why shouldn't I go back to XP64. (w7-64 atm)

[c627627]

By the way, I turn indexing off immediately after installing Win7 because I found that the time spent listening to my hard drive crunch away 24/7 indexing my files was not worth the gains since whatever I am looking for comes up "quickly enough" with indexing turned off.


Having used FAT32 for a long time on a dual boot Windows Me/Windows XP system, yes there are plenty of files on my system created under FAT32. You may be onto something but that would be merely diagnosing the problem of a Search Engine not doing what a Search Engine under Windows XP on the same system does when I reboot into Windows XP.

There should be a GUI for basic date and content searches in Windows 7. Having given up, here's what the freeware I use under Windows 7: http://mythicsoft.com/page.aspx?type=agentransack&page=home

 

[Layback Bear]

My understanding is Search must have Indexing working. You turn of Indexing and you loose Search capabilities.

 

[EarthDog]

Thats not true, you do not lose search with indexing off, it just means its slower as the information isnt cataloged essentially.

 

[David]

I flirted with the idea of moving back to XP, but couldn't find a good reason to, other than it looks a bit plainer. I think Windows 7 looks a bit too flashy, and the classic appearance looks like arse.

What I need then isn't a new OS, just a skin, but can't be bothered

 

[c627627]

heh, my Windows 7:





http://sourceforge.net/projects/classicshell/files/

 

[d0sitmatr]

Ive yet to move to win7, not for any compatibility issues, but because from what Ive read you cna only install win7 on 3 different machines. which at the price win7 goes for is ridiculous. granted, Ive found copies of win7u for as low as $80 for the retailed version, but I bought my winXP brand new for less than that and it came with a copy XP64. and not recently, but at least a year before vista was released.
the limit for installation on winXP (Ive recently found) is 25 times.
25 vs 3... which looks to be the better price/use ?

 

[Tokae]

Ive yet to move to win7, not for any compatibility issues, but because from what Ive read you cna only install win7 on 3 different machines. which at the price win7 goes for is ridiculous. granted, Ive found copies of win7u for as low as $80 for the retailed version, but I bought my winXP brand new for less than that and it came with a copy XP64. and not recently, but at least a year before vista was released.
the limit for installation on winXP (Ive recently found) is 25 times.
25 vs 3... which looks to be the better price/use ?

Well you are supposed to have Windows 7 only installed on one machine (for that license) at any given time... DO you mean you heard that it will just not allow you to install it 3 different times (as in if you upgraded your hardware)? If that was what you were referring to that isn't true, I have reinstalled my copy on my hardware probably close to 20 times, with 3 or 4 different mobos...

 

[hafa]

Ive yet to move to win7, not for any compatibility issues, but because from what Ive read you cna only install win7 on 3 different machines. which at the price win7 goes for is ridiculous. granted, Ive found copies of win7u for as low as $80 for the retailed version, but I bought my winXP brand new for less than that and it came with a copy XP64. and not recently, but at least a year before vista was released.
the limit for installation on winXP (Ive recently found) is 25 times.
25 vs 3... which looks to be the better price/use ?

As Tokae noted, one Windows license applies to one computer. All Windows licenses have no limitation on the number of reinstallations, as long as you observe the terms of the EULA for your specific product (see below). This has always been the case since the inception of Windows.

If you're finding a retail copy of Windows 7 Ultimate for $80, it is most likely not legitimate. IMHO, the cost of a Windows 7 Professional OEM licence (~$130 at most legitimate retailers) is very, very reasonable. If you are a student, you can avail of an educational discount. If you do not wish to pay for your operating system software, use Linux.

..I have reinstalled my copy on my hardware probably close to 20 times, with 3 or 4 different mobos...

Just keep in mind that only the RETAIL EULA allows for re-installation on a motherboard of different manufacture or model. The EULA of OEM versions allows for installation on one motherboard model only; replacement of the motherboard using the same model is allowable.

 

[glazer1972]

As much as I liked XP I wouldn't go back unless I had programs that required it which would have probably only mattered if 32 bit.

 

[SteveLord]

You can trial Win7 Enterprise from Microsoft still I believe. And use the re-activation trick to extend it.

 

[c627627]

30-day Windows 7 activation grace period can only be extended up to three additional times — to a total of 120 days.

 

[\dev\goat]

What I need then isn't a new OS, just a skin, but can't be bothered

http://sharpe.sourceforge.net/

 

[David]

Oooh ...

 

[Firepac]

XP 64-bit doesn't use the same kernel as the 32-bit counterpart. It uses Server 2003's kernel....this can cause some issues with certain applications. Think back to Halo's PC release; when it was first released, it wouldn't install on XP 64-bit as it stated that it needed an OS newer than Windows 2000. A patch later fixed this, but look into your "legacy games" before you take the plunge.

Doesn't Windows XP already use an NT kernel?

 

[c627627]

If your need to use more than 4GB of RAM and therefore need a 64-Bit system, Windows 7 64-Bit is the way to go because 64-Bit Windows XP has a host of compatibility issues which 32-Bit Windows XP does not.

So the question should be Windows XP 32-Bit vs Windows 7 (either 32-Bit or 64-Bit).

 

[orion456]

let's not worry about the why-would-you-even-want-to-go-back-to-XP
and focus on why-I-shouldn't-go-back-to-XP

I did go back to WinXP32 on my i3 4gb laptop.

I find win7 is often doing a lot of things I don't want or care for. The more I use win7, the more I miss the simple interface of winXP. It almost seems win7 was built looking for things to change for the sake of change and not for the convenience of the user.

I also dislike the way updates are processed and stored and the way you can't see active icons like for the internet. I want to see if data is actually flowing, not just guess that win7 is doing something because sometimes its not.

 

[corruption]

Doesn't Windows XP already use an NT kernel?

Yes...XP 32bit and 64bit both use NT Kernels. I believe 5.1 and 5.2 respectively.



As much as I hate it....quote from Wikipedia:

Windows XP Professional x64 Edition is in fact an edition of Windows Server 2003. Both Windows Server 2003 x64 and Windows XP Professional x64 Edition use identical kernels and are built based on the same code bases.[2] Although based on the Windows Server 2003 code base, Windows XP Professional x64 Edition does include client features of 32-bit Windows XP such as System Restore, Windows Messenger, Fast User Switching, Welcome Screen, Security Center, Games, etc. which Windows Server 2003 does not have.

Windows XP Professional x64 Edition is not to be confused with Windows XP 64-bit Edition, as the latter was designed for Intel Itanium processors.[3][4] During the initial development phases, Windows XP Professional x64 Edition was named Windows XP 64-Bit Edition for 64-Bit Extended Systems

 

[c627627]

OK so Microsoft Windows XP Professional x64 Edition is the one to use on non Itanium chips?


Since most of us do not use Itanium chips - stay away from the non-Professional Windows XP 64-Bit?