Windows XP is actually gaining market share

[Phoenix86]

My thought was that people are leaving Windows for either Mac or mobile. Funny how the article does not explain this at all.

MotionMan

I think that list is by OS class, so all desktops/laptops. Moving to a mac wouldn't change the total, so it wouldn't affect XP market share.

The market size shrinking where people go from W7/W8/Mac to tablets/phones could affect XP market share.

 

[lxskllr]

Isn't 3GB the limit for a 32-bit CPU/OS?

4gb, but some of that goes to hardware addressing, so depending on what's in your machine, 3-3.5gb is typical. Sensible O/Ss handle pae much better of course :^D

 

[MotionMan]

I think that list is by OS class, so all desktops/laptops. Moving to a mac wouldn't change the total, so it wouldn't affect XP market share.

The market size shrinking where people go from W7/W8/Mac to tablets/phones could affect XP market share.

True.

The article does a terrible job of explaining this.

MotionMan

 

[mvbighead]

It's common in the industry for applications, then the OS has to toe the line. We already discussed this.

If MS is developing the patch (as they are for China), 99.5% of the work is already being done. The whole "burdening MS with support" is a bullshit argument. So why not distribute that work for everyone else?

The proof is in the pudding, 25-30% of the machines are on XP. It's not quite time yet to put it to bed. I'm just being pragmatical here, I'd love to see XP go away, but then again I'd also like W8 to be a viable replacement, but it isn't.

edit:



Didn't see a response to this one, anyone care to take a stab?

Originally Posted by Phoenix86 View Post
Some of the reasons why people are on XP is because of the clusterfuck that is W8. Others are more specific such as a software or hardware requirement.

You do understand W8 isn't even considered in many corporate environments right? Kind of hard to replace XP when the current OS is unacceptable.

Just buy W7 then, right? You realize it's already (about) 5 years old right? Are you going to chaste me in 5 years for wanting W7 to last 10?

Pretty simple. Windows 8 is viable.

It isn't considered in many environments aye? This wouldn't happen to be the same environments that are using XP? What is viable then? The answer? Nothing.

As far as I am concerned, the current OS (8.1) is perfectly acceptable. I am using it right now. The start button/windows key is completely different and takes some getting used to, but I do find the OS to be a bit snappier than 7 in some instances.

My wife also happens to work for a company that happens to use... wait for it... Windows 8. She came from a company that primarily used Windows XP.

The long short of this BS? Some companies simply like to take a product that works and ride it until it dies. That seems to be doing wonders for companies like Blackberry, would you agree?

Companies NEED to see the writing on the wall and keep up with the market. When they fail to do that, eventually someone will make a better product and drive them out of the market. That is nearly precisely what this BS is about. Only problem is, some vendors simply have that niche piece of software that no one else makes, and they can tie the hands of others. But yet... somehow that BS is Microsoft's fault. What a joke. I ought to piss and moan at Linux and ATI for not providing driver support for my older Radeon HD that was giving me issues some time ago. But unlike some, I realize that eventually, you simply have to let certain old products die.

 

[BoberFett]

Are car manufactures required to keep making parts for cars decades later?

No, but other people can manufacture those parts if they want to.

If MS wants to release the source for XP so other people can patch it, I'd say EOL that sucker after a year if you want.

That's where the breakdown of Imaginary... errr Intellectual Property happens.

 

[88keys]

I can understand why people wouldn't want to upgrade to Windows 8, but Windows 7 is still very viable. It still has extended support until 2020 which is almost 6 years away. Yeah it only has one year of mainstream support, but mainstream support really ends when the next product lifecycle begins. And you could even very well say that Windows 8 might has well be out of mainstream support as it looks like M$ has all but abandoned it so they can focus on Windows 9 which will start seeing beta releases in a few months.


Windows XP stuck around mainly due to the delays and later failure of Windows Vista for which many corporations were reluctant to migrate to so most people stuck with XP as a result. They also changed the driver model so it meant that alot of devices (some not that old at the time) would not work in Vista, thus discouraging even more sales.

They finally got it right with Windows 7, but that wasn't until 8 years after XP and M$ has never really had an OS stick around for THAT long as 3 years is the typical life cycle for a mainstream OS.

This meant that alot of people, businesses, etc became dependent on the OS to run their hardware. And in these cases, you're talking about super expensive hardware that isn't going to be replaced so they can run the latest and greatest OS.
Licensing multiple PCs also gets very expensive I would imagine so the corporate mentality is to run it til it dies.
And then of course alot of consumers have grown accustomed and perhaps even attached to it, although I have my doubts that there are many XP users left outside the corporate environment.

Although I don't think that everybody's Windows XP PC will disintegrate on April 9th. but I do think it's something to be worried about. The last OSes to die off didn't have nearly the amount of users that XP currently has. This along with support running out next month makes it a very lucrative target to hackers. There could be exploits that are already known, but hackers are waiting until after end of support to take advantage of them. Not only that, but you have to figure that certain vulnerabilities are shared between XP and Windows Vista/7/8 so hackers can possibly reverse engineer those exploits to attack Windows XP.


A PC would have to be pretty old to not be able to Run Windows 7, and I figure that one could spend as little as $120 to get a Windows 7 capable PC so I really doubt that people are sticking with XP because their non peripheral hardware is unsupported.

I would have to think that PC running XP these days falls into the following categories.

• The PC is used to operate highly sophisticated equipment (MRI, CNC, Heart Monitors) that is not supported by any newer OSes in which case I think the system admin would know to leave it offline after 4/8/2014
• People who don't know/care that their OS is unsupported. These people are most likely technologically illiterate and aren't using their PC for anything more than an Internet Box in which case the worst that could happen is a Blaster Worm type of event at which point you could just shrug your shoulders and say "they got what they deserved".

 

[Phoenix86]

Pretty simple. Windows 8 is viable.

No doubt, I have toyed around with W8 quite a bit, but that's not the issue. The main issue with W8 is metro, that's at least 50% of the issues with moving to it. Can you use it just fine with training? Of course.

Now it's a cost benefit analysis. Extra training/support for...? There's very few benefits to moving to W8 for now.

It isn't considered in many environments aye? This wouldn't happen to be the same environments that are using XP? What is viable then? The answer? Nothing.

Places that have these issues are mostly using W7 possibly some W8 machines and of course legacy XP machines. Woohoo 3 OSes to support.

As far as I am concerned, the current OS (8.1) is perfectly acceptable. I am using it right now. The start button/windows key is completely different and takes some getting used to, but I do find the OS to be a bit snappier than 7 in some instances.

My wife also happens to work for a company that happens to use... wait for it... Windows 8. She came from a company that primarily used Windows XP.

The long short of this BS? Some companies simply like to take a product that works and ride it until it dies. That seems to be doing wonders for companies like Blackberry, would you agree?

As of 8.1 sure, even 8.0 is functional for the average user.

No doubt there are companies doing this, riding out these machines like Arkaign rebuilds or slightly newer. These people are surely shooting themselves in the foot, don't care about how it affects them really.

Companies NEED to see the writing on the wall and keep up with the market. When they fail to do that, eventually someone will make a better product and drive them out of the market. That is nearly precisely what this BS is about. Only problem is, some vendors simply have that niche piece of software that no one else makes, and they can tie the hands of others. But yet... somehow that BS is Microsoft's fault. What a joke. I ought to piss and moan at Linux and ATI for not providing driver support for my older Radeon HD that was giving me issues some time ago. But unlike some, I realize that eventually, you simply have to let certain old products die.

You really hit the nail on the head here, this and "custom in-house software". Take that specialized software and hook it up to $20K+ machines. Baby jesus weeps. :'( Usually you can segment these types of machines on the network so the lack of updates is irrelevant, but they are always a special snowflake.

 

[JMapleton]

WinDOez 7 for LyfE, fo' RealZies....

 

[Ichinisan]

... But yet... somehow that BS is Microsoft's fault. What a joke. I ought to piss and moan at Linux and ATI for not providing driver support for my older Radeon HD that was giving me issues some time ago. But unlike some, I realize that eventually, you simply have to let certain old products die.

It kinda is Microsoft's fault. If Windows updates had better software compatibility between versions, it wouldn't break so many business apps.

Ever since Windows 95, I always wished that Microsoft would overhaul Windows and make it more like iOS (with sandboxed apps that are installed / removed / updated / reset like objects). There should be a legacy compatibility environment done the same way Apple kept OS9 support for a while after OSX.

 

[Ichinisan]

... A PC would have to be pretty old to not be able to Run Windows 7, and I figure that one could spend as little as $120 to get a Windows 7 capable PC so I really doubt that people are sticking with XP because their non peripheral hardware is unsupported. ...

Don't forget the cost of the OS itself. It's not negligible. It's actually obscene. Microsoft wouldn't be in this situation if an equivalent new OS was never more than $30. I'm convinced that piracy would be reduced to almost nothing and millions would upgrade just out of curiosity whenever a major new version is released. I also feel that there should be absolutely no differentiation between full/upgrade versions.

...then include the cost of the peripheral hardware you chose to ignore...

That's another rant point of mine:
Why the ^%} can't Microsoft support encapsulated 32-bit drivers in a 64-bit OS? What is the technical reason this isn't done? Are Microsoft's software engineers perfectly happy with these limitations?

 

[88keys]

Don't forget the cost of the OS itself. It's not negligible. It's actually obscene. Microsoft wouldn't be in this situation if an equivalent new OS was never more than $30. I'm convinced that piracy would be reduced to almost nothing and millions would upgrade just out of curiosity whenever a major new version is released. I also feel that there should be absolutely no differentiation between full/upgrade versions.

...then include the cost of the peripheral hardware you chose to ignore...

I didn't ignore it. I was just speaking in terms of people who are on XP who aren't running peripherals that are only supported by XP.
I run a Windows XP on one of my PCs for that reason. But it's a DAW workstation with one purpose so it doesn't need to access the internet. Just my LAN. So that's what it does.


That's another rant point of mine:
Why the ^%} can't Microsoft support encapsulated 32-bit drivers in a 64-bit OS? What is the technical reason this isn't done? Are their software engineers perfectly happy with these limitations?

I agree. People have gotten Windows drivers to work in Linux, OSX, and FreeBSD for christs sake and Microsoft can't even make legacy drivers work in newer OSes?
XP mode in Windows 7 was really a half measure. It's good for software, but not for hardware.

 

[Leyawiin]

A PC would have to be pretty old to not be able to Run Windows 7

Especially 32 bit. Its really no more taxing on old hardware than XP. I tried it with that Athlon XP 3200+ spare parts rig I assembled last year.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Apparently you people know nothing about software or computers. There is nothing wrong with XP.

If you keep the stupid thing off the internet it does not matter what OS you use.

 

[Kroze]

IMO, Windows XP and 7 are two of the best OS Microsoft has ever released.

 

[cubby1223]

There is a very easy solution to get people to upgrade off of XP:

Make it an option in the new OS's to look exactly like XP does. Microsoft can add all the new technologies and new code and new greatness to everything behind the scenes. Make the desktop, start menu, control panel, and Window borders mimic the XP look, people will upgrade.

I'm in my 30's and I'm already f'ing fed up with learning new interfaces just because a software company decided to create a new user interface. I don't care about your new interface. I don't want it. I know how to get things done on the current interface, I want to use my knowledge capacity to learn other things, rather than waste time and time again learning new interfaces simply for the sake of learning new interfaces.

 

[cubby1223]

The other reason I refuse to upgrade off of XP is because my eyes are very sensitive to large displays. There is a very limited selection of monitors that don't give me eye strain and headaches, and even then I have to spend a lot of time adjusting the brightness & contrast settings to find something tolerable.

There is something about the way Vista & Windows 7 displays, the shading, the transparency, the font rendering/smoothing, animations, that causes me eye strain & as such I cannot work on a Windows Vista or 7 machine for longer than about a half-hour before I start getting a headache (more or less time depending on the monitor type and size), after such time I need to take a break away from the screen. I am sticking with XP as long as I can.

 

[cubby1223]

A PC would have to be pretty old to not be able to Run Windows 7, and I figure that one could spend as little as $120 to get a Windows 7 capable PC so I really doubt that people are sticking with XP because their non peripheral hardware is unsupported.

Windows 7 machines are very easy to obtain at that price. I just bought an inventory of fully built & ready 3ghz Core 2 Duo machines with Windows 7 for $130 each. I've sold more machines to local businesses over the past year than I did in the previous 5 combined, pretty much all thanks to everyone hating Windows 8 🙂

 

[ImpulsE69]

There is a very easy solution to get people to upgrade off of XP:

Make it an option in the new OS's to look exactly like XP does. Microsoft can add all the new technologies and new code and new greatness to everything behind the scenes. Make the desktop, start menu, control panel, and Window borders mimic the XP look, people will upgrade.

I'm in my 30's and I'm already f'ing fed up with learning new interfaces just because a software company decided to create a new user interface. I don't care about your new interface. I don't want it. I know how to get things done on the current interface, I want to use my knowledge capacity to learn other things, rather than waste time and time again learning new interfaces simply for the sake of learning new interfaces.

That isn't the only issue though. Businesses don't care if it looks the same or not, they just want stuff to work and generally with a new OS comes new problems.

 

[postmortemIA]

The other reason I refuse to upgrade off of XP is because my eyes are very sensitive to large displays. There is a very limited selection of monitors that don't give me eye strain and headaches, and even then I have to spend a lot of time adjusting the brightness & contrast settings to find something tolerable.

There is something about the way Vista & Windows 7 displays, the shading, the transparency, the font rendering/smoothing, animations, that causes me eye strain & as such I cannot work on a Windows Vista or 7 machine for longer than about a half-hour before I start getting a headache (more or less time depending on the monitor type and size), after such time I need to take a break away from the screen. I am sticking with XP as long as I can.

Yeah, ClearType is difficult to turn off in Vista and later, IE automatically turns it on for webpages, and default system fonts are designed to work only when cleartype is on.

 

[cubby1223]

Yeah, ClearType is difficult to turn off in Vista and later, IE automatically turns it on for webpages, and default system fonts are designed to work only when cleartype is on.

In XP I need font smoothing turned on, but cleartype turned off. In Vista & 7, I believe the only options are all off or cleartype on, I've never been able to recreate the same font rendering in the new Windows that my eyes can read the best.

 

[Insomniator]

What XP support do people still need, is it strictly security updates?

Are there always constant new ways to hack a machine? I guess I don't quite understand the whole issue. Every month... new security patches... even if nothing else on the machine changed... why?

 

[cubby1223]

That isn't the only issue though. Businesses don't care if it looks the same or not, they just want stuff to work and generally with a new OS comes new problems.

I know there are a few reasons. Another company I do work for uses an accounting program written in one of the earlier .net framework versions not supported in Vista or 7, but to update the accounting software requires moving to a Windows Server from a linux server, or an added ~$4k expense, which to a small business in this recent economy, is a huge expense. Another business I wrote some software making heavy use of a css tag supported in IE6 relating to formatting the page for printing... turned out no other browser ever supported that css tag, including future versions of IE.


Another reason businesses don't upgrade is because hardware has surpassed the threshold where humans are now the limiting factor in the speed of most office applications. Just a little bit ago I cleaned up a socket 478 system, threw in a 2.8ghz northwood cpu with hyper-threading, and even with up-to-date anti-virus software the system is pretty dang fast and responsive! We have more than a decade of hardware advancements that for so many are not essential to productivity.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Apparently you people know nothing about software or computers. There is nothing wrong with XP.

If you keep the stupid thing off the internet it does not matter what OS you use.

Pretty much, I don't really see what the huge deal is.

hell, is there patches for 7 and 8? Yes. Guess what, that means 7 and 8 have exploits too. Until MS and other software companies can learn to actually code stuff more securely instead of patching it later, all software will continue to have exploits no matter how old or new it is. You should not depend on it's own security but rather extra security such as firewalls and antivirus.

 

[imagoon]

All software will continue to have exploits no matter how old or new it is.

I corrected the obvious error you made there. I think this is what you meant.

 

[mvbighead]

It kinda is Microsoft's fault. If Windows updates had better software compatibility between versions, it wouldn't break so many business apps.

Ever since Windows 95, I always wished that Microsoft would overhaul Windows and make it more like iOS (with sandboxed apps that are installed / removed / updated / reset like objects). There should be a legacy compatibility environment done the same way Apple kept OS9 support for a while after OSX.

WHAT?

1) I used to have to do a plethora of admin stuff for a smaller company (actually, the company was quite large, but our sub company of the parent company was quite a bit smaller (700 workstations, 50-60 servers) with a LOT of legacy/old applications. In my 7 years of being there, I can't recall many times where a Microsoft update broke one of our apps, and we had to go through and pull said update. The only things that come to mind are vendors refusing to support Internet Explorer 7, 8, 9, or 10. There was one vendor that 'forced' us to keep IE6 around for a LONG time.

2) Even if an update did break an app, generally what that means is the application was using a "flaw" that was corrected with the update. At that point, you pull the update and prod the developer to provide a patch for the app. But I can't recall doing that once.

3) Backwards compatibility is not something that many get right. Java? We had several Java based applications that all required a specific version (down to the sub version) and making two Java apps work for the same system was frequently a PITA. Couple that with the fact that Java by default wants to update itself, and there is a LOT you have to do to keep those apps from breaking. Far more than I have ever seen from anything from Microsoft.

4) As for sandboxing apps, that's not really the issue. The issue is what the application uses to work. Is it Java? Is it Flash? Is it .Net? Is it? You can sandbox an app all you want, but the problem that hits the surface is a shared component of the OS. Sandboxing the app is going to do nothing to prevent app problems if you update Java, unless the developer can build Java into the app installer that is specifically available for the application and not a shared component.

4a) Companies are in charge of what they do with apps. MANY companies are moving their apps to the cloud. At that point, all you have to do is ensure compatibility with whatever browsers you wish to support.

I don't buy this as a MS problem. They're doing what they can to help on their side. Compatibility mode in the new browsers has made supporting legacy sites a breeze.

But for the life of me, his discussion is about a 13 year old operating system, and we're talking about Microsoft moving to fast? Holy crap. I'd say that most people could move to Windows 7 after it's been out a year and realize that it was the one OS that was the "new" XP. The face of most business workstations. I can see the metro-ness being a turnoff in Windows 8, but frankly, the functionality is similar to Windows 7. There is no reason for companies to hold back on updating their workstation platforms for 13 years. 5-7, sure. 13? What dafuq?