Realistically speaking in daily life does anyone use any windows features beyond what XP had to offer?
>>108413611UAC was a critical upgrade along with the modern security features in Vista and later. 64bit was also critical for addressing more than 4GB of RAM (XP64 was only half baked). While XP was 'comfy' in the sense that it was highly compatible and relatively stable, it was surpassed in every way by Windows 7.
>>108413611windows search
window snapping
>>108413611Hyper-V is pretty neat. It allows me to create virtual machines without the need for getting third-party software.
>>108413642These are not features. There are architectural changes users don't interact with.
>>108413694I mean we could then say Dual Screen support, Task Bar on both Monitors, Clock on both monitors task bar etc...>>108413688You're kidding right? Just use Everything.
>>108413611This is one of the dumbest threads I’ve ever seen on this site.
>>108413722Define your goal posts in the OP so you don't have to move them later.
>>108413726>Just use Everythingthat's not a windows feature
>>108413752I mean what the every day user uses. Not the backend shit like Direct X 10,11 not Direct Storage, not UAC, not some random shit I don't even know about.I mean the average User experience. Start. Opening programing, Using Explorer, browsing your disk, doing OS stuff. Search for folders, images, browsing images, all that stuff.So far people have legitimate points.XP did not have any dual screen support.XP did not have windows snapping. XP did not do virtualisation. XP did not have thumbnails of different sizes.
>>108413611Windows XP is still widely used in China.
>>108413611Realistically speaking the only core functions an OS needs to perform is to run the user's software and hardware. From a certain point of view you could say that these core features have been achieved for a very, very long time. On the other hand, an old OS like Windows XP cannot properly run modern software or modern hardware, as such these essential support features are only present in newer operating systems and people do use them a lot.You're probably just talking about relatively superfluous shit like what the UI looks like, from that point of view I think XP is only lacking a few things. There is no easily accessible universal search (only added to the start menu in W7 IIRC) and I think it also doesn't really have proper multi-monitor support either, like multiple task bars, controlling how those work and so on.
>>108413611Office suite works best on windows, they gimped it on the mac version
I see the little news updates on my task bar telling me how poor my stocks are doing.
>>108413611In modern OSs, I've gotten very used to simply pressing the Windows key (or super+space for MacOS/Linux) and typing the name of whatever program I want to run, rather than mouse through menus and clicking shortcuts. Can't do that in XP as far as I know.On the other hand, they removed themes from Windows past 7, and I'm still upset I can't even switch to the classic theme without a bunch of unreliable hacks.
In terms of features maybe not so much, but I'm wondering if you count using a new system API that implements the same feature except it's easier to write than the previous version.Those are always what I look forward to in new versions of Windows. You still get comparability with the old APIs but can start targeting the new one with less headache and eventually get rid of the old code.
>>108413611Native iso support
>>108413611On the surface, no.Under the hood as other people have pointed out, yes.Plus you're on /g/ daily life normie shit doesn't matter here.
>>108413611yes I use the sidesnapping window features all the time, I think it didn't exist in xp era, I might be wrong tho
>>108413611Nothing wrong with Windows XP for some off-line system besides it is requirement for 16bit coding!
>>108413807yeah check out >>108413694also it did do virtualization because hyper-v is old as shit and I'm pretty sure window snapping is the best feature in the world. see >>108414395 fucking troglodyte.
>>108413611Security featuresISO mountingHyper-VOther features so small I can't remember them but would notice quickly if they weren't thereI really wish someone would backport features from XP or patch in the XP interface to newer Windows versions though. We have the sources.
>>108413807UAC is an interactive feature so why shouldn't it be included?
>>108414528>also it did do virtualization because hyper-v is old as shitHyper-V wasn't introduced until Windows 8
>>108413642You could just make a user account without administrator rights and if you needed administrator rights you used "run as", select administrator and put in the password. That's literally what every sane person did before UAC.
>>108413611Snipping Tool
>>108413611futexes
>>108414663UAC is far superior
>>108414554>secuuurityyyy
>>108414627Hyper-V came out in 2008 you fucking idiot. SP2 supports it. I know you're a fucking mouthbreather because you don't even know about windows features and think that shell utilities or whatever are the same thing. try installing a windows feature some time.
>>108414554use case for any of that shit?
>>108414819>>108414840>>108414848>>108414528i fucking hate zoomers
>>108415180says the techlet securitard
>>108413611XP didn't had a volume mixer and the task manager was trash.
>>108413611yes ahci, yes I have it running in XP too but it's not native and requires /g/owledge also 64 bit xp sucked ass, it's a 32 bit OS at heart that being said it's an essential on on offline lan along with 7 because of the great 32 bit apllications and games in it's library
>>108413696>Hyper-V is pretty neat. It allows me to create virtual machines without the need for getting third-party software.hyperV is somthing I've used a lot but it is worthless fuckology if you have a big library of games in the mix on cd and DVD, much nicer and easier to have an actual XP box
