What made Windows XP so good?

What made Windows XP so good?

Attached: untitled.png (750x600, 323K)

Nostalgiafags

Consistency and Hierarchy

It just works.

Windows XP was basically the fixed version of Windows 2000.
All the development, testing, and enterprise usage that went into Windows 2000 is what made Windows XP what it is.
Almost like Vista and WIndows 7
Both Windows 2000 and Vista would the start to a new major version of NT. Windows 2000 being NT 5.0 and Vista being 6.0. Those early versions would help cement and stabilize some of Microsoft's best OS releases with Windows XP and NT 5.1 and Windows 7 which was NT 6.1

People who don't care about the OS and who don't want to be bothered learning a new UI and the new features of vista/7/8/10 just to check facebook, play whatever game, or shitpost on Jow Forums

Attached: 1545092781101.jpg (250x250, 31K)

It was around for a long time

that's not what he's asking

You're talking about the reasons for using XP today and he's asking what improvements it made over other iterations

it was windows xp. it did lots of new things.

thank you

Sorry XP fag but he asked why it was "good", it's not that good, so I'm giving a reason as to why it's perceived as good. If he wanted to know why it was better than win2000 he would ask "what made XP better than 2000"
Even if he did mean what you're saying, it's his fault for writing it in a way that multiple people misunderstood the question.

Attached: 1545522560839.jpg (602x500, 80K)

it's your dad

He was obviously using past tense you autist

Attached: consider_the_animu.png (1000x1000, 264K)

It was better than Vista and was out for so long it was extremely fast and snappy on all computers near the end of its life.

it was never good. i remember it being prone to malware

i would come home from high school and there would be pop up of shit porn on my monitor that my mom could see

Attached: 1ae29175d13c3a9e9a77f773150a0739.jpg (1279x1357, 112K)

What made windows 10 so good?

Nothing. It's shit.

Windows 10 is out right now and usable and supported. Don't know what you're on about.

XP sucked. It was slow and shitty when it came out. But there was unbelievable software support for it, so whatever problems it had (like no thumbnails in detail view) it was added with a plugin. No tabbed explorer? QTTabbars. Win NT was actually good, ME, 98 plus edition, 95, and Vista all sucked.

It was designed by Fisher Price

No botnet. Doesn't crash.
X64, if they'd have added better 32-bit support fpr games would have made it god-tier.
Sadly, greed and the need to spy on people and pay pajeet $1.00 a day killed M$, or rather will kill it.

Just like 7 is now considered the best os. For it's time it "just worked" with none of the "UAC prompts from hell", spying bullshit, useless store shit, etc that is ripe in windows ten. Consider: at release the specs called for a single core cpu at 300 mhz, 64mb ram, and 3gb hdd. At eol in 2014 most cpu's could hit 3ghz w/4 cores and 4GB ram was common. 2+TB hdd was common as well. The sad thing about windows 7 is that consumers will never get the experience of hitting the 192GB ram limit, I think most run 16gb, before the end of life date in 2020.

Your phone has more raw power than most computers did in 2001 (XP release)

speed. even on a garbage cpu like a p4 and a 5400 rpm drive, xp was twice as fast at simply navigating the OS than windows 10 with an i7 and an ssd

Attached: econobox_18.jpg (640x480, 46K)

Time. XP was a bloated, malware ridden pig at launch. XP RTM needed 1.5GB of HDD and my whole disk was 2GB.

Joke's on you, poorfag

Fuck off retard.

>He uses WinXP to download porn.

>it was never good. i remember it being prone to malware
Lol malware has been been at it's prime since 2016.

I was twelve.

kek

>was

That ain't nothing; Ten sucks up almost 16GB. For what exactly? Really, what is different about the normal shit people do every day on a computer then (2001) to now 2018? Chances are nothing, They still use internet, e-mail, games, office, financial shit,etc the same. The only difference is the reliance of online services and that is something that was already baked in XP via IE or easy added on (Chrome/Firefox).

Windows 2000
Xp was dumbed down fisher pryce looking shit ui ontop
This.
Shame windows is regressing and getting worse 10 is getting more and more buggy and unstable
>put out the October update in December because it's so broken

>XP RTM needed 1.5GB of HDD and my whole disk was 2GB
Seriously? Jesus christ even my family's Win98 machine came with a 4GB HDD

>Xp was dumbed down fisher pryce looking shit ui ontop
>He can't into windows classic theme.

Winsxs. Microsoft created a maze of DLL copies to solve the DLL hell and that takes up a lot of space

well, when i had xp there was no good anti-malware software. This was before malwarebytes

Attached: sakura face.webm (1920x1080, 2.9M)

So a system put in place for compatibility for legacy applications which over time has added more and more layers of legacy support with each Windows release
I seriously wonder how many people are still using Win95 era shit to actually warrant this

>Win95 era
You can't go that far back on Windows. One of the reasons I dabbed into Linux is because wine can, though. W7 wouldn't run this old game I wanted to play when my friends visited, because it has a 16bit installer.

I guess even XP era software is badly designed and need ugly hacks to work. Microsoft actually encouraged sloppy programming.

this
t. loved XP
really though, XP was just made around the time everyone was really hopping onto the internet and the internet was actually fun. I can understand all the nostalgia for it.

The good times you had with it

Being a slightly worsened windows 2000

There is no reason why you can't go back that far
16bit apps can even still work in Windows 10 but you have to be using a 32bit version of Windows

The lack of competition. Apple and penguin were to obscure and the internet less developed yet more free.

Windows 7 wasnt out yet.

>single core cpu at 300 mhz, 64mb ram, and 3gb hdd. At eol in 2014 most cpu's could hit 3ghz w/4 cores and 4GB ram was common. 2+TB hdd was common as well.

Sandy bridge had full support for it, that shit flew with XP on it.
Ultimately what made it so great was it being stable enough to do what it needed to do with a good UI and without getting in your face with shit you don't want too much.
As time went on and hardware blew past the original target, it only solidified as a decently stable choice for an OS.

I can bet you right now that if it had continued kernel, security development and software support, without many other changes it would still be in high use today.

Vista final AKA windows 7 is only the new XP in the way it supports more software before MS went full retard, it's still not that great.

XP at launch was an unstable and bloated piece of shit that only got good beginning with Service Pack 2. It only got better with time.

Absolutely nothing.

Sandy may have supported Windows XP but Windows XP sure as hell didn't support Sandy Bridge just by virtue of XP (in the form that we all know) was 32Bit

I used XP64 on it and it was pretty solid. I think it's 32bit support could have been better but I also think 32bit was kept around wayyyyyy too long in windows land. That shit should have been ousted as fast as 16 bit was just for the sake of not needing two versions of every shared library bloating out the OS till the end of time.

XP64 had a bad run because OEM's weren't ready with drivers, and by the time they were it's reputation was in the toilet. The exact same thing happened with Vista, only that time tweaking some shit and re-releasing it as 7 was enough to drop the bad name.

>but I also think 32bit was kept around wayyyyyy too long in windows land
It was kept around for so long as 32bit would prove to be good enough for what people would want to do for the next decade and a half

IIS 6 on Server 2003 was the fastest web stack ever.

It was before sweaty balls Ballmer came and fucked everything up.

You didn't have CS back then?

Almost all the things i used windows for today uses 32 bit exe's.

the only standout being steam and firefox.

heck even most games not made in the last 5/3 years use 32bit. nothing wrong with 32 bit. not all programs need a 64bit extension. or could ever need to use the 64bit extensions and Im pretty sure 32 bit programs can address more than 4 gb of ram.

There was such a huge jump in UI visual design. I don't think we'll ever see it on that level for such a major product again. It made it feel like way more of a tech leap than it actually was.

God 64 bit edition was shit. No drivers. No flash.

This. Also, up until Windows XP, all the consumer editions of Windows (95, 98, ME, etc.), which the majority of people had, were based on Windows 9x, which utilized MS-DOS hence the unstable and crash-prone nature. Whereas Windows NT, which were aimed at professional and business customers, was more stable and reliable. Windows XP was the first edition where Microsoft ditched the 9x technology and merged NT into the low-end consumer market. This is why everyone has fond memories of Windows XP being more stable and less BSOD crashes.

Attached: __bowsette_new_super_mario_bros_u_deluxe_and_etc_drawn_by_shikitani_asuka__048e88aa7b67d052e67c7013e (700x979, 535K)

It's pretty minimal compared to newer versions

This, an XP machine with 512mb of ram is fast asf.

Experience.

>Winsxs
>maze of DLL copies
>copies
Please learn what a hardlink is.

I'm aware 32bit was good enough, and worked for what most programs needed to do, my point was by keeping it around as a primary target you need to have 2x the shared libraries on you system, one for each bitness and now have to do 2x the testing to make sure they work correctly everywhere as remember 32bit can't link with 64bit stuff.

Hard pushing for pure 64bit would have helped reduce on maintenance and bloat for the next few years, only needing 32 bit support for

it was itanium, not x86_64, wasnt it?

this. sp3 was the best os, and firefox 3.6.28 was the best browser

This, really. Even with Windows 10's spying and shit, inventions like ASLR and automated defrag make Windows XP super obsolete. I absolutely do not want to touch it anymore.

And the whole UXTheme Patcher is actually kind of a security risk now that I know how NOP sleds work. If a malicious msstyles was loaded into Windows Shell, you'd be fucked on XP. We all got SUPER lucky there that no one exploited that.

Compared with XP? Full ASLR enforcement and built-in antimalware, for starters.

Underage

>Ten sucks up almost 16GB. For what exactly?
Legacy support and abstraction layers, probably. So you don't have to bust out a timings chart whenever you want to write a ring 3 app. You can just use C# and have your app hit native performance on bare metal.

More like 9x software. Especially stuff written between 1991-1997. Those have all sorts of timing hacks that depend on bugs found in Windows editions from that time frame. 1999 is when stuff started getting fixed.

Nothing. Windows 2000 is the master race of Windows. Everything since have been nothing but regressions. I sometimes think it would be nice if development of Windows 2000 was restarted, with a newer kernel, newer dx, vulkan, and opengl, the benefits of UAC, and Hyper-V. None of the lameness we now have with Win10.

Until the 2nd service pack it was quite bad actually
And the fact vista bombed made xp last longer than it was supposed to

People say hardlinks, but back when I was struggling with a very small C: partition, clearing out WinSxS gave me a lot more free space to play with. Makes me wonder if there is a lot more than hardlinks in there.