Time to replace my Windows XP...what next?

hanwellmike

I just bought a Windows 7 laptop from PC World Business. All of the laptops I looked at in the shops were Windows 8 and most were touchscreen which I did not want. The Win 7 laptops are mostly sold as "business" laptops so I bought from PC World Business. I assume they do Win 7 desktops as well.

I know I am buying older technology but I am happy with the Lenovo E130 laptop that I got. No learning curve and all my existing software loads no problem.

PenguinJim

@hanwellmike It's strange that you would go out of your way to avoid a touchscreen. What you could have done about the learning curve is "ignore it", if the idea of tapping = left click, holding = right click really is too much of a challenge.

If a program ever comes out in future that makes brilliant use of touch, now you'll be left out.

mark_steps, is Windows XP stopping you from doing anything specifically? No need to replace something that's working just fine! If you're just looking for a new Windows for its own sake, take your time and wait for a good deal.

poppellerant

PenguinJim wrote: »

If a program ever comes out in future that makes brilliant use of touch, now you'll be left out.

I'd have thought that if such a program was to be released, it would have done by now. Touch screens have been around for a long time, just not at a price where the majority could afford it.

kwikbreaks

I put up with finger greasy screens on phones and tablets because I have no choice but I hate using a laptop or PC with greasy finger marks on the screen. Children seem to be just about totally unable to keep their fingers off them.

Touch apps on tablets are fine but I see virtually no need for them on PCs - if touch is good enough to fully control an app then use it on a tablet.

I find Windows 8.1 is quick to bring up the desktop but there is still a shedload of stuff going on in the background for quite a while making it pretty unresponsive during that period. Thecut down touch version doesn't run normal PC programs atall and is tablet only. There was a very good reason netbooks ran XP initially - they didn't have the grunt to run Win 7. When higher power ones came along with Win 7 it was acut down version.

I think most XP generation machines would struggle running either Win 7 or 8. They would certainly not perform as well. I have two netbook class machines running XP and have no plans to putany other operating system on either. That said they are not in regular use for normal PC use - one runs 24x7 just running and uploading a weather station and the other rarely gets turned on.

If it's a mainstream use machine then chrome + a free AV on XP behind a router is probably the most sensible way forward. It may be slightly more susceptible to attack but one on Win 8.1 with the best security software in the world would still be more vulnerable if the person operating it was unaware of basic precautions with email attachments, downloads, etc.

NiftyDigits

kwikbreaks wrote: »

I put up with finger greasy screens on phones and tablets because I have no choice but I hate using a laptop or PC with greasy finger marks on the screen. Children seem to be just about totally unable to keep their fingers off them.

Touch apps on tablets are fine but I see virtually no need for them on PCs - if touch is good enough to fully control an app then use it on a tablet.

I find Windows 8.1 is quick to bring up the desktop but there is still a shedload of stuff going on in the background for quite a while making it pretty unresponsive during that period. Thecut down touch version doesn't run normal PC programs atall and is tablet only. There was a very good reason netbooks ran XP initially - they didn't have the grunt to run Win 7. When higher power ones came along with Win 7 it was acut down version.

I think most XP generation machines would struggle running either Win 7 or 8. They would certainly not perform as well. I have two netbook class machines running XP and have no plans to putany other operating system on either. That said they are not in regular use for normal PC use - one runs 24x7 just running and uploading a weather station and the other rarely gets turned on.

If it's a mainstream use machine then chrome + a free AV on XP behind a router is probably the most sensible way forward. It may be slightly more susceptible to attack but one on Win 8.1 with the best security software in the world would still be more vulnerable if the person operating it was unaware of basic precautions with email attachments, downloads, etc.

My Acer Aspire ZG5 from 2008 runs Windows 7 Starter smoothly and easily.
Perhaps your Netbooks predate mine.

kwikbreaks

NiftyDigits wrote: »

My Acer Aspire ZG5 from 2008 runs Windows 7 Starter smoothly and easily.
Perhaps your Netbooks predate mine.

I already covered that -

There was a very good reason netbooks ran XP initially - they didn't have the grunt to run Win 7. When higher power ones came along with Win 7 it was acut down version.

EdGasket

I've only recently upgraded to XP from windows 2000 lol. Used Windows 2000 until the beginning of this year as it did everything I wanted. I used firefox, Avira free anti-virus, and malwarebytes and never had a problem.

No need to upgrade XP; I expect to be using it for at least another 5 years!

NiftyDigits

kwikbreaks wrote: »

I already covered that -

Actually, you didn't.

Mine came with Linux Lite. I installed XP at a later date, then Windows 7 Starter in April this year.

So it was not ever supplied with Windows 7 Starter. It predates the introduction of Windows 7 by more than a year.

kwikbreaks

You are still running a cutdown windows 7 on it and in any event it was bought well over a year after the launch of Vista.

I'd guess that anybody still running an XP machine isn't one who buys cutting edge kit. That means that large numbers of those XP machines are going to be budget kit running old Celerons and low end Pentiums and probably with 1GB or often less of ram. To my mind there is no financial point in upgrading the memory and putting a later windows on them - it makes more sense to stick with XP or install some version of Linux - making sure you have an image of the old XP system ready to restore if (or morelikely when) you get sick of Linux.

NiftyDigits

kwikbreaks wrote: »

You are still running a cutdown windows 7 on it and in any event it was bought well over a year after the launch of Vista.

I'd guess that anybody still running an XP machine isn't one who buys cutting edge kit. That means that large numbers of those XP machines are going to be budget kit running old Celerons and low end Pentiums and probably with 1GB or often less of ram. To my mind there is no financial point in upgrading the memory and putting a later windows on them - it makes more sense to stick with XP or install some version of Linux - making sure you have an image of the old XP system ready to restore if (or morelikely when) you get sick of Linux.

Seems that you refuse to accept that you could be wrong.

Windows 7 Starter has the same minimum requirements as the full version.
Netbooks don't need to have the same functionality as a full blown laptop or PC.

My PC, the one that I am using to post right now, is from 2007. It came with XP Home SP2 pre-installed. It has a Celeron D360 single core processor.

Spent £30 upgrading the RAM to 2GB and installing dedicated Graphics.

Now running Windows 7 Home Premium smoothly and speedily. Use it to stream my FULL HD material amongst other things.

Also tested the rig with Windows 8. No issues at all.