Report: Windows XP is Still The Dominant OS

Status
Not open for further replies.

crisan_tiberiu

Distinguished
Nov 22, 2010
1,185
0
19,660
117
Ofc it is, the majoraty of the companies use XP. Alot of programs are optimized and made for XP, and, when we speak about production , you simply canot play with the "compatibility mode" in w7 or vista. This is not about what OS is better overal, its about what OS does the job better. Microsoft releases a new OS and only after the release other programs get optimised/build for it. I wonder now if W8 knock on our door, what will happen with the people that didnt made the jump to 7? they will probablyskip w7.
 

GreaseMonkey_62

Distinguished
Jul 3, 2009
521
0
18,980
0
Windows 7 was also released during a recession, which is still being felt. XP still does a good job and runs the software they need it to. Many people and companies I'm sure are sticking to what works and has been paid for rather than shell out the dough for a new OS.
 

mrmaia

Distinguished
Aug 9, 2011
598
0
19,010
17
As I don't think this report counts in pirated software, corporations count heavily here. And as WinXP WORKS, they don't see any reason to upgrade any time in the future unless it's so obsolete nothing will run on it.
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
im useing windows 7 now because i have a ssd and 8gb of ram, im not happy with windows 7, but im content enough that i dont rage quit it and switch back...

i ask about how to fix things, like being able to click a file in any column, and not just on its name, and when i asked if there was a fix, i was told to use a 3rd party file manager... im sorry but that sounds like you are telling me that windows 7 has problems and there is no way to fix it, but here is a work around...

that is just my most recent gripe with 7, but is so not my only one. ill get down voted i know... but i can say this at the very least, when i went from 98se to xp, there was nothing that xp couldn't do that 98 could, but going from xp sp3 to win 7 sp 1 (i believe), i was bombarded with so many things that are just missing, and may never be able to get them back... like the tile commands, and folder sizes in explorer.
 

sixdegree

Distinguished
Apr 22, 2011
157
0
18,680
0
Maybe it's some cue for Microsoft to start release some discounted upgrade pack for people and business that still using XP.
 

nevertell

Distinguished
Oct 18, 2009
335
0
18,780
0
Well, why should I upgrade my hardware just to be able to upgrade my software so I can do the same job I did before ?

I think that the concept of a new OS taking up more resources is plain bullshit. Why should new functions, that are not/should not be running in the background all the time slow down the computer?
I mean, what essential upgrades are there in windows 7 compared to windows xp ? Most are under the hood and most shouldn't be "felt" whilst using the pc everyday. So why does it use more resources to do the same job ?

Unfortunately this problem isn't only evident in Windows, it's the same for MacOS, linux and others.
Newer kernels should have support for more features and hardware, but they should never use more resources than the last version whilst doing the same workload. There is no rational reason for that.
The only reason it is that way is because people tend to rush new features into new versions before fixing the old features, this is the main problem in linux development as of now. Even Linus acknowledges the fact that the linux kernel has become bloated.
 

Desertlax

Distinguished
May 23, 2008
28
0
18,530
0
I know that in the county i work in they upgraded fairly smoothly to windows 7, just not all across the board, they waited for user to file a complaint that their machine wasn't working or had some issue with it, and then just replaced the machine with a new one that also had W7. As things wear out they just slowly continue to upgrade.
 

__-_-_-__

Distinguished
Feb 19, 2009
419
0
18,780
0
microsoft stupidity made it this way. I still use xp too and I'll continue to use it because I've programs that only run on xp.

microsoft thought that limiting the compatibility would make people to upgrade. it's a marketing tactic. too bad it worked the other way around. programs are incompatible so people who them won't upgrade.
 

Ragnar-Kon

Distinguished
Apr 13, 2010
517
0
18,990
2
I work for a University television station. The folks at the IT Department just now reached the 50% point on upgrading the machines to Windows 7, and they started 2 months after Windows 7 was released.

Paying for Windows 7 isn't really an issue. What is an issue is paying for upgraded copies for all of that older software that only runs on Windows 2000/XP. When you add it all up, the price Windows 7 actually pales in comparison to all of the other software we had to purchase due to upgrading the operating systems.

But Mac OS X is the same way. We were just starting upgrading everyone to Snow Leopard as Apple was releasing Lion.
 

tomate2

Distinguished
Apr 8, 2010
384
0
18,810
23
In the overall OS sector, Microsoft's Windows-based platforms remain the champ. In March 2011, Windows Vista saw a 11.02-percent market share, and then a 8.22-percent market share in January 2012. Mac OS X 10.6 and 10,7 saw 3.65-percent and 0.01-percent respectively in March 2011, and then 2.95-percent and 2.18-percent respectively in January 2012.
Can this be any MORE confusing?
 

back_by_demand

Splendid
BANNED
Jul 16, 2009
4,822
0
22,780
0
[citation][nom]__-_-_-__[/nom]microsoft stupidity made it this way. I still use xp too and I'll continue to use it because I've programs that only run on xp.microsoft thought that limiting the compatibility would make people to upgrade. it's a marketing tactic. too bad it worked the other way around. programs are incompatible so people who them won't upgrade.[/citation]
Understood, there will always be programs that get lost as the OS moves along, I have an old DOS game that will not work for love nor money even with DOSbox, in the end I have partitioned one of my hard drive to have Wndows 95, 2000 Pro and XP Home, then which I switch on I choose which OS to boot and run my older games/programs etc
...
But to choose not to have Windows 7, or 8 when it arrives will also deny users access to software that is currently released, IE9 being a case in point but not a very good example
...
So instead of moaning about not being able to run old software, just have a multi-OS system and you can always go forwards and lose nothing from the past.
 

wing2010

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2010
69
0
18,630
0
"It's not necessarily a revenue issue, but rather from a security standpoint."

If that's the case, why not offer cheapest upgrade price for XP users, like $10.00???
 

digitalrazoe

Distinguished
Jun 23, 2009
171
0
18,680
0
It's a balance ( not as fine as one things ) between compatibility, what works and if things do go awry, how to get things back to normal with the quickness ( also cost ). I still have a windows XP machine due to hardware driver issues.. And to the person that said "seriously, time to upgrade guys... 2014 is approaching fast. " I don't completely agree with that statement. If you are running a system that gives you trouble free service, you don't need the new fancy features and security is not an issue. Then leave things be. I have seen whole offices, studios and such grind to a halt because they had to have the latest and greatest. Money is a factor as well. I am not a mac fanboy by any means but I will give Jobs and team credit for breaking the OS cost barrier bringing the cost of Snow Leopard to the 30 dollar rang. When you have to hunt high and low to bring a system up to Win7 OS you are lucky to find an OEM version for under $100 that is simply too much when you think of all the hardware upgrades one may have to do. Linux.... the only cost is your internet connection and maybe a few brain cells figuring out what you want and can do. ( I have a fleet of linux boxes donate a few bucks and life moves on.)

I understand that this is a business and we all need to make money.. security is important and you don't want to be using an OS on the network that has more holes than swiss cheese. But all in all my XP machine does what it needs to do and does it well. My decision to change OS depends on my hardware and that is that. After Windows Me and Windows Vista. Windows 7 is a breath of fresh air but I refuse to upgrade unless absolutely necessary.. for me security is not an issue on my XP machine.. the hardware I use does make a play in what I choose to use in a platform.
 
G

Guest

Guest
I believe that there was a previous topic saying that windows 7 already surpassed win 98 in sales. What kind of inconsistency is this. There are to many OEMs today than before, that 98 OS shares should already have dropped.
 
G

Guest

Guest
win7 upgrade with student discount FTW! all you need is an edu email address
 

nukemaster

Titan
Moderator
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]I ask about how to fix things, like being able to click a file in any column, and not just on its name, and when i asked if there was a fix, i was told to use a 3rd party file manager... im sorry but that sounds like you are telling me that windows 7 has problems and there is no way to fix it, but here is a work around...
[/citation]I am not sure i get you, you should be able to click a a file in any column(date modified ect)[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]
that is just my most recent gripe with 7, but is so not my only one. ill get down voted i know... but i can say this at the very least, when i went from 98se to xp, there was nothing that xp couldn't do that 98 could, but going from xp sp3 to win 7 sp 1 (i believe), i was bombarded with so many things that are just missing, and may never be able to get them back... like the tile commands, and folder sizes in explorer.[/citation]
If you are talking about the tile view in explorer, it is still a part of explorer as is the ability to chance the folder side.


Feel free to drop me a pm about you win7 issues, maybe I can help?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS