Windows XP Stays Strong Despite End Of Support

Hmmmm, could it be that people running Windows XP couldn't care less whether or not Microsoft supports the OS or not?

For April, Windows XP scored a 26.3 percent share of all desktop OS Web traffic monitored by Net Applications. That number was down from the 27.7 percent share seen in March. Though XP's grip of the market continues to drop, it's still by far the second most popular desktop OS, at least based on Net Applications' stats.

Click to expand...

I really wish these XP stories would just die. Did anyone really think that MS dropping support would suddenly make everyone switch?

Probably not gonna see any serious exodus from XP until Microsoft offers a new OS that people actually want to purchase and that's gonna mean a product name that doesn't have Windows 8's negative reception by the market along with a UI that doesn't look the same. Microsoft has to pull off another Vista to 7 kinda rebranding and adjusting to trick people into buying their OS again.

for big companies, I'd understand if for whatever reason their IT dept is still using that more than 10 year old program (well actually I don't understand that either), but for the home user, I really don't get the reason why you are still on XP, even if you don't want windows 8, why not go to 7?, it is way way better

This is one of the primary reasons desktop PC sales have slowed, an 8 year old system can still watch cat videos and browse the web, especially for a non-power user. Even for power users, a moderately high-end computer they buy now will likely be good for six years, especially with OC.

And the hackers have a whole new network of computers to use as they please. Wonderful.

CreepyUncleGoogle said:

Microsoft has to pull off another Vista to 7 kinda rebranding and adjusting to trick people into buying their OS again.

Click to expand...

Vista to 7 rebranding? That's interesting. The overwhelming consensus is that 7 is much better Vista, particularly when comparing the two at launch. People in places like this often forget that most PCs never see a major version OS upgrade. The major version of the OS they came with be stay on that device until they go out of service.

XP will stay on a lot of home computers simply because a lot of people have old hardware, use only Facebook, email and Word. They don't need to change the computer and often the owners are older and don't care about "new stuff"...

The oldest computer I've installed Win7 on is a P4 3.0ghz with 512MB, wasn't perfect but often ran smoother than XP.

That being said, give me a shotgun and I'll take care of those old P3s and P4s computers!

Steve said:

Hmmmm, could it be that people running Windows XP couldn't care less whether or not Microsoft supports the OS or not?

Click to expand...

Of course it is. Anyone who didn't already know this doesn't know jack s*** about technology or its users. If you're still on XP, you clearly either don't care about PCs or you can't afford to upgrade.

Most normal users are going to stay completely unaware that support has ended for XP, and the vast majority of people that do know won't care.

Fooshnik said:

This is one of the primary reasons desktop PC sales have slowed, an 8 year old system can still watch cat videos and browse the web, especially for a non-power user. Even for power users, a moderately high-end computer they buy now will likely be good for six years, especially with OC.

Click to expand...

My main computer is still run my C2D 2.6ghz, 4GB and 8600GTS (2007). Cannot game on that crappy 8600GTS but the rest is rock solid. But i'm starting to think about upgrading. I'd call my self a moderate power user

Fixed

MrPatate said:

My main computer is still a C2D 2.6ghz, 4GB and 8600GTS (2007). Cannot game on that crappy 8600GTS but the rest is rock solid. But i'm starting to think about upgrading. I'd call my self a moderate power user

Click to expand...

heatlesssun said:

Vista to 7 rebranding? That's interesting. The overwhelming consensus is that 7 is much better Vista, particularly when comparing the two at launch. People in places like this often forget that most PCs never see a major version OS upgrade. The major version of the OS they came with be stay on that device until they go out of service.

Click to expand...

I didn't know that you didn't know. Vista and 7 are pretty much the same OS. There are some odds and ends fixed in 7, but was basically Vista with a different name stuck on it.

And yup, people aren't gonna buy new stuff to replace XP because of Windows 8 shipping on them in a lot of cases so they're waiting around until either their computer is broken or Microsoft has something they want to purchase in conjunction with a new computer. Sadly, with the market's emphasis on tablet form factors, desktop and laptop buyers aren't finding what they want and holding off on getting stuff in the same way they did when laptops were all super-glossy yuck-o fingerprint magnets.

Win8 is why I will not buy a new product as if I do first thing I will do is install Win7 on it...

dyzophoria said:

for big companies, I'd understand if for whatever reason their IT dept is still using that more than 10 year old program (well actually I don't understand that either), but for the home user, I really don't get the reason why you are still on XP, even if you don't want windows 8, why not go to 7?, it is way way better

Click to expand...

Yes, Windows 7 is better.

But, look at it from the view of a person who just wants to do a few basic things with their computer. Upgrading to Windows 7 means spending $100 or more on something that you don't really want, and don't think you should need.

I'm not trying to defend people still using XP, but I understand it.

CreepyUncleGoogle said:

I didn't know that you didn't know. Vista and 7 are pretty much the same OS. There are some odds and ends fixed in 7, but was basically Vista with a different name stuck on it.

Click to expand...

Then why was Vista considered a failure and 7 a big success if they are so similar? Of course they have much in common and indeed 7 was more a refinement effort than a big change. However, refinements seem to be what people want over big changes, thus the issues with 7 to 8.

CreepyUncleGoogle said:

And yup, people aren't gonna buy new stuff to replace XP because of Windows 8 shipping on them in a lot of cases so they're waiting around until either their computer is broken or Microsoft has something they want to purchase in conjunction with a new computer. Sadly, with the market's emphasis on tablet form factors, desktop and laptop buyers aren't finding what they want and holding off on getting stuff in the same way they did when laptops were all super-glossy yuck-o fingerprint magnets.

Click to expand...

But the same thing was happening with Vista and even 7, which are the same thing according to you. The OS doesn't matter. People will just run the PC until it doesn't work anymore.

CreepyUncleGoogle said:

Probably not gonna see any serious exodus from XP until Microsoft offers a new OS that people actually want to purchase

Click to expand...

That's a big part of the problem. If XP support had ended before Windows 8 came out I think you would see a lot more people who moved to Win 7. But now, if you go into any store, it's nothing but Windows 8. You can still buy a copy of WIndows 7 or a computer with Win 7 installed, but you really have to go looking for it.

Take Dell, for example. A year ago my wife needed a new computer and wanted a Dell (apparently they have them where she works and she likes it). So I go to the Dell website but they have nothing but computers with Windows 8.

The only way to get a Dell with Win 7 is to buy one of their 'business' computers -- which is fine because they have better specs than their 'home' computers anyway - except Dell won't let you order one of their 'business' computers unless you are actually a business. I could have tried to make something up, but apparently they won't let you order one of their business computers at night or on weekends. Apparently at Dell the Internet is only open Monday-Friday from 9-5.

I ended up buying one from someone on Amazon, who was selling the same exact computers that Dell won't sell you on their website.

Having to jump through hoops like that is definitely keeping a of of people on XP.

heatlesssun said:

...

Click to expand...

Don't pretend to be clueless. I know you know and you know you know so don't act like you don't know to try to make me or anyone else think you don't know because we all know.

CreepyUncleGoogle said:

I didn't know that you didn't know. Vista and 7 are pretty much the same OS. There are some odds and ends fixed in 7, but was basically Vista with a different name stuck on it.

And yup, people aren't gonna buy new stuff to replace XP because of Windows 8 shipping on them in a lot of cases so they're waiting around until either their computer is broken or Microsoft has something they want to purchase in conjunction with a new computer. Sadly, with the market's emphasis on tablet form factors, desktop and laptop buyers aren't finding what they want and holding off on getting stuff in the same way they did when laptops were all super-glossy yuck-o fingerprint magnets.

Click to expand...

They aren't going to buy new PCs because the regular users still on XP aren't doing any serious computing. It's parents/grandmas that use their machine for web browsing. They don't need an upgrade, and it's not because they hate windows 8... You know who hates windows 8? People who haven't/barely used it. Like all the forum parrots that flock to every windows 8 thread to regurgitate the same shit about how much it sucks....

The majority of that XP % is still huge companies with 1000's of machines running XP. They aren't upgrading because it would require new hardware/licenses/training/support, which all adds up to a huge cost. Most companies don't like putting that kind of money into IT until they have a huge security incident. One of our clients (in the health care field....) is still running machines using windows 95. So until these giant companies start upgrading, that percent is not going down.

Captain_Antoneil said:

That's a big part of the problem. If XP support had ended before Windows 8 came out I think you would see a lot more people who moved to Win 7. But now, if you go into any store, it's nothing but Windows 8. You can still buy a copy of WIndows 7 or a computer with Win 7 installed, but you really have to go looking for it.

Take Dell, for example. A year ago my wife needed a new computer and wanted a Dell (apparently they have them where she works and she likes it). So I go to the Dell website but they have nothing but computers with Windows 8.

The only way to get a Dell with Win 7 is to buy one of their 'business' computers -- which is fine because they have better specs than their 'home' computers anyway - except Dell won't let you order one of their 'business' computers unless you are actually a business. I could have tried to make something up, but apparently they won't let you order one of their business computers at night or on weekends. Apparently at Dell the Internet is only open Monday-Friday from 9-5.

I ended up buying one from someone on Amazon, who was selling the same exact computers that Dell won't sell you on their website.

Having to jump through hoops like that is definitely keeping a of of people on XP.

Click to expand...

I think both Dell and HP were (dunno if they still are) offering some of their home computers with 7 on them now because the sales for 8 were pretty bad, but still, you're completely right. If the stereotypical person who doesn't care about their computer has to jump through hoops to get 7 and they don't want 8, they're not going to upgrade out of XP if their computer still works and isn't too slow to check e-mail or watch videos. They'll just wait until there's an OS they want to purchase.

heatlesssun said:

Then why was Vista considered a failure and 7 a big success if they are so similar?

Click to expand...

There a couple of reasons. One of the biggest is that the Internet is full of morons who were bashing Vista and had absolutely no idea what the hell they were talking about.

For example http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/02/16/2259257/draconian-drm-revealed-in-windows-7

That story is actually about Windows 7, not Vista, but it's an example of the type of crap I'm talking about.

I used Vista every day for 18 months and most of the problems I had were things that weren't even Microsoft's fault. Like having to switch to a different antivirus program because the one I had wouldn't run on Vista and the vendor still didn't have a working version 6 months after Vista was released.

Biznatch said:

You know who hates windows 8? People who haven't/barely used it.

Click to expand...

Yeah... no.

How about I start calling you out on all the things you dislike, saying you haven't tried those things, even when you have?

Some people genuinely dislike it, regardless of whether you do. And some people don't see any advantage to learning something new, even if they don't particularly have anything major against it. The changes are not beneficial to the vast majority of people, even though some of those people are okay with the changes.

Get off your high horse, dude.

dandragonrage said:

Yeah... no.

How about I start calling you out on all the things you dislike, saying you haven't tried those things, even when you have?

Some people genuinely dislike it, regardless of whether you do. And some people don't see any advantage to learning something new, even if they don't particularly have anything major against it. The changes are not beneficial to the vast majority of people, even though some of those people are okay with the changes.

Get off your high horse, dude.

Click to expand...

Right because there is no way to make it appear like windows 7, which is loved so much... If only MS allowed you to customize their super locked down OS.... I think I'll stay up here on my horse, I don't want to catch the stupid....

Biznatch said:

Right because there is no way to make it appear like windows 7, which is loved so much... If only MS allowed you to customize their super locked down OS.... I think I'll stay up here on my horse, I don't want to catch the stupid....

Click to expand...

Microsoft is figuring it out kinda. The last update that boots computers to the desktop and adds a start button is good. The start button taking you to the metro UI is kinda annoying though, but when you can finally put modern ui apps into a resizable window like you could with previous generations of Windows programs and a more familiar start menu will really be what makes Windows better.

SAAADLY, Microsoft isn't gonna escape the stigma that it got early in Window 8's life because not everyone will know that. People, regardless of changes, hear about Windows 8 and they connect it to negative emotions so Microsoft really needs to execute those changes (and probably try to do something to entice more developers to sell via the Windows Store) along with calling 8 something else like Windows 9 to really get a better reception.

I don't think they're gonna do it though since the next big thing they're trying to shovel on people that's already encountering resistance is that cloud-connected must be online thing that may require remote storage and more terminal-like behaviour. That'll be the next big thing to make people get upset and will cause huge threads of doom here at [H] where people argue endlessly for no reason and say stuff like "Linux will rule the world!"

Biznatch said:

Right because there is no way to make it appear like windows 7, which is loved so much... If only MS allowed you to customize their super locked down OS.... I think I'll stay up here on my horse, I don't want to catch the stupid....

Click to expand...

Yep, the fact that you're okay with it, and the fact that there's third-party software that emulates the look of the thing that I already have and which works perfectly for me, makes me and the rest of us stupid. What were we thinking, not wasting our time to learn something useless? What were we thinking, not agreeing with a user so mature that he calls himself "Biznatch"?

I use Server 2012 at work as I have to, but the interface for it is the same garbage. However, that doesn't mean I don't know how to use it, because I do.

For a lot of people it's about avoiding the headace's that come with a OS upgrade. I remember when I moved to Vista that I hated it. Video capture card that did hardware MPEG2 wouldn't work, cause no driver. So much software that I used that didn't work, that eventually led me to find open source alternatives. Performance degradation issues with a lot of games. I remember played World of Warcraft TBC expansion and the first raid instance was karazhan. In Windows XP it played perfectly find, but in Vista it was a slide show. Suffice to say I spent a lot of time switching back and forth between Vista and Windows XP, cause I was trying to justify using Vista. Then Windows 7 was released and that shit was thrown in the attic.

But Windows 7 isn't really better then Vista. I know, hard to believe. In fact it's the same shit as Vista. The only difference is that Microsoft threw in Vista SP2 and renamed the OS. By the time Windows 7 was out, most of the old hardware and software that I needed running was irrelevant. The hardware mpeg2 capture card was pointless since I had long since bought a Hauppauge for $15 long ago on Ebay, plus I don't even use the damn thing. Most of the driver issues with Nvidia and ATI were long since corrected.

So this is where I make a case for Linux. Like most people, I was sick of Windows after hearing about Windows 8 and decided to give Linux a whirl. To my surprise it works wonderfully, except older games that's on Windows. After pulling teeth I was able to get Mass Effect 1 working in Wine, but the things I had to do were not something I'd expect the average joe six pack to go through. Remember that old hardware MPEG2 capture card? Well it works perfectly find in Mint 16. Though still as pointless as it was for Windows 7, but that says a lot about the nature of Linux.

Here are some things to consider about Linux vs Windows. I not even going to get into the whole it's magic security or supreme freedoms. This is about how less annoying it is over Windows. Linux's update system is far superior. Windows update only deals with Microsoft products, so things like Java and Adobe flash have to run their own services to update. Which means annoying pop ups and really outdated software. If you're like me, you try to stop those messages and free up those resources. Because of this, anyone who uses Windows has a lot of background services running. It's nice to have Java, Adobe flash, and drivers updated a long with Linux. It's done quickly and painless.

dandragonrage said:

Yep, the fact that you're okay with it, and the fact that there's third-party software that emulates the look of the thing that I already have and which works perfectly for me, makes me and the rest of us stupid. What were we thinking, not wasting our time to learn something useless? What were we thinking, not agreeing with a user so mature that he calls himself "Biznatch"?

I use Server 2012 at work as I have to, but the interface for it is the same garbage. However, that doesn't mean I don't know how to use it, because I do.

Click to expand...

LOL...first thing most people do when get a desktop/non-touch laptop is put 3rd party hack programs on it to make it look and act like Windows 7. Me thinks he isn't helping his own argument.

Well, Windows does get updates for _some_ drivers, but not everything. On the other hand, like last night or the night before that, Mint downloaded the latest Java version for me and installed it without me having to mess with any update service which was pretty awesome. For non-gaming uses, Linux is great. Even moving from like Mint 14 to 16 shown a lot of improvements in update services, application functions, and just generally being productive.

dyzophoria said:

for big companies, I'd understand if for whatever reason their IT dept is still using that more than 10 year old program (well actually I don't understand that either), but for the home user, I really don't get the reason why you are still on XP, even if you don't want windows 8, why not go to 7?, it is way way better

Click to expand...

It's extremely simple, because it still works, an 6-10 year old computer still works for non-power, non-gaming users perfectly fine. They can browse the internet, they can type stuff up, they can do their taxes, so now you say "here pay approximately $100 so you can do essentially the same stuff with the computer you already have" many people aren't. My parents fall in this category.

dandragonrage said:

Yep, the fact that you're okay with it, and the fact that there's third-party software that emulates the look of the thing that I already have and which works perfectly for me, makes me and the rest of us stupid. What were we thinking, not wasting our time to learn something useless? What were we thinking, not agreeing with a user so mature that he calls himself "Biznatch"?

I use Server 2012 at work as I have to, but the interface for it is the same garbage. However, that doesn't mean I don't know how to use it, because I do.

Click to expand...

No, complaining about something you can fix with a little work is what's stupid. Oh and coming into every windows 8 thread to bitch some more, instead of just using the OS that makes you happy without filling threads with useless posts... I have zero issue with the start menu gone. There is nothing efficient about nested menus, NOTHING. You can customize the start screen more and be far more efficient than 7 ever was. All the crying is just people not wanting to change, regardless that they are the ones being inefficient.

I migrated all of our servers to 2012 at work and have zero complaints. 2012 is an amazing OS. Funny that you still complain about that since it's literally just 2008 with a start screen, without all the windows 8 items people whine about. No metro apps, no live tiles, nothing. The only change is a start screen instead of menu (see previous argument).

sfsuphysics said:

It's extremely simple, because it still works, an 6-10 year old computer still works for non-power, non-gaming users perfectly fine. They can browse the internet, they can type stuff up, they can do their taxes, so now you say "here pay approximately $100 so you can do essentially the same stuff with the computer you already have" many people aren't. My parents fall in this category.

Click to expand...

Then your parents will be one of the 26.3% XP botnets on the Internet. congrats...

Windows Vista was a resource hog if you didn't tweak some things out of the box. For people with good hardware, it wasn't much of an issue, but comparatively, Windows 7 was more efficient from a resource-usage standpoint.

OEMs did themselves and Microsoft no favors by shipping Vista certified machines that were absolute crap in terms of specifications. I have seen so many Vista certified Celeron 2.0GHz, 512MB RAM, 80GB HDD laptops and even quite a few desktops with similarly shitty specs that people were gullible enough to buy. Throw Windows XP on them and they were decent, so people developed the impression that XP was better, despite being older.

Windows 7 was running great when I was testing it on an old Athlon XP 2500+ with 768MB of RAM that would not get out of its own way with Vista installed. At the same time, I had an Athlon 64 x2 4800+ system with 3GB of RAM running Vista until the motherboard died and it never gave me an issue.

Windows 8 is a different story as it is a significant rebuild by comparison and not just from a UI perspective. I was very disappointed with Windows 8 when it released, but after the 8.1 upgrade and the most recent update, I am really liking it. I still understand where XP users will have a tough time making the transition, but for them Windows 7 is still available, so at least they have an option, even if it takes a bit of extra looking.

God-forbid people actually learn a little something about a piece of equipment and the software that runs on it that they will inevitably spend so much of their time working with...

The rest of the XP holdouts are making the transition very slowly, but I bet that if similar studies were conducted a few years into XP's lifecycle, you would have still seen significant numbers of Windows 98SE and Windows 2000 machines in service.

CreepyUncleGoogle said:

Microsoft is figuring it out kinda. The last update that boots computers to the desktop and adds a start button is good. The start button taking you to the metro UI is kinda annoying though, but when you can finally put modern ui apps into a resizable window like you could with previous generations of Windows programs and a more familiar start menu will really be what makes Windows better.

Click to expand...

The Start Button and booting to the desktop came out last fall with 8.1. The latest update goes a bit further for keyboard and mouse users with modern apps on the task bar, smarter defaults, booting to the desktop is the default when mouse is detected along with desktop apps set like Windows Media Player and Photo viewer on devices with mice. I agree that the new Start Menu and windowed modern apps would be a big improvement for traditional desktop users, particularly the Start Menu as that's such a long standing issue.

CreepyUncleGoogle said:

SAAADLY, Microsoft isn't gonna escape the stigma that it got early in Window 8's life because not everyone will know that. People, regardless of changes, hear about Windows 8 and they connect it to negative emotions so Microsoft really needs to execute those changes (and probably try to do something to entice more developers to sell via the Windows Store) along with calling 8 something else like Windows 9 to really get a better reception.

Click to expand...

I agree to an extent. But unlike Vista which got a bad rap for things under the covers, most of the complaints around 8 are about the UI. And when people go into a store or see an article about the Start Menu being back and things looking on the desktop like the generally have such a long time, what happened two years ago becomes irrelevant when the PC you're looking at buying that's right in front of you has that Start Menu. Sure there will be a stigma, but a lot of people also have short memories and indeed never really thought about the new UI that much anyway.

One thing to keep in mind is that attitudes about Windows 8.1 Update for a lot of folks that were much more critical of 8.0 RTM on the desktop have changed. Indeed Windows 8.x saw an almost 1% jump in this survey from March. Of course that probably had a lot to do with the end of XP support. The roughest days of 8 are probably behind it and thinking the situation is just like it was when 8.0 came out probably isn't correct.

Ok,
As a fellow who deals with the general public when they are looking to buy, or just "kicking the tires" of a new computer, there is a lot of speculation as to why XP computers have not hit the waste bin of history.

It is quite simple: The average computer user does not look at a computer as a computer. They look at it like an appliance. They look at it like a stove, or dryer. Do you rush out to buy the newest technology to cook your food, or steam dry for wrinkle free clothes? No, you typically do not. You go buy a stove, or dryer when the old one dies... Considering the lifespan of older computers, it is not surprising to see them still up and running.

Further, the average person does what with a computer? Surf the web, watch cat videos, send email, do some light word processing, update their Facebook,and stream porn, erm, netflix, I meant netflix... And how powerful of a computer do you need to do this? Well, not very. A 10 year old computer does this well enough.

And that is a key issue. Several years back, the hardware dictated a need to upgrade, if you wanted the internet, or other new, "next big thing." Now, your hardware specifications do not have to be huge to do the things people want to do with computers. Thus, the rise of ultra-portable computers, such as tablets, and smartphones. Most things are bandwidth restricted, not hardware restricted.

Basically, I have found this: For the general public to be pushed to upgrade, there has to be some catalyst. Such as: Their old computer breaking, or being virus infected to the point upgrading is a better option. Until one of those two things happen, you will see the old XP systems limping along.
You will also see fewer new Windows computers purchased, as cheap Android Tablets fit the bill on doing what the average user wants to do with computers...

Ashbringer said:

Here are some things to consider about Linux vs Windows. I not even going to get into the whole it's magic security or supreme freedoms. This is about how less annoying it is over Windows. Linux's update system is far superior. Windows update only deals with Microsoft products, so things like Java and Adobe flash have to run their own services to update. Which means annoying pop ups and really outdated software. If you're like me, you try to stop those messages and free up those resources. Because of this, anyone who uses Windows has a lot of background services running. It's nice to have Java, Adobe flash, and drivers updated a long with Linux. It's done quickly and painless.

Click to expand...

Windows 8 updates Flash. Windows does maintain many drivers for popular hardware but trying to maintain a centralized update process for everything that is supported by Windows is somewhere between impractical and impossible. And it's not like a Linux distro is going to automatically update everything either, like Steam games. The process for Linux is better mostly because it's much easier to do.

You can't expect ppl to upgrade to w8 if they are still on an old agp video card that doesn't support
directx9. Even if it does support dx9 , drivers have to be wddm to work properly.(tried w8 on an old netbook, no go). And W7 needs 3 gigs of ram to work optimaly, which those old pcs wouldn't have.(ddr1)

heatlesssun said:

Windows 8 updates Flash. Windows does maintain many drivers for popular hardware but trying to maintain a centralized update process for everything that is supported by Windows is somewhere between impractical and impossible. And it's not like a Linux distro is going to automatically update everything either, like Steam games. The process for Linux is better mostly because it's much easier to do.

Click to expand...

Most GNU/Linux package managers have the ability to use third part repositories. Packages from those repositories integrate into the main system and are updated accordingly. For Windows, each software vendor could maintain their own repository of updates which is then accessed by a centralized program or utility.

Windows Update is a joke by comparison. Cryptic numerical error messages, constantly having to reboot the computer, providing out of date drivers and being abused by Microsoft to push things flagged as security updates that don't qualify as security updates (e.g. Windows Genuine DisAdvantage).

maboblivion said:

You can't expect ppl to upgrade to w8 if they are still on an old agp video card that doesn't support
directx9. Even if it does support dx9 , drivers have to be wddm to work properly.(tried w8 on an old netbook, no go). And W7 needs 3 gigs of ram to work optimaly, which those old pcs wouldn't have.(ddr1)

Click to expand...

Disagree completely regarding Windows 7 RAM needs. I upgraded my parents to Windows 7 last year and upgraded their machine to 2 gigs of RAM. They have a Dell E1505 laptop that sports a C2D @ 1.83ghz, and a 7200RPM hard drive. That computer is VERY useable. If I put in an SSD, it would feel snappy. Tell you what - I'm about to hot-rod an old laptop with the final specs of it being a Mobile Athlon 64 4000+ and (hopefully) 2 GB of RAM (currently has 1.5 GB). Biggest bottleneck is the 4200rpm hard drive. I'll try Windows 7 on it for shits and grins, and we'll see how it works. Vista graphics drivers should work with it, right?

Many of my clients are older, the computer isn't the most important thing in their life and they aren't interested in spending money on a new machine if the old XP box still gets the job done. I replaced a dozen or so XP machines in the past month. I had just 3 phone calls (out of 300+ clients) for people worried about switching from IE8 to a new browser over the last hoopla. Most people just don't care.

heatlesssun said:

Vista to 7 rebranding? That's interesting. The overwhelming consensus is that 7 is much better Vista, particularly when comparing the two at launch. People in places like this often forget that most PCs never see a major version OS upgrade. The major version of the OS they came with be stay on that device until they go out of service.

Click to expand...

windows vista is 6.0 windows 7 is 6.1 . Vista had classic mode to make it look like xp. Bring back Vista VIVA VISTA!!!

jbltecnicspro said:

Disagree completely regarding Windows 7 RAM needs. I upgraded my parents to Windows 7 last year and upgraded their machine to 2 gigs of RAM. They have a Dell E1505 laptop that sports a C2D @ 1.83ghz, and a 7200RPM hard drive. That computer is VERY useable. If I put in an SSD, it would feel snappy. Tell you what - I'm about to hot-rod an old laptop with the final specs of it being a Mobile Athlon 64 4000+ and (hopefully) 2 GB of RAM (currently has 1.5 GB). Biggest bottleneck is the 4200rpm hard drive. I'll try Windows 7 on it for shits and grins, and we'll see how it works. Vista graphics drivers should work with it, right?

Click to expand...

7 shouldn't care about the Vista graphics drivers so that should work.

Also, on the RAM thing, netbooks shipped with 1 GB of RAM and were usable with Windows 7 (even editions other than Starter which didn't really do much of anything to change how much RAM the OS used). Also, in those netbooks, single core 1.6 GHz Atom n270s and n450s were very common. I'm sure they're slower than Athlon 64 4000+ processors.