66 Percent of Windows Users Are Still Running XP

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom]This can be tricky for Linux (but I do believe it is possible), let alone something as non-modular as Windows.[/citation]

Well, upgrading from Vista to 7 involves replacing the kernel anyway. So you replace it with a different kernel, replace the bootloader, shuffle around the Program Files directory....no reason it can't be done. Microsoft didn't invest the time in figuring out how to do it. Because of that, the adoption rate will be about the rate of failure of XP installs in businesses (who will reload with Win7 volume licenses) or PC failures in the consumer area (they'll go buy Win7 machines).
 
from my bussines perspective, the main problem with windows 7 (and vista) is it's high incompatibility rate with older enterprise software, as a computer technician, i´ve seen a lot of 7 and vista downgrades to xp, because many enterprises work well with old financial and security softwares which doesn´t work with never OS´s, also employes hate new OS´s interfaces and are very usesd to old xp style, and you know, theý dont care about nice graphics and effects, but confortability and productivity.
anyway, a fully patched xp with a good antivirus, is still strong, secure and fast.
Click to expand...
This C:
 
People tend to stick with the OS that the purchased. If the computer came with XP, it will probably die with XP on the hard drive.

Some people don't like change. W7 interface is a lot different than XP. It's not so different that people can easily adapt, but frankly many do not want to. I doubt that I can get my wife or my mom to upgrade to W7. Both like their system the way it is.

Then there's the cost. Is W7 worth $100+ better? This is more of a personal question, but people have less disposable income these days. If I had money, I wouldn't be spending it on a W7 upgrade, especially when it may involve hardware upgrades.

Corporation tend to avoid upgrades for as long as possible. They don't want to spend the money. In addition, there are a boatload of corporate apps that are written improperly that won't work with Vista or W7.

 
[citation][nom]damasvara[/nom]That's just personal sentiments. XP is famous for its versatility, speed is a non issue with some tweaking and modding. While 2000 is famous for, well,I can't remember anything about that particular OS. With XP at 66%, and Vista+7 around 25%, that would put the 2000+95+98+ME at 9%. I wonder what's the percentage for Windows 2000 alone? Hmmm...[/citation]

Windows 2000 was used for a long time in corporations, because they recognized it was better than Windows XP, and didn't want to change it. They are very similar, just that XP is slower.

Your remarks about versatility and such are weird for a technical forum, since they mean nothing. There's nothing XP can do that 2000 can't, or vice-versa. XP is just slower, and no amount of modding can change that.

XP isn't horrible, by any means, it's just a worse version of Windows 2000. It doesn't do anything different, it just does everything slower and in a more irritating way. The only reason XP became so overwhelming popular is because it was around for so long, and then was replaced by a really bad operating system that was significantly different.

Don't forget when XP came out, at least at first, it was widely regarded as bloatware, and there was a lot of resistance to it. Companies stayed away for a long time, but then Microsoft pulled support for Win 2K, and companies moved. Although, Win 2K is still used in some, mainly because it's better.

The same will happen for XP. When Microsoft pulls support, companies will abandon it. Does anyone really need Vista or 7? Probably not, just like no one needed XP, but when Microsoft pulls support, and it gets harder to buy machines with it, 7 or whatever comes after it will take the market. It doesn't have to be better, it just has to be what's being sold on PCs and supported by Microsoft, to take over the market. XP had that distinction for a long time, that's why it's popular. Resistance to new operating systems has almost always been the case, except for Windows 98 replacing Windows 95, and Windows 2000 replacing Windows NT 4.0.
 
Windows 7 just works too. Plus its not a decade or more old. The biggest mistake made was to come out with Netbook's. But then they made it worse by putting a old operating system on them rather then waiting for Windows 7. This is the problem with Windows users. They have never been pushed along with upgrades as Apple has done. Apple realized long ago in order to advance in technology you cannot keep supporting the old. Putting that support XP simply do not know what they are missing. They are too stuck in the past.
 
[citation][nom]kukluxklan[/nom]Well, i think i'm comfortable with my old Windows 98. I'm still using this computer with a pentium celeron chip and 256 MB of RAM(Upgraded).I dualboot Windows 98 with Windows 2000 Professional. I dont like Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7 is because they all have ugly look. I love the Windows classic look, of old 95/98/ME/2000. It is a cool GUI and sexy looking than XP/Vista/7.Ofcourse, All these windows versions have an option to change look and feel to old Windows classic style, but it is still ugly with icons, and i can't get the old 98 look in anyway...So i need to breathe some fresh air with Windows 98 and Windows 2000 being the ever best operating systems... and XP/Vista/7 is shit![/citation]

I agree with you, for the most part. I still run Windows 98 on a machine for old games I still like, and although it crashes a lot more than NT versions, it runs very quickly for the software.

It's kind of funny how people like XP, even though it's just a bloated, irritating version of Win 2K. But, I guess most don't know any better. They probably went from 98 or ME to XP.

I do have a suggestion for you though. Since all the browsers out there, except for one, no longer support that line of operating systems, you can run into problems with some sites. Opera is the only modern browser that supports 98/ME, and can make those OS's more useful. Browsing with IE 6.0 can be really painful, when that's your best choice.
 
Personally I am a windows fan. I have 2 desktops at home with Windows 7 that run great, I also have 2 desktops and 4 laptops with Windows XP that still run great. Most of my old games do not work in Windows 7 at all.

At work we replaced every desktop and installed either Windows XP Pro or Ubuntu as most of our customers are using Solaris, RedHat, or CentOS. RedHat and CentOS are more modern and will work with both versions of Windows but we are unable to connect to the older Solaris machines from a Windows 7 computer. So until all of those older customers upgrade, XP is here to stay. If Windows stops supporting XP we will just all switch to Ubuntu or CentOS.
 
Microsoft needs to learn from their own creation. XP is their biggest competition. So with Windows 7, they need to "freeze" it right there. Most people do not want to go through the scare of changing everything they are already used to. So why not just upgrade modular pieces of the OS over time. Offer a new UI experience, a new media player thing, backup solution, encrypted filesystem option, etc. Everytime they go through this "major upgrade" thing, they run the risk of losing market share to other OSes such as Linux, Mac, or even their older operating systems. If they just keep the core OS a constant and just offer modular upgrades (hell, even the kernel if they feel the need), they just continue to usurp the market.
 
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Problem with XP share is big business won't just go out an buy 10,000 new Windows 7 licences. They will be testing it to destruction and even then will only roll it out during a PC refresh. So the figures are skewed for uptake because the desire to do so is muted for the business world.However, in the consumer world there are no such restrictions and people are free to go out and buy what ever OS upgrade they want. So it would be interesting to see the distribution of Windows users from non-commercial usage. I am sure the uptake of Windows 7 vs Windows XP will be a lot higher. The figures certainly are for Steam users, lets see about the rest of the consumer world.[/citation]

The fortune 50 company I work at is upgrading all of it's workstations this year. We actually set the standard for large corporations to upgrade their entire installed base in one fell swoop back in 1996, of which large corporations like GM modeled their upgrade practices after. We're going from 7 year old IBM Thinkpads (T60) running XP (standard configs are: Pentium-M 1.3GHz, 256MB RAM, though mine has 1GB of RAM) to brand new Lenovo Thinkpads (T510, Core i5 2.6Ghz, 4GB RAM) running Win7. Our current install base is 75,000, so there has been intense testing over the past year to make sure everything is compatible or have a viable alternative.

I have to say that while this Thinkpad has served me well over the last 7 years, it just can't handle the stress of how much I multitask nowadays. Photoshop, Visualstudio, Expressions Web and whatever other application I need open, will sometimes grind it to a standstill. While it has been so faithful to me, never once needing a format/re-install or as they call it here a "re-stage". Though it helps that I am a technical oriented user, since everyone around me has had their's re-staged multiple times.

However, my point being, businesses will not just upgrade their OS for the most part, at least big businesses like mine. They'll wait for their current hardware to become mostly obsolete, then replace their machines with current hardware and software. While I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule, for the most part that is standard practice. So I would assume over the next 2-3 years as more businesses swap out their aging configurations, the Win7 market share will grow by leaps and bounds.

This is actually the longest we've ever went between upgrades. At one point we upgraded our whole installed base every 3 years starting in 96, but after the economy decided to take a nose dive, this will be our first new roll-out since 2003... and boy do we ever need it. Not so much because of XP though, just the aging hardware.
 
I just got a new comp at work in January with XP on it. I was then told it has a 3 year lease and the OS won't be changed on it. I'll have to wait until January 2013 to get a new comp with something other than XP on it.

In the mean time I spend my time on the net scouring for little apps that let XP do some of the things that are built into 7. Things that I've grown accustomed to doing at home but can't do at work.
 
To be honest I don't like Win7 as it is nothing more than vista with a spit shine. Yes I use Vista x64 and XP 32 on my machines along with Linux Min and Win 98. To much bloat to be useful on older machines and even on new hardware it can be a slug at times till many of the crappy features are disabled then it is better. Vista isn't as bad as people make it out and nothing is going to replace XP any time soon as it waste less resources than any thing else out there that is windows based. I can see more companies switching over to Linux and keeping their existing machines for a few more years.
 
It's like Microsoft doesn't realize that schools, businesses, and other large companies that use computers are old workstation or basic DELL computers that were bought 3-4 years ago. Our School just began using Windows 7 on their computers with Adobe, Maya, and inventor. So out of the 250 computers, 25 of them use Windows 7, and about 65 of them still have the badges stamped on them saying windows vista certified.
You get a new prebuilt, it'll have Windows 7, even laptops and notebooks are running on them. I was happy to get Ultimate for the price of pro at the time, although there isn't really too much to brag about.
 
The majority probably are netbooks and businesses.
I prefer XP over 7 on my laptop.
Functionality and speed is better than gadgetry and looks.
 
[citation][nom]tleavit[/nom]We have 200 PC's on our network, 10ish now are Windows 7. At this point (since the economy dumped) our average pc is 3 years old and runs Win XP perfectly. Win XP does everything we need it to in a fast moving business. Those PC's will continue to run XP until they die (5 to 10 years life). Any new PC we buy has Windows7. Windows 7 doesn't do anything we need different then XP but it runs well (like XP). We are like every other company out there. WinXp will be around for a long long time.[/citation]

That's a good idea, and the most economical one. but if your going to be running xp for the next decade your going to be in a world of hurt! Microsofts end of support on xp is 8-4-14. so When you start seeing your computers get infected with viruses and new software stop working correctly because microsoft has quit fixing bugs and updating xp, you won't be thinking the same thing.
 
you guys remind me of the old folks talking about the new cars. "oh so much wires for nothing! what happened to the bare essentials!" yeah... let's all ride 1970's technology just for old times sakes!

xp does the same thing as 2000, vista as xp, 7 as vista. but all a little nicer and faster, taking advantage of new technology and developments.

heck... I remember checking my hotmail on windows 3.11!!! so why have you guys upgraded?!
 
[citation][nom]tleavit[/nom]We have 200 PC's on our network, 10ish now are Windows 7. At this point (since the economy dumped) our average pc is 3 years old and runs Win XP perfectly. Win XP does everything we need it to in a fast moving business. Those PC's will continue to run XP until they die (5 to 10 years life). Any new PC we buy has Windows7. Windows 7 doesn't do anything we need different then XP but it runs well (like XP). We are like every other company out there. WinXp will be around for a long long time.[/citation]

We wont go much beyond 2014, and you shouldn't... No more security updates after April 2014.
 
[citation][nom]mouettus[/nom]you guys remind me of the old folks talking about the new cars. "oh so much wires for nothing! what happened to the bare essentials!" yeah... let's all ride 1970's technology just for old times sakes!xp does the same thing as 2000, vista as xp, 7 as vista. but all a little nicer and faster, taking advantage of new technology and developments.heck... I remember checking my hotmail on windows 3.11!!! so why have you guys upgraded?![/citation]

I agree with the point, not the analogy.

I hate TPMS, ABS, Traction control and dead weight (read: airbags and stuff).
 
We use XP on most of our computers at work. The newer computers that I built have 7-64bit. I upgraded my home desktop to 7, and have a new laptop with 7. (I also have a laptop with Vista and it works fine.)

I can't tell that there are any problems with using XP, or Vista for that matter. I do wonder if the laptop (a fast machine) is a bit slow to boot because of Vista. My wife has Vista on her slow ultraportable laptop and I'll upgrade it to an SSD and 7 as soon as find an SSD in my target price range.
 
I don't understand why people consciously use XP over 7.
Click to expand...

If you are a person or business with XP installed on your computer, and it works, and you are used to using it and familiar with it, why WOULD you change? You would have to pay money to buy the 7 upgrade, you would have to take time to install it and most people are not qualified to do that, you would have to backup and reload your data and reinstall your apps, and after getting it all up and running now you have an OS that you are not familiar with and it will take you time to figure out how to do things that you already knew how to do in XP.

I upgraded my home computer but I'm not going to upgrade my work computer until there is a reason to do so.
 
[citation][nom]bdonedge[/nom]I don't understand why people consciously use XP over 7. 7 is better in every single way. [/citation]


Not everyone can just switch on an whim. The majority of XP installs are in business environments. In those settings there's more to consider... like being able to function as a business.

A lot of my customers are still using XP. Most of them are involved in manufacturing, specifically automotive components. They are all actively working to migrate to 7, but none of them estimate large scale roll-out before late 2011 or sometime in 2012. The biggest hold-up seems to be the custom apps they use. The most problematic being the apps that interface with production equipment. 7 is great IMO, but if a company loses the ability to produce their product or has to invest in new software at the same time it's going to slow adoption.


 
Cause xp is still better than win7 on netbooks IMO. Why would I spend £90 on a netbook that cost my £250 and is used for simply taking notes? Win7 offers nothing over xp except better 64-bit support and dx11 as well as being better than vista. If I was to remove it I would go to linux simply because I don't want to fork out of an OS when Im enjoying using linux on my main PC and for writing notes linux handles just as well (Im using Open office anyway since my MS office trial ran out and left me with loathsome works) I don't really understand the hype about win7 tbh, yes its good but I prefer using xp over it and xp still works so why should I replace it unless I feel I'm getting something totally new. It not as if the new features are major selling points I feel I'm missing. The only OS I'm tempted to replace is vista which now is only used for games on my main machine and I hate it with a passion due to it being so slow. Maybe when I get a DX11 GPU or next time I rebuild
 
I wish they would revamp XP and make it a dedicated gaming OS. Strip out everything except what is needed for games.. online or offline.
Small footprint with new hardware support.. DX10 and up, no limit on ram..and just keep it small and fast.. old games new games..i dont want to install office on it, i dont want to surf the net with it just games.
Im sure a lot of people will scoff.

addition:
If they took out the ability to install apps other than games, drivers and the like.. it wouldnt compete with 7.. they could make it like a console type OS.. easy hardware and driver install.. custom config utility for over clockers, but keep the rest out. No firewall issues or file search hogging system resources.. just a lean and mean gaming machine :)
 
7 has significant advantages over XP that most users just don't believe in:

1. security - Windows 7 security is far ahead of XP, if you don't turn off UAC. UAC is the best feature ever for Windows security. For those that think it's annoying, just remember that Linux and Mac OSX both require you put in the root password under these same circumstances. it could be far more annoying.

2. stability - Windows 7, especially x64, is far more stable because of harsher requirements on driver stability. In addition, it keeps programs from messing up system files (the dreaded system32 folder) just because some arrogant ass of a programmer wants to have his own version of some vital system library. Windows 7 actually successfully protects itself from stupid programming. Windows XP doesn't.

3. caching - I find it stupid to get the 32-bit version of Windows 7 if your system can handle the 64-bit version. the optimum memory configuration for Windows 7 is 6GB, due to its advanced caching routines, and 32-bit just can't access that much memory. Windows XP can't even do decent caching, let alone be able to use 4GB of memory just for caching. The 32-bit limitations on memory capacity limit Windows XP caching as well.

4. capacity - While we don't have 64-bit applications other than Photoshop, the large memory capacity of the 64-bit OS allows each 32-bit application access to 2GB of its own memory if it needs it. having the capacity of accessing >4GB of memory is a massive boost for both application stability and caching frequently loaded files.

5. Readyboost - While Windows Vista had Readyboost, it really didn't help much because of both how it worked and the limited capacity of 2GB it could use. With Windows 7, they added using a portion of SATA SSDs for Readyboost, and increasing the capacity to 32GB. It boosted my boot speeds from ~1.5 minutes to
 
[citation][nom]roguekitsune[/nom]Windows 7 is a huge upgrade over windows XP. Yes it does take time to get use to the UI changes, but once you are comfortable with it you will never look back. But what about the hardware requirements? If you have a computer that was produced in the last 5 years it should be able to run windows 7, maybe not without all the bells and whistles but it will run. On average i have noticed that 7 only uses maybe 10-20% more resources than XP, which is about 10-20% less than vista used(That's just for my computer yours maybe different). For the individual user there is no reason to stick with XP. For companies and schools I understand them not upgrading as it is hard to convince the higher-ups to spend money on something that works for now.[/citation]

Complete bull$hit! W7 is nothing but a re-shuffle of XP. I'll give you a reason not to "upgrade" (not my word for it): How about the $150+ per box? I'll run XP (or any other OS) for as long as it does what I want it to do. I suspect all you W7 fanboys have your own agendas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom