| |
| ▲ | roytam87 30 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | My browsers[1] still target XP and developing in Win7. [1] https://msfn.org/board/topic/185966-my-browser-builds-part-5... | |
| ▲ | dataflow 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What I don't understand is... why? I understand keeping alive software for the sake of hardware compatibility, but browsing the web and running Discord? Is it all really just to save a few hundred dollars over... 24 years? | | |
| ▲ | robinsonb5 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Perhaps because the level of respect that Windows has for its users has dropped with each successive version? Not to mention bloat: I have a keyboard with a dedicated calculator button. On a machine with Core i5 something or other and SSD it takes about 2 seconds for the calculator to appear the first time I push that button. On the Core 2 Duo machine that preceded it, running XP from spinning rust, the calculator would appear instantly - certainly before I can release the button. But also WinXP was the OS a lot of people used during their formative years - don't underestimate the power of nostalgia. Also, for some people the very fact that Microsoft don't want you to would be reason enough! Personally if I were into preserving old Windows versions I'd be putting my effort into Win2k SP4, since it's the last version that doesn't need activating.
(I did have to activate a Vista install recently - just a VM used to keep alive some legacy software whose own activation servers are but a distant memory. It's still possible, but you can't do it over the phone any more, and I couldn't find any way to do it without registering a Microsoft account.) | | |
| ▲ | refulgentis 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | “On the Core 2 Duo machine that preceded it, running XP from spinning rust, the calculator would appear instantly - certainly before I can release the button.” This reminds me that there’s an NBA rule that disallows any basket made after a clock stoppage with 300ms or less in the clock - i.e. if player A managed to pass to player B who then attempted a shot, it’s impossible for all that to occur before 300 ms has elapsed. Meaning, I’m sure you remember it fully launched, 100% certainly before the key came back up from your press, but that is impossible. | | |
| ▲ | mikkupikku 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Your comment reminds me of that rule from baseball that says something about batters and hats, or maybe it was about helmets or something, it doesn't really matter though because the only point of this sports ball rambling is to distract you from noticing that my "nuh uh" has no substance. Did it work? | | |
| ▲ | refulgentis 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is more than a bit out of place on HN in my experience, please, try to engage politely. I’m not sure what I can say that will qualify as more than “nuh uh” to you, shy of getting a Core 2 Duo running with XP and the same keyboard as OP. That isn’t possible at the moment, is there anything else I could do? | | |
| ▲ | actionfromafar 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | 300ms is a lot of time, especially if the calculator.exe was in disk cache already. | | |
| ▲ | refulgentis 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | 300 ms is a long time on a computer, definitely. Just, the autistic side of me has to speak up when it’s wildly unrealistic glorification of the past. Keypress duration is likely much less than 300 ms, top Google result claims 77 ms on average. And that’s down and up. I see it being in cache already as sort of game playing, i.e. we can say anything is instant if we throw a cache in front of it. Am I missing something about caching that makes it reasonable? (I’m 37, so only 18 around that time and wouldn’t have had the technical chops to understand it was normal for things to be in disk cache after a cold boot) | | |
| ▲ | do_not_redeem 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Okay, let's say the cache is cold and you're on an old clunky spinning rust 5400 RPM hard drive. Do the math. How long will it take, worst case, for the platter to spin to where calc.exe is stored? | | |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | OsrsNeedsf2P 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why is it impossible? | | |
| ▲ | refulgentis 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Tl;dr reaction time, 300 ms is the golden rule for reaction speed, and apparently there was actually a sports medicine study that came to that #. I was surprised to see that, 300 ms comes up a lot in UX as “threshold of perceptible delay” but it was still surprising to see. | | |
| ▲ | yjftsjthsd-h 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I was curious, so did a quick web search, which claims that 300ms is the average reaction time and plenty of people run faster than that. But I think the question was the other way: Why couldn't calc.exe launch in 300ms? | | |
| ▲ | refulgentis 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | 300 ms is way longer than they budgeted; separately, I was alive then and it's a ridiculous claim, like, it takes a general bias we all have towards seeing the past with rose-colored glasses and takes it farcically far. Don't want to clutter too much, I'm already eating downvotes, so I'll link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46642003 |
| |
| ▲ | jcelerier 25 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | yeah no. Ask musicians using computers - 50 milliseconds of latency between sound and movement is generally considered unplayable, 20 milliseconds is tough, below 10ms usually is where people start being unable to tell. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | p1necone 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The high point is a toss up between XP and 7 for me, but imo Windows UX peaked then (although the 98 visual style is peak for nostalgia) and has either stayed the same or gotten worse ever since. Personally I just switched to using Linux full time as soon as gaming compatibility became basically the same as Windows but I totally understand why you'd want to maintain the ability to use older Windows versions. | |
| ▲ | efskap 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A lot of medical devices still run XP as well unfortunately, because of old proprietary software for expensive equipment that doesn't receive updates anymore. | |
| ▲ | acuozzo 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Familiarity, I suppose. I'm not a part of the Windows XP community, but I've gotten close. I love that I can make it look just like Windows 2000 and that I know where all the little knobs and dials are. I can get a Windows XP installation configured to be exactly as I want it to be very quickly and I know it won't suddenly change on me. | |
| ▲ | jlarocco an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Why not? I strongly prefer Linux, but if somebody wants to use Windows, why not use XP? It was definitely a better user experience. I stopped using Windows at work as Win7 was rolling out but got another job using it again as Win11 started rolling out. Having missed out on the slow decline, it's very obvious to me how much better the older Windows were. The new ones have a dumpster fire UI with built-in advertising that shoves Microsoft web crap and AI down your throat at every chance. | |
| ▲ | badsectoracula 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with money and plenty to do with the same reasons as people who preserve Commodore 64s, Amigas and DOS and Win9x PCs. | |
| ▲ | userbinator 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It may be more savings than that, if you count all the hours wasted with fixing things that broke in a newer version or finding workarounds that will never be as efficient. | |
| ▲ | unleaded 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's fun and interesting. most people don't actually daily drive it | |
| ▲ | reactordev 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Wait till everything you do is exfiltrated by copilot… |
| |
| ▲ | userbinator 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There's a Windows 9x community too, although maybe not as large. |
|
