Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

66% of All Windows Users Still Use Windows XP

samzenpus posted about 4 years ago | from the if-it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it dept.

Microsoft 931

An anonymous reader writes "Almost one year after the introduction of Windows 7 it appears that the hype surrounding it has faded. The overall market share of Windows has turned into a slight decline again. Windows 7 is gaining share, but cannot keep pace with the loss of Windows XP and Vista. Especially Windows XP users seem to be happy with what they have and appear to be rather resistant to Microsoft's pitches that it is time to upgrade to Windows 7."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Rounding Error? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33776406)

It's actually 66.6%

It's the evil pirates I tell you! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33776480)

Oh noes! So many billions lost in sales due to the evil pirates!

Wait wrong story. Ah who cares, the actual story is a rehash too.

old hardware, probably (4, Interesting)

bsDaemon (87307) | about 4 years ago | (#33776414)

That's probably the same as saying 66% of all Windows users are on older hardware which was already "good enough." They probably won't get Windows 7 until they buy a new computer. I have Win 7 x64 Pro in a VMWare image and it works relatively well in there, but I had to tweak the settings for the container, and if I run it with less than 2GB of memory allocated, it starts to get pissy. Maybe its different when running it on the physical machine, but I'm somewhat skeptical, and if I were running on an older PC, I'd probably skip the software upgrade and wait for a hardware upgrade.

Re:old hardware, probably (5, Interesting)

schnikies79 (788746) | about 4 years ago | (#33776428)

There are few reasons to upgrade hardware anymore unless you are a gamer or do ultra high end work. There hasn't been anything worthy since the introduction of the c2d. I have a 2008 unibody macbook and will most likely stick with this for the next several years.

I maintain the computers for most of my family. All are running XP and have no intention of upgrading hardware or the OS anytime soon. Most are running XP on core 2 duos or Pentium 4s.

Re:old hardware, probably (3, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 4 years ago | (#33776482)

There's one very good reason to buy new hardware: When the old hardware fails.

Re:old hardware, probably (2, Insightful)

schnikies79 (788746) | about 4 years ago | (#33776488)

Hard drive, maybe. That can be easily replaced. I haven't seen a full system failure (motherboard, power supply, etc.) in years.

Re:old hardware, probably (5, Informative)

zoom-ping (905112) | about 4 years ago | (#33776698)

Hard drive, maybe. That can be easily replaced. I haven't seen a full system failure (motherboard, power supply, etc.) in years.

Ever heard of laptops? Some hardware failure stats [] for you.

Re:old hardware, probably (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 4 years ago | (#33776730)

Most of the failures I see these days are due to fluff in the fans/heatsinks cooking the components. Remember to use the vacuum cleaner every once in a while and you should be ok.

(And even if you don't, most modern components seem to have thermal protection now so they tend to shut down/reboot rather than burn).

Re:old hardware, probably (4, Insightful)

Pentium100 (1240090) | about 4 years ago | (#33776518)

However, with the exception of large disasters (lightning, fire, flood etc), usually a single component fails and not the whole computer. Which means that it's cheaper to replace the failed component instead of the whole computer.

If my PSU failed, I'd rather buy a new PSU than a new PSU, motherboard, CPU and RAM (I could still use my case, videocard, hard drives etc).

Re:old hardware, probably (4, Informative)

beelsebob (529313) | about 4 years ago | (#33776556)

And of those 66% of people running XP, what proportion do you think know what a PSU, CPU, or motherboard are? What proportion do you think will just go "shit, my computer broke"?

Hint, the former is likely 1%

Re:old hardware, probably (4, Insightful)

Pentium100 (1240090) | about 4 years ago | (#33776606)

And how many of those 65% have geek friends that they call and say "Hi, my computer broke, can you fix it?"?

That's probably a lot, considering how many computers I fix for my friends, and yes, that includes asking them to buy a new motherboard "Go to the store and ask for 'motherboard for Socket A CPU, that's mATX'" or just asking for the money and buying it myself. When the "broken computer" problem occurs, people try to save money, and if the new part costs less than a new PC, they'll buy the part.

Re:old hardware, probably (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33776650)

if they don't have a geek friend, in this economy, after a computer fails, it it's 4 years old or less, they will be more motivated to call around and find someone who might fix the system for a reasonable rate, at least less then the price of a new one.

Re:old hardware, probably (4, Insightful)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | about 4 years ago | (#33776692)

And how many of those 65% have geek friends that they call and say "Hi, my computer broke, can you fix it?"?

The rest have kids they can ask the same question.

In any case, "broke" normally means:
The battery in the wireless mouse is flat
A plug fell out the back
Its teh viruses, stupid!(I for one welcome our new porn overlords)

If you upgrade them to Win7 they will hit you with a clue bat: Working means "Running WIndows XP".

Re:old hardware, probably (2, Insightful)

kimvette (919543) | about 4 years ago | (#33776704)

It is hard to build a new PC for less than the price of a new complete (albeit crappy) PC preloaded with malware and trialware. Just the cost of a good motherboard and decent i5 or lower end i7 will be about the same as the price of a brand new PC from a big box store.

Re:old hardware, probably (3, Informative)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 4 years ago | (#33776750)

It is? I managed to save quite a bit of money (a few hundred) building my own computer rather than buying a pre-built one with nearly the same specs.

Re:old hardware, probably (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | about 4 years ago | (#33776634)

And of those 66% of people running XP, what proportion do you think know what a PSU, CPU, or motherboard are? What proportion do you think will just go "shit, my computer broke"?

Hint, the former is likely 1%

And that's why those of us who know will always have job opportunities.

Re:old hardware, probably (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33776714)

it's the economy stupid. people have more motivation now to figure out how to save money.

the computer will get fixed, and a new system will just have to wait.

Re:old hardware, probably (1)

kevinmenzel (1403457) | about 4 years ago | (#33776764)

Not everyone's economy is as bad as America's right now. There are places in the rest of the world that are doing pretty well actually.

Re:old hardware, probably (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33776794)

and not everyone in America is bothered by the economy. If you have a job, the recession isn't really an issue.

Poorly-designed Flash ads that hog one core. (2, Informative)

Pezbian (1641885) | about 4 years ago | (#33776492)

That's why they'll have to upgrade. Get more than one of those on a page and you're screwed.

There's also video decoding via GPU, but even that is being implemented at the low end.

Re:Poorly-designed Flash ads that hog one core. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33776668)

Friends don't let friends browse without adblock.

Re:Poorly-designed Flash ads that hog one core. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33776672)

Or you could, you know, use a browser plug-in that makes sure Flash and its ilk doesn't run until you click it.
And have some task manager application running at a high priority level. <-- To whom it may concern: if you don't do this as a matter of course, you're a moron, regardless of employed operating system or hardware.

Re:Poorly-designed Flash ads that hog one core. (2, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 4 years ago | (#33776696)

You can actually get an HD4650 [] with the AGP interface for $80, which is certainly cheaper than buying a full box and which will GPU accelerate flash and just about anything else. I got one for a customer who has a late model Cedar mill P4 and I'd forsee him getting another 4-5 years out of that box easily for the kinds of things he does.

And THAT, that right there, is what MSFT is having bite them in the ass. Computers passed "good enough" quite awhile back and the average Joe isn't even hitting his P4 hard, and XP is mature and stable, so why switch? While I have Windows 7 HP X64 on my gamer box, the box I'm typing this on is a 1.8GHz Sempron with 1.5Gb of RAM XP I use as a Nettop. Even with the crappy SiS GPU for the basics, Youtube, web surfing, downloading, etc it is more than fast enough for everyday tasks, and the Windows 7 upgrade money would be better spent on a GPU or maxing out the RAM.

And I'd finally point out that damned Ballmer monkey is to blame for part of this, and here is why: I knew plenty of guys that pirated XP, and nearly all of them switched to a legal copy of Windows 7, why? The $50 Windows 7 Home deal. It is pretty obvious at least to me that $50 is the "sweet spot" for Home as I saw so many pirate boxes go legit. The ones that didn't planned to after Xmas and then the Ballmer monkey shot the company in the foot (surprise) by raising the price. If he actually wanted to get all those XP boxes onto Windows 7, which he should as Windows 7 is MUCH safer for average folks which cuts down on Windows bad rep, and it gives him a chance to upsell them on new tech like Silverlight, IE9, and of course anytime upgrade to Pro, which I know quite a few that did for XP Mode, he'd drop the price for Home back to $50. But I'm afraid I have to agree with the pirates that $100 for Home is simply too much, which means I'll be sticking with XP for the Sempron. By the time 2014 rolls around and XP is EOL I'll probably pick up a dirt cheap duallie and hand the Sempron to my mom, who only uses a PC to play her old Windows games. Hell she refuses to let go of an old 733Mhz with a dual Win98/XP boot, because for what she does (Bounce Out and Age Of Empires 1) that is "good enough". While most folks aren't THAT hooked on an older machine a Prescott era P4 is frankly overkill for the web. Sorry MSFT, but my money is staying in MY pocket, thanks anyway.

Re:Poorly-designed Flash ads that hog one core. (2, Insightful)

demonlapin (527802) | about 4 years ago | (#33776762)

Forget $50 single licenses, give people the Mac deal - pay $50 and you can install it on five machines in your house. (Maybe make it $100, because MSFT doesn't have that hardware revenue stream.)

Re:old hardware, probably (3, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | about 4 years ago | (#33776558)

There are few reasons to upgrade hardware anymore unless you are a gamer or do ultra high end work. There hasn't been anything worthy since the introduction of the c2d.

Um, a lot of people sit on WAY older hardware than Core 2 Duo.

In the room I'm in now (and counting only x86 compatibles) I have one Opteron 175, one P4 3.06HT and one PIII 1.13S. They work, so why should I trash them?

Re:old hardware, probably (0)

JonySuede (1908576) | about 4 years ago | (#33776612)

You should replace them, if you still need them, with a low TDP chip, to save energy. If your are not living somewhere electricity is subsidized and your are using them frequently, then new chips would pay for themselves in a year or two and in the P4 case it would be less than 6 month...

Re:old hardware, probably (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33776720)

[Citation Needed] You make me laugh. As if the CPU is the main power consumer. Grumble grumble.

Re:old hardware, probably (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33776748)

That PIII consumes less than 30 watts. The other two you could probably come out ahead in the long run by replacing, but how long would it take? Assuming you're paying about 20 cents per kwh, getting a chip that uses 50 fewer watts would save a little under $90/year if you run it 24/7/365. If they're turned off more than half the time it's less than $45/year. If it costs, say, $200 to replace them, that's four years before you break even. Not including the effort to spec a new machine, build it, reinstall and transfer the files, etc. I assume you can see why most people don't bother.

Re:old hardware, probably (5, Informative)

arth1 (260657) | about 4 years ago | (#33776770)

I expected the "saving energy" argument, and wasn't disappointed. The problem is that you have to keep the machine for quite a few years in order for the energy savings to outweigh the price of new hardware. But by forcing upgrades this way, you don't keep the machines for that many years, so you don't realise the savings in the long run.
And for the environment, it's loss too, because of the energy costs of making all the components for the new machine, as well as depletion of resources.

And apart from the PIII-S, these machines don't run 24/7 either, but perhaps an hour a week on average.
And the PIII-S has a 28.7W TPD, which is better than anything made today except for laptop CPUs, especially when you take the less power hungry motherboard and RAM into consideration. In fact, the low power usage is one of the reasons why it runs 24/7 as a server, while the P4 is a cold standby.

They can still run XP even after they get a new PC (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 4 years ago | (#33776712)

XP is still available through downgrade rights [] for another decade. After your friends and family get a new PC there's no need for them to throw out all that expensive software they paid for that doesn't run in Windows 7.

Re:old hardware, probably (1)

Idbar (1034346) | about 4 years ago | (#33776722)

I agree with you. I bought a PC for my parents long time ago. It's a P4 running Windows 98. It has been doing the job for them.

Since XP had a really long life span, I'd assume that it will be most likely to remain top for a long time.

1. people it's currently using more mobile platforms to browse, which it's likely to mess up with the statistics. And,
2. Some people I know use their powerful systems to work, and leave the old PCs for browsing the web at home (some more afraid that catching something from browsing will get them into trouble), which is likely to mess the statistics up too.

Re:old hardware, probably (4, Informative)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#33776724)

>>>There are few reasons to upgrade hardware

Precisely. I'm typing this on an old 2002 PC compatible. I'm sure the hard drive motors will eventually fail but for now it works just fine.

I wish I could say the same for my 2002 G4 Mac. Due to Apple's process of refusing to support anything older than 10.5, I was left in the cold. I eventually sold it on ebay for ~$30 because it wouldn't run anything newer than IE5 or Safari 2, both of which failed to render the web properly.

Oh look... here comes the -1 mod patrol.

Re:old hardware, probably (2, Interesting)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | about 4 years ago | (#33776466)

They probably won't get Windows 7 until they buy a new computer.


This machine here that I'm using has had the motherboard replaced twice. The main hard drive with the XP license is still going strong. When that hardrive craps out, I'll put a new one in and make it a Linux box - I refuse to pay the retail price for Windows. Until MS drops the price down to the "MS Tax" rate for retail versions of Windows, I will not buy a retail copy - full version or upgrade.

And then there are the folks who tried the upgrade path only to have to buy the full version anyway because of installation problems and lack of XP license disk - even then, some folks still had problems. I'm not willing to chance it at the prices MS charges.

Re:old hardware, probably (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33776564)

Then buy the OEM version, its only $109 for home premium. So what if you sacrifice tech support. Who the hell actually calls Microsoft anyways?

Re:old hardware, probably (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33776648)

Then buy the OEM version, its only $109 for home premium.

That's nearly $110 more than a modern Linux distro!.

Re:old hardware, probably (1)

kimvette (919543) | about 4 years ago | (#33776728)

Isn't that free tech support good for only the first 90 days of ownership, and for installation only?

Re:old hardware, probably (5, Insightful)

pla (258480) | about 4 years ago | (#33776494)

They probably won't get Windows 7 until they buy a new computer.

Not necessarily. I still run XP, because it still works.

I do actually like Windows 7, but until I want to use my computer for something that I can't do on XP, I see no point in making a not-inconsiderable outlay of cash to upgrade just for bells and whistles. And as for the hardware, as you mention - XP runs a hell of a lot faster on older hardware. My computer doesn't count as obsolete by any stretch of the imagination, but I would most likely need to upgrade hardware to get anywhere near the same level of performance if I went to Win7.

So why bother?

But I do substantially agree with you - Looking at the bigger picture, I think Microsoft has a rather serious problem, not of their own making for a change. Even the last gen of PCs as "fast enough" for everything most people want to do. I very much don't mean this as a "640k should be enough for anyone", but do you really need quad core, over 4GB of RAM, and a video card that could render an older Pixar movie in realtime, just to check your email, surf the web, and play the occasional "casual" game? And if not... Why upgrade?

Re:old hardware, probably (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33776732)

I think Microsoft has a rather serious problem, not of their own making for a change.

Well, there is a problem that is of Microsoft's making. That is that the Vista/7 interface is really really horrible. And the User Account Control thing that duplicates the Program Files folder for security reasons is incredibly misguided and wrong.

I like XP, but there are many features that could have been added to it without destroying it.

Re:old hardware, probably (1, Informative)

TheLink (130905) | about 4 years ago | (#33776758)

And for advanced users Windows XP often works BETTER than Win 7.

Windows 7 search doesn't work for me. It doesn't find stuff, or makes it hard/impossible to find stuff. I actually resorted to using grep on Win 7. I never had to do that with Win XP. With Windows XP even though the search was slow, if the stuff was there you'd eventually find it. For example: if you have a stuff in a directory that's named "XYZ" and you wanted to find files that had the text "XYZ" in them you could do it with XP, but with Windows 7, you'd get lots of files that didn't contain XYZ but show up because they are in the XYZ directory.

Win 7 works well for "normal" users. But for "advanced" users it really doesn't help, except perhaps the clustering of task buttons (you can uncombine related tasks/windows and still have them clustered together), and individual sound controls for apps, in many cases it actually gets in the way (search being an example).

The 4kb nonaligned stuff is a minus for XP, but "advanced" users can fix that.

I suppose Win 7 does IPv6 better? But IMO since IPv6 is still a mess in _practice_ (DNS, routing etc all have issues because of the ivory tower geniuses or "corporate pet interests") it's not a big advantage.

Desktop Linux? They can't seem to get basic stuff like sound working. Maybe they have recently, but wait a few months and they might break it again :). Same goes for the GUI. They don't have Steven Jobs's Reality Distortion field (or sense of taste) but they still insist on regularly moving stuff around for not good enough reasons.

Re:old hardware, probably (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 4 years ago | (#33776784)

Yep. Win7 works fine but I don't see any real reason to upgrade.

I upgraded to Win7 to be able to compile/test 64-bit versions of my software. Basically though, I'm running the exact same software and doing the exact same things I used to do on XP.

If you're on XP, have 4Gb RAM and just do normal stuff then you're fine for quite a few years yet.

Re:old hardware, probably (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33776548)

And more importantly- drivers.

I had considered moving to Windows 7 but can not get drivers for either my MB or RAID card. So at least until the hardware dies or the golly gee whiz factor of new software tempts me, I see me hobbling along with XP for quite a while.

Re:old hardware, probably (2, Insightful)

JWSmythe (446288) | about 4 years ago | (#33776560)

    I've only known of a very few people who upgraded to Win7 because they "wanted" it. They wanted it because it was the new Microsoft toy, and they wanted the latest greatest. The majority of people I know with Win7 use it because it came on their new PC, that they usually bought because the old one died. Some of them have had me downgrade them to WinXP.

    You are right, Win7 likes to have 2Gb RAM or more, but it'll run with 1Gb if you aren't doing much in it. I've used it, both in VM's and on physical hardware. BTW, it works very well in VirtualBox, if you get tired of tweaking VMWare to make it work right. :) I had to set it up for a Mac user, who needed to use MSIE for their college assignments.

    My biggest reason to have Windows at all, is to run Windows specific apps. That's mostly Windows games, and a few apps like the Blackberry Desktop Manager, which are only a small part of what I do with a PC. Otherwise, I prefer Linux. I have OSX in a VM too, but haven't found much use for it. :)

Re:old hardware, probably (1)

HelioWalton (1821492) | about 4 years ago | (#33776718)

I've only known of a very few people who upgraded to Win7 because they "wanted" it. They wanted it because it was the new Microsoft toy, and they wanted the latest greatest. The majority of people I know with Win7 use it because it came on their new PC, that they usually bought because the old one died. Some of them have had me downgrade them to WinXP.

In my case, and the case of every engineer-in-progress at my university, we get somewhere between 2-8 licenses for Windows 7 Pro, depending on the number of classes in different Engineering departments. You see, each department has an MSDNAA set-up. What this means, is that anyone who 'wants' Windows 7, has no problem getting access to a key for it. Almost every Windows-running laptop has 7 on it. This ability to be able to GET Win 7 has caused a large population to upgrade, just because they 'wanted' it.

Re:old hardware, probably (1)

Xest (935314) | about 4 years ago | (#33776570)

Yes, there are a number of reasons why this could reasonably be the case, particularly though we've had a couple of years of slow economic activity which has certainly had an effect on corporate upgrade cycles. Even then however there is still bound to be a good portion of systems bought prior to Windows 7's release that were specifically opted for XP over Vista.

So it's a little early to draw conclusions until Windows 7 has at least 3 years behind it which is when most upgrade cycles refresh. If at this point businesses are still opting for XP over Vista then certainly it would appear Windows 7 has been largely rejected like Vista.

This doesn't effect the overall trend of a decline in MS operating systems of course, but it does effect the ratio of Windows 7 to XP systems quite dramatically. There's no way many businesses were just going to switch over to Windows 7 on it's release for systems they had only just purchased new as XP (or Vista) a year or two before. This has never been the case, all MS OS' take a few years to take over from their predecessor.

It's also worth pointing out that Windows 7 has not yet reached service pack 1 either, which is a milestone that many people often wait for with Microsoft operating systems before adopting them both at home, and in the business world.

Or maybe *new* hardware (1)

Zocalo (252965) | about 4 years ago | (#33776738)

You can hardly venture out of the house these days without seeing someone using either a new Macbook or a Netbook running a varient of Windows XP, Linux, or Android. Windows 7 is pretty much the defacto out-of-the-box OS on all non-Mac desktop systems these days, but between corporates wiping it for standardised XP installs and people opting for new Macs or Netbooks for personal use instead of just getting another new desktop with Windows 7. Combine that with the poor experience of the upgrade to Vista and maybe the days of large numbers of people automatically upgrading to the latest Windows release are over.

Re:old hardware, probably (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | about 4 years ago | (#33776744)

Car Analogy:
Most people don't have GPS in their car (yet). That doesn't mean that GPS is bad, or that not having GPS is better. The car they are in now didn't come with GPS and not everyone is going to get an after market upgrade to add it. But probably when people buy new cars they'll come with GPS and its unlikely anyone is going to rip the things out.

Mod me off-topic, but... (-1, Offtopic)

pla (258480) | about 4 years ago | (#33776422)

Seriously, what gives with the Slashdot front-page? Articles regularly appear (in this case, the one about the NY tech highschool sponsored by IBM) that, when you click, give a "nothing to see here" error. This particular FP about Windows XP hit the FP after that one did, but this works, and that doesn't.

We can't even blame editor error, since the Firehose pretty much automates the whole process at this point...

Anyone know?

Re:Mod me off-topic, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33776438)

Evil plot to force lurkers to post. Damn it worked on me.

Re:Mod me off-topic, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33776498)

The Slashdot "developers" are incompetent.

I'll join you in off-topicdom.... (0, Flamebait)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | about 4 years ago | (#33776504)

It's IBM's fault. They didn't want anyone commenting on what's going on. You know, pumping out IT workers to lower wages further; the further commoditizaiton of the IT profession; the fact that this makes IT officially a blue collar profession; WTF are they thinking?! They should be training kids in Bio-tech and medical.; their idea is sooooo 1998!

Just a few off of the top of my head.

Re:Mod me off-topic, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33776530)

shut the fuck up

Re:Mod me off-topic, but... (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 4 years ago | (#33776578)

Seriously, what gives with the Slashdot front-page? Articles regularly appear (in this case, the one about the NY tech highschool sponsored by IBM) that, when you click, give a "nothing to see here" error.

Maybe graduates from the IBM tech high school are managing the Slashdot front-page . .. ?

Yawn (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33776430)

This same story is trotted out months after every version of Windows ships. Hardly anyone ever upgrades a PC to the next major version of Windows. Instead, the upgrade happens automatically when people ditch their PC's and buy a new one.

Re:Yawn (5, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | about 4 years ago | (#33776506)

Getting rid of DOS (Windows 3.1) and DOS-lite (Windows 9x) were much more compelling reasons to upgrade.

As Windows gets less crappy, the distance between a proper OS and what's in common use lessens.

Eventually, you are left with the annoyances that don't really go away and yet aren't severe enough to cause people to flee en masse to alternatives.

Re:Yawn (1)

cab15625 (710956) | about 4 years ago | (#33776524)

A bit like the hype that comes out for months (or years in the case of "longhorn") BEFORE the release of any new version of windows. I guess consumer computing likes to have a bit of balance.

XL does what is needed (4, Informative)

jzarling (600712) | about 4 years ago | (#33776432)

Our standard at work is XP, and Office 2007. Right now XP simply handles all our needs. There is nothing offered with w7 that really justfies upgrading.

Re:XL does what is needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33776500)

You should upgrade. In Windows 7, the window borders are a blurred version of what's behind instead of an opaque uniform color, making them more challenging to find.

Re:XL does what is needed (1)

Mspangler (770054) | about 4 years ago | (#33776604)

"Our standard at work is XP, and Office 2007. Right now XP simply handles all our needs. There is nothing offered with w7 that really justfies upgrading."

Our Information Services department has the exact same opinion. And the great SAP Migration is in full swing. That has sucked them dry for the last year, and probably another one to go. Then maybe they will look at Win7. (This assumes the VP doesn't cancel the SAP thing to make the old VP look bad.)

The only real PC issue we've had in the last couple of years was the McAfee auto-virus. Otherwise, XP keeps plodding along.

It's not like (1)

Voyager529 (1363959) | about 4 years ago | (#33776436)

It's not like a year after XP's introduction that it managed to have half the market share, either. People have traditionally replaced their computers every 3-6 years, and stick with what they've got until the next hardware cycle. The version of Windows is largely irrelevant to the masses, and yes, anyone who was planning on upgrading their current machine's software independently of a hardware refresh has likely already done so. Getting a third of MS's user base to upgrade in a year is, IMO, an accomplishment, not a problem.

Re:It's not like (3, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | about 4 years ago | (#33776554)

You're right that computer replacement is slow, but XP got about 38% of the installed base in only three years. Vista was released on Jan 2006, more than 4 1/2 years ago, and still Vista + 7 combined don't best XP's installed base.

This might be an indication of a changing user base, and it may be it's because a lot of businesses and households aren't doing as well these days.

great news for ms! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33776444)

sounds like a potential for a lot of untapped future revenue!

Price (3, Interesting)

jav1231 (539129) | about 4 years ago | (#33776450)

Microsoft sets the price to high and the various version model isn't helping. Who wants to switch if XP is working for you? $119 for the Home Edition or $89 for the Anytime Upgrade to the Home Edition.

Re:Price (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | about 4 years ago | (#33776546)

...and poorer performance for that $119.

The only thing I can see that you get from a user's point of view is a built in version of F-Spot.

Good Enough (1)

canajin56 (660655) | about 4 years ago | (#33776454)

My Laptop came with Windows 7. I like it. Eye candy is neat, but hardly a deciding factor. I could put Windows 7 on my desktop, too, but why bother with the hassle? For the eyecandy? For the...what else is new? Oh, right, the spotlight clone search thingy. That's pretty cool I guess. Still not worth the effort to reinstall all of my software.

Re:Good Enough (1)

taxman_10m (41083) | about 4 years ago | (#33776510)

What if your laptop/desktop came with Vista, would you upgrade to 7?

Re:Good Enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33776542)

I would (and did) downgrade to XP.

Re:Good Enough (1)

socsoc (1116769) | about 4 years ago | (#33776544)

I'd throw it in the trash.

Re:Good Enough (1)

canajin56 (660655) | about 4 years ago | (#33776562)

I skipped Vista entirely due to all of the bad press. If it had come with Vista I would have replaced it with XP.

Re:Good Enough (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | about 4 years ago | (#33776582)

My wife's laptop came with Vista and it works well. I don't see what the big fuss is.

Re:Good Enough (1)

Pentium100 (1240090) | about 4 years ago | (#33776576)

Reinstalling Windows is a huge hassle, at least for me. Over the years of using this installation, I have installed a lot of small programs, made some tweaks etc. Now if I reinstall Windows, on top of the fact that Win7 UI is different from XP (a thing that I would attempt to correct), I will need to install all my programs and do the tweaks all over again, with the added bonus that Win7 will probably require different tweaks.

Actually, reinstalling Windows is such a huge hassle to me that I'm considering buying a DRAM based SSD (Gigabyte iRAM Box) and putting the pagefile there, instead of installing 64bit version of Windows XP or 2003 or 7.

Re:Good Enough (3, Interesting)

Bert64 (520050) | about 4 years ago | (#33776654)

MS has long been way behind when it comes to eyecandy... I ran enlightenment on my p100 in the late 90s and it looked prettier than windows ever has, but i soon found out that i actually preferred a simple, lightweight unintrusive window manager. All the fancy graphics just serve to increase confusion and reduce performance.

No wonder they want to lease out software (1)

Pezbian (1641885) | about 4 years ago | (#33776460)

"Windows XP had too much staying power. Fifty percent parket share after ten years is too much."
"That's a good thing, sir. It made us a boatload of money."
"Yes, but only once."

It's nice being able to go to a secondhand store or a university dumpster sale and pick up an XP Pro license for $5 with a free computer.

I still use XP (4, Interesting)

argStyopa (232550) | about 4 years ago | (#33776470)

I still use xp.

Everything I've seen suggests that Win7 is a better OS - stability, security, etc.
However we have 6 computers in the house. Two are 3.0+ GHz dual+ CPUs with 4 gigs of RAM; those are the only two that I suspect would run it well. The other 4 range from 2.7 GHz 4 gig RAM (my older gaming rig, that probably could run it) down to a 1 GHz Athlon with 1 gig of RAM.

XP runs "well enough" for everything we want/need to do. I'm uninterested in climbing another learning curve so I can admin 2 different OS's in my house. I'm uninterested in buying new hardware just to all run Win7. I'm uninterested in buying 6 licenses of Win7. Win7 here, although I readily agree it would probably be a better system on the hardware that could run it. Sorry Microsoft.

Re:I still use XP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33776514)

LOL "buy".

Re:I still use XP (2, Interesting)

MoeDrippins (769977) | about 4 years ago | (#33776640)

I understand your point here, but "buying new hardware to run Win 7" is only half the battle; the other half is "buying win 7 so my new hardware [drivers] will work". I've had a number of new peripherals; which really are commodities these days; that don't provide XP drivers or anything that will run on XP. It's a sad state of affairs, truly.

For what it's worth, I haven't found Win 7 to be any better than XP in terms of stability. It's no worse in that regard, although the user experience is some better. The learning curve isn't something that should throw you if you've already enough knowledge to admin XP.

Re:I still use XP (1)

falcon_dark (1024221) | about 4 years ago | (#33776708)

Wow! Six home computers with Windows XP? I'm sorry for you man...

There's no "THE" reason (5, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | about 4 years ago | (#33776472)

There are many reasons why people stick with XP.

One is that they have a perfectly good machine that's overkill for what they use it for, but that doesn't meet the requirements for Windows 7.
Another is that they have so many programs installed that it's a major task to upgrade. Especially these days when many programs are bought online and uses DRM -- you may not even be allowed to reinstall under a new OS without re-purchasing.
There's probably a few disillusioned Vista users who (IMO rightly) don't believe the street hype and won't rush into installing what could have been released as Vista SP2.
Then there are those who don't feel like paying big bucks for the upgrade when it's not needed to run the programs they use.
Then there's a small amount of users who have figured out that XP is faster for their use, if nothing else because it uses less memory.
And let's not forget the large amount of users who wouldn't dare upgrade an OS at all, but use whatever the manufacturer put on their machine. They'll get a new OS when they buy a new machine, and in this economy, that might not be now.

In any case, this is Slashdot and a car analogy is in order. Just because a new model has come out doesn't mean that everybody with older cars will switch. Expecting that is silly.

Re:There's no "THE" reason (1)

wwphx (225607) | about 4 years ago | (#33776620)

Having been a Microsoft user for over 25 years, I switched from XP to a MacBook Pro 3.5 years ago for personal work. I have a VM for running Windows for two programs: Access and SQL Server. Well, I might install some old games if they work (Outlaws, Dungeon Keeper, some old stuff like that). I might have to buy a copy of Win 7 for one reason: remote support of my dad. He's running 7 now, and I can't remote to him. I probably could with something like GoToMyPC, but I'd rather spend $100 one time than $30 a month on their stuff. I tried to get him to switch to a Mac when he bought his latest POS, but he was daunted by the price. I guess if I ever get another high-paying job I'll just buy one for him.

My only other use for Windows is downloading programs from my Tivo, as I haven't bothered buying Nero Pro, or whatever the program is that they want you to buy to be able to download them to a Mac. I've been extremely happy with the quality of the hardware and software, the only time I've reinstalled the OS has been when I upgraded the hard drive and that drive failed (as did its replacement, it made for a fun couple of months when you're 500 miles from the store in the middle of the biggest winter in 20 years). Apple's new OS versions have been totally painless, and their backups are wonderful.

At work, they're probably 90%+ XP (100% MS and Dell), but new computers are coming in with 7 and they're having lots of problems with drivers. Fortunately I telecommute, so I don't have to hear about most of it.

Pooched my wife's Cannon printer's software with 7 (1)

crovira (10242) | about 4 years ago | (#33776792)

It turns out that the old drivers and OCR software doesn't run on the new Windows' 7 box.

There IS a work around though.

I have to scan (which I can still do), move the image to a thumb drive, move the files to my Mac, run OCR using a "free"ware I picked up off the web, copy and paste the OCRed text to my wiki.

The reason people don't upgrade Microsoft crap is that you never know what's going to suddenly stop working.

I wish she'd give the fuck up on Microsoft already because its nothing but a PITA.

I'm sick and tired of hearing my name followed by "the computer's fuckin' up again!"

Re:There's no "THE" reason (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 4 years ago | (#33776690)

Another reason is because Windows 7 doesn't really add any groundbreaking features that make it 'crucial' or highly beneficial for you to upgrade, just some pretty small ones.

Biased scores? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33776484)

I have a hard reason believing the figures from such a small corner of the user space. I would be much more interested to see results from or google analytics. Not to mention, the full report includes data from mobile devices as well. Which really isn't a telltale sign of OS share drop.

For example, I have an iPhone. If I browse the web on my iPhone, I'm generating extra hits to sites that my phone identifies itself to my iPhone. I might not visit that site on my desktop, or I might visit that site on my desktop less than I do on my phone. That doesn't necessarily mean from those numbers that Windows is losing market share because I've hit the site 10 extra times in a day from my phone itself rather than my desktop.

Re:Biased scores? (1)

Lennie (16154) | about 4 years ago | (#33776776)

If you actually look at the numbers, mobile is the one putting a dent in Windows (and Mac and Linux): []

(I think Android and other Linux-based mobile devices go in the 'other'-catagory ?)

How is this news. (1)

Danieljury3 (1809634) | about 4 years ago | (#33776516)

Seriously. I already figured that a lot of people still used XP and whats with the "Almost one year after" part. Was it a slow news day?

66% still are using the same old hardware probably (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about 4 years ago | (#33776540)

It's probably related to having the same old hardware, because in many cases computers come with pre-installed OSs and most likely most people never change that to anything else.

So I am guessing, but again, how many of those 66% are using the same hardware that they used when Windows7 came out?

Also I want to note that I wouldn't change from XP to 7 even if I had new hardware, and I am using Ubuntu and Fedora on some of my machines and XP on 2 of them.

Insane Question from (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33776574)

Why do they even produce Windows instead of starting a Linux distro for profit ?

It makes sense, though... (1)

Garwulf (708651) | about 4 years ago | (#33776594)

First off, I used to be a dedicated XP user. It was a very good operating system, and I didn't have any urge to upgrade until I bought a new laptop with Windows 7 on it. I liked what I saw enough that I made the decision to upgrade then and there, and Windows 7 has been my primary OS ever since (I found it faster and streamlined in intelligent and useful ways). But, your mileage may vary.

However, it makes sense that we'd be seeing this trend in the marketplace. One of the problems with holding what is effectively a monopoly position is that you become your own biggest competitor. Windows 7 isn't really squaring off against Linux or Mac (although those are competitors), it's squaring off against Windows XP. The same thing has happened multiple times on versions of MS Office.

It seems to me that what will happen is that the main driver of increasing the market share will be new computers with Windows 7 pre-installs, particularly since Win7 did not see the sort of backlash that Vista did. So, given a couple more years, Windows 7 will have a much larger market share.

Re:It makes sense, though... (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 4 years ago | (#33776670)

"It seems to me that what will happen is that the main driver of increasing the market share will be new computers with Windows 7 pre-installs"

It's a shame that more people don't just build their own computers and save money, rather than buying a pre-built with pre-installed garbage (software and such, that is). As for Windows 7, there's simply no groundbreaking reason(s) for people to upgrade.

I'm not changing in Protest (4, Interesting)

Anti Cheat (1749344) | about 4 years ago | (#33776618)

When MS announced that dx10(and up) would not be upgraded in XP and would only be available in win7 (vista doesn't count), I felt cheated. Something that is basically a driver standard should be included in any xp maintenance release. What MS did was strictly a marketing ploy in my mind and an attempt to get money out of my pocket. Considering that this was when xp was very much the main operating system at the time and the announcement came out before there was any new OS, it just seemed to be a pretty shabby trick especially on gamers. So I'm resisting getting win7 until I absolutely have no choice because something I need to do requires win7. Until then I have a reasonable OS on this comp, linux on my other one and see no need to spend hundreds of dollars for basically what I see as $50 worth of upgrades that apply to me. The rest is just worthless junk that in some cases is more of an impediment than anything else.

I like Windows XP (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about 4 years ago | (#33776636)

I still use Windows XP on a partition on one of my machines for games. I'm not the standard user I suspect (3 Linux machines, 1 mac) but I only need it for games so why would I pay through the ass for Windows 7? If MS wants to give it to me for free I'll consider putting it on a partition for gaming but until then as long as XP plays my games then I'll stick with that.

People probably have similar reasons to me as to why they won't upgrade and I seriously think MS is going down the wrong path with having like 6 versions of the operating system. People don't like that.

Posting to the previous article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33776646)

I - I - IBM High School...

Rightly so (2, Interesting)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 4 years ago | (#33776658)

There's absolutely no reason for me to upgrade that I see. Windows XP does what I need, and Windows 7 isn't some sort of groundbreaking technology. It hardly adds anything new to the table! Now, if you're just starting out and happen to get Windows 7 on a computer that you buy, that's fine. I'm not saying I hate Windows 7, I'm just saying that there's really no groundbreaking reasons for people to upgrade (and I've seen many people claim that there are). If I do have to upgrade because of compatibility reasons eventually (like for directx), I certainly won't reward Microsoft with my money and obtain Windows 7 through other means.

Re:Rightly so (-1, Flamebait)

magamiako1 (1026318) | about 4 years ago | (#33776678)

If you're willing to just pirate it you have no say in the matter, you're an idiot--and I hope people do not listen to you for IT advice.

I've seen a substantial drop in requests from people regarding viruses by having moved to Vista/7 over the years. In fact, it could be argued that this is bad business practice by recommending software that I won't have to fix every month. But the fact of the matter is that I get tired of consumers bugging me to make sure that their data is fully protected, that they won't ever get viruses, etc. The attack surface on Vista and 7 is substantially reduced in comparison to XP. And this is great. The years of silent install activex objects are long behind us, the massive spyware used to install on peoples' PCs.

The closest we see to this now is the "PC Antivirus 2010" stuff that still hangs around largely due to its social engineering techniques. But back in the day, all I had to do was visit some random websites and get an XP machine infected with spyware and viruses. Vista and 7 have substantially reduced their market.

Re:Rightly so (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 4 years ago | (#33776710)

"If you're willing to just pirate it you have no say in the matter, you're an idiot"

Why? Can't say I didn't see that coming, but, why?

"I've seen a substantial drop in requests from people regarding viruses by having moved to Vista/7 over the years"

That's because most people don't know how to use a computer in the first place. With knowledge you can avoid nearly all viruses, and with an antivirus you can likely avoid the rest (a good one).

Re:Rightly so (0, Flamebait)

magamiako1 (1026318) | about 4 years ago | (#33776788)

You're an idiot because your opinions are already biased by the fact that you "refuse to give Microsoft" your money. I must give you kudos for not using M$ though, so thanks for that. But nonetheless, when you already approach an argument about their Operating Systems with an added bias about the company, it's hard to take any opinion you have objectively.

The latter remark I made regarding reduction in spyware and viruses is directly the result of the significantly extra protections added in Vista/7 to help protect end users. This is pretty much a fact of the products. You could be the most vigilant person in the world and you can still get a virus loaded onto your system. I'd rather reduce the attack surface they have to exploit.

You have to keep in mind that vulnerability ratings on websites (such as secunia) don't take into account the environment that it's running in. For example, a "critical" vulnerability in a browser might not actually be be that critical to you as a user. An example is, you could be using Firefox on Linux with a heavily restricted user account that has no local privilege escalation point. Every website will rate the vulnerability as critical, but your environment makes it not as critical to you. Taking that statement there, with various protections added in Windows (UAC in particular), the amount of damage that can be wreaked by a specific vulnerability is significantly reduced. Particularly if you use IE or Chrome rather than Firefox. The former 2 of which lower their privilege use on the system and require elevation to execute.

Nonetheless, you're still "vulnerable" a lot of the time. You could visit websites that you think are safe that have a compromised banner ad or webserver that got exploited with some compromised javascript. You could counter this with "oh I use adblock/noscript!", but then when you have to turn on javascript to get the site itself to work--you're kinda screwed. While these windows of opportunity are relatively rare, they do exist--and you cannot assume "perfect" security by simply only visiting sites you think are safe (though it does help).

Some could stay with XP even on a new machine (3, Interesting)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 4 years ago | (#33776726)

VMware lets you pack an older PC, complete with all installed applications and the data files into an image and replay the image on a new computer using VMware player. Dont throw away your old XP machines. The WinXP license code printed in the nameplate at the back is needed to playback the saved image in VMware player. So theoretically it is possible for some folks at least, to buy a newer Linux machine or a Mac or even a Chrome Pad when it comes out, and use the VM image for their older XP software that works and that is still good. The emulator on a new machine runs the image faster than the older machine. And one can isolate the sandbox in which the old image is running and get the benefit of all the security advantages too.

Hope some people start a project to reduce the technical skills needed to pull this off so that non-technical people can follow this route. The rate at which the hardware is improving, the next generation of iPad or its clones would be able to run a full image of an older XP installation on emulation!

No raise for you! (4, Insightful)

clinko (232501) | about 4 years ago | (#33776740)

Could this be based on the economy too?

I Usually buy a new pc after a good bonus or raise. I think I was running XP last time that happened.

Corporate Users (1)

falcon_dark (1024221) | about 4 years ago | (#33776746)

Microsoft is finding out, the hard way, that unless your product is really better than previous version the costumer will complain. Corporate users still don't see a reason to upgrade mainly because many of their applications were developed for XP. Going to 7 could break something and since it adds nothing but eyecandy they are keeping XP.

64 bit (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 4 years ago | (#33776756)

The real advantage for me is that Win 7 does 64 bit much better than XP. I'm running it on 3 of the 4 machines I use now. They are:

Desktop - 8 GB used primarily for Java server development. Runs Ubuntu.

Laptop 1 - 4 GB machine that originally ran XP Pro, now runs Win 7 Pro 64. It works much better as such with full use of the 4 GB. Used sometimes for Java development when I'm not in the office.

Server - 6 core 980x with 12 GB RAM. Primarily runs Centos 5 however also can be booted into Win 7 Ultimate 64 if needs to run something on Windows. That doesn't happen very often though.

Laptop 2 - this is sort of a desktop in laptop clothing, runs a 4 core 960 with 6 GB of RAM. Used for almost everything - gaming, development, etc. Runs Win 7 Pro 64.

My feeling about it is that if you have 4 GB or more the upgrade to Win 7 is worth it. Otherwise Win XP is fine.

XP runs perfectly on my PC. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33776782)

But 90% of the time I use Windows 7. Because it's better.

Even on the minimal configuration - P4 3.06HT, 1GB RAM, 128MB Fx5200.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?