# Microsoft XP



## Robie (Feb 25, 2005)

I got a new computer a little while ago and have Windows 7. My old laptop was Windows XP and I used WORD 2002. The files open but there is some kind of snag I haven't figured out yet. I have to be in WORD to open any older files.


----------



## RCCIdaho (Jun 3, 2011)

I have W7 installed on my computer and use XP when neede via the free VMWare Player. That way I don't have to switch machines. Just fire up the virtual machine and have the best of both worlds on the same desktop. 

The only trouble would be is if your computer is older it might not have the necessary specs to run a virtual machine. But if it does you could clone your current HDD, install W7, and then run your cloned drive in the VM, not have it connected to the internet, and still run all of your legacy programs.


----------



## cbscreative (Dec 17, 2008)

My recommendation is Win7 Pro. You'll have very little adjustment needed from XP and the differences will quickly grow on you. There were a few minor differences I wish they wouldn't have changed but 7 Pro is a solid OS. Win8 is not really ideal for desktop or laptop and I'm in the majority of people who don't like it.

You also shouldn't have any issues with programs not running on Win7 and Compatibility Mode should suffice if it does happen. Worst case, upgrade to a new version and it will run on 7. I expected a lot more issues when going from a 32 bit to 64 bit computing but was pleasantly surprised at how few bugs I experienced in older software. The one graphics program I needed to update was good because I wanted to upgrade anyway.

On the issue of MS Office, the only reason to upgrade is if you're getting Excel files from outside sources and need to be able to open them. Otherwise upgrading is a waste of money. I'm still using XP 2002 because I have no need of the bells and whistles. Word processing is word processing to me. The old versions do everything needed and it runs flawlessly on 7. If you create files to send to others, the new software will open your files just fine. With the Compatibility Pack you can open files created in newer versions of Office with the caveat of Excel. The older Excel does not like newer Excel files but everything else is fine.


----------



## thesidingpro (Jun 7, 2007)

Another vote for windows 7.

I'd recommend upgrading to office 2010 though. Much more user friendly and with 2013 out now it's pretty cheap.

I never buy upgrade versions. I only buy the full software. Nothing worse than being stuck in upgraded versions because you wanted to save $50.

I built my current PC and bought the OEM version's for like 120.00/piece. As much as I use them it's well worth it.


----------



## cbscreative (Dec 17, 2008)

One question I forgot to ask is if you're just upgrading an existing computer or getting a new one. An older computer will be 32 bit so you'll need the 32 bit version of 7 Pro. Be sure to check the system requirements. I have one older 2007 computer next to mine in the office that handles 7 Pro just fine since upgrading almost 3 years ago, but it hasn't been quiet since the upgrade. It used to run so quiet you couldn't hear it. The new OS kicked up the fan speed a lot so it took some getting used to. It runs fine, just not quiet.

If you're getting a new computer, the new processors will handle the load and not make noise doing it. My computer is so quiet you can't hear it at all.


----------



## QCCI (Jan 28, 2013)

I'm getting a new computer. There is a local computer store here, that I have been buying from since the mid 90's, they are going to build one for me. I called the store earlier and luckily I got the guy I wanted to talk to, he's the one who goes out and does the installs. He is very knowledgeable and takes the time to explain everything in detail, so it helps in my decision making.

I am on a server, so I don't need a huge hard drive. Buy I am looking for speed! He told me about an SSD hard drive, I think that's what it was.

I wasn't really wanting to upgrade office, but I purchased some software recently that requires 2007 excel. I haven't installed it yet, just been busy and was waiting until I upgraded. So sounds like maybe 2010 office might be my best bet or should I just go ahead and go for 2013. I really only use outlook, word and excel.


----------



## cbscreative (Dec 17, 2008)

I'm thinking 2010 on Office but if the price difference isn't too much then just go for 2013.

Yes, the solid state drive is FAST and there's no moving parts so it's highly unlikely to ever crash. The prices have dropped a LOT recently too. I'm glad you have someone to provide technical assistance, that is very useful because there is a lot to know when making a decision like this. And a custom build is definitely the way to go.


----------



## QCCI (Jan 28, 2013)

Thanks for the input!


----------



## thesidingpro (Jun 7, 2007)

Yea I upgraded my main drive to SSD over the summer and noticed huge improvements. Probably the single best upgrade you can do if your still have HHD.

I'm a pretty advanced user but i'd say most contractors just using office and quickbooks won't notice much of difference other than start up and load times.


----------



## Exlud (Jun 23, 2013)

I built a new desktop about two years ago. Initially I was running Slackware Linux, but trying to get windows programs to work properly was too much of an issue. I've since installed Windows 7 on it and I think it is an improvement on XP. Also I'm not quite sure that newer versions of some software (AutoCAD, etc.) would have worked properly on XP. My SO recently picked up a laptop that has Windows 8 on it, and I hate it. Somehow it seems that Windows takes one step backwards with every other release...98 good, 2000 bad, XP good, Vista bad, 7 good, 8 bad....


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

cbscreative said:


> Yes, the solid state drive is FAST and there's no moving parts so it's highly unlikely to ever crash.


Not true. Flash is good for X many read / write cycles, then it croaks. Some of these flash drives have died after a few months. Reliability on them is hard to calculate, since it's very dependent on the details of use.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

hdavis said:


> Not true. Flash is good for X many read / write cycles, then it croaks. Some of these flash drives have died after a few months. Reliability on them is hard to calculate, since it's very dependent on the details of use.


 I read you should see 10+ years from the better quality drives with the system on 24/7 and used 8 hrs a day. I bought the 840pro as for its price it can't be beat. I thought about a PCI-e version but the cost was way more and for what I do I wouldn't see any increase in speed. The only bad thing is the size $per GB currently. I still have to keep 90% of my stuff on a set of standard drives.


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

Kent Whitten said:


> I don't see a problem continuing using it. I think Leo still uses 98, or did until recently.
> 
> Windows 7 is what I use. 8 I hear takes a little getting used to.


Leo does not use Win98. He has a computer in his shop with that configuration because it works for printing and simple stuff.

He has a Dell laptop with XP SP3 on it. :whistling


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

And I don't worry about XP not having security updates. I don't upgrade as it is because 1/2 the time it screws something up. Last upgrade was to SP3 because I was forced to because of a program that required it.

I have a version of Symantec that is old and out of date and won't update anymore. But I have plenty of other protection and I don't worry about it.

Until this computer craps out I'm on XP


----------



## Kent Whitten (Mar 24, 2006)

Leo is now talking in third person about himself :laughing:


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

Leo is not.


----------



## SectorSecurity (Nov 26, 2013)

hdavis said:


> Not true. Flash is good for X many read / write cycles, then it croaks. Some of these flash drives have died after a few months. Reliability on them is hard to calculate, since it's very dependent on the details of use.


Its not that cut and dry, there are a bunch of wear leveling algorithms running on the drive which help to keep the read writes spread across all the chips. 

They also have the ability to mark cells as bad and avoid them, so a single dead or dying cell does not cripple the entire drive.

The flash memory is tested at the factory, the better chips make their way into SSD's and the chips which don't do so well go into USB keys. 

There was a very interesting talk at DefCon 21 I believe about SSD's and forensic recovery. There is firmware on the drive which is constantly trimming and moving data as long as the drive has power to keep things functioning. 

SSD's have their place, I like them for booting my system, anything requiring major I/O's and speed goes either on a RAID array or a 1TB hard drive. 

I do second running XP in a VM if you only need to run an app or two, no need for a dedicated machine to be running isolated, you can isolate the VM from the network.


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

SectorSecurity said:


> Its not that cut and dry, there are a bunch of wear leveling algorithms running on the drive which help to keep the read writes spread across all the chips.
> 
> They also have the ability to mark cells as bad and avoid them, so a single dead or dying cell does not cripple the entire drive.


Yes, which is part of the reason why I said flash, as opposed to SSD. Some SSDs have terrible track records, some have good ones. Details of use of the flash chips - and some chips are better than others. AFAIK, all flash chips are designed with extra columns and a bad cell results in the column being replaced at initial testing of the individual chip.

I'm all for SSDs, but you have to take reliability claims with a bag of salt.


----------



## superseal (Feb 4, 2009)

I'm running XP on a DELL 8300 I purchased in "03" :blink: I really need to upgrade too I suppose. 

No mentions of IMac...was thinking of going this route since I'm already Ipoded, padded and phoned out. 

I wonder if I could still access older works files...any insight on this fellas. Are the IMacs as good as others say they are?


----------



## TWhite (Oct 29, 2013)

I have used Macs for over 30 years. I bought a new iMac a year ago and it works great. I just installed a ScanSnap scanner yesterday to help my go to an almost paperless office. I will report back on that as it progresses.


----------

