Windows 8.1 Adoption Rate Gaining Steadily

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.
Frank... Since you say you'll "stay with XP until something better is offered" I'm guessing you're position is that Windows 7 wasn't better than XP? Heh, you're a rare breed, seeing as most people now act as if Windows 7 was one ongoing orgasm of an OS.
 
@Ohim - I'm not calling 8(.1) a flop either, more like growing pains, something as a customer I don't have to support or be part of. Vista's problems were not hardware limitation based, as many of us in the industry knew, and as Microsoft has come to admit (read about it, even Ballmer explained it) but just like 7 was the end result of the Vista pains, I hope that Windows 9 will be the mature version of 8(.1); and when that happens, and you'll choose to revisit this debate, you'll come to appreciate the resistance many people have over adapting to the Windows 8 changes. Actually, it's not really what has been changed, but how. Yes, the "how" is the problem - just as in Vista.
 
The prevalence of XP is indeed a major problem.

It works well enough to satisfy the needs of many users who don't need or want the extra features of 7 or 8, or those who can't afford or don't see the need to upgrade.

I know several elderly people that have older machines that they only do web browsing on and nothing else. It works fine for them. For most of them, paying $100+ to upgrade would cost more than the worth of their machine several times over. Buying a totally new machine would also be silly for them, and sometimes financially out of reach.

Another case would be inner city and poor school districts. I have been in several where they are still using machines running CRT monitors and XP. They barely have enough computers at all and don't have the budget for anything else. For them, it is impossible to upgrade.

The issue is that for many users, the advances in the desktop PC over the past 10 years has been pretty stagnant. A large chunk of the population only uses a web browser and perhaps a word processor on occasion. XP is fine for that. I understand Microsoft's business model is to sell software, but they haven't really improved the desktop enough to warrant the prices they are asking for upgrades. They maintain market share based on legacy app support and the ignorance (not negative just general not knowing) of the average consumer in regards to the availability of free alternatives that could meet their needs just as well.

Linux exists, which could be a saving grace for a lot of people but are unaware of it and/or lack the knowledge of how to install it. It has come so far in ease of use and application of availability. I strongly encourage anyone unsatisfied with Win 8 to try Ubuntu or Mint.



 
Man I can tell by the comments there are not a lot of people that actually used Windows 8. You still have a desktop that is more or less the same as always. I just pin everything I use often to my taskbar like I did with 7. I rarely use the metro interface, I just switch to the desktop (an out of the box feature you don't have to use some stardock solutions for that) and be done with it. Yes it adds literally one extra mouse click every time I boot up my computer in the morning but that is not exactly crushing my productivity. It will be nice when I upgrade to 8.1 and I can boot directly to the desktop without having to press the start button or click on the desktop tile (but that one click seems to have broken the bank for most).

This will fall on deaf ears as it seems 95% of people have made there judgements about what Windows 8 can and cannot do based on an extremely uniformed opinions.
 
Man I can tell by the comments there are not a lot of people that actually used Windows 8. You still have a desktop that is more or less the same as always. I just pin everything I use often to my taskbar like I did with 7. I rarely use the metro interface, I just switch to the desktop (an out of the box feature you don't have to use some stardock solutions for that) and be done with it. Yes it adds literally one extra mouse click every time I boot up my computer in the morning but that is not exactly crushing my productivity. It will be nice when I upgrade to 8.1 and I can boot directly to the desktop without having to press the start button or click on the desktop tile (but that one click seems to have broken the bank for most).

This will fall on deaf ears as it seems 95% of people have made there judgements about what Windows 8 can and cannot do based on an extremely uniformed opinions.
 


I agree with you in a lot of ways. I don't like Windows in general and now use Ubuntu and Chrome almost exclusively but that dislike is based around issues that were present in versions before 8.

However, I have to deal with 8 it on one of my laptops. I do what you said and just pin everything to the task-bar and never touch metro which works fine.

Having said that, do I think Windows 8 was an acceptable design? Absolutely not. What you are saying about how you never use the metro interface is a good example of why. I don't want full screen applications or live tile icons on my 27" desktop monitor that is not a touchscreen. That's plain silly. Microsoft could have done so much better by offering a separate version or setting for the desktop. Windowed metro applications, a unified notification center, and revamped start menu with icons would have been outstanding. They just botched it.

The problem with Windows 8 isn't that it's unusable, it's just that on a desktop with a large monitor it doesn't add any functionality over 7 or XP as the new features just get ignored. Microsoft should go take a good look at Elementary OS or Ubuntu in order to learn how a modern desktop should function.
 
8.1 is ok but if the intent was to get us desktop users on to the new style apps then it failed horribly. I keep using it like windows 7, which is what I have been doing since 8 came out. I like the start screen because I can pin all my favorites on it and it's more organized for me than the old start,menu, but man I miss all the Aero bling... :)
 
When I switched from Win7 to Win8Pro on my T61p, I ran pretty thorough benchmarks on everything before and after. In short, on the same aging machine, Win8Pro performed identically to Win7 on average, while using 500MB less RAM, booting 8 seconds faster and generally "feeling" faster to interact with. No complaints there. Recently I did a clean Win8.1 install and it seems to be about the same, with a little start icon in the corner. It's a service pack, so I wasn't really expecting too much to jump out at me.

I dislike having the full-screen programs, that are clearly intended for a tablet, on a desktop/laptop machine. So, I just right clicked on all of those tiles and uninstalled or unpinned them. Never once have I used the Store app. To make IE work like normal, I just went into its options dialog and checked the box that makes it run in desktop mode. Boom, no more tablet app BS for my mouse & keyboard.

I actually like the tile interface, honestly. No more hunting through subfolders in the start menu for things I use a lot (yes yes, there was the recent programs list). Most of the time, I just hit the windows button on my keyboard, type a few letters of what I am after and hit enter.
 
The article is full of bias. What's the hardest gift to get this Christmas - Xbox One First Day - sold out until December 30th unless you want to pay the upcharge. There will be more than 370 million Windows 8 PC's by year end. The survey cited is bogus.
 
Whomever wrote this article is a pansy corporate product pusher...
"persistence of Windows XP. The aging operating system, unsafe and riddled with problems though it may be"

REALLY? ARE YOU F'ING SERIOUS? DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE H UR TALKING ABOUT???
 


You're not the first person to object to this statement and, honestly, I can't entirely figure out why.

The OS has significant security holes, hence unsafe. "Riddled with problems" - well, the OS's inability to properly use multiple core CPU's is a big problem, as is the limited amount of RAM it can make use of, along with a tremendous amount of modern software not being made to run on it. All pretty big problems.

I understand that XP is still great for very old hardware and has a lot of custom software for it that businesses do not want to have to replace on a new OS, but the statement which you seem to dislike so much... Isn't it fundamentally accurate? XP is still an ideal choice for some users and a lot of businesses - but it has significant security flaws and, in the 2013 world, it has some big problems utilizing modern technology. Why the objection to the statement in question?

Edit: To be clear, the reporter calling XP's persistence ludicrous is itself ludicrous. The reasons why XP persists are pretty widely known, as are its problems.
 


So you are saying that XP 32bit is more secure than Windows 7 or 8?

The 32bit alone is a bad start. 64bit has a more secure kernel.

From 7 and up, MS puts the MBR on a hidden partition which lowers the amounts of threats. In 8, secure boot eliminates almost all threats that try to change the MBR and boot when the OS boots.

I worked as a tech in a PC shop for 3 years. I saw plenty of systems with viruses. If I were to rank them from most viruses to least viruses it would go XP > 7 > 8. I don't include Vista as its market share never got to the same point as to match XP.

XP is a older OS> the kernel is not as secure and there are not as many nor as advanced protection features built into it as 7 or 8. 7 on release was more secure than XP on SP3 with an anti-virus. For the first half of a year 7 was out I didn't run an anti-virus and didn't need it.

XP is old. It was great for its time but it can't take advantage of the current hardware and it is not secure. Companies need to stop supporting it and push people onto 7 at a minimum.
 
Most of the people still using xp are from China, Africa, and other third world countries who don't have enough money to be upgrading so we'll still see xp for many more years. Win 8 is terrible and made for handhelds and touchscreens. MS is trying to force that metro UI garbage because they know that handheld computers are the future and sales for desktop/laptops have dropped significantly while tablets, phones, gadgets continue to increase. Win 8.1 was a big FU to customers who complained of a lack of start button so they brought back a useless start button that brings you right back to that idiotic metro UI. I guarantee no business is going to upgrade to win 8.1 until they get rid of it.
 
What's alarming about the pie chart is that Wins XP still has more percentage than all the other OS combined, except Wins 7. What's even more alarming is that MS will stop support for XP next year.
 
And they say Windows 8.1 is HOW many times more secure than Windows XP? How many people are on Windows 8.1 vs Windows XP? It hasn't really become a target, yet. No wonder why it's more secure.
 


Exactly. Saying something is more secure is very relative. For example, Linux is much more secure than Windows yet the majority of people still use Windows.

Or one might say Chrome OS is infinitely more secure than Windows because it's never been cracked, but that's not going convince most people to switch.

This is all a scare tactic from MS to convince people to pay outlandish prices for very little in terms of functionality.
 
Any article that says people are choosing windows 8 is an out and out lie. You can barely find a decent computer for retail that is not windows 7. People are having windows 8 forced on them by the OEM Monopolies and Microsoft illegal contracts forcing them to. There is no free market when it comes to Microsoft operating systems. It is all a lie and anyone who believes the baloney in this article is significantly lacking in brain cells.
 

A) All new installs of an OS are always snappier. But when it comes to calculations (rendering, etc) its still the same. And if you're talking about the stupid boot times, who gives a damn? Win7 is so stable, many people don't turn them off, they put their system to sleep. Boot time = 1-2 seconds. Oh, LinuxMint boots as fast as Windows8 on the same hardware and its not using a "hybrid sleep-wake" boot process.

B) It has nothing to do about being to OLD. Many of us use Windows/Android and iOS every day. Its a crappy UI and badly design desktop layout and visually a POS design that went "hey, lets go with mono colors" no talent, no vision, no skills. Metro is useless design for a desktop computer. Its a badly designed touch-interface - it SO BAD that MS designed new short-cut keys for their tablets and desktop computers! hint: keyboard is not TOUCH.

C) *sigh*, Windows98 was never as good as XP. The issues with XP was that it was different and fixing / dealing with problems work different that Win9x and its Activation was something many people hate and still hate. Going into DOS mode in Win9x was handy for problems that were not possible in XP. The usage of XP wasn't the problem. The StartMenu is a bit different, that is it. If I had a choice to use XP or Win8, I'd rather go BACK to XP... but there is also LinuxMint.

D) No, W8 is not Vista... its worse in many ways. Its a stupid desktop UI with no actual thought on usage. "Just press Windows key and start typing" = wow, we have this with Win7, it doesn't require a full screen.
And no, Vista was always THAT BAD, it was a crappy OS and still is compared to Win7. A person shouldn't need a quad-core 16GB computer to do email and watch kitty videos. It ran like shit because how it handled memory and sloppy code. Win7 is not much different from Vista, but they added some new features, took out a lot of junk and fix the broken junk under the hood. A lot of people went back and installed XP over their vista systems. Vista crashed a lot, Vista wouldn't wake up or shut down, vista was slow when you did more work.

So yes, today... on my 6+ year old thinkpad with its bottom end core2 CPU and 2GB of RAM - it runs windows7 fine. If I throw in an SSD, it'll do wonders (which I'm thinking of doing).
 

I really really tried to like Win8.... and I cant use it... When my ex tried out the preview on my ThinkPad 18 months ago, she HATEDED it within 5 minutes... she was 26 and I at 41... She has a dual screen setup, etc.. is not a novice. She was sold on that it was a turd, and I couldn't show her the good parts of it.

I have news for you. MS has already said that Win9 will be DIFFERENT from Win8, but it WON'T be Windows7... so it'll be a continuation of Win8/metro... most likely, there will be NO DESKTOP mode.

Hey, I've already started my migration to LinuxMint (its free, easy easy to use). My wife, who IS A NOVICE - uses Linux on her computer for work (I killed Win8 and put LinuxMint on it) and she is able to use it just fine. I had no problems finding settings and using the desktop... all of it was EASY to figure out. Meanwhile, Win8 is digging digging... "why is that here? Why is that there? That makes no sense"

Try out the Cinnamon 64bit version. Go to : www.linuxmint.com, go to download. It does have a LIVE-CD functionality (you can boot and run from a DVD) but its a bit slow.
 
What you just SAID about Windows8 is exactly the REASON that Windows 8 sucks ass. And yes, I used Win8 for a few months... I never ever cared for it.

With Windows 7, an UP button can be added to Explorer and a copy/move window can be replaced with TERACOPY which is more functional but not as pretty as the Win8 version.

Okay... so you STAY out of metro as much as possible... and so what you have is... An UGLY version of the Windows7 desktop... and there are STILL situations you are thrown into Metro.

So then... what is the bloody point?

Faster boot up? Who cares? SSD / sleep mode.
Up button? Its an add-on, free for WIn7.
Themes... who cares? when you have 3~8 windows open, you're not seeing the background.

Live-tiles? Unless you live on the start screen... its useless.

Now here is the kicker, the LIVE titles would have made PERFECT sense if they were ALWAYS on the desktop along the left side... the mouse wheel moving it UP and down.... the Start button functional as normal. And metro apps would run in a WINDOW on the desktop. And not use the crappy 80's style skin (the Win8 Preview skin looks great!) - then I and most others wouldn't have had an issue.

The Metro bar should be 2 tiles across or a single large one. Like WindowsPhone 7. Then the LIVE functions would have been USEFUL.

When MS sold WIn8pro for $50 for upgrades... and the people being fired, including Ballmer... its shows the failure of Windows8.

 
Microsoft will stop supporting Windows XP on April 8, 2014. The end of support means the end of ALL updates. When an exploit is found it will not get patched. Those who continue to use Windows XP after Microsoft yanks the plug on XP, one cannot rely solely on firewalls and anti-virus software to protect their PC's from malware and other various nefarious infections.
Even businesses are moving away from XP to Windows 7 as the cost of supporting legacy OS and hardware becomes too expensive.
There are plenty of alternatives and most of them are free i.e. Linux distros like Linux Mint or Unbuntu are readily available.


 
People may think XP is old... there are worse.
On a recent TV Show, a guy is talking to an accountant for a hotel. He's in his 60s... his computer is running Windows 95/98 on a compaq CRT. Needless to say, they have accounting problems.

One of my clients... still runs her business on a crappy DOS program that was custom built and very very difficult to make use of its data. Running it a DOS window under Win7, its runs like crap, even on a duoCore/4GB PC. Its okay under XP, but its happiest on a lone Win98se computer. I hate touching that software.

For some systems, self-contained (like Machining equipment) - XP is not at risk from the internet since its not on the internet. Its just talking to a tool.

Windows 8 proves that Microsoft and Windows = irreverent.
 
LOL @ people being "forced" to use Windows 8/8.1 with all new units, you guys do know 90% of the units made by the big manufacturers (Dell HP etc) have SLIC licencing meaning you CAN downgrade to Windows 7 (not that you want to) without purchasing a Windows 7 licence (if you know how to).
 
Granted my experience with Win8 was limited to around 20min playing with the GUI but man did they wreck havoc in it. I have a dislike for overly big icons, flashy lights, bling, etc and like to keep things a lot more plain and simple so this was a big step in the wrong direction. Before the experience I thought there might be hope of me getting used to it, after it I don't think there is any chance I could get used to it let alone liking it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom