Windows 9 Expected To Push Consumers Off Windows XP

[Marlin Schwanke]

The only way the masses are dumping XP to move to Linux will by way of switching to Android. Linux on the desktop has been pushed for 20 years now and still hasn't happened in any significant numbers.

 

[MidnightDistort]

If you want a start menu, install a bloody start menu, but nothing about it is a requirement. THAT's why it's been relegated to third parties. The start screen does an admirable job, what little I see of it on my desktop. Frankly, your entire argument became irrelevant when you posited the past interfaces as the primary reason to keep it the same. If that was legitimate, we'd still be happily puttering along in DOS and Terminal, because people complained about UI's even then when Windows came out as a shell over DOS. Not to mention that when using 8 on a desktop you plain just don't see the start screen that much. It's not like you're locked to tablet apps, install regular Evernote and pass on the Windows Store version if you want.

Apparently you didn't bother to read my rambling post or the reason for me disliking W8! I never had to install a start menu before so why should i be forced to now? To some people, a start menu is a requirement and i am going to repeat myself so you understand, for those who want to ensure their system is protected will be FORCED to use the START SCREEN before their system is FULLY PROTECTED! Otherwise, if you plan on installing a start menu before you install updates, well you might as well be using XP. However who wants to go through the start screen mess anyway in order to get the start menu back. They don't want to try to find what they are looking for on a separate screen. The only reason DOS isn't dominating the PC anymore is because GUI was a competent replacement. Graphic User Interface!

With this attitude of 'use W8/start screen or else do this'.. when clearly people are staying on XP and W7, MS will never get users off old OSs. You can congratulate yourself for helping steering users away from Windows.

 

[MidnightDistort]

I don't understand some of you people.People that don't want to spend another £80 on software (and, chances are, another £200-£300 for new hardware) deserve to be left in the dust?The fuck?

100% I believe they do. If they haven't bought a new OS in the last 5-10 years or a new computer in the last 8-12, then they either need to purchase a new OS or start learning a lightweight Linux distro. Either that or get a typewriter, since you don't want to manage the upkeep any computer will require [which does indeed involve purchasing a new OS every 12 YEARS or so].

Then PC's should be cheaper then. Spending $300 every 10 years or so and throwing away good electronics that have have another good 10 years on it's belt before the motherboard gives out is one of the most idiotic ideas mankind has dreamed up. The idea behind 'it's outdated' is about as dull as buying bottled water. That's the reason Linux was thought up, instead of upgrading to the latest Windows, install Linux instead. Learn how to use it, if not take a class. Well worth the money and you probably won't have to spend money on software again.

 

[dimar]

Windows 9 should be optimized for the oldest and newest systems as much as possible. Let the users choose their preferred Start Button at the end of installation. How about letting users create and promote their own custom UIs and start buttons, and turn the metro apps into the next generation desktop widgets. The OS should also cost $50 so anybody can upgrade without thinking twice.Microsoft should also create a drivers database, from ancient to newest hardware, with change logs, previous versions, and user comments.

 

[MidnightDistort]

Windows 9 should be optimized for the oldest and newest systems as much as possible. Let the users choose their preferred Start Button at the end of installation. How about letting users create and promote their own custom UIs and start buttons, and turn the metro apps into the next generation desktop widgets. The OS should also cost $50 so anybody can upgrade without thinking twice.Microsoft should also create a drivers database, from ancient to newest hardware, with change logs, previous versions, and user comments.

THIS! I have been trying to tell people this is the way. But it looks like Linux community is the only one's who are willing to do something like this.

 

[vpoko]

Unless Win 9 includes an option for a classic desktop and is able to run on older hardware. people will stick with XP or move to Linux.Dell and others are just talking up Windows to keep MS happy.

Nobody is going to move to Linux who wasn't already using Linux, not because of XP support ending.

 

[InvalidError]

I don't understand some of you people.People that don't want to spend another £80 on software (and, chances are, another £200-£300 for new hardware) deserve to be left in the dust? [removed]

Watch the language - G

For many people and businesses, being "left in the dust" is unimportant as long as the computers can still do what they are supposed to do. Not all software and hardware can be easily replaced and even when it is, it often boils down to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

I have a 15 years old scanner that still works perfectly fine and have no intention of wasting $200 replacing it with a newer unit of similar quality (that will probably go bust after 2-3 years) just because Epson dropped support after XP when I can simply boot one of my spare XP/Win98SE PCs I keep around to run legacy hardware/software.

 

[jimmysmitty]

We can also throw in 2000 for my older machines too. The ones with proprietary hardware that microsoft seems to never want to give even second hand support....>_>

You are blaming Microsoft for the hardware vendors not creating and maintaining drivers for newer OSes on older hardware? Microsoft doesn't write drivers for the hardware. They have some basic generic ones but say you wanted to for some reason use a ATI 9800XT on Windows 7. It requires AMD to write the drivers for it but anything older than the HD4000 series doesn't get drivers. You cannot expect Microsoft to spend time and money for a small fraction of people who insist on keeping outdated hardware.

I also wouldn't expect support to continue when the hardware is no longer available or even a standard like say ISA ir AGP.

"Is Windows 8 really that horrible? Definitely not."

I agree Windows 8 isn't horrible. It functions on the PCs with which it ships, making it better than ME or Vista. It is relatively secure, making it better than Pre-SP1 98 or post-April XP. It just has one minor issue that belies all positives: No one likes it! The charms, the tiles, the hot corners--these are all functions that lowers usability and enjoyment. Considering that an OS only serves to operate the PC to its intended purpose, not be the machine's usage itself, failure to provide ease and enjoyment of interactivity is crippling.

Hopefully Windows 9 resolves this, I do not want to be stuck with 7 forever and ever.

You can disable charms/hot corners in 8.1 (I don't like them either) and as for tiles you can make the Start Screen show desktop applications first in the All Applications view which is the same as the start menu only all laid out instead of in menus.

Windows 9 should be optimized for the oldest and newest systems as much as possible. Let the users choose their preferred Start Button at the end of installation. How about letting users create and promote their own custom UIs and start buttons, and turn the metro apps into the next generation desktop widgets. The OS should also cost $50 so anybody can upgrade without thinking twice.Microsoft should also create a drivers database, from ancient to newest hardware, with change logs, previous versions, and user comments.

Dimar, there are reasons why Windows is not optimized for hardware that is 10 years older. It is pointless as the majority of people with older hardware are also going to be using older OSes. As well they normally cannot handle the newer features. For example, a system running a S478 P4 can max out at 2GB, 3GB if you had a very high end board. That is baseline minimum for 7 to be "enjoyable" as less than that will have issues running more than one application.

As for the custom UI idea, if they did that they would have tons of support issues which would cause people to become agitated even though it wouldn't be their problem they would have to support it. Microsoft needs to assume some control of the OS.

Windows 8 was $30 bucks if you ordered it when it first came out, $15 if you just bought a copy of 7 recently.

And again, the costs associated with keeping drivers for older hardware is not really worth it. Not to mention it would also mean it would take more space as those drivers do need somewhere to go and create more issues in the long run.

 

[NightLight]

people still on xp should not be allowed on the web anymore... i'm sick of writing compatibility in for older versions in our apps.

 

[trog69]

As long as it's not a rehash of more W8. I don't want to see a re-branding of W8. That includes 8.1, 8.2 and any other versions of W8 they have hiding in Balmer's bedroom closet, the one he stashes all of his XL oatmeal creme pies in....Hell, I'll be lenient, they want to sell me W8 so badly, give me something sans Metro, Can they at least give me that much? I'm not against faster computing, but I am against looking at colorful blocks staring at me, waiting to push them on my screen, even though I have a mouse and keyboard. Even more so, to hell with the easy use for social media sites like Face Book. I game online, can they make it easier for gamers to game online, as in support online gaming, and gaming in general? No more false promises. Basically, there's a lot of improvements that can be made to Windows, than what was had in the last package.

I have a gaming PC and a gaming laptop, and both have Win7. I had the option of Win8 for the laptop, but at the time, there were horror stories about Win8 not playing nice with games. Now, a year later, Win8.1 still brings people together to complain about how it glitches their games. I would go ahead and try it anyway, but I just don't see the need. DX11.1 isn't going to make my games look any better, so I don't feel cheated by having to "settle" for DX11. Pushing for OS upgrades is like changing out the mirrors on your car every year, with ones that have slightly darker or lighter tint. It's mostly an obnoxious way to get people paying good money for something that works very slightly better, maybe.

 

[trog69]

New OS nowadays generally bring so little to the customers most choose to stay with the older OS until it is time to buy a new computer. And the performance of new CPU has been stagnant for so long that almost no one feel the need to buy a new computer until the old one is broken. PC industry, both hardware vendor and MS included, has been so used to using CPU and OS upgrade to drive sales is now facing an industry with a lot less volume than before. The push to cloud computing makes the need for a powerful client PC even less. They need to find new killer applications for PC. Make a good software and affordable 3D printer and make the PC know how to make/cook tasty food, maybe that will help.

Exactly. My i7-2600k is still a great chip for OCing/gaming. Everything else in the case is 3yo and yet still just as good as the current gen components, except for the GPU, which I've upgraded twice, from the 580 to a 680ftw to the present 780 w/ACX cooling. I don't see anything worth upgrading until at least next year-and that depends on if Intel ups their CPU game, and thus requiring a new mobo.

 

[rayden54]

Regardless, even Dell is talking about Windows 9, indicating that the unannounced platform, which may be revealed in April during the BUILD conference, will likely convince Windows XP customers into upgrading to the latest Microsoft release.

I don't get it. Shouldn't they want people to upgrade NOW, not wait for Windows 9? I hate to say it, but it really seems like announcing a new OS now will only make it worse.

I don't understand some of you people.People that don't want to spend another £80 on software (and, chances are, another £200-£300 for new hardware) deserve to be left in the dust? [removed]

Watch the language - G

100% I believe they do. If they haven't bought a new OS in the last 5-10 years or a new computer in the last 8-12, then they either need to purchase a new OS or start learning a lightweight Linux distro. Either that or get a typewriter, since you don't want to manage the upkeep any computer will require [which does indeed involve purchasing a new OS every 12 YEARS or so].

Then PC's should be cheaper then. Spending $300 every 10 years or so and throwing away good electronics that have have another good 10 years on it's belt before the motherboard gives out is one of the most idiotic ideas mankind has dreamed up. The idea behind 'it's outdated' is about as dull as buying bottled water. That's the reason Linux was thought up, instead of upgrading to the latest Windows, install Linux instead. Learn how to use it, if not take a class. Well worth the money and you probably won't have to spend money on software again.

Precisely. I've never understood the idea of replacing a computer every couple years. I'm one of those people who'll keep a computer until it DIES. To me it seems like a very big waste of money. On the other hand, paying $70+ to upgrade the OS of a machine that cost $300 new's a waste of money too.

 

[falchard]

Unless Windows 9 is free and runs WinXP software, its not gonna happen.

 

[canadianvice]

It's pretty clear, whatever they decide to do, they should consider getting input from Tom's readers before finalizing anything.

This would have been the solution to such a massive gaffe. I personally am not a W8 hater, but honestly, if I'd been in the consulting room 10 minutes, I could have gotten them an OS that nobody would dislike. Because it would kill you, using a gun or something built into the monitor. It was a surefire market winner!

Seriously though, if they just got input from people aside from the facebook dullard, W8 would have gone off as happily as seven.

 

[canadianvice]

Regardless, even Dell is talking about Windows 9, indicating that the unannounced platform, which may be revealed in April during the BUILD conference, will likely convince Windows XP customers into upgrading to the latest Microsoft release.

I don't get it. Shouldn't they want people to upgrade NOW, not wait for Windows 9? I hate to say it, but it really seems like announcing a new OS now will only make it worse.

I don't understand some of you people.People that don't want to spend another £80 on software (and, chances are, another £200-£300 for new hardware) deserve to be left in the dust? [removed]

Watch the language - G

100% I believe they do. If they haven't bought a new OS in the last 5-10 years or a new computer in the last 8-12, then they either need to purchase a new OS or start learning a lightweight Linux distro. Either that or get a typewriter, since you don't want to manage the upkeep any computer will require [which does indeed involve purchasing a new OS every 12 YEARS or so].

Then PC's should be cheaper then. Spending $300 every 10 years or so and throwing away good electronics that have have another good 10 years on it's belt before the motherboard gives out is one of the most idiotic ideas mankind has dreamed up. The idea behind 'it's outdated' is about as dull as buying bottled water. That's the reason Linux was thought up, instead of upgrading to the latest Windows, install Linux instead. Learn how to use it, if not take a class. Well worth the money and you probably won't have to spend money on software again.

Precisely. I've never understood the idea of replacing a computer every couple years. I'm one of those people who'll keep a computer until it DIES. To me it seems like a very big waste of money. On the other hand, paying $70+ to upgrade the OS of a machine that cost $300 new's a waste of money too.

Well, the trouble is that computers need to get better and faster; to do that, they need to be improved and eventually rendered incompatible. MS should not have to support such an old operating system for so long. The whole problem is not that we want you to have to waste your precious monies on a new computer, but rather that we don't want you do be a problem for the rest of us. Continuing to run XP contributes to botnets, spam, and in large businesses massive data breaches - or at least, it almost certainly will given the ripe target it presents.

There's free stuff out there if you want it. Make that work. Put in the effort - because frankly, if your XP system is a botnet because it gets compromised, you're no better than the "Vaccines cause autism" morons. It's fine if you don't want to pay to upgrade your hardware, but the fact is things will likely get out of your control soon enough with infections and the like, and I don't want your $300 useless computer to be responsible in any way for ruining the one I lovingly keep upgraded and maintained.

 

[Morbus]

because frankly, if your XP system is a botnet because it gets compromised, you're no better than the "Vaccines cause autism" morons.

In my experience, they are usually one and the same.

But your comparison is spot on anyway. It's not just a matter of personal safety or health, is a matter of the safety and health of everyone in general.

 

[InvalidError]

Continuing to run XP contributes to botnets, spam, and in large businesses massive data breaches - or at least, it almost certainly will given the ripe target it presents.

Tons of computers get compromised even while running fully upgraded OS and software due to unsafe computing practice by whoever is located between the keyboard and chair. It is unlikely any amount of security software and patches will ever prevent that.

The bulk of infections come in through browser and plugin flaws so simply using Firefox or Chrome instead of IE. Simply keeping those updated, disabling unnecessary addons when not needed and putting the PC behind a NAT router takes care of pretty much all common exploits.

The only times I have ever had a virus or other junk on my PC was due to running questionable code from questionable sources.

 

[richardgal]

Main reason people are sticking with XP is because of compatibility and hardware. NO F*CKING WAY Windows 9 will require as little hardware as XP or even Linux. Even a simple transparent window border takes 10x more resources on Windows than it takes in Linux. On the compatibility side, I have my doubts as well. If it was that simple, Windows Vista and 7 could've had all XP software running perfectly stable. If Win 9 is getting rushed out like an EA game, it is even more unlikely to happen....

 

[burkhartmj]

Apparently you didn't bother to read my rambling post or the reason for me disliking W8! I never had to install a start menu before so why should i be forced to now? To some people, a start menu is a requirement and i am going to repeat myself so you understand, for those who want to ensure their system is protected will be FORCED to use the START SCREEN before their system is FULLY PROTECTED! Otherwise, if you plan on installing a start menu before you install updates, well you might as well be using XP. However who wants to go through the start screen mess anyway in order to get the start menu back. They don't want to try to find what they are looking for on a separate screen. The only reason DOS isn't dominating the PC anymore is because GUI was a competent replacement. Graphic User Interface!

With this attitude of 'use W8/start screen or else do this'.. when clearly people are staying on XP and W7, MS will never get users off old OSs. You can congratulate yourself for helping steering users away from Windows.

Really? People aren't going to die using the start screen twice if they really hate it with the fire of a thousand suns. The other idea is to get the hell over it. I did read your whole rambling post and that was such a stupid thing I completely glossed over it in my response.

Why would I bother trying to steer you towards Windows? On the one hand, I'm not paid by them. I like their products but if they go under then I'm out a few applications, I'll live. On the other hand,it's not like any reasoning will change your mind. Have fun recompiling your linux kernel for scanner drivers every week. I'm WAY more concerned that people stop using XP than I am that they start using 8. Go to Mac or Linux, hell go to Chrome OS, just don't use an old flawed OS that's barely keeping itself together at this point. Hence why in my other response you quoted I said as much. If you want to use an ancient computer that can't do any more than run an ancient or limited browser and word processor, then fine throw linux on it and keep on keepin on. I'm going to go the route of updating my computer EVER and actually using current, powerful software.

 

[SpecialGuy]

In my opinion, many of the home XP users won't upgrade because of cost and the fact that XP still meets their needs of internet access and personal word processing. As websites evolve to supporting only newer browsers, those that are not supported by XP, those users will be forced to upgrade.For me, I originally thought that Windows 8 was the worst O/S I ever saw in terms of user interface. Eventually I have grown accustom to it, with the exception I added a start menu, which I know I could live without. What I don't like is the rapid deployment of new Windows versions. I know it will generate more revenue for Microsoft, but it could create headaches for business users trying to maintain a cohesive IT environment.

 

[southernshark]

I really wouldn't mind W8.1 if (IF) the metro key on my keyboard took me to the desktop instead of the useless Metro page. I don't have a problem booting to metro. But when I'm playing a game of DOTA 2 and want to flip back to Facebook when I die, it requires me to do two steps to do it.

 

[Duckhunt]

If windows wants to take control of the mobile phone market. It needs three things. It needs to be faster then the competition. it needs to be reliable ( fat chance). It needs to have a start button like windows 7 ( as an option). The idea of one platform GUI is a good idea but they were stupid on the way they did it. Listen to the consumers. The other thing that needs to be done is to have more themes. Even have a competition on themes and put on the best ones on the MS website. No they can't hand out cash to community for these kind of things. They have to pay the CEO more and everyone else less. Wake up MS.

 

[ekagori]

I don't get the hate towards 8/8.1... I give MS credit for at least trying something different than every other os under the sun. The start screen is a good idea that needs polishing. It's way easier to organize and find often used programs on the start screen than it is to look for them by either filling your desktop with icons, filling your task bar with quick launch icons or clicking start->all programs and searching through an archaic list of hundreds of programs. People say searching is a pain in 8, you hit start and start typing, easy and intuitive. With 7 you hit start, click on the search bar and start typing, it's actually an extra step in 7, and it's not like you can multi task while using the search bar in 7, so jumping to the start screen in 8 is inconsequential. It's time to try something new with an open mind, bashing MS for trying something new is like bashing auto makers for giving us infotainment units in our cars and telling them that we want our old numbered buttons and power and volume knobs because we like having our beloved 6 preset stations and we can't stand having menus to go through and having more options in our cars.

 

[MidnightDistort]

Well, the trouble is that computers need to get better and faster; to do that, they need to be improved and eventually rendered incompatible. MS should not have to support such an old operating system for so long. The whole problem is not that we want you to have to waste your precious monies on a new computer, but rather that we don't want you do be a problem for the rest of us. Continuing to run XP contributes to botnets, spam, and in large businesses massive data breaches - or at least, it almost certainly will given the ripe target it presents.

There's free stuff out there if you want it. Make that work. Put in the effort - because frankly, if your XP system is a botnet because it gets compromised, you're no better than the "Vaccines cause autism" morons. It's fine if you don't want to pay to upgrade your hardware, but the fact is things will likely get out of your control soon enough with infections and the like, and I don't want your $300 useless computer to be responsible in any way for ruining the one I lovingly keep upgraded and maintained.

If you maintain your PC shouldn't you be protected?

In all fairness, you are right, MS shouldn't have to support an old OS, even if your desktop still works fine but can't upgrade to a secure OS. There is also no reason for anyone not to try Linux out because it's available and while it may or may not support all your drivers, ect.. you should at least manage to get onto the internet with it and you can run XP offline (pull out the ethernet cord if you need to) for all your peripherals that Linux doesn't support. There's lots of youtube videos on how to use Linux and again there's no reason that someone on XP that doesn't want to buy a new desktop can use Linux. If your hardware is good enough you might notice a huge difference in speed depending on how your XP is set up and your hardware capabilities.

But well like W98, there's some hardcore XP users who won't budge off of it. Then again i wonder if some already plan on getting a new computer a week before MS pulls the plug on XP. Some people do want to get whatever they can out of it before upgrading. Hopefully they have been searching so they don't get stuck with something they don't want or they find out most of their software/hardware is incompatible, ect...

 

[Red_Sun]

Win 7 is like my asshole brother-in-law's 2003 Corolla: Not too flashy, but reliable, well built, and functional. Windows 8 is that same car with a spoiler and spinning rims: Stupid looking, pointless, and with negligible improvements. Win XP, for good or ill, is like that old Chevy SS in the garage: Leaks gas, beat up, and rusty. But man, it was some muscle back in the day. Now it's just a huge [security] risk to take out on the road.Windows 8 innovative? Thanks, I really needed a chuckle. In that sense, so was Vista. So was ME. Wonder why people bash Win 8? It was an old re-branding trick to sucker consumers into buying the latest and greatest thing. "But it looks like my tablet! OMG! You Windows 7 users are, like, soooo old fogey!" Yes, yes. You're polishing a turd. We get it. Going from 7 to 8 is for people with more money than brains. Change does not equate to better kids. We can make it revert back to a traditional looking desktop you say? Huzzah! It's now the same product in a different bottle! So please, stop making it out to be an improvement, because it's NOT.Windows 9 should be better. Microsoft seems really needs lemons to make their lemonade, as they get it right every other OS it seems. My only concern is now they seem to be rushing it out. Hopefully that doesn't translate to laying another egg. Now, get off my damn lawn.