I remember an real old german Proverb about Windows XP:

Windows XP. Gesehen, gelacht, Alt-F8.
Translated:
Windows XP, Seen, Laughed at, Alt-F8

Alt-F8 was a way to deinstall WinXP.

Chrispy_Based on WinXP and W7 ESU, you don't want to do this - it's more expensive than replacing your hardware to be compatible with whatever the current OS is. In this case, you'll need a TPM 2.0 module, likely enforced this time rather than "optional" in W11 with workarounds or Enterprise versions.

Realistically, there's a 3-6 month period between W12 launching and W10 going EOL, so most people have time to decide if they want to skip 11 entirely or avoid 12 until Microsoft make it less bad, depending on what state W12 launches in. Let's face it, Windows 11 was a bit of a disaster at launch - it took until the October 2022 patch to make it a valid successor to 10 (1 year after launch and almost 18 months after first public preview buids).

That assumes they plan to go into extended support for the old OS because of old hardware. What if they want to stay on the old OS because they don't want to use the new one.
It is quite possible they already have hardware that supports it.
It's not always about the cheapest method to stay up-to-date with security patches. Sometimes it's about the ability to continue using a known-good environment.

lexluthermiesterNot laughing AT you, just laughing because that is both amusing and, barbecue Windows on ARM is becoming a much better thing, possible.

Reason perhaps not to rush the next PC purchase?

ShrekReason perhaps not to rush the next PC purchase?

No, feel free to buy a new PC or upgrade if you need better performance.

lexluthermiesterNo, feel free to buy a new PC or upgrade if you need better performance.

Hi,
Yeah really hell my old lappy was from 2009 lol
Still works "battery is shot only works plugged in" but core2duo with 3gb memory does fine on win-10 pro 32 bit but my new one is pretty nice.
I was way overdue for a upgrade.

lexluthermiesterNo, feel free to buy a new PC or upgrade if you need better performance.

I hope I can be forgiven for keeping my 'model T' on the road :)

ThrashZoneI was way overdue for a upgrade.

Oh good grief yes you were!

ShrekI hope I can be forgiven for keeping my 'model T' on the road :)

Yeah, your Core2Quad is getting dated..

progstethe joke was more like: xp-good, vista-bad, 7-good, 8-bad, 10-?
I wouldn't say 10 managed to be good, it's just 7 with updates and DX12 and a lot of added bloat, but sure it wasn't as bad as 8 or 11.

vista was bad for losers with their pentiums and celerons...

ShrekAnd therein lies my dilemma, a Core 2 Quad with a solid state drive is good and snappy.

It's not "officially" supported and is old hardware. Granted, you know me, I'm all for using the hardware you have in the way you want too, but at this point in time a Core2Quad is showing it's age more than just a little bit. While you know I've tested running a C2Q with Win11 and it runs well, I did it only to see if it could be done, not to daily drive it. The Core2 line up really should be considered a retro platform for running XP. If you want to get into something reasonably modern, X79 is a good platform to fall back on.

Never really had a problem with windows. I just use what is available, not a chance of me running linux, too much farting about. Never had any trouble with 11, ran it since i built this rig in nov 21, with not a single BSOD(no lie) Not switching around win vers for a few more or less fps, if you have a high end rig, your game performace should be good enough anyway. Not really a great fan of all the AI crap though, if i wanted that, i'd just take a massive OD and get myself put on life support. I'll certainly take a look at 12 though and if its a bot sausage i'll just stick to 11.

AleXXX666vista was bad for losers with their pentiums and celerons...

Vista was bad on any processor, including my AMD Athlon and My Intel Core 2 Duo both with 4 GB of RAM and decent GPUs.
Vista was not only slow but also buggy and unstable, I tried to use it for a few years but it never got any better.
When I moved to windows 7 with the same hardware it was like night and day.

progsteVista was bad on any processor, including my AMD Athlon and My Intel Core 2 Duo both with 4 GB of RAM and decent GPUs.
Vista was not only slow but also buggy and unstable, I tried to use it for a few years but it never got any better.
When I moved to windows 7 with the same hardware it was like night and day.

No, Alex is correct. It was neither buggy nor unstable by the time Service Pack 2 released, quite contrary, and it was just as snappy as 7 ever was. On adequate hardware and equipped with a SSD, it was a very enjoyable OS, and I dare say better than whatever garbage 10 or 11 Microsoft has us deal with today. I believe that it's probably where Windows peaked as an OS entirely, and if you ask my personal opinion, Windows Vista Ultimate was probably the most complete edition of Windows that Microsoft has ever shipped. Windows 7 is nothing but a reskinned and slightly stripped version of Vista, the highlight essentially being the WDDM 1.1 improvements and the fact that UAC isn't a "full security" and "no security" toggle anymore, with the middle-ground option being then chosen as the default ever since.

The problem had always lied with OEMs releasing computers that were simply not powerful enough to provide a decent experience. I recall my mom had a 2 GHz, single-core AMD Turion64 laptop that was sold as "Vista Capable" that shipped with Home Basic and 512 MB of RAM. If I recall correctly it had a Radeon Xpress chipset or something like that, and it was barely fast enough to run Aero. That's why Vista "sucks". These were the computers the largest majority of people had at the time, and these were good for Windows XP at best.

By early 2007, the fastest computers you could buy were equipped with the Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Extreme QX9700, a little later with the original AMD Phenom processor. Needless to say those processors that we fondly look as relics of the past today were insanely high end and insanely expensive beyond the means of the vast majority of people at the time.

Hi,
Yeah I like the word play here
www.elevenforum.com/t/microsoft-delivering-copilot-for-everyone.22279/

Issue is deliveries not ordered can be refused or returned to shipper
This crapware is forced because in normal means can only be turned off
www.elevenforum.com/t/enable-or-disable-windows-copilot-in-windows-11.17045/

GerKNG"AI" = everything you do gets evaluated and analyzed in our cloud and by our marketing partners.

yep...the Chinese way

progsteVista was bad on any processor

Not true. After SP1 Vista was very stable and much better on resources. After SP2 it was smooth as glass.

Dr. DroNo, Alex is correct. It was neither buggy nor unstable by the time Service Pack 2 released, quite contrary, and it was just as snappy as 7 ever was. On adequate hardware and equipped with a SSD, it was a very enjoyable OS, and I dare say better than whatever garbage 10 or 11 Microsoft has us deal with today. I believe that it's probably where Windows peaked as an OS entirely, and if you ask my personal opinion, Windows Vista Ultimate was probably the most complete edition of Windows that Microsoft has ever shipped. Windows 7 is nothing but a reskinned and slightly stripped version of Vista, the highlight essentially being the WDDM 1.1 improvements and the fact that UAC isn't a "full security" and "no security" toggle anymore, with the middle-ground option being then chosen as the default ever since.

The problem had always lied with OEMs releasing computers that were simply not powerful enough to provide a decent experience. I recall my mom had a 2 GHz, single-core AMD Turion64 laptop that was sold as "Vista Capable" that shipped with Home Basic and 512 MB of RAM. If I recall correctly it had a Radeon Xpress chipset or something like that, and it was barely fast enough to run Aero. That's why Vista "sucks". These were the computers the largest majority of people had at the time, and these were good for Windows XP at best.

By early 2007, the fastest computers you could buy were equipped with the Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Extreme QX9700, a little later with the original AMD Phenom processor. Needless to say those processors that we fondly look as relics of the past today were insanely high end and insanely expensive beyond the means of the vast majority of people at the time.

Ah yes, the very common SSDs in 2007... you guys can't be serious right?
Not to mention SP2 was released over 2 years after the original Vista and only a few months before 7.
It wasn't just low end laptops and OEMs having issues with Vista.

progsteAh yes, the very common SSDs in 2007... you guys can't be serious right?
Not to mention SP2 was released over 2 years after the original Vista and only a few months before 7.
It wasn't just low end laptops and OEMs having issues with Vista.

Not in 2007, but by 2008 and the time SP2 released, they were beginning to become a thing in higher-end builds. It just proves my point, Vista was released at a point in time where the market just wasn't ready for it. Vista ran well if you had about the most powerful hardware available at the time. But on an average computer? Good luck. That was its only dealbreaker problem. I have a feeling you wouldn't pass the Mojave experiment if it was applied to you even today.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojave_Experiment

Dr. DroNot in 2007, but by 2008 and the time SP2 released, they were beginning to become a thing in higher-end builds. It just proves my point, Vista was released at a point in time where the market just wasn't ready for it. Vista ran well if you had about the most powerful hardware available at the time. But on an average computer? Good luck. That was its only dealbreaker problem. I have a feeling you wouldn't pass the Mojave experiment if it was applied to you even today.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojave_Experiment

Vista was released at a point in time when Vista wasn't ready. The bad reputation was earned in part by the higher requirements but also by the bloat and bugs that they had to fix over the years, no matter how much microsoft moans about their unfair treatment.

Dr. DroNo, Alex is correct. It was neither buggy nor unstable by the time Service Pack 2 released, quite contrary, and it was just as snappy as 7 ever was. On adequate hardware and equipped with a SSD, it was a very enjoyable OS, and I dare say better than whatever garbage 10 or 11 Microsoft has us deal with today. I believe that it's probably where Windows peaked as an OS entirely, and if you ask my personal opinion, Windows Vista Ultimate was probably the most complete edition of Windows that Microsoft has ever shipped. Windows 7 is nothing but a reskinned and slightly stripped version of Vista, the highlight essentially being the WDDM 1.1 improvements and the fact that UAC isn't a "full security" and "no security" toggle anymore, with the middle-ground option being then chosen as the default ever since.

The problem had always lied with OEMs releasing computers that were simply not powerful enough to provide a decent experience. I recall my mom had a 2 GHz, single-core AMD Turion64 laptop that was sold as "Vista Capable" that shipped with Home Basic and 512 MB of RAM. If I recall correctly it had a Radeon Xpress chipset or something like that, and it was barely fast enough to run Aero. That's why Vista "sucks". These were the computers the largest majority of people had at the time, and these were good for Windows XP at best.

By early 2007, the fastest computers you could buy were equipped with the Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Extreme QX9700, a little later with the original AMD Phenom processor. Needless to say those processors that we fondly look as relics of the past today were insanely high end and insanely expensive beyond the means of the vast majority of people at the time.

in Vista times I bought Dell Vostro 500 laptop with Celeron 430 and 1 GB RAM. I slapped in Core2Duo T8100, 2x2GB RAM and SSD. Vista "flied" like ya new Ryzens with Win 11 nowadays...:D

progsteVista was bad on any processor, including my AMD Athlon and My Intel Core 2 Duo both with 4 GB of RAM and decent GPUs.
Vista was not only slow but also buggy and unstable, I tried to use it for a few years but it never got any better.
When I moved to windows 7 with the same hardware it was like night and day.

Hi,
I had vista for like 45 days before I got two free upgrades from the oem's I bought the machines from
Core2duo laptop with 3gb and 32bit
Core2quad mini desktop with 4gb and 64 bit

Both were just fine on either vista or win-7
Worst I noticed on win-7 is libraries bs but vista I thought was just a polished x-p.

AleXXX666I slapped in Core2Duo T8100, 2x2GB RAM and SSD.

SSD's weren't even close to being affordable till at least half a decade later. I get the point that Vista wasn't as bad as it's made out to be but the part about having/needing SSD is BS as well ~ they only started getting mildly affordable around 2012-14 at best & anyone asking you to buy "enthusiast" level tech to make your system better(?) has just lost it!

Hi,
First couple 2.5" sata ssd's I got for win-7 were crucial mx100 128gb and they were nearly 100.us a pop lol
Both still work to this day and last I looked were still at 98% life in my core2duo laptop from 2009 hehe
One I put a winpe recovery media on it to use it instead of a slow flash drive :laugh:

ThrashZoneHi,
First couple 2.5" sata ssd's I got for win-7 were crucial mx100 128gb and they were nearly 100.us a pop lol
Both still work to this day and last I looked were still at 98% life in my core2duo laptop from 2009 hehe
One I put a winpe recovery media on it to use it instead of a slow flash drive :laugh:

wasn't the MX100 released in 2014 or something?
In 2008 you would have payed something like 500$ for 32 GB.

progstewasn't the MX100 released in 2014 or something?
In 2008 you would have payed something like 500$ for 32 GB.

Hi,
I don't remember about then+- yeah.
Linux 17.1 killed a 256gb one I bough a bit later it never ran trim so I had to rma one of two of those.