Windows 9 Expected To Push Consumers Off Windows XP

[canadianvice]

Windows 9 better be dramatically easier to move from XP than Windows 8 is, or no one is moving. Older people do not care about the "cool" factor. They want something that is easy to use, easy to learn and works, unlike that have baked beta called "modern UI"

It has never been "easy" to learn for many of these people. What they want is to avoid change which upsets their basic, though hard-earned gains in the operation of their computers. Don't kid yourself, it's likely not about it being "easier to use or learn", and more that you could move them from XP to 7 and they'd still grumble simply because things change.

That, or save money. That's the other powerful motivator.

 

[InvalidError]

Windows 9 better be dramatically easier to move from XP than Windows 8 is, or no one is moving.

Almost no one who is still running Windows XP will bother upgrading to Win9 unless they get a new PC since most of their hardware is likely no longer supported.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Hate to say it but...Windows 8 sucks ass. It's just Windows 7 with a bunch of crap added that you don't need and slows it down.

That is just untrue. Windows 8 uses less resources (has been proven in multiple reviews) than 7 and is just as if not faster. In fact they actually removed a lot of things that 7 had such as a DVD decoder, you need to have an application now to play DVDs.

Windows 8 is for the people who only use one app on the computer at a time and use two fingers to hunt and peck the keyboard. Change is not the problem it's the fact that: they often remove functionality and usability before replacing it with something and the replacement is typically only partially completed. Rushed to market with not enough testing, not enough engineers and too many "..hay look at that pretty cloud .." PR bunnies who think distractions will hide the faults.

I take offense to that as I have been using 8 since release. I am a very tech savvy person who has worked on PCs since DOS and I multitask on my home machine every day. I play a game while watching a movie and browse the web all at the same time. I also type very fast.

There's nothing you need to say! Everyone running XP will find themselves totally screwed in a few weeks. They will be wishing they had listened to those who know better.

People who still have PCs running XP are not screwed at all: they can still continue running it as normal, just without any more security updates. If they have a broadband router, use Firefox or Chrome instead of IE, keep plugins updated or at least disable them unless absolutely necessary, that takes care of something like 99% of infection vectors that matter as long as the rest of your LAN and any disks, USB keys or other storage device you might pop in it are also infection-free.

I have worked on plenty of XP machines with Chrome or FF and have gotten the same viruses. People are by default stupid and will click on anything that grabs their attention even if it is not safe.

Well, some will convert to Linux

Well, frankly, if people weren't so averse to change, the moment they figured out that they could have linux with no viruses that would still let them on facebook and look up cat videos, they'd be happy.

Well, netflix could be an issue too... but honestly, Linux is great if you don't need to do configuration - if you do, it's a massive pain in the ass.

Even the most highly pre-configured versions of Linux (Ubuntu for example) are a pain in the arse to install official drivers. I did it on one build where you have to kill X (the GUI at the time) then run the installer from the command prompt. I did all that and when it rebooted the GUI was borked. Had to reinstall Ubuntu.

Until Linux gets as easy to use as Windows, in terms of installing things like drivers (where you also do not have to enter admin password after every prompt even when you open a admin console) it wont gain ground.

I don't like to be the one to state the obvious, but maybe it is needed - Ever since the move to the "NT" OS format, Microsoft releases a good OS every other release.....and businesses are on to this cycle.Win2000 - good. ME - bad. XP - good. Vista - bad. Win7 - good. Win8 - ???See? It isn't that hard.

XP wasn't good until SP2. Before that it was buggy, unstable and pretty bad compared to 2000.

Windows 9 better be dramatically easier to move from XP than Windows 8 is, or no one is moving. Older people do not care about the "cool" factor. They want something that is easy to use, easy to learn and works, unlike that have baked beta called "modern UI"

Yet those same "older" people have easily adapted to more basic OSes akin to Windows 8 like iOS and Android. Wo why would it be so hard to adapt to Windows 8?

I know most people do not like change. That is human nature. That is why our political systems world wide are so messed up and that is why we still drive gas based vehicles. Change takes time and happens with newer generations while the older stay set in their ways. Most of the pre-baby boomer generation don't worry about their PC and still have land line phones.

 

[smeezekitty]

That is just untrue. Windows 8 uses less resources (has been proven in multiple reviews) than 7 and is just as if not faster. In fact they actually removed a lot of things that 7 had such as a DVD decoder, you need to have an application now to play DVDs.

In other words they removed important features and added junk?

Windows 8 is regressive. Even it is usable, it is still regressive

 

[ajmmartinez]

people mus be retarded its not that hard to figure out..all you do is press desktop....Its the biggest square in the whole tile grid! ..smh wow..poor society ..cant figure out something so simple

 

[MidnightDistort]

That is just untrue. Windows 8 uses less resources (has been proven in multiple reviews) than 7 and is just as if not faster. In fact they actually removed a lot of things that 7 had such as a DVD decoder, you need to have an application now to play DVDs.

In other words they removed important features and added junk?

Windows 8 is regressive. Even it is usable, it is still regressive

This is exactly why i am moving towards Linux. People complain that Linux lacks support, is hard to use.. ect.. but this is the reason why Linux hasn't succeeded yet. If more people moved towards Linux, developers would see the benefits of moving towards that. Linux isn't perfect, but Windows is losing it's ability to stay afloat in the water. Microsoft claims they listen to feedback all the while they can't give users options and they keep failing at getting XP users to upgrade. MS could offer a trade in for your XP machine for W8. But as it stand people do not like W8. It's not adapting to change, it's that some people prefer to have options.

Whether it's Xp or Windows 7, i'd be spending less time getting those OS's to work compared to W8, to make it look more like W7 and rather then dealing with all that, it's just easier to install W7. All the time that i'd spend on W8, i'd prefer to spend time getting to know Linux, just to have it and primarily use it for internet stuff. For everything else i'll just use W7 for even after that has been taken off Microsoft support, just keep the OS offline and you'll be fine. And to be perfectly honest if i hated change, i'd rather stick with Windows (use W8) then move towards Linux. The fact that i decided to move to Linux is not because of change but how Microsoft is treating their consumers. That in itself should say something and it seems that anyone who doesn't like W8 is generally talked down to acting like they don't know how to use the OS, can't install some 3rd party software or whatever. It doesn't matter that i decided to take that extra mile towards something completely different and want to make it work as much as possible.

The problem with this is people give up too easy, yet they are not giving up on Windows which in it seems like these people just continue to follow whatever MS puts out because 'they have no other choice'. I want to be a part of a platform where i actually have something to contribute. The funny thing is from reading some articles that point to MS trying to be an internet OS (i really have no idea if this is true.. ) instead of a proper OS software company and it seems like some people just don't care or would rather just go with whatever everyone else is going to. The funniest thing is i am doing my own server for my files and some of the files i want to access, i could do it from any PC.. it's a heck of a lot cheaper then moving everything to the cloud. Everyone these days are just as lazy as those who are not willing to give W8 a try... so i wonder what makes W8 so special then?

 

[canadianvice]

Hate to say it but...Windows 8 sucks ass. It's just Windows 7 with a bunch of crap added that you don't need and slows it down.

That is just untrue. Windows 8 uses less resources (has been proven in multiple reviews) than 7 and is just as if not faster. In fact they actually removed a lot of things that 7 had such as a DVD decoder, you need to have an application now to play DVDs.

Windows 8 is for the people who only use one app on the computer at a time and use two fingers to hunt and peck the keyboard. Change is not the problem it's the fact that: they often remove functionality and usability before replacing it with something and the replacement is typically only partially completed. Rushed to market with not enough testing, not enough engineers and too many "..hay look at that pretty cloud .." PR bunnies who think distractions will hide the faults.

I take offense to that as I have been using 8 since release. I am a very tech savvy person who has worked on PCs since DOS and I multitask on my home machine every day. I play a game while watching a movie and browse the web all at the same time. I also type very fast.

There's nothing you need to say! Everyone running XP will find themselves totally screwed in a few weeks. They will be wishing they had listened to those who know better.

People who still have PCs running XP are not screwed at all: they can still continue running it as normal, just without any more security updates. If they have a broadband router, use Firefox or Chrome instead of IE, keep plugins updated or at least disable them unless absolutely necessary, that takes care of something like 99% of infection vectors that matter as long as the rest of your LAN and any disks, USB keys or other storage device you might pop in it are also infection-free.

I have worked on plenty of XP machines with Chrome or FF and have gotten the same viruses. People are by default stupid and will click on anything that grabs their attention even if it is not safe.

Well, some will convert to Linux

Well, frankly, if people weren't so averse to change, the moment they figured out that they could have linux with no viruses that would still let them on facebook and look up cat videos, they'd be happy.

Well, netflix could be an issue too... but honestly, Linux is great if you don't need to do configuration - if you do, it's a massive pain in the ass.

Even the most highly pre-configured versions of Linux (Ubuntu for example) are a pain in the arse to install official drivers. I did it on one build where you have to kill X (the GUI at the time) then run the installer from the command prompt. I did all that and when it rebooted the GUI was borked. Had to reinstall Ubuntu.

Until Linux gets as easy to use as Windows, in terms of installing things like drivers (where you also do not have to enter admin password after every prompt even when you open a admin console) it wont gain ground.

Most people don't need the official drivers in many cases. So again, for a basic user, Linux is actually a fantastic choice, but if you need to do more it's a huge pain.

 

[MrKnobs]

New is not good enough. It needs to be better / faster / leaner, the user interface needs to be familiar. It needs to be able to run old software that cost a fortune or is irreplaceable. A new swirly / pretty / touchable screen is NOT what people want.

 

[canadianvice]

New is not good enough. It needs to be better / faster / leaner, the user interface needs to be familiar. It needs to be able to run old software that cost a fortune or is irreplaceable. A new swirly / pretty / touchable screen is NOT what people want.

How old? 30 years? Do you know how much it would cost to continue supporting those? How bloated the OS would become? It's not feasible.

Software is like milk. It will expire, and if you insist on keeping it longer than recommended (which you knew would happen eventually at the start) you will have an unpleasant taste in your mouth. That software is not MS' problem. It doesn't make much of the "irreplaceable software". Talk to the companies that make it - MS has no obligation.

 

[MrKnobs]

Time for migration as there is an end of support in april

At which time will happen.... absolutely nothing. An XP machine will keep working just like it always has, still running the same software, for as long as you want it to. Your antivirus and firewall will still work and your computer would stay virus free even without a virus scanner running so long as you're reasonably careful about what you download and run.

 

[MrKnobs]

New is not good enough. It needs to be better / faster / leaner, the user interface needs to be familiar. It needs to be able to run old software that cost a fortune or is irreplaceable. A new swirly / pretty / touchable screen is NOT what people want.

How old? 30 years? Do you know how much it would cost to continue supporting those? How bloated the OS would become? It's not feasible.

Software is like milk. It will expire, and if you insist on keeping it longer than recommended (which you knew would happen eventually at the start) you will have an unpleasant taste in your mouth. That software is not MS' problem. It doesn't make much of the "irreplaceable software". Talk to the companies that make it - MS has no obligation.

Software is nothing like milk. Your XP machine will keep right on running the same software it does now. As for bloated, your OS only becomes as bloated as you allow it to be, either by accepting all the MS updates or by installing new programs. If the former, well that's about to end. If the latter, then you can at some point simply reinstall XP, update to SP3, and your computer will be as fast as it used to be before you loaded it up with applications that can never be completely uninstalled.

Oh, and guess what each new version of Windows is? Yeah, a bloated version of the last Windows.

Computers are immortal. The only part of a computer that can't be replaced is your unique data, and that's what backups are for.

Now, true, new applications will come out that won't run on XP. If you have to have those, then yeah, you'll have to upgrade to 7 or 9 (everyone will skip 8).

 

[InvalidError]

Your antivirus and firewall will still work and your computer would stay virus free even without a virus scanner running so long as you're reasonably careful about what you download and run.

As long as you do not happen to visit a webpage that contains ads that have been contaminated by a Flash/Java/png/gif/etc. exploit to which your browser or one of its plugin happens to be vulnerable to. But apart from IE, the other browsers and plugins are, as you said for most other software, not Microsoft's problem or responsibility.

 

[MrKnobs]

Your antivirus and firewall will still work and your computer would stay virus free even without a virus scanner running so long as you're reasonably careful about what you download and run.

As long as you do not happen to visit a webpage that contains ads that have been contaminated by a Flash/Java/png/gif/etc. exploit to which your browser or one of its plugin happens to be vulnerable to. But apart from IE, the other browsers and plugins are, as you said for most other software, not Microsoft's problem or responsibility.

And not too many XP users are still running IE as MS has frozen it at version 8 for them. IE8 is seriously terrible at rendering modern web pages so most people have migrated to Chrome or Firefox. Even AOL has had to create a customized version of IE8 for their XP users.

 

[smeezekitty]

How old? 30 years? Do you know how much it would cost to continue supporting those? How bloated the OS would become? It's not feasible.

Maintaining support for old stuff doesn't add much bloat. The biggest bloat is supporting the new stuff and all the eye candy.

 

[canadianvice]

MS sold XP in the understanding it would eventually stop support. It's not their problem anymore, and if companies don't like it, they can deal.
MS ONLY makes the OS. Not the software for it - contact those guys if you don't like it.

It's the business cycle. As for old stuff - it's stupid to try and maintain and integrate a code base that keeps backwards compatibility. At some point it's simply tough luck. That old code base can come with security problems, to say little of other issues.

It's not MS' fault, and not MS' problem. Caveat Emptor, and it's not like MS doesn't have any transparency in regards to how long you can expect this support for...

Also, suggesting Windows is just more bloated after each version is kind of silly - I guess technically you could argue that under the fact that new hardware allows extra content to be taken advantage of - W7 is kind of big compared to 98.

Otherwise, though, MS has worked fairly consistently to lower both disc and resource costs on Windows in relation to the technology. Sure, I can have a light, fast computer, if I want to load 98. But RAM is cheaper. Processors are better. That's simply non-sensical.

 

[cat1092]

If MS would drop their requirements, in particular PAE/NX & whatever more "secure" features of CPU's required for Windows 8, many more would have moved forward. Many tried the first edition of the Windows 8 Consumer Preview beginning on 02/29/2012 & it ran on most any machine that XP/2000 would run on. It was with the Release Preview that MS spoiled the party & mandated these technologies to be in the CPU to install, so many ran the Consumer Preview until it ran out, or went back to their old OS.

Thing was, Windows 8 doesn't have the Aero interface, so it would have been a perfect fit for machines with XP. So was Windows 7 Home Basic, but MS decided to distribute it to "developing" regions of the world, again taking away a clear upgrade path. Being a former TechNet member, I ran 7 Home Basic on several older computers (two P3's), all of which ran better & notebooks had longer battery life. That was a blown MS opportunity to get XP users to move forward, they pre-sold Windows 7 HP for $49, Pro for $99, Home Basic could have easily sold for $39.

If MS wants to get customers off of XP, then there has to be some form of middle ground, some compromise. PAE, NX, SSE whatever, doesn't guarantee that a computer will be free of infections. It may reduce the chances, but I have seen no proof of that. I can state that I've had to clean moderate to severe infections of several computers (including one 2 month Windows 8 PC from the OEM) with these technologies, so what good are they?

I have a hunch that Windows 9 is going to be more of the same old song & dance, Windows 8 with more eye candy (& spying ability) & less of the things that's made Windows 7 the most popular OS on the planet today. After all, if Windows 8/8.1 was so damn good, why didn't everyone grab it with the Pro version was $40? Twice as many users downloaded the initial release of Windows 8 Consumer Preview over Windows 7 Beta, yet only a fraction of the same purchased it.

The only way for Windows 9 to push users off of XP is with a build from MS that will run on legacy hardware. These customers aren't going to throw out perfectly good running machines for $298 Wal Mart specials loaded with cheap, brittle plastic components that weighs 12-15 pounds to replace 30-40 pound solid PC's made of real steel. Many will continue to run XP, or if feasible, grab a copy of Windows 7 Home Premium when on promo at Newegg for $75.

And if Windows 9 resembles 8/8.1, then I've purchased my final Windows OS. If I have to buy a new computer, there are rights, we can rightfully demand a refund of whatever version of Windows is installed (per the MS EULA). If necessary, they can swap the HDD to a blank one, as I normally upgrade to a SSD as soon as practical anyway.

Plus recent reports from Europe have stated that Linux is more secure than Windows 8.1.

Cat

 

[smeezekitty]

If MS would drop their requirements, in particular PAE/NX & whatever more "secure" features of CPU's required for Windows 8, many more would have moved forward. Many tried the first edition of the Windows 8 Consumer Preview beginning on 02/29/2012 & it ran on most any machine that XP/2000 would run on. It was with the Release Preview that MS spoiled the party & mandated these technologies to be in the CPU to install, so many ran the Consumer Preview until it ran out, or went back to their old OS.

PAE has nothing to do with security but rather memory addressing. But it doesn't even use it right.
For example 32 bit Linux can access >4 GB PAE without mods/patches

I agree NX is ridiculous. Technically 2000 will run on a 486 with 32 mb of RAM (well crawl)

If MS wants to get customers off of XP, then there has to be some form of middle ground, some compromise. PAE, NX, SSE whatever, doesn't guarantee that a computer will be free of infections. It may reduce the chances, but I have seen no proof of that. I can state that I've had to clean moderate to severe infections of several computers (including one 2 month Windows 8 PC from the OEM) with these technologies, so what good are they?

PAE and SSE have nothing to do with security.
As above PAE has to do with memory addressing (it makes addressing 36 bits possible in 32 bit mode + some more things)
SSE/SSE2/SSE3 are high performance instructions to make certain things faster

I have a hunch that Windows 9 is going to be more of the same old song & dance, Windows 8 with more eye candy (& spying ability) & less of the things that's made Windows 7 the most popular OS on the planet today. After all, if Windows 8/8.1 was so damn good, why didn't everyone grab it with the Pro version was $40? Twice as many users downloaded the initial release of Windows 8 Consumer Preview over Windows 7 Beta, yet only a fraction of the same purchased it.

Sadly probably tue

Plus recent reports from Europe have stated that Linux is more secure than Windows 8.1.

Linux is more secure at the Kernel level. MS probably will never catch up.

 

[jimmysmitty]

That is just untrue. Windows 8 uses less resources (has been proven in multiple reviews) than 7 and is just as if not faster. In fact they actually removed a lot of things that 7 had such as a DVD decoder, you need to have an application now to play DVDs.

In other words they removed important features and added junk?

Windows 8 is regressive. Even it is usable, it is still regressive

Actually Microsoft did research and found that the majority of users either streamed media on their PC or used a third party application anyways, like PowerDVD or one of the many free ones out there.

I only use my PC for Blu-Rays when I don't want to go to the living room to do so with PowerDVD. Most other stuff like DVD quality I stream as I have a fast enough connection to stream, download and game all at once.

Important would be security features more than the ability to play DVDs using WMP which the majority of people did not use anyways.

Hate to say it but...Windows 8 sucks ass. It's just Windows 7 with a bunch of crap added that you don't need and slows it down.

That is just untrue. Windows 8 uses less resources (has been proven in multiple reviews) than 7 and is just as if not faster. In fact they actually removed a lot of things that 7 had such as a DVD decoder, you need to have an application now to play DVDs.

Windows 8 is for the people who only use one app on the computer at a time and use two fingers to hunt and peck the keyboard. Change is not the problem it's the fact that: they often remove functionality and usability before replacing it with something and the replacement is typically only partially completed. Rushed to market with not enough testing, not enough engineers and too many "..hay look at that pretty cloud .." PR bunnies who think distractions will hide the faults.

I take offense to that as I have been using 8 since release. I am a very tech savvy person who has worked on PCs since DOS and I multitask on my home machine every day. I play a game while watching a movie and browse the web all at the same time. I also type very fast.

There's nothing you need to say! Everyone running XP will find themselves totally screwed in a few weeks. They will be wishing they had listened to those who know better.

People who still have PCs running XP are not screwed at all: they can still continue running it as normal, just without any more security updates. If they have a broadband router, use Firefox or Chrome instead of IE, keep plugins updated or at least disable them unless absolutely necessary, that takes care of something like 99% of infection vectors that matter as long as the rest of your LAN and any disks, USB keys or other storage device you might pop in it are also infection-free.

I have worked on plenty of XP machines with Chrome or FF and have gotten the same viruses. People are by default stupid and will click on anything that grabs their attention even if it is not safe.

Well, some will convert to Linux

Well, frankly, if people weren't so averse to change, the moment they figured out that they could have linux with no viruses that would still let them on facebook and look up cat videos, they'd be happy.

Well, netflix could be an issue too... but honestly, Linux is great if you don't need to do configuration - if you do, it's a massive pain in the ass.

Even the most highly pre-configured versions of Linux (Ubuntu for example) are a pain in the arse to install official drivers. I did it on one build where you have to kill X (the GUI at the time) then run the installer from the command prompt. I did all that and when it rebooted the GUI was borked. Had to reinstall Ubuntu.

Until Linux gets as easy to use as Windows, in terms of installing things like drivers (where you also do not have to enter admin password after every prompt even when you open a admin console) it wont gain ground.

Most people don't need the official drivers in many cases. So again, for a basic user, Linux is actually a fantastic choice, but if you need to do more it's a huge pain.

If you want proper dual screen or to play games you do. That said, most normal people don't but that doesn't mean that other things are easy to install.

MS sold XP in the understanding it would eventually stop support. It's not their problem anymore, and if companies don't like it, they can deal.
MS ONLY makes the OS. Not the software for it - contact those guys if you don't like it.

It's the business cycle. As for old stuff - it's stupid to try and maintain and integrate a code base that keeps backwards compatibility. At some point it's simply tough luck. That old code base can come with security problems, to say little of other issues.

It's not MS' fault, and not MS' problem. Caveat Emptor, and it's not like MS doesn't have any transparency in regards to how long you can expect this support for...

Also, suggesting Windows is just more bloated after each version is kind of silly - I guess technically you could argue that under the fact that new hardware allows extra content to be taken advantage of - W7 is kind of big compared to 98.

Otherwise, though, MS has worked fairly consistently to lower both disc and resource costs on Windows in relation to the technology. Sure, I can have a light, fast computer, if I want to load 98. But RAM is cheaper. Processors are better. That's simply non-sensical.

And XP is big compared to 98. 98 could run on 64MB of RAM happily after all updates were said and done. XP with SP3 needs at least 1GB to truly be happy.

But then again you can't convince these people. I have a quad core that is currently more powerful than 100 of the CPUs needed to power XP so I am glad Microsoft utilizes that power.

If MS would drop their requirements, in particular PAE/NX & whatever more "secure" features of CPU's required for Windows 8, many more would have moved forward. Many tried the first edition of the Windows 8 Consumer Preview beginning on 02/29/2012 & it ran on most any machine that XP/2000 would run on. It was with the Release Preview that MS spoiled the party & mandated these technologies to be in the CPU to install, so many ran the Consumer Preview until it ran out, or went back to their old OS.

Thing was, Windows 8 doesn't have the Aero interface, so it would have been a perfect fit for machines with XP. So was Windows 7 Home Basic, but MS decided to distribute it to "developing" regions of the world, again taking away a clear upgrade path. Being a former TechNet member, I ran 7 Home Basic on several older computers (two P3's), all of which ran better & notebooks had longer battery life. That was a blown MS opportunity to get XP users to move forward, they pre-sold Windows 7 HP for $49, Pro for $99, Home Basic could have easily sold for $39.

If MS wants to get customers off of XP, then there has to be some form of middle ground, some compromise. PAE, NX, SSE whatever, doesn't guarantee that a computer will be free of infections. It may reduce the chances, but I have seen no proof of that. I can state that I've had to clean moderate to severe infections of several computers (including one 2 month Windows 8 PC from the OEM) with these technologies, so what good are they?

I have a hunch that Windows 9 is going to be more of the same old song & dance, Windows 8 with more eye candy (& spying ability) & less of the things that's made Windows 7 the most popular OS on the planet today. After all, if Windows 8/8.1 was so damn good, why didn't everyone grab it with the Pro version was $40? Twice as many users downloaded the initial release of Windows 8 Consumer Preview over Windows 7 Beta, yet only a fraction of the same purchased it.

The only way for Windows 9 to push users off of XP is with a build from MS that will run on legacy hardware. These customers aren't going to throw out perfectly good running machines for $298 Wal Mart specials loaded with cheap, brittle plastic components that weighs 12-15 pounds to replace 30-40 pound solid PC's made of real steel. Many will continue to run XP, or if feasible, grab a copy of Windows 7 Home Premium when on promo at Newegg for $75.

And if Windows 9 resembles 8/8.1, then I've purchased my final Windows OS. If I have to buy a new computer, there are rights, we can rightfully demand a refund of whatever version of Windows is installed (per the MS EULA). If necessary, they can swap the HDD to a blank one, as I normally upgrade to a SSD as soon as practical anyway.

Plus recent reports from Europe have stated that Linux is more secure than Windows 8.1.

Cat

So disable security features leaving the OS more vulnerable? That is a sound market decision.

As for people, most people look for the cheapest option. That's why Vizio, even though cheaper and not as nice as say a Samsung, does well.

BTW, Linux is more secure because it is not popular enough to warrant the need to look for the holes that exist, and they do exist. Look at Mac OS. Over the past few years it has become more popular than it used to be and now more viruses and exploits are hitting them. When Linux controls 80% of the PC market it will, like Android which is based on Unix, have the same security issues as Windows.

 

[alanwake]

I love win xp (and im still using it right now), but i dont know other here but sometimes with win7 and vista (dont know win 8 never tried) crack the programs is really a pain in the ass.Im in the University and i cant afford a software that cost $1000.Win Xp eats everything i install it.

 

[ldee9941]

windows in general has gone downhill and is over rated.Whenever you download any windows after it you spend hours to download more updates and security patches.They should all be updated when you by the new disk.Ubunto is better

 

[Vandigo]

Just put a kill switch in XP and shut it down once and for all.. 12 freakin years old.

I'm pretty much certain vandalizing people's PCs and equipment would be illegal and Microsoft would likely be found directly liable for all losses attributable to it. Depending on exactly who still uses XP for what, those liabilities could be quite steep.All this talk about old OSes and software that does not run on newer OSes reminds me I still have a PC running Win98SE because FF7PC does not run properly on anything newer.

Considering government agencies still use XP . . . .

 

[Vandigo]

If windows 9 is compatible with my programs, like windows 8 clearly isn't, I'll go for it. That is the ONLY thing I cannot get around with windows 8, its just not compatible with any of my programs beyond web browsers.

 

[drees]

I recently helped a friend set up a Windows 8 computer. He's an elderly gentleman, is somewhat familiar with the traditional Windows desktop environment, and isn't too adept at learning new computer stuff. So I installed two programs from Stardock: Start8 and Modern Mix. What I found is that, when you give Windows 8 a "makeover", it's about the slickest OS Microsoft has ever produced. It's only the misguided attempt to force the tiled interface on everyone that causes a problem. I hope that Windows 9 will give users the option of returning to the old desktop environment we all know and love (yes, that includes the "Start" button).

 

[MidnightDistort]

windows in general has gone downhill and is over rated.Whenever you download any windows after it you spend hours to download more updates and security patches.They should all be updated when you by the new disk.Ubunto is better

Software in general has become this way.. most of my 3rd party downloads ask me if i want to download an update. Updates need to be more silent like Google Chrome. Windows updates has gotten so annoying that i had to shut off automatic updates for Windows because it requires a restart. It gets annoying when you already set up camp and then it tells you need to restart.

 

[smeezekitty]

I love win xp (and im still using it right now), but i dont know other here but sometimes with win7 and vista (dont know win 8 never tried) crack the programs is really a pain in the ass.Im in the University and i cant afford a software that cost $1000.Win Xp eats everything i install it.

windows in general has gone downhill and is over rated.Whenever you download any windows after it you spend hours to download more updates and security patches.They should all be updated when you by the new disk.Ubunto is better

Software in general has become this way.. most of my 3rd party downloads ask me if i want to download an update. Updates need to be more silent like Google Chrome. Windows updates has gotten so annoying that i had to shut off automatic updates for Windows because it requires a restart. It gets annoying when you already set up camp and then it tells you need to restart.

I agree completely about windows update. Nothing more irritating is when you lose something because
windows restarts without permission.

But I don't like silent updates either. I would like to have a choice because some updates are regressive.

Firefox has silent updates but I disabled it and holding on to FF24