Users Finally Giving Up on Windows XP

HvyMtl said:
Ok, be realistic. How many of the new PCs out there come with 7 Pro, or higher, on them? Not a large percentage. And out of that small percentage, few will opt to install XP Mode and Virtual Machine. (As you have to install them, they are not on the system by default.) And how many average users know about XP Mode, or "downgrade" rights?
Click to expand...
All beside the point. Windows XP will continue to activate until Windows 7's support is dropped because Windows XP is a feature of Windows 7.

Doesn't matter if it's XP mode, downgrade rights, or a boxed copy you still happen to have on-hand, or an existing install already on a PC. XP will continue to work exactly as it does today for the foreseeable future.

HvyMtl said:
In effect, yes, the forced migration has started. Where will you be able to go and buy a new computer with XP pre-installed after April? Few boutique places...
Click to expand...
woah, woah, woah, woah. Hold up. A new computer?

I said XP will continue to work as it does today, not that it would continue to be progressed in any way. If you're using XP today and it does everything you need it to do, it will continue to do so. Nobody is forcing you to upgrade, nobody is forcing you to do more with your PC than what you do now with XP.

HvyMtl said:
Joe Average will have the choice of 8 or 8.1
Click to expand...
They also have the choice of keeping their old PC, which still has XP, and will not suddenly de-activate :rolleyes:
 
Ur_Mom said:
Really? I'd like to question your logic there. An OS from 2001 that has been deployed over 7+ years compared to an OS that's less than 2 years old. Why don't you compared XP rates in 2003 to Win8 rates in 2014? Same time frames after launch. Of course WinXP will be more 'popular' with more market share. It's done with it's life. Win8 is gaining share where XP is losing it.
Click to expand...

According to an article from 2003:
http://www.clickz.com/clickz/news/1701633/windows-xp-rules-global-os-market
Windows XP had a 33% marketshare only 18 months after release. Which is especially impressive considering that an upgrade from 9x to XP was a lot harder than an upgrade from vista/win7 to win8
 
WaltC said:
That's funny for two reasons:

1) For that $100 you get an OS that has no peer in terms of after the sale support with updates that are *free* and continue for years. I've got a number of pieces of software for which I paid considerably more than that which are nowhere as well supported, unfortunately. Windows is probably the best software deal going.

2) Even if you put a new OS on your '07 hardware at the moment, when you do get your newer hardware you can take your $100 OS with you, for as many hardware iterations into the future as you care to.

XP is so old it creaks--it's so old that your "old" hardware from 2007 is brand-new comparatively. XP first shipped in late 2001, remember. Even on what you think of as your "old" hardware, Win7 on up would make a world of difference in your everyday environment. Not only is everything far more secure; Win7/8 (especially the x64 versions which everyone should be running now) support much better hardware drivers than XP ever saw. Everything runs better under Win7/8.

The OS is the most fundamental and important piece of software most people ever run. It makes everything else you do on a computer possible. Yet it is often the least respected in many people's assessment. Go figure.
Click to expand...

Ya but with laptops the OS comes on them for "free" you might say. So to most people having a copy of an OS they can move onto a new laptop makes no sense unless that laptop somehow comes without an OS, IE if you buys some custom sager notebook but that is completely unknown to most of the population. I do not disagree that windows is a great value but for laptops once they get old enough to need a new OS it is time to upgrade the laptop.
 
sir-gold said:
According to an article from 2003:
http://www.clickz.com/clickz/news/1701633/windows-xp-rules-global-os-market
Windows XP had a 33% marketshare only 18 months after release. Which is especially impressive considering that an upgrade from 9x to XP was a lot harder than an upgrade from vista/win7 to win8
Click to expand...
That's pretty easy to explain. The majority of users upgrade Windows versions by buying a new PC. XP's launch coincided with the release of the Athlon XP and the Pentium 4. There was fairly major speed-increase from both AMD and Intel, and both of them were pitching new hardware heavily. The speed increase actually made it worthwhile for users to get a new machine.

Today? Not so much...

The last 5 generations of Intel processors can all run Vista, 7, and 8.x without a hitch. As far as general desktop usage is concerned, there's not much difference between a Core2Quad and a Core i7 4770. Even Microsoft thinks so, considering Windows system requirements haven't increased since Vista came out in 2006.

For power users, the additional speed of recent hardware is nice... but intel hasn't really improved speed much over their last 3 generations. There's almost no reason to upgrade to Iveybridge or Haswell if you already have a Sandybridge processor.

Consumer hardware is stagnant. It has reached "fast enough" for a lot of people. They don't feel that they need new computers.

But the majority of users only upgrade Windows versions when they buy a whole new PC... see the problem?
 
Unknown-One said:
But the majority of users only upgrade Windows versions when they buy a whole new PC... see the problem?
Click to expand...

That's exactly true.

But, with the quotes guy's stuff, it is a much better comparison than comparing the whole life performance versus the beginning of an OS release (fairly beginning). It's a more direct comparison (disregarding market and PC performance issues). There are reasons for it, but XP did outsell Windows 8 in the same time period.
 
sir-gold said:
According to an article from 2003:
http://www.clickz.com/clickz/news/1701633/windows-xp-rules-global-os-market
Windows XP had a 33% marketshare only 18 months after release. Which is especially impressive considering that an upgrade from 9x to XP was a lot harder than an upgrade from vista/win7 to win8
Click to expand...

Read the whole article and there's some interesting info in there if it's accurate:

Users have been slow catching on to the operating system. It took 18 months since its October 2001 launch to achieve one-third of the market share, while Windows 98 reached the same benchmark in January 1999, only six months after it was released.

"Windows XP's slower adoption rate on the Web may reflect a downshift in consumer's willingness to upgrade operating systems since the launch of Windows 98," said Geoff Johnston, vice president of product marketing for HitBox StatMarket. "There are many people who are probably completely satisfied with Windows 98. Others may want to upgrade, but don't want to spend the money."
Click to expand...

Look at that, Windows 98 had 1/3 of the global PC market 6 months after release, so Windows 7 must be have been a failure because it didn't come close to Windows 98's market share.

Windows 8's adoption rate was going to be lower than 7's, that was well understood long before we saw Windows 8 because there was such a big uptake of Windows 7, especially in the enterprise and most weren't going to turn around and adopt Windows 8 so soon after going to 7. And while the rates might be lower, the absolute numbers are probably bigger. How much bigger is the PC market now than over a decade ago. Think about it, about 1.5 PCs in the world or there about. If Windows 8 had the same adoption rate as Windows 98, that would mean 500 million copies of Windows 8 in 6 months. We'll never see a 33% adoption rate for any desktop OS EVER again. Never, ever again.
 
MS knew full well that Windows 8 wasnt going to be a full Enterprise OS as it wasnt in the cycle. Enterprise wont be looking to change for another 2-3 years.
 
About time. Aside from higher RAM usage (which is not a problem when you have 4GB of RAM) Vista 64bit blows it out of the water. So much more automated and self sufficient compared to XP. And Win 7 further improves upon it.

Win 8 can use some improvements as well, but I would take it with Classic Shell over XP easily.
 
techrat said:
Another reason to dump XP.

No more security patches and no more updates to security essentials.

You're basically going to be moving right into zero day hell.

http://arstechnica.com/information-...als-for-windows-xp-will-die-when-the-os-does/
Click to expand...

Do you reckon a machine with malware and virus killer running couldn't counter any potential threats?
With this said, the secondary rig (XP) I am running doesn't even need to be connected to my LAN, since I mainly use it for older games, if at all.
 
Flogger23m said:
About time. Aside from higher RAM usage (which is not a problem when you have 4GB of RAM) Vista 64bit blows it out of the water. So much more automated and self sufficient compared to XP. And Win 7 further improves upon it.

Win 8 can use some improvements as well, but I would take it with Classic Shell over XP easily.
Click to expand...

Higher RAM usage isn't a bad thing Flogger......... Unused RAM is wasted RAM..........
 
Unknown-One said:
All beside the point. Windows XP will continue to activate until Windows 7's support is dropped because Windows XP is a feature of Windows 7.

Doesn't matter if it's XP mode, downgrade rights, or a boxed copy you still happen to have on-hand, or an existing install already on a PC. XP will continue to work exactly as it does today for the foreseeable future.


woah, woah, woah, woah. Hold up. A new computer?

I said XP will continue to work as it does today, not that it would continue to be progressed in any way. If you're using XP today and it does everything you need it to do, it will continue to do so. Nobody is forcing you to upgrade, nobody is forcing you to do more with your PC than what you do now with XP.


They also have the choice of keeping their old PC, which still has XP, and will not suddenly de-activate :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It wont suddenly deactivate, it will just be a very large virus magnet.

We are arguing semantics. I am not stating XP won't run, I am stating getting a NEW computer with XP installed will be quite hard, if not impossible, for the Average Joe Computer User.

In these ways the "Forced" upgrade has begun.
 
HvyMtl said:
It wont suddenly deactivate, it will just be a very large virus magnet.
Click to expand...
That's the risk you take if you want to run 13-year-old software...

HvyMtl said:
We are arguing semantics. I am not stating XP won't run, I am stating getting a NEW computer with XP installed will be quite hard, if not impossible, for the Average Joe Computer User.
Click to expand...
And I'm struggling to see what your point is.

This doesn't force users to migrate. Nothing is preventing you from continuing to use your current configuration (which might include XP) forever. Nobody is holding a gun to your head.

HvyMtl said:
In these ways the "Forced" upgrade has begun.
Click to expand...
And I ask again, what forced upgrade?:confused:
 
Yes, there is a forced upgrade. Example: You have an XP machine, and it dies. You cannot go to Beast Buy, Stapled, or any other box retailer and buy an XP machine. 8 is available.

Argument is still valid, as OEM are not installing XP on new machines.
 
That's not a forced upgrade. If you have the license and install disc, you can just reinstall XP.
 
HvyMtl said:
Yes, there is a forced upgrade. Example: You have an XP machine, and it dies. You cannot go to Beast Buy, Stapled, or any other box retailer and buy an XP machine. 8 is available.

Argument is still valid, as OEM are not installing XP on new machines.
Click to expand...
Or you have the Windows XP machine repaired at BestBuy, just as you would have done 13 years ago when an XP machine bit the dust.

Forced upgrade? Where?
 
Unlike 7 W8 does not include a XP VM mode for those who actually like to play older games made in the 98, ME, XP days.
One only has to run their advisor to see how many older games are flagged as incompatible.
Why should I have to ditch classic games because MS can't manage a way to be able to install and play them?
Fix that and just maybe people will allow XP to be pried from their cold dead fingers.
 
ep0x73 said:
Unlike 7 W8 does not include a XP VM mode for those who actually like to play older games made in the 98, ME, XP days.
One only has to run their advisor to see how many older games are flagged as incompatible.
Click to expand...
Windows 8 includes Hyper-V, which can have Windows XP installed in it.

The difference is, Windows 7 included an XP license, Windows 8 does not. You'll need to provide your own key to spin up an XP virtual machine in Hyper-V.

ep0x73 said:
Why should I have to ditch classic games because MS can't manage a way to be able to install and play them?
Fix that and just maybe people will allow XP to be pried from their cold dead fingers.
Click to expand...
Not Microsoft's fault that those developers didn't follow best practices. As I've mentioned previously in this thread, many older titles simply suffer from permissions issues, and installing them to a folder with looser permissions than C:\Program FIles\ actually helps a lot.

Pretty much everything based on the Quake III engine needs this, as the engine tries to write all kinds of things into its own program directory (again, this is 100% against best practices). Installing to C:\Games instead of C:\Program Files\ "fixes" it, though.
 
HvyMtl said:
Yes, there is a forced upgrade. Example: You have an XP machine, and it dies. You cannot go to Beast Buy, Stapled, or any other box retailer and buy an XP machine. 8 is available.

Argument is still valid, as OEM are not installing XP on new machines.
Click to expand...

Classic example of reality has left the building! So funny.

I hate Ford for stopping production of the Model T, I don't want to buy a F150!

I guess you are a big supporter of the great Single Core with DDR revivial too?
 
Pretty much everything based on the Quake III engine needs this, as the engine tries to write all kinds of things into its own program directory (again, this is 100% against best practices). Installing to C:\Games instead of C:\Program Files\ "fixes" it, though.
Click to expand...

Most thought that is why they had compatibility mode so you could change the permissions so the game would feel at home on it's native programming.

Sadly I've read enough threads that installing a game on 7 designed for XP and changing the mode to XP does not always work right.

I never heard of hyper-v but worth looking into now that you mentioned it.
I still have XP pro corp that I can install as many times on as many machines as I want to so it's valid for this situation.

Maybe 9 will further improve and make backward compatibility even better.
 
ep0x73 said:
Maybe 9 will further improve and make backward compatibility even better.
Click to expand...

God I hope not. Some of us want to move forward without dragging the past with us.

You keep making allowances for the stuff of old and you compromise the future.
 
Problem, which I encounter with window 8, is drivers for old hardwares. Window 9 is not going to improve on that area.
 
ep0x73 said:
Unlike 7 W8 does not include a XP VM mode for those who actually like to play older games made in the 98, ME, XP days.
One only has to run their advisor to see how many older games are flagged as incompatible.
Why should I have to ditch classic games because MS can't manage a way to be able to install and play them?
Fix that and just maybe people will allow XP to be pried from their cold dead fingers.
Click to expand...

Really I think this is a small minority of older games. I only play older games. I have games from 1997 on my system (Like Total Annihilation) and they work fine on Win7 and old classic RPGs like Baldurs Gate work as well. I have yet to encounter an old game that won't work. I have never used VM mode on Win7.
 
ep0x73 said:
I never heard of hyper-v but worth looking into now that you mentioned it.
I still have XP pro corp that I can install as many times on as many machines as I want to so it's valid for this situation.
Click to expand...
You should be good to go, then. Go to the "Turn Windows features on or off" dialog and check the Hyper-V box.

After a reboot you'll have Hyper-V installed and ready to create virtual machines.

I hope to see Microsoft use this as the back-end for ALL backwards compatibility at some point. Microsoft could drop most of the legacy cruft from Windows, and any program with known compatibility issues could be transparently virtualized and sandboxed in a compatible environment.

This type of setup would result in nearly perfect backwards compatibility while also improving security. It could also mean stability and speed enhancements for the (now legacy-free) host OS.
 
Odd thing is running the 8 advisor shows some older games/hardware are not flagged but they were with 7.
Granted it's only a few and most have updates.
An example would be programs like powerDVD, alcohol and powerchute.
I have updates for all of them that are 7 compatible, just not installed.

Only game that was flagged was stronghold crusader which I have not played in years, possible it has a patch for it or something.

A few items like my sound card flagged by 7 because they never offered a 7 driver just comes up in 8 with a question mark, I know it won't work which sucks but I do have the onboard ALC888 which is alright.

All other hardware is fine.
 
Flyboat said:
Dell 2408 LCD | Althon X2 3800 | ATI 690G | M2A - VM HDMI | 8 GB | 80GB HDD
Click to expand...

X2 based systems are now old.

In other news, I'm very depressed.

They really are getting up there. 10 years.
 
Flyboat said:
Dell 2408 LCD | Althon X2 3800 | ATI 690G | M2A - VM HDMI | 8 GB | 80GB HDD
Click to expand...

the 690G is WDDM 1.0 compatible, it it would work with 8 although you may have to do some inf editing to get it to install. But just like on 7 you would have less memory usage and better performance going to a newer card.

I mean, sorry you have a 7 year old system, but maybe it's time for a new rig.
 
Ryokurin said:
I mean, sorry you have a 7 year old system, but maybe it's time for a new rig.
Click to expand...
See, this is the same opinion that I get from car dealers that want to sell me a new car, when all I need is a new muffler. Not everyone needs a new computer. They just want other people to stop doing things to push them into a situation where they have no other choice. Software upgrades that make your computer run like crap is not an upgrade to the owner of that machine. But no one tells them that. I'd say that 99% of 'new, improved' software versions all use more memory and more cpu time, yet very rarely have substantial improvements to the average user.
 
nightfly said:
See, this is the same opinion that I get from car dealers that want to sell me a new car, when all I need is a new muffler. Not everyone needs a new computer. They just want other people to stop doing things to push them into a situation where they have no other choice. Software upgrades that make your computer run like crap is not an upgrade to the owner of that machine. But no one tells them that. I'd say that 99% of 'new, improved' software versions all use more memory and more cpu time, yet very rarely have substantial improvements to the average user.
Click to expand...

Using your same analogy, if you don't want a new car why did you go to the dealer? You basically have a 92 Taurus and inside the Ford dealer upset that they still don't have parts for it on the shelf.

If you really wanted to run 8 or even 7 on that system it would run, but not optimally. Could you do some upgrades to make it a little better? Yes, but at this point you are going to pay through the nose for it, just like if you want a brand new major part for a 92 Taurus today and it still wont be just like a new car.
 
Ryokurin said:
Using your same analogy, if you don't want a new car why did you go to the dealer? You basically have a 92 Taurus and inside the Ford dealer upset that they still don't have parts for it on the shelf.

If you really wanted to run 8 or even 7 on that system it would run, but not optimally. Could you do some upgrades to make it a little better? Yes, but at this point you are going to pay through the nose for it, just like if you want a brand new major part for a 92 Taurus today and it still wont be just like a new car.
Click to expand...

Well, XP is a 2001, not a '92. And as above, I don't need a race car (run optimally), just something to get us (simple users) back and forth (do basic things, email, word processing, watch youtube at 480 not 1080, read news; no autocad, no 3D fps gaming, etc. Which is the best analogy for most users, because they don't need fast video cards or processors. And I'm not looking for a 'major part', just want the parts that worked to keep working. All too often, developers send the update notice that a new version is out, but don't explain that the new version uses twice as much memory and computing power, to do the same damn thing the previous version was doing (good example is Firefox and itunes), they just screwed around with the interface, and bingo, NEW AND IMPROVED! And hogs resources, slows down the computer, and leaks memory. A real good example was way back with dos 6; new and improved and lose your data.
While I'm one of the 'delayed adopters' (I wait until service pack one is out before even considering moving on to the next version of anything), it's not me that I'm concerned with, it's all the 'normal people' (friends and relatives) out there that are constantly being screwed by the software and hardware companies (yes, I'm talking about you, Intel and Microsoft) that do everything they can to make their previous stuff obsolete so they can sell you a new version, perhaps even to the point of crippling older stuff with a malicious 'update'? Basically, fix it until it doesn't work. Whoops, it's not a but, it's another 'feature'!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top