Thread 106476205

Why did it last so long? What was the formula that worked for 13 whole years?

It didn't last 13 years.
Windows XP had 3 "Service Pack" update.
They were basically as big a jump as going from 8.1 to 10; and then from 10 to 11.

XP SP3 only lasted so long because Vista was a dumspter fire.

WDDM was introduced in vista. from that point XP was dead.

>>106476255
Windows vista was fine by sp2, then 7 came out in 2009 and 8 in 2012, xp was an anomaly

>What was the formula that worked for 13 whole years?
Having it be your main source of income instead of Saas cloud shit

>>106476294
>vista
>fine
pic one

>>106476205 (OP)
It was bad and very heavy, but so much less bad and heavy than the newer versions. That's why. Same story later for 7, same story now for 10. All three are awful actually, but they are so much less bad than the newer ones that they feel good.

>>106476205 (OP)
>Why did it last so long? What was the formula that worked for 13 whole years?
Vista sucked.

>>106476205 (OP)
SP2 was a huge upgrade to the point it could have been marketed as a new retail version if they'd reskinned the UI. Vista bumped up the hardware requirement significantly which a lot of people didn't care for and added a much needed UAC feature but overcooked it and it pissed everyone off that used it.

>>106476471
t. Poorfaggot who couldn’t uprade from his pentium 2 and 16 mb ram

The Service Packs are technically a separate OS. It shouldn't count, but I guess it does.

>>106476205 (OP)
it was the beginning of frutiger aero design. also the first 64-bit windows version. many other reasons too.

>>106476278
Why WDDM specifically? Vista was destined to kill XP for other reasons.

>>106476205 (OP)

13 years noo still humming in next computer
is small

>>106476966
major shift in driver development. IHVs all dropped XP. GPU drivers especially.

>>106476975
What the fuck does this even mean?

>>106476205 (OP)
I went straight from xp to 8

>>106476294
>then 7 came out in 2009
wild, i spent 10 years on 7 and missed xp the whole time. what a fever dream.

>>106476989

it does not get service from isp but otherwise not lacking anything

I caught the variant of blaster called penis.exe on XP, it's the only virus I ever got (that I know about).

Good times.

>>106476981
Thoughts on UWP?

>>106476205 (OP)
>Why did it last so long?
Because Vista sucked and people skipped that
>What was the formula that worked
It was visually new but a different kind of soul. You could also just use classic theme if you weren't into the new style.

>>106476255
>It didn't last 13 years.
It was officially supported one way or another for 18 years (Posready 2009), and I still use it as my daily driver. Not a thing wrong with it unless you're a retarded, tech-illiterate NPC consoomer that can't live without cucking himself out to corporate bloated spyslop 24/7.

>>106476205 (OP)
There was simply no alternative.

>>106476205 (OP)
Snappy and low on resources, colorful and appealing with much customization, best font rendering for clarity. You didn't need more.

>>106481558
>colorful and appealing with much customization
Zoomer detected.

It mostly gave people what they wanted. XP even had a classic mode theme for people that didn’t like the window dressings. It wasn’t riddled with AI garbage, almost all extras could be disabled easily, performance was fine.

>>106481589
You're just boring. Luckily XP gives you the option to be boring.

>>106481680
You're right about that. GUI's set to classic.

>>106476862
>it was the beginning of frutiger aero design
no it fucking wasn't

>>106476862
>also the first 64-bit windows version
Niggers don't know about my Windows 2000.

>>106481929
>Niggers don't know about my Windows 2000.
2000 only supported IA64 (Itanium) XP was the first one to support AMD64

>>106482171
IA64 was 64-bit.

>>106482187
but different architecture which invalidates it since Itanium is dead now

>>106482193
Invalidates what? the claim was "also the first 64-bit windows version".

>>106481929
>>106482171
wtf you guys on? 2000's 64 bit port was never finished and got bumped to XP, is this more of the usual 'pretend I used 2000 to look cool' that people seem to love doing here?

>>106482239
I never used that cpu myself, but you could indeed run 2000 on a 64-bit cpu. That's all there's to it. Nobody looks cool running an OS.

>>106482639
incredibly silly response

>>106476255
>XP SP3 only lasted so long because Vista was a dumspter fire.

Vista was a dumpster fire because it introduced sane security standards that XP lacked, so every app now asked you to run as an admin. And because hardware manufacturers refused to properly support legacy hardware, so even something as a 1 year old motherboard would blue screen. Laptop makers adding Vista Ready stickers to machines that could barely run XP was the cherry on top.

If you had a Core 2 or newer, Vista ran 1000x better than XP.

>>106482639
64bit cpu in general != x64 cpu.

Itanium was 64 bit and could run XP, yes, but it ONLY ran apps specifically compiled for it, nothing else. Meanwhile x64 is just a 64-bit extension for x86 and is nearly fully backwards compatible. Huge difference.

Itanium edition XP may as well not have existed as far as 64-bit editions go.

>>106483190
>64bit cpu in general != x64 cpu.
And who said it was?

This type of retardation is exactly the reason I'd support digital ID for accessing 4chan, the ID being a picture of one's hand.

>>106483610
s/hand/anus/g

>>106476205 (OP)
because microsoft set some ambiguously long service interval like they did with windows 10. you forget that windows 10 came out in 2015

>can be tweaked into a desktop os
>newer kernel
>more stable
>more reliable
>more fps
The Superior Windows XP ™

>>106484236
Not a bad choice, but it's got too many zero usecase services or my taste. I prefer Posready 2009 where I get to choose not to install virtually anything and let it all out to my fav third party applications.

>>106481609
contrary to Vista which was loaded with AI garbage to the brim

>>106484936
>contrary to Vista which was loaded with AI garbage to the brim
Zoomers are losing their shit.

>>106484936
Vista ran slow as shit even on new hardware that supposedly was up to spec, and the only real features it had outwardly were a 3d-rolldex effect on win-tab (engineers tried to copy linux wobbly cube crap), and widgets (engineers tried to copy macos/konfabulator widgets).

OS Security theater was just in its infancy, so you couldn't force people to trash their computer for "critical security updates."

>>106485011
>mfw AI is already rewriting historical records to push itself back

>>106476205 (OP)
Back then your only options were using windows xp or looking like a fag with a mac. Today you still look like a fag with a mac but it's much more accepted.

>>106479845
*GOON* times

>>106476847
Technically schmecnically. In the public's eyes, the Service Packs were still XP. More to the point, you also didn't have to shell out money in order to upgrade between Service Packs-- if you had a copy of XP on a disc printed in 2001, and installed it to a PC, you could then update it all the way to SP3 with no money; all you needed was installation/update time.