Beta
×

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!

Windows XP Market Share Finally Falls Below 50%

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the why-it-seems-only-yesterday dept.

Microsoft 425

An anonymous reader writes "At the end of July 2011, Microsoft can say that Windows XP finally fell below the 50 percent mark. In other words, Redmond's decade-old operating system is now used by less than half of all Internet users."

cancel ×

425 comments

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

just sayin' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36954378)

It'd mean a whole lot more if they had installed Gentoo instead of 'upgrading' to Vista or Seven.

Re:just sayin' (4, Insightful)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954402)

That doesn't really seem like a logical upgrade path for an XP user. It makes a lot more sense for an XP user to move to Win7.

Re:just sayin' (2)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954646)

The logical path is to stick with XP. And that seems to be what most people are doing.

Re:just sayin' (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36954678)

The logical path is to stick with XP.

I don't think you know what a path is.

Re:just sayin' (1)

turing_m (1030530) | more than 3 years ago | (#36955086)

A path need not continue forever. It can have a final destination.

Re:just sayin' (3, Interesting)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954862)

The logical path is to stick with XP. And that seems to be what most people are doing.

I thought so, but I put Win7 on a recently-built computer and I really like it. I had to make a few adjustments to fit the way I like to work, but at least those adjustments are possible with Win7.

Re:just sayin' (4, Insightful)

petman (619526) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954918)

For a new computer, Win7 makes sense. However, I don't see much reason to upgrade an existing computer that is running Windows XP perfectly well. The only reason I can think of is if one's running 32-bit XP on a 64-bit computer and want to increase the RAM.

Still using it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36954380)

XP allows me to have frist post. Take that Win 7

Re:Still using it (1)

war4peace (1628283) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954414)

A true Windows XP user's mindset, because you came in second. but have no fear! It's not a bug, it's a FEATURE :)

No change here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36954390)

Still running it on a Dell P4 with 2gb ram. Yet to see a reason to upgrade. I don't game, I don't code. What do I need to upgrade for?

Re:No change here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36954598)

Honestly if you don't want or need the new features and have adequately secured your install (firewall, etc.), and don't run as administrator, and don't mind that some newer software is no longer written to run on your platform then there is no reason to change it. Its fine to run older software as long as you aren't being limited by it or are OK with those limitations.

Re:No change here (4, Insightful)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954734)

Honestly if you don't want or need the new features and have adequately secured your install ... Its fine to run older software as long as you aren't being limited by it or are OK with those limitations.

That's exactly what I think. My parents (in their sixties) use Windows XP that I installed, keep as up to date as it can be in terms of patches and the like, set them up with a lovely user account that limits what can be done. For the word processing that mum does, and the occasional bit of surfing that they do, there is totally no need for them to upgrade - and trying to teach them how to make things work ("How do I shut it down now? The button used to be there and look like this...") really isn't worth the neglidgable benefit to them.

It is exactly like the old phones that they have - okay, color screens and the like, but no smartphone, no web surfing. They use it for making calls and the (very) occasional text message. Why on earth would they want to "upgrade" to a new shiny smartphone that they have to learn all over again for the simple features and would never use the additional stuff?

Re:smartphones (2)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954928)

Actually I'll switch it up. I carefully waited for the specs to "mature" then I got an iPhone 3GS as a direct upgrade from an old Windows Mobile 6 phone. Clear improvement. But NOW I see no reason to upgrade "just to an iPhone 4".

Re:No change here (2)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954660)

Because the Pentium 4 was inefficient garbage. Assuming you leave it on all the time and replaced the board and processor with a Core 2 three years ago, you would have already made up the difference in power savings.

Linux (1, Redundant)

war4peace (1628283) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954400)

...And, of course, Linux took all the difference :)
Now seriously though, old computers die. New computers come in, they either have no XP drivers or come with preinstalled/bundled Windows 7, or Linux flavors, or whatever, not to mention the vast array of Mobile devices which can connect to the Internet and have no room for Win XP. Windows XP use falling is expected, just like any old OS or OS version. I suspect much of the change comes simply because time passes.

Re:Linux (1)

Malc (1751) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954670)

I know you said it with a sense of humour, but to quantify from TFA: "Linux gained 0.03 percentage points (from 0.95 percent to 0.98 percent). Unsurprisingly, mobile operating systems gained share."

Re:Linux (1)

war4peace (1628283) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954684)

True, it was intended to be a wee bit funny :)

Google & Apple Humiliated The Linux World (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36954730)

Apple/NeXT took BSD and turned it into a polished Unix powerhouse embraced by both consumers and developers by using it as what it always was meant to be, at tool, not a religion.

Google took the Linux kernel and showed what grown ups can do with an open source operating system by absolutely dominating the cellphone OS market.

Meanwhile, Linux continues the oh so productive KDE vs Gnome wars over system settings in 2011.

High five Linux desktop developers!

All Hail Choice!

Re:Google & Apple Humiliated The Linux World (3, Funny)

rhook (943951) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954816)

Apple has been found to give its users a religious experience. I'm sure this has nothing to do with them being a cult.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-19/tech/apple.religion_1_apple-store-apple-employees-brains [cnn.com]

"The neuroscientists ran a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) test on an Apple fanatic and discovered that images of the technology company's gadgets lit up the same parts of the brain as images of a deity do for religious people, the report says.

The first episode of the documentary shows Apple employees "whipped up into some sort of crazy, evangelical frenzy" at the recent opening of an Apple store in London."

Re:Google & Apple Humiliated The Linux World (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36954842)

Funny how you resort to ad hominems rather than refute the GP's excellent points. Desktop Linux: 1% and holding!

Yes, but... (2)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954420)

Yes, WinXP has dropped below 50% of the total market. But according to TFA, WinXP still has a 57% share of Windows installations.

Windows Has All But Disappeared Around Me (0)

AddisonW (2318666) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954778)

I'm surprised those numbers aren't lower.

Over the past couple of years Windows has pretty much disappeared. Every single person I know over the past couple of years has bought a Mac. However, overall computer use seems to have dropped quite a bit with cellphones and tablets becoming the primary computing device friends and family use to day to day.

Of course the cellphones and tablet are all Android and Apple with one or two Blackberry people. I know this just anecdotal evidence but I have to imagine this isn't just some random fluke.

I think we are see just how high the stakes were when Mozilla and Chrome took away 40-50 percent of the browser market from IE. I don't think anything we are seeing now with Android and Apple cellphones and tablets would be possible if IE still completely dominated the web.

Re:Windows Has All But Disappeared Around Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36954836)

Have you checked the estrogen levels in the area around you?
It's a likely explanation for that amount of Macs in an area with men only. ;)

Bearded GNU Freaks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36954870)

Hope you Bearded GNU Freaks enjoy your Clusterfuck of Irrelevancy that is 'Linux on the Desktop'.

Re:Windows Has All But Disappeared Around Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36954858)

Of course you're surprised. You don't see reality like normal humans. Sure, create fantasies based on your chance encounters.
Every single person you know has bought a Mac? You must either wear blinders or you shun people who don't crave the shiny.

Re:Windows Has All But Disappeared Around Me (2, Insightful)

kevinmenzel (1403457) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954908)

Half the people I know with macs have installed Windows 7 on them. About half of those people have stopped using OSX all together, and intend on never buying Apple products again. Aren't anecdotes fun.

Calm down fanboy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36954938)

No need to launch into Defend teh Hive mode.

Re:Windows Has All But Disappeared Around Me (1)

Kalendraf (830012) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954964)

It's not that suprising when considering how many companies still have WinXP as their main OS. For example, the company I work for has about 20K employees worldwide, and WinXP remains our OS platform. Thus, the people that your or I know who aren't using WinXP are probably a tiny fraction when compared to these large corporate install bases.

Re:Yes, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36954794)

So the real news is that Windows developers should still primarily target XP, since it still has almost 60% install base and since it's much more likely that an application developed for XP will run on 7 than the other way around. And that will probably remain the case for years to come, possibly even after Microsoft drops support in 2014. I just hope that when new vulnerabilities are found after that date, antivirus writers will do what they can to protect their users.

Windows 7 is the new XP (3, Insightful)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954428)

Windows 7 is the new XP

Re:Windows 7 is the new XP (1)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954556)

Indeed, in that it will be around for a similar length of time, probably longer. Win7 will still be with us in 2020. Think about THAT.

Re:Windows 7 is the new XP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36954746)

Indeed, in that it will be around for a similar length of time, probably longer. Win7 will still be with us in 2020. Think about THAT.

And isn't Microsoft shoving Windows 8 out next year? I have no idea what they're expecting to accomplish.

Re:Windows 7 is the new XP (1)

substance2003 (665358) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954792)

And isn't Microsoft shoving Windows 8 out next year? I have no idea what they're expecting to accomplish.

They expect to shove out v8 to then do v9 to ultimately have Windows OS X.

Re:Windows 7 is the new XP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36954796)

And isn't Microsoft shoving Windows 8 out next year? I have no idea what they're expecting to accomplish.

Shoving? No idea? Are you willfully retarded?

Windows 8 brings multi-arch to the Microsoft table. Expect to see Windows 8 on all your shitty ARM tablets, and shitty ARM phones, and shitty ARM netbooks.

Three years before end of support (2)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954434)

Remember XP ends support in April 2014. Guess what XP's marketshare will be by them?

So what? (3, Insightful)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954544)

I never get any support from MS anyway. I used win2k for years after MS dropped support.

Re:So what? (3, Insightful)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954600)

Support include security updates, which are important.

Re:So what? (1)

petman (619526) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954826)

How important? How many security exploits that affected Windows 2000 were discovered after support was dropped?

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36954878)

All you need is one.

Re:So what? (1)

petman (619526) | more than 3 years ago | (#36955034)

Really, I'm finding that you westerners are really paranoid about security holes and what-not. Here in the third world we have multitudes of computers running unpatched (often pirated) versions of windows, yet somehow our civilisation is still progressing, there's no imminent danger of us having an information technology meltdown just yet.

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36954916)

Let me fix that for you:

"How many security exploits that affected Windows 2000 were reported after support was dropped?"

Re:So what? (1)

LinuxIsGarbage (1658307) | more than 3 years ago | (#36955070)

Given the similar code base of Windows XP and Windows 2000, and the fact that MANY exploits are cross-version, it's probably safe to say a lot of the currently reported WindowsXP exploits affect Windows 2000. Extended support for Windows 2000 was retired 7/13/2010, which was more than 10 years after release (2/17/2000). G

Re:Three years before end of support (2)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954580)

A friend of mine still runs windows 2000, and that only at my extreme nudging that he should drop 9X flavored kernels several years ago.

Given how I dislike Microsoft's current move toward treating users like cattle (Really, how else can you explain the current incarnation of the control pannel?) I can't make myself push him to upgrade again.

I'd push him to Linux, if Wine could support his "Really old graphic arts software" he runs.

He is very much computing in a 90s timewarp, and doesnt want to leave it.

(at least he is very mindful about what kinds of TCP/UDP connections are open when he is on the internet. He has gone so far in the past as to abandon software because it opens mystery ports.)

I would really like to point him toward a power-user friendly 64bit microsoft OS, since windows is what he is familar with, but the closest thing I can find is XP x64, which is by no small stretch of the term "Not user friendly", especially when it comes to finding drivers that will work with it.

I can understand why microsoft needs to release new OSes every 3 to 5 years--- They HAVE to make new sales to stay in business--- But, what I dont understand is why they moved away from 'Clean and efficient', and toward "So full of eyecandy it gives me a toothache in my eyeballs".

Really, the drab, simplistic UI of the 2000 era was great. I can't be the only one who uses a computer to get shit done, rather than be "entertained" by having my desktop picture cycle every X minutes, or by some resource consuming desktop widget.

(which is precisely why I personally have switched to Linux, and use a minimalist window manager.)

I suspect a large part of the "I Dont like Vista and windows 7" users that this article is bagging on, dislike those two new options for many of the same reasons.

Can't microsoft just add a boot.ini switch or something to turn off "Dumbshit mode" or something?

Re:Three years before end of support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36954688)

You can make 7 look almost like 9x by hitting "Adjust for best performance" in Control Panel > System > Advanced system Settings > Performance. I don't know why you have a problem with "dumbshit mode" anyways; graphics hardware has improved, even on the lowest end machines, so it may as well be used for something rather than wasted.

7 even has really good x64 driver support, AFAIK. If that's your criteria for a x64 system, 7 is your go-to WinOS.

Re:Three years before end of support (3, Interesting)

hazem (472289) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954770)

I'd push him to Linux, if Wine could support his "Really old graphic arts software" he runs.

I used to dual boot between Windows XP and Linux because I preferred to use Linux but there are applications that require Windows. After a recent hard-drive crash, I re-evaluated my setup and tried out VirtualBox - and it's fantastic!

Essentially you run it as a virtual machine on your host system (Linux) where you can then have Windows run in a box. I've been using that setup since January and I love it! I even managed to copy the partition of my work laptop and got it working as a virtual computer as well.

The biggest shortcomings are that I cannot get my Creative Zen to work in the virtual computer. Also, support for writing to DVD/CDs is not very good. I haven't found a good workaround for the Zen (gnomad2 kind of works), and for the DVD stuff, k3b works well on the native Linux side.

I also had success in getting the same image to work on my mom's computer running Vista. She hates vista and a lot of her old games don't work on it. She's thrilled to play her old favorite card game in the virtual computer I set up for her.

VirtualBox is now owned by Oracle, but I think it's still open source. I didn't try VMWare because VirtualBox as served my needs pretty well. You might want to look into it.

Re:Three years before end of support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36955024)

It's obvious you are trolling, but to address your point you would have to be blind to miss the classic mode setting in control panel. You can also change the theme to classic. You can make Win 7 look like 2000 if you want.

Re:Three years before end of support (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 3 years ago | (#36955042)

48.5 percent.

Well duh (1)

arielCo (995647) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954466)

Computers age, and brand computers (i.e. everything that wasn't hand-assembled by a small shop or a user) stopped coming with XP preinstalled since ___?

An XP-era PC can still run homework and Facebook (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954572)

The problem here is that computers became "good enough" for homework and Facebook a long time ago, and even a 2 GHz P4 is fast enough for anything that's not a recent 3D game. This realization, along with the introduction of Intel's power-sipping Atom CPU whose performance is in the same ballpark as an old P4 clock for clock, led to the netbook fad and to the continued use of paid-for PCs.

Re:An XP-era PC can still run homework and Faceboo (-1)

PRMan (959735) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954772)

Atom is WAYYY faster than P4. P4 has no hope of running Windows 7 adequately, where as Atom handles it nicely with 2GB RAM.

Re:An XP-era PC can still run homework and Faceboo (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954982)

Bullshit, my Northwood ran Windows 7, Chrome and MS Office just fine.

Re:Well duh (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954892)

since last year, when I bought a netbook that came with xp installed.

its not dead yet! good for netbooks, still, and for hardware that won't ever be supported by win7.

I have a friend who is building new hardware to replace old hardware and the ONLY reason he has to throw out the old (not that its not working; it is!) is that there are no drivers for win7 for that usb device and its 'easier' to design a new pcboard and put a chip there than to port or find old drivers to win7.

amazing. but in a bad way, of course.

Vista used more than Mac, wOw! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36954480)

Didn't realize Vista has a bigger market share than Mac. For all the hype Jobs & Co. get for Mac it still isn't anything. Linux is doing better considering there is no marketing for Linux and there aren't any "cool" Linux devices, except servers, but who cares about servers when you can have a Mac Book.

Re:Vista used more than Mac, wOw! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36954692)

Didn't realize Vista has a bigger market share than Mac. For all the hype Jobs & Co. get for Mac it still isn't anything. Linux is doing better considering there is no marketing for Linux and there aren't any "cool" Linux devices, except servers, but who cares about servers when you can have a Mac Book.

Yeah, I'm going to take my server with me when I need to go somewhere. I'll take it to a client site, tell them to wait half an hour while I set everything up and they will all be like "wow, your OS needs you to take the box, monitor and everything with you, please tell me what you are running cause I, like, so want to use it!" And I will be like "it runs teh leenux!!!" And they will be like "wow, that is so *cool*, so if I run teh leenux I have to take a server box with me everywhere I go to coz I don't need to do word processing or read email, I just need to stare at a terminal with mysqld running in the background". And I will be like "yeah! and you cant play games or get sound working properly". Seriously - are you retarded? Since when do average users need to run a server OS?

Yeah yeah, 2011 is the year of Linux on the desktop and all that. And what in the article implied Linux was doing better than Mac for an average home users desktop / notebook? You fanbois are incredible, article says "Windows XP market share finally falls below 50%" and you read that simple sentence as "OMGZ Linux now dominates the desktop!".

What about Win7's "XP mode" ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36954484)

First of all I have to say that I think its commendable for a company to support a product for so long. Its also one of the reasons why there will always be a place for Windows servers (I wouldn't want them for Internet usage, but IMO they make very good office servers); you can be sure up front when you may have to replace said server with another OS.

There is however one issue here... Sure; Windows 7 is bound to get a larger market share; but did the researchers also keep in mind that with Windows 7 professional and up you can easily run a native Windows XP environment within Windows 7 ? I'm referring to the Windows XP mode [microsoft.com] which you can download here [microsoft.com] .

Its build on Microsoft Virtual PC (which is freely available) yet when you're running Win7 Professional or higher you can also download a Windows XP ISO (this is basically what it is) which is then used to quickly setup a full Windows XP environment. It gets even better: you can "propagate" applications from inside the virtual PC so that you can easily start these from the regular Win7 start menu as if they were regular Win7 applications (but because its running in a full virtual XP environment the application itself will also use the native XP look and feel).

To be honest I'm quite impressed and happy with this. I even use it to "put aside" applications which I want to try or use without having it "polluting" my main Win7 environment. And when I'm done with it I simply revert my virtual PC back to the original snapshot and all is clean again (of course I will need to re-install certain updates).

So... When they did this research I wonder if they kept this into mind as well? Just because someone is running Windows 7 doesn't necessarily mean he or she gave up on XP entirely.

btw... What I also really like is that MS' Virtual PC has no issues with installing BSD or Linux either. Sometimes MS can get things right IMO, not often but it does happen every now and then.

Re:What about Win7's "XP mode" ? (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954682)

Sure; Windows 7 is bound to get a larger market share; but did the researchers also keep in mind that with Windows 7 professional and up you can easily run a native Windows XP environment within Windows 7 ?

That is... assuming the user has a CPU with the hardware accelerated virtualization needed to run Virtual PC.

Re:What about Win7's "XP mode" ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36954728)

You'd be surprised, doesn't take that much at all it seems.

From the website the previous poster mentioned:

  • 1 GHz 32-bit / 64-bit processor required
  • 2GB memory or higher recommended
  • Recommended 15 GB hard disk space per virtual Windows environment

With todays specs that's not too shabby.

Re:What about Win7's "XP mode" ? (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954876)

No. It takes hardware accelerated virtualization. VirtualPC refuses to run without it. Even in the current lineup, Intel still offers several budget processors with it disabled.

Re:What about Win7's "XP mode" ? (1)

Pop69 (700500) | more than 3 years ago | (#36955040)

It's more than a year since that was a requirement.

Have you never been to windows update to get the patch ?

Re:What about Win7's "XP mode" ? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954894)

That is the minimum though, running XP like that over 7 will be like running XP on a 64 MB system with a 600 Mhz CPU or worse. Barely usable for more than basic testing.

Re:What about Win7's "XP mode" ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36954922)

You can do the same thing in the Home version of Win7 if you have an XP installation cd. It's slow though.

Other? (1)

mathfeel (937008) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954614)

Is this for desktop market? Then what's that 5.77% non Windows/OSX/Linux. BSD?

Re:Other? (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954666)

It includes mobile systems. The other is iPhones/Pads/Pods and Androids.

Re:Other? (1)

petman (619526) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954806)

Are you sure? TFA does not say. If it include mobile systems, why aren't Windows Mobile/Windows Phone included in the Windows category?

On the whole, it's a badly written article. It does not even say where the number come from.

Re:Other? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36955056)

I have a good idea where those numbers come from, but it's a place I do not want to go. Most likely it's dark and smelly.

Installed base (1)

michaelmalak (91262) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954622)

Given that XP is no longer sold, it has 0% of the market share. I think they meant to say "installed base".

Re:Installed base (1)

stinkyj (300739) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954704)

I'd say there numbers were a stretch at best. Market Share means what exactly? From what I can tell they are basing their figures on licenses sold. Well at my workplace 10K+ desktops/laptops we're still on good old XP, and not moving anytime soon. I also was at the Doctor's office today, and they're still on XP. I work in R&D, but when I worked in IT at a different shop, we had to buy the newer version of windows licenses(Win2k I believe), but we still installed NT4 for a long time. So I'd say plenty of folks are still using and installing XP. Eventually some new HW will come out and won't be supported and they'll move crawling and screaming.

Re:Installed base (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36954726)

Given that XP is no longer sold, it has 0% of the market share. I think they meant to say "installed base".

Depends what you mean by market share. If you mean market share of new PCs, then XP still has significant market share - many corporate users are still on XP.

New computers get wiped and loaded (legally) with the standard corporate desktop image.

In fact, some OEMs (like Dell) will load your standard corporate image for you.

Re:Installed base (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36954812)

So you're saying that the owners of a somewhat obsolete OS aren't part of the market for a new OS? My wife, head of market research at a very very large company (in the top 100 of the Fortune 500), had a good laugh at this.

Sorry my fault (1)

G00F (241765) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954644)

I re-installed windows on my gaming rig and tried out windows 7, I'll switch back, please don't ban me from the net!

Serious though, I just installed 7 on my gaming rig(was XP) a few days and even earlier today as I surfed the net to download 64bit drivers/apps was realizing this would show up on peoples pages (and the fact I'm using FF 5.x rather than 3.x)

Would switch if it weren't stupid-expensive... (4, Interesting)

Omega Hacker (6676) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954652)

We have new hardware to install in my church's office. The old computers run XP, purchased as charity licenses. The new hardware came with Vista (bleck!), and I was hoping we could install Windows 7 instead. However, it seems that Microsoft decided to do away with charity licenses. That means that we'd be stuck spending over $400 for a 3-pack of licenses for machines that totaled $750 in hardware. That's not even remotely going to happen. As a result, we're going to be shoe-horning XP back onto the *new* machines, and I'll be installing an Ubuntu dual-boot on them to see if there's any way to get the staff to consider moving to it. Go-go-gadget greed, Microsoft!

Re:Would switch if it weren't stupid-expensive... (-1, Troll)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954790)

Why don't you consider Mac as an option?

Re:Would switch if it weren't stupid-expensive... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36954880)

Why don't you consider Mac as an option?

Have you seen the costs of Macs? For a Church trying to save money using PCs is better because it's easier to change out hardware if something goes faulty. Macs are closed up and parts can be expensive to replace.

Besides PCs cost far less and have high specs than even the 'low cost' Mac Mini. Apple is worse than Microsoft on price gouging.

Re:Would switch if it weren't stupid-expensive... (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954914)

Install Mac OS on 3 computers where the hardware totaled $750? I'm pretty sure there's something in the Mac OS terms that says you are not allowed to install it on any hardware that costs under $1000 per machine. There's definitely a clause in section 2 there [apple.com] that says you're only allowed to install it on Apple-branded hardware.

So which is it, are you suggesting he break the terms of the license, or increase the budget by 4 times?

Re:Would switch if it weren't stupid-expensive... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954948)

...Because he clearly is on a budget. You can't buy more than one Mac for $750. Macs are not for those on a budget, while if you are looking for a fairly high-end system Macs aren't that bad of a deal, but as for a budget system, Macs aren't an option.

Re:Would switch if it weren't stupid-expensive... (1)

mswhippingboy (754599) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954972)

That means that we'd be stuck spending over $400 for a 3-pack of licenses for machines that totaled $750 in hardware. That's not even remotely going to happen

Why don't you consider Mac as an option?

Maybe because if $400 is out of his budget on $750 in hardware, $3600 for 3 MBPs might be a little out of budget as well. Of course, when it comes to Apple, who cares how much it costs right?

Re:Would switch if it weren't stupid-expensive... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 3 years ago | (#36955052)

Even. More. Expensive.

Re:Would switch if it weren't stupid-expensive... (2)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954798)

If it won't "shoehorn". just run XP in a (free) Virtualbox VM with a Ubuntu host.

Take a Snapshot after a clean install, and you can promptly revert if something Bad happens.

Re:Would switch if it weren't stupid-expensive... (3, Insightful)

iprefermuffins (1460233) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954810)

$400? It looks like a 3-pack of upgrade licenses is $140 at Amazon [amazon.com] . Or is that not an option for some reason?

Re:Would switch if it weren't stupid-expensive... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36955072)

I have to assume that "Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium Upgrade Family Pack (3-User)" that permits you to "Install Windows 7 Home Premium on up to three PCs in your household" is intended to be installed in a house for a single family.

It may or may not be the case that the license requires it to be used that way, too.

They may also need to:

  - Run many Windows XP productivity programs in Windows XP Mode.
  - Connect to company networks easily and more securely with Domain Join.
  - Work in the language of your choice and switch between any of 35 languages. (one of which may or may not be latin).

Re:Would switch if it weren't stupid-expensive... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36954830)

Serious question. Where did you come up with $400? Were you looking for Win7 Pro for businesses? Does your charity really use a domain controller? Otherwise, a 3pack of Win7 Home is $125 Walmart [walmart.com]

Also, please elaborate. What has Microsoft removed with respect to charity licenses? A quick google search seems to bring up that Microsoft infact does still have charity licensing. Has the price increased? Number of options decreased? Eligibility?

Re:Would switch if it weren't stupid-expensive... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36954896)

Your church should stick with XP, or switch to Linux. Windows 7 is a horrible operating system, far worse than XP. Besides being incredibly buggy, its design decisions are ridiculous. Windows Explorer is barely functional, Windows search is far worse (I have to use a separate program for this), and just about anything else that worked halfway decently in XP has been tinkered with to worsen it. It's like Microsoft tried to webify the Windows interface, but did it badly. Everything is Javascript or some type of internal scripting. You used to be able to move your mouse without selecting and activating things, but now with the OS's "webification" simply mousing over items opens them. And it's hard to tweak out any of this poor behavior using the registry or gpedit or whatever it's called, if it lets you modify it at all. Roy Schestowitz has been calling Windows 7 "Vista 7," and I thought he was just joking. But now that I have been forced to use it at workm, I find it is the worst Microsoft OS ever, worse than ME or Bob or even 3.0 or 3.1. What a buggy, badly designed mess. The fact that it got good press leads me to believe it was subject to one of the most successful, butdishonest,

Re:Would switch if it weren't stupid-expensive... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36955004)

Was accidentally cut off at end of previous comment.

Meant to say Windows 7 was one of the most successful but dishonest marketing campaigns known to man. XP is a far better OS. The garbage that is Windows 7 will lead many another person to Linux, or more likely, Apple.

TechSoup (4, Informative)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954960)

We have new hardware to install in my church's office. The old computers run XP, purchased as charity licenses. The new hardware came with Vista and I was hoping we could install Windows 7 instead. As a result, we're going to be shoe-horning XP back onto the *new* machines, and I'll be installing an Ubuntu dual-boot on them to see if there's any way to get the staff to consider moving to it. Go-go-gadget greed, Microsoft!

Tech for non-profits:

TechSoup Global, founded in 1987 as The CompuMentor Project, is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that provides technology assistance to other nonprofit organizations in the United States and in 35 countries.
TechSoup.Org Product Donations, originally known as DiscounTech and later as TechSoup Stock, is a technology product philanthropy service for nonprofits which was launched in January 2002. It is the exclusive U.S. distributor of Microsoft product donations, and helps to connect nonprofits and libraries to over 430 different product donations from 45 donating partners (including Cisco, Symantec, Sun and Adobe).

TechSoup [wikipedia.org] TechSoup [techsoup.org]

Microsoft software donations are still mainstays of the TechSoup program. And it's a good thing! Since they started the program in 1998, Microsoft has donated more than $3.9 billion worth of software to nonprofit organizations in more than 100 countries worldwide, now reaching over 40,000 nonprofits each year.

Organizations can now request Microsoft products as needed, not just once per year. Also, there is no longer a five-seat minimum requirement, so an organization can request just one license if that is all it needs.

Now you can request from up to 10 different Microsoft title groups in each two-year cycle

Take our Check Program Eligibility Quiz --- see if you're eligible for Microsoft and our 44 other donation programs.

To learn more about the updates to the Microsoft Software Donation Program and how they affect your organization, visit our Overview of the Microsoft Software Donation Program. Then, join us on August 4, 2011, for a free webinar Microsoft Donation Program: How Does It Work?

Good News! Updates to the Microsoft Software Donation Program [techsoup.org] [July 27]

Re:Would switch if it weren't stupid-expensive... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36955036)

Just ask some college students you know to get you copies of windows 7 using the Ultimate Steal Program. Legal, professional, RETAIL copies, for only $30 each. Retail copies can be put on any computer, and they can be resold.

Re:Would switch if it weren't stupid-expensive... (1)

Kalendraf (830012) | more than 3 years ago | (#36955082)

If the hardware came with Vista (as opposed to being upgraded to it from something else), consider trying Vista first before removing it. I know a lot of people love to hate Vista, but personally I've found it to be extremely reliable - far more reliable than WinXP ever was. I've had zero crashes or other problems with Vista in over 2 years of using it on two PCs which are up 24/7 and see some rather heavy use at times. From reading lots of Vista horror stories, I think my main keys to success were to start with Vista rather than trying to upgrade to it, and to build PCs with enough horsepower to handle it. Depending on the hardware, it's possible that your church's machines might run just fine with Vista.

Re:Would switch if it weren't stupid-expensive... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36955090)

find college students in your church and get them all to buy 30 dollar student licenses from ultimatesteal.com

for 400 you'd be able to buy 13 licenses

Obligatory... (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954742)

And there was much rejoicing.

Apple looks so small..., where's Android? (1)

rjejr (921275) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954748)

So does this include "all" internet access, b/c honestly I thought smartphones were used more by now. And the 3DS and PSP. And the Wii and PS3. And Google tv. Guess this means for all the Apple vs. Android stuff Microsoft still controls the internet? Can't believe I was starting to buy into the hype.

Re:Apple looks so small..., where's Android? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#36955008)

While I can't speak about the mobile parts, game console browsers are nearly unusable. While the Wii has a pretty decent browser and the PS3s isn't terrible, both the PSP and 3DS browsers are unusable except for looking up basic info. Slow, no flash, etc.

MS is Lying!!! (0)

abednegoyulo (1797602) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954760)

Using their logic

more {virus, malware, wachamacallit} = have lots of people using it

and the recent news on /. that XP has a very huge number of infected PCs, then it is safe to assume that XP has still a very large user base. The only indication that XP's userbase has shrunk is when Win7 has more virus, malware and other threaths!

Long live XP!!!

Re:MS is Lying!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36954904)

Since when has MS ever spoken the truth in any of these US vs THEM number games. In college I took a course titled "How to lie with statistics while still telling the absolute truth."

Pie Chart Pulled Out Of Orifice (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36954768)

As Wikipedians might say, citation needed. In TFA, where are the links to the original source, its data, assumptions, research methodology? I could spend 2 minutes doodling with some crayon and come up with something just as solid as that pie chart. Geez.

Why do I need a newer version of XP? (2)

TimHunter (174406) | more than 3 years ago | (#36954936)

I use Win XP to run Quicken 2008 in a VMware virtual machine on OS X. I paid $100 for an OEM version of XP a few years ago for this very purpose. I won't upgrade until there's no other alternative.

Used by less than half of all internet users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36954950)

So would that mean less than half the brain is used, or it generally used with just one hand that's missing a finger?

windows XP is better than windows 7 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36955020)

windows XP is much better than other operation system to me. http://www.wowstylish.com

Why upgrade? (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36955022)

Yes, yes, security concerns and all... but since when does Joe Randomuser care?

WinXP is the first Windows OS that has everything the user wants, even when the next system (actually, the two next systems) is out. When 98 came out, it was a definite upgrade to 95, not to mention that quite a few games soon required 98SE. 2k was a big leap ahead from 98 and NT, combining the versatility of the 9x line with the stability of the NT line, adding out of the box USB support to both. XP again brought new bells and whistles and WiFi support, more stability and more user friendliness.

No, I didn't forget ME. I decided to ignore regressions in development.

But Vista/7? What's the big benefit compared to XP?

DirectX10? So what? Few games really require it, you can do without. Aero? Please, let's talk about something useful, shall we? Now, I am probably not an expert on Windows, but that's pretty much all where I can see Vista/7 sing "everything you do I can do better".

There is simply no reason for people to jump onto Vista/7. I do assume that the "drop" in XP is simply due to people getting new computers with a new system, which is pretty much by default not XP but probably Win7 if they decide for a Windows OS.

tl;dr version: Nothing to see here, move along.

stick'n it out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36955060)

Hater's going to hate, but I've still got xp on my two computers, where i work is all 7 though.

But no one really expects me to upgrade a 1gb pentium D desktop to 7, just not worth it, xp is plenty stable for what I and most people use it for; the web, light gaming, movie's streamed to the TV. i'll wait till 8 then something new.

It works (1)

statsone (1981504) | more than 3 years ago | (#36955080)

current machines work fine. When we get new machines, then we will get the current software. My main one is used for graphics work and no problem. Until then, why spend money for new hardware and software to surf the web and do simple tasks?

So by extension... (2)

ReallyEvilCanine (991886) | more than 3 years ago | (#36955092)

Almost half of all people on-ine (and with no consideration for off-line usage) are still using a decade-old OS. And that's bad why? My fucking Atari 800 blew the doors off of anything that came along for more than a decade and its OS was fucking hard-coded into a 10KB ROM pack (upon which we piggy-backed 4 other selectable 10KB OS .ROMs)

.
When an OS -- even from a company you don't like -- does the job it's supposed to do, what's the problem? Of course I like my various *nix installs as long as they do what I need them to do, but if you have to use Windows for anything, XP is the last in a (supported) line which will still more or less do what you tell it to do. You may recall that XP (like everything before it) installs with a basic version of Win3.1.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>