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!

What's Keeping You On XP?

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the bosses-and-laziness dept.

Windows 879

Hugh Pickens writes "PC World reports that Windows XP lost more than 11 percent of its share from September to December 2011, to post a December average of 46.5 percent, a new low for the aged OS as users have gotten Microsoft's message that the operating system should be retired. Figures indicate that Windows 7 will become the most widely used version in April, several months earlier than previous estimates. Two months ago, as Microsoft quietly celebrated the 10th anniversary of XP's retail launch, the company touted the motto 'Standing still is falling behind' to promote Windows 7 and demote XP. In July, Microsoft told customers it was 'time to move on' from XP, reminding everyone that the OS would exit all support in April 2014. Before that, the Internet Explorer team had dismissed XP as the 'lowest common denominator' when they explained why it wouldn't run IE9. The deadline for ditching Windows XP is in April 2014, when Microsoft stops patching the operating system. 'Enterprises don't want to run an OS when there's no security fixes,' says Michael Silver, an analyst with Gartner Research rejecting the idea that Microsoft would extend the end-of-life date for Windows XP to please the 10% who have no plans to leave the OS. 'The longer they let them run XP, the more enterprises will slow down their migration.'"

cancel ×


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

Nothing (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38576552)

This is a troll article. Using a decade old OS and going on about problems it has today is typical discussion for the stagnated slashdot.

Re:Nothing (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38577084)

shhh, you'll be labeled a microsoft shill, an astroturfer, or whatever new names the 30-and-living-with-mom-and-dad /. crowd has come up with while waiting for the year of linux on the desktop.

Money (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38576562)

Cheap PCs run XP.

Re:Money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38576908)

And a rich ecosystem of pirated^W accessible multimedia software that Just Works(TM) runs on XP.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:Money (2)

Toonol (1057698) | about 2 years ago | (#38577082)

And most of my PCs are cheap. I planning on continuing with XP for at least another year.

MS (4, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | about 2 years ago | (#38576568)

MS isn't giving away free upgrades and I'm not interested in paying for a really expensive copy or Windows just to play games.

When the security patches cease, I'll just uninstall XP and replace it with whatever the best version of Linux is at that point.

Re:MS (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38576638)

You know you can continue using XP even after the security patches cease right? I haven't upgraded my XP after SP1

Re:MS (2, Insightful)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about 2 years ago | (#38576738)

Not acceptable for any business environment, how'd you feel if I was processing your SSN off that xp sp1 box?

Re:MS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38576818)


And I think the patch level of Oracle would be more important.

Re:MS (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 2 years ago | (#38576938)

More or less, I'll probably keep my copies for in a VM, but in general I won't be using them anywhere that's exposed to the internet or my private information.

Re:MS (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38576748)

We know. Neither has your girlfriend. By the way, she's totally lying about her weight on e-harmony.

Re:MS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38576762)

XP is better than Linux. Why would I switch? I don't see a single solution to any problem I have in Linuxland.

Re:MS (5, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | about 2 years ago | (#38576934)

And they say that the Desktop isn't dying.
I have a 5 year old Mac Book Pro, and I don't have any needs to upgrade that as well. I think we are seeing the end of the desktop, because people are no longer feeling the need to upgrade. Go back 10-15 years ago. Every 2-4 years we felt that we needed to upgrade our PC, and when we upgraded we felt the difference.
Floppy to CD to CDR to DVD to DVDR. 512k to 1 meg to 4 meg to 32 meg to 128 meg to 1 gig to 3 gigs of ram.
CGA (4 colors 320x200) VGA (256 colors 320x200), SVGA, 3d cards...
When we upgraded every 2-4 years we got something new and cool. Today an upgrade doesn't give us the same bang anymore. So we hold off and wait longer between upgrades with perfectly usable Computers that are getting much older however still function well and runs modern software.

We are now looking at Tables and our Phones and using them more and more compared to our PCs or Laptops. Every new version adds a bit more of a wow factor and entices people go upgrade and get the new one.

Re:MS (2)

operagost (62405) | about 2 years ago | (#38577114)

just to play games.


Why not move to Linux now? Expecting the gaming possibilities of the platform to improve when XP is EOL?

It still works. (5, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | about 2 years ago | (#38576578)

If it ain't broke, why fix it? It's not like I'm running a nuclear reactor at home on my XP box.

Re:It still works. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38576624)

As Steve Jobs once said, "It just works."

Re:It still works. (4, Interesting)

david.emery (127135) | about 2 years ago | (#38576986)

And it doesn't cost any more money to keep it working. XP is tightly locked down for the few applications and few websites needed by those applications. The primary argument against staying on WinXP appear to be security issues. But if I only visit Symantec, Microsoft, Adobe and US Government sites, I suspect my risks are acceptable.

For everything else, I use MacOS, but that's of course just my opinion.

Re:It still works. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38576686)


Re:It still works. (0)

dingen (958134) | about 2 years ago | (#38577008)

Because you're not going to use a computer just now, you're going to be using a computer the rest of your life. And since just about everything in IT is in continuous motion, it's important to keep up with developments and make sure you abandon dying platforms in time to prevent getting stuck.

Re:It still works. (5, Insightful)

b0s0z0ku (752509) | about 2 years ago | (#38577104)

I.T. is a means of solving problems, it's not a religion. If it works well for the purpose, no need to upgrade. If it doesn't, then move on.

Re:It still works. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38577120)

Because you're not going to use a computer just now, you're going to be using a computer the rest of your life. And since just about everything in IT is in continuous motion, it's important to keep up with developments and make sure you abandon dying platforms in time to prevent getting stuck.

WTF? O.K. then, do you also replace your car when it's a few years old, but still serviceable? How about that shirt you're wearing, has it been to the laundry more than a dozen times?

More to the point, are you the kind of IT guy who walks up to somebody on an XP machine, and before you even listen to their problem state "you need to get rid of this old piece of junk."

Yeah, I thought so. Creep like you completely wiped 5 years' of my e-mail history when "Upgrading" me from 98 to XP.

Re:It still works. (3, Insightful)

b0s0z0ku (752509) | about 2 years ago | (#38577076)

Betcha that a lot of reactors are still running Windows 2K or NT servers. OS upgrades tend to move very slowly in isolated automation/SCADA systems.

It's not my primary OS. (2)

grub (11606) | about 2 years ago | (#38576604)

I use OSX, Linux and OpenBSD on a daily basis. My XP use is limited to VMs running some Windows-only utilities on the first two.

There's no compelling reason to change as yet.

Virtual Machine (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38576626)

I have XP in a VirtualBox instance that I use to run some specialised software (Templot). Hardly worth upgrading that to 7.

Oh and I've reconditioned one or two old laptops recently for my nieces, and they're just too old to run anything other than XP.

If It's Not Broken... (2, Interesting)

lobiusmoop (305328) | about 2 years ago | (#38576640)

Don't fix it. XP is a perfectly reliable platform. I can understand Microsoft wanting to shift more units, but no need for change-for-the-sake-of-it really. Or maybe I'm just an old codger :)

Re:If It's Not Broken... (5, Funny)

n5vb (587569) | about 2 years ago | (#38576728)

.. but no need for change-for-the-sake-of-it really ..

My impression was that change-for-the-sake-of-it was Microsoft's primary business model.

Re:If It's Not Broken... (2)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about 2 years ago | (#38576816)

Nobody said there's anything wrong with it, nor does anybody have to quit using it, but MS isn't making $ off it anymore, patches cost money, its a business decision, nothing to do w xp or win 7 users at all. Linux is the same way in that it doesn't support its old kernel builds after a while (it might have at some point for some distros), the difference of course is cost.

Re:If It's Not Broken... (1)

LeanSystems (2513566) | about 2 years ago | (#38576914)

Exactly.... why do game companies shut down their servers? Why don't they keep them running for 11-12 years like MS will with XP? Because it costs money to keep a system up and running... no matter if it's a biological, manufacturing, internet or operating system. They all take resources to run and resources are not unlimited.

Re:If It's Not Broken... (2)

omz13 (882548) | about 2 years ago | (#38577010)

I've been on XP as Windows Vista or 7 didnt offer any compelling reason to upgrade... And I only use windows to run Visio, otherwise the other 95% of my OS time is spent in OS X.

Re:If It's Not Broken... (3, Insightful)

tverbeek (457094) | about 2 years ago | (#38577020)

I still use WinXP and I expect to continue using it for quite some time to come. It's the operating system that the TabletPC slate I use for drawing runs on, and it does everything I need it to do: load my graphics application, provide storage and TCP/IP services to that app, and support drivers for the stylus and other input devices on it. I could upgrade it to Windows 7... but would gain absolutely nothing from doing so. The OS serves quite nicely as an operating system for the device, and that's all I ask of it. By the time the security updates from Redmond stop, WXP should be such a niche OS that the minimal exposure that this device has, should be a tiny risk.

Isn't it obvious? (4, Interesting)

Ragun (1885816) | about 2 years ago | (#38576650)

I just don't care. XP works as a platform for the programs I actually use, and between the lack of anything to be excited about, and lack of a clear upgrade path, I will probably use XP until I lose my key.

It works "Good enough" (2)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | about 2 years ago | (#38576652)

Most consumer Hardware and software is compatible with it
It was being shipped with netbooks till sometime in 2010 IIRC
For something like an OS, the bigger question is "Why change"
The generic consumer doesnt care about security updates

Re:It works "Good enough" (4, Insightful)

jsnipy (913480) | about 2 years ago | (#38576936)

(good) 64 bit support

Re:It works "Good enough" (1)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | about 2 years ago | (#38577034)

Still not required for daily use

VPN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38576656)

With one client, we have to use a VPN program that only works on Windows XP. Can't remember what its name is, but it's a finicky thing... and the client isn't upgrading their IT systems for a while.

FTFY (4, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#38576668)

'The longer they let them run XP, the more enterprises will slow down their migration.'"

'The longer they let them run XP, the more enterprises will eat into our profit margin and not let us impliment our more restrictive and convoluted licensing...'", a Microsoft spokesperson said. "Businesses are sick of products that meet their needs and are amply tested and well-understood," he continued. "They want a product that has a restrictive licensing agreement, is much more resource-intensive, and offers little or no benefit to the business segment beyond being pretty." He went on to add, "Plus, Apple is kicking the crap out of us in the consumer market and we need extra cash to burn, and let's face it... the only successful big products we've launched are Windows and Office. We have to force business users to adopt it, or our shareholders will tar and feather us before setting our homes on fire for not creating a single smash hit in the consumer market since Halo.

Ya what dicks! (2, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 2 years ago | (#38576846)

They are only willing to support their product for 13 years! How dare they demand that users move to new technology once a decade to maintain support!

Please, come off it. MS has a plenty lengthy support cycle. They support all their OSes for 10 years from release minimum. XP has been extended 3 years past that. That is quite reasonable.

Re:Ya what dicks! (3, Informative)

Fluffeh (1273756) | about 2 years ago | (#38577016)

... the only successful big products we've launched are Windows and Office. We have to force business users to adopt it ...

They support all their OSes for 10 years from release minimum. XP has been extended 3 years past that. That is quite reasonable

Actually, you are both right. Support for XP has been more than generous and acceptable. However, MS is indeed in the business of developing a new OS and wanting to get everyone on their previous versions onto it. Now, given the utter debarcle that was Vista, I think they have at least learned that it must be an acceptable standard and will continue to try to get it decent. Having said that, their business model will always remain on getting customers who continue to buy new OS, rather than making an OS and making enough profit from the sales without needing to get extra sales.

Re:Ya what dicks! (0, Flamebait)

0123456 (636235) | about 2 years ago | (#38577036)

They are only willing to support their product for 13 years! How dare they demand that users move to new technology once a decade to maintain support!

I bought my netbook with XP in 2009. Where's my decade of support?

OK, I long ago wiped XP and replaced it with Linux, but the point stands: XP is not an 'ancient OS', it was still being sold new only a year or two back.

Re:Ya what dicks! (5, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | about 2 years ago | (#38577080)

You do realize that MS was selling new licenses for most of that time, right? Additionally, MS doesn't give support for free, most of the time you have to either go through the OEM or pay MS to provide it. The cost of them providing patches to all the XP users isn't significantly higher than providing them only to people that have bought in the last X months. Developing the patches is the cost there.

Why bother upgrading? (4, Funny)

grimmjeeper (2301232) | about 2 years ago | (#38576670)

The world will end in less than a year so why bother upgrading?

Deep Freeze and Big Brother (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38576674)

And then someone epoxied all the USB ports. Sigh.

HP Universal Print Driver- thats why! (2)

way2trivial (601132) | about 2 years ago | (#38576692)

I can't stand the damn thing. I have a nice 6040f printer that I paid about 11k for- and under windows 7 I can't use the booklet functions via the stupid universal print driver

I make my booklets on pc #1 (windows 7, 64 bit screamer workstation) and then shuffle them to my old xp PC so I can still use the discrete driver.

Haven't replaced the whole computer yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38576696)

Why would I pay $200 for a legit copy of Win 7 when I will buy a new computer in a year or so for $450?

Work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38576698)

The majority of Best Buy's corporate machines are still required to use XP, but hey, we're finally moving forward to IE 7! Technology leader, right?

A/C for obvious reasons...

Why upgrade? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38576702)

Why shouldn't I be on XP? It is a good OS. Unless you have pieces of hardware that Windows 7 better supports why upgrade until you upgrade hardware? The reason to stay on XP is because of the lack of reasons not to.

vista (2)

turkeydance (1266624) | about 2 years ago | (#38576708)

Vista kept me on XP

Not being accused of being a thief (0)

mtrachtenberg (67780) | about 2 years ago | (#38576712)

I bought two Toshiba Satellites with Windows 7. There were problems with the software on one, but after going through support hellp with Toshiba, I just let it be. I reformatted the drive to support Ubuntu Linux on dual boot. A few months ago, one of the Toshiba's began telling me my copy of Windows, the original installed Windows 7 on the Toshiba's purchased at Amazon, was counterfeit. The Windows side of the machine is even more useless than it was to begin with.

That's the best reason I know of to use Windows XP. The next best reason is it probably can't kill you unless it gets out of the computer.

Together let's raise that 10% to 11! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38576714)

Thank you MS for raising the specs on netbooks which would have run XP perfectly but you wanted them on Win7 (thus raising its price). To return the favor, let me be the thorn on your side. Here's to 11%, fellow /.'s!!

Corporate Politcy (5, Informative)

jellomizer (103300) | about 2 years ago | (#38576722)

Work says I need to use XP so I do. They are working on a Windows 7 upgrade plan but that isn't due for an other year or so. They need to be sure everything is tested and works.

When you have a large organization Thousand+ employees it takes time to make sure the upgrade goes smooth.

alreaddy changd (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38576740)

i had so many problems with xp i changed to linux, it does not cost as much as windows 7 and runs on my machine, witch is oldish and below min usable specs for win7

Cost (2, Insightful)

Zaphod The 42nd (1205578) | about 2 years ago | (#38576744)

Paying $100+ for Windows seems like even more of a ripoff when I've got to buy it again every 2 years.
I bought this software, its mine, and I'll use it, thank you very much.

If only more of the software industry would target linux and mac, we could get away from having to pay an arm and a leg to Redmond every few years.

Dunno about you guys, but I don't exactly have a ton of free cash to spend.

Re:Cost (1)

Xtifr (1323) | about 2 years ago | (#38577070)

Paying $100+ for Windows seems like even more of a ripoff when I've got to buy it again every 2 years.

Yup, that's why I'm still running Win95 OSR2. :)

(Seriously, that is the most recent version of Windows I own, though I don't actually use it very often.)

Because it's fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38576752)

I still prefer over Vista and Win 7 for two reasons:

1. Speed. I don't know why, but Vista and 7 always feel very laggy to me. Even with all animations and UAC turned off, every menu, file copy, or anything else to do with the UI seems to have some terrible delay to it.

2. Simplicity. I don't need fancy menus or animations.

XP has been rock solid for me for years and never crashes. Vista/7 drive me f*ing crazy with how slow they feel.

Re:Because it's fast (4, Informative)

jellomizer (103300) | about 2 years ago | (#38577056)

You probably don't have a good video card. Windows 7 and Even some versions of Linux run much faster when to do enable the Animations, because the OS uses this as an opportunity to go, oh you want these animations! Let me offload this to your video card. When you have them turned off, the OS thinks your card isn't fully supported so it handles the existing UI off the CPU.

Legacy hardware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38576760)

Some ignorant makers of scientific gear only support windows. And I own some tens of thousands of bucks worth of it in my lab. Win XP only exists in the entire network to support this junk - and at that, mostly from inside virtual box on a more real opsys and machine. Why the heck should I pay for an "upgrade" that will probably break half of this no-security-poorly-written software?

I have no need. (1)

thelonesun (2438194) | about 2 years ago | (#38576778)

I have no need for windows 7 or vista, and do not plan on upgrading soon. I mean, there is an ALTERNATIVE, but I'd prefer not to take that alternative.

Nothing is keeping me on XP (2)

msobkow (48369) | about 2 years ago | (#38576788)

My XP partition finally had to be nuked to clear out an infection after 8 years of stable service, so I shifted to Ubuntu 10.04.1 (can't use a newer version due to hardware incompatabilities.)

I had been planning to upgrade to Win7, but when I realized I could get a whole laptop with Win7 Pro and more memory and CPU horsepower than my old box for under $600, I scrapped the idea of an upgrade. Why pay close to $200 for a copy of Win7 when $400 more will get me a whole machine?

Because others do... (1)

Ossifer (703813) | about 2 years ago | (#38576806)

Still have to support my product at customer sites where the local IT department has not allowed more recent versions of Windows...

Hazard (2, Interesting)

nman64 (912054) | about 2 years ago | (#38576808)

I'm sure there will be plenty of posts here about how XP still works, how it fits the needs of some people, etc.

Even if you had a working Ford Model T, you couldn't safely use it on today's highways. Running Windows XP on today's Internet is far more dangerous, both for the operator and for everyone else, than running a more recent operating system. It will become far more hazardous after the patches stop flowing. There is a shrinking window for people to make the transition before the patches stop, and everyone still using XP would do well to take advantage of that window before it disappears.

Re:Hazard (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 2 years ago | (#38576990)

Running Windows XP on today's Internet is far more dangerous, both for the operator and for everyone else, than running a more recent operating system. It will become far more hazardous after the patches stop flowing.

No. Fully patched XP on a network run by reasonably competent admins is safe enough. When MS quits with the security patches, that may well change but today it's fine.

An unpatched old box running some downloaded warz copy of XP SP1 is another story.

Re:Hazard (2)

vistapwns (1103935) | about 2 years ago | (#38577022)

Yea pretty much this. XP lacks key security features, like ASLR and browser sandboxing, ACL'ed services and so on. Win 7 (and Vista) also have better multicore support, more widely supported and compatible x64 versions, and better SSD support. So I would say to all these "XP ain't broken" comments, that it depends very much on your definition of "broken" because XP seems very broken to me (in this age, though it might have been dandy back in 2002.) If you depend on specialized apps or games that don't run in Win 7 or you're poor, then yea you're stuck, but pretty everyone else should dump XP and upgrade. I upgraded my friends and family to Vista and Win 7, and now I never get malware help calls, I'm loving it.

Re:Hazard (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38577068)

I have a form of OCD that requires me to scan every /. thread until I find a post that uses a stupid car analogy to make its point. Thank you for releasing me from this boring thread.

Re:Hazard (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38577112)

Ny 2014 I'll have a new machine with whatever incarnation of MSOS is on it. But for now, I have a machine that only has 2GB of physical RAM and there's no way in hell I'm putting a bloated pig like Windows 7 on it. In fact I consider Windows 7 to be the same pig as Vista, except with a little lipstick on it.

Compatibility dontcha know? (5, Insightful)

ElmoGonzo (627753) | about 2 years ago | (#38576814)

It may have escaped PC World's notice (not like THAT ever happened before) but there are some applications and drivers that will not install on any of MS's newer OS's and that so-called XP Compatibility mode isn't. And if those applications need to be supported then XP is what you use. Maybe you hide it in a VM that is running on a newer version of Windows but chances are that you'll do like me and keep that XP machine running and wish you never got sucked into the Microsoft maelstrom.

We just migrated to XP! (2)

aslvstr (659823) | about 2 years ago | (#38576820)

My company just migrated to XP in '07, we still haven't seen XP's useful life! We should be migrating to Windows 7 about the time Win8's SP3 comes out!

The IT department claims that it costs too much to roll out a new OS and rebuild all the remote management tools, train the Neytwork staff in the new OS (but not any end users), and pay for upgrades for 2000+ PCs...

Games, cost and familiarity (2, Interesting)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about 2 years ago | (#38576824)

1) All my games work (for the most part) and I don't have to beg for a port to Linux of said game or driver.

2) I don't necessarily want to pay the Apple premium for their rendition of problems.

3) I don't necessarily want to pay Microsoft more money for their rendition of Upgrade problems.

4) I'm familar with XP and all of it's quirks. Yeah I gotta reinstall every 6 months to keep it sane again, but imaging takes care of the worst of it.

at work... (1)

apcullen (2504324) | about 2 years ago | (#38576826)

At work we recently updated our windows installations about six months ago-- to XP service pack 3. I'm guessing we'll be sticking with XP until microsoft pries it out of our cold, dead, fingers.

What's keeping me om XP? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38576832)

Microsoft Visual Studio 6 (C++), which doesn't run on Vista and Win7. We also still have quite a bit VB6 code, God have mercy on our souls.

Re:What's keeping me om XP? (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | about 2 years ago | (#38576984)

I maintained VB6 code on vista, and continue on 7 64-bit, no problems. And I had MSVS 6 on Vista, compiled C++ without issue.

You might want to try a VM and make sure you were correct - my experience says it works.

What's Keeping You on XP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38576834)

I will stay with XP as a secondary OS to my Linux installs...used only for opening files in proprietary microsoft formats. When u$ obsoleted W98 and the hardware that ran it, I swore that XP would be my last u$ OS, as I refuse to allow a corporate entity to dictate my hardware and software purchases in fullfilllment of their business plans. I still have, and occaisionally use an old Compaq laptop that ran '98 from the factory but now runs Vector Linux 6.0 better than ever...even with only 192M of memory (remember when that was massive?).

Nothing (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38576836)

Nothing. I replaced it with Ubuntu. All XP software that I need run's fully well using Wine. I can still use the same 10 year old hardware, with as bonus a noticable performance boost and a considerable shorter boot time.

TweakUI, no Breadcrumbs, usable control panel (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38576860)

When TweakUI [] went away for Win7, I got annoyed. Doubly so now that files and paths in the Win7 explorer are filled with space-wasting "breadcrumbs". Triply so now that (in Win7) I can't just say "Control Panel > Foo > Bar", but have to memorize some sort of unique name for each applet in order to access it quickly. The web-appification of control panel in Win7 doesn't add much to the annoyance of performing administrative tasks, but it hugely complicates the documentation of administrative tasks.

At least with focus-follows-mouse, there's a X-mouse [] workaround involving a couple of registry edits, but I'm dreading Win8.

Every time Windows "evolves", I'm forced to add another 10-15 minutes to undo the latest round of dumbing-down.

Simplicity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38576870)

Every time I look at a newer version of Windows, it seems it is harder to manage. Wizards drive me bat shit crazy and I don't feel like looking up the string to create a god mode for every windows box I run across. Ill wait for XP to die, and hope that more companies move to "bring your own platform". Every other box I have is Linux these days anyway.

Personally..... (1)

JTD121 (950855) | about 2 years ago | (#38576876)

It's old(ish) hardware. Running XP on a Thinkpad T43p. Whenever I scrounge up the monies (and a newer, longer-term, better paying, job) I'll probably get a newer set of hardware. Whether that be a small-ish desktop running one of AMDs new A8 Fusion chips, or a laptop, I have not decided yet.....

Because I like to use my RAM and CPU myself (5, Interesting)

Rogerborg (306625) | about 2 years ago | (#38576878)

To be honest, the only reason I eventually chopped in 2K for XP was that MS started shipping tools and SDKs that (arbitrarily) refused to install on 2K.

Windows is a operating system for hosting applications, generally ones written by someone else. Everything else that it insists on doing is completely extraneous to my requirements - that it just shuts up and gets into the background. MS has failed to make a compelling argument in favour of 7. I don't find "or else" particularly persuasive.

Cus old computer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38576880)

My main computer at home is a 1.7ghz toshiba laptop with 512Megs of ram.
If anything i should downgrade to 98SE2

Old computer (1)

stevegee58 (1179505) | about 2 years ago | (#38576882)

It's a Dell from 2004 but hey, it's got a 3GHZ processor and 3GB of RAM. It works fine and it's fast enough.
Word is Win7 won't work OOTB for computers this old due to driver availability etc.

Simple Issue of Money (1)

Claymsmith (1405371) | about 2 years ago | (#38576902)

For my smaller enterprise I simply can't pay out to upgrade out machines to 7. We will get Win7 on our next hardware refresh cycle but not until then. As the IT guy I am very careful to monitor for malware, script kiddies and the like. I have however, resigned myself to the fact that if some uber hacker wants to get into my system they will. I have planned for that contingency. I'm not running to Redmond with piles of cash screaming for them to protect me. Cheers

Wrong Crowd (1, Redundant)

alphatel (1450715) | about 2 years ago | (#38576912)

No one on / still uses that as their main PC. To the companies that do: You must be stupid, stupid, stupid.

Two things: hardware and upgrade path (4, Interesting)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about 2 years ago | (#38576924)

Two things for me on my last XP machines.

1) The laptops I acquired that run XP can't run Vista or Windows 7. They are at their last Windows OS even per Microsoft specs.
2) You would have to be insane to try to upgrade an old XP box to 7 in place. I've seen enough toasted and flaky OS installations in my time that I've switched entirely to "lift and shift".

License cost? Meh - I haven't paid for Windows 7 yet or any of the other Server OS's around my house. Somehow Microsoft thinks I need lot of free samples (development editions, Windows 7 party packs, etc.) and who am I to dissuade them?

I work at a community college... (1)

jdeisenberg (37914) | about 2 years ago | (#38576928)

...and we still have one or two labs on XP. This is actually a good thing, as some of our students have really old machines, and we need at least some XP machines to test web sites, etc. to make sure they display properly with older browsers (Internet Explorer 7, to be specific).

Captain Obvious (2)

Dan East (318230) | about 2 years ago | (#38576940)

December average of 46.5 percent, a new low for the aged OS

Um, every day since XP peaked in 2006 has been "a new low". Why would market share of XP do anything but decrease? And if you want to get pedantic, there would have been a time period immediately after XP hit the market that it would have been under 46.5 percent until it reached dominance. Sorry, that statement just struck me as silly.

Audio Drivers (1)

imbusy (1002705) | about 2 years ago | (#38576954)

I'm using my laptop as a media centre in my lounge and I have a USB audio interface connected to it. The interface does not have Linux drivers. Otherwise I would have installed some Linux distribution long time ago.

It still works (1)

hawguy (1600213) | about 2 years ago | (#38576992)

My company is still on XP because it works, and works well for the vast majority of people. Stability hasn't been a problem in a long time - and most people here shut down their computer every night, so that daily reboot cycle helps keep it stable too.

In our environment, Windows is increasingly being used only to run a web browser - many of our new business apps are a web service (running in house or hosted by the vendor). As long as Firefox and/or Chrome continue to run well on XP, it will be "good enough" for most people here. If only we could get rid of Office (Office365 doesn't seem any better than local copies of Office from a licensing standpoint) then we could be more OS independent.

There are the exceptions - like people that want more than 3.5GB of RAM (and who don't want to run WinXP 64bit, which has proven to be problematic, especially in drivers).

Why upgrade before 2014? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38577002)

I'm already on 7, I dumped XP some time ago. But I can understand the perspective of some. The lighter users. The people who don't game. If the machine they have before them does what they need with XP, why would they change years before support ends? There is more than two years left. By that time, Windows 8 will have been released. Shoot, it'll likely have a service pack already in it.

I'm more concerned about my grandmother being still stuck on Vista. She either needs to go back to XP or get to 7.

Anything but Vista.

Xp is only 27% (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38577006)

At least here in the US.

China is the only country that uses it because it is much easier to pirate.

What's Keeping You On XP? (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 2 years ago | (#38577014)

It does what I need it to. That really says it all. It's not that I don't like Windows 7, I actually prefer it. But I can't justify spending $139 for Win7 Pro for all of my computers, when I really don't gain anything for it. There are people still running 95 and 98 for the same reasons. I know of some government offices that are still on NT. AS long as you keep those boxes off of the internet, I'm not sure what the problem is.

Because I am a Cheap Bastard! (1)

mombodog (920359) | about 2 years ago | (#38577018)

Main reason is I paid for it and I don't like to give up on it, it serves my purpose on a few of my PC's and if I upgrade it makes it appear that I rented XP, and renting sucks for so many reasons.

Old Hardware (1)

na1led (1030470) | about 2 years ago | (#38577024)

People still using XP because their computers are too old for Vista , Win 7. A lot of people are still using PC's that a 5-7 years old because they see no need to upgrade. These are the folks that play solitare and check emails once in awhile, and maybe look up simple recipes on the web. Most of the old folks are not into using computers much, so upgrading, and changes doesn't make sense for them.

Partner Opportunity (1)

digitaltraveller (167469) | about 2 years ago | (#38577038)

Maybe Google could partner with Microsoft to get those people onto the free Android system?

Light/Fast, Compatible (1)

steevven1 (1045978) | about 2 years ago | (#38577040)

XP is lighter and faster than any other Windows release, while still being compatible with almost all of the software I want. I prefer an OS I can run on my crumbling 600 MHz laptop with 256 MB of RAM and on all my modern machines (inside of a VirtualBox, since I'm a Linux user).

Incremental, cheaper upgrades please (1)

niw3 (1029008) | about 2 years ago | (#38577046)

The price tag of course. If new releases of Windows were $30 upgrades like OSX, and upgrades were just like installing a new program from the web, I would upgrade every year. That's my excuse. However my observation is that many people hated Vista, and chose to skip that version, and when Windows 7 was out their hardware was too old to install an expensive upgrade.

i only just realised i dont care (1)

swright (202401) | about 2 years ago | (#38577048)

Well actually I do a bit, with everyone on Windows 7 games can start to be dx11 only, which means more pretty.

Mostly I just care about people getting off ie6, and that's happening anyway so who cares what OS people use under the browser.

for the lulz (2)

cod3r_ (2031620) | about 2 years ago | (#38577054)

I stay on XP because I'm hardcore.. and i can lol at all u newbs that can't hang.

Cost and RAM limit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38577060)

First, it's not free to upgrade to Windows 7.

Even if it were free, I'm running on an old PC that will not take more than 768MB of memory. Given that XP seems to have become progressively slower over time and successive updates (maybe real, maybe just subjective), and the general observation that memory use is highly unlikely to have decreased in Windows 7, an upgrade is not attractive.

DX9 and IE6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38577090)

Those two are the worst parts of XP.

DX9 is holding back PC gaming meaning we get crap console ports and means top end graphics cards only get niche titles like crysis and metro 2033 while IE6 holding back hTML5. Apart from them XP is still okay and I keep it around on virtual machines and dual boot even though I use 7 as my main system. XP would of gone by now though if Vista didn't stumble and was good at RTM.

Compatibility (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38577124)

I know some people who are still on XP and they're not likely to change soon. The reason is application and hardware support. They have some apps which don't work on Windows 7, but do work on XP. They can't upgrade the OS until the vendor supports Win 7. Likewise I know some home users who have scanners, printers, etc which don't have Windows 7 drivers. They refuse to buy all new equipment when their current stuff works perfectly on XP.

When these people eventually have to leave XP behind they will be moving to a platform which supports their applications and hardware. Windows 7 isn't that platform. Chances are Linux + Wine is.

I'm still on Vista because of applications (1)

thepainguy (1436453) | about 2 years ago | (#38577130)

One of my most important tools -- Ulead GIF animator, which is a tool for creating animated GIFs that I use when writing about baseball hitting and pitching instruction -- is no longer available or being updated. That is a core tool for which I haven't found a substitute and it only kind of works on Vista.

Of course, this raises the problem of orphan applications; applications that small (?) numbers of people find to be ridiculously valuable.
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>