KETTLE Windows XP is turning 25, and with AI still causing a memory crunch, many enthusiasts are feeling nostalgic for the days when Microsoft operating systems were lightweight and simply worked.
This week on The Kettle, host Brandon Vigliarolo is joined by FOSS reporter Liam Proven and Microsoft reporter Richard Speed to discuss why it might have been the pinnacle of Windows releases, though that is far from the only retro topic on the agenda.
Beyond reminiscing about classic Windows versions, the conversation turns to Casio’s reimagined digital watch that adds modest smart features while preserving its legendary two-year battery life. The panel also reconsiders the long-standing belief that writing passwords on paper is reckless, especially when a physical notebook cannot be hacked remotely.
A lightly edited transcript follows.
Brandon (00:01)
Hello, everyone, and welcome to the latest episode of The Register’s Kettle Podcast. I’m Reg reporter Brandon Vigliarolo, and this week we are stepping away from the AI industry for a few minutes to discuss something decidedly more old-fashioned that we have been covering lately. Joining me to explore these stories are our open-source reporter Liam Proven
Liam Proven (00:20)
Hello.
Brandon (00:20)
And Microsoft reporter Richard Speed. Thanks for joining me, gentlemen.
Richard Speed (00:24)
Hi, Brandon.
First up, Richard, we hit a momentous date in Windows history this week with the silver anniversary of Windows XP’s release to manufacturing. What does that milestone mean for admirers of what may have been the peak of Microsoft’s operating systems?
Richard Speed (00:43)
RTM stands for release to manufacturing. That is when the code becomes stable and complete, and they ship it off for mass production, where disks are physically stamped. Remember when software arrived on discs rather than downloads? We are talking about a quarter of a century ago.
It was a major milestone for Microsoft because before XP, you had the Windows NT codebase, and Liam actually wrote a piece about Windows NT 4 this week since there was another anniversary there. Then there was the consumer-oriented Windows 9x, Windows 3.0, and MS-DOS codebase. NT, I mean XP (Freudian slip there), marked the point where Microsoft merged those two codebases together. For consumers at the time, and we have largely forgotten this now, it was a dreadful shock because they were accustomed to the Windows 9x era, and that was fantastic. Windows 98 would run on 16 megabytes if you were brave enough. You probably needed a bit more, though. Windows XP, meanwhile, demanded 64 megabytes at minimum, and realistically you wanted significantly more to make it usable. I owned an XP machine, and I believe I was running it on either 128 or 256 megabytes.
It required more resources, but it was dramatically more stable. The difference was night and day. Comparing XP to Windows 9x, the stability gap was enormous. It was a genuinely important milestone, though somewhat jarring at launch, because the very reason it was so stable meant that much of the older software and drivers that worked with Windows 9x no longer functioned. XP did offer a compatibility mode, which helped in theory, but plenty of software simply would not run. Looking back, that trade-off made sense because Windows NT was exceptionally stable while Windows 9x was decidedly less so.
Liam Proven (02:39)
That is a very diplomatic way to put it.
Brandon (02:41)
I remember the transition from 95 to 98 being chaotic.
Richard Speed (02:46)
Exactly. With 95, you had 16-bit foundations with 32-bit layered on top, and then with 98. Meanwhile, NT in the background was rock-solid. It needed more resources, but it was incredibly robust. NT 3.51 and NT4 were probably peak NT in my view. Others will disagree and champion their preferred version, but NT was engineered from the outset to be professional-grade software. It was genuinely excellent. And Liam can elaborate on the full history of Windows NT, NT4, OS/2, and related developments. XP was essentially the moment when consumers got their hands on this serious software. Microsoft refined the interface, redesigned the Start menu into two columns, updated the fonts and iconography. It represented a complete visual overhaul compared to what people knew from Windows 9x.
Brandon (03:38)
There were some rounded edges in there, along with green and blue accents.
Richard Speed (03:40)
There were rounded edges, though it could fall back to battleship gray if requested. It would do that willingly. But the visual effects were present. I believe it maxed out at four gigabytes of RAM initially. The Home Edition only supported a single CPU, while the Pro Edition allowed two. The 64-bit version eventually supported more RAM, but that arrived several years later.
Brandon (04:10)
RTM was the point when manufacturers and OEMs received the code. To clarify the XP release: the first OEM machines reached consumers on September 24th. Then came the retail launch on October 24th, the one where you can still find YouTube videos of stylishly dressed people proudly holding up their boxed copies of Windows XP.
Richard Speed (04:43)
That is correct. October was when it hit retail channels, when you could purchase boxed copies of Windows XP. There was a gap after RTM, which is when the code is finalized and stable, no longer subject to changes. That is what gets printed onto the CDs. October marked when those boxed copies actually appeared in stores. It was all very exciting.
There is an important point to make about XP. By modern standards, it was a security nightmare at launch. Microsoft did not begin taking security seriously until XP Service Pack 2, and even then, problems persisted. However, if you examine its resource requirements, 128 or 256 megabytes was perfectly acceptable for a solid XP experience. Compare that to Windows 11 today, where Microsoft struggles to bring the minimum down to eight gigabytes, which is an order of magnitude greater. What we run today is not an order of magnitude better than what we had when XP debuted. XP demanded far fewer resources than a modern Windows 11 PC requires.
Liam Proven (05:54)
Absolutely. For me, and it is strange that I now find myself as the FOSS guy, I was an early Windows adopter. Early in my career, Windows is what built my career. I started using Windows 2 when everyone else in my office dismissed Windows as a joke and believed Macs or OS/2 represented the future. I stuck with it through thick and thin. XP was the version that made me jump ship. XP was the moment I looked at it and thought, “Enough. What is with the Fisher-Price color scheme?” I acquired an old Power Mac from a client whose wife was discarding it. I hacked Mac OS X onto it using a tool called X-Post-Facto. I started running Mac OS X on this Frankenstein machine with third-party upgrades, including a SATA controller, Firewire controller, USB controller, extra graphics card, and a faster CPU, and it crashed constantly.
A couple of years ago, I wrote a piece for The Reg about using Windows XP in 2023, partly at reader request. I got Windows XP64 (the AMD64 edition, not the Itanium version) and installed it on one of my oldest ThinkPads. It is a Core 2 Duo maxed out with 8 gigabytes of RAM. It was a joy to use.
Brandon (07:09)
Any idea why?
Liam Proven (07:10)
So I used Linux on laptops when the Mac kept failing. A couple of years ago, I wrote a piece for The Reg
