Survey Respondents Say 'Yes' To Windows 10

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Is it just me, or does it seem like this guy is mad about the survey results. I got $5 that says this article was written on a Mac. ;)

A whopping 73 percent of the respondents polled stated that they plan to adopt Windows 10 within two years of its launch. The numbers surprise me because neither Windows 7 nor Windows 8 had such high adoption rates. The fact that so many IT shops, including a large number of government units, still use Windows XP gives me the feeling that the numbers seem high.
Click to expand...
 
Hell I already opted in to the free upgrade on all three of my machines.

*shrug*
 
Most of the machines running XP wouldn't run for shit on Vista/7/8/10 thus are not worth upgrading. These machines will eventually be replaced as they burn out and those replacements will run win7/8/10.
 
The ONLY reason responsible corporations have ancient OS's like Xp still running... or NT, or NEXT and what have you.. is simply because they have required software running on these operating systems that can not run on more current. And the cost to get the current or have someone write new is so high or the coders who wrote the original are just dead or company is defunct that they feel that they have no choice.
 
Nanan said:
Most of the machines running XP wouldn't run for shit on Vista/7/8/10 thus are not worth upgrading. These machines will eventually be replaced as they burn out and those replacements will run win7/8/10.
Click to expand...

It really depends. Vista came out in 2006 and was a huge failure. Windows 7 did not come out until 2009. Vista was so undesirable that XP continue to be sold with many computers until Windows 7 came out.

That period of time, from about ~2005 or so until 2009 is where many relatively fast XP boxes come from. Intel released their Core 2 architecture in 2006; certainly, anything with a Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad in it would easily run Windows 7/8.1/10. I have had lots of success refurbishing various Pentium D and Athlon 64 x2 machines into office/web systems using Windows 7/8.1 as well. I would go as far as to say that any CPU that supports 64-bit could potentially be upgraded ("upgraded" in the context of a clean install of a new OS), with single-core CPUs being a grey area.
 
Nanan said:
Most of the machines running XP wouldn't run for shit on Vista/7/8/10 thus are not worth upgrading. These machines will eventually be replaced as they burn out and those replacements will run win7/8/10.
Click to expand...

LOL...

Last place I worked at 5 years ago had a 30-year-old ETC lighting dimmer system that required an IBM Compatible PC running DOS 2.0 or higher and a parallel port That dimmer system is going to be there for a long while still, as the place has no money to spend to replace it with something more remotely modern. It is going to outlast Win8 and Win10. And whatever W10's successor is.
 
but maybe it's time for something new, such as a nice web-based desktop or lightweight operating system (OS) such as Chromium or iOS. There just seems to be no need for a heavy operating system anymore.
Click to expand...

Yeah, stopped reading right there.
 
GotNoRice said:
I would go as far as to say that any CPU that supports 64-bit could potentially be upgraded ("upgraded" in the context of a clean install of a new OS), with single-core CPUs being a grey area.
Click to expand...

Except you need to consider the video card requirements for Windows 10.

I have a number of old systems at the office running Windows 7 (using built in video), but they won't run Windows 10 without a video card upgrade since Windows 10 requires a video card than supports DirectX 9 or higher. These machines are too old to spend any money upgrading so they will stay on Windows 7 until they are replaced.
 
Grimlaking said:
The ONLY reason responsible corporations have ancient OS's like Xp still running... or NT, or NEXT and what have you.. is simply because they have required software running on these operating systems that can not run on more current. And the cost to get the current or have someone write new is so high or the coders who wrote the original are just dead or company is defunct that they feel that they have no choice.
Click to expand...

So very true as it can be costly to update/upgrade.

I know we missed the deadline by 6 months or so on a critical system we use, between updating hardware and programming time, we were easily over the 250k mark on money spent.
 
Skripka said:
Win7 didn't have a high adoption rate?
Click to expand...

He meant within the first two years, I'm sure...but I think 73% is about right as that's pretty much the percentage of Windows users currently on Win7 & 8 at the moment (Win7 being Microsoft's most successful Windows version by far--so far), and there's just no rationale for not taking a *free* upgrade to Win10...there just isn't, so naturally everyone is going to do it--even a fair share of the ones who say today that they aren't...;) A free upgrade of this magnitude is unheard of in Microsoft's history--it is history in a real sense, and few people who can take advantage of it will refuse to do so.

The author of this story obviously doesn't know/understand much about computer technology, and I suspect he's a closet device man who really doesn't need a PC for much of anything and thinks that because he doesn't that nobody "really needs" a PC. It's hard to understand these people being invested emotionally in the myth that we're in some kind of "post-PC" era--even Apple has dropped that silliness and hasn't used it as a marketing slogan (which is all it ever was) for many moons...;)

What these folks can't understand is that now many people who originally bought into the "less is more" device mania have through experience, often expensive experience, come to understand that PCs offer far more power exclusively and far more bang-for-the-buck than "devices" that owners cannot easily upgrade or service themselves--and they've found that going to the Apple store to get "stuff" done becomes a very expensive exercise very quickly. IE, if "devices" were briefly King for awhile in the mind of the public, the "Emperor" has no clothes, and people are belatedly realizing it. Most people know when they're being had, it's just that some are quicker than others in realizing it. I think Win10 will break all kinds of adoption records...and rightly so, it's better than Win7, and it's far more backwards compatible than Win7, too.
 
nutzo said:
Except you need to consider the video card requirements for Windows 10.

I have a number of old systems at the office running Windows 7 (using built in video), but they won't run Windows 10 without a video card upgrade since Windows 10 requires a video card than supports DirectX 9 or higher. These machines are too old to spend any money upgrading so they will stay on Windows 7 until they are replaced.
Click to expand...

Doesn't tend to be a problem on systems that I upgrade as ever since Windows 7 I've considered a hardware accelerated desktop to be a requirement anyway. If the system has an AGP slot you can get something along the lines of a Radeon 9700 for about $15 or less on eBay. If not, even something like a x1300 PCI can also be found on eBay for about that same price. $15 as an "expense" wouldn't be any worse than having to get a new keyboard.
 
I don't really buy 73% in two years. 4 maybe, but not 2. Poll or no poll.
A small minority of non business customers will switch for the sake of switching, most non business customers will switch by when they buy a new PC.
Business customer is a different matter and it could be years b4 we even see them star to adopt it.

Vista caught a bad rap, and adoption was slowed because people actively avoided it. That does not seem like it is going to be the case with 10.
 
Terpfen said:
Not at launch. Vista rage was still high and no one trusted Windows 7. The fact that it's become so beloved is still a little amusing.
Click to expand...

Not that unsurprising. WinXP was derided until about SP1. I think W2K is about the only Windows that was loved at launch and stayed that way. Maybe I'm remembering the Good Old Days wrong.
 
Do we really have a choice? Microsoft will stop supporting Win7/8 with security patches at some point so of course we don't have a choice.
 
Provided they fix the Desktop Windows Manager memory leak in build 10130, I'll be in day one. I've been using it a few months now, and have to say, its pretty damn good.
 
Semantics said:
Because by then Vista was already patched and drivers were finally stable so Vista was perfectly fine OS.
Click to expand...

My company skipped vista and went to 7. They skipped 8, I'm not quite sure what they are doing with 10.
 
///AMG said:
My company skipped vista and went to 7. They skipped 8, I'm not quite sure what they are doing with 10.
Click to expand...

My company is doing the same thing. In fact, we're still deploying 7. Most likely, 10 will be ignored and whatever succeeds the successor to Windows 10 will be deployed.
 
Grimlaking said:
The ONLY reason responsible corporations have ancient OS's like Xp still running... or NT, or NEXT and what have you.. is simply because they have required software running on these operating systems that can not run on more current. And the cost to get the current or have someone write new is so high or the coders who wrote the original are just dead or company is defunct that they feel that they have no choice.
Click to expand...

Laziness and money that's the real reason.
 
Terpfen said:
My company is doing the same thing. In fact, we're still deploying 7. Most likely, 10 will be ignored and whatever succeeds the successor to Windows 10 will be deployed.
Click to expand...

Ummm Windows 10 is it dude.... there is no next OS.
 
They questioned IT professionals for this survey, and we all know that IT professionals are overwhelmingly Microsoft lovers. I'm sure the results would be different if you questioned normal consumers, especially if you subtract the "Oh, it's free?!?!" users.

I've tried the June Preview and wasn't impressed at all. Microsoft better get busy, they have a lot of work to do before the release.
 
///AMG said:
My company skipped vista and went to 7. They skipped 8, I'm not quite sure what they are doing with 10.
Click to expand...
My company skipped Vista but did deploy 8 on tablets only. I am on our Win 10 deployment team and it looks good so far. It will likely be 3-4years before we go production.
 
GotNoRice said:
It really depends. Vista came out in 2006 and was a huge failure. Windows 7 did not come out until 2009. Vista was so undesirable that XP continue to be sold with many computers until Windows 7 came out.

That period of time, from about ~2005 or so until 2009 is where many relatively fast XP boxes come from. Intel released their Core 2 architecture in 2006; certainly, anything with a Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad in it would easily run Windows 7/8.1/10. I have had lots of success refurbishing various Pentium D and Athlon 64 x2 machines into office/web systems using Windows 7/8.1 as well. I would go as far as to say that any CPU that supports 64-bit could potentially be upgraded ("upgraded" in the context of a clean install of a new OS), with single-core CPUs being a grey area.
Click to expand...

Any 64-bit processor with 2GB+ of RAM can run Win7 like a champ. Even single-core Semprons.
 
cdr_74_premium said:
Any 64-bit processor with 2GB+ of RAM can run Win7 like a champ. Even single-core Semprons.
Click to expand...

Eh, like I said it's a grey area. It's not so much Windows 7 that is or isn't an issue on a single-core CPU, it's actually being able to run programs that tends to be problematic. Generally I just setup these kinds of machines for web/word processing, but in the case of a single-core CPU, you can run into situations where your web browser will take 5 minutes to load sometimes. Usually it's because of something stupid like Windows doing an update check in the background, which on a dual-core will bog one core but leave the other free. On a single core the whole system becomes basically unusable for 15 minutes every time it checks for updates. Disabling updates isn't exactly a great option either. That is just one example.

Also, old single-core systems almost never have 2GB or more of ram unless they were upgraded way later in their life. 90%+ will have 1GB or less.
 
timta2 said:
They questioned IT professionals for this survey, and we all know that IT professionals are overwhelmingly Microsoft lovers. I'm sure the results would be different if you questioned normal consumers, especially if you subtract the "Oh, it's free?!?!" users.
Click to expand...

apparently it was SOHO, no medium and large enterprise. Paul Thurrott shot holes through the validity of this survey and he's an MS fanboi.

Ask any IT decision maker of a company with more than 100 or so people what the Windows 10 plans are and they will laugh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top