Windows XP Still The Dominant OS

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The first day of the month means that we need new OS statistics that claim the exact opposite of what we heard last month....and those stats were different than the month before that...which were different than the month before that...and the month before that. :(
 
There are A LOT of old ass computers out there still and corporate client machines that will be XP for sometime. If anything this should come as a bit of a claim to fame as to how successful Win 7 is,
 
We're still on XP, in the middle of an overly long testing process to migrate to Windows 7. Looking at deploying in late March.
 
That is odd...it looks like XP actually went up between December '11 and January '12.

Kinda doesn't make any sense to me.
 
i think a lot of it is businesses. xp works, its stable and they don't need to spend money to upgrade software or hardware. plus you don't have the cost and headaches of getting everything to work just perfectly like you usually do with a new setup. whats not to love?
 
I have to be honest, I resurrected a Windows XP machine myself recently. My old Nforce 2. Why? Cause there's hardware that will only work with XP, like my capture card. Installed Media Portal onto it, and I can access the TV capture card to watch basic cable from my windows 7 PC.

There's also situations where certain mods and hacks are easier on XP as well. Plus, no matter how advanced Windows 7 is, XP still handles older hardware better.
 
THRESHIN said:
plus you don't have the cost and headaches of getting everything to work just perfectly like you usually do with a new setup. whats not to love?
Click to expand...

Pretty much this. Nobody wants to do it. We use XP computers in my lab, and I, at least when I get my own computer for analyzing results and doing some simulation work, will absolutely request Windows 7. The multitask-ability of Windows XP sucks. But the computers that control the experiments... no need to touch what isn't broken!
 
Regardless of whether or not the numbers are an accurate reflection of reality, there's really no compelling reason to take much away from that. The point of an OS is to provide a framework for applications to leverage the functionality of underlying hardware in an (ideally) efficient manner. The extra fluff thrown on top such as a web browser or 3d capable UI strike me as things akin to the value added software that OEMs drop on their computers to meet bullet points on a sales brochure. They exist and may or may not be useful, but aren't really the core reason for the OS to exist.

I'm personally pretty agnostic about the OS and put to use whatever happens to suit the needs of the moment or what I can obtain easily and shoehorn into the role I need it to fill. If that's XP..meh...so be it.

Obviously in a business setting, there are a lot of external factors to take into account including compatibility with production software, licensing expenses, and policies. I still run into the occasional machine that "must" stay chained to a specific OS even if it happens to be a dinosaur. I have a sneaking suspicion that XP will hang around for a very long time after Microsoft pulls the plug on official support.
 
Ashbringer said:
Plus, no matter how advanced Windows 7 is, XP still handles older hardware better.
Click to expand...

I though the same thing. I have alot of old P4 (2.4Ghz) systems at the office, so did some testing.

I tested a fresh install of XP/Office 2007 against a fresh install of Windows 7 32 bit/Office 2010.
Boot time, and application start times where close, with both XP and Windows 7 winning and losing some tests, but usually within a a second or two.

However, the Windows 7 system felt snappier when switching between apps, and when accessing the network. Office 2010 also felt faster during use. Upgrading the system to 2GB (instead of the 1.25GB they currently have) didn't seem to help XP, but seem to help Windows 7 feel even quicker.

Since I already have licenses available to upgrade these systems, looks like I'll be taking the best of these systems and reimaging them to Windows 7/Office 2010. Should be done about the time Windows 8 and the next version of office get released :)
 
nutzo said:
I though the same thing. I have alot of old P4 (2.4Ghz) systems at the office, so did some testing.

I tested a fresh install of XP/Office 2007 against a fresh install of Windows 7 32 bit/Office 2010.
Boot time, and application start times where close, with both XP and Windows 7 winning and losing some tests, but usually within a a second or two.

However, the Windows 7 system felt snappier when switching between apps, and when accessing the network. Office 2010 also felt faster during use. Upgrading the system to 2GB (instead of the 1.25GB they currently have) didn't seem to help XP, but seem to help Windows 7 feel even quicker.

Since I already have licenses available to upgrade these systems, looks like I'll be taking the best of these systems and reimaging them to Windows 7/Office 2010. Should be done about the time Windows 8 and the next version of office get released :)
Click to expand...
It's a miracle you even got that to work. I don't mean just speed, but installing hardware. For example, I have a AVerMedia UltraTV 1500 MCE that works perfectly fine, but no Vista or Windows 7 driver. Certainly no 64-bit one. So XP is the only choice.

Another machine has a Pentium M CPU, but with Intel graphic. Old outdated and no Windows 7 driver. Actually in that machine I installed Ubuntu 11.10 with no problems, but XP was certainly considered.

Fact is, Windows 7 and Vista have terrible driver support for older hardware. Not Microsoft's fault, but switching to a new driver architecture is part to blame. Windows 7 may feel snappier, but it's not enough to get people to switch. People who are uncomfortable with changes will avoid it even more.
 
SuicidalGoat said:
upgrade your mom's pc already
Click to expand...

Mom and Dad are dead, got thier PC, sucked, full of Norton. Trashed it. Running XP on one old PC to load my Patriot Box Office. Can't get my Win7 PCs to do anything but see the PBO on the network. Can't access it at all. :mad:
 
Ashbringer said:
It's a miracle you even got that to work. I don't mean just speed, but installing hardware. For example, I have a AVerMedia UltraTV 1500 MCE that works perfectly fine, but no Vista or Windows 7 driver. Certainly no 64-bit one. So XP is the only choice.

Another machine has a Pentium M CPU, but with Intel graphic. Old outdated and no Windows 7 driver. Actually in that machine I installed Ubuntu 11.10 with no problems, but XP was certainly considered.

Fact is, Windows 7 and Vista have terrible driver support for older hardware. Not Microsoft's fault, but switching to a new driver architecture is part to blame. Windows 7 may feel snappier, but it's not enough to get people to switch. People who are uncomfortable with changes will avoid it even more.
Click to expand...
And I'm sure XP had terrible support for terrible hardware also. There is a cutoff point with everything. The driver support isn't microsoft's fault, its the fault of the manufacturers of the hardware.

As for the Intel graphics on the Pentium M laptop, there is no reason why it can't use the built in window's driver. If the screen turns on when you run Window 7 32bit, then there is a default driver to run it.

And Intel does have a Windows 7 32bit driver package available for the 852/855 and 915 chipsets that were used with the Pentium M. Available directly on their website. You aren't looking hard enough.
 
MavericK96 said:
That is odd...it looks like XP actually went up between December '11 and January '12.

Kinda doesn't make any sense to me.
Click to expand...

Doesn't make sense?? Every casual user and nearly every business knows XP is way better than Windows Vista.
They can't just give Malibu Stacy a new hat (Superbar) and expect it to outsell the Lisa Lionheart doll, right?
 
Ashbringer said:
I have to be honest, I resurrected a Windows XP machine myself recently. My old Nforce 2. Why? Cause there's hardware that will only work with XP, like my capture card. Installed Media Portal onto it, and I can access the TV capture card to watch basic cable from my windows 7 PC.

There's also situations where certain mods and hacks are easier on XP as well. Plus, no matter how advanced Windows 7 is, XP still handles older hardware better.
Click to expand...

Not to mention support for older hardware tech that has been dropped starting with Vista such as game ports, IP over firewire, direct cable connection, and APM,
 
I think most companies are still using XP, we have talked about possibly upgrading to 7 sometime this year though.
 
I expect XP to suffer a huge fall off this year as the support end date comes nearer and companies move to 7 which I think will accelerate this year.
 
They just offered us to get off xp at work to win7. at a big big computer company.
 
A lot of companies I know still use XP, and they can't afford to upgrade to Windows 7. A place where I go still uses XP because they are still using Pentium 4 computers.
 
I run it on my old 8 year old Toshiba still.... great for basic stuff, and still easily gets the job done.

XP is great... I even have a second key as backup, in case I need another copy running :)
 
I think they would find that a lot of people who still use XP also use Win7. I have 5 PCs and need an OS for all of them so I still run XP and even Win2K but I also have Win7. I really do not think I will be getting Win8 though and this is the end of the line for me buying Microsoft products.
 
A lot of you XP users are forgetting, XP has piss poor security. Not MS' fault really, as when XP was released in 2001 key security features like DEP were not available in x86 processors, without DEP, ASLR is useless. There's little reason to have many other security features (SEHOP and so on) since they cover edge cases compared to DEP and ASLR. While the first thing many of you will say is "I've never got a virus on XP" as we've all heard it before, it doesn't change the fact that XP is still insecure, in the same vein that a smoker saying they never got cancer before doesn't mean smoking is safe. According to MS' quarterly Security Intelligence Report, XP has somewhere north of 10x the infection rate of Win 7, depending on SP level and bitness (Win 7 x64 SP1 being least afflicted, and XP SP2 and previous being most so.)

Also, if you run new hardware, Win 7 takes much better advantage of multicore cpus, hyperthreading, large amounts of memory, SSD features like TRIM, and provides things like DX10/11 which speed up many games and are required for something like BF3. Plus much more, if you want to do some internet research on the subject.

Businesses should upgrade for security, so should most home users. Cases where you have non-networked old PCs in the only time I would say running XP is a not a terrible idea.
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
And I'm sure XP had terrible support for terrible hardware also. There is a cutoff point with everything. The driver support isn't microsoft's fault, its the fault of the manufacturers of the hardware.
Click to expand...

Actually, no it doesn't. XP is actually backwards compatible to use Windows 2000 and Windows 98 drivers. Nearly everything works on XP.

And Intel does have a Windows 7 32bit driver package available for the 852/855 and 915 chipsets that were used with the Pentium M. Available directly on their website. You aren't looking hard enough.
Click to expand...

I tried to install Windows 7 and couldn't find a driver. Either that or the driver refused to install. I don't remember exactly.

devil22 said:
A lot of you XP users are forgetting, XP has piss poor security. Not MS' fault really, as when XP was released in 2001 key security features like DEP were not available in x86 processors, without DEP, ASLR is useless. There's little reason to have many other security features (SEHOP and so on) since they cover edge cases compared to DEP and ASLR. While the first thing many of you will say is "I've never got a virus on XP" as we've all heard it before, it doesn't change the fact that XP is still insecure, in the same vein that a smoker saying they never got cancer before doesn't mean smoking is safe. According to MS' quarterly Security Intelligence Report, XP has somewhere north of 10x the infection rate of Win 7, depending on SP level and bitness (Win 7 x64 SP1 being least afflicted, and XP SP2 and previous being most so.)
Click to expand...
Your security is only as good as you want it to be. XP or Windows 7 has little impact on that. Both machines get infected. I haven't experienced the frequency to be less in Windows 7.
Also, if you run new hardware, Win 7 takes much better advantage of multicore cpus, hyperthreading, large amounts of memory, SSD features like TRIM, and provides things like DX10/11 which speed up many games and are required for something like BF3. Plus much more, if you want to do some internet research on the subject.
Click to expand...
Given that there's games or applications in DX10/11 and mufti-threaded. Which there aren't many.
 
Ashbringer said:
Given that there's games or applications in DX10/11 and mufti-threaded. Which there aren't many.
Click to expand...

A lot of major games that came out last year had DX 11 support. There's ZERO reason to play modern games on XP and plenty of reasons not to.
 
Well summarized, Devil. At our university, academic licensing makes cost less of a concern, and our retired IT director managed to etch some important policies deeply into campus culture during his tenure. One, nobody works under admin rights (even IT staff use a second account for that and only when necessary). There go 95% of malware breaches, according to one recent study. Two, we replace one fourth of our computers each year, so that no machine is more than four years old (one year out of extended warranty). (Guess who gets first pick of retired hardware? :D)

Even with the licensing and up-to-date hardware advantages, we took a couple of years of testing and validation before we started in earnest. Labs went as one fell swoop but we have to do faculty and staff machines one by one. We're about 4/5ths of the way there. Three out of four machines at my home are Win7 also, just one laptop without a 64-bit CPU is still XP.

As an IT professional in a large academic environment, a regular pain in my butt is having to support Macs. We've gotten rid of most of them, but some die-hards remain in areas where the battle is not yet worth fighting. On that note, seeing the Mac totals so much lower than Apple propaganda would have you believe just warms my heart!:D
 
Ashbringer said:
Actually, no it doesn't. XP is actually backwards compatible to use Windows 2000 and Windows 98 drivers. Nearly everything works on XP.



I tried to install Windows 7 and couldn't find a driver. Either that or the driver refused to install. I don't remember exactly.


Your security is only as good as you want it to be. XP or Windows 7 has little impact on that. Both machines get infected. I haven't experienced the frequency to be less in Windows 7.

Given that there's games or applications in DX10/11 and mufti-threaded. Which there aren't many.
Click to expand...

I bought XP on launch day, Legacy hardware support until SP1 for XP was Abysmal sorry.

Commander Suzdal said:
Well summarized, Devil. At our university, academic licensing makes cost less of a concern, and our retired IT director managed to etch some important policies deeply into campus culture during his tenure. One, nobody works under admin rights (even IT staff use a second account for that and only when necessary). There go 95% of malware breaches, according to one recent study. Two, we replace one fourth of our computers each year, so that no machine is more than four years old (one year out of extended warranty). (Guess who gets first pick of retired hardware? :D)

Even with the licensing and up-to-date hardware advantages, we took a couple of years of testing and validation before we started in earnest. Labs went as one fell swoop but we have to do faculty and staff machines one by one. We're about 4/5ths of the way there. Three out of four machines at my home are Win7 also, just one laptop without a 64-bit CPU is still XP.

As an IT professional in a large academic environment, a regular pain in my butt is having to support Macs. We've gotten rid of most of them, but some die-hards remain in areas where the battle is not yet worth fighting. On that note, seeing the Mac totals so much lower than Apple propaganda would have you believe just warms my heart!:D
Click to expand...


Yea I do a similar thing for the offices I run. Though I started making the move off XP far quicker, but I am a smaller operation. Macs as much as I love their laptops (A Dual boot win7/OSX macbook pro is damn nice) I utterly hate supporting mac devices/users in general. The few (me) who run a dual boot it is obviously np. However the rest are a constant hassle with Driver support, playing nice with the network, shitty professional printing support etc. Don't get me started on the iPad and its lack of flash since "EVERYTHING" we do is flash based. I don't even know what was going though those idiots minds when they bought that knowing it wouldn't work. Of course the Photon app helps a little, but it is still a hack job at best.
 
Wasn't there like an article a month ago about how Windows 7 has overtaken XP?
 
My company just finished the move over to Win 7. The biggest part was getting all of our applications packaged prior to deployment. Its an oil company and have a number of employees and use so many different pieces of software that it was a daunting task but its done now and its own to other business.

Now, I don't understand much about business and economics, but I've seen the success of the Macbook. Its selling when other PC's arent. If that is the case, how is the OS usage still so low. Should we see more of an increase?
 
+1

Don't need 7. Don't have the hardware for it anyway, nor do I plan to use software that 7 would utilize. If I was really interested in the new games, or if I wanted some video creation software, or if I needed lots of RAM to run a certain application is when I would consider upgrading.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
I bought XP on launch day, Legacy hardware support until SP1 for XP was Abysmal sorry.




Yea I do a similar thing for the offices I run. Though I started making the move off XP far quicker, but I am a smaller operation. Macs as much as I love their laptops (A Dual boot win7/OSX macbook pro is damn nice) I utterly hate supporting mac devices/users in general. The few (me) who run a dual boot it is obviously np. However the rest are a constant hassle with Driver support, playing nice with the network, shitty professional printing support etc. Don't get me started on the iPad and its lack of flash since "EVERYTHING" we do is flash based. I don't even know what was going though those idiots minds when they bought that knowing it wouldn't work. Of course the Photon app helps a little, but it is still a hack job at best.
Click to expand...

Yeah, dual boot helps with at least one of our users. But like you say, it's the management and networking side that makes a Mac an unwelcome guest. Dive in and add a printer by typing \\printserver\printername, and the driver automatically downloads and installs in seconds? Nope. Use Windows Deployment Services to completely reformat and reinstall a machine, including default apps, to one of several config choices in a few easy steps? Nope. Autoconfigure connection to firewall? Nope. Easy network file share mapping? Nope. And on and on.
 
Certain said:
My company just finished the move over to Win 7. The biggest part was getting all of our applications packaged prior to deployment. Its an oil company and have a number of employees and use so many different pieces of software that it was a daunting task but its done now and its own to other business.

Now, I don't understand much about business and economics, but I've seen the success of the Macbook. Its selling when other PC's arent. If that is the case, how is the OS usage still so low. Should we see more of an increase?
Click to expand...

I wonder about this too. Either the Mac sales numbers are being cooked somehow, or consumer users are just vastly outnumbered by corporate and institutional users. My gut feeling is it's both, but mostly the latter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top