[0] https://www.mypal-browser.org/ [1] https://github.com/DiscordMessenger/dm
Not to mention bloat: I have a keyboard with a dedicated calculator button. On a machine with Core i5 something or other and SSD it takes about 2 seconds for the calculator to appear the first time I push that button. On the Core 2 Duo machine that preceded it, running XP from spinning rust, the calculator would appear instantly - certainly before I can release the button.
But also WinXP was the OS a lot of people used during their formative years - don't underestimate the power of nostalgia.
Also, for some people the very fact that Microsoft don't want you to would be reason enough!
Personally if I were into preserving old Windows versions I'd be putting my effort into Win2k SP4, since it's the last version that doesn't need activating. (I did have to activate a Vista install recently - just a VM used to keep alive some legacy software whose own activation servers are but a distant memory. It's still possible, but you can't do it over the phone any more, and I couldn't find any way to do it without registering a Microsoft account.)
I’m not sure what I can say that will qualify as more than “nuh uh” to you, shy of getting a Core 2 Duo running with XP and the same keyboard as OP. That isn’t possible at the moment, is there anything else I could do?
Anyway, you're talking about reaction time, which isn't actually relevant. The time between an action (pressing a button, or flipping a switch) and seeing the result happen isn't the same as the time it takes you to re-act to that something. Flip a light switch, does the light turn off instantly, or does it take a full third of a second? I guarantee you can tell the difference. 300ms of latency is actually huge and easily perceptible, even if it's faster than you can react.
Keypress duration is likely much less than 300 ms, top Google result claims 77 ms on average. And that’s down and up.
I see it being in cache already as sort of game playing, i.e. we can say anything is instant if we throw a cache in front of it. Am I missing something about caching that makes it reasonable? (I’m 37, so only 18 around that time and wouldn’t have had the technical chops to understand it was normal for things to be in disk cache after a cold boot)
Seagate Momentus 5400.3 manual (2005): https://www.seagate.com/support/disc/manuals/ata/100398876a....
Hitachi Travelstar 5K120 (2006):http://www.ggsdata.se/PC/Bilder/hd/5K120.pdf
WD Scorpio (October 2007): https://theretroweb.com/storage/documentation/2879-001121-a1...
I do do still have both computers set up side-by-side (legacy data from an old business), and the keyboard in question was a Microsoft Comfort Curve 2000 (the calculator button wasn't a proper key, it was one of those squidgy extra keys so beloved of multimedia keyboards, so not as fast to operate as a proper key.)
Anyhow, the point (arguably hypberbolic as it may have been) wasn't about reaction time per se, it was about the older calculator app - and by extension much of the rest of the OS - being a much simpler and less bloated piece of software, and running it on faster-than-contemporaneous hardware makes for a sense of immediacy which is sorely lacking in today's world of web apps.
I'd be very interested to know to what that 300ms "threshold of perceptible delay" applies. You might not notice a window taking 300ms to open - but I'd be willing to bet that when you're highlighting text with the mouse or dragging a slider, you'd be very aware of the UI lagging by nearly 1/3 of a second.
Since I still have the machine in question here, and I'm now interested enough to try and get some rough measurements, I've just videoed it with my phone (30fps video) and done some frame counting, both from a cold boot with nothing cached, and also a repeated launch.
Firstly from a cold boot:
It's hard to tell exactly when the keypress registers, but I believe what I'm seeing is the key being pressed, two frames later the hourglass appears, two frames after that the calculator appears. (The TFT screen will likely be adding at least one frame lag, but let's ignore that for now.) So that's somewhere between 166 and 200ms for a cold launch.
If I close the app and repeat, there's now just one frame between keypress and hourglass, and just one more frame between hourglass and the app appearing, so now nearer 100ms.
Looking at the videos my finger is off the key the first time the app appears, but not the second time - though if I made a special effort to release the key as quickly as possible I now think I could probably just about beat it.
But I think the question was the other way: Why couldn't calc.exe launch in 300ms?
Don't want to clutter too much, I'm already eating downvotes, so I'll link:
XP's calculator is hardly any different than 95. It's easy to believe that launching it on a Core 2 Duo of all things is also instant.
On the average consumer hardware at launch, 95 and XP were slow, memory hungry bloats. In fact everything that people say about Windows 11 now was even more true of Windows back then.
By the end of the life of Windows 95 and XP, hardware had overtook and Windows felt snappier.
There was a reason I stuck with Windows 2000 for years after the release of XP and it wasn’t because I was too cheep to buy XP.
Back in the day, we actually used to aim for that as a user experience metric.
Reactions are about responding to one off events.
Whereas what you’re describing is about perception of events aligned to a regular interval.
For example, I wouldn’t react to a game of whack-a-mole at 50ms, nor that quickly to a hazard while driving either. But I absolutely can tell you if synth isn’t quantised correctly by as little as 50ms.
Thats because the later isn’t a reaction. It’s a similar but different perception.
You simply cannot use musicians as proof that people have these superhuman reaction times.
And for the music latency, you can here where the latency happens in relation to the rest of the music piece (be the rock music, techno, or whatever style of music). You have a point of reference. This makes latency less of a reaction event and more of a placement event. ie you're not just reacting to the latency, you're noticing the offset with the rest of the music. And that adds significant context to perception.
This is also ignores the point that musicians have to train themselves to hear this offset. It's like any advanced skill from a golf swing to writing code: it takes practice to get good at it.
So it's not the same. I can understand why people think it might be. But when you actually investigate this properly, you can see why DJs and musicians appear to have supernatural senses vs regular reaction times. It's because they're not actually all that equivalent.
I'm not a part of the Windows XP community, but I've gotten close. I love that I can make it look just like Windows 2000 and that I know where all the little knobs and dials are. I can get a Windows XP installation configured to be exactly as I want it to be very quickly and I know it won't suddenly change on me.
So I'm thinking of putting an XP install back on the thing with my licenced MS Office 2000 and a few other bits and pieces of software just for retro fun, and a reminder about how things were 20 years or so ago to avoid the rose tinted glasses effect.
For me, it's knowing what I know now, what could I've done back 25 (wow!) years ago. It's a fun exercise.
I stopped using Windows at work as Win7 was rolling out but got another job using it again as Win11 started rolling out. Having missed out on the slow decline, it's very obvious to me how much better the older Windows were. The new ones have a dumpster fire UI with built-in advertising that shoves Microsoft web crap and AI down your throat at every chance.
[1] https://msfn.org/board/topic/185966-my-browser-builds-part-5...
And to my surprise, the latest 32-bit release of Nim simply works out the box. But Nim compiles to C, so I also needed C compiler. Many versions of mingw I could find online - they all failed to launch.
After some time I managed to find very old Mingw (gcc 4.7.1) that have finally worked [1].
[0] - https://nim-lang.org/
[1] - https://ibb.co/TBdvZPVt
gopher://texto-plano.xyz:70/1/~anthk/bfgxp
Unzip the file and launch "lanzar.bat" in order to test it. I think I added tcllib and tklib just in case, so you can do a lot with that interpreter.
then run (something like) this:
clang-cl /winsysroot:"" /DWINVER=0x0400 /D_WIN32_WINNT=0x0400 -m32 /GS- -march=i586 -Wno-nonportable-include-path /imsvc"C:\MSVC6\VC98\Include" hello.c -fuse-ld=lld-link /link /SAFESEH:NO /SUBSYSTEM:WINDOWS,4.0 /LIBPATH:"C:\MSVC6\VC98\Lib" user32.lib kernel32.lib msvcrt.lib
Unofficial mirror https://github.com/TinyCC/tinycc
Going back to win7 is just a neurological pathogen level of stockholm syndrome. give your head a shake.
Such as? Everything has been working for me the past >20 years.
As for X vs. Wayland: you do not have to care about it. Just install a distro with X.
Steam works on Linux, and lots of games run under Linux now thanks to Proton.
This was interesting!
AHK came in very handy we needed a quick tool to track mill operators, roughly 20-30 lines of code and we had a working GUI app.
These machines are likely to live at least another 10-15 years and even the brand new ones being sold today uses Windows 7.
Modern languages and frameworks proceed and leave these old systems behind, but everything from our infrastructure to manufacturing capacity that exists runs on legacy systems, not modern computers. The cost of replacing the computers is usually more than the machine itself.
Or you could install and old copy of Cygwin or MinGW.
Do you want to run a modern Visual Studio and target XP? Maybe you can make that work if you install an old platform SDK and set WINVER and _WIN32_VERSION and work around all the warnings and compatibility problems that you'll run into. It is fighting an uphill battle and it will continue to get worse with each new version of VS that you want use.
For rust there is Rust9x https://seri.tools/blog/announcing-rust9x/. But I think this is the effort of handful of people. It is behind the upstream rust and it could go away at any time. If you want to write a toy program in Rust then it is fine, but if you want something that's going to be supported long-term you're rolling the dice.
Python 3.4.4 is the last version of Python that will run on Windows XP. That's 10 years old and many things on PyPI now require newer versions of Python so you'd be stuck with old, unsupported versions of those modules, possibly containing security issues.
Pity. You can compile and run pretty much any version of Lua on XP with VS 2010 or lcc and it works just fine https://ibb.co/d0pMK7Jk
gopher://texto-plano.xyz:70/1/~anthk/bfgxp
Also, from some http proxy:
http://portal.mozz.us/gopher/texto-plano.xyz:70/1/~anthk/bfg...
MinC, a tiny C SDK plus Git and goodies from OpenBSD's base (ncurses it's included too):
Plain old Win32 C API is basically frozen on Windows XP view of the world, although there are a couple of new .....ExNum() suffixes for stuff like HDPI or various IO improvements, the userspace drivers initially COM (UMDF), but reverted back to plain C struct with function pointers on version 2.0.
All other currently supported toolchains rely on runtimes that are explicitly not compatible with Win XP.