Numbers Show Windows XP Still Rules The World

Page 2 - 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]tomfreak[/nom]How would microsoft expect me to switch over to the slower windows 7 when my 7-8years old laptop is still running strong on winXP? That laptop has only 512-1GB RAM running on 1.5-1.7GHz Pentium M. With windows XP, those spec are fairly decent enough to run it as a web surfing computer + word doc.The last thing u need is run a newer OS that slow ur computer further.[/citation]

Just because it's going to be unsupported doesn't mean you can't still use it if you really want to, but you can't realistically expect a company to dump the vast resources it requires to keep an 11 year old OS updated; especially since it will never be secure in today's age so continuing to update it is a moot point. Not only that, but stagnating technology is never a good thing for anyone.
 
[citation][nom]house70[/nom]What happens on that particular date? For you, I mean? Likely your PC is not going to bite the dust exactly on that day.[/citation]
Nothing really, i'm just going to upgrade to linux when i feel like it (Microsoft stops supporting XP on 4/8/14. I repaired my friend's hacked computer recently, so i am worried about him. Asked if he was okay to try linux, but wanted XP instead.
 
If you never connect your computer to the internet, it really doesn't matter what your OS is. If you never connect to the internet, and your OS works for you, you're good to go... and notably these numbers likely don't reflect your PC anyway. It would be interesting to see a weighted comparison between the OS and the occurrence of viruses/malware/hackings on that OS. XP is not as secure as 7, but has comparable usage numbers. Any half-intelligent criminal would target the system with least security and higher use. Another component is spending on other security efforts - firewalls, security suites, in-house IT security, etc. The theory would be that the money saved not upgrading would have been spent on these things, but I highly doubt that theory pans out. As harsh as it might seem for many who are on XP, the support has to be pulled at some time, otherwise they will never have much incentive to give it up. For me it's not a matter of spending money. In fact, I place the onerous on companies, because it's a matter of security for our banking, our personal information, our national infrastructure, and more. Do you need to go to Win8? I don't even much care if you go to OSX 10.8 (though I much prefer the windows ecosystem), but you should at least get on to Vista or 7.
 
Much better to have XP than Win 8 garbage. I'm sticking with 7 for the long term.
 
[citation][nom]wannabepro[/nom]Die XP. I know I'll be downvoted for this, but sticking with an ancient operating system isn't good for business or the home. The only people it helps are hackers.[/citation]
That's how the computer enthusiast sees it.

If you're a business owner, the computer is just a device which serves a function. It can be 10-20 years old, and if it still serves the function just fine (e.g. my uncle's dry cleaner has a touchscreen POS register running on XP), there is no need to replace it.
 
[citation][nom]OMGPWNTIME[/nom]Just because it's going to be unsupported doesn't mean you can't still use it if you really want to, but you can't realistically expect a company to dump the vast resources it requires to keep an 11 year old OS updated; especially since it will never be secure in today's age so continuing to update it is a moot point. Not only that, but stagnating technology is never a good thing for anyone.[/citation]no I wouldnt, but just as the majority 38% user out there, Microsoft should not expect these people to upgrade things unless what their daily work is broken in winXP. Why fix something that isnt broken?
 
[citation][nom]twelve25[/nom]The only problem with this is that the UI of Windows 8 is not really a business-friendly. I guess maybe they could get everyone to upgrade to Windows 7. Our company is still primarily on Windows XP. Vista had problems with UAC hosing up software, We have maybe 1/4 on windows 7, but now we can't get our users to use Windows 8 because they have work to do and don't want to memorize hotkeys and find hidden secret pop out menus.[/citation]
Classic ui / start8 and now it's like windows 7 again.
 
If I had an unpatched exploit that allowed me to control 39% of the marketshare of machines out there I would certainly wait and sit on it until after April 8th/2014. It's not like MS has come out with a new OS that is compelling for users to upgrade. The stupid thing is that MS is fully capable of restoring that appeal to these stragglers that are still running XP, give a start button back with the option of booting straight to the desktop.
 
XP works reliably and does what I want it to...why would I give that up? Far too many people buy into marketing nonsense about OS's. All I want from my OS is for it to be fast and dependable, XP does that. At work I use Win 7, and it's ok, but I still prefer XP as it's easier to tweak and runs more efficiently.
 
"Sales isn't exactly exploding"
Proofreads isn't exactly great around here.

Anyway, this just looks like a disaster waiting to happen. I'm not saying Microsoft should keep supporting XP, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't even know about this, or don't care.
 
I remember when XP was launched with its new activation technology that Microsoft said that when support for Windows XP came to an end they would provide keys to activate Windows XP for free. I bet they don't keep that promise.
 
I have an older laptop I would like to move to win 7 because it runs better with win 7 than XP but unfortunately Intel did not make any updated drivers for the 855GME chipset. Microsoft their some computers that just can’t move to a modern OS because of driver support limitations fix those problems and I will upgrade my computer.
 
Windows 2000 was the best release. It did everything XP did, and much faster.

XP is OK too, although certainly a bloated version of 2000. Vista is a disaster, 8 is an ugly version of the OS, and 7 is decent, but still too slow and bloated compared to XP.

Most people would have been happier with XP, with security releases where necessary. But, Microsoft needed more profits, so they come up with worse versions.
 
XP is brilliant and still a perfectly fine OS to use even in 2013. I was using XP up until about 6 months ago, before I finally made the switch to Windows 7. Unless you're running an SSD drive, or really need DX11 for the latest games, then XP is fine for 90% of people at the moment. XP folks - you have another year - enjoy it.
 
I still dual boot XP and windows 7, and XP is still my main OS.

Many elements in the OS have pretty much instant responses while windows 7 (and also windows 8), there is a noticeable delay. when you regularly use both, even though those delays are not long, it is noticeable and annoying because of that, (even with a SSD)

Old is not a good enough reason as to why someone should not use something, if thats the only reason you can think of then you have failed to understand the purpose of the OS.

If you have a modern PC, try running windows XP on it and you will see how an older OS on new hardware runs as compared to a new OS on new hardware.

here is a video of some basic things done on windows XP (running in a virtual machine using a fairly modern PC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLsNxKjp9L8

pretty much all of the security issues that get discovered now either effect windows xp, vista, and 7, and when it is not effecting all 3, it is busy only effecting vista and 7

So security and general performance are not reasons since windows XP has proven it's self to be more secure when it comes to protection against exploits that do not rely on social engineering. (XP simply has less exploitable code running.

Other than that, think about things that you are currently doing on windows 7 that you cant do on windows XP

The only benefit that you really get is proper 64 bit support with a very minimal 32 bit performance drop (32 bit apps do benchmark lower in windows 7 in many cases, but it is generally only by such a small margin that it is impossible to notice it outside of a benchmark)

Simply put, many parts of windows XP require fewer IO's to function and load, and with the fact that it is faster to load less than it is to load more, having a smaller OS on the same hardware will = more speed, at least when it comes to IO intensive tasks relating to elements of the OS.

(For general computing and lite gaming (dx9 games, eg TF2, I stick with windows XP) for professional apps like photoshop, and video editors and 3d modeling applications, I stick with windows 7 because it can use all 12GB of memory on my current system, (XP 64 bit is just garbage, it handled 64 bit apps well but failed horribly when it came to the way it emulated a 32 bit environment (massive loss of performance while windows 7 has a loss so small that you cant notice it outside of a benchmark)

Remember, windows XP was designed during a time when hard drives were extremely slow, and now that modern drives are much faster, things just become pretty much instant.
 
[citation][nom]moricon[/nom]I still have a customer running win 95 on an old 486. He will never move from that ever, his custom application works on the machine, deals with his 50k contacts and invoices and that's all it does. Stand alone it is pretty sweet, I've had to take a Soldering Iron to it more than once replacing Caps as well as Rebuilding the PSU, but it is going strong and we will keep it running for as long as its repairable.[/citation]

You owe it to this guy to virtualize that machine and put it on reliable hardware.
 
I use Win7 on my desktop and my partners, absolutely no reason what so ever to mess with the mess that is metro, nor any desire to fiddle with it, or seek any sort of change. Metro would have a place on a phone but not on my desktop, not until we live in a computer world like Mass effect where controls are done by hologram and touchkey.

I do run windows xp, but only on my slightly older model laptop, and mostly so I have a 16bit compatible OS for running older games software, esp software that isn't dos based (early 95 games can't run in dosbox after all, nor under a 64bit OS, and if GoG doesn't have it, your in trouble)

I'm curious what the Linux uptake is, and what it will be in a year with Steam now supporting Linux. I've been tempted to fiddle with ubuntu on my desktop but I don't have the drive space atm to do so. Tempted to try on my laptop, since Wine supports about everything I would run on it.
 
Microsoft is betting the entire house on those 39% XP users moving to Windows 8. They know the max that'll switch from 7 to 8 is a few percent over its life span. If even half those XP users move to Windows 7 despite the hurdles Microsoft is throwing at its best OS, Redmond is going to have serious trouble.
 
[citation][nom]Solandri[/nom]That's how the computer enthusiast sees it.If you're a business owner, the computer is just a device which serves a function. It can be 10-20 years old, and if it still serves the function just fine (e.g. my uncle's dry cleaner has a touchscreen POS register running on XP), there is no need to replace it.[/citation]

To be fair how long does it take to upgrade? I guess security doesn't matter at all to businesses? It would seem to matter more IMO to them. I'll bet you only 20% or less have compatibly issues and even less then that don't have the money to upgrade they rest of the percent is greedy or uninformed businesses.

[citation][nom]soldier2013[/nom]Much better to have XP than Win 8 garbage. I'm sticking with 7 for the long term.[/citation]

Agreed
 
[citation][nom]danwat1234[/nom]Classic ui / start8 and now it's like windows 7 again.[/citation]

I hate this argument so much a lot of business are not going to do this and the added cost. And the free ones don't look the same.

Windows 8 is so bad Microsoft had to send 2 emails to the user just to teach them how to use it
Windows 8 is so bad Staples had to make a 30min tutorial
Windows 8 is so bad Start8 has to existent just to make it more enjoyable and more multitasker friendly(since metro takes the whole screen)
 
[citation][nom]jdwii[/nom]I hate this argument so much a lot of business are not going to do this and the added cost. And the free ones don't look the same. Windows 8 is so bad Microsoft had to send 2 emails to the user just to teach them how to use itWindows 8 is so bad Staples had to make a 30min tutorialWindows 8 is so bad Start8 has to existent just to make it more enjoyable and more multitasker friendly(since metro takes the whole screen)[/citation]the price of start8 + win8 WAS cheaper than win7 alone b4 Feb 2013,so during that period if u are buying a new PC there is absolutely no reason to buy win7. Now.. may be u would still buy win7 since win8 is more exp now.
 
Its pretty scary that many businesses still run on XP. Many of these businesses, the small ones in particular don't actually have competent techs, if any at all.
And in America, these small businesses usually have a computer network for some kind of database, which probably consists of customer information, or inventory information, or billing information.

I actually worked in one of these businesses that have a small network of around 10+ computers. And up until recently a few of them still ran on XP. And our database consisted of names, address, phones, etc. And the scary thing is; while our company didn't collect SSNs. I know other businesses in the industry that DID collect SSNs and didn't have well kept computer networks.
 
most of the gear i work with is running xp embedded, on a closed system. I'm sure i'll still see xp in another 10 years
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom