Windows 8 Not Getting Boost From End Of XP Support

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Aside from industry analysts, exactly who was expecting an uptick in Windows 8 upgrades now that support for Windows XP is coming to an end?

An expected uptick in PC or operating system upgrades ahead of the scheduled end of support for Windows XP on April 8 has yet to materialize. After April 8, Microsoft will no longer provide security updates or technical support for Windows XP, leaving users vulnerable to computer viruses and other malware.
 
If these people cared about that stuff they would have upgraded long ago. Those that know about this already upgraded, but the average public knows nothing about this.
 
If these people cared about that stuff they would have upgraded long ago. Those that know about this already upgraded, but the average public knows nothing about this.

This, and lot of companies who has very proprietary software and can't upgrade and probably wont until their internal systems are changed out. At that point they'll probably go with 7, not 8. I can't picture 8 in a commercial environment, it's a entertainment OS, not a productivity one.
 
Windows 8 blows chunks.

If MS had 1/2 a brain they would have known it was a bad idea to put a touch style OS on normal computers.
 
Boot to desktop. Boom. No longer an entertainment OS.

Windows 8(.1) has Hyper-V, SMB 3.1, Powershell 4.0, Support for Generation 2 VMs in Hyper-V, Secure Boot, Storage Spaces, DirectAccess VPN, improvements to BranchCache, and numerous random GPO settings.
 
I think a bunch of the "downloaded" key sites will start doing a lot more business. Unfortunately, most, if not all of those keys are gonna be Dell or something similar that won't be quite legal.
 
Boot to desktop. Boom. No longer an entertainment OS.

Windows 8(.1) has Hyper-V, SMB 3.1, Powershell 4.0, Support for Generation 2 VMs in Hyper-V, Secure Boot, Storage Spaces, DirectAccess VPN, improvements to BranchCache, and numerous random GPO settings.

Hierarchical menu for settings and controls in one place would be nice.

That other shit means jack shit to Grandpa surfing for 40's pinups.
 
At this point Windows 8 is pretty much done, we're only about 12 to 18 months away from Windows 9 and six months or less away from the beta. Even if Windows 8 were more popular there'd be those who'd wait anyway.

I can't picture 8 in a commercial environment, it's a entertainment OS, not a productivity one.

The more people say this the more personally it makes no sense. But I use Windows 8 for productivity purposes with touch, pen and keyboard and mouse everyday. Windows 7 wouldn't make productivity tasks easier for me with a keyboard and mouse and 7 on a tablet is significantly worse than 8.
 
Hierarchical menu for settings and controls in one place would be nice.

That other shit means jack shit to Grandpa surfing for 40's pinups.

But having clean and interesting UIs for apps like Facebook, Twitter, Netflix, WatchESPN, Hulu, etc might be something Grandpa might appreciate.
 
Windows 8.1 is leaps and bounds better than 8, (and in total, better than 7 too finally). Made the switch and everything is exactly the way it should be. All the options needed to make 8 not suck are built right in, not to mention the countless new and better features.
 
I thought that people would rush to install Windows 8 on a Pentium 4 with 2GB of ram!
 
It has nothing to do with Windows 8, and whether people like it or not. The XP machines work, and why fix something that isn't broken.

If it were about the operating systems, people would have moved from XP to 7.. they didn't, and there is no reason to. XP will be around for a long, long time.
 
Windows 8 is hilarious.

I mean it might be great under the hood and all, but when you fuck up the primary thing end users interact with, you really have your head in the sand.
 
Boot to desktop. Boom. No longer an entertainment OS.

Windows 8(.1) has Hyper-V, SMB 3.1, Powershell 4.0, Support for Generation 2 VMs in Hyper-V, Secure Boot, Storage Spaces, DirectAccess VPN, improvements to BranchCache, and numerous random GPO settings.



Boot to desktop is a necessity for any one burdened by windows 8 .. However it still does not address the hangs and general slowness when 8 decides it needs to do supposed back ground tasks.

only thing that makes it almost useable is placing it on a ssd and of course boot to desktop.

other wise windows 7 trumps it in useability productivity and performance.

regardless of how much more advanced 8 is over 7 .
 
But having clean and interesting UIs for apps like Facebook, Twitter, Netflix, WatchESPN, Hulu, etc might be something Grandpa might appreciate.

gtfo. Windows 8 is making me lose my mind trying to explain how things work for 500th time too my older customers. Even worse still it doesn't come with a dedicated email program (only a shitty app) that just about all of them need.
 
I held on to XP until about a 2 years before 8 released.
It was 32 bit, I had 4 gigs of ram and a dual core cpu, it played my games, it surfed the web, it let me copy my movies and dvds...
Really didn't have a reason to justify the upgrade when the finances were tight.
A lot of people just do facebook or use something like quicken to manage their bills or use turbotax at the end of the year and have an old printer that wouldn't be supported on a newer OS. Why should they care about switching from something that works just fine with all their current hardware to the single most god aweful desktop interface on the planet that doesn't run for shit without a touchscreen or enough 3rd party apps to choke an elephant before its considered "usable?"
 
But having clean and interesting UIs for apps like Facebook, Twitter, Netflix, WatchESPN, Hulu, etc might be something Grandpa might appreciate.
Nope.

They don't care much about the UI beyond that it works and they know how to use it. All they want to do is use the apps, they don't really care about the OS.

I'm the defacto IT guy for my family and all my grandparents, even my parents, hated Win8 until I put a Start button menu replacement on their PC's. And when I say hated I mean hated. No one likes feeling like a fool or moron or having to call someone for help constantly just to use browser and that is what happened to them consistently with Win8.

At work, which is a large multi billion dollar hospital group that spans multiple states, they're almost done transitioning to Win7. They will likely stay with it for a veerrrry long time and there is zero interest in moving to Win8. The back end stuff added in Win8 is nice but no one in the business cares about it since most of it only matters for servers which are already running BSD.

If MS doesn't bring back the old Start button or a way to enable it at default on boot up/login with Win9 then they're completely retarded and will only continue to lose marketshare.
 
I can't picture 8 in a commercial environment, it's a entertainment OS, not a productivity one.

Bingo. This was the problem with Microsoft developing iPad tunnelvision - it was consumer market at all cost because the perception was that all the growth is there, but the mistake was doing it at the expense of productivity, business and enterprise - anyone that uses a computer more than casually to get work done.
 
I held on to XP until about a 2 years before 8 released.
It was 32 bit, I had 4 gigs of ram and a dual core cpu, it played my games, it surfed the web, it let me copy my movies and dvds...
Really didn't have a reason to justify the upgrade when the finances were tight.
A lot of people just do facebook or use something like quicken to manage their bills or use turbotax at the end of the year and have an old printer that wouldn't be supported on a newer OS. Why should they care about switching from something that works just fine with all their current hardware to the single most god aweful desktop interface on the planet that doesn't run for shit without a touchscreen or enough 3rd party apps to choke an elephant before its considered "usable?"

I had a system running XP for a solid 7 years and it only decided to die after I installed Windows 8. One day while I was in 8 my XP drive started thrashing like mad, task manager showed 100% disk usage, I couldn't access it. Next thing I know whenever I tried to boot to it it would blue screen.

8 killed my XP install. Bastard
 
But having clean and interesting UIs for apps like Facebook, Twitter, Netflix, WatchESPN, Hulu, etc might be something Grandpa might appreciate.

And you can get those apps on a sub $100 Android tablet or $300 iPad Mini which works just fine without 3rd party apps and has a touchscreen at those pricing points.
 
Boot to desktop. Boom. No longer an entertainment OS.

Windows 8(.1) has Hyper-V, SMB 3.1, Powershell 4.0, Support for Generation 2 VMs in Hyper-V, Secure Boot, Storage Spaces, DirectAccess VPN, improvements to BranchCache, and numerous random GPO settings.

Hit Windows key by accident. Boom. Back to entertainment OS.
Try to search for a file on your drive. Boom. Back to entertainment OS.
Launch a file with an extension still assigned to a shitty Metro app. Boom. Back to entertainment OS.

I could go on.... And all of that under-the-hood enhancement you mention isn't really in dispute -- but all of that didn't need to go under a fischer-price candy wrapper.
 
You must have had a different XP than I did
Are you kidding? XP works fine still and was a huge improvement over the old Win98/Me OS's in terms of reliability and performance.

Switching to the NT kernel for their consumer OS was one of the best decisions MS ever made.
 
And you can get those apps on a sub $100 Android tablet or $300 iPad Mini which works just fine without 3rd party apps and has a touchscreen at those pricing points.

The Windows 8 app ecosystem is so dead its hilarious. We may not be able to see internal statistics straight from Microsoft, but just looking at the number of feedback ratings some of the popular apps have compared to Android makes me laugh.
 
Microsoft kicked their customers in the face with Windows8
Regular folks and Businesses want: Familiarity, Speed and Stability
...and as much Compatibility as possible
 
Let us all not forget how they brought the "start button" back with Windos 8.1. I've never seen a more blatant troll/slap in the face from a software developer.
 
I thought that people would rush to install Windows 8 on a Pentium 4 with 2GB of ram!

2GB of RAM on an OEM P4 you say? More like 512MB, and 1GB if you are lucky.

But yeah, most people with XP machines are NOT going to be upgrading their old as dirt PCs and laptops at all.
 
Biggest hold back is the perception that Windows 8/8.1 isn't a significant enough upgrade to justify spending $120 and the time and hassle. They'll get more interest if they reintroduce the $40 upgrade offer.
 
Xp was certainly ok...used it for years. I still say Win2k was far nicer overall. The only thing XP had over 2k, as far as I was concerned, was better junk hardware compatibility. :)

I enjoy linux these days.
 
2GB of RAM on an OEM P4 you say? More like 512MB, and 1GB if you are lucky.

But yeah, most people with XP machines are NOT going to be upgrading their old as dirt PCs and laptops at all.

And why should they to be honest? It makes me feel good inside knowing some old beige clunker is whirring away assisting some grandma/grandpa in their daily tasks. It's not like they're trying to play BF4 on Ultra or encode movies. Their little machine is old and reliable!
 
Are you kidding? XP works fine still and was a huge improvement over the old Win98/Me OS's in terms of reliability and performance.

Switching to the NT kernel for their consumer OS was one of the best decisions MS ever made.

XP SP3 kills XP performance. So does the crappy "Windows Search" that MS recommends.

Indexing corrupts super easy and XP as well as all previous and subsequent versions like to corrupt the file system on a regular basis, although Windows 8/8.1 have gotten quite a bit better about it.

As for XP having better performance than 98SE or ME for that matter... HAHAHAHAHAHA.

XP is a memory hog compared to previous versions, and running XP on an older machine blew chunks.

Let's see.. 98SE/ME could handle how much RAM.. Oh yeah, about the same amount of RAM it takes to make an XP machine even remotely useable.

XP had better performance.. what a joke.
 
Hierarchical menu for settings and controls in one place would be nice.

That other shit means jack shit to Grandpa surfing for 40's pinups.

Neither does hierarchical menus....
 
XP SP3 kills XP performance. So does the crappy "Windows Search" that MS recommends.

Indexing corrupts super easy and XP as well as all previous and subsequent versions like to corrupt the file system on a regular basis, although Windows 8/8.1 have gotten quite a bit better about it.

As for XP having better performance than 98SE or ME for that matter... HAHAHAHAHAHA.

XP is a memory hog compared to previous versions, and running XP on an older machine blew chunks.

Let's see.. 98SE/ME could handle how much RAM.. Oh yeah, about the same amount of RAM it takes to make an XP machine even remotely useable.

XP had better performance.. what a joke.

Nah, you could get by using 16MB in Windows 98. XP is going to laugh at that and walk in the other direction. XP basically needs atleast 128MB to boot, and 512MB minimum these days with modern browsers.
 
The Windows 8 app ecosystem is so dead its hilarious. We may not be able to see internal statistics straight from Microsoft, but just looking at the number of feedback ratings some of the popular apps have compared to Android makes me laugh.

People said the same thing about android, and I will say the same thing to you I said to them. As long as the main apps I need are present it is a phantom problem. Any program I have wanted for a PC is either available in the windows app store or has something I can use on the desktop.

That said its obviously a publicity issue just like it was and in fact still is for android. Go into any mobile forum and you will still see people claiming the apps are better in iOS and that's a reason you should not buy android.
 
XP SP3 kills XP performance. So does the crappy "Windows Search" that MS recommends.
Only on very old machines was there a difference. Even then so long as the system had a 7200rpm hard drive it wasn't a issue.

Indexing corrupts super easy and XP as well as all previous and subsequent versions like to corrupt the file system on a regular basis, although Windows 8/8.1 have gotten quite a bit better about it.
Put a number to "super easy" and then compare it to how often Win98 would trash itself. Same thing goes for Win8. File system corruption issues are now uncommon these days and usually seem to be the result of a failing hard drive or bad RAM and not the indexer.

As for XP having better performance than 98SE or ME for that matter... HAHAHAHAHAHA. XP is a memory hog compared to previous versions, and running XP on an older machine blew chunks.
Your example is naive. WinXP uses more RAM but also does more caching and had much better memory management vs Win98/Me. The OS and apps also tended to load much quicker as a result of this.
 
And you can get those apps on a sub $100 Android tablet or $300 iPad Mini which works just fine without 3rd party apps and has a touchscreen at those pricing points.

There are a number of good 8" Windows 8 tablets between $200 to $300 that are much better than those cheapo Android tablets.
 
But none are as nice as a Nexus 7 which is still cheaper and if you just hit $300 you may as well go iPad Mini which has a much more robust app store.
You go MS if you want...
Halo?
 
Back
Top