with is MacOS X but unless I want to dispose of a brand new laptop it's not an option for me.

Is there any advice that someone here could give me? I know I'm probably just ranting here though.

Get over it. Buy a second laptop (or use the old one). Try installing something different - Ubuntu's a barrel of laughs.

2012 for xp not 2014 i think. 2014 is for vista.

The problem is that xp was not designed for your four month old laptop and cannot fully make use of its features. You are missing out.

As peterd said, ubuntu is a barrel of fun and you can make it look like like xp if you wish. You can make it look like OSX too. Some of the other linux distros are easy to use as well.

Remember that you try something new because its something new, and they are to be an adventure and not a frustration.

Vista is designed to be faster and easier to use. If that was the case, why does it take my 10x times longer to do the same thing in Vista compared with XP. Nothing is where I expect it to be, and enabling all my standard stuff. View all files, view extensions, etc.

My computer handled it pretty well. But I was sure to install the best for my hardware - 64bit

Because Vista was beta. Simple.

Just as Win95 was the beta for what became Win98 and Win98SE.

Just as WinNT was the beta for Win2000.

Microsoft has a routine habit of pushing a product to market long before it's ready to go on prime time. Their next release fixes the shortcomings of the prior product and incorporates the improvements the prior product was supposed to have in the first place.

The lifecycle for XP ends in 2014, Windows 2000 is 2012. XP runs fine on my laptop, I have drivers for everything because Acer provide them on their website. So I'm not missing out on anything with regard to what the hardware can do, ok maybe DirectX 10 but the only game I really play is a DX7 one so that's irrelevant to me. I suppose I've now got the "if it works why change?" attitude.

The one which really grates me is the removal of the File Types tab and the whole Default Programs API. It's too restrictive compared to the old File Types system. I also hate the inbuilt search - I find myself using dir /s instead.

Ok, thanks. That is surprising.



But you are. Xp is not fully compliant with 64 bit technology, it lacks the sophisticated memory management that allows modern machines to perform adequately when called upon to use modern applications(such as sandboxing memory allocations). You will never get drivers developed for these things as they will not be provided by the OEM or Microsoft.

They may continue to develop drivers, but the assumption is that xp will be maintained on old computers, not installed on vista+ capable machines. They will develop(maybe) for machines of the xp era.

This is in accordance of how Microsoft has always done things. Apple is the same way. Look how Apple dumped the G5 users machines.

Yup.

Right now I don't really want 64-bit. Yes I'll get an extra gig of RAM back but the OS itself uses more RAM and it breaks a few of my apps, as mentioned in another thread I have some apps with 64-bit unsigned drivers. They work on 64-bit XP but nothing newer due to the mandatory driver signing requirement. Test signing would probably work but it's a bit of a pain. I'd have to replace several of my applications as well as the operating system, examples being WinDVD 5 (I use the PAL TruSpeed feature as my ears are very sensitive to pitch) and Nero 7.

My biggest gripe with Vista and 7 is the shell overhaul. Nothing is where I expect it to be and something as simple as showing the total size of a directory is missing, it used to be available at a glance in the status bar (even in Windows 95). I've sometimes heard people telling me to disable Aero and use Windows Classic but that doesn't change these things.

I do acknowledge that old software is abandoned and in the past it wouldn't have been an issue for me.