«

[dosraider]

Let's face the facts.

It's already that far that you need 'patching' it to be able to run it on the newest hardware.
If you look at the development of hardware you will need to rewrite it to get it working fine and to take advantage of the newer chips.

So in the end it wouldn't be XP anymore, it would become something between XP and Vista, we've seen that before, remember WinME?
And honnestly, I think I will wait a bit and look how it turns out before installing the sp3 pack.

More, what's the use of buying a new PC if you install an old OS on it that can't take benefit of the updated hardware? It's not only MS, it's also the hardware manufacturors that should write the appropiate XP drivers for the newest chips.


And XP doesn't need to be 'saved', it will not become obsolete so soon.
Don't like Vista? Simply keep your old PC then and stay on XP.

[Quintopotere]

Originally Posted by Blood-Pigggy

Whoever says "Bring back DOS" doesn't know what they're talking about, everyone hated DOS, even the people who developed for it (maybe especially) the OS may have had some good games, but damn, did it suck.

To reaffirm this, YOU WANT DOS BACK? YOU WANT ME TO WRITE MY OWN CONFIG FILES AGAIN? SCREW YOU.

I perfectly know what I'm talking about! DOS was the best, DOS IS the best!
Writing the config.sys and the autoexec.bat I was feeling like I was having the total control of the PC!
Give me back the DOS (with the support of every nowaday technologies...)

I agree with dosrayder but I'd like an XP supported forever (if the DOS think is not possible...)

[DeathDude]

Just be happy for now that XP support did get extended till 2014 at the very least. Microsoft was very gung-ho about ending the support this year and moving forward with Vista.

[Japo]

I liked DOS, but besides the obvious differences, it didn't support multitasking, memory management was a nightmare (surely you already knew this), didn't have user accounts (meaning less possibilities as well as less security)... etcetera. It was appropriate for the time it existed, but no longer.

With past versions of Windows, Microsoft even extended support beyond the promised deadlines, it will do the same with XP given the success it's enjoyed.

[red_avatar]

Originally Posted by _r.u.s.s.

well the oldervesions at least didn't make a homecall each 15 minutes and you didn't need to click yes on 40 "are you sure" messageboxes on everything

You do realise that the "are you sure" thing can be switched off in 5 seconds?

And what the hell are you talking about, home calls?

[_r.u.s.s.]

Originally Posted by red_avatar

You do realise that the "are you sure" thing can be switched off in 5 seconds?

And what the hell are you talking about, home calls?

i have only tried vista on new notebook before switching back to xp, but if you tell me how to for future i will be glad. and yes, homecalling, it calls it's home

[Quintopotere]

Originally Posted by Japofran

I liked DOS, but besides the obvious differences, it didn't support multitasking, memory management was a nightmare (surely you already knew this), didn't have user accounts (meaning less possibilities as well as less security)... etcetera. It was appropriate for the time it existed, but no longer.

Imagine a DOS
with those features
that is the DOS I dream
no windows to be opened
no windows to be closed
...
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed nor hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
(J. Lennon)

[Japo]

Quinto,

The good news is that, of course, you already have command line in Windows if you like, but I bet you prefer the GUI. The bad news is that DOS compatibility is still a no-no because Windows 5.x (2000/XP) is 32-bit (also there's XP 64-bit), whereas DOS (and Windows 3.x and lower) was 16-bit (too limited) and it didn't use the same APIs. No matter its name, even if it was called DOS the current MS OS wouldn't be backwards compatible, virtualization technology would still be necessary. And there are virtualization solutions available, like Virtual PC which MS provides for free afer all, or DOSBox for DOS (even XP 32-bit built-in ntvdm.exe, but this is useful only for console programs).

Also Quinto, you can be in control with Windows just like you were with DOS. The problem is that, even though it's easier to just use Windows than DOS, it's actually harder to be a power user of Windows than DOS, simply because Windows is plain more complicated and powerful. But you can configure whatever you want, if you want to learn about Windows just like you did about DOS, you can start here or in Google.

Originally Posted by _r.u.s.s.

i have only tried vista on new notebook before switching back to xp, but if you tell me how to for future i will be glad. and yes, homecalling, it calls it's home

I have XP and I've seen it call home (saw it in my firewall's log then I checked the remote IP and it belonged to Microsoft). So it would seem this is not only about Vista, XP also does it. I wouldn't be too tinfoil-hat paranoid about all the urban legends romaing the Web as to the evil purposes of these calls. I wouldn't be concerned about them and besides, if you're really concerned get an outbound firewall and block them.

Anyway If you don't trust Microsoft and think they feed your personal data to the ESA and the Skull&Bones, then by all means you shouldn't use any MS program let alone Windows. The important point here is that once you've installed an operating system in your computer, you've already trusted it with everything, even if you think you're in control you're only as far as the OS lets you (but it is its job to let you, unless there's some hidden agenda, and unless so many people I don't think so). These calls home are done in the open, Windows could very easily do them without your being able to know or block them, just like malicious rootkits do.

Vista is nothing special, just the next version of Windows, it provides new multimedia capabilities (not only for its own silly eye candy which you can disable, but most important for use by third-party programs), and it improves security which was a great complaint against Windows specially from Mac and Linux users. The next Windows version after Vista is already in development.

[Quintopotere]

Originally Posted by Japofran

Quinto,

The good news is that, of course, you already have command line in Windows if you like, but I bet you prefer the GUI. The bad news is that DOS compatibility is still a no-no because Windows 5.x (2000/XP) is 32-bit (also there's XP 64-bit), whereas DOS (and Windows 3.x and lower) was 16-bit (too limited) and it didn't use the same APIs. No matter its name, even if it was called DOS the current MS OS wouldn't be backwards compatible, virtualization technology would still be necessary. And there are virtualization solutions available, like Virtual PC which MS provides for free afer all, or DOSBox for DOS (even XP 32-bit built-in ntvdm.exe, but this is useful only for console programs).

Also Quinto, you can be in control with Windows just like you were with DOS. The problem is that, even though it's easier to just use Windows than DOS, it's actually harder to be a power user of Windows than DOS, simply because Windows is plain more complicated and powerful. But you can configure whatever you want, if you want to learn about Windows just like you did about DOS, you can start here or in Google.

Stay away from me, evil tempter!!

My solution it's quite simply: let's remove the gui from XP 64 professional and we'll have a great OS!!
Why can't we have DOS 64 bit?

[Tulac]

Cause I don't want to type CD every time I want to open a new directory. If you want such na OS just use unix or linux without a GUI.