66% of All Windows Users Still Use Windows XP

An anonymous reader writes "Almost one year after the introduction of Windows 7 it appears that the hype surrounding it has faded. The overall market share of Windows has turned into a slight decline again. Windows 7 is gaining share, but cannot keep pace with the loss of Windows XP and Vista. Especially Windows XP users seem to be happy with what they have and appear to be rather resistant to Microsoft's pitches that it is time to upgrade to Windows 7."

Comments

Rounding Error?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually 66.6%

Re:Rounding Error?

[leuk_he]

Yup, because an other statistic in The Fine Article puts the usage at 60.03%. Surely 2 digits are more accurate than 0 digits, so you know which one is more accurate...

Re:Rounding Error?

[BrokenHalo]

Hell, I still know someone who is still running Windows 3.1. Now, if she were running it on recent hardware, it would probably rock. Instead, it just blows...

Re:Rounding Error?

[stonewallred]

I miss my copy of ME. Honestly. Once I finally got an update disc from gateway, and installed it, I never had a problem from it.

Re:Rounding Error?

[NatasRevol]

Precision != accuracy.

Does that make me a grammar nazi?

Re:Rounding Error?

[nacturation]

It's actually 66.6%

Yup, because an other statistic in The Fine Article puts the usage at 60.03%. Surely 2 digits are more accurate than 0 digits, so you know which one is more accurate...

Or, you could always try getting the "666" joke the AC made.

Re:Rounding Error?

[Iron Condor]

Precision != accuracy.

Does that make me a grammar nazi?

Not really - there's a surprising number of people who don't get the difference and use the words interchangeably.

Or I shouldn't say "don't get" - more like they never thought about it.

When someone asks "how long will this project take" and I say "about three months" everybody "gets" that I am not very precise here. But my prediction may well be accurate. But when I respond "498.3 work hours", then everybody "gets" that I am giving more precision, but that my prediction is now rather unlikely to be accurate. This is entirely understood by everybody and usually doesn't need to be said.

But yet when you tell your boss "about three months" he will invariably ask you to give him more digits, for reasons not quite fully understood by mere humans.

Re:Rounding Error?

[Okonomiyaki]

Vocabulary != grammar

So, no, you're not a grammar nazi. You're a vocabulary nazi but maybe just not a very good one.

Re:Rounding Error?

[Centurix]

With a bit of practice, a gooder vocabulizer he could become.

Re:Rounding Error?

[NatasRevol]

Well played!

Re:Rounding Error?

[Sulphur]

I have a copy of BOB. Should I upgrade?

Re:Rounding Error?

[operagost]

That makes one of us!

old hardware, probably

[bsDaemon]

That's probably the same as saying 66% of all Windows users are on older hardware which was already "good enough." They probably won't get Windows 7 until they buy a new computer. I have Win 7 x64 Pro in a VMWare image and it works relatively well in there, but I had to tweak the settings for the container, and if I run it with less than 2GB of memory allocated, it starts to get pissy. Maybe its different when running it on the physical machine, but I'm somewhat skeptical, and if I were running on an older PC, I'd probably skip the software upgrade and wait for a hardware upgrade.

Re:old hardware, probably

[schnikies79]

There are few reasons to upgrade hardware anymore unless you are a gamer or do ultra high end work. There hasn't been anything worthy since the introduction of the c2d. I have a 2008 unibody macbook and will most likely stick with this for the next several years.

I maintain the computers for most of my family. All are running XP and have no intention of upgrading hardware or the OS anytime soon. Most are running XP on core 2 duos or Pentium 4s.

Re:old hardware, probably

[AnonymousClown]

They probably won't get Windows 7 until they buy a new computer.

Yep.

This machine here that I'm using has had the motherboard replaced twice. The main hard drive with the XP license is still going strong. When that hardrive craps out, I'll put a new one in and make it a Linux box - I refuse to pay the retail price for Windows. Until MS drops the price down to the "MS Tax" rate for retail versions of Windows, I will not buy a retail copy - full version or upgrade.

And then there are the folks who tried the upgrade path only to have to buy the full version anyway because of installation problems and lack of XP license disk - even then, some folks still had problems. I'm not willing to chance it at the prices MS charges.

Re:old hardware, probably

[maxwell demon]

There's one very good reason to buy new hardware: When the old hardware fails.

Re:old hardware, probably

[schnikies79]

Hard drive, maybe. That can be easily replaced. I haven't seen a full system failure (motherboard, power supply, etc.) in years.

Re:old hardware, probably

[pla]

They probably won't get Windows 7 until they buy a new computer.

Not necessarily. I still run XP, because it still works.

I do actually like Windows 7, but until I want to use my computer for something that I can't do on XP, I see no point in making a not-inconsiderable outlay of cash to upgrade just for bells and whistles. And as for the hardware, as you mention - XP runs a hell of a lot faster on older hardware. My computer doesn't count as obsolete by any stretch of the imagination, but I would most likely need to upgrade hardware to get anywhere near the same level of performance if I went to Win7.

So why bother?

But I do substantially agree with you - Looking at the bigger picture, I think Microsoft has a rather serious problem, not of their own making for a change. Even the last gen of PCs as "fast enough" for everything most people want to do. I very much don't mean this as a "640k should be enough for anyone", but do you really need quad core, over 4GB of RAM, and a video card that could render an older Pixar movie in realtime, just to check your email, surf the web, and play the occasional "casual" game? And if not... Why upgrade?

Re:old hardware, probably

[Pentium100]

However, with the exception of large disasters (lightning, fire, flood etc), usually a single component fails and not the whole computer. Which means that it's cheaper to replace the failed component instead of the whole computer.

If my PSU failed, I'd rather buy a new PSU than a new PSU, motherboard, CPU and RAM (I could still use my case, videocard, hard drives etc).

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

And more importantly- drivers.

I had considered moving to Windows 7 but can not get drivers for either my MB or RAID card. So at least until the hardware dies or the golly gee whiz factor of new software tempts me, I see me hobbling along with XP for quite a while.

Re:old hardware, probably

[beelsebob]

And of those 66% of people running XP, what proportion do you think know what a PSU, CPU, or motherboard are? What proportion do you think will just go "shit, my computer broke"?

Hint, the former is likely 1%

Re:old hardware, probably

[arth1]

There are few reasons to upgrade hardware anymore unless you are a gamer or do ultra high end work. There hasn't been anything worthy since the introduction of the c2d.

Um, a lot of people sit on WAY older hardware than Core 2 Duo.

In the room I'm in now (and counting only x86 compatibles) I have one Opteron 175, one P4 3.06HT and one PIII 1.13S. They work, so why should I trash them?

Re:old hardware, probably

[JWSmythe]

    I've only known of a very few people who upgraded to Win7 because they "wanted" it. They wanted it because it was the new Microsoft toy, and they wanted the latest greatest. The majority of people I know with Win7 use it because it came on their new PC, that they usually bought because the old one died. Some of them have had me downgrade them to WinXP.

    You are right, Win7 likes to have 2Gb RAM or more, but it'll run with 1Gb if you aren't doing much in it. I've used it, both in VM's and on physical hardware. BTW, it works very well in VirtualBox, if you get tired of tweaking VMWare to make it work right. :) I had to set it up for a Mac user, who needed to use MSIE for their college assignments.

    My biggest reason to have Windows at all, is to run Windows specific apps. That's mostly Windows games, and a few apps like the Blackberry Desktop Manager, which are only a small part of what I do with a PC. Otherwise, I prefer Linux. I have OSX in a VM too, but haven't found much use for it. :)

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

Then buy the OEM version, its only $109 for home premium. So what if you sacrifice tech support. Who the hell actually calls Microsoft anyways?

Re:old hardware, probably

[Xest]

Yes, there are a number of reasons why this could reasonably be the case, particularly though we've had a couple of years of slow economic activity which has certainly had an effect on corporate upgrade cycles. Even then however there is still bound to be a good portion of systems bought prior to Windows 7's release that were specifically opted for XP over Vista.

So it's a little early to draw conclusions until Windows 7 has at least 3 years behind it which is when most upgrade cycles refresh. If at this point businesses are still opting for XP over Vista then certainly it would appear Windows 7 has been largely rejected like Vista.

This doesn't effect the overall trend of a decline in MS operating systems of course, but it does effect the ratio of Windows 7 to XP systems quite dramatically. There's no way many businesses were just going to switch over to Windows 7 on it's release for systems they had only just purchased new as XP (or Vista) a year or two before. This has never been the case, all MS OS' take a few years to take over from their predecessor.

It's also worth pointing out that Windows 7 has not yet reached service pack 1 either, which is a milestone that many people often wait for with Microsoft operating systems before adopting them both at home, and in the business world.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Pentium100]

And how many of those 65% have geek friends that they call and say "Hi, my computer broke, can you fix it?"?

That's probably a lot, considering how many computers I fix for my friends, and yes, that includes asking them to buy a new motherboard "Go to the store and ask for 'motherboard for Socket A CPU, that's mATX'" or just asking for the money and buying it myself. When the "broken computer" problem occurs, people try to save money, and if the new part costs less than a new PC, they'll buy the part.

Re:old hardware, probably

[JonySuede]

You should replace them, if you still need them, with a low TDP chip, to save energy. If your are not living somewhere electricity is subsidized and your are using them frequently, then new chips would pay for themselves in a year or two and in the P4 case it would be less than 6 month...

Re:old hardware, probably

[WrongSizeGlass]

And of those 66% of people running XP, what proportion do you think know what a PSU, CPU, or motherboard are? What proportion do you think will just go "shit, my computer broke"?

Hint, the former is likely 1%

And that's why those of us who know will always have job opportunities.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

Then buy the OEM version, its only $109 for home premium.

That's nearly $110 more than a modern Linux distro!.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

if they don't have a geek friend, in this economy, after a computer fails, it it's 4 years old or less, they will be more motivated to call around and find someone who might fix the system for a reasonable rate, at least less then the price of a new one.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anne Thwacks]

And how many of those 65% have geek friends that they call and say "Hi, my computer broke, can you fix it?"?

The rest have kids they can ask the same question.

In any case, "broke" normally means:
The battery in the wireless mouse is flat
A plug fell out the back
Its teh viruses, stupid!(I for one welcome our new porn overlords)
Profit!

If you upgrade them to Win7 they will hit you with a clue bat: Working means "Running WIndows XP".

Re:old hardware, probably

[zoom-ping]

Hard drive, maybe. That can be easily replaced. I haven't seen a full system failure (motherboard, power supply, etc.) in years.

Ever heard of laptops? Some hardware failure stats for you.

Re:old hardware, probably

[kimvette]

It is hard to build a new PC for less than the price of a new complete (albeit crappy) PC preloaded with malware and trialware. Just the cost of a good motherboard and decent i5 or lower end i7 will be about the same as the price of a brand new PC from a big box store.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

it's the economy stupid. people have more motivation now to figure out how to save money.

the computer will get fixed, and a new system will just have to wait.

Re:old hardware, probably

[HelioWalton]

I've only known of a very few people who upgraded to Win7 because they "wanted" it. They wanted it because it was the new Microsoft toy, and they wanted the latest greatest. The majority of people I know with Win7 use it because it came on their new PC, that they usually bought because the old one died. Some of them have had me downgrade them to WinXP.

In my case, and the case of every engineer-in-progress at my university, we get somewhere between 2-8 licenses for Windows 7 Pro, depending on the number of classes in different Engineering departments. You see, each department has an MSDNAA set-up. What this means, is that anyone who 'wants' Windows 7, has no problem getting access to a key for it. Almost every Windows-running laptop has 7 on it. This ability to be able to GET Win 7 has caused a large population to upgrade, just because they 'wanted' it.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

[Citation Needed] You make me laugh. As if the CPU is the main power consumer. Grumble grumble.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Idbar]

I agree with you. I bought a PC for my parents long time ago. It's a P4 running Windows 98. It has been doing the job for them.

Since XP had a really long life span, I'd assume that it will be most likely to remain top for a long time.

Besides:
1. people it's currently using more mobile platforms to browse, which it's likely to mess up with the statistics. And,
2. Some people I know use their powerful systems to work, and leave the old PCs for browsing the web at home (some more afraid that catching something from browsing will get them into trouble), which is likely to mess the statistics up too.

Re:old hardware, probably

[commodore64_love]

>>>There are few reasons to upgrade hardware

Precisely. I'm typing this on an old 2002 PC compatible. I'm sure the hard drive motors will eventually fail but for now it works just fine.

I wish I could say the same for my 2002 G4 Mac. Due to Apple's process of refusing to support anything older than 10.5, I was left in the cold. I eventually sold it on ebay for ~$30 because it wouldn't run anything newer than IE5 or Safari 2, both of which failed to render the web properly.

Oh look... here comes the -1 mod patrol.

Re:old hardware, probably

[kimvette]

Isn't that free tech support good for only the first 90 days of ownership, and for installation only?

Re:old hardware, probably

[Joce640k]

Most of the failures I see these days are due to fluff in the fans/heatsinks cooking the components. Remember to use the vacuum cleaner every once in a while and you should be ok.

(And even if you don't, most modern components seem to have thermal protection now so they tend to shut down/reboot rather than burn).

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Microsoft has a rather serious problem, not of their own making for a change.

Well, there is a problem that is of Microsoft's making. That is that the Vista/7 interface is really really horrible. And the User Account Control thing that duplicates the Program Files folder for security reasons is incredibly misguided and wrong.

I like XP, but there are many features that could have been added to it without destroying it.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Idiomatick]

Car Analogy:
Most people don't have GPS in their car (yet). That doesn't mean that GPS is bad, or that not having GPS is better. The car they are in now didn't come with GPS and not everyone is going to get an after market upgrade to add it. But probably when people buy new cars they'll come with GPS and its unlikely anyone is going to rip the things out.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

That PIII consumes less than 30 watts. The other two you could probably come out ahead in the long run by replacing, but how long would it take? Assuming you're paying about 20 cents per kwh, getting a chip that uses 50 fewer watts would save a little under $90/year if you run it 24/7/365. If they're turned off more than half the time it's less than $45/year. If it costs, say, $200 to replace them, that's four years before you break even. Not including the effort to spec a new machine, build it, reinstall and transfer the files, etc. I assume you can see why most people don't bother.

Re:old hardware, probably

[cheekyjohnson]

It is? I managed to save quite a bit of money (a few hundred) building my own computer rather than buying a pre-built one with nearly the same specs.

Re:old hardware, probably

[TheLink]

And for advanced users Windows XP often works BETTER than Win 7.

Windows 7 search doesn't work for me. It doesn't find stuff, or makes it hard/impossible to find stuff. I actually resorted to using grep on Win 7. I never had to do that with Win XP. With Windows XP even though the search was slow, if the stuff was there you'd eventually find it. For example: if you have a stuff in a directory that's named "XYZ" and you wanted to find files that had the text "XYZ" in them you could do it with XP, but with Windows 7, you'd get lots of files that didn't contain XYZ but show up because they are in the XYZ directory.

Win 7 works well for "normal" users. But for "advanced" users it really doesn't help, except perhaps the clustering of task buttons (you can uncombine related tasks/windows and still have them clustered together), and individual sound controls for apps, in many cases it actually gets in the way (search being an example).

The 4kb nonaligned stuff is a minus for XP, but "advanced" users can fix that.

I suppose Win 7 does IPv6 better? But IMO since IPv6 is still a mess in _practice_ (DNS, routing etc all have issues because of the ivory tower geniuses or "corporate pet interests") it's not a big advantage.

Desktop Linux? They can't seem to get basic stuff like sound working. Maybe they have recently, but wait a few months and they might break it again :). Same goes for the GUI. They don't have Steven Jobs's Reality Distortion field (or sense of taste) but they still insist on regularly moving stuff around for not good enough reasons.

Re:old hardware, probably

[kevinmenzel]

Not everyone's economy is as bad as America's right now. There are places in the rest of the world that are doing pretty well actually.

Re:old hardware, probably

[arth1]

I expected the "saving energy" argument, and wasn't disappointed. The problem is that you have to keep the machine for quite a few years in order for the energy savings to outweigh the price of new hardware. But by forcing upgrades this way, you don't keep the machines for that many years, so you don't realise the savings in the long run.
And for the environment, it's loss too, because of the energy costs of making all the components for the new machine, as well as depletion of resources.

And apart from the PIII-S, these machines don't run 24/7 either, but perhaps an hour a week on average.
And the PIII-S has a 28.7W TPD, which is better than anything made today except for laptop CPUs, especially when you take the less power hungry motherboard and RAM into consideration. In fact, the low power usage is one of the reasons why it runs 24/7 as a server, while the P4 is a cold standby.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Joce640k]

Yep. Win7 works fine but I don't see any real reason to upgrade.

I upgraded to Win7 to be able to compile/test 64-bit versions of my software. Basically though, I'm running the exact same software and doing the exact same things I used to do on XP.

If you're on XP, have 4Gb RAM and just do normal stuff then you're fine for quite a few years yet.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

and not everyone in America is bothered by the economy. If you have a job, the recession isn't really an issue.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Pentium100]

Would the brand new PC from a big box store include the good motherboard and the i5 or i7 CPU?

If yes, then I sense a business opportunity (buy a new PC, sell parts).
If no, then it means that you didn't need that good motherboard or the CPU anyway, so you could just buy a cheaper motherboard and CPU.

For example, my main PC uses a quite expensive dual socket motherboard (Tyan Thunder K8WE or the version from HP xw9300 workstation). When some capacitors on the motherboard failed, I knew that if I did not find anyone to replace the caps and could not do it myself (I can solder, but on simpler PCBs, like single or two layer ones) I would have to buy a new motherboard. Yes, the cost of the motherboard would be more than the cost of a lowest end PC or some used one, but those PCs would be slower than my main PC is, so there would be no point in buying them. This had a happy ending, the cost of replacing the capacitors was ~15EUR.

Re:old hardware, probably

[marcello_dl]

There are few reasons to upgrade hardware anymore unless you are a gamer or do ultra high end work.

That's why there is the windows/PC makers duopoly. Makers collect the windows tax, windows new APIs break compatibility with older hardware, producers are happy and users undergo the endless update cycle.

If people cling on too much on XP, all MS needs to do is focus less on XP updates so that patches break stuff or run poorly. Malware will do the rest.

The brand new lappy with 4gb 2.5+ghz dual core and 512 geforce that employer's got has small hiccups with windows7 open and close effects, not the greatest first impression.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

The majority of people I know with Win7 use it because it came on their new PC, that they usually bought because the old one died.

The computer died, or the OS died? I have three computers people gave me because Windows stopped working on it and they bought a new computer. All three are happily running Linux.

Re:old hardware, probably

[espiesp]

When the hard drive dies, what's stopping you from just re-installing XP using the license you already have? Seriously?

Re:old hardware, probably

[X3J11]

Well, there is a problem that is of Microsoft's making. That is that the Vista/7 interface is really really horrible. And the User Account Control thing that duplicates the Program Files folder for security reasons is incredibly misguided and wrong.

I like XP, but there are many features that could have been added to it without destroying it.

That is only partly Microsoft's fault. Poorly written/designed applications that store user settings and often-overwritten data to Program Files are also to blame. Data stored therein should only be read, not written.

I do agree that Microsoft could have made further enhancements to XP (although I am mostly ignorant of the specifics of what changed "under the hood" of Vista and 7, such as what the new driver model entailed). But updating an existing product does not make a profit... releasing something new and shiny does.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

Same problem as when I changed from Win98 to XP.

I had to buy a new computer.

Checked all the literature, same problem. If I go to 7, I will have to buy a new computer.

Re:old hardware, probably

[transporter_ii]

The flip side of that is, nobody wanted new hardware because it was coming with Vista on it. PC makers must have hated Vista a lot more than us, because I know many people who waited to upgrade old hardware because they didn't want Vista. Unlike Vista, I generally hear good things about Windows 7.

I'm still building new computers with XP or Linux on them (or dual boot). With hardware that Vista ran doggy on, XP runs like a bat out of hell. A 55.00 dollar single-core processor and a couple of gigs of RAM and XP will do what large numbers of people want it to do.

And I hate to say this, but look at the prices of Vista and Windows 7. The computer savy people I know have a copy of Windows XP Pro Corporate that they can install on anything without worrying about WGA or activation. They don't have that option with Windows 7, so XP and Linux still look good. It is very easy to build a very nice, very fast PC in the 300.00 range...until you start adding in the cost of Windows 7.

Realistically, that could make XP stay around a little longer and make Linux start to eat into their market a little more.

And it will be a fine day for Linux when there are no longer any corporate editions of Windows anything available!

 

Re:old hardware, probably

[Jorl17]

It isn't quite the same. My father has hardware perfectly built for Windows 7, but he just doesn't like it. He says he's ok with what he has, so why change it? He doesn't do very risky things on the internet, and he certainly doesn't need to upgrade, as XP has served him great.

Same thing applies for GNU/Linux. I run Ubuntu in many of my computers, but one of them is still running the old Ubuntu 8.04, while others are already with the newest 10.10. Besides, why pay Microsoft more money when they fuck up in either OS?

Re:old hardware, probably

[benwiggy]

Purely for factual accuracy: a 2002 G4 running OS X 10.4 (Tiger) can use the latest version of Safari, version 5.02. Many G4s of that year can run Leopard. (The processor cut-off is 867MHz.)

Getting back onto old hardware, my Dad still uses a network of Beige Macs, running OS 9. For him, in his 70s, he's familiar with it, and it does what he wants. He's not into FaceBook and that.

I'd be interested to see some stats on whether newer hardware lasts longer than older technologies. i.e. will a 2006 PC last as long as a 2000 PC, all things being equal.

Re:old hardware, probably

[vlm]

It is hard to build a new PC for less than the price of a new complete (albeit crappy) PC preloaded with malware and trialware. Just the cost of a good motherboard and decent i5 or lower end i7 will be about the same as the price of a brand new PC from a big box store.

Making the staggeringly huge assumption that the big box pc has a "good motherboard" as you say. Sure, it technically "runs windows" but its an integrated memory unaccelerated graphics card, with like 256 MB of memory, a 80 gig 5400 rpm hard disk, all the fans are little 1 inch diameter things running at 40k rpm and sound like a small learjet starting up, one available USB port... I much prefer my own. And running linux, I tend to buy from the list of things that works on linux, not "whatever the big box mfgr could buy at the cheapest price"

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anarki2004]

Be careful using a vacuum cleaner. If it is one with a brush, it will rub on the carpet and generate static, which will then come through the hose (many of them have a metal wire/coil running through them) and arc to your hardware. I shouldn't have to explain why this is bad. You're better off using keyboard cleaner (canned air).

Re:old hardware, probably

[Mitchell314]

Desktop Linux? They can't seem to get basic stuff like sound working. Maybe they have recently, but wait a few months and they might break it again :). Same goes for the GUI. They don't have Steven Jobs's Reality Distortion field (or sense of taste) but they still insist on regularly moving stuff around for not good enough reasons.

From my experience (Ubuntu), it's the default settings that usually change with upgrades. I have my personal settings stay the same.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but don't vacuum it with the brush attachment on... My girlfriend can attest to that (lots of static).

Re:old hardware, probably

[Raenex]

Power supplies are not a full system failure, do tend to crap out, and are also easily replaced.

Re:old hardware, probably

[BrokenHalo]

From the perspective of my personal home usage alone: I had a power supply fail on my desktop machine just last week. It cost me all of $25 to replace. I haven't had a CPU fail since 1990, but I have had several motherboards blow their capacitors. Whenever I replace a mobo, I tend to replace the CPU at the same time, since it is usually convenient and comparatively cheap, since I don't require bleeding-edge hardware.

Re:old hardware, probably

[tepples]

do you really need quad core, over 4GB of RAM, and a video card that could render an older Pixar movie in realtime, just to check your email, surf the web, and play the occasional "casual" game? And if not... Why upgrade?

Say your PC breaks. You can buy a used PC, but it likely won't come with a warranty. Or you can buy a new PC. Besides, even "the occasional 'casual' game" sometimes doesn't work on Intel's Voodoo3-class GMA 950.

Re:old hardware, probably

[PhrstBrn]

That's only true if you're trying to build are trying to build a super-low end computer. ($400 budget) You can usually beat the big box stores up to the point where you need to buy the Windows license. They get those for $20-30 a piece, while you can't buy an OEM copy for less than $100, so in the end your build is more expensive, usually by about $50.

When your budget expands to an $800 machine, it's very easy to beat the big box stores and price and performance.

Re:old hardware, probably

[hedwards]

Precisely, and that doesn't take into account the energy it takes to produce a new machine. I needed a new switch recently so I replaced the one that wasn't working with a newer one that was more energy efficient. The switch itself wasn't that expensive, but as long as I was buying one it made sense to get one that's more efficient. Same thing when I needed a new power supply, since I was already needing to buy one, I went with a 80 plus compliant power supply. I doubt that it would've made sense to do so had I not already needed to get a new one anyways.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Raenex]

I bought a PC for my parents long time ago. It's a P4 running Windows 98. It has been doing the job for them.

Windows 98!? It's been out of support now for 4 years. I hope they don't do their online banking on it.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Locutus]

just as you yourself said, people buy new computers when the old one does not work for them any more. so the original comment of saying they'll get Windows 7 when they get a new computer stands.

LoB

Re:old hardware, probably

[SpryGuy]

Couldn't disagree with you more.

Search works fine. Works great. Of course, you have to know how to use it...

I'm an advance user, and a software devleoper. I live in Windows every day. Windows 7 is so vastly superior to XP that I don't even know where to start. Everything I do is faster and easer in Windows 7. There are more "power-user" short-cuts and keystrokes and features in Windows 7 than XP ever even dreamed of.

It's actually painful for me to go back to XP. I can't find anything. It's annoying as hell.

For advanced users, Windows 7 just plain WORKS BETTER than XP, on pretty much every level. I'm not sure how you can possibly say otherwise.

Re:old hardware, probably

[man_of_mr_e]

A p4 running Windows 98?

The P4 was introduced at the end of 2000, and Windows 98 was already a dinosaur. Windows 2000 and ME were what was shipped with computers at the time. XP came out a few months later. So, unless you bought the first P4's off the rack, it should have come with XP.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

The OP is a moron. Windows 7 works fine in VMware without any tweaks and I run it with 256 MB RAM allocated to the VM. Works fine and I do heavy-duty stuff with out (Visual Studio, etc). I use Linux as the host OS with VMware though, I have found that makes a lot of difference with the performance of the VM's (eg. Linux's disk caching makes the Windows swap file seem like RAM which in turn allows me to allocate less RAM to the VM's individually).

Re:old hardware, probably

[bemymonkey]

+1... I'm still running a Thinkpad X41T as my main machine, and for day to day work it's perfectly fine. I also have a 15.4" WSXGA+ machine with a Core2Duo for heavy(ish... Cubase, Handbrake, Photoshop, occasional WiFi module compilation for Android... nothing very taxing really) lifting, but when I don't need the screen real-estate, I usually just RDP in from the couch...

Re:old hardware, probably

[SpryGuy]

Well, there are lots of reasons to upgrade, imho:

1) Far more secure

2) Far more stable

3) Doesn't seem to suffer from 'windows rot' like XP (where it gets slower and slower over time)

4) Better UI with more hot-keys and short-cuts, makes for more efficient usage

5) Up to date technology support

6) PnP just works, better drivers, smoother hardward support (device stage)

7) Easier/better network management, especially wireless

8) Some great time-saving laptop-specific features turn things that were a pain in XP into a breeze

9) Can run the latest versions of Windows Live Essentials and the soon-to-be-released IE9, and the list of software that relies on Win7 features will keep growing

10) Smoother multi-tasking and UI due to refinements in the kernel and GUI subsystems

11) Real 64-bit support, vastly improved Media Center, vastly improved Media Player, "Play to" feature, easier sharing, etc.

12) Far less "naggy"... doesn't interrupt you, nag you, and bother you all the time.

That's just for starters.

It's only a hundred bucks to upgrade, and you get a lot of value for that money. I've upgraded every XP system I have. I no longer have XP in my life, and having to back to it on any PC that still has it is actually painful... like going back to Windows 95 from XP, or to Win3.1 from Win95.

No way I'd go back.

Re:old hardware, probably

[CarpetShark]

eventually sold it on ebay for ~$30 because it wouldn't run anything newer than IE5 or Safari 2, both of which failed to render the web properly.

Which demonstrates the real issue quite nicely: it's not about OS's or apps anymore. Desktops are seen as overly thick web clients with a word processor.

Re:old hardware, probably

[DarkXale]

And for advanced users Windows XP often works BETTER than Win 7.

Yeah - no.

I've never had search fail me in Windows 7 or even Vista. The plus side is that its also faster - compared to XP where searching for something manually often ended up being the better solution unless you intended to leave the system on overnight.

The strong organizational capabilities and ability to rapidly access multiple programs leans heavily in favor for the power user. When I need to organize multiple programs or switch between them XP is far slower than 7. If you run with a lot of programs installed - Windows XPs start menu becomes a complete mess. With 7 you just quickly type in the name of the program and it will 90% of the time show up before you're done typing it. Nice thing is this works even for system programs that might not be in the start menu. In other words, even if i have 300 programs installed - nothing ever takes more than 3 seconds to start.

Individual sound control for programs is very much a power user setting as well (Great for controlling programs with rogue or no sound control). Most regular users might not realize it even exists.

In addition - XP goes completly crazy if you try and tamper with DPI settings; something that doesn't bode well for high resolution laptops.

In short - I've never run into a situation in Windows 7 where the OS gets in the way, that isn't due to me being used to doing things in one way and just having to realize a faster more efficient method. Once thats done, I don't go back.

/opinions

Re:old hardware, probably

[dmesg0]

Or you could beat the big box stores for any hardware by not buying the windows license at all. Especially if you don't use it.

Re:old hardware, probably

[man_of_mr_e]

To search only for contents and not names, you use the filter "Contents:" so you would say contents:xyz and it will not show filenames with XYZ in them.

Why would think this wasn't possible?

Re:old hardware, probably

[commodore64_love]

I had 10.2
800 MHz

Re:old hardware, probably

[BrokenHalo]

Thing is, even the crappiest Linux distributions are more "user-friendly" than Windows XP (with vastly better device support), and the best of them give Windows 7 or OS X 10.6 a good run for their money.

Re:old hardware, probably

[man_of_mr_e]

I have a number of friends and family that ask me to fix their comptuers on a regular basis. I've upgraded all of them to Windows 7 and using the free Microsoft security essentials antivirus, and in the last year... not one of them has contracted a virus of any kind. Say what you want, but 7 is significantly less susceptible to viruses and malware attacks than XP was.

Re:old hardware, probably

[PhrstBrn]

Or you could beat the big box stores for any hardware by not buying the windows license at all. Especially if you don't use it.

The story is "66% of All Windows Users Still Use Windows XP". This discussion is about average Joe computer breaking, and they need to fix or buy a new computer. The majority of average Joes wants Windows. You're clearly not the target audience.

Re:old hardware, probably

[sgunhouse]

Don't forget netbooks and nettops. My current desktop is a nettop (a 1.6 GHz Atom processor - 64-bit - 1 GB RAM, in a maybe 9x10x2 package) which was better than my previous desktop. Though I bought it long after 7 was out, it came with XP SP3. Hey, I appreciate cheap systems.

Could I "upgrade" to 7 starter? Probably. Would that really be an upgrade though?

Re:old hardware, probably

[Sandman1971]

Wow, power supplies blow all the time. I've had to replace 4 for family members in the last 18 months or so. I'll be looking for a replacement machine soon for myself as my motherboard is dying (Asus P5B Deluxe/WiFi-AP, not a cheap mobo). The board is about 4 years old. Onboard sound is dead. 2 of the SATA controllers are crapping out. BIOS settings aren't saving on reboot (and I've tried changing the battery 3 times). I haven't upgraded from XP for only one reason, really. There's no direct XP to Win 7 upgrade path. I have dozens upon dozens of apps that I use on a regular basis. I can't be bothered spending a week + reinstalling the apps until I absolutely need to.

Re:old hardware, probably

[man_of_mr_e]

Older ram is becoming much more expensive. I can buy 6GB of DDR3 ram for the cost of 2GB of DDR1. It's simply not feasible to work with older hardware anymore from a price perspective.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

And there you have the appeal of a device like the iPad for some people

Re:old hardware, probably

[TheLink]

For advanced users, Windows 7 just plain WORKS BETTER than XP, on pretty much every level. I'm not sure how you can possibly say otherwise.

OK here's just a few examples:

1) In my original post, I gave an example of a problem I had with Windows 7 search. Care to show how to get Windows 7 search to work in that case?

Here is the problem again: say you have a directory called ABC. In that directory there are many text files. A few of them contain the word ABC. The rest don't. Using the Windows 7 search how do you find those few files that contain the word ABC while excluding the files that don't?

Worse, even in less problematic cases, the index often gets out of date, so it finds a file that doesn't have the word ABC in it, or it only finds some of them not all... It basically cannot be relied on.

2) In Windows XP I can set things up so that I can launch/do different things with just a few key strokes. I need more key strokes to do that with Windows 7. How I do it on XP? I switch to classic mode. Then create folders in the start menu and name them stuff like

"1 Explore"
"2 Tools"
"3 Launch"
"4 Command Prompt" ...
"7 Connect to"

So to explore the my desktop I would press winkey, 1, 1. To Explore My Documents I would press winkey, 1, 3. winkey, 1, c for C drive. winkey, 1, F for F drive.
To launch the windows calculator, I would press winkey, 2, c.
To launch an app I would press winkey, 3,
To connect to my home server I would press winkey, 7, 1. To connect to my firewall I would press winkey, 7, 6.

To set this up on a new XP system, I just copy the relevant folders over, and voila it works (the app paths may have to be tweaked of course).

In comparison, the Windows 7 start menu search often requires me to type winkey, ENTIRE FIRST WORD of the app I need to launch - partial match doesn't always work. Furthermore the Windows 7 taskbar pinning thing only allows you to quick launch a max of 10 (or is it 9?) different items (winkey+number).

3) On Win XP I can just right click on a task button I want to close and press C. You need more steps/keys to do a similar thing on Windows 7- the fancy way even requires you to wait for the GUI to pop stuff up first, the alternative is left click on taskbutton, alt+f4 (but that's more keys, a greater stretch and slower :) ).

So Windows 7 is slower for me and I see no way of getting it to do stuff at the same speed as I have on XP.

I would be very happy if you can actually show me how to get windows 7 to do things faster or better than I do on XP.

Most new Windows 7 users are unaware that many of the short cuts already exist for Windows XP. Windows XP also has a lot of short cuts and key strokes, and as my "2)" example shows, you can make your own customized short cuts.

For quick switching amongst more than two different tasks/windows I use my own program (LinkKey http://sourceforge.net/projects/linkkey/ ) whether on XP or Win7.

alt-tab works fine for switching between two windows. Not so well if you need to quickly switch amongst four or more.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Abstrackt]

A lot of people are willing to repair their systems to a point, but I've ended up with a lot of working systems I built out of non-working systems people gave to me.

Just yesterday, I donated two desktops to my local library. They were built from spare parts I acquired from people who were waiting for their computer to fail so they'd have an excuse to buy a new one. Once it went, they just gave the old system to me. One system just needed a new hard drive and the other just needed a new PSU. I even told them it was an easy repair and offered to do it but like I said, they were looking for an excuse to trade up.

Re:old hardware, probably

[blincoln]

If you're on XP, have 4Gb RAM and just do normal stuff then you're fine for quite a few years yet.

I'm not sure I'd consider 3.5 years "quite a few". XP drops off of support in April of 2014.

I was reluctant to upgrade to 7 after being disappointed with the overall feel of Vista and Server 2008, and to be fair, there is a lot of Vista in 7. But I just built a new PC, and I didn't want to have to reinstall the OS in a year or two just because I needed some 64-bit-only app, or because I wanted to use something that required a newer version of DirectX.

It's not a bad OS. It's got some quirks, but it does have a lot of nice touches*, and it removes most of the worst aspects of Vista (the HDCP-related components being the major remaining one that I'm aware of). I'm even tentatively leaving UAC enabled, which is extremely surprising given how annoyed I got with it under Vista. I still don't think UAC is ready for use on servers (it needs to be smart enough to do something other than add individual users to ACLs when they access administrator-only locations), but my experience so far is that it's getting pretty close to being as usable as the equivalent in Linux.

I still use XP at work for a number of reasons, but I'm pretty happy with 7 for my personal use (photo processing, development, gaming every once in awhile, etc.). I think most people will have a similar experience as XP-based PCs succumb to attrition and are replaced with new ones running 7. If anything ends up being a problem, I suspect it will be for people who discover that some old utility or game they've been using for a long time is 16-bit and won't run on a 64-bit OS.

* The taskbar pinning in particular was something that annoyed me initially, until I realized that it was doing exactly what I tried to approximate every time I booted up my PC - opening foobar2000 first so it would be the first button on the taskbar, then Thunderbird so it would be the second, etc.

Re:old hardware, probably

[farble1670]

Which means that it's cheaper to replace the failed component instead of the whole computer.

that's true when it's very obvious what's wrong with a system and when the owner is adept enough to solve the problem themselves. it's very rare when both of those are true at the same time.

with an older PC or laptop that might be worth $300 at the very most, it doesn't make sense to spend $100+ to have someone perform the repairs in addition to parts. you might as well spend a little more to get a new system that's going to be superior in most every way.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope the shock didn't hurt her goodies.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish I could say the same for my 2002 G4 Mac. Due to Apple's process of refusing to support anything older than 10.5, I was left in the cold. I eventually sold it on ebay for ~$30 because it wouldn't run anything newer than IE5 or Safari 2, both of which failed to render the web properly.

Hmmm. If it could run 10.5 (which is STILL SUPPORTED), it would run Safari 5. I know, because the G4 eMac I bought on eBay to run my security system and be an iTunes server runs 10.5, and it is running Safari 5. Even the G5 tower I'm typing this on, which is running 10.4 (which is now "unsupported". Big deal), runs Safari 4, which, with the exception of just a few HTML5 things (3D stuff), "renders the web properly." So, what was your point again?

And, considering that MICROSOFT (not Apple) decided to STOP DEVELOPING IE FOR MAC (any Mac) after IE 5.2, there is NO MAC that could "run anything newer than IE5". So, how is that Apple's fault again?

Not even a good troll, and CERTAINLY not "Informative", but it got modded "Informative" all the way to +3 by the Anti-Apple mods.

Posting as AC because you simply aren't worth the effort to log in for...

Re:old hardware, probably

[LKWPETER]

My girlfriend can attest to that (lots of static).

Thats not static you hear. Thats your girlfriend telling you stuff your brain filters out.

Re:old hardware, probably

[TheLink]

Well it's not documented here: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/desktopsearch/technicalresources/advquery.mspx
or http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/Advanced-tips-for-searching-in-Windows#keywords

Anyway, even then it doesn't always work because it uses an index which is often out of date and I don't see a way to force it to not use the index. Rebuilding the index seems to require it to scan the whole hard drive, not just current bit I'm interested in.

I'm not the only one having problems: e.g. http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/w7itproui/thread/ecbecc00-f3e7-429f-87cd-8900fc313add

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

With 7 you just quickly type in the name of the program

Ah, WIMP, we hardly knew ye.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

Cheap PSUs die. You can skimp on the CPU, GPU, and memory. Think again before saving money on the MB, PSU, or HDD. A good PSU (read: $$$) will last at least 8 years of constant use, and may never ever fail.

Re:old hardware, probably

[TheLink]

Yeah, my personal setting is "Use Windows XP in Classic mode" instead of whatever Ubuntu's default is.

FWIW, I use Linux on my home server.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it is your configuration. Windows 7 does not need that much memory. You also didn't mention the host's resources or the resources you made available to the guest.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Belial6]

The energy savings depends a lot on what systems you currently have, how long the machine stays on, and where you live. Where I live, it is common to pay $0.30 to $0.40 a kwh at your highest tier. That means any savings is at the ~$0.35 part of your bill. The last round of upgrades I made had a 6 to 14 month payoff time. Part was because sleep didn't work properly on some of the old machines so they just ran full boar 24/7. For my wife who would use her machine ~20 hours a week, that lead to huge savings just on the sleep time. Moving from machines that ran at ~160 watts to machines that run at 50 watts leads to a pretty quick roi when you are paying ~$.035 kwh.

The other place that I saved a bunch on energy costs by buying a new computer was my TV. I switched to a HULU/Netflix/XBMC setup for TV and canceled my satellite. I figured the $90 a month savings alone was worth it. Once I started setting it up, I tested with a Kill-A-Watt, and found that the DishNetwork equipment that ran 24/7 was pulling ~90 watts. The PCs that have replaced it is a Acer Revo that pulls 20watts, and doubles as a file server for the house, and a Gateway that pulls 50 watts. The key being that the Gateway goes into a 2watt sleep mode for 90% of the time.

Re:old hardware, probably

[TheLink]

Windows XPs start menu becomes a complete mess. With 7 you just quickly type in the name of the program and it will 90% of the time show up before you're done typing it.

That's slower. See 2) in http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1806850&cid=33777308

The "win 7 start menu search " method is faster for noob users, not for advanced/power users.

For advanced users, my way is faster on XP. And more importantly more predictable - you don't have the risk of launching the wrong thing just because something else happened to match.

When it's not predictable (as in Windows 7), if you don't want to launch/open the wrong thing by mistake, you have to wait to understand what the search really returned before you press enter. That takes at least 250 milliseconds for most people, usually longer.

With my Win XP setup, you already know what will launch so you do not need to counter check.

IMO a move away from predictability is actually a step backwards in terms of UI design (that's why the "personalized menus" crap is crap).

Wen you want to scratch your head, you just set your body parts into motion and do it, you don't have to first counter check to make sure the right appendages are actually reporting for duty before using them.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

And as for the hardware, as you mention - XP runs a hell of a lot faster on older hardware. My computer doesn't count as obsolete by any stretch of the imagination, but I would most likely need to upgrade hardware to get anywhere near the same level of performance if I went to Win7.

Nope. Win7 runs just fine on older hardware. You didn't mention the specifics so your generalization is wrong.

Re:old hardware, probably

[ScrewMaster]

It is? I managed to save quite a bit of money (a few hundred) building my own computer rather than buying a pre-built one with nearly the same specs.

Really. Especially if you cruise online suppliers looking for a good combo deal, they show up now and then. In my case, I got a nice Micro-ATX motherboard with a 64-bit Athlon 3000+ CPU for fifty bucks off Newegg last year. Even with case, RAM and DVD player it was under two hundred. I wasn't sure of the motherboard video (reviews said it didn't handle 1920x1080 well) so I added another $35 for an ATI slimline video card with HDMI out. This machine sits in living room connected to my TV, but it's otherwise a pretty decent PC. Looks slick too: people think it's just a DVD player.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

Buying a new computer, because the old one is breaking, probably means that there already is a license.

No need to buy a new in that case.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Sporkinum]

Besides:
1. people it's currently using more mobile platforms to browse, which it's likely to mess up with the statistics.

I had the same thought. Since the statistics are based on what browsers are reporting, I would guess that more people browsing on phones and the like would be the missing 1% of market share.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, there are a number of reasons why this could reasonably be the case, particularly though we've had a couple of years of slow economic activity which has certainly had an effect on corporate upgrade cycles

The economy has had less of an effect on some computer companies than others. In fact, some computer companies with the ticker AAPL have enjoyed massive GROWTH, despite the economy, which others, with the ticker MSFT have had to write off entire products, to the tune of hundreds of millions after just six weeks on the market.

Guess that's why Monkey-Boy got a pay cut, eh?

Re:old hardware, probably

[Paul server guy]

I haven't seen a full system failure (motherboard, power supply, etc.) in years.

I just had a (clean & high quality & just out of warranty) PS fail, taking the MB, Processor and RAM out with it. Crap - Now all I can salvage are the drives and case, and maybe the Vid card, but since it's an old Titan Robella water cooled case, and since they won't support them any more, I'll probably dump that too.

Anyone know any good White-book vendors? I think it's time to go mobile.

Re:old hardware, probably

[julesh]

Say your PC breaks.

I don't remember the last time I had a PC break in a way that wasn't reparable.

Actually, I lie. I do. It was a P1-100 I bought in 1996. I'd used it as my primary workstation for years, then relegated it to file/print/web server for a while after that, until finally it was too slow for that task, after which it became my router/firewall for a while. Sure, I had to swap out components when they broke, but that was always cheaper than replacing it with something else that could do the same functions. It had a new power supply, a new cheap hard disk, and about 5 new cpu cooling fans, until eventually the CPU just stopped working. This was some time around 2007-2008, and I couldn't find anyone who'd sell me a processor that would work in the same motherboard, and the AT PSU and case wouldn't work with new motherboards, so I eventually had to just junk everything.

And it's not as if there aren't plenty of small PC shops that'll happily do this kind of repair for you if you're not able to do it yourself. So, as long as you have a use for a computer and no need to upgrade, I'd say it's often more economical just to repair rather than replace.

Re:old hardware, probably

[BoRegardless]

schnikies noted" There are few reasons to upgrade hardware anymore unless you are a gamer or do ultra high end work. There hasn't been anything worthy since the introduction of the c2d. I have a 2008 unibody macbook and will most likely stick with this for the next several years."

Right on.

I have a 2008 C2D for backup and odd jobs, but running Win7 native with 3D CAD, it was bogging down.

The i7 @ 2.56Ghz is quite a bit faster and definitely a time saver giving greater productivity. If you don't do heavy lifting, though, they i7 is just for bragging rights, as nothing in MSOffice or iWorks is going to strain it.

Re:old hardware, probably

[rikkards]

I had a motherboard flake out which subsequently caused a hard drive failure this year. At that point I decided it was time to upgrade and figured I may as well try 7. To be honest, it's not bad. It isn't the crap that Vista was and is pretty stable. Course on older hardware when I tried the Beta it was a dog.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Paul server guy]

There are places in the rest of the world that are doing pretty well actually.

And where? I'm looking to move from an economically devastated place...

Re:old hardware, probably

[Alcoholist]

There is also little point in upgrading the operating system either. From my point of view, XP does everything I need, which is "be an operating system". It runs nice on my Core 2 Duo with 2GB of RAM (tho I do have a monster Radeon 2900XT supplying the graphics).

I use Firefox for web, Miranda for IM, Winamp for music, MPC for movies, Nero for disc burning, Paint Shop Pro for picture stuff, Audacity for audio stuff. I have a bunch of other little programs I use and sometimes I play video games. I have a Fedora box with a massive RAID array inside to store my files. What else do you need? The idea that an operating system should have more 'features' makes little sense to me, because I don't use any of those features.

Other than looking fancier, 7 doesn't have anything more that I need, so why would I spend the money on it? I think a lot of computer users are thinking the same way.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

Hard drive, maybe. That can be easily replaced. I haven't seen a full system failure (motherboard, power supply, etc.) in years.

I for one have had it with partial failures which are worse than a "full system failure." It's more common to find RAM modules with intermittent sticky bits. Honestly, I'd rather the modules caught fire than deal with troubleshooting the random intermittent failure.

I blame Windows for it too. Because Windows systems have earned such a reputation for being unstable, a hardware failure is often attributed to being "normal" Windows behavior. Hardware companies get a free ride by telling users to go away and reinstall their OS. I think they hate Linux users because when their system locks up at random, instead of assuming it's the OS they assume it's the hardware and start running tests.

Re:old hardware, probably

[DannyO152]

I think Microsoft is in a situation of its making. With Windows 7, based on pricing and convenience, they said to XP users the most economical way to get the better operating system was to buy new hardware. Had Microsoft encouraged same hardware upgrades, there would have been angry memos from OEM partners and next thing you know, netbooks go back to Linux.

Any way, the recession means a lot of computers are clocking time, powered off, until their leases are complete. High unemployment will be, effectively, a brake on new hardware sales.

But, let's not lose sight that revenues from operating systems has been doing very, very nicely in the last year. Set it up so XP to Win7 upgrades are cheap and easy and the company makes more money, keeps a higher market cap than Apple, and Ballmer gets the regular bonus. Otherwise, I don't see any one really losing out for all those users holding back with XP.

Re:old hardware, probably

[brunes69]

I don't see why this is an "issue".

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hardware, but it's also cost. Most users, like myself, think they want to go the upgrade option. Given past MS's upgrade of their various OSs, it's usually not an easy process. Also, it's usually cheaper to find an OEM copy instead and wipe the system and do a new install--I readily admit this may not be the case with Win7, but the prices I've seen for the upgrade set isn't cheap (like at least half the price of a netbook on sale with some crippled Win7 already installed on it).

The various myriad of types of Win7 is annoying too. Not sure what to get. And if you pick the wrong one, you *can* upgrade from there...but even those costs seem high (although they generally match what you would have paid if you had made the right choice in the first place).

Further, it's quite a strange feeling when you figure to upgrade the OS on the old machine is the price you would pay for a whole new machine with that same OS on it +$100.

I'm one of those people happy with XP, but I'm also wary of upgrading because the upgrade cost and path is usually not ever worth the trouble. The XP boxes are probably going to go Ubunutu. I have Win7 laptop that I just bought; everything I've seen with it in stores is that MS got it right mostly this time, thankfully, and I'm not anti-MS, but if it's a new machine or a free upgrade versus paying for an upgrade, I'm not picking paying for upgrade route.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

"2) Far more stable"
Windows XP isn't unstable. What crashes XP crashes Windows 7 too and vice versa - crappy drivers and hardware.

"3) Doesn't seem to suffer from 'windows rot' like XP (where it gets slower and slower over time)"
XP doesn't suffer from 'rot' unless you install tons of crapware (startup/background programs). Do the same on Win7 and it'll crawl too.

"4) Better UI with more hot-keys and short-cuts, makes for more efficient usage"
Backspace no longer works correctly in Explorer. You need two keys (alt+something) to go up the directory tree.

"5) Up to date technology support"
The only thing I could use is TRIM support for solid-state drives. Fortunately, Intel's software works in XP.

"6) PnP just works, better drivers, smoother hardward support (device stage)"
PnP has "just worked" since Windows 2000. Hardware support is depends on the device in question (some hardware may not have Win7 drivers and some may not have XP drivers).

"7) Easier/better network management, especially wireless"
I don't need to manage the Ethernet LAN I've got at home because it just works. Sometimes I need to ping a host but the command prompt is just one click away. Can't comment on the wireless part because I don't use Wi-Fi on a laptop that often.

"8) Some great time-saving laptop-specific features turn things that were a pain in XP into a breeze"
Like what? Sleep and hibernate work just fine on XP, and since the OS doesn't require gigabytes of RAM, hibernation doesn't take forever.

"9) Can run the latest versions of Windows Live Essentials and the soon-to-be-released IE9, and the list of software that relies on Win7 features will keep growing"
"11) Real 64-bit support, vastly improved Media Center, vastly improved Media Player, "Play to" feature, easier sharing, etc."
What does "real 64-bit support" mean? There was a 64-bit edition of XP. As for the bundled software - never used them. IE? Firefox or Chrome.

"10) Smoother multi-tasking and UI due to refinements in the kernel and GUI subsystems"
Never had problems multitasking since Windows NT. On the other hand, XP's Windows networking (SMB) is utter shit (if the server stops responding, Explorer freezes completely). Fortunately, I don't have to use SMB at home.

"12) Far less "naggy"... doesn't interrupt you, nag you, and bother you all the time."
XP doesn't interrupt me, nag me or bother me ever (the only time I can think of is when the battery goes low).

If I bought a new computer that came with Win7, sure I'd use it instead of downgrading, but I wouldn't pay a 100 bucks for what mostly amounts to a cosmetic upgrade (that looks worse than the classic theme).

Re:old hardware, probably

[stonewallred]

I have a geek friend who will fix my computers whenever they break. Usually accompanied with an audio track containing stuff like "Why in the fuck did you delete this or that file?" or "Dumbass, what the fuck did you do with the firewall I installed?". Which is why I have spent a great deal of time and energy figuring out my own solutions rather than calling him, lol.

Re:old hardware, probably

[jellomizer]

Well 66% after one years seems likes good news to Microsoft.
Think about it.
Most people will upgrade their PCs every 4 or 5 years on the average (The ones who upgrade faster will be balanced with the same people who keep the old ones running), on the average most people will not upgrade their OS until they get a new computer with it on it. Otherwise they will need to fight with getting the right drivers or just a slow OS which wasn't designed to run on the older computer. Then we can add that we are in or recovering from (depending who you ask) a bad recession. Where people are not into buying things. So after 1 year I would have expected 75% using their old systems, not 66%.

I have to admit although I am not a Windows Fan, Windows 7 is actually quite good. And OS X and especially Linux has a lot of catching up to do. Heck Apple has even dropped the I am a Mac and I am a PC adds after the "Trust Me" commercial. As Windows 7 has finally achieved what it promised us for Windows 95.

Re:old hardware, probably

[stonewallred]

They sell XP licenses? I thought they just came for free with the piratebay download.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Omestes]

The last time I had a PSU fry it managed to take out my CPU, and somehow make my mobo unable to recognize PCI cards. Oddly it was the second PSU to fail in that machine in a month. I replaced the old one upon getting some new hardware. That one failed in a week (granted it wasn't the best). The second one failed within two days, and took the computer with it (this one wasn't so cheap).

At which point I got really mad, and bought an iBook.

Which later pissed me off as well.

Rambling aside, the PSU is the component most likely to kill other components.

Re:old hardware, probably

[compro01]

1. Maybe. XP still has several years of security updates left, and as long as you're sensible already, UAC isn't that much of a leap ahead.
2. I'll give it that, if only because it prevents a full screen program from taking over the video hardware, leaving you without any kind of interface and forcing a hard reboot.
3. I haven't experienced that on XP either.
4. UI is arguable, I'm not a huge fan of the new start menu, though the shell-like search is handy.
5. Haven't noticed anything in this regard.
6. I will admit more drivers are included.
7. This I will agree with. The tool for selecting a wireless network is much smoother than on XP.
8. I will agree the built in power management features are nice.
9. Uninterested in either. I haven't used IE in months.
10. Yes, the graphics system is a big step ahead, as i mentioned in #2.
11. Yes on 64-bit (XP64 was a joke), but I don't bother with windows media player (VLC/media player classic for me)
12. Yes, it doesn't nag you to restart after updates. Instead it keeps the timer in the background if you're running a full screen program and reboots out of the blue.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Omestes]

This geek friend's universal advice: "take it to a repair shop, or buy a new one".

I'm really sick of fixing peoples computers. I figure by doing everyone for people, I'm not helping them since they never have incentive to do it themselves (i.e. learn).

And people get dependent. I don't think I've actually talked to my dad in 3 months where the conversation was not actually an excuse to make me solve some stupid computer problem. Its actually getting to the point where I don't answer his calls, since I know that I'm going to have to go over and spend six hours digging around on his old (1.6Ghz AMD single core, with less than 1Gb of memory) XP box. Generally because he has 7000 passwords, and hasn't bothered to actually remember what any of them are for.

Re:old hardware, probably

[symbolset]

Unless of course they decide to skip all that nonsense and go mobile instead. For some people it works.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Xeno man]

Canada is doing pretty good. We had a little dip in the economy but nothing like the States did.

Re:old hardware, probably

[commodore64_love]

Not necessarily.

Even after Vista was released it was still possible to find XP as the default install. Perhaps the same was true in 2000 where you could buy your Pentium4 with either M.e. or 98. (or NT5/2000).

Re:old hardware, probably

[larien]

On the flipside, my last PC upgrade was to get a new desktop before it got to the point I wouldn't be able to get XP on it...

I'm looking at a laptop upgrade now (old one is 6 years old and creaking...) which will end up running Windows 7 as there's little reason not to get it.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

How in the world did the above get modded informative?

Re:old hardware, probably

[Albanach]

Or you could have purchased an Acer Revo for 200 bucks. It does Hd video comfortably and draws 20 watts so is cheap to run.

Assuming your time is worth $20/hour, what was the real cost of searching for parts, putting it together etc etc?

Re:old hardware, probably

[X0563511]

Except when they dump n+1 volts down a rail and fry just about everything along the way...

Re:old hardware, probably

[DarkXale]

Gave it a quick look and found the following:

7 should have a file-only search parameter. That said, it doesn't seem to quite do what you'd expect (or does nothing I've not checked fully yet), bit odd that, I'll agree. That said, realize that the search is organized by folders then files and in general finding the first file should be a non-issue. Best result (which will generally be what you were looking for) will be on top.

If its a file you're looking for, simply ignore the folders section.

As for your start method - it works for a small amount of apps, something I never said XP would not compete in.

Rename your shortcuts to contain short codes in the beginning - such as "23 - Browse 4chan" or "62 - Delete Porn Folder" to just name two rather silly examples.

Search for 23, press enter (or rather, use one of your mouse buttons for it - you do have that set up, right?). Even if its not showed up yet when you hit enter, it will launch. Programs always take priority over anything else in the results, so you'll always launch a program if it exists. If you're a power user, you should be aware of what exists and what doesn't, your own method certainly required no less deal of customization.

As a plus - I also suggest getting a programmable keyboard. The G11s macro keys are great as 'launch X' keys. Just remember where you bound things...

Re:old hardware, probably

[Lord Kano]

I have a 2008 unibody macbook and will most likely stick with this for the next several years.

I'm into retrogaming. I have a Mac Performa 6400 that I bought in 1997. It's most likely going to be my last Mac. Just because something's old, doesn't make it useless.

LK

Re:old hardware, probably

[X0563511]

The last bit, "Especially if you don't use it." implies he was talking about people pirating it...

Nice job reading between the lines, eh?

Re:old hardware, probably

[hairyfeet]

Are you using a UPS? I've had customers with the same "bad luck" and putting them on a UPS cleared it right up. You'd be surprised how many spikes and sags you get in some areas. As for a motherboard I've never had much luck with Asus, they're often expensive, but don't seem to last, at least for me, any better than a cheapy. If you aren't gonna go SLI/Crossfire I'd look at a Gigabyte or ECS business class motherboard. I've built quite a few with ECS business class (I'm typing this on one now, as I liked the board enough to use it on my own PC) and they use top notch parts like solid caps and sturdier connectors.

Here is the board I've been using lately, it comes with support for XP 32/64 - Windows 7 32/64 and it runs like a champ with the 95w Phenom II and 8Gb of RAM. Finally about your apps? You can either dual boot or use XP Mode with Windows 7 Pro, although you'd be surprised how many older apps will work even with Windows 7 X64. Out of all my apps I have found exactly two I can't run on 7 X64 (my older version of Cubase and a DVD authoring app) so I just reboot into XP when I need those apps. If you are gonna stay with XP 32 you might want to look into Superspeed RAMDisk Plus as it'll let you take advantage of over 4Gb of RAM using PAE by allowing you to convert the unused RAM into a RAMDisk. Really gives XP a kick in the pants to have paging running from RAM.

Re:old hardware, probably

[PhrstBrn]

The last bit, "Especially if you don't use it." implies he was talking about people pirating it...

Nice job reading between the lines, eh?

Or he was implying he uses Linux, considering his username is dmesg0 . Good job "reading between the lines".

Re:old hardware, probably

[jedidiah]

My previous desktop was a laptop and it lasted me 6+ years. Microsoft only stopped selling XP just recently. So that means that the tail end of the XP desktop/laptop population has quite a ways to go before it starts dropping dead and forcing users to upgrade. We might be on another version of Windows by then.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Z34107]

WTF?! Are you telling me you manually number everything in your start menu you could ever possibly want to launch? There is no way you can do something that retarded and call yourself an "advanced user." In XP, you can bind hotkeys to shortcuts. The partial search from the start menu almost always works for me, but I launch more of my programs from the run dialog. (win+r cmd, win+r winword). Windows Explorer has had the Win+E hotkey since the beginning of time,

As for your #1 complaint, open the ABC folder. Search for "ext:txt ABC". I don't get your #3 complaint - you already used the mouse to right-click on the program. Why don't you just move it 20 pixels up and click it again? Personally, I middle-click on the preview tile to close programs.

As for alt-tab... If you need to switch between two or four Windows, and alt-tabbing is "too slow", hit win-tab and click on the window you want. Or use the winkey+number shortcuts to switch to that program on your taskbar - they're shipping your linkkey program with Windows, so be happy.

So, if XP works for you, great. Keep it, save $100, and enjoy manually indexing your start menu with sequential numbers. Otherwise, don't get so hung up on "NEW SOFTWARE HAS MINOR DIFFERENCES TEN YEAR OLD SOFTWARE."

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if you want to upgrade your RAM...

And most people wont do that. Why would users of Windows XP have any need for upgrading with an extra 2GB? As long as older hardware keeps grinding on, most people see absolutely no need to upgrade this hardware. Why should they? As long as it works they are happy. This makes the cost irrelevant...

Believe me.. Most people in my neighborhood are still using XP, and as long as the hardware keeps working they stick to it. Most computer hardware can last for a long time - sometimes surprisingly long. More than 5 years is not very uncommon. Most problems are with moving parts like fans, and in most cases this is easily solved (do not forget even older processors have a temperature protection, and most home users have no fan on their simple videocard). And if a hard disk is getting problems, they buy just a new hard disk and keep using XP (most users have a "handy" family member that is willing to clone a partition or to do a re-install).

Face it - most "normal" users have no need at all to upgrade...

Re:old hardware, probably

[rickla]

"XP runs a hell of a lot faster on older hardware" How old? Just upgraded a 1gb amd 3200 single core and it does way better with win7.

Re:old hardware, probably

[jedidiah]

Windows 7 might be enough of a deviation from XP that Average Joe might take an alternative if it is handed to him on a silver platter.

Apple should have tried giving Macs away.

Re:old hardware, probably

[hairyfeet]

Unless you have to have the biggest ePeen stay away from the i series, as they are just too high. You can buy a fully loaded AMD Six core kit for just $430 after MIR, add $99 for Windows 7 Home and for $530 you have a damned powerful machine that'll last you for years to come. If you don't need that much you can get a nice dual for $250 or a triple for $320. Again add $99 for Windows 7 Home (or $89 for XP Home if you prefer) and you have a machine that is more than powerful enough for just about any task.

After Intel got caught bribing OEMs and Nvidia screwed everyone with Bumpgate I went totally AMD/ATI in my shop and my customers couldn't be happier. I myself like the performance and the lowered cooling enough I went Phenom II quad and this baby runs like a champ for video transcoding, gaming, you name it it does it. Oh and before you believe benchmarks you might want to read this and do a little research. It turns out Intel was not only bribing OEMs it was screwing software developers as well. It was using the Get_CPUID flag in its compiler and if it didn't get a return of "GenuineIntel" it would run a 486 code path even though AMD has had SSE - SSE 3 for ages. Nice company you got there Grove.

Re:old hardware, probably

[jedidiah]

$20 is about what you would pay for some online build-your-own-box vendor to build you a box to your specs.

You would get a much better box out of the deal.

I wouldn't use a Revo for anything but an appliance.

Re:old hardware, probably

[lul_wat]

This might be true for some users. However when I bought a new computer 12 months ago I specifically bought a model which could (unofficially) be run with WinXP. Sure I can't use the HDMI port, but seeing as I don't own a TV it's not a problem.

Re:old hardware, probably

[JorDan Clock]

Your anti-vacuum reasoning is an edge case at best, but then you recommend canned air, which is very likely to throw moisture into your equipment if you're not very careful?

Plus, blowing or pulling air across the fans is always a bad idea. It is likely to damage them. Your best bet is to have someone like Best Buy clean the thing out. They may be monkeys, but they can clean out your laptop pretty well and don't void the warranty if they're an authorized repairer for your brand.

Re:old hardware, probably

[IICV]

The big computer retailers like Dell or HP have the low end of the market completely covered - a couple of years ago (and just now a couple of minutes ago, since I was curious if it had changed) I was trying to figure out how cheaply I could build a new, absolutely bare bones computer, and I just couldn't get the price significantly below Dell's lowest end equipment. Keep in mind that, if you're going to do a real comparison, you have to buy some version of Windows 7, which adds around $100 to your price tag. For instance, when I just priced out something equivalent to the cheapest Inspiron (about $400), I couldn't get my costs down significantly lower than that.

On the other hand, if you're going to be spending ~$1000 on a computer, it's totally worth building it yourself. Dell and HP and the others seriously rip you off on RAM* or don't spend enough money on other components (you can't even look at the specs or manufacturer on the power supply, for instance).

*They've gotten trickier about that; last time I was looking, HP was charging a lot more for RAM than was reasonable, but they were selling you, say, 2 GB as four 512 MB sticks - so if you bought the computer and upgraded the RAM on your own, you'd almost certainly waste all those sticks, which ends up making it more economical to buy more RAM from them.

Re:old hardware, probably

[fast turtle]

One thing to keep in mind is that Win7-64 will not install on anything less then 2GB of memory. That's the absolute minimum according to MS so I can understand why it gets cranky. That's like when XP came out. Sure it would run on 256M but it sure didn't work to well.

I've got 4 systems at home running Win7 with a pair of them running the 32bit versions while the two systems running Win7-64 are a laptop with 4GB and my desktop with 8GB.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Totenglocke]

I do actually like Windows 7, but until I want to use my computer for something that I can't do on XP, I see no point in making a not-inconsiderable outlay of cash to upgrade just for bells and whistles.

Bittorrent requires a "not-inconsiderable outlay of cash"? That's news to me! =D

I very much don't mean this as a "640k should be enough for anyone", but do you really need quad core, over 4GB of RAM, and a video card that could render an older Pixar movie in realtime, just to check your email, surf the web, and play the occasional "casual" game? And if not... Why upgrade?

Because, now my computer goes up to eleven.

Re:old hardware, probably

[equex]

Being one of those geek friends, I now uphold the facade that I don't know anything about Vista or 7. Gosh, I lost a bunch of 'friends'.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Ironhandx]

In some sectors we're doing well, in others not so much. The US economy is just getting worse and worse and many of our exports rely on them as buyers. Its slowly getting back together as we shift towards selling things to china/europe instead but its not all fine and dandy as many reports peg it. Try finding any sort of mid-level job right now that doesn't require 5 years experience as a MINIMUM that they will generally hold to because thats how flooded the market is with people with that much experience looking for jobs.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Jedi Alec]

I let myself get paid for fixing people's computers. Usually it involves dinner and some drinks and on very rare occasions a more physical demonstration of gratitude.

It may not be hard cash but I consider it adequate ;-)

Re:old hardware, probably

[TheLink]

Are you telling me you manually number everything in your start menu you could ever possibly want to launch?

No just the common ones. And it's easy to add to or extend. Just drag a shortcut you want to "2 Tools" or whatever and rename it accordingly (if necessary). It's basically organizing the stuff I commonly use in the start menu in a hierarchical manner.

The other benefit is if you forget the shortcut sequence you can still find it by using the start menu, and traversing the relevant categories.

IMO the Win9x UI designers were actually quite clever ( with the Win9x/NT/2K/XP/Vista/7 UI you can even add shortcuts to the SendTo menu so that you can open any file with whatever program you choose - e.g. hexeditor. Just place/make your app shortcut in the SendTo folder. Quick and easy ).

Whereas the recent UI (and other) changes haven't really improved things much, kinda disappointing - they spent billions and that's what we get?

If you need to switch between two or four Windows, and alt-tabbing is "too slow", hit win-tab and click on the window you want. Or use the winkey+number shortcuts to switch to that program on your taskbar - they're shipping your linkkey program with Windows, so be happy.

win-tab doesn't work well when I have lots of windows open. I already mentioned winkey+number in my previous post, so I'm well aware of what it does and how it works (along with ctrl+winkey+number). And it's not the same thing as what my linkkey program does, which allows you to _quickly_ associate alt+number with a particular window. Or bind the "last 9 most recently used windows" with alt/win 1-9.

So if I have 30 windows open I can choose to quickly work with a subset of them. Then switch to work with another subset.

Why would I have so many windows open? I don't see the point of opening and closing stuff if I'll be using it again soon, esp since I don't have an SSD yet. That'll actually work out slower since I'd have to do winkey, type first few letters of shortcut, launch/open the program/document etc, rather than just click on the relevant taskbutton or "alt+number" (if I have the window bound).

The number of windows starts to add up: a few explorer windows open for common locations: e.g. "my documents", code tree private, code tree "published", network share #1, network share #2. Emails, Editor windows. browser windows for work related stuff (references, man pages etc). browser windows for misc stuff (e.g. slashdot). ssh connections to various machines. IM windows - colleagues, friends etc.

In theory I could use "screen" (the CLI program) like a friend who uses OSX. But I think it's funny to use a GUI and then actually resort to using screen for "window"/task management.

I don't get your #3 complaint - you already used the mouse to right-click on the program. Why don't you just move it 20 pixels up and click it again?

Uh, it's faster? Basically when I'm finally done with a working set of windows (out of the dozens), I can close them rapidly, by just right clicking on the relevant ones and pressing C.

What would be even faster is if I could quickly bind winkey+ to a particular "tab" in a window. Then I wouldn't need to resort to opening stuff in a new window just to make them fast to switch amongst (via alt tab etc). In which case I would have a working set of tabs, and closing the working set would be just a matter of closing the window containing those tabs, or a branch of tabs ( I use Treestyle Tabs in firefox).

All that time saved allows me to waste it on Slashdot or wherever ;).

Re:old hardware, probably

[AliasMarlowe]

Hard drive, maybe. That can be easily replaced. I haven't seen a full system failure (motherboard, power supply, etc.) in years.

Ever heard of laptops? Some hardware failure stats for you http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/11/17/reliability.study.has.apple.4th.place/.

It depends on the laptop. Quite a lot.

The Dell laptops we get at work are replaced every 3 years - if they last even that long. My previous laptop went through 3 hard disks in 3 years. A colleague has already replaced the motherboard on a 1 year old M4400 twice, and another has replaced the motherboard once. My work M4400 has bunches of dead pixels but I'm living with it - the odds of Dell service breaking something else while swapping the display are far too high. In our small work group, I'd say the 1 year malfunction rates we see from Dell are comparable to the 3 year rates in the article you linked.

On the other hand, we have a Sony Vaio VGN-A117S laptop at home, which is used just as heavily as the work laptops, and does a lot of traveling (mostly bumpy road cottage trips). After more than seven years it's still running flawlessly. The only sign of degradation is that the battery life has dropped from 2.5 hours to below 2 hours. I know slashdot likes to give Sony the 2-minutes-hate regularly, but that Vaio is the most reliable laptop I've ever had, and even by today's standards it has one of the best displays (1920x1200, 17" LCD).

Re:old hardware, probably

[pla]

Wow, who did you piss off? You have a ton of fairly reasonable comments in this thread modded as troll.

Strange, I usually only see that level of zealotry in the Apple threads. ;)

Re:old hardware, probably

[ScrewMaster]

Dell and HP and the others seriously rip you off on RAM* or don't spend enough money on other components (you can't even look at the specs or manufacturer on the power supply, for instance).

For me, anyway, that's reason enough not to buy a packaged system. The Dells and HPs of the world are interested in minimum acceptable quality for the most profit, I'm interested in the best quality for a reasonable price (not necessarily the lowest.) Those are incompatible goals, and the only way to resolve the conflict is to take matters into your own hands. That's pretty much the same attitude I've always taken towards my entertainment systems too: I pick and choose and get what I want out of it, not what some vendor thinks I want.

Re:old hardware, probably

[ScrewMaster]

Or you could have purchased an Acer Revo for 200 bucks. It does Hd video comfortably and draws 20 watts so is cheap to run.

Assuming your time is worth $20/hour, what was the real cost of searching for parts, putting it together etc etc?

Well, considering that it has all standard components in it that I can replace from multiple sources vs. the custom weird stuff that you often see in low end equipment, I consider myself ahead on the deal. I absolutely refuse to buy a computer system that locks me into the manufacturer for parts. I don't look at this as just "oh, look, I put together a really, really cheap PC" it's "I got a good deal on quality parts on a system I intend to maintain myself."

Re:old hardware, probably

[ScrewMaster]

$20 is about what you would pay for some online build-your-own-box vendor to build you a box to your specs.

You would get a much better box out of the deal.

I wouldn't use a Revo for anything but an appliance.

I agree, but just remember that "better" is a relative term. Not everyone buys PCs using the same criteria ... in fact, I'd say that the blind focus on price that most consumers have has been detrimental to the industry as a whole.

Just out of curiosity, what is a "tylenol fanboy"?

Re:old hardware, probably

[Ironhandx]

Is the electricity $.035 or .35? Because on rough calcs my electricity bill would be upwards of 1k/mnth at .35, but .035 is pretty cheap.

Re:old hardware, probably

[rtechie]

PC makers must have hated Vista a lot more than us, because I know many people who waited to upgrade old hardware because they didn't want Vista.

Hardware wasn't ready. DirectX 9 video cards were too expensive for entry level systems at the time of Vista's launch so they couldn't run Aero, the new Vista UI (and one of it's primary features). This led to the "Vista Capable" debacle. Entry level hardware has been fully DirectX 9 capable for a few years now.

Also, Vista introduced a new driver model (for various reasons) which left many devices unable to work on Vista without new drivers, which many hardware manufacturers simply didn't make. Often all they had to do was add 1 line to a config file, but they still wouldn't do it because they wanted to sell NEW hardware. Again, now that a few years have past all new hardware comes with Vista drivers.

I'm still building new computers with XP ... on them

There is no reason to do this. The performance gap on entry level new hardware between XP and 7 with Aero disabled is less than 10% (if that) and stability and security is vastly improved in 7.

The computer savy people I know have a copy of Windows XP Pro Corporate that they can install on anything without worrying about WGA or activation. They don't have that option with Windows 7, so XP and Linux still look good. It is very easy to build a very nice, very fast PC in the 300.00 range...until you start adding in the cost of Windows 7.

You do know there are OEM versions of 7 that bypass activation, right? And installing a site-licensed Windows XP Professional Corporate version on home PCs is software piracy. If you're going to pirate Windows anyway, why not just download a cracked version of Windows 7? You're going to need a crack anyway since XP Corporate doesn't bypass WGA, which you need for updates.
OEM and Retail pricing for XP and 7 is pretty much the same, so if you're going to pay, you won't pay a premium for 7 and you can get cracked versions of 7 just as easily as XP.

Re:old hardware, probably

[X0563511]

Well no shit. And the only reason he needed to specify it was to draw contrast to the pirating windows subtext.

Re:old hardware, probably

[whoop]

Do you want to spend hours and hours diagnosing the problems for these types of people? If it's been 3 or more years, it's far easier to tell them to call Dell or whomever for a new one. People have gotten used to this cycle, so I say go with it. Of course, collect their "junk" for them.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Ephemeriis]

I have Win 7 x64 Pro in a VMWare image and it works relatively well in there, but I had to tweak the settings for the container, and if I run it with less than 2GB of memory allocated, it starts to get pissy.

Why would you want to run a 64-bit operating system with anything less than 4 GB of RAM?

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux still supports the G4 perfectly well. You should have just installed Debian on it.

Re:old hardware, probably

[PhrstBrn]

So, he wasn't talking about pirating windows? Isn't that what I said?

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

Win 7 can work well with 1 GB, but you'd be best to turn off superfetch and possibly indexing.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Ihmhi]

As a favor to a brother in the computer repair hellho-, er, business...

"Why the hell are you figuring out things on your own?!"

Re:old hardware, probably

[Joce640k]

Well, there are lots of reasons to upgrade, imho:

1) Far more secure

2) Far more stable

Windows XP was never unstable for me.

3) Doesn't seem to suffer from 'windows rot' like XP (where it gets slower and slower over time)

Give it a chance, it will...

4) Better UI with more hot-keys and short-cuts, makes for more efficient usage

Rubbish. Even if there are a couple of new keys it's completely negated by the new Explorer. Where did the explorer toolbar go, I really miss the "up" button (and all the others too - cut,copy,paste,delete all with a single mouse click)? Why doesn't f5 refresh the explorer view any more? Why did they change the way backspace works?

5) Up to date technology support

Not sure what that means. I assume it means "works with SSDs". Balance that against all the devices which stopped working (my Soundblaster Extigy, my SpaceMouse...)

6) PnP just works, better drivers, smoother hardward support (device stage)

I'm pretty sure PNP is no better than in XP.

7) Easier/better network management, especially wireless

I find it much more confusing than XP and getting publicly accessible file shares to work still eludes me.

9) Can run the latest versions of Windows Live Essentials and the soon-to-be-released IE9, and the list of software that relies on Win7 features will keep growing

Translation: Microsoft is writing some software which checks for Win7 on startup in an attempt to get people to upgrade.

Nobody outside Microsoft is writing Win7-only software yet.

10) Smoother multi-tasking and UI due to refinements in the kernel and GUI subsystems

Does Aero let you do anything new or is it just prettier?

11) vastly improved Media Center, vastly improved Media Player, "Play to" feature, easier sharing, etc.

You really must tell me where those are hidden. I'm seeing the same crappy old Windows Media Player.

12) Far less "naggy"... doesn't interrupt you, nag you, and bother you all the time.

LOL! I don't remember XP nagging me, ever.

Windows 7 nags constantly, eg. it's currently telling me I have no network access (so how am I typing this, exactly? Hmmm....)

Re:old hardware, probably

[im_thatoneguy]

At work I'm always dragging windows to the edge of the screen.... in Vista! I'm already spoiled.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Ihmhi]

Because you'd have to look around a little bit, and that shit does NOT fly with advanced computer users like us.

Re:old hardware, probably

[dangitman]

They probably won't get Windows 7 until they buy a new computer.

But it's quite likely that they won't be buying a new machine with Windows 7, but a Mac instead.

Re:old hardware, probably

[cheesybagel]

If you are a student you can probably get a Windows license for cheap or even free (well it's free to you anyway).

Re:old hardware, probably

[vlueboy]

I concur that web rendering has become the deal-breaker with dinosaur OS's, more than lack of updates, AV or firewalls.

The PIII I left at my dad's house came with W2K back in 2001. For kicks, I installed W98 a couple years later and loved its blazing speed; hated how bad the free antivirus support was back in 2003. It could render things fine.

Which brings me to the next point: I also have a 1998 G3 mac with IE4.5, Netscape 4 and iCab. The rendering there was attrocious by 2005, with hotmail and MSN being the biggest problems.

Prior to web 2.0, you could already pages fail to render. Going further back in OS time, I present my Windows 95 rev. B system (housed in the then precious emulation that VPC 2.4 provided.) IE 3 or 4 (not sure which) had tons of problems rendering everything. Lots of pages, including slashdot, rendered really, really tall, because the browsers could render frames, but didn't know anything about our now-worldwide left-hand / right-hand sitemaps / ad sections.

Heck, back in 2004 I played around with a Windows 95 OEM install for an old Thinkpad laptop running at 25Mhz. It came with IE2, and you can plainly see script tags completely in the open, and absolutely no sites rendering properly. It scares me to think that 10 or 15 years from now our trusty HTML3 and 4 will be gone completely, and that our "soon-to-be-in-the-museum" PC's won't be able to render squat because IE9 or 10 will be uninstallable there, for example. It is worse because the trend I see is for HTML to fail invisibly, and at least my IE2 PC could show a layman that there was something seriously asking for an expert to be brought over. Tomorrow, I see people just going "mister webmaster, before I put my subscription/cash elsewhere, you must fix your web 4.0+ site for my dinosaur browser."

Re:old hardware, probably

[ksd1337]

I'm there with you, buddy. I'm typing this on a ancient HP Pavilion 8670c. Uses a Pentium III 600 MHz and 384 MB of RAM. The drive is a whopping 30 GB.

Actually, it came with Windows 98, but I put 2000 on it, then half a year ago, I put XP on it. XP by far is the best Windows OS that's run on it.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

It is? I managed to save quite a bit of money (a few hundred) building my own computer rather than buying a pre-built one with nearly the same specs.

How much time did you spend? How much money did you save? How does the quotient compare to the hourly pay rate you could make doing some job? If you enjoy that sort of thing, then I understand that the choice is not just about economics, but most people don't and a minimum wage job would be a less unfun, higher paying use of their time.

Re:old hardware, probably

[RicktheBrick]

Why do people sell software at garage sales for under a dollar? It is because they will not run on a vista or windows 7 system. So upgrading your OS means that one has to upgrade a lot of their software too. Some of which will never be upgraded. My uncle gave me a radio scanner by radio shack. I tried to install the software on a vista computer to program the scanner but it would not work and that is why he gave me a $300 scanner which was more of a paper weight than a scanner. I have a printer by lexmark which is still working fine but they will not upgrade the drivers to let it run on a vista or windows 7 system. If microsoft wants me to upgrade to windows 7 than they will have to promise that all my software and hardware will still run on that computer. Until than I will stick with windows xp.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

Making the staggeringly huge assumption that the big box pc has a "good motherboard" as you say. Sure, it technically "runs windows" but its an integrated memory unaccelerated graphics card, with like 256 MB of memory, a 80 gig 5400 rpm hard disk, all the fans are little 1 inch diameter things running at 40k rpm and sound like a small learjet starting up, one available USB port... I much prefer my own. And running linux, I tend to buy from the list of things that works on linux, not "whatever the big box mfgr could buy at the cheapest price"

WTF.....didn't you just do the same thing...*Staggerinly huge assumption*, my HP z600 runs linux just fine. Absolutely wekkid mobo too, Got dem Dual Quad Core Xeons. Real quite too...sitting next to can't even tell if its on or off, moreover chassis is fairly strong and solid....not like aluminum foil those *custom* pc boxes are made of now.

On the serious side being sys admin at medium size business..I've seen em all, and let me tell you custom boxes are not better than name brand..I've had more PSU failures, had more jammed fans etc on No Name and custom boxes than on name brands.

In the end, biggest factor is the money, the way it usually works is, "you get what you pay for." The amount of money you'd end putting in a custom built machine will be more than name brand, and not necessarily will be a better machine.

Re:old hardware, probably

[cheekyjohnson]

"How much time did you spend?"

Around $700.

"How much money did you save?"

$200.

"How does the quotient compare to the hourly pay rate you could make doing some job?"

Absolutely irrelevant question because I did this in my free time. I already have a job and I'm not working 24/7!

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

Safari 5.0 require Leopard. Apple did release Safari 4.1 at the same time for Tiger.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's a pity those large electrical appliances aren't earthed at the power point as a safety measure.
Canned air, OTOH, can blow crap into places you'll never be able to remove it from. And it generates static.
I've seen laser printers rendered useless by people trying to blow spilt toner out.

Re:old hardware, probably

[RocketRabbit]

I have a 2002 Powerbook G4 that runs 10.5 just fine. It runs the latest Safari, and I think you're full of it.

Besides, why not just stick with 10.4? Is there anything wrong with it?

If you apply the same reasoning you did to your Mac, to your 2002 PC, you should sell it for $30 because it won't run Windows 7.

Re:old hardware, probably

[RocketRabbit]

Advanced users got away from Windows years ago. In the modern world, Windows Power User is as powerful an insult as Slack Jawed Dolt.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

Consider that even today, the CPU makers today still make dual-cores!

Re:old hardware, probably

[TheReaperD]

Yes, but with Linux and older editions of Windows you don't need 6BG of DDR3 RAM. That is the point.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

opening foobar2000 first so it would be the first button on the taskbar, then Thunderbird so it would be the second, etc.

You're probably not aware you can drag the window holders left and right to reorder them then. Thunderbird the first window? Drag the holder to the right and it'll swap places with foobar2000. Only catch is it holds all windows from a specific app together, so you can't do, eg Thunderbird app, Thunderbird config and mail, then reorder them app, mail, config.

Re:old hardware, probably

[man_of_mr_e]

Ok, to put it another way. Why pay $100 for 2GB when you could pay $40 for 2GB.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

DirectX 9 video cards were too expensive for entry level systems at the time of Vista's launch so they couldn't run Aero, the new Vista UI (and one of it's primary features). This led to the "Vista Capable" debacle.

Not exactly. By the time Vista released, even Intel's integrated graphics had DX9 support for more than two years now, since the 915G chipset. Except that that turned not to be enough for Aero, which needed the newer 945G chipset (clue: 915G was released before the Longhorn reset, 945G was released after). And for some reason, the PC makers still had 915G chipset inventory to get rid of more than a year after the introduction of 945G! Hence the logo had to be split into tiers, a Vista Capable logo for hardware w/o Aero, and a Premium logo for hw that does have it.

Re:old hardware, probably

[vlueboy]

I have a number of friends and family that ask me to fix their computers on a regular basis. I've upgraded all of them to Windows 7 [...] not one of them has contracted a virus of any kind.

I sincerely hope you meant you've paid the $100 per computer per friend MS upgrade fee doing that. But you're a slashdotter, so I doubt 1/2 of your family victims would fork extra cash. It's hard to convince people that "fixing" is NOT the cheapest way to get back go their Windows desktop, and that instead of the customarily-free virus wipe, they need to lose or back up their files, pay for a boxed OS you'll purchase another day, and THEN learn to use the new OS and get all their data and long-forgotten application installers back in the right place.

Pirated W7 Ultimate is "free" for "us geeks and our friends" and a net profit for Microsoft. Microsoft wins since your friends' PC's already got counted in surveys like TFA (compare to Adobe gaining contracts from businesses loving its reported 90+% worldwide adoption rate, though we want Flash to stop growing.) We lose because next time, your friends will ask for Pirated Office 2007, and eventually our dinosaur Windows PCs and Linux PC's can't open files and we're being asked to install pirated copies so we can enjoy their piracy-hinged benefits. It's like a viscious circle or a virus.

If you did pay, then please don't feel I meant any harm. I am just annoyed by the bar being raised when those same guys that yell at me on the web to "just upgrade already" are profiting unfairly from a model where they can "get" and make products out of Adobe Suite, Visual Studio Enterprise, Vista Ultimate and VMWare when we all know the multi-thousand-dollar licenses are only affordable if your company forks over the cash, or you are very rich. People online just assume their choices will be repeated by similarly pirating professionals. Living in the US, it's a bit harder to avoid getting caught, especially with company audits, college/*IAA contracts and ISP cooperation.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Sandman1971]

A UPS isn't a choice where I live. Its a must, as we often get brownouts. So its not being affected by spikes and sags. As far as my next upgrade, since our wonderful government has gone to time of use for electricty, and the rates are skyrocketing, I'll be going with a laptop instead of a desktop. 25-30w of power vs 750-800w is a no brainer. I no longer game much on the PC so upgrading isn't a requirement.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

The biggest problem now will be MB availability with the 1156 nad 1366 procs being the 'in-thing' It is getting harder and harder, already to find 775 boards in P45 or P-35 category let alone a 945 or 965. Therefore if MB goes, almost bneed to just redo everything

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

There is "corporate" versions of Win7, it "pre-activated" using an OEM key and some SLIC values in BIOS....

Re:old hardware, probably

[Pentium100]

In the end, biggest factor is the money, the way it usually works is, "you get what you pay for."

However, you also pay for the name. Though I agree, better things usually are more expensive. However, more expensive things are not always better.

And the case of my custom PC is quite good too, a 4U rackmount case and the metal is probable 1mm thick, the case alone weighs ~16kg.

Buy better PSUs and fans and they will work longer. Fans with sleeve bearings are useful only as a temporary solution until you can get the $10 or whatever for a proper fan.

Some brand name PCs have nonstandard components, which would be expensive to replace, though they may not be any better than standard ones. If a power supply in my old server failed, I would have to repair it myself or continue using the server with two PSUs, since getting a new power supply would probably cost more than a server with similar performance.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Pentium100]

I'm not. That is because I don't get many computers to fix, maybe one or two in a month. Fixing a PC isn't that hard (especially, since most fixes consist of reinstalling Windows) and it helps me maintain good standing among my friends, if I ever needed something from them.

I sometimes even get money, though I almost never ask for it.

Re:old hardware, probably

[SpryGuy]

Honeslty have to say I disgree with virtually everything in your post.

XP Nags me constantly, mostly in baloon pop-ups from the system tray, but also like crap about "you have unused icons on your desk" (usually asking me about it twice in a row), and a dozen other things. Multitasking IS smoother in Win7 (rewritten kernal and window manager). Everything I said is true, and I can't agree with most of the things you stated at all. Win7 IS more stable. What you said isn't factually true. XP DOES suffer from "windows rot". My XP machine is slow as molassas. Installed Win7 and it perked right up. Meanwhile, I have had a Win7 box for a year, and not a hint of slow-down even though I'm doing the same things on it that I did on XP, which DID experience the slowdown. And backspace works just fine in explorer.... I have no idea what you're talking about there. PnP works better in Win7 than in XP. And great laptop specific features such as one-key to share the desktop to a projector, as well as the improved wireless handling, more reliable sleep and hybernate. And XP 64-bit support was a JOKE. Few drives, lots of software flat out didn't work, and it was only half-supported. Win7 64-bit "just works" in ways that XP 64-bit edition never, ever did. It's a first class option, not a second-class hack for "experienced" users who really really need it and are willing to go through the pain.

So I think you're just plain wrong here, and haven't spent enough time learning or using Windows 7 to really know what you're talking about here. I've used both extensively, and I stand by my statement that Windows 7 is a VAST improvement, totally worth the upgrade (one of the most painless windows upgrades I've ever done), and that once you actually learn and use it, going back to XP is seriously painful.

Defending using XP strikes me much like those who defend using IE6. It's not secure, it's really old technology, it's not as stable, and there are other far more modern and usable alternatives out there. Win7 is a no-brainer upgrade as long as you're not running absolutely ancient hardware with less than a gig of memory. And really, that doesn't describe a lot of people any more.

Re:old hardware, probably

[moogied]

Im on an asus a8js or something like that. With the dedicated video card.. the keyboard/screen died a long time ago(3 years after I bought it) but the rest is still screaming along.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Pentium100]

you might as well spend a little more to get a new system that's going to be superior in most every way.

That depends on whether you can actually use the additional speed/features.

If all you do is browse the 'net (not youtube or similar sites) and use MS or Open Office for work, spending more money to get a PC with dual core CPU is probably not the best idea, since it won't do you any good.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Martin Blank]

You're thinking largely of systems from years ago. Almost all baseline systems now use 7200RPM drives (unless one opts for the higher end of capacities), come with 2GB of RAM, the integrated graphics are accelerated (not great, but it works well enough for Windows 7), and the boxes are silent. In fact, I haven't seen a new non-gaming station in a few years that was not dead silent when running unless you put your head right up next to it, where you might hear a little bit of air movement.

Re:old hardware, probably

[farble1670]

ever listen to music while say browsing the web? yes, dual cores help with things like that.

that's kind of like choosing an equally priced SDTV over an HDTV because well you don't have HDTV service, right now.

folks are acting like a P4 system from 5 years ago is going to forever and ever be fast enough to handle any new software that the average user will ever want to run. you might not *need* dual cores now, but it won't hurt and will almost certainly help in the future.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Pentium100]

ever listen to music while say browsing the web? yes, dual cores help with things like that.

Yes, they would. After all, decoding 128kbps stereo MP3 would take more than 50% of a 486 100MHz, you definitely need one more core to browse the web.

Oh wait, on a 1.6GHz Turion64 CPU, playing MP3 takes probably 1% of CPU, never mind...

you might not *need* dual cores now, but it won't hurt and will almost certainly help in the future.

However, in the future, when the user actually needs two cores, they will be much cheaper than now. Quad cores too.

that's kind of like choosing an equally priced SDTV over an HDTV because well you don't have HDTV service, right now.

Well, if both TVs are equally priced and differ only in the resolution, then sure, there is no point in buying the lower resolution TV. Just as there is no point in buying a new TV if some transistor (cost: $1) in the old one burned out. Just replace the transistor and use the saved money elsewhere. Unless you do want a new TV, in which case you can just buy it and not even wait for your old TV to fail.

Re:old hardware, probably

[man_of_mr_e]

Yes, all of them are licensed copies of Windows 7. For family, i used my own licenses which I received through various means (not for resale copies, etc..) and for friends I went either with family pack licenses if they had multiple computers or via upgrade.

As for Visual Studio, you do realize that MS gives it away for free, right? It's only the big scale enterprise class stuff that's expensive. If you need that stuff, you can afford to pay for it.

Re:old hardware, probably

[kaizokuace]

An iPad does just that...

Re:old hardware, probably

[martin-boundary]

Poorly written/designed applications that store user settings and often-overwritten data to Program Files are also to blame.

Wrong. Microsoft is to blame.

The truth is that they change the conventions for where to put configuration files and user data more or less with every major Windows release (if you go back all the way to Windows 95, the recommendations for developers used to be special directories, then various registry keys, then again special directories, all different over time).

There's nothing wrong with telling developers a new set of conventions for each OS release, BUT Microsoft also encourage users and developers to think that their older software will still run unchanged on those newer OSes. In fact, they bend over backwards to make that happen. It's a major selling point, and it directly leads to the problem.

So when you see a piece of software that doesn't do things the way you expect, try looking at when it was first written and for which Windows version the original code was developed. THEN you can decide if the developer was an asshat, or was just following Microsoft's older rules.

Re:old hardware, probably

[citizenr]

it wouldn't run anything newer than IE5 or Safari 2,

Opera

Re:old hardware, probably

[laffer1]

An 800Mhz G4 can handle Mac OS 10.3 or 10.4. You could have gotten an ebay upgrade and kept the system in service for awhile longer.

Re:old hardware, probably

[geminidomino]

I had a physical failure (Fan/Heat sink clip broke, CPU reached meltdown) recently.

Weird too, since it had worked fine for 2 years.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Belial6]

Sorry for the typo. It is $0.35/kwh. That is 35 cents.

Re:old hardware, probably

[je ne sais quoi]

Yes. Commodore_love is totally wrong in his original comment, he just hates that Apple won't support an OS from 8 years and 4 releases ago. I have a 2002 800 MHz Ti-book and a 2005 1.7 GHz Al-book that at G4s and run 10.4 and safari 5. It's slow on the Ti-book, but it runs just fine.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

Liar!

Re:old hardware, probably

[JWSmythe]

    It's usually a terminal hardware fault of some sort. Many were hard drives. Some were mystery problems related to motherboard/cpu/memory. I can swap memory for known good ones, but when it's to the point that you have a 1Ghz machine with a 40Gb hard drive, I could start upgrading parts, or they can buy a new machine. A few have just been the machine wasn't strong enough to handle their current needs. Again, the 1Ghz machine with 512Mb RAM, but their home office needs demanded having multiple memory hungry applications open, and the motherboard wasn't expandable to support the memory. Cases where the machine was still a viable machine, I'd usually take their old machine and use it for something else (like you said, a happy little Linux box).

    I don't like Windows, but I only feel it is responsible of me to know how to use and repair any OS that people are going to bring to me. If the machine just needs the OS reinstalled because it's terminally borked, I'll do it. I don't ask anyone to spend unnecessary expenses. I offer all options with legitimate costs, and it's up to them to decide what to do.

    I have yet to have anyone come to me and say "I need a machine with Windows 7, because it's required for [some application]".

   

Re:old hardware, probably

[klui]

If you have a notebook with an nVIDIA graphics card made around 2008 you're most likely hosed. But most laptops tend to have HDs, VRM modules, and inverter cards fail so they're relatively easy to replace.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Type44Q]

In any case, "broke" normally means: The battery in the wireless mouse is flat

A plug fell out the back

Its teh viruses, stupid!(

Silly me; here I was thinking it means 'to have run out of money' (you did mean 'broke' and not 'broken,' right?)

Proper grammar is dead, long live proper grammar! :P

Re:old hardware, probably

[nonguru]

A good example of Prospect Theory in action (Kahneman & Tversky, for which they earned a Nobel Prize): people don't change usage of an artefact/good/service - Windows XP in this case - unless the gains of substitution from the new artefact/good/service - Windows 7 - are significantly better. Howevere, I'm sure that Microsoft has done well enough from corporate upgrades to PC hardware. From my personal perspective, I found that Windows XP on my 6-year-old laptop hardware was struggling and switched to Ubuntu for bread-and-butter usage, and never looked back.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

Steve is throwing his troll moderations around again..

Re:old hardware, probably

[JWSmythe]

eventually our dinosaur Windows PCs and Linux PC's can't open files

    I'm amazed how many dissatisfied Windows users have complained because newer MS Office files aren't usable by their older versions of MS Office. I've had people send me .docx files that were broken, just so I could convert it and send it back over. I do tell them the right way to do it (get the free converter from the obscure Microsoft link, and convert it yourself). Most MS users are ... well ... users. They can point and click. They can type at 15 to 20 wpm in their application. And of course, they can somehow make 100 page Powerpoint presentations to give as much information as a one page text document would hold.

    I'm avoiding your piracy vs paid licensing and MS winning argument. It's just not one of those arguments that's even worth fighting any more. You're right, when the numbers come through, it's still "x% of the users are on x platform". I've looked at plenty of statistics, usually web based parsed from the user agent strings. Yup, the platform reported is the platform used for the statistics.

Re:old hardware, probably

[kheldan]

They probably won't get Windows 7 until they buy a new computer.

Yep, I'm pretty much in that boat. Single-core Athlon 64, 2GB DDR. No point in upsetting everything just to install a bloated new operating system. However it's just as likely that I'll stick with XP when the day comes that I upgrade the whole box. The deciding factor for me is whether or not it's capable of everything I need it to do. I didn't upgrade from 95 to 98 until I wanted to use a USB mouse. I wouldn't have upgraded from 98 to 2000, except I'd upgraded to a >700MHz processor, and 98 wasn't stable running on that, so I upgraded. I wouldn't have upgraded from 2000 to XP, except there was some application I needed to run that wouldn't even install on 2000. To date the current setup does whatever I need it to do. There are only rare instances where the extra cores and speed would be nice, but I can manage with it the way it is for now, and even then I'm not so sure I'll be able to justify the expense and hassle of upgrading the OS. Likely by the time I get around to it or get cornered into it, it'll have been out for long enough that it's got most of the bugs worked out of it.

Re:old hardware, probably

[CastrTroy]

You'd have to get quite a desktop computer to actually have it draw that much power. Just because a power supply is rated at 700w, doesn't mean that it always draws that much. A power supply will only draw as much power as the components hooked up to it will need. So, a laptop and a desktop with the same innards would probably draw about the same amount of power. The desktop may even draw less, because it doesn't require as much cooling, as there is more air circulation and the hot parts are placed further apart.

Re:old hardware, probably

[CastrTroy]

That's just added fun. Some people enjoy the task of shopping for computer parts, picking out exactly the components they want. And putting them together. I personally find it a lot of fun to do all this stuff.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Your.Master]

That's actually a really interesting use-case, but I doubt more than a handful of users (advanced or no) have ever set up their start menu in that way. That's pretty much an emergent behaviour rather than a designed behaviour, and it's not something that most power users are doing. In general, power users are defined by doing things that both noob users and other power users don't do.

If you really wanted, you could make a hotkey keybinding, or just rename your file "1743" so that search would find it in the same number of steps. I have to also question whether that's even faster in the end than just typing your destination in the majority of cases, including the majority of power user cases. It is definitely a case of having gotten used to the quirks of one OS.

Personally, I would actually be happiest if they left the searchbox but brought back the flyout menus, instead of having to choose one or the other. Maybe then they could compromise with you by having a winkey shortcut to open the flyout menu with focus on the menu and not on the searchbox.

I do appreciate the argument about search not being perfectly predictable. I tend to think that the start menu search should have a separate scope from the general search indexing, so you could all but guarantee that nothing changes unless you specifically add something yourself or install something, and results are always basically instant.

Re:old hardware, probably

[gmhowell]

He's full of shit, as usual.

He could have sold the empty case of that computer for more than $30 on eBay.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Belial6]

Oh, it is definitely of their own making. They have specifically priced Windows to prevent users from upgrading the OS without buying hardware.

Re:old hardware, probably

[toddestan]

Windows XP came out in August 2001. Most PCs sold to home users back in 2000 and early 2001 would have Windows ME - you'd only find 2000 on PCs sold to businesses. Many people downgraded ME back to 98, so it's not uncommon. Also, back then many power users preferred Windows 98 to 2000/XP because it was faster, games ran better, and it was easier to pirate. Many people resisted upgrading to XP to around 2003 or so.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Sirusjr]

Yes but an Ipad can't rip a CD to lossless in 4 minutes like my desktop's drive. An Ipad doesn't have a very large hard drive either. All those lossless files are big.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

You've apparently not messed with many IBM/Lenovo desktops. I have had two of them fail catastrophically in the past 5 years.

Re:old hardware, probably

[jridley]

I just built a new machine last fall. Quad core, 4GB, pretty decent graphics card, a few TB of hard drive. It runs Windows 7 just fine. After a month I gave up trying to get used to it and installed XP. They made changes to the GUI that made it impossible for me to do the sorts of thing that I do as efficiently, and XP will (just barely, I admit) run 4 cores and 4GB of RAM (close enough anyway).

I also try each new Ubuntu that comes out. I'm hoping that pretty soon I'll be able to switch, though right now there are still a few things that I can't do under Linux. My scanner will probably always need Windows (or Mac) because one of its main features (which I absolutely need) is Digital ICE and that's proprietary and they have zero interest in releasing a Linux driver.

In any case, I expect to move from XP to Linux some day. I'd just as soon avoid any Windows newer than XP, partially due to my dislike of the GUI, and partially due to my dislike of integrated DRM.

Re:old hardware, probably

[bloodhawk]

Ipad's are relatively new and they also fail to render the web properly.

Re:old hardware, probably

[vlueboy]

I appreciate your reply --it's a touchy subject.

Regarding VS, Enterprise is still Enterprise, not free. We are misled since VS Express did compile our DOS-only-GUI Computer Science homework, to believe that utilizing MS's C++ compiler freely means we get a *visual* Windows GUI designer should they we ever become Win32 programmers. Why do they even call it Visual if they withhold the visual component part in the free version? ;-) We miss out on MFC, ATL and anything related to dialogs for Win32 code. When we actually need forms (GUIs) for Win32 stuff in C++, MFC, Dot Net or ATL or WTL GUI's, VS Express fails. Coding them in by hand is hardcore, and Code::Blocks or DevC++ or even VS Express are nowhere near replacing that, the most elusive feature found only in the Pro versions.

For that, we need non-express cash (or illegal hacks.) The US link(*) lists 1200 dollars for Pro and $799 for upgrades. Well, I've seen Adobe software in the several thousands, so it's not too crazy. VS 2010 seems to be real cheap in Spain --only $500 euros.

I tested VS Express, still the only free-tier version on MS's website. To MS's credit there are demos for pro and enterprise that I may check out.

* Had trouble getting URLs for the USA due to browser/server region redirects. Thanks, Ubuntu 10.10 RC for Spanish/USA! ;)

Re:old hardware, probably

[znerk]

Sure, it technically "runs windows" but

Yes, I'll be linking a system that sells for $329 at best buy in a moment... comes with Windows 7 Home Premium x64

its an integrated memory unaccelerated graphics card,

actually, a lot of the integrated cards nowadays are nVidia or ATI. The one in the system I mention in the next paragraph is an nVidia 6150 (nothing to write home about, but it'll play some games - gets "decent" frame rates in WoW if you turn the sparklies down). Might not be the uber-awesome gamer card of the year, but it is accelerated, in direct contradiction of your claim. In addition, there's an available PCI-Express x16 port if you absolutely have to get a better card. A Geforce 240 GT with a half-gig of RAM can be had for about $120. I'm running one in my current system, and I pull 60s in Dalaran. If you don't know what that means, don't worry - it just means you're not a WoW addict. To those for whom the metric means something: Best $120 I ever spent, gaming-experience-wise, other than my 23" 1920x1080 LCD.

with like 256 MB of memory,

This $329 compaq from bestbuy comes with 2GB, expandable to 4GB.

a[n] 80 gig 5400 rpm hard disk,

the above-mentioned compaq comes with a 500GB 7200 RPM SATA drive.

all the fans are little 1 inch diameter things running at 40k rpm and sound like a small learjet starting up,

standard 80mm case fans, 2. quite quiet, actually.

one available USB port...

try 6 (2 front, 4 rear)... and you don't know how to use a $10 4-port USB hub?

And running linux, I tend to buy from the list of things that works on linux, not "whatever the big box mfgr could buy at the cheapest price"

A surprisingly large number of "cheap" (even on-board) components are directly supported by the latest distros (or kernel, or whatever it is that makes the latest linux "just work"), and function "out of the box" in most cases. I say this as someone who runs Ubuntu on several desktops, and has several servers pushing various domain services in my home networks (yes, plural).

Your off-the-cuff quote displays an ignorance of the current offerings at the big-box stores, and brings the question to my mind of just how out-of-touch you might be with the rest of the market. You haven't a clue what you're talking about. In short, do your research before you open your mouth and spew lies (intentional or not).

--
Your low uid doesn't scare me.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

I've worked in several corporate environments, and they are back-grading to XP to maintain a consistent install base. On the other hand, IT is at least talking about the move to Win 7. At the same time, the IT guy at our current location is touting a Linux desktop that is "corporate compatible", i.e., it has replacement applications for everything. Personally, I have an iMac for the family and I started running Ubuntu about a year and a half ago. I also own Windows 7 Pro. Love Ubuntu (most of the time), hate Win 7 (all of the time). Everything seems to be moved...

Re:old hardware, probably

[Animaether]

Mostly because it's a simplification of the problem at hand.

yes, you can search for content only
but does that actually return the results that it should?

The question is "which results -should- it return?"

Windows 7's Windows Explorer fancy search basically determines this based on indexing options, search options, folder and file options, and a slew more things; suffice it to say, it won't return -all- possible results.

i.e. if you have "hello world" in a file that hasn't been indexed, the search service is going to throw a big fat nothing at you.

On the other hand.. if you have it in a Word document that it has indexed, it'll find it.. while a lower level search tool might not (if the Word file was packed in such a way that the string would not exist as 'plaintext' or as a simple "h.e.l.l.o. .w.o.r.l.d" regex match in the file).

I'd imagine there -is- a way to tweak things so that all instances would be found, but the thread referenced in the follow-up post here currently moderated as Troll seems to suggest otherwise.

Now personally I don't care.. I use Total Commander for that sort of stuff under Windows, and the aforementioned thread points out Grep for Windows which tends to largely solve the issue for those who just need to search.
For those who need to search and insist on using the Windows Search thing... well.. that thread is still open to further - justified, mind you, ranting.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Khyber]

"It is hard to build a new PC for less than the price of a new complete (albeit crappy) PC preloaded with malware and trialware.'

Never heard of pricewatch or newegg, eh?

Re:old hardware, probably

[kaizokuace]

I wrote that in response to

Desktops are seen as overly thick web clients with a word processor.

Which is what an iPad is. I am not suggesting that the iPad should replace a desktop by any means. It's just an extension of your home computing ecosystem.

Re:old hardware, probably

[formfeed]

Also, windows 7 is for dumb people.
-At least, that's what Microsoft claims.

After seeing that annoying person (*) on TV claiming "Windows 7 was my idea" I would feel even less compelled to run out and buy Windows 7.

*: pick one, anyone; they are all annoying. The PC in the Mac commercial is more appealing than the average Joes/Janes in the MS commercials.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

They probably won't get Windows 7 until they buy a new computer.

Not necessarily. I still run XP, because it still works.

I Agree
It was fairly easy to install Windows XP on my new PC that came with Windows 7.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words Moore's Law has eaten Microsoft's lunch.

Re:old hardware, probably

[lormahoykyd2007]

Forget running Windows 7 on 2GB of ram. I have Windows 7 x64. I started out with this computer as a new build about a year ago August. I bought windows Vista x64 Ultimate a few months prior to 7 being released, but I got it free when it came out as part of the deal I bought Windows Vista. I didn't pay any extra they were just doing it to sell Vista's remaining inventory. I have a Gigabyte MA790FXT-UD5P and Phenom II X4 945. I wanted the 955 black edition for overclockability, but they were out at that store and I didn't want to drive the 30 miles to the Plano store to get the 955. Now in retrospect I should have. I got 4gigs of Kingston 1866 OC Ram. I thought that would be more than sufficient. Wrong. I bought another 4 gig kit to bring the total to 8 gigs and it is wonderful! I would rather have this thing plugged with 16 GB, but with the new 6 core AMD's and the price of ram coming down I am going to wait till next year give this system to my mom and build a new six core or maybe even 8 core if I wait late enough in 2011. This is a long drawn-out way to tell you to go for 8 gigs on your new system. I run my browser, Word, Outlook, and World of Warcraft all at the same time and get my full frame rate at the max detail.

Re:old hardware, probably

[geminidomino]

They're actually not that impressive of a difference these days. I just ordered a new desktop PC (for the first time in my life) after speccing out prices. Turns out building it from components would have only saved me less than $50. Figured not having to worry about various compatibilities and individual component warranties was worth the extra few bucks for a $2-year warranty.

Maybe I was wrong, but what the hell. We'll see when it gets here.

Re:old hardware, probably

[shermo]

Nothing screams professional like Excel graphs with default settings.

"Over three years, it's believed as much as 31 percent of notebooks will either fail of their own accord or suffer drops that render them inoperable."

So people drops laptops and they break.

Re:old hardware, probably

[armanox]

Might have been worth upgrading it to 10.4. I did that with mine (800MHz G4 Quicksilver) after putting a new HDD in it (I wanted a bigger one) and haven't had many issues since (stay away from flash).

Re:old hardware, probably

[TheLink]

No idea. I find the thought of a Windows 7 Zealot somewhat amusing! I wonder what a stereotypical windows 7 cult member would look like :).

FWIW I use windows 7 at work and windows xp at home, have a OSX machine on my work desk (which I use mostly via SSH), and an opensolaris box beside me, and a few linux virtual machines. I'm doing some cross platform stuff.

I'm weird I guess, in terms of GUIs I actually prefer Windows XP to Windows 7, and Windows 7 to OSX.

Yes I'm unfamiliar with the OSX GUI, but I still don't see how stuff like "Expose" etc is going to make things better and faster for my usage. Wait for the Expose animation and drawing of 30 windows, select window wait for animation etc, vs just clicking on the relevant task button. Or click on the relevant app, hold down mouse button, wait for animation, then click on the desired window...

Think I'll get a troll mod from the Apple zealots now? :)

Re:old hardware, probably

[Ryan98391]

I'm still running XP. I would like a new computer, but I would rather pay off my debts first. I know how to reinstall my operating system from a complete wipe. I can replace the motherboard, PSU, CPU, video card, hard drive, dvd drive, ram, and fans. I know how to properly set the jumpers and configure my bios. I'll admit that my computer is a complete pos, but it still works for browsing the Internet and it beats using public computers with half hour time limits. I guess I could install Linux on it, but I like to play WoW and my PC is too shitty to run Windows under Linux. I'd like to get a decent laptop as an upgrade so I can record sound without having to place this computer in another room as its fans sound like a wind tunnel.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Fjandr]

Most licenses are OEM licenses, which can't be transferred to a new machine (unless the old motherboard is going into said machine). Once you get your first non-OEM license you can transfer it ad infinitum, but not until that point. At least legally, which may or may not be an issue for a given person...

Re:old hardware, probably

[X0563511]

No... I'm saying he was directly talking about pirating windows, without actually saying so. That's what subtext means. It also leaves you a way to say "I never said that!"

I guess we won't know for sure unless he tells us exactly what he meant.

Re:old hardware, probably

[PhrstBrn]

No... I'm saying he was directly talking about pirating windows, without actually saying so. That's what subtext means. It also leaves you a way to say "I never said that!"

I guess we won't know for sure unless he tells us exactly what he meant.

Wouldn't that be indirectly talking about it?

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

My boat exactly. We have perfectly operating 5yr old XP machines. As the old adage says "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I have looked at new hardware of late, but when XP gets phased out in our home we are moving to Linux. Already my main machine is dual boot, and over the past few months I have replicated almost every step of the various functions and workflows we have... under Linux. Windows has eternal patches, and patches of patches - 99% are security related. I think people are simply sick of chewing up good bandwidth for MS's programming slip-ups. If I got a brand new 64-bit laptop - quite likely before the end of this year - it will come home and become dual boot before the sun sets. If not just kick Win7 out totally from the start, and fight for an OS refund for the unused license. Machines come pre-loaded with so much crapware! It takes several days to "clean up" a new machine so its even vaguely safe to plug in a network cable. People are tired of that too.

Re:old hardware, probably

[ieatcookies]

Seems like there is a valid point here. The people still on xp have already skipped a version (vista) and in retrospect likely believe that was a wise decision. That's a tough crowd for ms to peddle wares too I would think.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

from wikipedia.... Safari 4 requires either a Mac running Mac OS X v10.4 or later, or a PC running Windows XP SP2, Windows Vista, or Windows 7.

Re:old hardware, probably

[sammy baby]

Don't discount large corporations which are resistant to change. I work for one such company (in the fifty largest companies in the world), and their plan is to roll out Windows 7 internally sometime in 2013.

What's particularly sad about this state of affairs is that it's a technology company. Feh.

Re:old hardware, probably

[jmottram08]

No, sorry, your doing it wrong.

Programs used daily go on the task bar

Programs used once a week go on the desktop

Programs used less get searched for

I cannot tell you how MUCH easier it is to just search. I want to change indexing options. In XP I open control panel and hunt through icons to find something that probably isn't even there, its hidden on the system screen or something. In 7 i just type index and BAM, it pops up before i am done. I am on a friends computer and need a russian language keyboard, just type language. Cant remember where or how many folders deep the calculator is? calc

If you see the search anything other than a HUGE plus to win7, you really are doing it wrong. Does it replace shortcuts? No, it was never supposed to.

Re:old hardware, probably

[jamesh]

Couldn't disagree with you more.

Well... he said "most users" and you said "advanced users", so I think you're a little confused as to who you are actually disagreeing with.

FWIW, i'm a sysadmin, and every single one of my admin tasks is made harder since Vista came along. Everything I want to do involves at least two more clicks and a delay while the UAC prompt comes up. Just about everything has been renamed and/or moved for no obvious reason other than to make sure the user knows they are using the new modern Vista/7 OS and not the clunky old XP era OS.

Re:old hardware, probably

[jamesh]

Oops. Got confused by the indenting. Bring on the abuse.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

funny, I'm an advanced user, and I can't figure out which part of "control panel" to look in for each little problem. There are more than 5 places to look for network stuff. It's as bad as unix (sorry pengiun lovers). Oh, and my wife can't change the backgroudn on her new little laptop without paying for an upgrade. How's this "better"?

Re:old hardware, probably

[bazorg]

In the long term, self-updating software like Java, Flash, Skype, etc. will end up qualifying as ultra high end work. Flash is particularly keen on telling me that I absolutely need the latest version to see the lolcats on youtube.

Re:old hardware, probably

[khchung]

It is? I managed to save quite a bit of money (a few hundred) building my own computer rather than buying a pre-built one with nearly the same specs.

Probably not if you have a full time job and you accounted for the hourly rate on the time you spent on building it.

More and more like building your own car, building your own PC is fine as a hobby, but does not make sense if you are doing it to try to save money.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Vectormatic]

a few months back the capps on my aunts Athlon XP machine's mobo just popped, considering the value of the rest of the machine, we ended up spending $350 with dell for a new machine..

Sure i could have re-capped the mobo, or searched for a replacement mobo (which would have to be identical, yay hardware specific restore discs etc..)

Re:old hardware, probably

[Yvanhoe]

Because we are used to Windows preventing us from doing basic things.

Are there workspaces in Windows 7 ? This is a feature that is due since 20 years IMHO. None of the modules for XP worked well in that regard...

Re:old hardware, probably

[damnfuct]

For the most part I agree with you. There are many additional features that I've become accustomed to with Win 7, but I totally disagree with the search. Granted, the stupid little dog that pops up in XP was horrible, the search in win7 is only good if you've got a huge folder and are looking for a specific text string in the name (and I do use this function a lot); where I get upset is where I want to search for advanced criteria like some combination of date range, size range, containing text, and file type. I've found a good stand-in: SuperFinder XT.

I've also turned off the icon grouping on the task bar because I can't stand routinely performing unnecessary extra clicks (or waiting for a mouse-over to pop up a box) for an operation that I perform very often in the operating system (e.g. switching explorer windows).

Despite the downsides, these are easy to get rid of or customize. A couple areas that get me angry when using xp: how many times I have to tell it to hide a tray icon, unnecessary restarts when applying some settings, the wireless network browser, wireless networking in general on XP, no start menu search function for start menu items that are 2-3 panes wide (work computer), mspaint & no screen capture tool, etc.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

In case anyone is wondering why this would be done, I work a number of visually impaired people, and this is exactly the technique used to make their most-used applications easily accessible. The Windows 7 way of doing things has completely broken the UI for them. Using the Windows key plus initial character of the menu item in Windows 7 triggers a search which is not guaranteed to bring up the start menu item as the first entry.

There is also a problem that the shortcut key combination (CTRL + ALT + number) is the equivalent to using the AltGr key + number - which is used to access non-US ASCII characters like å, æ, and ø on some keyboards (and in some foreign keyboard layouts the @ sign) - so using the shortcut removes access to needed characters.

The Windows 7 UI has not been well thought out for the visually impaired.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

Happy XP-64 user here.

Using an SSD (with a 750GB platter for mass storage), Phenom-2-550, ATI 4870, 8GB DDR-3, Seasonic PSU. I've been on the upgrade path on this box since I built a 386 in 1994 from scrounged bits. It plays any games I want to quite happily and is also a good workstation for VC# work.

I've customised XP extensively and it's gloriously quick and responsive - much more so than when I trialled Win7 on it.

Fair enough, there will come to be a time when hardware is not supported for XP by manufacturers and then I might need to consider an alternative. But for now, the only thing that will get me to move to Windows 6.x is lack of hardware support. I've tried the alternatives and they do not measure up.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

28.7W TPD, which is better than anything made today except for laptop CPUs

The Intel D510MO (a desktop board with integrated CPU) consumes only 20 watts at idle. For the mac mini (2010 model) it is about 10 watts.

But I agree with the rest of your post of course, you still need to do the math on how long it takes to get a return on investment. And production of new electronic components has a big ecological footprint.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows 98!? It's been out of support now for 4 years. I hope they don't do their online banking on it.

I know They aren't. I am doing it for them (from Nigeria).

Re:old hardware, probably

[xtracto]

Man... if you really want to be an advanced Windows user you should try AutoHotkey.

BTW, a not well known "trick" in Win7 is that you can start any application pinned in the "superbar" (or whatever is it called) using WIN+{NUMBER_KEY} where NUMBER_KEY is the position of the icon from left to right.

BTW, am I the only one who *hates* this "superbar"? I hated window "grouping" in XP and I hate it in 7 a bit more. I hate that if I have say, MSN Messenger open (with 1 conversation window) it *always* displays 2 windows (even after I tried to close the main MSN window).

I hate that the "superbar" icons get completely screwed (specially those with Java apps, like FreeRapid).

In general I do not like Windows 7... The only reason I see to use Windows 7 is for the SSD enhancements and the more than 4GB memory. Of course since I do not have any of those two I happily continue using WinXP SP3 + Launchy+VirtuaWin+AutoHotkey.

Re:old hardware, probably

[xtracto]

I recommend you to use virtual desktops (I use the open-source VirtuaWin http://virtuawin.sourceforge.net/ ) to organize all your windows.

I myself frequently have as many windows as you have open (including Internet [email, firefox, etc], Code, Writing [word or latex], Research [R, Excel, Gnumeric, etc])

I have 5 virtual desktops where I distribute all my applications according to a specific theme. This not only helps me "declutter" the taskbar (which I use vertically as I appreciate my reading space, and can handle more windows) but also allows me to have all the programs I need to finish one task I am doing at a certain point.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

What a coincidence......... This computer is a 1.25 Ghz G4 MacMini running 10.4.11.

I've got Safari 4.1.1 running from the usual on-line software updates. I really don't recall many sites that I have problems with.

Re:old hardware, probably

[teachknowlegy]

When the O/S no longer works on the hardware you have/can replace with, just install Ubuntu. Then you not only don't have to buy a new PC, but you don't have to buy all new programs for the new OS.

Re:old hardware, probably

[teachknowlegy]

One of my clients has been upgraded to Win7 on the front office machine out of cost vs. time dictating the new machine was worth the lack of downtime for an actual repair. It's different in the back office, where the server needs many hours of work to fix a viral mess. However, the applications just don't run on less expensive client machines.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Ironhandx]

Holy shnikes! Where do you live!? I live in a very remote location where everything is on diesel generator and mine is only about .17/kwh.

I'm presuming that it is USD as well.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

However, with the exception of large disasters (lightning, fire, flood etc), usually a single component fails and not the whole computer. Which means that it's cheaper to replace the failed component instead of the whole computer.

Not anymore.

Re:old hardware, probably

[macson_g]

Ever heard of screwdrivers? Most of the laptop failures can be fixed, parts replaced. I've been through laptop's disk and motherboard replacements.

Re:old hardware, probably

[brainscauseminds]

Fortunately my 5 year old laptop has not had any fatal malfunctions yet, but it is full of cracks and the lid barely holds together. I've used it almost daily at work and school and if it holds together 5 more years (which it probably does not), i would not bother to upgrade. One thing I'd like to rant about are the people who say that a bit older, but working hardware obsolete and useless. Every now and then they buy better CPUs, better graphics cards, more RAM etc and then think the world starts to turn. Bloody hell, if they use poorly-written software made by stacking together slow algorithms, every day download movies, games and stuff illegally, clutter their system with all kinds of crap, then no wonder they cannot get enough of upgrades. Do not misunderstand me, I have nothing against people upgrading their hardware, but I just hate people who cannot use their computers properly.

Re:old hardware, probably

[commodore64_love]

>>>An 800Mhz G4 can handle Mac OS 10.3 or 10.4.

How much would that 10.2 to 10.4 upgrade have cost me?

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

If people cling on too much on XP, all MS needs to do is focus less on XP updates so that patches break stuff or run poorly. Malware will do the rest.

Windows Live Essentials 2011 only runs vista or newer, IE9 will only run on Vista or newer. Probably the only reason Office 2010 supports XP is because so many businesses use it.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Sandman1971]

Testing with a meter, my desktop was drawing 350w idle. Much much higher than the 25-30w used by a laptop.

Re:old hardware, probably

[hesaigo999ca]

Being a programmer myself, I think you would have to come up with a few more substantial points than what you list in order to get me to look at windows 7. Give off a list, a real list I mean, and then I might consider this, especially that you brought up the "i am a programmer card"....

The only thing I might see, is if the security was so substantial it removes the need for an AV, sort of like the way linux runs...

Re:old hardware, probably

[cheekyjohnson]

"Probably not if you have a full time job and you accounted for the hourly rate on the time you spent on building it."

Man, I keep seeing this and it makes absolutely zero sense. Did you know that people usually build computers when they're not at work? Did you know that people don't work 24 hours a day (which means building a computer in their free time doesn't cost them any money)?

Re:old hardware, probably

[TheThiefMaster]

2000 was only really shipped on corporate systems. You'd get Me or 98 in 2000.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Belial6]

Yes, USD. I live in California and have Pacific Gas and Electric as my provider.

I pulled up one of my bills. Here is a breakdown of the charges:

Baseline (315Kwh) = $0.11877
101-130% of Baseline = $0.13502
131-200% of Baseline = $0.27572
201-300% of Baseline = $0.40577
> 300% of Baseline = I don't have a bill handy to check this, as I only broke that twice a year ago when we took in a friend of my wifes entire family for a couple of months, doubling the number of people in our house.

Since any new electric load added will be in the highest cost bracket, it would cost a minimum of $0.40 Kwh to charge an electric car.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

"corperate edition" = "I pirated it, shove off"

Sad but true. Thse 66% probably are running pirated or OEM copies and "upgrading" is out of the question.

hell my laptop and standby desktop both have XP, and they are -not- being upgraded with Windows 7, ever. The laptop has nothing to upgrade, it's maxed out. The standby desktop I could in theory upgrade, but why. It's P4 era and slightly slower than the laptop but the video card is just good enough to play the MMO I like.

My main desktop runs 7, it did run vista, so I have an unused vista license that I can put on another piece of hardware... I upgraded every part in the '7' machine at some point so I have almost an entirely new computer in spare parts in boxes.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Leolo]

That's why you buy a Sempron.

Or you buy a computer from a big box and install Linux.

Re:old hardware, probably

[hairyfeet]

If you are drawing THAT much at idle I'd say you were running a P4 or other bad design. Here, let me show you how to have good performance AND low wattage at the same time. Take the board I listed above, or if you want to go even lower Newegg has this Zotac board for cheap, then add this CPU which maxes at 65w and idles at around 10w, finally add at least 4Gb of RAM (to minimize hard drive loading) and use a Caviar Green drive which lowers rotation speed and thus power, as well as has a large cache which lowers the read/writes the drive has to do.

With the ECS board you are looking at maybe 80w max draw, the Zotac around 75w, idle on both less than 20w and you still have all the advantages of a desktop, non proprietary, ability to upgrade as needs arise, ability to customize for the job, etc over laptops. Working PC repair I hate to say it but with most of the laptops, even the expensive ones, it is frankly better to just shitcan than to get them fixed anymore. Which means unless you are willing to just replace every two -three years with all the hassles that entails they really aren't worth it. Unless of course you want to buy a $1600+ Apple with another $500 spent on a five year warranty. It is up to you but I tell customers unless they have a real reason for needing mobility it just isn't worth the trade offs 90% of the time. Good luck!

Re:old hardware, probably

[Ironhandx]

Wow.

I thought I had it bad here. I'm never moving to Cali. I'd be sitting at .40/kwh+ permanently and my bill would be in excess of 1k/mth. Probably more.

Estimating my current average is around 1200 kwh/month, and I don't use a lot of juice compared to most folks I know, my power bill is generally lower than theirs. Where did they get a baseline that low? People that skeet shoot for all of their entertainment and barbecue 365 days a year? Admittedly my power consumption probably wouldn't be as high in California as it is here(I can't say definitely, AC may cause it to be the same or higher), but still, at those rates it would be cheaper for me to install my own generators and go off of the power corps grid altogether.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Khyber]

Most typical new builds I do cost under $300. Of course, I'm still using a 9800GTX+ so no need to replace the video card just YET, and that saves on quite a bit of $$$ spent, plus I reuse my cases and I've got a couple of high-power PSUs.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Belial6]

You are right. I have known a few people who built custom homes, and the cost of having PG&E run wire to the house combined with the rates made it cheaper for them to just run off batteries and solar/wind/generators. Given our price photovoltaic solar panels actually pay off now, it is just a question of how much life is left on your roof, how long you expect to keep your house, and if you can afford to outlay the cash for the install.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Ironhandx]

even plain old clean running diesel generators, batteries and a flywheel would be cheaper. Given that I can run everything in the house on about 250 gallons of diesel per month, so about $750 per month and $10k outlay for the generator + battery setup. Only take about 3 years before I'd be in money. If you're getting diesel generators, hook the thing up to a hydraulic piston too and use the compression to cook up some bio diesel. Drive to your local fast food places once a month and collect your electricity for the month. Cut overall fuel costs down to $250-500/month.

I admit its not the environmentally friendly way to go, but its a viable option if prices are that high, which is scary.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

Either that or Microsoft could charge less than $200 or $300 for better version. Either that or they can stop splitting up versions and just sell Windows 7. Why should you pay more for a 64-bit version just because your processor can handle it? If I didn't have a MSDN membership, I would also still be on XP. I am not paying 200-300 for an OS.

Re:old hardware, probably

[man_of_mr_e]

C++? Who uses that anymore? Even the enterprise versions of Visual Studio don't have decent GUI tools.. everything you see in express is the same as the pro.

The vast majority of enterprise work is done in .net and VB or C#. There are lots of gui tools in the express versions for that. MFC/ATL, etc has long been a problem with the .net versions of visual studio, VC6 was the last decent version for C++ development.

It's true that MFC isn't included in VS express, but honestly, who cares? Nobody does MFC development anymore unless you're shipping a commercial product.

Re:old hardware, probably

[geminidomino]

Yeah, I usually do piecemeal upgrades like that myself, but in this case, I'm due a full overhaul (nothing coming to the new box but the hard drives) and my kid brother needs a PC anyway, so I promised him mine.

Re:old hardware, probably

[mcgrew]

I know slashdot likes to give Sony the 2-minutes-hate regularly

If your daughter had installed Sony's XCP trojan you'd hate them too.

Re:old hardware, probably

[mcgrew]

Hard drive, maybe. That can be easily replaced.

By you or me, but not by most people. Even if they knew how simple it was to change the drive out they'd be stumped by the OS reinstall. And the last hardware failure I had was a power supply three or four years ago.

Re:old hardware, probably

[YoshiDan]

You can cheaply get a hold of Win 7 Home from Microsoft for about 50 bucks. It's only an upgrade version, but I found that you can install it on a blank hard drive with no problems. You only need a student E-Mail address to buy it, and pretty much everyone I know has a TAFE email address or something similar because they hand them out to everybody who does the shortest courses...

Re:old hardware, probably

[peterb]

It is? I managed to save quite a bit of money (a few hundred) building my own computer rather than buying a pre-built one with nearly the same specs.

From this we can infer that your hourly billable rate is vanishingly small. Sorry to hear it, man. Good luck finding better work.

Re:old hardware, probably

[cheekyjohnson]

Yes, because normal people earn money every hour of the day. Fantastic logic! I built it in my free time (read: it only took a few hours), so no money was 'lost'.

Re:old hardware, probably

[Civil_Disobedient]

I rely on the tank-like construction of ThinkPads, but I have to say Sony's hardware divisions know their stuff. They build excellent devices, even if their executives screw them up later on (forcing MemoryStick instead of CF/SD slots for instance).

Re:old hardware, probably

[satuon]

Windows 7 search doesn't work for me. It doesn't find stuff, or makes it hard/impossible to find stuff. I actually resorted to using grep on Win 7. I never had to do that with Win XP. With Windows XP even though the search was slow, if the stuff was there you'd eventually find it.

Could I recommend to you trying out Total Commander? It has a much faster search function than XP, and it works on Win7.

Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

This same story is trotted out months after every version of Windows ships. Hardly anyone ever upgrades a PC to the next major version of Windows. Instead, the upgrade happens automatically when people ditch their PC's and buy a new one.

Re:Yawn

[jedidiah]

Getting rid of DOS (Windows 3.1) and DOS-lite (Windows 9x) were much more compelling reasons to upgrade.

As Windows gets less crappy, the distance between a proper OS and what's in common use lessens.

Eventually, you are left with the annoyances that don't really go away and yet aren't severe enough to cause people to flee en masse to alternatives.

Re:Yawn

[cab15625]

A bit like the hype that comes out for months (or years in the case of "longhorn") BEFORE the release of any new version of windows. I guess consumer computing likes to have a bit of balance.

Re:Yawn

[Adrian Lopez]

Hardly anyone ever upgrades a PC to the next major version of Windows. Instead, the upgrade happens automatically when people ditch their PC's and buy a new one.

Except that Windows 7 isn't the next major version of Windows relative to Windows XP, but the next one after that. Whether it means that the hardware is good enough or that Windows XP is good enough, people skipping two major versions of Windows is an interesting development.

Re:Yawn

[Locutus]

and most have a memory of only a week or so and when you top it off with all the marketing Microsoft throws out about how many are using the new Windows X operating system, and they believe it, they think it is how the marketing states it. The fact that the press keeps trotting out this drivel also shows how worthless they are in regards to knowing what is going on and what they are paid to say is going on.

LoB

Re:Yawn

[man_of_mr_e]

the majority of home users never upgrade their OS. They buy new computers when the old one no longer does what they need and get an OS upgrade in the process. Most people buy a new computer when a) their disk gets full b) they think their computer is too slow c) it starts crashing a lot. d) it's broken (physically.. doesn't turn on, broken cup holder, keyboard breaks, etc..)

Business users don't upgrade because they have to plan a rollout, and as long as Microsoft offers the old OS to them, they won't bother.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

is this "en mass" fleeing you speak of the fairy tale of mass linux adoption I've been hearing about for the last 12 years?
 
The bottom line is that this is another anti MS article that neglects the fact that 7 has made as much headway in one year as XP did in 5.

Re:Yawn

[Main Gauche]

As Windows gets less crappy

If we ever meet in the 4th dimension, it will only be in passing...

Re:Yawn

[jedidiah]

Anyone that talks about any version of Windows "making headway" is just a mindless blithering Lemming.

The current version of Windows replaces the previous version of Windows as the OEM monopoly OS. Nothing changes except for the label attached to the monopolyware. It used to be MS-DOS 5. Now it's Windows 7.

The transitions from DOS and then to NT were genuine if overdue improvements.

Re:Yawn

[apoc.famine]

And that is tied directly to the economy.

Bad economy = less people upgrading computers = older OS versions on average. This is really a non-story.

Re:Yawn

[oh_my_080980980]

Except Vista was released 4 years ago! so in that time period 2006-2010 alot of people should have upgraded to either Vista or Windows 7. The majority have not.

Most businesses have not either! Businesses are staying with XP for as long as they can.

Nice job Microsoft fan-boy.

Re:Yawn

[jd]

Anyone upgrading (downgrading?) to Vista is a fool. Windows 7 is passable, but given that Windows 8 was announced a week or so before Windows 7 hit the shelves, even Microsoft looked at it as a stop-gap.

XL does what is needed

[jzarling]

Our standard at work is XP, and Office 2007. Right now XP simply handles all our needs. There is nothing offered with w7 that really justfies upgrading.

Re:XL does what is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

You should upgrade. In Windows 7, the window borders are a blurred version of what's behind instead of an opaque uniform color, making them more challenging to find.

Re:XL does what is needed

[Mspangler]

"Our standard at work is XP, and Office 2007. Right now XP simply handles all our needs. There is nothing offered with w7 that really justfies upgrading."

Our Information Services department has the exact same opinion. And the great SAP Migration is in full swing. That has sucked them dry for the last year, and probably another one to go. Then maybe they will look at Win7. (This assumes the VP doesn't cancel the SAP thing to make the old VP look bad.)

The only real PC issue we've had in the last couple of years was the McAfee auto-virus. Otherwise, XP keeps plodding along.

Re:XL does what is needed

[Lonewolf666]

I mostly agree. After some hands-on experience with Win7, I found:

-Performance seems not much different from XP.
-UAC is a good idea for the security-conscious, but if you are careful about what you install, you don't absolutely need it.
-My impressions of the GUI are mixed: Some details work better (like ejecting USB sticks from Windows Explorer) or are more intuitive, but like in earlier versions, the trend of hiding the low level functions under several layers of wizards and menus has continued. For the newbie this may be helpful, for experienced users it is more of an annoyance.

Bottom line:
Windows 7 is OK, but not so much better that going and buying it for an existing computer is worthwhile. I expect that most buyers of new computers will accept it without the resistance Vista got, but TFA is right in pointing out there is no rush towards Windows 7.

Re:XL does what is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

the trend of hiding the low level functions under several layers of wizards and menus has continued

I'd bet that trend causes part of the population to consider computers as mystical, magical creatures from outer space and attach similar labels to people who "get" computers. Additionally, each of those wizards are polluting the memory and senses of an individual trying understand the basics operations.

Re:XL does what is needed

[armanox]

The main thing that I've noticed with rolling out Windows 7 at work is a much lower virus infection rate. I've yet to see a 7 system get hosed by a fake anti-virus like I did with XP (used to be about every 3 months someone would get hit. Symantec doesn't do jack).

Re:XL does what is needed

[cbhacking]

You must not have a particualrly large IT overhead, then. Win7 is much easier for IT types, but because UAC makes it a lot easier to handle user permissions and because it offers a ton more Group Policy options. Assuming you're running a Windows domain with administration done centrally from the domain controller, Win7 just makes all kinds of sense.

Yes, it requires more hardware than XP. For example, most netbooks more than 2 years old would have problems (no seriously, it runs fine on my dad's 1GB, 1.6GHz Atom netbook).

Re:XL does what is needed

[digsbo]

(This assumes the VP doesn't cancel the SAP thing to make the old VP look bad.).

Sounds like the old VP already did that when he chose SAP. Sorry, I know it's easy to beat up on SAP, but even though I know people who work there I think they offer terrible, terrible products.

Re:XL does what is needed

[Archangel Michael]

Our standard at work is XP for 32 bit (under 3.6GB Ram), and Win 7 for 64bit (>=4GB Ram).

Right now, XP barely functions in 512 or less, One Gig is needed for most, 2 GB seems to be the sweet spot.

I wouldn't run Win 7 on anything less that 3GB ram, and 4 is my minimum recommended. If you get 4, you might as well make it 64 bit to get the value.

In fact, if I were Microsoft, I would have made that distinction from the beginning. Kept selling XP for lower powered CPUs and lower RAM levels, and Win 7 64 bit only (no 32 bit version). It would have kept people happy during the transition from XP to 7.

Re:XL does what is needed

[LinuxIsGarbage]

Did XP users have admin or poweruser privileges?

Re:XL does what is needed

[LinuxIsGarbage]

Yes, it requires more hardware than XP. For example, most netbooks more than 2 years old would have problems (no seriously, it runs fine on my dad's 1GB, 1.6GHz Atom netbook).

Netbooks more than 2 years old would be small SSD models. Such as the original EeePC 4G: 512MB RAM, 4GB SSD. It's impossible to install a stock version of Vista or 7 on that drive. Which is why they coaxed cheap XP licences out of Microsoft by flirting with Linux. The moment they hit 1GB RAM / 160GB hard drive they had enough hardware to run Vista or Seven, but people were addicted to the cheap XP licences.

My EeePC 4G is upgraded to 2GB RAM, and it actually runs Windows 7 surprisingly well off a USB harddrive (particularly considering it's a USB hard drive). One downside is it has an Intel GMA 910 GPU, which is infamous for only having XPDM drivers, and not WDDM drivers which are required for Aero, and contributing greatly to "Vista Capable" lawsuites. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10097511-56.html

I've been satisfied with Windows 7 on a number of systems I have it on. A 3 year old HP laptop that shipped with Vista, that I downgraded to XP, and have since upgraded to 7. An AMD Neo based Netbook, even a PIV 2.6Ghz with a Geforce FX 5200.

Re:XL does what is needed

[ElmoGonzo]

That's close to where we are -- but we need to upgrade to Office 2010 so that some VP can see the calendars of those subordinates who use something different. I still have one PC here that has Win2K on it because of reliance on an application from a vendor that went belly-up before XP came out.

It's not like

[Voyager529]

It's not like a year after XP's introduction that it managed to have half the market share, either. People have traditionally replaced their computers every 3-6 years, and stick with what they've got until the next hardware cycle. The version of Windows is largely irrelevant to the masses, and yes, anyone who was planning on upgrading their current machine's software independently of a hardware refresh has likely already done so. Getting a third of MS's user base to upgrade in a year is, IMO, an accomplishment, not a problem.

Re:It's not like

[Jeff DeMaagd]

You're right that computer replacement is slow, but XP got about 38% of the installed base in only three years. Vista was released on Jan 2006, more than 4 1/2 years ago, and still Vista + 7 combined don't best XP's installed base.

This might be an indication of a changing user base, and it may be it's because a lot of businesses and households aren't doing as well these days.

Re:It's not like

[Spad]

That's not really a fair comparison - you can't just tack Vista's numbers onto Windows 7's and then use that to claim that Win 7 isn't doing well; remember, people largely hated Vista (justified or not) and so its adoption was very poor whereas Win 7 has had a very rapid uptake amongst those who "choose" to upgrade (i.e geeks) and I suspect that over the next year or two will become the majority OS as people and businesses refesh their PCs.

Re:It's not like

[hedwards]

Most of that has to do with the longer hardware cycle. I remember when I was a kid and the pace of things was just ridiculous, it wasn't unheard of to need to upgrade the computer regularly for regular applications. But these days, particularly with this whole web 2.0 thing, there's not the reason that there used to be.

And besides which, now that the driver devs have had the time to mature their drivers, XP is quite stable, compared to what it used to be. Still has problems with being sluggish and really wanting to be regularly reinstalled, but it is adequate for many things, especially now that the computers are significantly more powerful than what it was designed for.

Re:It's not like

[walterbyrd]

I think it is because vista/7 do not really offer any compelling features. Mostly just eye candy. Not worth the expense, or bother.

Re:It's not like

[WuphonsReach]

It's a combination of:

- The recession/depression that we've been suffering with for the past 2+ years.

- Multi-core CPUs hit mainstream back in '07 when dual-core chips dropped below $200-$300. A multi-core machine simply runs circles around most single-core machines, especially when it comes to staying responsive to the user. This responsiveness also gives them better longevity, because it takes a lot longer for the user to say "this is too slow".

- Longer time period between CPU power doubling. In the early 90s, a machine that was 3 years old would be about 6-8x as slow as a brand new one. This decreased to about a 15-18 month doubling cycle by 2000 and other then dual-core, things have slowed down that single-core CPU power really only doubles every 24-30 months now. So a brand new single-core machine is only maybe twice as fast (and sometimes only 50-70% faster) as one that is three years old.

- Enough power to get things done. This started to happen back around 2002-2003 with the advent of the 2GHz machines and the ability to pack 1GB RAM into a WinXP box.

Hell, right now, I'm more interested in a dual-core Atom or ARM CPU then I am in a 8-core desktop CPU. Because other then boosting the speed of individual cores, the 4-core CPU that I have now is plenty for my needs. It's memory that is often the limiting factor (even with 4GB). And after more memory, a SSD is probably second on my list for upgrades. The O/S and CPU are way down in 3rd/4th place.

Re:It's not like

[BotnetZombie]

Have you forgotten what was there before XP? It's not surprising that people ran as quickly as they could away from WinME.

Re:It's not like

[Nysul]

I'm still happy with my lowly 2GHz core 2 duo. The only thing it can't seem to handle is Final Fantasy XIV, and it isn't worth upgrading just for that one game.

Re:It's not like

[SwedishPenguin]

Or it may be because old hardware satisfies 95+% of all needs except for gaming, and most people don't play demanding games. My laptop is 3 years old, yet it has a pretty decent core2duo CPU...

Re:It's not like

[znerk]

you can't just tack Vista's numbers onto Windows 7's and then use that to claim that Win 7 isn't doing well

The parent to your post was doing nothing of the sort. What they actually said was

Vista was released on Jan 2006, more than 4 1/2 years ago, and still Vista + 7 combined don't best XP's installed base.

... which indicates to me that Vista and 7 combined are still not beating XP's install base. This is not the fault of 7, might be the fault of Vista, but is more likely that people just don't see any need to upgrade an operating system that appears to do its job perfectly well, and "it's shiny" just isn't a good enough reason to move to a user-hostile OS.

I, myself, decided to learn Ubuntu's interface instead of Windows 7's interface... and I'm a Microsoft Certified Professional.

Re:Mod me off-topic, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Evil plot to force lurkers to post. Damn it worked on me.

great news for ms!

[Anonymous Coward]

sounds like a potential for a lot of untapped future revenue!

Price

[jav1231]

Microsoft sets the price to high and the various version model isn't helping. Who wants to switch if XP is working for you? $119 for the Home Edition or $89 for the Anytime Upgrade to the Home Edition.

Re:Price

[AnonymousClown]

...and poorer performance for that $119.

The only thing I can see that you get from a user's point of view is a built in version of F-Spot.

Re:Price

[v1]

The thing is, it's a bad idea to just keep running an old system, even if it still works just fine for you. I see this all the time. People calling looking for help because they can't get on their bank's web site anymore. (java out of date, OS issue, NOT browser) Or they bough software that says it can't install. (not enough memory or OS too old) Or they have a special piece of hardware that broke, bought a replacement, and the newer software it came with won't run on their OS.

I tell people, "You really need to get a new machine. Yes, I know, it still works just fine for you, but eventually you're going to be forced to upgrade, and the longer you wait, the bigger of a problem it's going to be". I'll tell you a few stories of businesses that didn't listen to me, and paid the price:

Story 1:

Local designer. Designs posters, not sure what for, maybe movies, he's apparently pretty good, customers all over the usa. Anyway, he has a fancy machine that looks like a giant printer. It cuts posterboard to exacting size, for use in his big printer. Cuts perfectly straight long lines on the really heavy stock, both side and end. Brought in the computer and cutter, the computer had an OS meltdown due to dying hdd. It was 10 years old. He was lucky I even had experience with an OS that old. But although I could fix the OS, the software that ran the cutter had draconian DRM on it that made it require reinstallation when moved to another hard drive. I was unable to crack the protection, and he was unable to find the original discs. So he had to buy new software. (several thousand dollars) Come to find out, the new software wouldn't run on the old computer, NOR would it run the old cutter. He went from cussing over having just put in a new set of $250 blades, to REALLY cussing for having to buy a new cutter. (10 grand) And a new computer of course, which ended up being the cheapest angle.

Story 2:

Audio recording man. Does high end audio mixing and CD mastering. Had problems with a reinstall of his pro audio software. Come to find out he'd been with them since the start version 1.0, 1995'ish. He tried to reinstall the software, and it was an update and failed to find the older software so it wouldn't install. (and it wasn't the type to ask you to insert the older disc or type in the older license code, it required the previous version to be installed)

It took several days of scrounging around to find ancient machines and MEDIUM DENSITY FLOPPY DRIVES so we could start the installation chain from his version 1.0 floppies on Mac OS 7, and work forward, to vers 2, 2.,5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, and finally to his version 7. This wasn't so much a case of living in the past, but his software sure was.

Story 3:

Local newspaper. 7 machines about 8 years old, including server. Running old versions of adobe, quark, and pagemaker products. Kept telling them this is a bad idea holding off on upgrades so long. Editor was a penny pincher and refused to listen. Put more memory in. Upgrade/replace that hard drive. Who cares if the server has no video, it still works.

One of their desktops dies. Unrepairable, parts not available. So they bought a new machine. Whoops, it comes with a new os, won't run the old pro software. So they buy one set of licenses for it. Whoops, it can import from the old software but not export back to it and they have to be able to share. So they buy more licenses. Whoops, those won't install on the older systems, OS is too old. Looking further, whoops, their hardware is too old to install the reuqired OS.

So, all at once, they had to buy a new server, 8 new desktops, tens of thousands of dollars in software, and spend the next several months in the hell that is doing an import-open on everything they double click, requiring proofing and corrections/adjustments. I'm amazed the editor didn't have a heart attack.

Story 4:

This is one I see retold several times a y

Re:Price

[cheekyjohnson]

Hardly. There's really no groundbreaking reasons to upgrade to Windows 7 if Windows XP is working for you.

Re:Price

[Fast Thick Pants]

Moral of the stories: Stay Reasonably Current

Sure, sure, that's the *practical* moral, but how about some *dogmatic* morals:

• Don't buy expensive hardware that requires DRM-encumbered software.
• Avoid products and file formats that are not forward and backward compatible between versions.
• Learn to use virtualization for legacy software; it works.

Re:Price

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not really sure why you were modded up. The cases you cited are fringe cases. Do you work for a major PC distributor?

Re:Price

[couchslug]

Time to have loaded, tested spare backup systems for anything that matters. That's why my friends machine shop systematically accumulates old PCs and parts.

Re:Price

[tsj5j]

Story 1: Dead HDD due to old hardware. Solution: Backup your data using drive cloning, swap the disk, done.
Story 2: Need a new version? Solution: Contact the company for a new version's license code, perhaps by presenting the fact you've had all the upgrade codes.
Story 3: New OS breaks backwards compatibility. Solution? Reinstall the old OS.
Story 4: And this generalization also generalizes the problem with the tech industry.

The tech industry moves too fast for individual consumers, and in recent years more and more time is spent on adding bells and whistles instead of any real functionality.
Games, for example, are constantly adding better and better graphics and hogging more space, but I often find that they lose the core gameplay concepts which makes games, well, fun.
Software, for example, are trying to become more flashy and bloated, such as Office and iTunes, piling on feature after feature which are sometimes redundant.

People should upgrade because they want the new functionality.
Today, the tech industry forces them to upgrade because not upgrading will cause them compatibility pains in the future.
The reason? Profits from selling a new software version with "great new enhanced features" yearly.

Re:Price

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm all up for running a current system to avoid upgrade hassles. But what you are talking about is poorly (or perhaps planned that way) written proprietary software. I always make sure people use things like ODF because when it comes down to it, it's going to work whereas .doc and brothers are designed to be a hassle, it makes more money that way.

What it comes down to is being prepared for the future. One way is to keep upgrading. The other is to think about the future first.

Re:Price

[man_of_mr_e]

It's not just computers that work like that. Home electronics do as well. Imagine sticking with Reel-to-Reel until 2005, then having it die on you.. now all your old material is in a format you can no longer read. Or Beta tapes or whatever.

The fact is, technology changes, and you have to keep relatively current or you will be in a heap of hurt further down the road.

Re:Price

[farble1670]

maybe, that's just what it costs to make a profit from development of an operating system? just looking on amazon, OSX 10.5+10.6 upgrade is $110.

Re:Price

[tuppe666]

LOL I read you case studies. I came to a vastly different conclusion. Proprietary Formats/DRM, Propriatary Software are BAD. Lets look at the problems!!

1. DRM,Propriatary Software

2. DRM,Propriatary Software

3. Proprietary Format

4. Proprietary Format

Moral of these Stories is don't get locked into your software because it will run fine. Hardware is cheap...software/people often arn't. Old technologies are the same as old ones flash=big floppy, dsl=fast modem. Only an idiot would lock themselves into their hardware. Fortunately it keeps people like the original poster employed, spend your money somewhere else Think about about formats now.

Re:Price

[JackSpratts]

Yours is really an argument against DRM more than anything else, and around here you're preaching to the choir, myself included.

Re:Price

[Capt. Skinny]

Or pay the price.

What is the price, exactly? Each of the customers you've described upgraded when it became necessary. Yes, it cost them money, but it would easily have cost them MORE money to have made incremental upgrades all along for no other reason than "staying current."

Re:Price

[Kjella]

Avoid products and file formats that are not forward and backward compatible between versions.

Well good luck on that one, there's plenty open source software too that only have an import filter for old versions. From time to time features get added that the old software can't handle and can't reasonably ignore and saving in the old format does not really make sense and will take a bunch of current-to-legacy conversion code. I'm sure you can find examples of software that can read everything back to 1.0 but I got plenty examples where you can't.

I agree that virtualization is mostly the way to go, unless you're tied to special hardware. I'm guessing that unsupported hardware won't be virtualized either, and in most of the cases here I imagine there is. Like the audio guy, I'm sure there was some pro audio gear hooked up to that even if it wasn't mentioned.

Re:Price

[farble1670]

in your stories, the users waited until they had to upgrade. that is really the most cost-effective thing to do. the only downside is that they didn't plan for the upgrade so it probably resulted in some down time. okay, so if you have an old computer, expect it can die at any time and have a plan in place.

those folks wouldn't have been any better off if they upgraded sooner. pay now or later. paying later allows you to get the best hardware for your $$$, and to maximize the use of the hardware you do have .... which again saves money.

Re:Price

[Rich0]

And anybody who knows ANYTHING about money knows that these people did exactly the right thing, except for not having money set aside to cover situations like this.

Let's assume all those computers were 12 years old. Let's assume you'd advocate a 4-year upgrade cycle. They skipped 2 upgrade cycles, and got caught having to do the 3rd one all at once.

Let's assume an upgrade costs $1k - after all, you wanted them to keep their software current as well and that costs money too. For each of those PCs they saved $1k 8 years ago, and $1k 4 years ago.

Let's assume that the business makes a 5% return on capital (if they just put their money in a mutual fund they could make that much - so this is a VERY conservative figure). Plugging that into a TVM calculator tells me that they saved $2692 per PC in TODAY's money deferring those upgrades. Unless they spent more than $2692 per PC as a result of the delay, they saved money.

If your upgrades are more expensive, or if you upgrade more often than 4 years, then the savings is even higher. If the business could have taken advantage of an opportunity by sinking some of that money into capital then they'd make out even better, compared to just having shiny PCs.

Now, the only issue that might apply is that they ended up having a catastrophic failure and suffered downtime, which has a cost of its own. The solution to that isn't to keep upgrading computers under the hope that this will prevent breakdowns (it won't - it just reduces their frequency) - it is to have continuity plans (redundant hardware, backups, etc).

The bottom line is that a PC is capital for a business. It has a return on investment, like any other capital investment. Money spent on that PC is not available to spend on other things. You should spend money on the PC if it has a good ROI, and it is the best investment option available.

If I ran a business I wouldn't be upgrading my PCs all the time either. I'd upgrade them as often as serves a business purpose. If a shiny new PC will make me more productive I'd buy it that afternoon. If it won't, then the money goes into the bank for when I need to replace it. I'd anticipate failures and plan for them.

Re:Price

[Anonymous Coward]

You DO know that "dogmatic" is a bad adjective, right?

# characterized by assertion of unproved or unprovable principles
# of or pertaining to or characteristic of a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative
# relating to or involving dogma; "dogmatic writings"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

That said: Businesses don't care for "morally correct". They care for "what works reliably, verifiably, the way I expect it to".
High-end business-related hardware will be sold by 2-3 companies at most. They've all got DRM. What'll you do? Not use that hardware? Not an option.
High-end specialized software will be sold by 2-3 companies at most. They've all abandoned their old formats. What'll you do? Not use that software? Not an option.
Last point is valid, so long as those programs aren't required to interoperate with other parts of the enviroment and the business owners still have access to all the legacy install disks (both OS and software). And if they need to interact with hardware? You're screwed. You'll STILL need the drivers in the host OS so the VM software can reroute to the legacy OS.

Re:Price

[jabelli]

Story 3: New OS breaks backwards compatibility. Solution? Reinstall the old OS.

Yeah, where do you get a copy of Mac OS 9 to install on your new Intel Mac, or System 7.1 to install on your new PPC Mac? Because that's likely what the newspaper was running, unless the story is talking about ancient Windows 3 machines and XP, before the introduction of Virtual PC. I have a DOS 6.22/Win 3.11 VM created in some older version of VPC that still runs in Windows Virtual PC under Win 7. I should see if I can find my old Photoshop 6 and Microsoft Office 4.3 discs and see if they will work under it. It's likely that they will.

Re:Price

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is, it's a bad idea to just keep running an old system, even if it still works just fine for you. I see this all the time. People calling looking for help because they can't get on their bank's web site anymore. (java out of date, OS issue, NOT browser) Or they bough software that says it can't install. (not enough memory or OS too old) Or they have a special piece of hardware that broke, bought a replacement, and the newer software it came with won't run on their OS.

Your stories don't make your point.
In story 1, old OS didn't support new software, and new software doesn't support old printer. Had he upgraded his computer/OS earlier, it seems pretty likely that the new OS wouldn't support the old software or driver. From your story, we know that the new software doesn't support the old printer, so an earlier upgrade would have meant that the old, perfectly fine printer would have needed to be replaced earlier -- resulting in an unnecessary cost. If he had tried a new upgrade, he'd find it didn't work, and probably would return the new computer and go back to using the old computer and cutter. There are plenty of other examples of peripherals that can't work with modern systems. There are tons of specialized peripheral that were built on ISA/EISA. When was the last time you saw a new computer with an ISA slot? RS-232, bi-directional parallel, and even PCI slots are starting to get rare too. Upgrading an OS or HW means buying a new interface card and possibly a whole new peripheral. With this low-volume, specialized HW, that thousands or tens of thousands of dollars for a upgrade that doesn't have a benefit when the old peripheral works fine. Unless there's mission critical equipment that will cause the loss of even more money during the downtime, running the old equipment is the proper decision. In these situations, it's the peripheral is the special thing and what is making money -- the computer is just there to make it work. Most products have end of life issues. If your refrigerator/washing machine/furnace/car is old and needs a part, it might not be available, and you'll need to get a whole new machine. You could buy a new one every few years to keep current, even if the old one is working fine, but it doesn't make monetary sense unless there is a savings in efficiency, maintenance costs, etc to make up for the expenditure. Home appliances and computers don't need to justify their costs -- aesthetics are enough, but business expenditures should increase income, or you won't be in business long.

In story 2, an earlier upgrade wouldn't have helped. Earlier upgrade would still have required going through the multiple SW versions. At some point, he'd still have to upgrade from floppies onto a system without a floppy drive. What benefit is there in spending the time and money to do that? A new system in a CPU/memory intensive application could decrease processing time, which would allow more work to be done. If that's not the case, why spend the money on a new system isn't going to make more money?

Story 3 is still the same. An earlier upgrade would have required spending the money of new licenses and time importing to be done at an earlier time. Possibly multiple times as multiple upgrades are made. Import/export between versions x and x+1 would have still needed corrections and adjustments, and having systems at multiple versions would mean that you would be repeatedly fixing the same files repeatedly as you went back and forth between them, so everyone has to at least upgrade to x+1. If their hardware didn't support x+1, they'd need to upgrade their computer too. Because of the time value of money, it's better to spend $5k two years from now than to spend it today -- especially with computers, where later computers are going to be more powerful, cheaper, energy efficient, etc. If anything, this story is an argument to go with open source or standards. Changing applications means either retraining productivity loss be

Re:Price

[Anonymous Coward]

Solution 1: Let's assume it's an ATA drive, the kind that's not sold in stores anymore. What'll you do? No external USB drive since this is an old computer, remember. Plus, it assumes the not-tech-focused designer will regularly backup. Doesn't help when the drive's already dead.
Solution 2: Let's hope the company accepts that. We all know how they can be. That said, it's a valid solution.
Solution 3: And if the old OS doesn't work in the new computer? I can't run XP in my computer 'cause ATI doesn't distribute Mobility Radeon 3870 drivers for XP.
Solution 4: Security. Bug fixes. Support for new features. Less nostalgia-filtered glasses and realize that there's no 64-bit version of that old design software that really could use the extra memory. True, not everyone needs to upgrade, but that doesn't mean nobody needs to.

Re:Price

[Zebai]

I don't suppose it ever occurred to them to wipe that one station and load old OS onto it?

Re:Price

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just DRM. Linux is just as bad. I stepped into the IRC #fedora channel on freenode. "I have a Fedora machine that I can't get to play sound. Fedora 10, ISA sound card." Keep in mind that Fedora 10 is maybe 2 years old, not nearly half the age as XP. The response? "Obsolete, you're off topic, we're not going to help you. You need to upgrade." My Windows 2000 machine still plays audio from an ISA sound card fine.

Re:Price

[v1]

I don't suppose it ever occurred to them to wipe that one station and load old OS onto it?

When your hardware is 7-10 yrs old, it usually won't run the old os. as in, even if you try to force it and override its popup complaining about not meeting minimum requirements.

Try to install Windows 3.1 on your new Dell. Or Mac OS 9 on your new iMac. Not happening. Critical firmware / bios support has long since been removed. The installer disc won't even boot, and the OS won't boot even if you transplant the HDD.

Re:Price

[Radtoo]

Computer games loosing "core gameplay concepts" is, I think, due to market demand. No complex games really do well on the market. Probably because the average gamer is, well, average nowadays, and quite probably mainly plays games when he or she is already tired and unwilling to learn.

I'd say the same thing is true for Office and iTunes to some extent. They tried to make them even more, uh, applicable for some audiences who would not be willing or capable of learning more efficient ways to use software. (That they did not necessarily succeed is besides the point, btw).

I think we're seeing lots of companies making trade-off from efficiency during use and features to low learning barriers - it helps companies hire more and cheaper staff without training and it helps gamers "win" even when intellectually inert. The actually added features still are often quite useful, but the dumbing-down is an obstacle to, uh, "enthusiast" users, no matter if it is a computer game or a piece of software meant for work.

Re:Price

[dangitman]

Avoid products and file formats that are not forward and backward compatible between versions.

Good luck with that. If you want new features and functions, eventually you are going to need new file formats to support those features and functions. Maintaining backward compatibility is one thing, but maintaining backward and forward compatibility is going to end up needlessly crippling your capabilities. How is one to predict the future, anyway?

Re:Price

[Anonymous Coward]

All of your stories are examples where customers suffer pain when things change ... and your advice is that they should change things more.
Did it ever occur to you that the reason they don't change and wait so long is that in software, change tends to be punished? If they bought new stuff and upgraded every year, instead of waiting a decade, they'd just get to suffer 9 more times.

Re:Price

[vlueboy]

Moral of the stories: Stay Reasonably Current. Yes, you. Yes, even if it still works fine. Keep your software current. Keep your hardware current. Abandon old technologies and embrace new ones. (floppy->flash, modem->dsl, etc) Or pay the price.

Having worked IT with college students and seeing a couple old companies' hardware, I agree with your post fully. Replying here so I can refer back to it when I need to strengthen my testimony.

I'm a no-upgrade kinda person with 5-to-10 year old computers. The last five years I noticed that eventually some great game or media gets stuck in an unreachable drive and it's emulators or ebay to recover the lost hardware / reader.

A few weeks ago I visited someone after 7 years to check her Windows 98 PC before it gets pushed to low-income relatives in a different country. It was late at night, and by chance I found copies of a few my old MIDI files (c. 1996) and special program had ended up there almost by chance. That was a copy of data long buried in some long-misplaced disk image file or possibly wiped from the 3 or 4 machines I have wiped through the years. The Problem: I could not get the files out since Win98 cannot read today's USB stick... and I had no blank floppies with me that day either.

I'll eventually find some way of getting the MIDI files, but my one chance was gone because standards shifted away from floppies so much that we never carry them in our toolbox anymore.

Re:Price

[Anonymous Coward]

More things he could have done differently:

Not loose the original install disks?

Re:Price

[Anonymous Coward]

Learn to use virtualization for legacy software; it works.

just fyi, you cannot install XP OEM version to virtual machine. MS license does not allow that. you must get RETAIL version

Re:Price

[Tuor]

Price does have a trade off: user productivity.

Some applications, like desktop publishing, graphics, and CAD are still moving fast enough that new hardware and software every few years actually makes enough of an improvement in productivity that it can pay itself back. Someone waiting on a drawing to render on 4 year old hardware is wasting time!

Re:Price

[jackbird]

Documents made in word processors that are 10 years old. Not just text files, they have formatting information in them. Imagine trying to open a Word document in an old version of Notepad. Not pretty.

I run Word 97 (13 years old) alongside the latest Oo.o. I've used it for preformatting book chapters with a publisher's style sheet (digging around in the formatting codes, etc.) before sending to the compositor as recently as last year. As long as I can get .doc from people I have to share with, it works great. I've also had no problem opening WordPerfect and even WordStar files from the 80s and 90s recently. What 10-year old word processor are you talking about?

Re:Price

[gmhowell]

Not a bad analysis, not bad at all. I'd give it a B+. You should have also corrected for the depreciation of the assets, thus lowering the cost of the computers, and I would have presented the TVM values not in today's numbers, but in numbers from when decisions were made to keep on keeping on.

It is this kind of analysis that leaves slashdotters sucking their thumbs in bewilderment in a cube farm while others get out there and make money.

Re:Price

[gmhowell]

It seems he makes his money selling new computers so of course new equipment would be the answer to every problem.

Re:Price

[Kjella]

If I ran a business I wouldn't be upgrading my PCs all the time either. I'd upgrade them as often as serves a business purpose. If a shiny new PC will make me more productive I'd buy it that afternoon. If it won't, then the money goes into the bank for when I need to replace it. I'd anticipate failures and plan for them.

Somehow, I suspect many of the people you are defending here to be on the wrong side of that line. These things get far more visible when you're billing for it, as a consultant I was amazed at how little many companies want to invest in hardware or software that'd make me finish faster and bill less but rather let me sit there fiddling with it at $200/hour even after I've told them. Simple things like say arranging a training session for half a dozen people became a huge undertaking with meetings and back and forth with IT because there was only two network jacks and nobody could simply go and buy a damn 8-port network hub at the nearest computer store. Somewhere around 2007 I was stuck on a Windows NT machine that I spent ages going back and forth about software and when I finally found the way to use it I spent half my time waiting for it to respond.

These people here obviously had smaller shops so hopefully bureaucracy wasn't the problem, but most people don't value time properly. If you're spending too much time fiddling with something that you might possibly fix but know that for $x dollars you can get something that almost certainly works, go buy it. It's not a failing of your geek-fu. That is also why most companies reimage computers rather than try saving them. Not because you couldn't, but because it's not worth the time. Most likely they could have gotten rid of some of these time thieves with faster computers, better software with more bug fixes, compatibility with everything people send you, all sorts of little things that add up on you. Hard to measure, but very often using your 1990s box costs you too many such one minute here and one minute there.

I think the worst case I had was a box that kept on crashing even though I had run almost any test and measured everything that could be measured. After trying to replace several parts - each was its own round of taking it apart and putting it together only to use it for some hours and have it crash and take down everything I was doing again I just said "screw this" and bought a completely new computer even though the one I had was powerful enough and let the old live out its days as a light Linux server - which apparently didn't trigger the crashes. Waste of good money? Maybe. But it had certainly been a solid waste of good time and I wasn't about to throw more time into it. At least some things you could constantly save in anticipation of a crash but trying to play Guild Wars online was hopeless. Twenty minutes into a raid, poof goes the healer as his machine bluescreened. It's a wonder than computer wasn't thrown out the window and beat to death with a sledgehammer.

Re:Price

[mgkimsal2]

People calling looking for help because they can't get on their bank's web site anymore. (java out of date, OS issue, NOT browser) Or they bough software that says it can't install. (not enough memory or OS too old) Or they have a special piece of hardware that broke, bought a replacement, and the newer software it came with won't run on their OS.

Well, at that point, it's not really a case of "it still works fine" - it's demonstrably broken. In many cases there may be workarounds, but it's just the start of a continual exercise in finding workarounds as time marches on.

Re:Price

[anomalous3]

Learn to use virtualization for legacy software; it works.

Amen to this! Got Quest for Glory 1 (obviously not important commercial software, but still) running on windows 7 using a virtual XP box in DOS compatibility mode.

Re:Price

[maxwells_deamon]

I know it has its limits but a bridge for some people is XP Mode. Of course I have seen software and hardware that was unable to handle XP SP2

Re:Price

[Anonymous Coward]

Story 1 moral? You need someone with real coding/hardware skills. Someone who could crack open 10-years-old software DRM.

Re:Price

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, story 1 was more due to the owner having lost the original disks - and the draconian DRM and fuck-you-customer-just-pay-more attitude which people mysteriously put up with than anything else.

Story 2 sounds like the guy could probably happily get something useable to replace his aging software without too much hassle (i.e. a newer install-version of what he's using now).

Story 3 is the big one, which speaks more about the industry than it does the newspaper example - it changes very, very fast and top-line machines one year start to get a bit of a liability further on down...and the software is unable to work on newer hardware because the software is built around an OS which is built around the hardware - i.e. planned obsolescence, the bane of modern civilisation.

Story 4 just goes to show that much modern software isn't so dramatically excellent as the vendors tell you it is. Why they couldn't just purchase newer machines and ghost over the old software onto VM's and run it that way I don't know...of course that requires somebody who knows about these tv typewriter things that crop up often in offices and sit maliciously humming away to themselves.

The moral of the story is be kind to your office geek/it guru and listen when he tells you he needs something you don't understand.

Re:Price

[Shompol]

Story 1: and how exactly would frequent upgrades benefit her? A simple HD backup would put off the need for new expenses for a few more years. Yes, ancient hardware dependency is like that, I've heard of NASA having to dig through discarded electronics to replace a failed board, because those were not manufactured anymore.

Re:Price

[oh_my_080980980]

EXACTLY!

Re:Price

[oh_my_080980980]

Or pay the price for listening to idiots who don't know what they are talking about and live with their parents so that can have a seemingly endless amount of money to continue to buy the latest shiny new toy!

Nice job zippy.

Bet you bought a first generation blu-ray player or 720p HD TV....

Re:Price

[Rich0]

Thanks - NPV calcs drive me insane at work, and sometimes they can be really distorted (usually due to artificial constraints on what doesn't get included to support the latest management fad). However, ultimately they make sense...

Re:Price

[Rich0]

Absolutely, and in a field where this is a concern I'd be buying new PCs every six months if the performance gains outpaced the depreciation (and the overhead and learning curve from all the switching around).

My point is that the decision to buy PCs should be a rational one based on ROI. Pay-me-now-or-pay-me-later isn't a bad thing if the amounts in now or later are the same (which in time-adjusted money is less in the future).

Re:Price

[Anonymous Coward]

My guess on the DRM/1st story is that it was designed to prevent more than 1 PC from running the software (eg you know small shops who use the same license on all their machines.) That software could very well have been any version of Adobe Photoshop, which does the same. Your drive dies, you can't deactivate it. When you goto activate it on the new drive 'Sorry, this license has already been used' .

That said, the owner of the printer probably didn't try everything needed, my guess is that the software was probably "acquired" in a takeover/merger and trying to find someone who knows how to migrate the software no longer works there, so they told him that it was unsupported and had to buy new software.

Re:Price

[Anonymous Coward]

The conclusions drawn from these stories does not match the cases you present.

Story 1. The mistake WASNT not upgrading, it was not backing up. the software and hardware was perfectly adequate to task, and had the computer been backed up no expensive upgrade would have been necessary. Actually, if there is no backup in place with the new machine, he's just as vulnerable now.

Story 2. Again, the mistake is not in replacing equipment or software, but not having the means of restoral. Is it really so hard to copy the floppies onto a CD, or USB key, while you still can? naturally, having a backup would have obviated the necessity for this, but I digress.

Story 3. The penny pinching editor is not too bright, and in a knee jerk reaction started throwing money at the problem. I presume he had help driving him to buy stuff without reading any of the product specs; once the versioning incompatibility was understood (both Quark and Adobe have been doing this shit for years) it would have been FAR more cost effective to do a cloned restoral or conversion to a virtual machine; it would have kept the software environment intact and allow portability to modern hardware- sustainable indefinitely, and allow a migration to a newer environment at the editor's leisure and not as an emergency measure.

Story 4. This problem is not due to not having upgraded; it would be a problem whenever upgrading and is likely a big cause for people to procrastinate. Simple fact is that moving data is largely painless as the great majority of people utilize files that are generic in nature (office documents or media files.) As long as customers depend on third party consultants that convince them that this procedure is "slow, unreliable, and sometimes there's just no option if the software is uncommon" would understandably avoid upgrading anything in the first place.

Conclusion- staying current is NOT the moral of these stories. The moral of the stories is HAVE A BACKUP AND RECOVERY STRATEGY.

Re:Price

[downhole]

Especially with respect to point 1, there's lots of fields where various specialized hardware provides such a large competitive advantage that it's nearly impossible to stay in business without using it. Such specialized hardware and controlling software is usually made by 2-5 companies, all of which use lots of DRM. Writing your own stuff is impossibly expensive, and there will never be an open source version. So there's no choice but to use it and pay the price.

Re:Price

[QuantumBeep]

He gave four examples. We are meant to assume there are MORE examples. As someone who is a "computer person" (like damn near everyone else around here), I can tell you that I have more than four examples. I might have four hundred examples if I go dig through my file cabinets.

If your computer is more than five years old, you will not be able to use all new hardware and software, and you won't be able to fully participate in the internet. There's nothing fringe about that.

Re:Price

[bell.colin]

I've never understood the need for DRM for huge pieces of Hardware, It's not like you can upload a 300lb printer to piratebay and run it through bit-torrent and the software is useless without the hardware.

I had to deal with a driver for a braille machine once. The damn license came on a proprietary formatted floppy (no file system that could be recognized by any OS) In order to move the hardware (or even use it on any machine) it had to run through the transfer wizard to copy the license to/from the floppy through a special program, The thing cost a few thousand $ a license. Are the blind really big software pirates or something?

Why do some extreme niche products where it is not likely to get pirate have some of the most complicated DRM there is?

I can see why there is some legitimate software pirating. (It saves headaches)

Re:Price

[Anonymous Coward]

Just buy a cheap USB ATA enclosure and borrow the old computer's hard drive. All of the old MS filesystems are still readable and even in use, so copying it to a current computer will be no problem. That way you don't need to deal with transferring data directly from a (possibly flaky) old Windows 98 box.

Re:Price

[jav1231]

But Snow Leopard was only $29 for Leopard users when it first came out (temp price, yes). MS did the same thing at $49. They just seem to want you to pay twice as much....and more.

Good Enough

[canajin56]

My Laptop came with Windows 7. I like it. Eye candy is neat, but hardly a deciding factor. I could put Windows 7 on my desktop, too, but why bother with the hassle? For the eyecandy? For the...what else is new? Oh, right, the spotlight clone search thingy. That's pretty cool I guess. Still not worth the effort to reinstall all of my software.

Re:Good Enough

[taxman_10m]

What if your laptop/desktop came with Vista, would you upgrade to 7?

Re:Good Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

I would (and did) downgrade to XP.

Re:Good Enough

[socsoc]

I'd throw it in the trash.

Re:Good Enough

[hjf]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_7

if you're upgrading from XP, you also get these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista

Vista/7 have LOTS of new stuff under the hood. It's not just the eye candy.

Re:Good Enough

[canajin56]

I skipped Vista entirely due to all of the bad press. If it had come with Vista I would have replaced it with XP.

Re:Good Enough

[Pentium100]

Reinstalling Windows is a huge hassle, at least for me. Over the years of using this installation, I have installed a lot of small programs, made some tweaks etc. Now if I reinstall Windows, on top of the fact that Win7 UI is different from XP (a thing that I would attempt to correct), I will need to install all my programs and do the tweaks all over again, with the added bonus that Win7 will probably require different tweaks.

Actually, reinstalling Windows is such a huge hassle to me that I'm considering buying a DRAM based SSD (Gigabyte iRAM Box) and putting the pagefile there, instead of installing 64bit version of Windows XP or 2003 or 7.

Re:Good Enough

[AnonymousClown]

My wife's laptop came with Vista and it works well. I don't see what the big fuss is.

Re:Good Enough

[Bert64]

MS has long been way behind when it comes to eyecandy... I ran enlightenment on my p100 in the late 90s and it looked prettier than windows ever has, but i soon found out that i actually preferred a simple, lightweight unintrusive window manager. All the fancy graphics just serve to increase confusion and reduce performance.

Re:Good Enough

[demonlapin]

When it came out, manufacturers were putting out underspec'd machines with buggy drivers shoehorned in. If you got a machine that was designed for Vista, instead of XP, you probably have had a good experience. I certainly did on the one machine I've had that ran Vista.

Re:Good Enough

[Joce640k]

It was half-finished and rushed-out-for-Xmas. Lots of wrinkles still needed ironing out. eg. google for "vista slow file copy"

Re:Good Enough

[kimvette]

Compare a machine running Vista to one running either XP or Win7 and you'll understand.

You can optimize Vista to be less of a RAM and CPU hog, but you need to turn off all the toys, and you'll have to patch it to fix that stupid DRM bug where if you are playing audio with Microsoft's programs, network throughput slows down by 90%. You need to turn UAC completely off because not only is it so obnoxious it can make the PC unbearable to use, but locks you completely out of certain configuration dialogs (the linkbuttons in some of the forms(dialog screens) don't work if you are not admin and UAC isn't turned off.

Contrast that to Windows 7; with the toys turned off it is as fast as XP. With all the toys turned on, with Aero fully enabled, etc. it's much faster than Vista, and still feels as responsive as XP UAC is actually not annoying in Windows 7, and it actually seems to protect the system better. Even with UAC enabled and running as a normal user, it is easy to configure "old and busted" apps which require Admin access to run with the required privileges, and there aren't any linkbuttons UAC completely disables. UAC is implemented a lot more intelligently than on Vista. It still isn't Mac OS X nor is it Linux (it's hard to beat OS X or YaST asking for the password once when required, and then remembering that password for a few minutes during the current session - and it is not a recent development on either *nix-type OS) but Windows 7 (and by extension Win2K8/2K8r2) was a tremendous improvement over any previous Windows release by practically any measure.

But, is Windows XP good enough? Is Windows 7's improvement alone worth the investment? It is doubtful. Even as much as Windows 7 has improved security, it is still very susceptible to viruses and malware. It is far too easy for user/social engineering to trick the typical Windows user into installing a trojan horse. You still need to slow down your new shiny with antivirus, antispyware, and other security software - at which point you may as well stick with your Pentium D or Core 2 which came with XP preinstalled until the PC gives up the magic blue smoke.

Re:Good Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

There is really only 1 major difference between 7 and Vista. Do you know what it is? 7 is slower. Yep that's it. They stuffed in some more crap and astroturffed the hell out of the web (they literally spent millions on this part).

Anyway...I've got Vista as my main gaming rig and it gets, on average, about 5fps more than 7. The computer i have 7 on is usually booted into XP, which can beat both Vista and 7 at 32bit speed.

Re:Good Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Mostly it's just MS obfusticating their usable interface, and removing the option for it to work the old way.

It's nearly unusable.

Re:Good Enough

[Penguinisto]

The vast majority of those features can be summed up in one sentence from the user POV: "They moved stuff around".

To be fair, from a technical standpoint, yeah, they overhauled it pretty good. On the other hand, the typical user isn't going to care - all they know is that it has eye-candy, some nice widgets, and, well... they moved stuff around.

With Windows 95, 98, and 2000, and even XP, users saw substantial changes (and saw them to be useful). With Vista and 7, users aren't going to see a whole lot that has changed 'under-the-hood' in a way that's apparent and useful to them.

In fact, they're going to see some things that are wrong in their eyes - mostly having to do with application compatibility - users still want to use their old stuff. For instance, try and play Quake III on Windows 7... not going to happen very well (depending on hardware). Being told "Use XP Mode" isn't going to help - they'll likely say 'screw it' and just use the real thing... Windows XP.

Now IMHO, props to Microsoft for at least partially cutting the cord and all WRT legacy apps, but the user isn't going to see it that way.

Re:Good Enough

[tuppe666]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_7

if you're upgrading from XP, you also get these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista

Vista/7 have LOTS of new stuff under the hood. It's not just the eye candy.

You should take a good hard look at those links. First impression it looks like loads of new stuff. Now if you remove all the Microsoft Applications that have been backported to XP; Remove all the stuff that has Free/FOSS/Cloud Stuff equivalents that are superior; small eye candy improvements; Performance stuff *cough* because its slower; Compatibility stuff for prior versions of Windows. There is nothing left!!

Re:Good Enough

[tepples]

I'm considering buying a DRAM based SSD (Gigabyte iRAM Box) and putting the pagefile there

What's the advantage of an SDRAM SSD over just putting DDR* sticks on your motherboard and just not using a pagefile?

Re:Good Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Before upgrading, it's helpful to look at what's been removed too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_features_removed_in_Windows_Vista

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_removed_from_Windows_7

Re:Good Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

> Vista/7 have LOTS of new stuff under the hood. It's not just the eye candy.

Some features have been removed that I use, some features have been added that I don't need and really noticeable is only the new eye candy.
As a developer the bad thing is the extra work that goes into Win 7 compatibility, the good thing is Windows is becoming more like Unix.

I had Win XP and Win7 for sitting next to each other on my desk for about a month.

Re:Good Enough

[nerdonamotorcycle]

Does anyone remember asking for most of this stuff? Because I sure didn't. I think the major "feature" of Vista and W7 is that they removed the Playskool "My First Computer" window-dressing they used in XP. That stuff was just tacky.

At least with previous versions of Windows, upgrading added significant functionality. 3.1 -> 95 got you a whole new user interface, and removed the clunkiness, for the most part, of having to work with DOS directly. 95 -> 98 got you FAT32, which allowed you to use bigger hard drives, and USB support, both of which were missing from most versions of 95. 98 -> XP got you CD burning native to the OS, plus it got you off the 16-bit code base, adding stability. XP -> Vista or W7 doesn't get you anything on that level. I think probably the biggest advantage is that with 64-bit versions of Vista or W7 you're able to use more than 4GB of RAM but how many computers ship with that configuration right now? (Yes, I'm aware there was a 64-bit version of XP, but it was largely ignored by both computer manufacturers and the public.)

Re:Good Enough

[PinkyGigglebrain]

If someone doesn't like the way the car looks they are unlikely to give a damn about whats under the hood.

Re:Good Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Vista/7 have LOTS of new stuff under the hood. It's not just the eye candy.

Aaaaand none of those changes are relevant to anyone. 50% of that WAS eyecandy, another 49% was over simplification, and the remaining 1% was Direct X. DX11 is the ONLY reason anyone should ever upgrade to w7.

Re:Good Enough

[jeremiahstanley]

Wow, and to think when I upgrade Mac OS X it only cost me $30 and already had that shit...

Vista cost something near $300, and 7 is around $200. For... larger icons... and fancy graphics. The problems with Windows for most consumers is the constant update treadmill. Most support calls I get from my family have to do with their anti-virus software that has it's own grinding death march of updates as well. MS Office is terrible for this even on the Mac, if the 2000 version for Windows had a citation manager I'd still be using that. Adobe does the same, yet their software is capable of running just fine for years w/o an update performed (in fact, it is more stable if you is the pirated versions).

Which makes me wonder: why does an office suite take a gig of RAM to run? Didn't we run old ones off of floppies? I mean, really, Google Docs does 99% of what Office does and it runs in a web browser.

Once you start USING a computer for something instead of having a digital hot-rod on your desk you grow weary of the upgrade grind. Nobody gets excited about a new washer/dryer like how people froth about new MS releases.

Re:Good Enough

[laffer1]

This isn't accurate. Windows 7 did not include features present in Windows Vista Ultimate edition such as an email program, some games, and other little applications. Most people don't care anymore about real email applications aside from me, but you can't use the Vista feature list this way. It's not accurate.

Windows 7 is stripped down Vista with some bug fixes and a UI change. As odd as it sounds, I prefer Vista to Windows 7 because I think they made navigating to applications even slower than before. The one that gets me is the power management options. In Vista, I can select all 3 power modes (high performance, balance or power saver) from the popup menu. In windows 7 it only shows me two of the three. I always like to go between power saver and high performance on my laptop when needed. Now I have to navigate several screens just to change a power setting! Windows 7 is not easier to use. It just hides everything.

Re:Good Enough

[asylumx]

Yes, of course. After all, Windows 7 was *my* idea...

Re:Good Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

The biggest roadblock to moving to Win 7 for me is the lack of driver support for most common hardware. I have already had to give up on a readily available USB video capture device that works fine in XP, a colleague has had to return a number of TV tuner cards that similarly are unsupported. When I contacted the manufacturer about Win 7 support for the video capture device they indicated there was to be no change to this situation. This is a real showstopper for almost anybody with anything but the latest hardware and even then, only if you are lucky.

Re:Good Enough

[jmottram08]

So what you mean to say is that MS has really been ahead when it comes to eyecandy?

Re:Good Enough

[Vectormatic]

i built my GF a new machine early last year, quad core AMD (phenom II), 8gb of ram etc.. this was before 7 launched, and since she had vista on her old machine (shitty laptop), she insisted on having it on the new one. Once i got everything up and running, that vista machine was noticably slower then my own dual core running windows 7 beta..

Sure if you have no frame of reference vista might be OK, but if you have ever seen anything else running on comparable hardware...

Re:Good Enough

[xtracto]

Hehe... I had the same impression after reading (yeah, all of the text, I am bored at work) the two links provided by GP.

The reality is that the sum of Vista and XP "new features" are worth at most an "upgrade" price (say, $30 like OSX) and not the $70 to $200 that is currently selling at.

You have a bunch of shitty new themes, fonts, etc. As GP said, stuff has been moved around (re-sorted for "better" access... which mainly pisses of users who knew their clickway through) and mainly attaching the ribbon to the small number of apps that come included (like paint and wordpad).

After seeing the new features, it is confirmed to me that it is OK to stay with XP unless you have an SSD or more than 4GB in RAM...

Re:Good Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft kinda screwed up with XP mode though, the XP mode doesn't support Direct3D (VMWare however does.)

Re:Good Enough

[hjf]

That's a problem with the manufacturer, actually. Most of them just don't care to make drivers for old stuff. Instead they just want you to buy new hardware.

What other reason would you have to change that VGA webcam? Only recently Logitech has started to offer "HD 720p" webcams (one has to wonder why, as most connections out there can't handle a live stream of 720p video at a decent framerate). And even if they do, honestly, other than the perverts at Chatroulette, who the hell uses webcams anyway?

No wonder they want to lease out software

[Pezbian]

"Windows XP had too much staying power. Fifty percent parket share after ten years is too much."
"That's a good thing, sir. It made us a boatload of money."
"Yes, but only once."

It's nice being able to go to a secondhand store or a university dumpster sale and pick up an XP Pro license for $5 with a free computer.

Re:No wonder they want to lease out software

[JackSpratts]

so true. i pick up 4-5 yo 3 gig p4s for twenty bucks or less at tag sales. that seems to be the going rate (craigslist is a ripoff). the dells with the ghost partition are the easiest. 5 mins and you're back to factory xp settings. then two sticks of mem if you like, sp3 and k-lite and it's basically up to the minute for anything but gaming. it really is a huge change from a decade ago when boxes were underwhelming soon after purchase.

I still use XP

[argStyopa]

I still use xp.

Everything I've seen suggests that Win7 is a better OS - stability, security, etc.
However we have 6 computers in the house. Two are 3.0+ GHz dual+ CPUs with 4 gigs of RAM; those are the only two that I suspect would run it well. The other 4 range from 2.7 GHz 4 gig RAM (my older gaming rig, that probably could run it) down to a 1 GHz Athlon with 1 gig of RAM.

XP runs "well enough" for everything we want/need to do. I'm uninterested in climbing another learning curve so I can admin 2 different OS's in my house. I'm uninterested in buying new hardware just to all run Win7. I'm uninterested in buying 6 licenses of Win7.

So....no Win7 here, although I readily agree it would probably be a better system on the hardware that could run it. Sorry Microsoft.

Re:I still use XP

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL "buy".

Re:I still use XP

[MoeDrippins]

I understand your point here, but "buying new hardware to run Win 7" is only half the battle; the other half is "buying win 7 so my new hardware [drivers] will work". I've had a number of new peripherals; which really are commodities these days; that don't provide XP drivers or anything that will run on XP. It's a sad state of affairs, truly.

For what it's worth, I haven't found Win 7 to be any better than XP in terms of stability. It's no worse in that regard, although the user experience is some better. The learning curve isn't something that should throw you if you've already enough knowledge to admin XP.

Re:I still use XP

[falcon_dark]

Wow! Six home computers with Windows XP? I'm sorry for you man...

Re:I still use XP

[Anonymous Coward]

[Citation Needed] It would be suicide for a peripheral company to not support WinXP. Cut out almost 50% of Windows users? LOL! Lets admit it. MS did something incredibly right with WinXP, where they combined the amazing architecture of Win2000 with the ease of use learned from Win95-98. WinXP does what it does well. Vista and Win7 feel contrived like they tried to do everything and ended not doing any one thing well.

Re:I still use XP

[fermion]

I went ahead and upgraded to MS Windows 7 on my macbook for some work I was doing this summer. My XP Partition was dead, so I thought I would just buy a 7 upgrade, load it, and everything would be happy. Of course 7 won't upgrade with just the presence of licensed disk, so I had to reinstall lots of stuff, and, suffice it say that the upgrade was not such a bargain. It is in the ilk of 'Linux is free only if your time is free.'

I suspect cost is a major issue in upgrade. Many computers I use still run XP because the cost of the actual upgrade would be monumental, mostly due to the licensing requirements of MS. We probably have the actual licenses, but how do we get MS to accept them. I once spent a day convincing MS genuine advantage that my duly paid for licenses were valid, and my time is not free.

In specific response to the parent, actually licensing costs are not trivial, and not geared toward the home user. It would be one thing in MS sold a home premium 5 pack for $200, but for six computers they want $800 for a stripped down OS. One reason upgrading my macs are a no brainer is that for $100 I can get a five license pack.

Windows 7 is good, and it is a indication of the incompetence of MS that everyone is not using it. I have used it off and for a few months, and have had real issues. The problem is that MS has turned into a boutique outfit, selling only to the chosen few.

Re:I still use XP

[Anonymous Coward]

My XP Partition was dead, so I thought I would just buy a 7 upgrade, load it, and everything would be happy.

That is your first mistake. Never upgrade a Windows operating system.

Re:I still use XP

[Anonymous Coward]

My household has been "mostly" Linux (my doing), but with my wife attending school for network & database security, she needed a new laptop and it came with Win 7. Nice eye candy. Killer hardware under the hood. From what I've heard, Win 7 is so locked down with encryption and drm, it has to have the muscle to perform at a half decent rate.

Meanwhile, all the other computers in the house are working beautifully with Linux and XP on hardware that's much less powerful. As anyone with any experience will tell you, (car analogy coming) the lighter the car, the less engine you need to go fast. If the OS is a slow, bloated piece of crap, (or doing things you're not supposed to know about*) you'll need some beastly hardware to run your apps at a decent speed. Thus, the requirements for Vista/Win 7.

*No, I'm not being paranoid. I've actually looked up the "hidden" directories and data that were "almost" impossible to reach. That was in XP. I wonder what Win 7 is hiding, and if anyone will ever know.

Re:I still use XP

[PinkyGigglebrain]

You kind of missed his point about the learning curve. Its not that it would throw him, it was that he didn't want to if he didn't need to.

_

Re:I still use XP

[cbhacking]

The Athlon is the only thing on that list that would even struggle, and even it would technically run Win7. (It meets the minimum specs, which are always a little overstated.) Seriously, Win7 runs just fine on netbooks with 1.6GHz single-core Atoms and 1GB of RAM. A 1GHz Athlon isn't going to be much slower than that. 2.7GHz and 4GB of RAM is vastly overkill to just run the OS and everyday apps, no "probably" about it; my work laptop/tablet is 1.2 GHz (Core2Duo ULV) with 4GB and runs Win7, Visual Studio, Outlook, several instances of Word, and a bunch of internal tools all at once just fine.

Re:I still use XP

[symbolset]

And then there's buying all new software. After ten years of XP some of us have quite a collection. In some cases the software investment is several times the cost of replacing the PC, the OS, all the peripherals and so on. Sure, almost all good software vendors have versions compatible with Windows 7, but they work different and they're not giving them away for free.

Re:I still use XP

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I have come across 1 piece of software out of my hundreds of bits of software that did not run on win7 64 bit. These run the gamaut of 'win 95 software' to finished last week.

Out of those hundreds of bits and bobs of software 3 or so needed to be put into compatibility mode.

Goto the black viper site and turn off all the junk services win7 turns on and win7 is just as fast as xp.

I am glad XP still works for you. I still use it too on a few computers. But 'my library will not port' is hogwash. For the 4 or so bits of software that did not work well I have been using virtualbox. But VMWARE or Microsofts built in one would work just as well. As my computers die I replace them with win7 64 bit.

The biggest hurdle with win7 is the gui change. As MS (as they usually do) rearranged everything. However, they also made many more things more accessible from the command prompt. In many ways it is better. In many ways it is worse.

The biggest thing I have run into is software that does not like running on more than one core because they have timing issues. That is no fault of Microsoft or windows. Put the same software on XP and it would act flaky there too.

Overall not something to get in a twist about. As I buy my computers to run software not OS's. If MS came out with an OS and say 90% of the prev gen software didnt run at all they would be in trouble. They almost pulled that off with vista. It wasnt until sp1 that they straightened that mess out. Which a couple of my computers are running as well.

Re:I still use XP

[Nysul]

"For what it's worth, I haven't found Win 7 to be any better than XP in terms of stability." Using windows 7, ctrl+alt+delete is always instantaneous, can always get you out of a problem program, and most of the time task manager can kill it. I've never had a program bring down the system. This is far better than the way XP handles it.

Re:I still use XP

[aztracker1]

I have yet to see a machine with >= 2GB of ram that didn't run Win7 at least as well as XP... drivers for video is a different story... check that there are Aero drivers for the video card first... But even the old 2.8Ghz Pentium 4 at my grandmother's is running Win7 (had to upgrade the old 440MX videocard... $40 6000 series nVidia fixed that (last year)... of course upping to 2GB of ram is the other big factor. Even netbooks don't run win7 well with 1GB of ram...

Re:I still use XP

[Anonymous Coward]

The Athlon is the only thing on that list that would even struggle, and even it would technically run Win7. (It meets the minimum specs, which are always a little overstated.) Seriously, Win7 runs just fine on netbooks with 1.6GHz single-core Atoms and 1GB of RAM. A 1GHz Athlon isn't going to be much slower than that. 2.7GHz and 4GB of RAM is vastly overkill to just run the OS and everyday apps, no "probably" about it; my work laptop/tablet is 1.2 GHz (Core2Duo ULV) with 4GB and runs Win7, Visual Studio, Outlook, several instances of Word, and a bunch of internal tools all at once just fine.

I beg to differ, seriously, Win7 is too slow for my Acer Netbook. I'm sure Windows XP will run just fine on it.

Re:I still use XP

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, Win7 runs just fine on netbooks with 1.6GHz single-core Atoms and 1GB of RAM.

Seriously, fuck you. I installed Win7 on an Eee 900 for Netflix, and it has been simply awful. It is slow to start and to shut down, hibernation is impossible, freecell barely runs, more than a few tabs open in any browser is asking for trouble, and switching applications always seems to be like changing into the wrong gear. Linux runs wonderfully, and the on the cold day in hell when Netflix supports it, this will be the last Windows computer I use. I'm going to have to figure out how to put XP on this thing, though -- Windows 7 is more secure, but it's nearly inoperable.

Re:I still use XP

[Anonymous Coward]

I was unsure of whether I wanted to upgrade my XP work computer to Windows 7...having experienced Vista at home. However I went ahead. Then my RAM failed and was down to one gig, and thought ah hell...this is gonna suck. But you know what, WIndows 7 is efficient, and was responsive over the last couple of weeks, even with a ton of app open (Adobe Photoshop, Office, etc.).

Honestly, I did't expect to be pleased, but I am...except I won;t buy it for my home laptop because I don;t want to fish the extra dough out.

Re:I still use XP

[mjwx]

Seriously, Win7 runs just fine on netbooks with 1.6GHz single-core Atoms and 1GB of RAM.

You've never actually used Win7 on a netbook, slow as a double amputee retarded kid stuck in quicksand. Hell, I've got a C2D E6600, 4 GB of RAM and Win7 struggles at times. Cant have too many FFX windows open as well as a virtual machine. Strange thing is the machine was fine doing the same thing under XP until the orders came down from up high that we were moving to Win7. It may be better then Vista, well it is but that's like telling me it's better then syphilis.

Re:I still use XP

[Yvanhoe]

Actually I am angry that I had to switch from Windows 2000 when they stopped to support some hardware.

Re:I still use XP

[cbhacking]

Um... I just got back from a couple months of travelling with my father. The main computer we had, used for everything from handling photos to gaming (older games but still gaming) was his Dell netbook with the specs I mentioned, running OEM Windows 7 (it came with Starter, I brought a key and in-place upgraded it to Ultimate).

My biggest complaint was the low screen real estate (some games wouldn't run, and working with high-res photos on such a tiny screen is painful) and slightly cramped / very non-ergo keyboard+touchpad (lots of email, in Outlook for good measure). Occasionally Alt+Tab would cause a brief hit on the hard disk for some paged-out memory, but most of the time it was fine. Waking from Sleep was instant-on, programs opened quickly, and we had enough apps open that the taskbar got crowded.

Was it as fast as my home boxes? No, especially at gaming (integrated graphics didn't help). Did it work just fine as a travel computer, despite doing things like editing photos and web pages (our site pre-dated most blogging)? Yep. Were any of my complaints due to the OS (other than the hassle of Starter)? Not at all, and I suspect XP would have been more annoying (no instant search!)

Re:I still use XP

[qazadex]

I've got a laptop with a 1.2 GHz single core and it runs Windows 7 better than it ever ran XP. 1 gigabyte of RAM, integrated Intel chipset. Sure, I can't run transparency, but it runs absolutely fine for wordprocessing and other basic software with no lag.

Re:I still use XP

[Fumus]

I've had a number of new peripherals; which really are commodities these days; that don't provide XP drivers or anything that will run on XP. It's a sad state of affairs, truly.

I have experienced the opposite. My 3-4 year old NoName Chinese "iPond MP4" player which I bought from a friend for $5 had no software included, yet WinXP easily recognised it as an USB drive and I could put music in it.

Unfortunately, after upgrading to Vista I found out that there is no way possible to use it any more. For Vista it was unrecognised hardware and that's it. No drivers to be found as I have no idea what is it called because it is a cheap clone of a cheap clone of an iPod. I even tried using VMware and VirtualBox, but because Vista does not recognise the hardware, it is not shown in the virtual OS of WinXP.

Re:I still use XP

[xtracto]

It's no worse in that regard, although the user experience is some better.

I don't know about the user experience. The non-computer experts I support feel that XP is more user friendly mainly because it is as a "second nature" to them at last! after 10 years of battling against the XP interface, they already know how things work and where to find stuff.

After trying Win7 they tend to ask me to change to Windows XP, mainly because in Seven everything is "hidden" "out of place".

yeah, you guessed these are mainly "grumpy old guys".

My suggestion is to stay with a well configured XP until you get a new computer. And even then, if you feel Seven is odd, just install XP if you have less than 4GB of memory (you could still use XP64..) and lack of SSD.

Re:I still use XP

[LinuxIsGarbage]

You can perform a clean install with an upgrade disc: http://forums.mydigitallife.info/threads/21142

I think it's ridiculous that you have to do such a workaround, none the less it's an option for people replacing drives, etc but are otherwise licensed (like yourself, having a qualifying version of XP for the upgrade).

There's a good deal for students looking for cheap Win7 licences. http://forums.mydigitallife.info/threads/21142

Re:I still use XP

[LinuxIsGarbage]

Atoms clock poorly in performance / clock. The 1Ghz Athlon very well could be as fast as the Atom.

There's no "THE" reason

[arth1]

There are many reasons why people stick with XP.

One is that they have a perfectly good machine that's overkill for what they use it for, but that doesn't meet the requirements for Windows 7.
Another is that they have so many programs installed that it's a major task to upgrade. Especially these days when many programs are bought online and uses DRM -- you may not even be allowed to reinstall under a new OS without re-purchasing.
There's probably a few disillusioned Vista users who (IMO rightly) don't believe the street hype and won't rush into installing what could have been released as Vista SP2.
Then there are those who don't feel like paying big bucks for the upgrade when it's not needed to run the programs they use.
Then there's a small amount of users who have figured out that XP is faster for their use, if nothing else because it uses less memory.
And let's not forget the large amount of users who wouldn't dare upgrade an OS at all, but use whatever the manufacturer put on their machine. They'll get a new OS when they buy a new machine, and in this economy, that might not be now.

In any case, this is Slashdot and a car analogy is in order. Just because a new model has come out doesn't mean that everybody with older cars will switch. Expecting that is silly.

Re:There's no "THE" reason

[wwphx]

Having been a Microsoft user for over 25 years, I switched from XP to a MacBook Pro 3.5 years ago for personal work. I have a VM for running Windows for two programs: Access and SQL Server. Well, I might install some old games if they work (Outlaws, Dungeon Keeper, some old stuff like that). I might have to buy a copy of Win 7 for one reason: remote support of my dad. He's running 7 now, and I can't remote to him. I probably could with something like GoToMyPC, but I'd rather spend $100 one time than $30 a month on their stuff. I tried to get him to switch to a Mac when he bought his latest POS, but he was daunted by the price. I guess if I ever get another high-paying job I'll just buy one for him.

My only other use for Windows is downloading programs from my Tivo, as I haven't bothered buying Nero Pro, or whatever the program is that they want you to buy to be able to download them to a Mac. I've been extremely happy with the quality of the hardware and software, the only time I've reinstalled the OS has been when I upgraded the hard drive and that drive failed (as did its replacement, it made for a fun couple of months when you're 500 miles from the store in the middle of the biggest winter in 20 years). Apple's new OS versions have been totally painless, and their backups are wonderful.

At work, they're probably 90%+ XP (100% MS and Dell), but new computers are coming in with 7 and they're having lots of problems with drivers. Fortunately I telecommute, so I don't have to hear about most of it.

Re:There's no "THE" reason

[cheekyjohnson]

Another reason is because Windows 7 doesn't really add any groundbreaking features that make it 'crucial' or highly beneficial for you to upgrade, just some pretty small ones.

Re:There's no "THE" reason

[hedwards]

Windows 7 supports RDP version 7. I'm a bit fuzzy on the details, but you should be able to just install a compatible RDP application rather than having to buy a copy of Windows 7.

Re:There's no "THE" reason

[Alpha Whisky]

Sounds like you want logmein free, works great on Windows 7 and XP. You might want to disable the mirror driver in Windows 7 or Vista if it causes you to lose Aero effects.

If I recall correctly one of the optional updates for XP is the updated client for the more recent RDP server in Windows 7.

Re:There's no "THE" reason

[WillyWanker]

I think this pretty much covers it. Older hardware and/or peripherals that aren't fully compatible with Windows 7, older software that's either not compatible or transferable, and of course the expense.

My mother is a perfect example. XP does everything she needs on her 5-year old machine -- email, web, Skype, and Hulu. Upgrading to Windows 7 will break her printer and Skype phone adapter, not to mention the potential driver issues with her aging mobo. Add up the total cost of upgrading to an OS that offers her nothing but a visual upgrade and it's a big fat WHY?

Re:There's no "THE" reason

[El_Oscuro]

One word is: $DOUGH$. Both of my kids computers were falling apart. I needed new ones that could dual boot into Ubuntu but didn't really feel like shelling out the $500 each that a reasonable Win7 machine would cost. Ebay is your friend. 2 machines with XP pro, SP3 for about $300. Add in 2 Nvidia cards for about $60 each, and I got 2 nice machines for under $500.

Biased scores?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a hard reason believing the figures from such a small corner of the user space. I would be much more interested to see results from google.com or google analytics. Not to mention, the full report includes data from mobile devices as well. Which really isn't a telltale sign of OS share drop.

For example, I have an iPhone. If I browse the web on my iPhone, I'm generating extra hits to sites that my phone identifies itself to my iPhone. I might not visit that site on my desktop, or I might visit that site on my desktop less than I do on my phone. That doesn't necessarily mean from those numbers that Windows is losing market share because I've hit the site 10 extra times in a day from my phone itself rather than my desktop.

Re:Biased scores?

[Lennie]

If you actually look at the numbers, mobile is the one putting a dent in Windows (and Mac and Linux):

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/os-market-share.aspx?qprid=9

(I think Android and other Linux-based mobile devices go in the 'other'-catagory ?)

Re:Biased scores?

[Lennie]

There is also this ofcourse:

http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_vs_desktop-ww-monthly-200909-201009

Poorly-designed Flash ads that hog one core.

[Pezbian]

That's why they'll have to upgrade. Get more than one of those on a page and you're screwed.

There's also video decoding via GPU, but even that is being implemented at the low end.

Re:Poorly-designed Flash ads that hog one core.

[Anonymous Coward]

Friends don't let friends browse without adblock.

Re:Poorly-designed Flash ads that hog one core.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could, you know, use a browser plug-in that makes sure Flash and its ilk doesn't run until you click it.
And have some task manager application running at a high priority level. <-- To whom it may concern: if you don't do this as a matter of course, you're a moron, regardless of employed operating system or hardware.

Re:Poorly-designed Flash ads that hog one core.

[hairyfeet]

You can actually get an HD4650 with the AGP interface for $80, which is certainly cheaper than buying a full box and which will GPU accelerate flash and just about anything else. I got one for a customer who has a late model Cedar mill P4 and I'd forsee him getting another 4-5 years out of that box easily for the kinds of things he does.

And THAT, that right there, is what MSFT is having bite them in the ass. Computers passed "good enough" quite awhile back and the average Joe isn't even hitting his P4 hard, and XP is mature and stable, so why switch? While I have Windows 7 HP X64 on my gamer box, the box I'm typing this on is a 1.8GHz Sempron with 1.5Gb of RAM XP I use as a Nettop. Even with the crappy SiS GPU for the basics, Youtube, web surfing, downloading, etc it is more than fast enough for everyday tasks, and the Windows 7 upgrade money would be better spent on a GPU or maxing out the RAM.

And I'd finally point out that damned Ballmer monkey is to blame for part of this, and here is why: I knew plenty of guys that pirated XP, and nearly all of them switched to a legal copy of Windows 7, why? The $50 Windows 7 Home deal. It is pretty obvious at least to me that $50 is the "sweet spot" for Home as I saw so many pirate boxes go legit. The ones that didn't planned to after Xmas and then the Ballmer monkey shot the company in the foot (surprise) by raising the price. If he actually wanted to get all those XP boxes onto Windows 7, which he should as Windows 7 is MUCH safer for average folks which cuts down on Windows bad rep, and it gives him a chance to upsell them on new tech like Silverlight, IE9, and of course anytime upgrade to Pro, which I know quite a few that did for XP Mode, he'd drop the price for Home back to $50. But I'm afraid I have to agree with the pirates that $100 for Home is simply too much, which means I'll be sticking with XP for the Sempron. By the time 2014 rolls around and XP is EOL I'll probably pick up a dirt cheap duallie and hand the Sempron to my mom, who only uses a PC to play her old Windows games. Hell she refuses to let go of an old 733Mhz with a dual Win98/XP boot, because for what she does (Bounce Out and Age Of Empires 1) that is "good enough". While most folks aren't THAT hooked on an older machine a Prescott era P4 is frankly overkill for the web. Sorry MSFT, but my money is staying in MY pocket, thanks anyway.

Re:Poorly-designed Flash ads that hog one core.

[demonlapin]

Forget $50 single licenses, give people the Mac deal - pay $50 and you can install it on five machines in your house. (Maybe make it $100, because MSFT doesn't have that hardware revenue stream.)

Re:Poorly-designed Flash ads that hog one core.

[farble1670]

If he actually wanted to get all those XP boxes onto Windows 7, which he should as Windows 7 is MUCH safer for average folks which cuts down on Windows bad rep

rep doesn't really mean much if you have no profit. MSFT makes money off software, unlike apple. that's their bread and butter.

that'd be like saying apple should give a 50% discount on iphone 4's because of the bad rep they are getting from all the iphone 3g users who's phones are now slow and unstable on ios4. think that's going to happen?

Re:Poorly-designed Flash ads that hog one core.

[Anonymous Coward]

Chrome beta does this by default now if you disable all plugins. And the Windows task manager is defaulted high priority. Get with the times! (Joking.)

Re:Poorly-designed Flash ads that hog one core.

[NiceGeek]

"because of the bad rep they are getting from all the iphone 3g users who's phones are now slow and unstable on ios4."

iPhone 3G users should upgrade to iOS 4.1 the speed and stability issues are history (at least on my 3G YMMV)

Re:Poorly-designed Flash ads that hog one core.

[jedidiah]

...the important thing with the Apple package is that it does not bother you with license management at all.

Re:Poorly-designed Flash ads that hog one core.

[cheesybagel]

Another issue is that a lot of applications and drivers broke with Windows Vista/7. This is much the same problem Microsoft had with Windows 2000. The thing is Windows 7 isn't that much better than Windows XP. Whereas Windows XP was much better than Windows ME.

The Windows 7 user interface is slightly easier to use for doing average desktop work. The improvements are things like the program search bar and the improved taskbar. But it is a resource hog which will not work on older spec hardware. If you want to reconfigure your system the control panel is now a mess to navigate. Windows 7 is also a memory hog. It isn't unusable in a 32-bit system. So until people upgrade to 64-bit systems with 4GB of RAM they will stick to XP.

Many games programmers today want their games to be portable to game console hardware. Game console hardware is lagging PC hardware by some six years or more. This is another reason for not wanting to upgrade. Many desktop applications are being moved to the browser, and the ones which are not being moved to the browser run on older spec hardware.

Re:Poorly-designed Flash ads that hog one core.

[hairyfeet]

Uhhhh...you actually can have a lot of the nice Ui features, including the built in search and gadgets, for just $30 with Aston Shell. It also works great on old hardware, as that 1.8GHz Sempron I was talking about is running it with the windows 7 UI. Nicer than the Xp Fisher price and I like the CPU/RAM gadget that lets me see when something is hitting the processor.

While I mainly went Windows 7 for X64 support, I can see why some would just stick with what they got. If it ain't broke, why fix it? You can even get a copy of Windows XP X64 at Newegg, which if your hardware supports it is quite awesome and is low resource usage. my oldest is running it with XP 32 in a dual boot as his P4 doesn't seem to like windows 7, and it is damned fast and stable as a rock, which is understandable since it is merely win2K3 server with an XP shell. For college work and playing his MMOs he frankly doesn't need faster than his 3.6Ghz P4, so I'll probably just get him one of those HD4650 AGP cards (I have the PCIe version and it runs Bioshock II and every other game just great) and say forget building him and his brother new machines for a couple of years yet. again, if it ain't broke?

Re:Poorly-designed Flash ads that hog one core.

[znerk]

rep doesn't really mean much if you have no profit. MSFT makes money off software, unlike apple. that's their bread and butter.

Ok, let's do the math...
$50 pricetag = sale.
$100 pricetag = no sale.
Which one has more profit, again?

Re:Mod me off-topic, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Slashdot "developers" are incompetent.

I'll join you in off-topicdom....

[AnonymousClown]

It's IBM's fault. They didn't want anyone commenting on what's going on. You know, pumping out IT workers to lower wages further; the further commoditizaiton of the IT profession; the fact that this makes IT officially a blue collar profession; WTF are they thinking?! They should be training kids in Bio-tech and medical.; their idea is sooooo 1998!

Just a few off of the top of my head.

Re:I'll join you in off-topicdom....

[hedwards]

Perhaps, but that would be a step above what they're doing now, as in using H1-B visas to flood the market with immigrants on the justification that we don't have enough local talent. A bullshit argument given how tough it can be to get into IT at times. Especially if you're looking for something that's particularly specialized or don't want to deal with the shit jobs that you're legitimately trained beyond already.

How is this news.

[Danieljury3]

Seriously. I already figured that a lot of people still used XP and whats with the "Almost one year after" part. Was it a slow news day?

Re:How is this news.

[ScrewMaster]

Seriously. I already figured that a lot of people still used XP and whats with the "Almost one year after" part. Was it a slow news day?

There are plenty of people still using Windows 98. The Slashdot crowd represents large numbers of people that use their systems for more than word processing and basic Internet functionality ("yeah, I run OSX in a VM under Linux".) All of us here enjoy learning new things, trying out new features and capabilities, and that's because, at the core, we're geeks. Heck, to us, the novelty of some new aspect of our favorite OS is fun.That's not true in the real world, where the bulk of users have systems that are already way faster than they will ever, ever need and to whom familiarity is more important than some arbitrary set of features. They finally figured out how to make their computer do those things that they want it to do, and simply do not care about anything else. Matter of fact, they consider being forced to upgrade as an entirely unreasonable proposition, and will fight it.

Okay, I'll make a car analogy. Those of us who learned to drive, learned it once. We don't have to re-learn it every time a new generation of automobiles comes out, and in fact we'd be torqued into pretzels if we were forced to do so. Yet, for a lot of people who look at computers as just another appliance like their car or their refrigerator, they only want to learn how to use it once. Asking ordinary people to repeat what was, to them, a difficult experience just because they bought a new appliance (e.g., a new personal computer) is going to cause trouble. In the case of Microsoft Windows, I cannot say that they're necessarily wrong in feeling that way, considering how much of Microsoft's business model revolves around changing things just to sell more copies.

I have friends that had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into Windows 2000 because "the icons were all different", and I can't face the thought of trying to get them to go to Window XP, much less Windows 7. Just not worth the effort, for them or me. It's easier to just keep scrounging old parts from my junkbox (which I haven't cleaned out in ten years for just this reason) than to try and convince them to "upgrade". Eventually that won't be possible and they're going to have to go out and buy a new system with whatever OS is the latest and greatest. Now, frankly I don't want to be around when that happens. It's going to be thermonuclear, and I don't want to find myself an incised shadow on the wall.

Re:How is this news.

[WCVanHorne]

The car analogy is very apt and applies to the IT/support side as well. This is why, despite being an IT guy, they can have XP when they pry it from my cold dead computers. This is also why the first thing I do is make XP look like Windows 2000* (a MS high water mark for me in terms of stripped down interface simplicity and speed). Changing things up is like the Ribbon "innovation". Sure the older interface may have been a little less than optimal but after using it for years just about everyone knew where to find the things they needed. To me an OS "upgrade" should largely be under the hood and almost always allow you to use older, and usually faster/simpler, skins.

Given that a decent 5 year old PC has enough horsepower for most of the non gamers out there, the increased reliability of hardware, the economy, etc. I wouldn't be surprised to see XP maintain this lead for quite a while. It will be interesting to bet when it will slip below 50%.

Anyhow, I admin over half a dozen PCs in my house and they will be on XP for many years to come. While I progressed over the years from C64s, to SunOS4.1.1 (and many flavors of UNIX then Linux), to OS/2, to Windows; the "novelty" of a new OS has worn off a long time ago. I just want security, stability, and reliability. XP is "good enough" when configured and used correctly and when you only need it to run a browser, a few office type apps, and play movies; it will continue to be for the foreseeable future. The computer is a more mature appliance/tool today, not a toy and again the car/driving analogy works well.

*PS. This is also why the Parent could probably convince his people running W2K to upgrade to XP which is still being supported.

Re:How is this news.

[cheesybagel]

Windows 98 is just plain unstable. I still remember having to reboot my machine every half an hour when doing video editing. Just upgrade them to Windows XP and change the default user interface to classic.

Re:How is this news.

[n3r0.m4dski11z]

"There are plenty of people still using Windows 98."

I seriously doubt this un cited statistic. Unless you live ina very poor town where people dont even have p4s. I personally havent seen more than a few windows 98 machines in years, and i fix alot of computers. I just dont believe it.

"Okay, I'll make a car analogy. Those of us who learned to drive, learned it once. We don't have to re-learn it every time a new generation of automobiles comes out"

You may need to learn the quirks of your new automobile though. You need to think more basic about what "learnign to use a computer" really means. These people probably do know how to use computers. They know what the concept of a network is, printers, clicking on things, storing and retrieving files, finding a word processor, and a hundred other what i would call BASIC computer skills. You are giving people not enough credit. What people complain about are interface changes which people DO complain about when they buy a new car. In a few weeks they get used to them and move on. Perhaps they phone the dealership if the cars interface is so poorly designed that a few minutes of thinking about ti doesnt do the job.

The point is that you are acting as if windows 7's UI is so alien, that people will not take the few days or weeks to grow accustomed to it? come on!
Sure it can be fear of change, but dont pretend that that is a logical or rational fear.

"I have friends that had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into Windows 2000 because "the icons were all different", and I can't face the thought of trying to get them to go to Window XP, much less Windows 7. Just not worth the effort,"

Well i used windows 2k till 2009 when they stopped releasing security fixes for it. The killer feature that finaly made me upgrade was good inbuilt wireless support which 2k lacked. HOpefully you remember that 98 - 2k was a switch that everyone wanted to make, when they simply saw how stable 2k ran. 95 to 98 happened quick iirc, because 95 was a pile of shit till close to when 98 came out (95 OSR2 i think was the stable version, again iirc).

So there are always little reasons. My guess at the problem with windows 7 adoption? not a good enough crack for its crazy key based activation, people scared of horror stories of vista, and not an easy way to switch the whole UI back to XP "mode". You can do it, but there are alot of complicated (for end user) steps, such as restoring the quick launch, disable uac, disable areo, differential file compression, etc...
So i am sure adoption will generally follow the new computer update cycle. I think that is the most reliable barometer that we can use, if you want to be broad about predicting these kinds of things.

 

Re:How is this news.

[XMode]

"There are plenty of people still using Windows 98."

I seriously doubt this un cited statistic. Unless you live ina very poor town where people dont even have p4s. I personally havent seen more than a few windows 98 machines in years, and i fix alot of computers. I just dont believe it.

As a single point of reference, just last week here at work we 'found' a machine running some dedicated testing software under Windows 3.1. In the whole time it has been there we have never needed to do any work on it as it is still performing its single task adequately.

I say found because we honestly didn't even know it existed. I was looking for a data collection agent and found a PC turned on under a desk in the test area, followed the cable to a monitor in the corner and turned it on. Hilarity ensued.

Re:How is this news.

[ScrewMaster]

"There are plenty of people still using Windows 98." I seriously doubt this un cited statistic. Unless you live ina very poor town where people dont even have p4s. I personally havent seen more than a few windows 98 machines in years, and i fix alot of computers. I just dont believe it.

What "statistic"? I quoted no statistic. When did "plenty" become a statistic? I've probably fixed more computers that you have, given that I was among the first group of technicians sent to Boca Raton in 1981. You can simply ignore the point I'm trying to make and focus on what "plenty" means if you want, but that doesn't move the discussion forward.

You may need to learn the quirks of your new automobile though. You need to think more basic about what "learnign to use a computer" really means. These people probably do know how to use computers.

Nope. The term "know how to use computers" encompasses a lot of territory, and I can see you're still thinking like knowledgeable user, not a person that made the (to them!) significant effort to get that computer to do what they want. Going from Windows 98 to Windows XP to Window 7 very much is like learning an entirely new way to drive, to millions of people. They don't want to, don't understand why they should have to, but in the modern world realize that they have no choice and still don't understand why.

It's just the way it is. You can say to yourself, "well, it's an illogical and irrational fear" but you know what? It's still very real, and it's a factor when trying help someone move on the to "next big thing." I will also bet that you're no different in some other area of life, where someone else could look at you and say, "I don't know why by n3r0.m4dski11z won't do 'x'. It's such an irrational fear."

The younger generation will have less trouble than the previous one, simply because they were raised on computer systems and have no intrinsic anxiety concerning them. I've probably spent more time than you working with older individuals who grew up in the pre-personal-computer-revolution days. Like it or not, there are still (ahem!) "plenty" of people in that age group around, and many of them will never look at a major OS upgrade as anything but a pain in the ass.

Re:Mod me off-topic, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

shut the fuck up

66% still are using the same old hardware probably

[roman_mir]

It's probably related to having the same old hardware, because in many cases computers come with pre-installed OSs and most likely most people never change that to anything else.

So I am guessing, but again, how many of those 66% are using the same hardware that they used when Windows7 came out?

--
Also I want to note that I wouldn't change from XP to 7 even if I had new hardware, and I am using Ubuntu and Fedora on some of my machines and XP on 2 of them.

Insane Question from epSos.de

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do they even produce Windows instead of starting a Linux distro for profit ?

Re:Mod me off-topic, but...

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Seriously, what gives with the Slashdot front-page? Articles regularly appear (in this case, the one about the NY tech highschool sponsored by IBM) that, when you click, give a "nothing to see here" error.

Maybe graduates from the IBM tech high school are managing the Slashdot front-page . .. ?

It makes sense, though...

[Garwulf]

First off, I used to be a dedicated XP user. It was a very good operating system, and I didn't have any urge to upgrade until I bought a new laptop with Windows 7 on it. I liked what I saw enough that I made the decision to upgrade then and there, and Windows 7 has been my primary OS ever since (I found it faster and streamlined in intelligent and useful ways). But, your mileage may vary.

However, it makes sense that we'd be seeing this trend in the marketplace. One of the problems with holding what is effectively a monopoly position is that you become your own biggest competitor. Windows 7 isn't really squaring off against Linux or Mac (although those are competitors), it's squaring off against Windows XP. The same thing has happened multiple times on versions of MS Office.

It seems to me that what will happen is that the main driver of increasing the market share will be new computers with Windows 7 pre-installs, particularly since Win7 did not see the sort of backlash that Vista did. So, given a couple more years, Windows 7 will have a much larger market share.

Re:It makes sense, though...

[cheekyjohnson]

"It seems to me that what will happen is that the main driver of increasing the market share will be new computers with Windows 7 pre-installs"

It's a shame that more people don't just build their own computers and save money, rather than buying a pre-built with pre-installed garbage (software and such, that is). As for Windows 7, there's simply no groundbreaking reason(s) for people to upgrade.

Re:It makes sense, though...

[Garwulf]

"It's a shame that more people don't just build their own computers and save money, rather than buying a pre-built with pre-installed garbage (software and such, that is). As for Windows 7, there's simply no groundbreaking reason(s) for people to upgrade."

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. My experience has been that between the streamlining and the extra speed (on a dual core 64-bit Athlon with 6 GB of RAM, Win7 is faster than XP is), and the extra security features, Windows 7 is heads-and-shoulders above XP. It IS better.

However, at the same time, Windows XP is a good system that does what it needs to, and generally does it well. And, I can understand why somebody would keep using it rather than upgrade when they don't need to.

Aside from which, building your own system does require a decent amount of knowledge, and time. For a lot of people, buying a pre-built system is the better way to go. Uninstalling the garbage is easier than building the system from scratch.

Re:It makes sense, though...

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows 7 isn't really squaring off against Linux or Mac (although those are competitors), it's squaring off against Windows XP. The same thing has happened multiple times on versions of MS Office.

Except back then, they could force people to upgrade by "improving" the file formats so if one person or business you dealt with upgraded to the newest Office, you'd experience hassles trying to work with documents they sent you until you eventually got sick of it and upgraded yourself.

Re:It makes sense, though...

[demonlapin]

Building your own computer can be fun, and it will get you premium performance for a good price, but it's in no way going to save money for the low-end machines that most people buy. You can buy a basic Dell for $300. Unless you enjoy putting things together a lot (valuing your time spent at less than zero), there's no way that it's cheaper to buy the parts and put it together yourself.

Re:It makes sense, though...

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need the "extra security features" if you know what you're doing. Good anti-virus software combined with sufficient knowledge will protect you from 99.99% of viruses.

"building your own system does require a decent amount of knowledge"

Not really. Only the first time, but it only took me a few hours of research to find out what parts were compatible with what. It isn't difficult at all, and can save you some money and let you avoid worthless bloatware and such.

"and time"

Again, not really. It only took me a few hours to piece together once the parts arrived.

"Uninstalling the garbage is easier than building the system from scratch."

Not to mention more expensive, more restrictive (you can choose your own parts when building your own computer), and quite annoying.

Re:It makes sense, though...

[Anonymous Coward]

"You can buy a basic Dell for $300"

Yeah, extremely cheap pieces of garbage will be less expensive (possibly), it's true. However, I was talking about more powerful computers.

"Unless you enjoy putting things together a lot (valuing your time spent at less than zero)"

Uh, it's not like you're going to put together computers at work or something, so you wouldn't be making money in that time, anyway. It also only takes a few hours of research to find out what parts are compatible with what, and a few ours to piece them together once you have them.

Re:It makes sense, though...

[ScrewMaster]

"It seems to me that what will happen is that the main driver of increasing the market share will be new computers with Windows 7 pre-installs"

It's a shame that more people don't just build their own computers and save money, rather than buying a pre-built with pre-installed garbage (software and such, that is). As for Windows 7, there's simply no groundbreaking reason(s) for people to upgrade.

I agree. 7 does some nice things, but if you have a system that is doing what you want and doing it well, there really isn't any compelling reason to upgrade. There just isn't.

Still, you'll never get people to build their own: that's just not a part of their skillset. However, I look back at the early days of personal computing (mid-to-late seventies and onward) where there were small computer shops all over. You could walk in, have somebody slap a system together for you, shoot the breeze with them, ask questions from someone who knew more than just how to plug the damn thing in ... those days are long gone. The big chains came in and undercut the local shops and put them out of business. That actually presaged much of what happened later to the U.S. economy and local businesses in general. The thing is, what people didn't realize was that while those shops charged a little more, they also provided lots of free support and training. I know, I worked in a few of them back in the day. We even offered formal training classes in the evening for a very reasonable price: easy money, and the class was always full.

Contrast that to your typical Big Box Mart nowadays. Yes, you get something passing for a PC for a few hundred bucks but, unless you happen to know a friendly geek-type who will help you out with it you're on your own. Something was lost when all those little homegrown computer stores disappeared, and it was this: support. You're not going to get anything significant in that regard from a store that's selling machines for a minimum margin, that hires low-wage teenagers, throws them in a uniform and calls them "experienced PC technicians."

Just as an aside, I had a Geek Squad van driven by a couple of those teenagers literally run me off the road because he was in a hurry and trying to pass me in the merge lane. When I honked at them, the driver immediately slammed on his brakes and both he and the passenger stuck their hands out their respective windows and flipped me off. I immediately took down their license plate number and called the "How am I driving" number on the back of the truck. Just the kind of responsible citizens that I would want working on my personal computer.

Re:It makes sense, though...

[hedwards]

You don't generally save money building yourself. Sure you don't have to pay labor costs, but you don't get the bulk purchase discount either. Also the preinstalled software these days typically pays for a portion of the hardware as well.

Re:It makes sense, though...

[tepples]

Uh, it's not like you're going to put together computers at work or something

The assumption is that one would have to take half a day off work to do this research and another half a day off to put the pieces together.

Re:It makes sense, though...

[cheekyjohnson]

I saved a few hundred dollars by building it myself (as well as saved myself from having to remove bloatware and allowing me to pick the specific parts that I wanted).

Re:It makes sense, though...

[Vegemeister]

I find that the search function and the ability to run a responsive system without disabling the swap file to be quite groundbreaking in comparison to XP.

Re:It makes sense, though...

[cheekyjohnson]

"search function"

Sounds small time to me.

"responsive system without disabling the swap file"

Uh, what? I have the swap file disabled, and I'm doing fine. You must have very little ram, or something is very, very wrong.

Re:It makes sense, though...

[RocketRabbit]

"on a dual core 64-bit Athlon with 6 GB of RAM, Win7 is faster than XP is"

No, no it's not. Not even slightly. Unless you are comparing XP32 to Win7 64 bit.

I mean, it might feel plenty fast, but that is just subjective. Overhead for almost all operations have increased for Win7.

Re:It makes sense, though...

[Garwulf]

"No, no it's not. Not even slightly. Unless you are comparing XP32 to Win7 64 bit."

That's pretty much exactly the comparison. XP doesn't have a lot of support for 64-bit - there was a version of Windows Server that was the XP equivalent, but it was not something with wide distribution or driver support.

Windows 7 does have a 64-bit version with proper driver support, and yes, I have found it around twice as fast as XP on my system.

Re:It makes sense, though...

[Vegemeister]

I also have the swap file disabled on my XP box. I find that the interface is unresponsive unless I disable it. Windows 7, on the other hand, seems to work fine with the swap file enabled.

The search function is not small time at all. It completely revolutionizes the user interface. I don't know where device manager is in the control panel, or where the display properties are, or in what sequence I have to wave dead chickens over sub-menus to remove a piece of software. I just hit the Windows key (actually, the macro key--I have an old keyboard) and type "resolution," or "remove," or "firefox," and there it is. I never even have to remove my hands from the keyboard.

Oh, and windows XP doesn't use the ctrl+shift+n shortcut to create a new directory.

Re:It makes sense, though...

[cheekyjohnson]

"Windows 7, on the other hand, seems to work fine with the swap file enabled."

That's... odd. I have encountered no such thing. Whatever, though. I'm not saying I hate Windows 7, but I just see no reason to upgrade to it.

"I don't know where device manager is in the control panel"

Well, I know all of those things, so it's not of much use to me. Certainly no reason to upgrade. But, if it helps you, then good.

"Oh, and windows XP doesn't use the ctrl+shift+n shortcut to create a new directory."

I rarely use keyboard shortcuts, anyway.

Re:It makes sense, though...

[brantondaveperson]

Just a slight aside, but I was under the impression that disabling the swap was basically a bad idea. Better to keep swap there, max your machine out with RAM (I have 8gig in my laptop). That way, if something really needs a ton of RAM it won't fail to allocate it (which is surely worse than it having to resort to swap).

Could be wrong, but it makes sense to me.

Re:It makes sense, though...

[cheekyjohnson]

No, the swap file is much slower than RAM (that and I have 4GB of RAM and close applications that I don't use). Not to mention that it uses hard drive space and if it somehow gets corrupted, it will contain incorrect contents. If you're really low on RAM, it's pretty much a last resort.

Re:It makes sense, though...

[brantondaveperson]

Yeah I understand it's much slower, I'm just saying that isn't it better to use swap than to fail to allocate?

I mean my machine hardly ever hits the swap, but when it does I'd rather it had the extra space than (say) causing some application to crash - not that anyone would ever write an app that failed to handle OOM conditions gracefully....

If you are working within your RAM's limits, then what benefit does disabling swap have? It wouldn't be using it anyway, so what's the advantage of turning it off?

Re:It makes sense, though...

[cheekyjohnson]

"isn't it better to use swap than to fail to allocate?"

Not when it costs you some performance and you never actually run out of RAM.

"If you are working within your RAM's limits, then what benefit does disabling swap have?"

As I already said, in that case, it's probably best to have it on. If you have tons of RAM, the swap file will only slow you down.

Re:It makes sense, though...

[RocketRabbit]

So, Windows 7 64 bit "feels" faster than Windows XP 32 bit?

Uh-uh.

Re:It makes sense, though...

[Garwulf]

No "feels" about it. It loads in about 1/4 the time of XP, it brings up programs in about half the time of XP, and it can use all 6 GB of RAM that I have. To top it off, it's easier to use than XP, has extra features that are more useful than what is in XP, and it doesn't have the security holes of XP.

So, yes, Windows 7 is better than Windows XP. Microsoft actually got it right this time. If you have a problem with this, then that's your problem.

Re:It makes sense, though...

[LinuxIsGarbage]

My city (less than 500,000 people) still has plenty of small computer shops. And in my experience the selection and cost of individual components is better than the non-sale price of Big box stores. Still people to shoot the breeze with, and service people a lot more trust-worthy than Geek squad.

Big-box stores usually beat out on the cost of pre-built machines, but there's still a wealth of small shops with a wealth of knowledge.

Re:It makes sense, though...

[RocketRabbit]

I just think you are lying.

Re:It makes sense, though...

[Garwulf]

And I think you're an asshole just looking to pick a fight. If you don't believe me, try it out and judge for yourself. In any event, I'm done with this discussion.

Re:It makes sense, though...

[RocketRabbit]

I have tested out all kinds of Windows machines, and like everybody else on the planet, noticed that newer versions of Windows run slower on identical hardware!

If you'd care to show me that this isn't so somehow, I'd be delighted to look at your evidence. But as it stands, you have really only a feeling to go on, and that feeling may be the result of a need to mentally compensate for the fact that you spent a few hundred bucks on Windows 7 instead of something useful.

I'm not changing in Protest

[Anti Cheat]

When MS announced that dx10(and up) would not be upgraded in XP and would only be available in win7 (vista doesn't count), I felt cheated. Something that is basically a driver standard should be included in any xp maintenance release. What MS did was strictly a marketing ploy in my mind and an attempt to get money out of my pocket. Considering that this was when xp was very much the main operating system at the time and the announcement came out before there was any new OS, it just seemed to be a pretty shabby trick especially on gamers. So I'm resisting getting win7 until I absolutely have no choice because something I need to do requires win7. Until then I have a reasonable OS on this comp, linux on my other one and see no need to spend hundreds of dollars for basically what I see as $50 worth of upgrades that apply to me. The rest is just worthless junk that in some cases is more of an impediment than anything else.

Re:I'm not changing in Protest

[Chaos Incarnate]

DIrectX 10 was more than just an updated 3D API (or "basically a driver standard" as you said). It went hand-in-glove with a redesign of how drivers interface with the kernel. That's not the kind of thing you want to be pushing out in a service pack. "This device is compatible with XP Service Packs 1 and 2, but not 3"? Yeah, that'd fly real well...

Re:I'm not changing in Protest

[siride]

It may also be that the driver infrastructure has changed significantly enough that porting DX10 to XP would be technically difficult and buggy.

Re:I'm not changing in Protest

[Spad]

Yes and no.

There's no doubt that backporting DX10 to XP would have required a substantial effort on Microsoft's part due to the significant changes to Vista's architecture and there's not really any incentive for them to invest the time and money in doing so. This is different, of course, to all the "DX10 Only" games that came out that weren't really DX10 only and just had stupid checks that were all bypassed by warez groups; whether that was a stupid Microsoft idea or a stupid games publisher idea, that *was* nothing more than a marketing ploy.

Re:I'm not changing in Protest

[Anti Cheat]

Well I can't argue with you on the technical claims you make regarding the redesign depth. But I do take umbrage with you saying it isn't the kind of thing you want to push out in a service pack. MS has done major kernel changes that they have pushed out over XP's life. In fact the whole idea of Dx was to handle the different API's so you can and that includes replacing an API completely. I really don't see this to be much different.

My nvidia card only needed it's driver updated for 3D I certainly don't need dx10 just to obtain 3D. The 3D is working fine on my card as far as I see, although I've done nothing more than test function after installing it. I never even mentioned 3d in relation to dx10 and in fact didn't know dx10 was for 3d at all. I seem to remember as far as PC's were concerned it had more todo with new realistic texturing methods. I don't own an xbox so could care less about the problems there with 3D.

Dx10 is nothing different than going from dx8 to 9 in my mind. I'd like a far better explanation than it was 'hand in glove with the drivers'. Isn't that exactly what x10 is supposed to do just like dx9 was meant to do. An interface standard between the drivers.
In fact this is all wiki says about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectX

"""Direct3D 9Ex, Direct3D 10 and Direct3D 11 are only available for Windows Vista and Windows 7 because each of these new versions were built to depend upon the new Windows Display Driver Model that was introduced for Windows Vista. The new Vista/WDDM graphics architecture includes a new video memory manager that supports virtualizing graphics hardware to multiple applications and services such as the Desktop Window Manager.""""

MS=one more item to simply try to force an upgrade. Nothing to do with a technical challenge that made it impossible. In fact there have been some dx10 emulators for XP
http://www.google.ca/search?q=umbridge+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&expIds=25657,26714,26781&xhr=t&q=dx10+for+xp&cp=5&pf=p&sclient=psy&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=dx10+definition&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=45594ad3fad1e662
I can't quote on how well they work but it certainly seems to demonstrate that dx10 was nothing more than a marketing ploy. Nothing more.

Sorry Chaos but I'm not buying into it. But that's my opinion.

Re:I'm not changing in Protest

[hedwards]

What do you expect? They've already extended the end of life process, they're going to officially cease all security patches in 2014, and last year they ended all non-security support from that release. Which includes design changes, warranty and free support.

Re:I'm not changing in Protest

[Rockoon]

You took way too many words to say what can be translated as "I really dont know what I'm talking about, not one bit, but just the same I have formed the opinion that Microsoft is trying to screw me with this DX10 stuff"

The fact of the matter is that the DX10 hacks for XP fail miserably as soon as multiple processes/threads attempt to use a single DX context at the same time. To enable a DX context to be highly threaded, the display driver specification itself needed to be changed.

So while some early DX10 games work fine on the DX10+XP hack, many newer ones do not because they use multiple threads and expect to not deadlock in the display driver when presented with DX10. Microsoft alone can't solve the problem because it also requires that nVidia/ATi go through extra work (more than they need to do on Vista/7 because its driver hooks implicitly supports threading) within their XP drivers, and its work that actually destroys the benefits of multi-threaded rendering.

The upshot is that even if nVidia/ATI were to play along on this, most DX10 games would still be listed as only supporting Vista/7 for DX10 anyways because XP just wouldn't have the same performance with the same hardware. The only realistic way to make XP properly support DX10 is to change the driver model of XP, which is an insane thing to do for a 10 year old OS that is in extended support phase. Its not a conspiracy. Its just the way it is.

Re:I'm not changing in Protest

[PinkyGigglebrain]

Yes, MicroSoft didn't have the resource's to backport it so they left it to someone else.

MS's choice not to back port it was just another marketing ploy. And before you point out the instability or other issues in a third party doing the port consider that MS chose to ignore the demand for DX10 on XP so they could sell more copies of Vista/7. If MS really cared they could have done the backport themselves.

I don't know how good the backport is since I don't use it, or Windows for that matter, if it doesn't work with Linux I don't use it. Sure I can't play some games or run some software but I've managed quite well for years. Of course YMWV with regard to what software you need to use for work/life.

__

Re:I'm not changing in Protest

[Spad]

Yes, MicroSoft didn't have the resource's to backport it

I never said they didn't have it, I said that to them there was no incentive to invest said time and resources in backporting tech to XP that was never designed to work with it in the first place.

Re:I'm not changing in Protest

[gbjbaanb]

and by "never designed" you mean "has to work with the new driver model that has DRM embedded in it". They could easily have made DX10 for XP too, but that wouldn't have given them those new drivers that the user really didn't want anyway. Nothing here is for the benefit of the end user - its all for the benefit of Microsoft. Once you realise that, you'll start to understand why others (even those who used to like MS) now have such a problem with them.

Re:I'm not changing in Protest

[Anonymous Coward]

And Apple with their lack of support for older editions of OS? What is that? Oh I forgot the site I,m on.

Re:I'm not changing in Protest

[pandrijeczko]

DIrectX 10 was more than just an updated 3D API (or "basically a driver standard" as you said). It went hand-in-glove with a redesign of how drivers interface with the kernel.

I'm more than prepared to bow to your possible better knowledge of DirectX than me but this statement doesn't make any sense to me. I thought the whole *CONCEPT* of DirectX was to apply an abstraction layer for 3D graphics so that programmers' don't need to bother themselves with what drivers are being loaded.

Re:I'm not changing in Protest

[PinkyGigglebrain]

sorry, I forgot to add the sarcasm tag to that first line.

Re:I'm not changing in Protest

[aztracker1]

There's a bit more to it than that... XP, and then Vista had major portions of the underlying structure changed to support newer DX drivers. It *could* be done, but thats kind of a wasted effort to a now 8yo OS... I wouldn't expect Redhat to backport support for KDE4 into redhat 6 either.

Re:I'm not changing in Protest

[mjwx]

When MS announced that dx10(and up) would not be upgraded in XP... What MS did was strictly a marketing ploy in my mind and an attempt to get money out of my pocket.

Which backfired horribly, no developer with an ounce of brain between them would dare to code for DX 10 or above, so DX9c remains the dominant gaming platform. If only OpenGL could lift their game we might be able to get rid of specific OS requirements. Out of all the games I've still got from the 90's, the ones that work the best on XP are OpenGL based.

Re:I'm not changing in Protest

[mjwx]

You took way too many words to say what can be translated as "I really dont know what I'm talking about, not one bit, but just the same I've formed an opinion that the market obeys MS's technical standards and will write half a page of guff to ignore the pink elephant in the room".

Whatever reasons MS used to make DX10 Vista only, it backfired because 3 and a bit years later most people are still using DX9c. This does mean MS screwed up with DX10, if they made it too complex for XP on purpose or accident it was still a failure, this does mean DX10 is broken as the market wants to stick with XP and no game dev is willing to drop XP support. The market has decided that DX10 is a failure because everyone is still coding for DX9, when DX 9 was released, for how many years did they keep coding for DX 8 (HINT: everyone pretty much dropped it immediately).

Re:I'm not changing in Protest

[Anonymous Coward]

Bollocks. DirectX should fail gracefully on XP. It does not and it has no reason not to. Sure, it would mean a hefty performance penalty.

Re:I'm not changing in Protest

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll buy that, but the problem is now that XP/DX9 is now the "minimum requirements" and no games are "Vista or 7/DX10 required"

And you see this when you pop into task manager while the game is running and see that it's only using 1 CPU/core.

I like Windows XP

[thetoadwarrior]

I still use Windows XP on a partition on one of my machines for games. I'm not the standard user I suspect (3 Linux machines, 1 mac) but I only need it for games so why would I pay through the ass for Windows 7? If MS wants to give it to me for free I'll consider putting it on a partition for gaming but until then as long as XP plays my games then I'll stick with that.

People probably have similar reasons to me as to why they won't upgrade and I seriously think MS is going down the wrong path with having like 6 versions of the operating system. People don't like that.

Posting to the previous article

[Anonymous Coward]

I - I - IBM High School...

Rightly so

[cheekyjohnson]

There's absolutely no reason for me to upgrade that I see. Windows XP does what I need, and Windows 7 isn't some sort of groundbreaking technology. It hardly adds anything new to the table! Now, if you're just starting out and happen to get Windows 7 on a computer that you buy, that's fine. I'm not saying I hate Windows 7, I'm just saying that there's really no groundbreaking reasons for people to upgrade (and I've seen many people claim that there are). If I do have to upgrade because of compatibility reasons eventually (like for directx), I certainly won't reward Microsoft with my money and obtain Windows 7 through other means.

Re:Rightly so

[cheekyjohnson]

"If you're willing to just pirate it you have no say in the matter, you're an idiot"

Why? Can't say I didn't see that coming, but, why?

"I've seen a substantial drop in requests from people regarding viruses by having moved to Vista/7 over the years"

That's because most people don't know how to use a computer in the first place. With knowledge you can avoid nearly all viruses, and with an antivirus you can likely avoid the rest (a good one).

Re:Rightly so

[magamiako1]

You're an idiot because your opinions are already biased by the fact that you "refuse to give Microsoft" your money. I must give you kudos for not using M$ though, so thanks for that. But nonetheless, when you already approach an argument about their Operating Systems with an added bias about the company, it's hard to take any opinion you have objectively.

The latter remark I made regarding reduction in spyware and viruses is directly the result of the significantly extra protections added in Vista/7 to help protect end users. This is pretty much a fact of the products. You could be the most vigilant person in the world and you can still get a virus loaded onto your system. I'd rather reduce the attack surface they have to exploit.

You have to keep in mind that vulnerability ratings on websites (such as secunia) don't take into account the environment that it's running in. For example, a "critical" vulnerability in a browser might not actually be be that critical to you as a user. An example is, you could be using Firefox on Linux with a heavily restricted user account that has no local privilege escalation point. Every website will rate the vulnerability as critical, but your environment makes it not as critical to you. Taking that statement there, with various protections added in Windows (UAC in particular), the amount of damage that can be wreaked by a specific vulnerability is significantly reduced. Particularly if you use IE or Chrome rather than Firefox. The former 2 of which lower their privilege use on the system and require elevation to execute.

Nonetheless, you're still "vulnerable" a lot of the time. You could visit websites that you think are safe that have a compromised banner ad or webserver that got exploited with some compromised javascript. You could counter this with "oh I use adblock/noscript!", but then when you have to turn on javascript to get the site itself to work--you're kinda screwed. While these windows of opportunity are relatively rare, they do exist--and you cannot assume "perfect" security by simply only visiting sites you think are safe (though it does help).

Re:Rightly so

[falcon_dark]

Yeah... right... lol! Win7 is a way more secure than Windows XP... lol! I just remembered the Get a Mac ad: Broken Promises: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYWmDag3ruM

Re:Rightly so

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, congrats to you, and your Windows install, for FINALLY getting NEARLY the adequate level of protection against malware that Linux users have enjoyed for YEARS.

Now if only Linux was more amenable to the gaming packages that Windows users have enjoyed for YEARS, then the circle could be complete.

A shame we have to have an "either-or" situation.

Re:Rightly so

[ScrewMaster]

Vista and 7 have substantially reduced their market.

I'll buy that. Of course, pretty much any Unix-derivative running a decent desktop will reduce that attack surface even further.

Re:Rightly so

[cheekyjohnson]

"But nonetheless, when you already approach an argument about their Operating Systems with an added bias about the company"

Uh, that has little to do with anything. I don't want to give them my money because Microsoft not give you many reasons to upgrade besides incompatibility problems later on with these such as DirectX. If there's some sort of groundbreaking feature in Windows 7 that you think I should upgrade for, please, let me know.

"significantly extra protections added in Vista/7"

Yeah, and for the most part, they're not needed for someone who knows what they're doing (admittedly, that's not many people).

"You could be the most vigilant person in the world and you can still get a virus loaded onto your system."

Unless the fault is in the OS, I don't see that happening. Even then, an antivirus should protect you from most viruses that somehow manage to slip through (I've had none, but just in case).

"Particularly if you use IE"

There's one mistake already. As I said, knowledgeable.

"and you cannot assume "perfect" security by simply only visiting sites you think are safe (though it does help)."

No, you can't. Including with Windows 7. If an antivirus combined with sufficient knowledge can't protect you (highly unlikely), I doubt that Windows 7 could do so, either.

Re:Rightly so

[magamiako1]

@cheekyjohnson

Under Windows XP, if something gets by the AV (which does happen from time to time), it will execute with full Administrative privileges. From there, it can do whatever it wants to your system.

At least under 7, by default it can't--and anything that tries to do anything will alert the user. While many users might simply click "Yes" to the prompt, that still puts the burden on the user. And more importantly, it can't just happen "behind the scenes" like it used to. IE and Chrome voluntarily lower their privileges in Windows, which further restricts what they can do and where they can write to. Firefox does not. Therefore, a vulnerability exploited in FF is more dangerous than anything in IE or Chrome on Windows Vista or 7.

Re:Rightly so

[pandrijeczko]

Why? Can't say I didn't see that coming, but, why?

Firstly, because you have absolutely no way of ensuring that the pirated Windows you download has not been tampered with to the point where you're installing malware or a root kit when you do install it.

Secondly, because using a pirated version of Windows (or any software) is utter hypocrisy when legally free alternatives exist - sorry, but if you don't want to pay good money for Microsoft products then have the strength of character to try out an alternative.

Thirdly, free software cannot be pirated and pirated commercial software (and software cracks) are probably the main reason for the spread of malware across Windows PC & therefore serve to give Microsoft a much worse security reputation than they deserve.

Re:Rightly so

[cheekyjohnson]

"if something gets by the AV"

This is what I'm saying. If something is so carefully thought out that even a knowledgeable user with strong anti-virus software can't prevent themselves from getting 'infected' by the virus, well, it's likely that they've already found a way around that "UAC" protection. Maybe. I'm not trying to say it isn't helpful, it probably is. I'm just saying that a knowledgeable user with a good anti-virus software can prevent themselves from getting 99.99% of the viruses out there.

Re:Rightly so

[cheekyjohnson]

"Firstly, because you have absolutely no way of ensuring that the pirated Windows you download has not been tampered with to the point where you're installing malware or a root kit when you do install it."

I usually look at the comments beforehand. I make sure to not download torrents with only a few seeds and such (easy if it's something big like Windows 7) and that have a bunch of comments telling me it's a virus.

"Secondly, because using a pirated version of Windows (or any software) is utter hypocrisy when legally free alternatives exist"

Uh, they do? Like something that can play the newest games without resorting to slow emulation? If so, I'd like to know what it is, because that'd be great.

"legally"

This matters little to me.

"then have the strength of character to try out an alternative."

If a free alternative that works just as well or slightly worse exists, I will use that instead. I don't pirate unless there's a point in doing so.

"Thirdly, free software cannot be pirated and pirated commercial software (and software cracks) are probably the main reason for the spread of malware across Windows PC & therefore serve to give Microsoft a much worse security reputation than they deserve."

This is completely true. Many of the less experienced users do get viruses, with or without piracy.

Re:Rightly so

[pandrijeczko]

I usually look at the comments beforehand. I make sure to not download torrents with only a few seeds and such (easy if it's something big like Windows 7) and that have a bunch of comments telling me it's a virus.

That is still absolutely no indication that there's not a nasty rootkit built into the ISO. The *ONLY* way of assuring that is checksumming the image against an already trusted & proven provider of that image. If you believe otherwise, I pity you.

This matters little to me.

Accepted - your personal morality doesn't matter to me.

If a free alternative that works just as well or slightly worse exists, I will use that instead. I don't pirate unless there's a point in doing so.

I cannot argue with the statement but I suspect a lot of people find it easier to download a pirated copy than go and assess an alternative for themselves.

Re:Rightly so

[cheekyjohnson]

"If you believe otherwise, I pity you."

The chance is still there, but it's slim.

"Accepted - your personal morality doesn't matter to me."

Didn't say it had to.

"download a pirated copy than go and assess an alternative for themselves"

As you said, there is always a risk of getting a virus, so I would usually try out alternatives first.

They can still run XP even after they get a new PC

[symbolset]

XP is still available through downgrade rights for another decade. After your friends and family get a new PC there's no need for them to throw out all that expensive software they paid for that doesn't run in Windows 7.

Some could stay with XP even on a new machine

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

VMware lets you pack an older PC, complete with all installed applications and the data files into an image and replay the image on a new computer using VMware player. Dont throw away your old XP machines. The WinXP license code printed in the nameplate at the back is needed to playback the saved image in VMware player. So theoretically it is possible for some folks at least, to buy a newer Linux machine or a Mac or even a Chrome Pad when it comes out, and use the VM image for their older XP software that works and that is still good. The emulator on a new machine runs the image faster than the older machine. And one can isolate the sandbox in which the old image is running and get the benefit of all the security advantages too.

Hope some people start a project to reduce the technical skills needed to pull this off so that non-technical people can follow this route. The rate at which the hardware is improving, the next generation of iPad or its clones would be able to run a full image of an older XP installation on emulation!

Re:Some could stay with XP even on a new machine

[Anonymous Coward]

Dont throw away your old XP machines. The WinXP license code printed in the nameplate at the back is needed to playback the saved image in VMware player.

Wouldn't it be easier to take a picture of the label or write down the code instead of keeping around an entire computer for that information?

Re:Some could stay with XP even on a new machine

[jimicus]

Wouldn't it be easier to take a picture of the label or write down the code instead of keeping around an entire computer for that information?

This is a good idea in any case. Those stickers are non-replaceable - if yours gets worn or damaged (quite possible considering that Microsoft make them flimsier every year) and you need the number on it, you're SOL. Your OEM likely didn't record the number and won't replace the sticker, no matter how sweetly you ask. Your only option is to either buy a new copy or pirate a piece of software you own perfectly legally.

Re:Some could stay with XP even on a new machine

[couchslug]

Portable VirtualBox lets you build a VM, then archive a copy. If it breaks, delete the VM and extract a new one.

The backup can of course be burned to DVD etc, and used elsewhere if you like.

Re:Some could stay with XP even on a new machine

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally still emulate XP, by default, in Wine. It works very well, I see no reason to bump that up to 7 or Vista emulation.

Re:Some could stay with XP even on a new machine

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

A tech savy person could do that, and that is not the main issue. If it is made easy for people who have paid for the XP license once to M$FT, to use the perpetual license, um, perpetually, to get off the upgrade treadmill, what it would mean to the revenue stream of M$FT? Make it easy for the non tech savvy people to do the emulation cheaply.

I am very sure VMware is currently pitching to big companies, how they could use the virtualization to stop buying more and more expensive upgrades. They don't have to port their old trusted codes and applications to newer and newer windows platform. The security will be handled by the sandboxing environment. Old InternetExplorer 6 based applications can be run safely in new machines!

What I am saying WinXP may be used for a much much longer time, long after the original machines on which they were shipped have been consigned to the landfill or been melted down by Chinese children to extract the few particles of gold in the PCBs.

Re:Some could stay with XP even on a new machine

[pandrijeczko]

I'm prepared to be proved wrong here because I've only ever done Linux virtualisation (on Linux) with VirtualBox.

But to say VMWare is the ultimate solution for XP virtualisation is misleading - as much as I know about it, it's a great product for virtualising instances of desktops or servers but it doesn't handle complicated stuff like 3D graphics particularly well (if at all). Consequently, people on here who think they can use VMWare in order to continue playing games that run okay in XP but not in Vista or Windows 7 are going to be disappointed.

Re:Some could stay with XP even on a new machine

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, I wish that someone implemented this in Win7. They could even call it, for example, XP Mode. But that would require some sort of Microsoft virtualization software to exist, right? It would be like having a virtual PC running XP inside your Win7 OS. Wonder why nobody has ever done that.

Or maybe *new* hardware

[Zocalo]

You can hardly venture out of the house these days without seeing someone using either a new Macbook or a Netbook running a varient of Windows XP, Linux, or Android. Windows 7 is pretty much the defacto out-of-the-box OS on all non-Mac desktop systems these days, but between corporates wiping it for standardised XP installs and people opting for new Macs or Netbooks for personal use instead of just getting another new desktop with Windows 7. Combine that with the poor experience of the upgrade to Vista and maybe the days of large numbers of people automatically upgrading to the latest Windows release are over.

Re:Or maybe *new* hardware

[tepples]

people opting for new Macs or Netbooks for personal use instead of just getting another new desktop with Windows 7.

Even netbooks have started to come with Windows 7 Starter instead of Windows XP lately.

Re:Or maybe *new* hardware

[man_of_mr_e]

I'm not sure where you live.. But around here, I have never seen a netbook with Android. Ever. I can't even find one in a store. So, I have to wonder how you're seeing so many of them. I've also never seen anyone using a Netbook with Linux, and I typically pay attention when I see someone using a device. Mac's I see roughly 1 in 10, all others are either XP or 7, and the only ones I see with XP are older models. Anything even vaguely new is 7.

Sounds more like you're making stuff up.

Re:Or maybe *new* hardware

[Zocalo]

I didn't say Android Netbooks were common (I listed them in the rough order I've noticed each OS around a rather student heavy area of London where I've been working recently) but they are about, especially the Acer one in the first link. When I've seen the Acer, I've been quite surprised how many people are using it with Android rather than Windows 7 (it's dual boot) as I'd have assumed people would have stuck with what they knew, but I guess Android provides a more responsive feel and does everything the user needs the machine to do. As for Windows 7 netbooks, yes, they are about as you noted, but we were discussing where Windows 7 might have lost potential marketshare, not where it has managed to get it.

Re:Or maybe *new* hardware

[Anonymous Coward]

Come October 22, 2010 (One year after the general availability of Win7) they won't be able to come with XP. http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2008/apr08/04-03xpeos.mspx

Windows XP Home for ULCPCs will be available until the later of June 30, 2010, or one year after general availability of the next version of Windows.

No raise for you!

[clinko]

Could this be based on the economy too?

I Usually buy a new pc after a good bonus or raise. I think I was running XP last time that happened.

Corporate Users

[falcon_dark]

Microsoft is finding out, the hard way, that unless your product is really better than previous version the costumer will complain. Corporate users still don't see a reason to upgrade mainly because many of their applications were developed for XP. Going to 7 could break something and since it adds nothing but eyecandy they are keeping XP.

64 bit

[the eric conspiracy]

The real advantage for me is that Win 7 does 64 bit much better than XP. I'm running it on 3 of the 4 machines I use now. They are:

Desktop - 8 GB used primarily for Java server development. Runs Ubuntu.

Laptop 1 - 4 GB machine that originally ran XP Pro, now runs Win 7 Pro 64. It works much better as such with full use of the 4 GB. Used sometimes for Java development when I'm not in the office.

Server - 6 core 980x with 12 GB RAM. Primarily runs Centos 5 however also can be booted into Win 7 Ultimate 64 if needs to run something on Windows. That doesn't happen very often though.

Laptop 2 - this is sort of a desktop in laptop clothing, runs a 4 core 960 with 6 GB of RAM. Used for almost everything - gaming, development, etc. Runs Win 7 Pro 64.

My feeling about it is that if you have 4 GB or more the upgrade to Win 7 is worth it. Otherwise Win XP is fine.

Re:64 bit

[bcmm]

My feeling about it is that if you have 4 GB or more and never use most of it the upgrade to Win 7 is worth it.

FTFY. If you have a lot of RAM because you multitask too much or because you have an application or game that requires it, you're going to have to have less stuff running or tolerate some swapping if you upgrade.

Re:64 bit

[the eric conspiracy]

That has NOT been my experience at all. When I went from XP to Win 7 64 on my 4 GB laptop I found I was able to run more software because of the added 0.7 GB of memory that became useful. On my 6 GB and 12 GB machines XP is completely out of the running. What you describe would only apply to 3GB or less machines.

Re:64 bit

[Vegemeister]

In windows 7, some swapping is ok. I have to turn off swapping on windows XP machines, or else it swaps everything out and shits bricks when I come back from lunch.

XP runs perfectly on my PC.

[Anonymous Coward]

But 90% of the time I use Windows 7. Because it's better.

Even on the minimal configuration - P4 3.06HT, 1GB RAM, 128MB Fx5200.

Pooched my wife's Cannon printer's software with 7

[crovira]

It turns out that the old drivers and OCR software doesn't run on the new Windows' 7 box.

There IS a work around though.

I have to scan (which I can still do), move the image to a thumb drive, move the files to my Mac, run OCR using a "free"ware I picked up off the web, copy and paste the OCRed text to my wiki.

The reason people don't upgrade Microsoft crap is that you never know what's going to suddenly stop working.

I wish she'd give the fuck up on Microsoft already because its nothing but a PITA.

I'm sick and tired of hearing my name followed by "the computer's fuckin' up again!"

browsers

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you try the iCab browser?

Re:browsers

[commodore64_love]

No never head of iCab.

I eventually installed Opera 9.x but that was too old (failed to let me access my bank account) and crashed a lot, so I put the Mac G4 to pasture. It also didn't properly play youtube videos, showing them at 75% speed.

What the numbers mean.

[westlake]

Net Applications tracks any device which can access the web -

which these days can be your smart phone, mobile touch pad, video game console and HDTV.

The market has grown larger and more complex.

You don't own a single "internet appliance," more likely two, three, four or even five.

The Net Applications stats have not been kind to Linux. iOS tops Linux, Top Operating System Share Trend

It is perfectly possible to imagine the iOS outpacing Linux+Android in the mobile market.

The only OS with a visible upward trend in other markets is Windows 7. The geek who insists that Win 7 is "Vista+" might usefully be reminded that Vista plus Win 7 is 30% of the market as a whole.

My Motto

[arcite]

Always wait for SP3, for everything! In fact, just wait for version 3 of everything! Its guaranteed to be a success! Just thinking about what iPad 3.0 will be like, all those features, all those bugs squashed, it keeps me up at night. Windows 7? I say give me windows 10, or give me Death! Now if you'll excuse me, my Windows ME is giving me a dirty look, ctrl-alt-del!

Re:My Motto

[ani23]

I don't think it's gonna matter I hate windows 7 I tried using it for 1 week and it really has a horrible user interface I recently downgraded a brand new core i7 to xp Icons are ugly The startmenu in just one level is stupid The flashy effects make the ui worse I can't figure out shit when trying to change network settings I could go on with these forever Seriously u can pry xp out of my cold dead hands. The only way I will upgrade is if they improve the usability.

Re:My Motto

[man_of_mr_e]

Umm.. the network settings are identical to the ones in XP. How can you possibly have trouble with that?

http://news.softpedia.com/newsImage/Windows-7-Networking-5.jpg/

Re:My Motto

[conares]

Just a question, what exactly makes you work faster with win7 than xp? Just wanna know, not start a war.

Re:My Motto

[Anonymous Coward]

want to run firefox? start button, type fir hit enter, want to run word? start button, type wo enter. want to figure out how to setup your mouse? hit start button, type mouse, the control panel icons appear in the list, etc. why you'd go back to using a mouse to click stuff is beyond me.

Re:My Motto

[SpryGuy]

Lots of little things that add up.

Start-menu search, means I don't have to go hunting through the "All Programs" menu when it gets big, or remember in which little folder that little applet was, or hunt through the control panel. If I know what I want, I just type a few letters, and boom, there it is. Same with most recently used documents.

In Windows Explorer, there's a new "favorites" section on the left nav. I can add any folder I use regularly to that, and not only can I now instantly get to very buried folder hierarchies, I now have an always-available drop-target for dragging files to them.

Windows 7 also nags me less. I'm not constantly dismissing or being interrupted by "notifications" that I don't care about.

The new task bar, and in particular "jump lists" are amazing productivity enhancers (I was skeptical at first), and there are a ton of new hot-keys and short-cuts for doing just about everything you'd want to do, from moving windows around to launching apps to switching from laptop screen to projector.

The UI just seems snapper and smoother on the same hardware too. It "feels" more reponsive.

Even things like errors... when you try to copy a file but it's locked by an application, it now tells you which application is locking the file. When you're running tons of things, that can be a major time-saver right there. I'm a developer, and I used to spend a lot of time trying to figure out what the heck was holding on to that file... now I don't spend ANY time doing that.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. It's just more refined and polished.

Re:My Motto

[Jeremy Erwin]

The gestalt.

Re:My Motto

[mrscorpio]

Wouldn't 10 be the 4th version?

Re:My Motto

[ani23]

Ok my definition of vastly improved is definitely different than yours More eye candy does not equal vastly improved Just as an example the translucent bar at the top of every window. It makes reading the title difficult and serves absolutely no purpose. And u really like those big ugly icons? I Am not blind. And any one who says that start menu is bettter needs to get their head examined. I have to scroll just to get to the bottom of the first one. Click to open instead of hover. I love change but if it's for the better. I remember jumping to install xp when it came out. But haven't done the same either for vista or 7 I think eventually I Might just move to a Mac with xp as a virtual machine for my windows needs.

Re:My Motto

[ani23]

Yes they are. Only once you figure out how to actually get to that page.

Re:My Motto

[lgw]

Interesting, so you're saying the improvements are basically: a good command line where you only have to type the first few letters for a command, and good short-cut keys so you don't have to use the mouse. That all sounds oddly familiar ...

Re:My Motto

[man_of_mr_e]

The easiest way is to left click the network icon in the lower right cornder and select "Open Network and sharing center" then click the "Local Area Connection" link and the dialog pops up. That's 3 clicks, which is actually shorter than XP. XP requires at least 4 (right click Network dialog click properties, right click interface, choose properties)

Everyone likes to think that 7 buries stuff deeper, but in reality, almost everything is 2 or 3 clicks away from the desktop.

Re:My Motto

[icebraining]

Or you could use Windows XP + Launchy. Just saying...

Re:My Motto

[stonewallred]

Bill Gates called. He wants his cock back. Please spit it out and send it back via FedEx. Wipe your spit off of it prior to mailing it please.

Re:My Motto

[darkpixel2k]

The easiest way is to left click the network icon in the lower right cornder and select "Open Network and sharing center" then click the "Local Area Connection" link and the dialog pops up. That's 3 clicks, which is actually shorter than XP. XP requires at least 4 (right click Network dialog click properties, right click interface, choose properties)

Everyone likes to think that 7 buries stuff deeper, but in reality, almost everything is 2 or 3 clicks away from the desktop.

WinXP: Double-click network adapter in systray, double-click TCP/IP, enter an IP address.
Vista: Double-click network adapter in systray...oh...wait, that's not a network adapter, that's the network sharing center or some such bullshit. Um...ok, network sharing center. Uh...where next. Change Adapter Settings. Then right-click on your adapter, properties, TCP/IP, enter an IP address.

It's like the saying "No single raindrop believes it is responsible for the flood". Vista and Windows 7 have tons of very small changes to the way things used to be done. Who wants to re-learn how to change an IP address in Vista? You might think the 'old guys' are stuck in their ways, but it's not just being 'stuck' for stuck sake. What is the *benefit* of doing it the 'new' way?

How about a DHCP release/renew?
WinXP: Win+R->'cmd'->Enter->'ipconfig /release'->'ipconfig /renew'
Vista: Win+R->'cmd'->CTRL+SHIFT+ENTER->Approve UAC prompt->'ipconfig /release'->'ipconfig /renew' (CTRL+SHIFT+ENTER is the biggest shortcut I can find so I don't have to take my hands off the keyboard, right-click, and pick 'run as administrator' followed by clicking OK.)

Not better.

Plus, Windows XP has had about 7 years where admins could come up with decent scripts, hacks, and tweaks to get what they want. Now that Microsoft has changed that and also shows every sign of releasing a new OS every few years, most admins probably won't be able to keep up with changing their scripts and finding tweaks and fixes for their windows issues.

Re:My Motto

[SuperDre]

I'm sorry, but I too think the Windows 7 UI is crap. I have more trouble finding stuff, need to check every icon on the taskbar to see what window it is because there is no text anymore. Installing isn't imporved at all, yeah maybe the installing of the OS itself, but for me that's something I only do once in a couple of years, and then I don't mind if I have to check for those few drivers.. And in regard to installing, installing a printer for example is a bitch on windows 7 IMHO, why the hell can't it keep the list of drivers after I have said to use 'Windows update'..

The new startmenu is a real bitch, I hate having to click through every single menu, I'm glad someone made a replacement which makes it more like the XP version where is just pops open when you hoover over it.

I also don't see any real improvement on networking compared to Windows XP.

But because YOU like the UI doesn't mean for someone else it also must be better. I guess you really believe a newer UI always is better for productivity,well maybe it's for you, but the windows 7 UI certainly isn't for me.. I'm not saying it doesn't have any plusses..

I will be buying windows 7 for my new computer, but that's not because I like it, but because it's the current OS MS is only supporting right now..

Ani23 above my post says it perfectly.. also when I read your response, you are comparing it to Vista instead of XP, as I don't get ANY nags in XP.. and I'm a developer too..

Re:My Motto

[Anonymous Coward]

>> It's just more refined and polished.

But still not worth the cost or hassle of upgrading when a stable XP machine is quite capable. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Re:My Motto

[FatdogHaiku]

Everyone likes to think that 7 buries stuff deeper, but in reality, almost everything is 2 or 3 clicks away from the desktop.

Especially if you make yourself a GodMode folder.
Make a new folder
Name (or rename) it
GodMode.{ED7BA470-8E54-465E-825C-99712043E01C}
You can of course make shortcuts to this folder for use on Desktop, Start menu, etc..
Oh, it will also run from a thumb drive (a copy of the folder, not a shortcut) plugged into another Win7 machine
Most fun Windows control panel ever.

Re:My Motto

[Altanar]

So, adding a third party application that doesn't integrate as well as the built-in version takes care of one point. You have a program that makes windows snap to the side of the screen? A program that adds taskbar jumplists? A program that makes networking easier than W7's? A program that adds a Libraries function that lets me include folders from multiple sources into one place? A program that collects taskbar notifications into a single window? A program that lets me use my 6 GB of RAM on XP? A program that sets up Homegroup filesharing? A program that lets me see what programs are using the network connection and what those programs are connection too and how much each of the network each of the programs are using? A program that lets me play DirectX 11 games? A program that lets me burn Blu-Ray discs natively? A program that alerts me when something is trying to modify system files? A program that lets me shrink or expand hard drive partitions on the fly?

Or I could just use Windows 7. Just saying...

Re:My Motto

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way I will upgrade is if they improve the usability

So...that means your next computer will be a mac??? I'm no fanboy but their UI is more polished than Win7 any day. I feel that 7 is a major improvement from vista but it's still broken. They did fix the circle of death (blue circle when you open explorer) but 7 just dumped my ethernet driver for no reason and now I have no internet. Fortunately I bought an Ipad not too long ago so I'm not cut off from the world but Windows has a long way to go before they get any of my money again. shoehornjob

Re:My Motto

[Urkki]

Interesting, so you're saying the improvements are basically: a good command line where you only have to type the first few letters for a command, and good short-cut keys so you don't have to use the mouse. That all sounds oddly familiar ...

If you're referring to a Unix command line (not sure), then no. The "start menu search" or however it's officially called is quite different. It doesn't search just the path, it matches in the middle of strings too, and it's integrated with mouse (which is handy when actually searching something instead of just rapidly accessing something you already know). Not sure if latest/upcoming KDE or Gnome have something similar, but I'd say every Linux DE developer should check out how it works in Windows 7.

Re:My Motto

[turgid]

So, using a piece of Cat 5e and TCP/IP networking, how to I get files from a Windows XP machine to a Windows 7 machine?

It used to be relatively easy with XP (not as easy as using rsync, but anyway) you just found the picture of the NIC to point at, put in an IP address and netmask and enabled the mysterious Windows networking things by ticking the right boxes. Then you could make your drives visible on the network. Do the same on the other machine and "wallah" you could transfer files to your heart's content.

Try that with one Windows 7 machine and one Windows XP machine. For some reason, the Windows 7 machine will not see the Windows XP machine.

Re:My Motto

[brantondaveperson]

the translucent bar at the top of every window. It makes reading the title difficult and serves absolutely no purpose.

True that - looks appalling. I assume it can be turned off, but for all the graphic design skills that have gone into the rest of the OS (I hate the icons personally, but I can see that they... well... they obviously spent alot of time on them) why this out-of-focus translucency? It just makes titlebars and borders look untidy. Most odd.

I haven't used 7 yet though, being a shocking OSX fanboy at home, and a reluctant user of XP at work. But 7 is gradually spreading, so it will only be a matter of time.

Re:My Motto

[VGPowerlord]

WinXP: Double-click network adapter in systray, double-click TCP/IP, enter an IP address.

Wired Network adapters don't appear in the systray on Windows XP by default, so this answer is extremely misleading. Likewise, My Network Places is also not shown by default.

That would make it like this...
WinXP: Start, Control Panel, (skip this if you have Classic Mode on) Network and Internet Connections, Network Connections, Local Area Connection, Change settings of this connection (or right-click and choose Properties).

How about a DHCP release/renew?
WinXP: Win+R->'cmd'->Enter->'ipconfig /release'->'ipconfig /renew'
Vista: Win+R->'cmd'->CTRL+SHIFT+ENTER->Approve UAC prompt->'ipconfig /release'->'ipconfig /renew' (CTRL+SHIFT+ENTER is the biggest shortcut I can find so I don't have to take my hands off the keyboard, right-click, and pick 'run as administrator' followed by clicking OK.)

I don't have a Vista machine, but this worked on my (UAC-enabled) Win:

Win7: Win->'cmd'->Enter->'ipconfig /release'->'ipconfig /renew'

Did you notice it was one less character typed and had no UAC prompts?

Re:My Motto

[man_of_mr_e]

You don't have to go to Change adapter settings, it's available right there on the Network and sharing center, and it's not a double click.. it's a single click.

Single click network icon, single click open network and sharing center, single click Local Area Connection. Single click properties, double click tcp/ip. enter ip settings.

The XP network icon only appears on the taskbar if you set it to do so, not by default. Even if you do, you are talking the same or more clicks.

And, by the way... all the scripts for administration you developed in XP will work in 7 without change because the WMI api hasn't changed other than to add new stuff.

Re:My Motto

[mcneely.mike]

Want to take it up the ass from Steve Balmer? start typing Goatse scream enter.

Why you'd go back to lubrication after that is beyond me.

Re:My Motto

[man_of_mr_e]

You are confusing showing up in the browser (ie browsing for a computer) and accessing a computer (typing in it's UNC).

You need to upgrade XP to SP3 for it to show up in the network browser, but doing \\192.168.0.x\share will work even if it doesn't show up in the browser.

Re:My Motto

[Iron Condor]

give me windows 10, or give me Death!

It'll be called "Windows X" of course. To capitalize on the value of the letter X in marketing these days.

Re:My Motto

[turgid]

The problem is more fundamental than that: it's at the IP level. The Windows 7 machine refuses to send/receive IP packets to and from the XP machine.

It was a few months back now, and they weren't my machines, but I am interested to know why things didn't work. Windows is too hard for my poor little brain!

Re:My Motto

[bhcompy]

I agree with the basic sentiment of this. They changed too many things that frankly worked great and didn't need improvement. They did this for Server 2008 as well. The new IIS is ridiculously poor in design and instead of having two or three different areas of configuration(be it the website, the virtual folder, etc), you have 3 dozen different applets with 3 or 4 configuration settings each. Why mess with something that works perfectly already? Hell, why put fucking UAC on a server OS?

Re:My Motto

[man_of_mr_e]

That's simply not true. I don't know what your problem was, but the machines will definitely talk to each other.. assuming you don't have the firewall blocking the ports.

Re:My Motto

[darkpixel2k]

WinXP: Double-click network adapter in systray, double-click TCP/IP, enter an IP address.

Wired Network adapters don't appear in the systray on Windows XP by default, so this answer is extremely misleading. Likewise, My Network Places is also not shown by default.

That would make it like this... WinXP: Start, Control Panel, (skip this if you have Classic Mode on) Network and Internet Connections, Network Connections, Local Area Connection, Change settings of this connection (or right-click and choose Properties).

The 'Connect to' menu and 'Classic Mode' control panel is enabled by our nlite CD.

So it's shorter in XP.

And before you say "Well, not by default", let me add that in order to get a similar effect in Vista/7 I apparently need to shell out hundreds for upgrades, along with figuring out how to master a Windows 7 CD similar to an XP/nlite CD.
I don't see a benefit in upgrading.

How about a DHCP release/renew? WinXP: Win+R->'cmd'->Enter->'ipconfig /release'->'ipconfig /renew' Vista: Win+R->'cmd'->CTRL+SHIFT+ENTER->Approve UAC prompt->'ipconfig /release'->'ipconfig /renew' (CTRL+SHIFT+ENTER is the biggest shortcut I can find so I don't have to take my hands off the keyboard, right-click, and pick 'run as administrator' followed by clicking OK.)

I don't have a Vista machine, but this worked on my (UAC-enabled) Win:

Win7: Win->'cmd'->Enter->'ipconfig /release'->'ipconfig /renew'

Did you notice it was one less character typed and had no UAC prompts?

Great--Windows 7 is slightly better than Vista.
So remind me again why we needed to go through two versions of Windows, paying hundreds of dollars for upgrades just to save having to press 'R' along with the Windows key in order to do a release/renew? I'm astonishingly unconvinced that I need to upgrade.

Re:My Motto

[SpryGuy]

You're aware that Windows is configurable, aren't you?

You want text on your task bar icons? Just configure it to add the text. I do. No big deal.

And installing a printer on Win7 was about a dozen times easier than on XP for me. I got a new laptop. It was like, two clicks, and I had a printer. Seriously, I have no idea why you think it's more difficult.

Honestly, if you don't see any real improvement, it's simply because you haven't looked, haven't tried, and made up your mind before you actually got any experience.

I get nags in XP all the time (those stupid baloon pop-ups in the system tray, for starters)... yes, I was comparing with XP not with Vista. XP is PAINFUL to use after you learn and get used to Win7. Almost everything in Win7 takes less effort... from every day use, to installing anything (networks, printers, devices), etc. There are only a very, very small number of things that are "worse" (as in, more hidden, or take more clicks).

I don't think you're giving it a chance.

Re:My Motto

[darkpixel2k]

The new IIS is ridiculously poor in design and instead of having two or three different areas of configuration(be it the website, the virtual folder, etc), you have 3 dozen different applets with 3 or 4 configuration settings each.

It totally reminds me of a crappy cheap webhosting providers control panel circa 2000. (Think webhost4life.com. What a joke.)

Re:My Motto

[SpryGuy]

I won't defend the translucent thing (though you can turn it off if it bothers you that much). It was a little strange at first, but it's fine once you get used to it.

And "big ugly icons"? You're aware you can specify the icon size to use, right? Want smaller ones? Just say so. Want text with the icons on your task bar? Just say so. It's pretty configurable.

And the new start menu IS vastly better. You can control what is on it (pinned), and most things (with jump lists) will have the most recently used documents fly out to the right. I rarely need to dig deeper than just clicking "start". Ever. But when I do, ti's there. And you can configure the behavior of the start menu as well (number of items to keep on it, what extra things -- like control panel, network places, adminstrative tools -- to have up front on the main start menu, how they behave (open a window, or a fly out menu), etc. Yes, it's better. It's not this utterly messy series of fly-out menus like in XP, that require lots of manual trimming and organizing to be useful. Win7 requires a lot less micro-managing.

I don't think you're giving Win7's UI a chance.

Re:My Motto

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of little things that add up.

Start-menu search, means I don't have to go hunting through the "All Programs" menu when it gets big, or remember in which little folder that little applet was, or hunt through the control panel. If I know what I want, I just type a few letters, and boom, there it is. Same with most recently used documents.

In Windows Explorer, there's a new "favorites" section on the left nav. I can add any folder I use regularly to that, and not only can I now instantly get to very buried folder hierarchies, I now have an always-available drop-target for dragging files to them.

Windows 7 also nags me less. I'm not constantly dismissing or being interrupted by "notifications" that I don't care about.

The new task bar, and in particular "jump lists" are amazing productivity enhancers (I was skeptical at first), and there are a ton of new hot-keys and short-cuts for doing just about everything you'd want to do, from moving windows around to launching apps to switching from laptop screen to projector.

The UI just seems snapper and smoother on the same hardware too. It "feels" more reponsive.

Even things like errors... when you try to copy a file but it's locked by an application, it now tells you which application is locking the file. When you're running tons of things, that can be a major time-saver right there. I'm a developer, and I used to spend a lot of time trying to figure out what the heck was holding on to that file... now I don't spend ANY time doing that.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. It's just more refined and polished.

A lot of the new features you've mentioned above I've been using on ubuntu for years.

"I'm a PC and windows was someone else's idea"

At least you have to admire their honesty!

Re:My Motto

[darkpixel2k]

You don't have to go to Change adapter settings, it's available right there on the Network and sharing center, and it's not a double click.. it's a single click.

Single click network icon, single click open network and sharing center, single click Local Area Connection. Single click properties, double click tcp/ip. enter ip settings.

The XP network icon only appears on the taskbar if you set it to do so, not by default. Even if you do, you are talking the same or more clicks.

And, by the way... all the scripts for administration you developed in XP will work in 7 without change because the WMI api hasn't changed other than to add new stuff.

I do see that new feature in 7. It's definitely shorter by default. I stand corrected.

As for WMI--screw WMI. It's the biggest piece of crap put out by Microsoft since Vista, ME, and Bob. I feel like I'm updating records in a SQL table rather than managing a workstation.

Rename a computer?
strComputer = "."
Set objWMIService = GetObject("winmgmts:" _
& "{impersonationLevel=impersonate}!\\" _
& strComputer & "\root\cimv2")
Set colComputers = objWMIService.ExecQuery _
("Select * from Win32_ComputerSystem")
For Each objComputer in colComputers
errReturn = ObjComputer.Rename("NewName")
Next


How about linux?
ssh root@somecomputer 'hostname NewName'

Re:My Motto

[Darby]

Not sure if latest/upcoming KDE or Gnome have something similar, but I'd say every Linux DE developer should check out how it works in Windows 7.

It's way old news in the Mac/Linux world. As usual.

Re:My Motto

[man_of_mr_e]

WMI is only microsoft's implementation of the industry standard Common Information Model (CIM). This is used in Mac's, Linux, and other OS's as well. It's also known as WBEM (Web based enterprise management).

Linux has SBLIM, for instance http://sourceforge.net/projects/sblim/

There are other ways to change computer names that don't involve WMI that are basically as simple as your linux example.

Re:My Motto

[kaizokuace]

yea man all those things are so rad right? It was totally my idea!

Re:My Motto

[icebraining]

What if I want a talking unicorn? I didn't reply to any of those features. Parent was only talking about the keyboard launching feature, not any other.

Yes, if all those features are important enough to be worth $170, you should by Windows 7. If one the other hand you simply want keyboard launching, you can spend 5 minutes downloading and installing Launchy.

Personally, I have Windows 7 on my desktop ("family PC") and I don't care about most of those features. The only reason I've upgraded it's because I got it for free through MSDNAA, and I was buying a new PC, so I had to reinstall anyway.

Re:My Motto

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think it's gonna matter

I hate windows 7

I tried using it for 1 week and it really has a horrible user interface

I recently downgraded a brand new core i7 to xp
Icons are ugly
The startmenu in just one level is stupid
The flashy effects make the ui worse
I can't figure out shit when trying to change network settings

I could go on with these forever

Seriously u can pry xp out of my cold dead hands. The only way I will upgrade is if they improve the usability.

How does your post get +4 insightful, yet it is just a bunch of subjective Microsoft bashing with no substance.

Re:My Motto

[Joe U]

The 'Connect to' menu and 'Classic Mode' control panel is enabled by our nlite CD.

So it's shorter in XP.

That's a BS response and you know it. It's shorter in XP because I spent time to create a CD that changes the default settings?

I'm astonishingly unconvinced that I need to upgrade.

Because technology advances. There are plenty of crap cars from the 70's and 80's that have no airbags or other safety features and still run. Which car do you want to be in when you crash, the 1979 Pinto or 2011 Focus?

Re:My Motto

[garethjrowlands]

Try googling "set computer name powershell".

set-computername "oldname" "newname"

See http://poshcode.org/541

vbscript is something you only have to work with on Windows XP.

Re:My Motto

[darkpixel2k]

The 'Connect to' menu and 'Classic Mode' control panel is enabled by our nlite CD.

So it's shorter in XP.

That's a BS response and you know it. It's shorter in XP because I spent time to create a CD that changes the default settings?

It absolutely isn't BS. My company invested a significant amount of time and money to create a customized XP CD. It saves us a ton of time. All the desktops look and behave the same. Installing XP takes about 30 minutes and we aren't prompted during the setup.

What is so damn technically advanced in Vista or 7 that we should toss out all our work and dump thousands upon thousands of dollars into upgrades?

I'm not trying to be smarmy and annoying. None of the applications my customers use require Vista or 7. I'm sure they will once the marketing droids and some developers get drawn in by flashy widgets or translucent title bars. But really--all my customers need to do in edit a document or spreadsheet in office (or OpenOffice), print to printers, surf the internet, and in a few cases interface with weird medical hardware).

Nothing there requires Windows 7. Hell--most of it would run just fine under Win95/98, but 95/98 wasn't too stable.

I'm astonishingly unconvinced that I need to upgrade.

Because technology advances. There are plenty of crap cars from the 70's and 80's that have no airbags or other safety features and still run. Which car do you want to be in when you crash, the 1979 Pinto or 2011 Focus?

The Pinto is a bad example. That's the OS/2 of cars. Lets call XP a 1970s era Volvo. I'd take the Volvo any day.

I used to drive a 2000 era Suzuki Swift. One day I saw the same make/model of car get into a wreck with an old Volvo (early 80s I believe). The Volvo was mashed a bit, but the Swift was utterly demolished. The Volvo driver survived, the Suzuki driver didn't.

The Suzuki had 'newer' technologies, a 'flashier' look, and awesome new 'fiberglass' and 'rubbermade' components--but that didn't make it better.

The shitty new UI in Vista/7 isn't an advancement. Switching to 64-bit isn't an advancement. (XP could have been recompiled under 64-bit--and indeed it has. I'm sure there are UI nerds out there who have ported a vista-like theme to XP.)

What exactly is the point in switching to Vista/7? And it has to be compelling to get my company to re-invest significant amounts of time and money to 'fix' all the annoying issues out of the box, and to spend tens of thousands to pay Microsoft for the privilege?

Like I said--I'm not trying to be a jerk. But there is no technical benefit to switching to Vista/7 that outweighs the huge cost of upgrading.

Ask me again in another 1-2 years when every damn app developer starts requiring Windows 7 because they want their program to have a translucent title bar and I'll be singing a different tune.

Re:My Motto

[man_of_mr_e]

Well, Powershell works in XP as well, but the point was that an admin may have existing scripts that he's honed over years of use. Those scripts will continue to work, even though there are better ways to do it if you are so inclined.

Re:My Motto

[pookemon]

You forgot to say "Get off my lawn".

Windoze 7 is, by far, the best version of Windoze ever produced. Sure it's different to XP - but that's just a matter of taking the time to learn it and accepting that with improvements, some things will change. It's faster than XP, as robust as XP and it has some great useability features that make XP look like the dated PoC that it actually is. But you don't appear to want to "change" so there's no real point in explaining it to you. We in the industry call you a "User". Users can't be bothered learning and are resistant to change, even if there are multiple benefits to that change.

Re:My Motto

[man_of_mr_e]

The reason is that IIS is now modular, and any feature can be turned on or off. This allows you to create a small security footprint. Modularity is a good thing, and it's one of the reasons IIS7+ is so flexible and extensible.

It's amazing that people will complain and find fault with something that such a huge boon and win securitywise, extensibilitywise, and performancewise.

So basically "Waaaaahh.. i hate it cause it's different, and i don't care if the reasons for changing are valid or not".

Re:My Motto

[darkpixel2k]

WMI is only microsoft's implementation of the industry standard Common Information Model (CIM). This is used in Mac's, Linux, and other OS's as well. It's also known as WBEM (Web based enterprise management).

Linux has SBLIM, for instance http://sourceforge.net/projects/sblim/

There are other ways to change computer names that don't involve WMI that are basically as simple as your linux example.

Ugh.
I suppose WBEM would be less annoying with a decent management app instead of having to type a bunch of SQL-like statements. A few minutes of digging reveals that apparently Microsoft System Center is one such front-end. ...and it appears to cost about $10,000 for one of my networks--but I can't tell for sure. Microsoft Licensing is sort of a pain in the ass to figure out.

(So you're telling me I just bought Windows Server, and then I bought Windows XP which is a client designed specifically for talking with your server product--and now I have to pay you more money to get your blessing--called a CAL--to let them actually talk?)

(So you're telling me I just bought Exchange Server, and then I bought Outlook which is a client designed specifically for talking with your server product--and now I have to pay you more money to get your blessing--called a CAL--to let them actually talk?)

etc...

Re:My Motto

[Joe U]

What exactly is the point in switching to Vista/7? And it has to be compelling to get my company to re-invest significant amounts of time and money to 'fix' all the annoying issues out of the box, and to spend tens of thousands to pay Microsoft for the privilege?

You know what, it's a tough job market out there, enjoy 1999's technology to it's fullest.

Re:My Motto

[darkpixel2k]

Try googling "set computer name powershell".

set-computername "oldname" "newname"

See http://poshcode.org/541

vbscript is something you only have to work with on Windows XP.

Yes--and I'm sure by the time I've found time to rewrite my management scripts over the next year in PowerShell, I'll be hearing that PowerShell is something I only have to work with on Vista/7 and now I should be rewriting them in something tries even harder and utterly fails harder to work like the CLI in Linux.

Re:My Motto

[darkpixel2k]

You know what, it's a tough job market out there, enjoy 1999's technology to it's fullest.

Yeah--when the economy picks up and companies start wanting to drive dumptrucks full of cash to Microsoft HQ again, let me know--I'll be there to recommend against it, be ignored, and spend years billing them to update the infrastructure and write apps to fix all the new problems introduced or priced into existence.

Re:My Motto

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you'll be too busy wondering why your computers don't work right.

Re:My Motto

[garethjrowlands]

vbscript/COM scripts work in 7 too, don't they? But 7 has Powershell 2 installed by default and its wmi's far more capable and approachable than on xp. And wasn't your point that a unix shell was better at handling remote systems? Well it's much easier to manage large numbers of windows 7 boxes remotely than xp boxes (though with ubiquitous ssh and terminal handling, unix is probably still ahead, especially since admins are more used to scripting it).

Re:My Motto

[man_of_mr_e]

*sigh*

You keep moving the goal posts.

By the way, there are free WMI tools.. Microsoft even provides some, and there are 3rd party tools. You don't have to buy MSC. Like all things, if your environment is large enough, than an expensive tool can save you money in the long run. If it's not, you make do.

Microsoft WMI tools

As for licensing, you don't typically buy software a le carte, you buy them as part of a volume license program that includes all your CAL's and other licenses for a pretty substantial cost savings.

Re:My Motto

[garethjrowlands]

If your incredibly valuable scripts run on xp, they'll run on 7. Powershell is available for xp but not installed by default - some things that powershell can access, such as wmi aren't as capable on xp. If you like writing vbscript or .bat or .cmd, go right ahead.

Powershell is only available on windows though, you're right about that. As for its relationship to the unix CLI experience, well it's got a lot of similarities but lots of differences too. The shell is dramatically better for scripting than bash, say. For a complex script you'd probably switch to perl/ruby at some point on unix or suffer the rather horrid bash syntax. I prefer tab completion on bash - powershell's is technically more powerful but bash's is more mature. The fact that every unix machine has ssh and is designed for terminals is a big win for unix. ws-management isn't open by default on windows boxes and the remote command-line's a bit laggy. On the other hand, powershell's built-in abilities to run a bunch of jobs on an array of machines and collate the results in the background is a pretty big win for windows - you're looking at either a management suite or a lot of scripting for that on unix (it's done on unix all the time of course but posh is pretty nice in this area).

I doubt microsoft are going to replace posh any time soon. Took them about 25 years to replace their previous command-line shell.

I still prefer grep to select-string though.

Re:My Motto

[darkpixel2k]

*sigh*

You keep moving the goal posts.

Sorry--there are just so many things that annoy the crap out of me and hinder me from getting work done in Windows that I just can't decide on one. ;)

By the way, there are free WMI tools.. Microsoft even provides some, and there are 3rd party tools. You don't have to buy MSC. Like all things, if your environment is large enough, than an expensive tool can save you money in the long run. If it's not, you make do.

Microsoft WMI tools

Mildly useful tools that appear like they were designed for Windows 95 and have annoying problems running in IE8.

As for licensing, you don't typically buy software a le carte, you buy them as part of a volume license program that includes all your CAL's and other licenses for a pretty substantial cost savings.

Yup. Why pay the horrendous retail price when you can simply buy into something like eOpen where you pay a slightly less than horrendous price along with having to pay to keep your eOpen SA benefits every three years...and then Microsoft doesn't release Vista until 5 years later. Such a benefit.

But just to show you that I'm not totally anti-Microsoft, I'll tell you something I like: Windows 2008 Group Policy. The addition of the ability to do things like map drives, add/delete/disable local user accounts, map printers, etc...it's pretty handy. No more batch or VBS scripts sitting in NETLOGON to do that stuff upon login. I haven't seen anything in Linux that comes close.

Re:My Motto

[Anonymous Coward]

How was this modded insightful? All he does is say "Windows 7 is different to what I'm used to so it's crap."

Newsflash: Windows 7 improved usability - just because you got used to working with XP doesn't mean it's the most usable OS out there.

Re:My Motto

[darkpixel2k]

Powershell is only available on windows though, you're right about that. As for its relationship to the unix CLI experience, well it's got a lot of similarities but lots of differences too. The shell is dramatically better for scripting than bash, say.

Do you have an example? I'm hardly an avid PowerShell user, but I haven't seen anything that sets it ahead (or even along-side) BASH.

For a complex script you'd probably switch to perl/ruby at some point on unix or suffer the rather horrid bash syntax.

Ugh--out of all the languages on Linux, you picked two out of the three worst in my opinion. Perl is like masochistic C, and Ruby--hell, I'm 30 years old, I'm not sure what language Ruby came from. It looks like nothing I've ever run into before. I'm sure someone will tell me it's like $DEAD_LANGUAGE from the 70's like Smalltalk or COBOL.

The only language possibly worse is Erlang. ;)

On the other hand, powershell's built-in abilities to run a bunch of jobs on an array of machines and collate the results in the background is a pretty big win for windows

Never done it on Windows. Try 'cssh' in Linux.
I use it for managing and updating about 40 linux spam filters and firewalls.

Took them about 25 years to replace their previous command-line shell.

You've got a point there.

Re:My Motto

[techhead79]

great now the next patch is going to break it. Way to go.

Re:My Motto

[smash]

sounds like you need to jump ship to linux + fvwm95

Re:My Motto

[smash]

hit start. type network (or hell, even "net"). that wasn't too hard?

Re:My Motto

[smash]

So you're willing to give up pervasive search abilities, separation of video driver from kernel (i.e., dodgy video driver crash = screen flickers while it reloads - carry on working/etc), better networking support in general, future versions of powershell, and SMB signing for a few clicks when setting an ip address on a network adapter - something done, at best once every time you move computer (assuming your network administrator is too brain damaged to figure out auto config).

Have fun with that.

Re:My Motto

[smash]

news flash: plenty of real businesses out there have volume agreements and get the upgrade to vista/7/whatever for free.

fact: i've done back to back testing with a shitty 5 year old laptop running XP+SOE and 7+SOE on same hardware (windows + virus scanner + office 2007 + a few apps) and with 1gb ram 7 was as fast or faster once you let the initial search index complete.

not to mention the continuing availability of security updates and arguably superior (to windows XP) security model.

fact: SOE images are far easier to create and maintain with Windows vista / 7 than they are with Windows XP. You know... how real businesses want to actually roll out a standard build...

The economy has fuck all to do with a lot of people deciding to roll out 7, either en-masse or as old boxes die and need to be re-imaged.

Have rolled out 7 to about 30% of the company thus far and the problems to deal with have been exceedingly minimal, as they will be for around 95% of desktop workloads out there.

Stuff like branchcache and directaccess are a time and money saver as well, when combined with 2008 R2.

Re:My Motto

[smash]

Run windows easy transfer on the 7 machine, stick it on a usb stick when prompted. Plug both machines in via crossover (or even straight, on gig-e) cable. Plug USB stick into windows XP and run windows easy transfer. Machines will find each other, enter code to confirm. Its a piece of piss. If you can't get win7 easy transfer to work from XP to 7, you have no business managing data on either...

Re:My Motto

[smash]

If you use outlook or another mail program with a windows search filter...

start -> kind:=email from:bob date:last week

it works on documents, emails, etc.

Windows 7 search kicks arse. It is FAST, too.

Re:My Motto

[smash]

Sure they may have been on ubuntu for years - but until the actual APPS that people need to run have been available on it, in a stable, vendor supported form - then its fucking useless for people who NEED those apps to do their job.

Don't get me wrong, I've been a linux user since 1996, and have made extensive use on it for Internet firewalls, mail servers, proxy servers, etc. But operating systems are merely tools. Use the correct tool for the job. If all you have is a hammer (ubuntu) it doesn't mean everything is a nail (say, running Datamine, Mine24d, suprac, etc).

Re:My Motto

[Urkki]

Not sure if latest/upcoming KDE or Gnome have something similar, but I'd say every Linux DE developer should check out how it works in Windows 7.

It's way old news in the Mac/Linux world. As usual.

Ok. I want to add stuff to system or user environment. In Windows I hit Win-key, type "env" and select "Edit environment variables for your account".

Or I want to edit WLAN settings: win + "net", not found yet, I type more so it says "net w" and select "Manage Wireless Networks".

How do I do that in Gnome? And this is a serious question, 'cos I use Gnome daily, too! (For some reason, when ever I try KDE, I want to stop using it in about 5 minutes... I don't know why, I guess it just somehow manages to always get in the way of doing things the way I'm used to.)

(Also feel free to enlighten how above is done in a Mac. I'm not really interested but somebody else may be.)

Re:My Motto

[bhcompy]

Making it modular has nothing to do with completely wrecking the configuration design that has been in place for many IIS iterations and many years. You can still have a unified UI and have it break down in to modular parts behind the scenes. 2008 took what was a strongpoint for IIS(essentially as an easy to configure webserver for small or medium enterprise) and changed it in to something that requires more knowledge and complexity than should be required. It's a nightmare for me since I support a great deal of network/server administrators that don't know their ass from a hole in the wall. You don't need to break the UI to change the game, but MS went ahead and did that anyways. And then added UAC on for good measure just to rub it in.

Re:My Motto

[Jason Kimball]

What if my screen is turned off/not showing up or my mouse isn't plugged in and I want to reboot or turn off my computer. How do you do this with just your keyboard under Windows 7?

In Windows XP it was 3 keys in order: Windows key, u, r. Windows key, u, u would turn off computer.

I STILL haven't found a convenient keyboard only way of rebooting/shutdown through the start menu.

2 steps forward, one step backwards?

(I do run Windows 7 on 2/3 of my computers, XP on the other for backwards compatibility testing).

Re:My Motto

[Jason Kimball]

Ok through brute determination I figured at least one way to do this.

Windows key, right arrow, enter/space will shutdown (or whatever the 'default' action is).

Windows key, right arrow, right arrow, r will restart.

Anyone have a quicker method?

2 steps forward, one step spinning in circles?

Re:My Motto

[mikael_j]

I have no doubt that that for the average user the default win7 UI is an improvement over the default winxp and winvista UIs. Or that the customization options for the UI in win7 beat winxp and winvista.

However, I have noticed that those of my friends and acquaintances who complain the most about the win7 UI are actually those who are used to lots of different user interfaces and have a lot of experience with different GUI environments. From what I can tell it boils down to the differences between the various "computing worlds" and how defaults are handled.

In the "mac world" a lot of focus is put on making the default settings good enough that you won't feel the need to make a lot of customizations.

In the *nix/free software world you'll most likely get no defaults at all or completely alien defaults that 90% of users will want to make major changes to.

And finally in the Windows world you've got "wonky" defaults, they're "good enough" but every power user wants to change them, there's also this weird habit of changing the names and behavior of things just as everyone has gotten used the previous strange MS-world way.

I still remember trying to set up a PPP connection with the swedish version of Windows 95, took me forever since I was going through the help files and the control panel looking for some reference to "PPP", finally I had to enlist the help of a Windows-using friend who looked at me like an idiot and told me to create a new "Fjärranslutning" ("Remote connection") and after picking the exact right option in the little wizard I had apparently created a PPP connection. The problem? This was the first time anyone in Sweden had called a PPP connection a "Fjärranslutning" which meant that my knowing what a PPP connection was suddenly became completely useless info until I had applied a Microsoft-To-Reality translation to everything on-screen. Anyway, my point is that they still pull stuff like this all over the place, and when you know the "standard" way to do and name stuff it really gets annoying to have no idea what's going on because they tried to be "user friendly" by renaming or outright hiding things they consider to be "scary" for the average user (seriously, even Apple doesn't do that, they may limit the in-your-face options but if you go to the Apple menu, enter the system preferences and click "Network" they're a lot less confusing for someone who has a bit of a grasp of networking standards).

Re:My Motto

[xtracto]

My wife actually dislikes Windows 7 Wifi interface.

See, in Windows XP you had a button called "Repair" which made a complete disable-enable-configure cycle for the Wifi... whereas in Windows 7 you have something called "Diagnose" which is a complete crap that does not work.

Yup, I still use Windows XP and could not be happier!

Re:My Motto

[xtracto]

Mhmmm... I should start selling a copy of Launchy Ultimate for half the price of Windows 7 home basic =o)

Re:My Motto

[garethjrowlands]

I'd not heard of cssh, it looks cool. I'll check it out. Powershell's built-in job management looks pretty similar but of course it only works on windows (and even then you really need modern windows).

Some example Scripts:

Here's the script that's in my current directory right now. Wouldn't say it shows anything dramatic above bash though.
param($projects = ("common", "ccs-common", "ihdcc"))

function build-project($project)
{
        $trunkDir = "$project\trunk"
        if (-not (test-path $trunkDir)) {
                ls | ?{ test-path "$_\trunk" }
                throw "Project $project not found"
        }
        try {
                pushd $trunkDir
                mvn clean install war:inplace
                if ($LastExitCode -ne 0) {
                        throw "Project $project did not build."
                }
                # "-Dmaven.test.skip=true"
                #mvn eclipse:clean eclipse:eclipse
        }
        finally {
                popd
        }
}

$projects | %{ build-project $_ }

Here's another one. It shows manipulating an XML configuration file.
$configPath=c:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727\CONFIG\machine.config
$cfg = [xml](cat $configPath)
$cfg.configuration.connectionStrings.add.connectionString="data source=.\SQL"
$cfg.WriteTo($configPath)

Extract the product name from the version stamp on any file in the current directory or child directories:
ls -recurse | where { $_.psIsContainer } | select -expand versioninfo | select productname

Here's how to create Exchange mailboxes in bulk from a csv file.
http://www.exchangeninjas.com/BulkCreateMailboxes

Running commands against remote servers:
$servers = server1,server2,server
invokecommand -computer $servers { ls }

Using some arbitrary library object:
(new-object -com SAPI.SpVoice).speak(“Hello, I am a computer”)

A hash table:
$lookup = @{ "a"=1; "b"=2; "c"=5 }
$five = $lookup["c"]

Re:My Motto

[AmiMoJo]

Start -> type "network connections" -> Enter

Most preferences and programs can be accessed directly from the search box on the start menu. If you can type then the start menu and control panel are largely redundant.

Re:My Motto

[catmistake]

Umm.. the network settings are identical to the ones in XP. How can you possibly have trouble with that?

http://news.softpedia.com/newsImage/Windows-7-Networking-5.jpg/

That is quite true of nearly everything. Yes, awesome eye candy... and better than Vista for stability, speed, and footprint. But what we have are less sophisticated users used to the look of XP... and all they use is email, probably browser email, and the web... and maybe pictures and a little word processing. WTF is the POINT of updating these users? What new features are they going to care about? Is 7 more secure? Does anyone care but those that love anything new? XP was original Coke. Vista was New Coke. Seven is Coke Classic. Brovo, Microsoft, you pay the bills for another decade.

Re:My Motto

[mcgrew]

It took me six months to get used to Windows 7 after I bought the netbook. I finally wiped it and installed kubuntu.

The thing is, there is no reason for normal people to upgrade Windows. To non-slashdotters, there is no such thing as an OS, there's just "the computer". To them, getting viruses despite having both McAffee and Norton is just a part of having a computer, as is overpaying the Geek Squad to clean it up for them.

Of COURSE people are staying with XP and even 98, and they will until they buy a new PC. Nobody but nerds upgrades an OS, and most of us, when we upgrade Windows, upgrade to Linux (which is a true upgrade).

Re:My Motto

[aix tom]

That's exactly the point. It has shifted, like so many things today, from a consumer-driven upgrade cycle into a producer-driven. It's just to much work on the consumer side, with little benefits.

We also still run XP on or workstations at work. We actually upgraded from Windows 2000 to XP when Vista was out for about a year. That was our usual cycle. Upgrade to the next version when the version AFTER that came out, but only after it became clear that Windows 7 wouldn't be far away and would try to remedy Vistas problems.

Vista broke that cycle, since it would have been technically impossible to upgrade to Vista because of a lot of custom hardware and software, and because when we tested it it was pretty much unusable for our needs. We have testes Windows 7, and it seems to work. But to justify the expenses to upgrade to it, we still need to see that the *next version up* will also still work before we can justify going through the work of porting our applications to Windows 7.

I believe the update cycle has to slow down. The more and more computers and their OS are embedded in more and more gadgets, applications, machines, business processes, etc... the more they should be expected to *just work* without changing everything around every year.

The same as I expect my plumbing or my electrical installations at home to "just work" when I press the right buttons or turn the right knobs, without the buttons and knobs changing shape, colour and function every few years.

Re:My Motto

[aix tom]

Oh, and of course all our XP workstations still have the "Classic Windows 2000" look and feel. Which is pretty much the first thing that we will try to achieve when we can't avoid Windows 7 some time in the future.

Re:My Motto

[operagost]

What if they gave you a keyboard with a period key that works?

Re:My Motto

[Anonymous Coward]

Before the dot you can name the folder whatever you want. Please stop naming it "godmode" because that's just really gay.

Re:My Motto

[mcgrew]

Start-menu search, means I don't have to go hunting through the "All Programs" menu when it gets big, or remember in which little folder that little applet was, or hunt through the control panel.

I'm at work right now running XP, and search is right there on the start menu.

In Windows Explorer, there's a new "favorites" section on the left nav. I can add any folder I use regularly to that, and not only can I now instantly get to very buried

XP has "my recent documents" in the start menu, and they took it away in 7 (I had 7 on my netbook before I wiped it in favor of kubuntu)

Windows 7 also nags me less.

I think you're confusing XP with Vista. XP rarely nags about anything; 7 is far worse with its nagging than XP, although I've heard Vista was terrible about that.

The new task bar, and in particular "jump lists" are amazing productivity enhancers (I was skeptical at first), and there are a ton of new hot-keys and short-cuts for doing just about everything you'd want to do, from moving windows around to launching apps to switching from laptop screen to projector.

Those features are worthless without knowing they're there, and Windows has the industry's worst documentation. The "new" win 7 task bar didn't look much different than XP's, I never heard of a "jump list" and the hotkeys are poorly (if at all) documented. I do like the voice recognition, but it's almost never quiet enough where I compute to use it (or I might have installed kubuntu dual-boot).

The UI just seems snapper and smoother on the same hardware too. It "feels" more reponsive.

Well, the netbook seemed snappier and more responive to me, but I think that's because the XP computer at work is ten years old.

I'm a developer

Oh that explains it. You're an MSCE. Sorry, but for the average user your OS sucks. It's prettier than XP, but afaict that and networking are its only advantages.

Re:My Motto

[man_of_mr_e]

You should use UAC, all windows OS's should (and do) have it. UAC is good. I don't give a flying fuck if you find it annoying, it's good for you.

Without UAC, lots of security features don't work. Without those security features, you are waiting to get compromised.

This is why people don't run as root even on servers in Linux. you use sudo, which is the same thing as UAC for all intents and purposes.

Re:My Motto

[bhcompy]

UAC is great for workstations, it's shit for servers. There is no reason UAC should be on a server at all. Servers are not for user access, they are for running server applications.

Re:My Motto

[man_of_mr_e]

Yes, 7 is more secure. Nearly all the vulnerabilities that have been discovered in windows over the last year been mitigated by Windows 7's default configuration (that is, they may still affect 7, but because of things like UAC, DEP, etc.. they can't be exploited or not as easily as on XP).

Windows 7 provides a whole metric shit ton of other features that an average user will find beneficial. Theming, gadgets, Aero Snap, Jump Lists, Live Previews (works great for finding the right tab in your browser and allows you to jump right to it), and search.

Seriously, The only people I know that don't love 7 and refuse to go back to XP are people that are too stubborn to learn anything new.

Re:My Motto

[man_of_mr_e]

Administrators are users.

I suppose you log in as root to linux servers too, right? I mean, after all, Servers don't need limited user protection.. right?

Wrong.

Re:My Motto

[turgid]

Why should I need extra software to transfer files between two systems with TCP/IP networking? Two Win XP machines used to be OK.

They weren't my machines. I was only trying to help someone. Alas, I ran out of time and had to give up. I think they burnt the files to DVD or something in the end.

I thought Windows was supposed to make things easy for non-technical people?

Re:My Motto

[dwye]

> Do the same on the other machine and "wallah"

That is spelled "voila" (possibly with an accent, as it is French).

Not being a Spelling Nazi, just thought that you would prefer to know, rather than get it wrong someplace important.

Re:My Motto

[FatdogHaiku]

The Lord is displeased with you!
Remember, He sees you when you're sleeping and He knows when you're awake!
oh, wait, that's that perv Santa Clause...

Re:My Motto

[turgid]

I was being sarcastic. It's a bit like the Beowulf cluster of Natalie Portmans in Soviet Russia etc. A few years back, everyone round here was putting "wallah" in their posts, not knowing the correct spelling. The other thing they get wrong nowadays is writing "then" when they mean "than" and "disinterested" when they mean "uninterested." Also "insure" instead of "ensure", "effect" instead of "affect" ....

Life is short, but the interwebs are getting full of such talk. I can't deal with them all in one foul swoop and I'm getting tyred. Too old for that kind of think.

Re:My Motto

[bhcompy]

Except that it interferes with background services and installations even when you allow it to run. The routinely corrupts our Sybase databases because the access control interrupts writes for authorized users when it feels like it. There is no place for it on a server OS. UAC is not the same as preventing root access, UAC is like running a script blocker. When it detects something it doesn't like it will fire. When you try to do something that needs root access and you do not have that capability, you just don't have that capability.

Re:My Motto

[man_of_mr_e]

Sorry, that's not how UAC works at all. In fact, there is no way UAC can cause what you're describing.

UAC doesn't "block" anything, it's not a script block, it doesn't "engage". It's on all the time.

UAC allows rights elevation, it does not cause rights removal.

The way UAC works is that the user, by default, has no administrative privilges, even if they are an administrator. When a user needs to perform an administrative task, UAC raises the users rights for that task, and that task alone. The rights for that task stay elevated until the process terminates.

Re:My Motto

[bhcompy]

And, apparently, it's detecting certain things in the DB(I imagine some particular triggers) that causes it to request elevation when there is no user even logged in(since the DB is accessed through Windows via the Everyone user). And it doesn't seem to inherit those rights to items launched by whatever you grant access to, or at least sporadically it doesn't. It's removal of rights because the user is granted those rights already, and it prompts you to use those rights when you may not be present(like applications running under user context). It would be much more useful if there was a whitelist, but there isn't. Servers have limited access, UAC in it's present form has no use for it. It's there to prevent spyware, not to prevent the administrator from doing his job.

Re:My Motto

[darkpixel2k]

So you're willing to give up pervasive search abilities,

How hard is it to double-click on the Excel or Word icons on the desktop? How hard is it to double-click on the IE icon, or the icons for the two business apps that we run? Seriously. Give icons on the desktop. I don't need pervasive search for that.

separation of video driver from kernel (i.e., dodgy video driver crash = screen flickers while it reloads - carry on working/etc)

Meh. I haven't had a video driver crash in XP in quite a while. Even if it were once every two months, is it really worth buying a new computer with Windows 7 just to stop a bluescreen every two months? Maybe if I didn't know where the save button (or the auto-save feature) was in Office.

better networking support in general

That's hardly a business case for spending money on a new machine with Windows 7.

, future versions of powershell,

Meh--powershell runs on XP.

and SMB signing for a few clicks when setting an ip address on a network adapter - something done, at best once every time you move computer (assuming your network administrator is too brain damaged to figure out auto config).

SMB signing can be turned on by group policy, and we're competent enough to use DHCP and IPv6 autoconfig.

Re:My Motto

[darkpixel2k]

news flash: plenty of real businesses out there have volume agreements and get the upgrade to vista/7/whatever for free.

Yep--but a lot of businesses lost money when there was a huge gap between XP and Vista. They paid for a 3-year renewal and got nothing out of it.

fact: i've done back to back testing with a shitty 5 year old laptop running XP+SOE and 7+SOE on same hardware (windows + virus scanner + office 2007 + a few apps) and with 1gb ram 7 was as fast or faster once you let the initial search index complete.

Must be nice to have hardware that exceeded the XP recommended specs and were at or above the Vista specs.

A lot of our hardware was purchases with the minimum specs for XP and the business applications. We still have machines with 512 and 384. It sucks, but what are you going to do? When businesses are trying to save money in a bad economy, they don't want to do things that are considered unnecessary--like replacing equipment that still functions, give new healthcare benefits to employees, purchase Vista or 7, and even give raises to employees.

The economy has fuck all to do with a lot of people deciding to roll out 7, either en-masse or as old boxes die and need to be re-imaged.

Really? What 'company' do you work for that doesn't give a crap about the economy? The government?

Have rolled out 7 to about 30% of the company thus far and the problems to deal with have been exceedingly minimal, as they will be for around 95% of desktop workloads out there.

The company doesn't want to run a split platform. When they switch, they are planning to upgrade all the machines at once to everyone is 'consistent'. Reduces support costs apparently. But like I've been saying, there really isn't a business case for moving yet. Stuff like branchcache and directaccess are a time and money saver as well, when combined with 2008 R2.

Re:My Motto

[darkpixel2k]

Start -> type "network connections" -> Enter

Most preferences and programs can be accessed directly from the search box on the start menu. If you can type then the start menu and control panel are largely redundant.

*facepalm*
I never thought to try that.

Re:My Motto

[darkpixel2k]

The economy has fuck all to do with a lot of people deciding to roll out 7, either en-masse or as old boxes die and need to be re-imaged.

Also, I find it humorous that you are saying the economy has fuck all to do with rolling out Windows 7 in the middle of a depression and with an article that says ~66% of Windows users are still using XP.

I know, I know--correlation does not equal causation. But the primary motivation of a business is to turn a profit, not throw away money. My guess is they either don't see a profit/don't see profit in another area that can be spent on the upgrade, or they don't see a necessity to move off XP.

Re:My Motto

[dwye]

> A few years back, everyone round here was putting "wallah" in their posts, not knowing the correct spelling.

I guess I must be new around here.

Re:My Motto

[smash]

Because the software grabs everything, not just documents. It also munges the data on the way to go into the correct places between 32/64 bit machines (e.g., taking into account differences in the registry), alters paths to suit the new OS, grabs any application data out of the user's profile (all users, if selected), etc.

It IS easy, if you read the documentation

Re:My Motto

[man_of_mr_e]

Again, it doesn't "detect" anything. In order for a UAC dialog to pop up, the application has to request it. It doesn't happen automatically.

What's more, background services and task aren't subject to UAC, only interactive tasks that interact with the desktop.

So, in other words, it's impossible to "request" elevation if there is no user logged in, that doesn't even make sense. If there is no user logged in, then that means the application can't even run if it's an interactive app. If it's a server app, then UAC doesn't apply because it's not interacting with the desktop.

You seem so hopelessly confused about things are blaming UAC for things it' can't do.

I suggest you read up on UAC and what it actually does, and how it actually works before continuing to blame it for things it can't cause.

Re:My Motto

[catmistake]

For the home user, and as competition for those that think they think different... sounds great. For the average white collar office user? You and Microsoft are kidding themselves. No one cares about 7 but the IT fanatics. It has no purpose that XP and the previous MS Office/ Exchange/ Active Directory paradigm already covers. Unless a company is seriously considering data center virtual desktops consolidation... and even if they are.., there is zero good reason to upgrade other than to give MS a bunch of licensing fees and to excercise the IT muscles during migration. Even when MS drops support for XP and updates... the office user is STILL DOING THE SAME LAME CRAP, no matter how shiney the bells and whistles are, for 95-98% of them, it just won't make any measurable difference in their work output.

Re:My Motto

[bhcompy]

And services can be set to interact with the desktop, or set to run under user contexts(particularly common when dealing with com+ authentication). 2008 Server Core does not have UAC. Users can log in, but all they have access to are applets and CLI, which is all servers are really for anyways. Again, not sure why a server OS needs it in the first place, especially if the Server Core edition doesn't.

Re:My Motto

[Civil_Disobedient]

Because technology advances.

What technological advances are you talking about, specifically? It should be easy if your analogy was apt, since it's trivial to point out the advances from a 1979 Pinto and a 2011 Focus. So what are the obviously-superior advancements in Windows 7 that all us poor Windows XP users are missing out on?

Re:My Motto

[Joe U]

Just to start?

How about a kernel that is designed and optimized for multicore systems. Sounds boring, because it is, but it's important. The new kernel changes involved removing several locks that usually hold up XP. They also massively improved the dispatcher, the memory manager and the cache manager, which means you actually use a modern architecture to it's fullest. Overall, that results in a speed boost on very complex applications up to 15x. Think Excel, Access, and SQL Server (YES, SQL IS DESKTOP TOO).

The power management system is also improved significantly, with changes including Idle Resource Utilization, Trigger Start Services, Enhanced Processor Power Management, Timer Coalescing, Adaptive Display Brightness, Low-Power Audio, Bluetooth and Networking Power Improvements. Now when you leave for the day, your workstation can go to low power and still be running, so if you need to access your desktop from home, you can. Your laptop can see a large battery improvement as well.

Security is improved from XP, where the default is now the non-privileged user, and web browsers can run in a locked down protected mode environment. \
ActionCenter shows when changes have been made to the desktop.
AppLocker lets the network admin easily lock down the local workstation.
Remote access is improved using DirectAccess, where the enduser doesn't have to jump through hoops to configure a vpn.
Branch cache offers improved caching from the office to the home office.
Improved remote desktop services with network level authentication.

I'm going to stop here because I have work to do. But if that above doesn't justify spending about 10 cents per user per day over a modest 5 year life-cycle (and you know it will be more like 8 years), then you should seriously re-think network administration.

Sources:
http://www.osnews.com/story/22501/Microsoft_Kernel_Engineers_Talk_About_Windows_7_s_Kernel
http://www.thewindowsclub.com/power-management-improvements-in-windows-7#ixzz11UUVBuSj
http://download.microsoft.com/download/8/5/4/854F66B6-8C09-4F8A-986E-38E9EBAC1677/Windows7_Power_Management_Whitepaper.pdf
Some others that I forgot, use Google.

Re:My Motto

[man_of_mr_e]

Services should never be set to interact with the desktop, ever. Microsoft recommends against it, it's deprecated, and it's only there for legacy purposes. That's what allowed Shatter to be so successful.

Even so, it still doesn't function as you are suggesting. UAC only gives you access ot things you otherwise would not have access to, it does not prohibit access to anything that isn't already prohibited. Simply put, what you are suggesting is impossible. There is some other problem.

Server core doesn't have UAC because you can't run UI applications, so duh.. yeah, why would it need something to protect against something that can't be run anyways?

Non-server core *CAN* run arbitrary applications, that's why it needs UAC. For example, many developers run Server versions as their desktop that they develop on. Also, terminal servers allow normal users to log in and run applications.

Your insistance that UAC isn't needed on servers is at best short sighted, and at worst completely bizarre.

Re:My Motto

[man_of_mr_e]

I'm not sure what you mean by "give MS a bunch of licensing fees". Any large company is likely on a volume license program, and that license program gives them access to any OS they wish to run. If they swap a computer from XP to 7, they pay no additional licensing fees, it's all part of their yearly volume licensing costs. Same thing for office, exchange, sql server, whatever.

Now, granted, it's not free to do the upgrade, that costs man hours, or potential retraining. But licensing fees is not an issue at all, and when people bring them up.. it's just a strawman.

Re:My Motto

[man_of_mr_e]

And your same argument can go back all the way to Windows 95. Why are offices running XP when 95 and office 95 will provide no measurable difference in their work output?

There are a lot of reasons, apart from not being able to buy 95 anymore.. security, stability, more fine grained control of the desktop by administration, reduced administration costs, security of data in laptops with bitlocker, and i could probably go on and on with various business reasons to do the upgrades that have nothing to do with improving worker output.

Re:My Motto

[man_of_mr_e]

Start Here

Then Go here

Shitloads of new technology.

Re:My Motto

[man_of_mr_e]

If you did decide to rewrite your management scripts in powershell, you'd likely find them to be about 1/10th as complex and much better performing...

If you have a large number of scripts that support a large number of computers, then the cost saving in runtime alone would justify it.

And Powershell works in XP as well, nor is there any plans that i'm aware of to do anything other than improve Powershell.

It's a very powerful tool. But, if you'd rather keep building houses with a hammer rather than a nail gun... be my guest.

Re:My Motto

[man_of_mr_e]

Neither did I. Learn something new every day.

I do like "godmode" though.

Re:My Motto

[AmiMoJo]

Don't worry about it - I know of it but routinely forget to try it!

Re:My Motto

[catmistake]

I don't really understand what you are saying... that Windows 7 is a free upgrade to Windows XP users? Volume licensing isn't a free lunch. Every machine already comes with a license as well. Shrewed organizations have a licensing guy to recoup those extra costs (while negligable for a few machines... for a few thousand, that adds up). If a company upgrades their hardware, say, every 4 years (which is a common interval), then they are only paying fees ... once... not annually. Audits must be run to make sure the systems are removed off the old hardware, of course... but volume licensing is mostly a convenience.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying... that the fees for 7 are the same for XP? Do you think Microsoft will still charge volume licensing when they drop support for XP? Or are you saying new machines keep being added while the old machines, no longer in use, are still being charged for? At the few large organizations I worked for... there was a single volume license fee. They bought the license for the whole place... it wasn't payed annually... like property tax or something. You pay for a license for, say, 10K machines. You don't KEEP PAYING for those licenses every year... you pay once. Again... I don't understand what you mean I guess.

Re:My Motto

[man_of_mr_e]

I'm saying, if you are on a volume licensing plan from Microsoft, you pay the fee for a desktop, regardless of what OS is installed on it. You get licenses for everything. Upgrading your OS doesn't incur any new license fees. You're not paying for a license for Windows XP, you're paying for a Client OS License, whatever OS you choose to run.

Re:My Motto

[catmistake]

There is a vast difference between Windows 95 and XP. Maybe if you had said NT 4.0 I could have taken your comparison seriously.

All I'm saying is... the typical office user hasn't changed. And we know XP very well. The reasons you give, yes, even increased security, doesn't seem to cover the fact that we didn't need the new system, and 7 is a system that we don't know as well, as far as when something does go wrong, we won't necessarily know exactly what it is. This kind of knowledge takes time, not training.

Re:My Motto

[turgid]

Crikey! That's complicated. All I wanted to do was the equivalent of rsync or scp some files over the network.

If I'd had a couple of KNOPPIX disks I'd just have booted each machine into Linux, run ifconfig and done an rsync.

Integrated peripherals

[tepples]

However, with the exception of large disasters (lightning, fire, flood etc), usually a single component fails and not the whole computer.

But with so many of the peripherals being integrated into modern northbridge chips, it's highly likely that the failing "single component" is something soldered to the motherboard. Good luck finding a replacement motherboard for your older laptop.

Re:Integrated peripherals

[Pentium100]

Motherboards for laptops are expensive, however, not all failures are that bad. For example, if the sound chip on the laptop breaks, it's usually cheaper to buy an external sound card than a new laptop, or a new motherboard for the laptop.

Re:Integrated peripherals

[tepples]

if the sound chip on the laptop breaks, it's usually cheaper to buy an external sound card than a new laptop

And now you have to make space in your bag for an external USB hub and external sound card and deal with the hit to the battery life.

Re:Integrated peripherals

[Pentium100]

And then you have to decide:

1. Spend no money and do without sound on the laptop.
2. Spend $x for an external sound card. You will need to carry it with your laptop if you want sound.
3. Spend $y (y >> x) for a new laptop.

And that depends entirely on what you value more. Personally, I'd rather carry the external sound card if I want sound (which is not always) and save $(y-x). After all, instead of buying a new (and expensive) laptop battery (current one lasts ~30minutes) I either look for an outlet or if I want to work where there is no electricity, I take a 12V 7Ah sealed lead-acid battery (or two of them, depending on how long I plan to use the laptop) and a 12V->19V converter.

Re:Integrated peripherals

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of people make do with a USB wireless adapter if their internal breaks. If a $20 hack and a minor inconvenience is all it takes to keep it going, they will do it over spending $500+ on a new laptop. Of course a lot of people that do this aren't aware that the manufacture might have an extended service policy to cover the defect: http://hplies.com/

Not all PCs are desktops

[tepples]

Would the brand new PC from a big box store include the good motherboard and the i5 or i7 CPU?

No, but it does include a built-in keyboard, trackpad, and screen, and it folds to fit in your bag.

Win XP SPx Support

[Anonymous Coward]

Reasons to upgrade:

1. WinXP SP2 Supported ended in July 2010.
2.WinXP SP3 support will end in 2014.

If/when you download your upgrade, be sure not to install KB971033, and you'll have no issues.

Re:Mod me off-topic, but...

[vlm]

Maybe graduates from the IBM tech high school are managing the Slashdot front-page . .. ?

Unlikely since IBM has been shrinking its US workforce and expanding its India workforce for decades.

Microsoft are their own biggest competitor

[petes_PoV]

People stick because there's no compelling reason to change. There are no "must have" features that would make me go to the hassle and expense of upgrading. There are (so far) no third party apps I need that will only run on Win7 and no hardware that requires it either.

The basic issue here is that all these "new" O/S's that Microsoft bring out are basically just the same old thing, possibly with a few usability tweaks and some different, more resource-hungry eye candy and some old bugs and security holes removed - to leave room for the new ones they'll introduce.

Just like you wouldn't go changing you car's engine just because Toyota or Ford or Hyundai brought out a new one, the basic lack of innovation (in both car engines and operating systems) means there's no compelling benefits to reward you for making the switch. Maybe if they had something radical, new, innovative and necessary - instead of yet another facelift on the old, backward-compatible stuff they've been stamping out for 20 years, there'd be a market. Until then I'm happy with what I have.

Re:Microsoft are their own biggest competitor

[DarkXale]

Hardware per say doesn't require it, but Windows XP isn't as good at handling the latest generation of AMD processors - and its even worse with the i7s. Same with GPUs. It'll still go fast, make no mistake - but 7 will generally allow programs to work much faster.

it rocks

[Anonymous Coward]

too bad you didn't know about it, icab rocks. I used to use it all the time when I had macs. Much better than navigator or explorer or opera. I wish the developer there would make a linux version, I'd switch from firefox. I never tried safari so can't comment there..

http://www.icab.de/

Re:it rocks

[commodore64_love]

Thx

Maybe I'll pull the G5 out of storage and give iCab a try this week. "Like a G5... rock it Like a G5"

If not Program Files, then where?

[tepples]

Poorly written/designed applications that store user settings and often-overwritten data to Program Files are also to blame.

Let's take an example: StepMania. This program allows users to create step files for songs. But in order for created step files to be available to all users through the in-game file chooser, has to write to one place known to all users. It also allows the user to change settings, such as texture detail, that affect all users on that machine. So in what folder should programs store machine-wide settings and created or downloaded content that affect all users?

Re:If not Program Files, then where?

[DeeKayWon]

So in what folder should programs store machine-wide settings and created or downloaded content that affect all users?

C:\Users\Public

Re:If not Program Files, then where?

[Lonewolf666]

There is one "special folder" that is meant for user-independent storage of application data. You can get its name with feeding the value CSIDL_COMMON_APPDATA into the proper API call.
See http://www.mvps.org/access/api/api0054.htm for an introduction.
The actual path varies with Windows version and language. On my German Win XP Pro, for instance, it is
C:\Dokumente und Einstellungen\All Users\Anwendungsdaten
Also note that every user can create files and directories in there, but per default they are only writable to the user who created them. So it may be necessary to change permissions during installation.

Re:If not Program Files, then where?

[DeeKayWon]

Maybe I spoke too soon, but C:\Users\All Users (a symlink to C:\ProgramData) should also work, and is probably preferred over C:\Users\Public. The point is that there most certainly are locations suitable for what you want.

Re:If not Program Files, then where?

[KarmaMB84]

%allusersprofile% (C:\ProgramData by default)

Re:If not Program Files, then where?

[DarkXale]

C:\Users\Public\ As for settings - you can also run old or poorly written programs in administrative mode. The files written in the Program Files directory will typically take precedence over local/private ones, so your settings should carry over to other user profiles. However at the same time - why on earth do you need to do this?

Re:If not Program Files, then where?

[jimicus]

And I will place cold, hard cash on it that a lot of developers are totally unaware of that. After all, if your average Windows developer took time to learn the API (rather than just muddling along doing whatever they can to get things to work), UAC wouldn't have been anything like as much pain.

Re:If not Program Files, then where?

[man_of_mr_e]

There are several places. First, most such apps use the "All Users" folder to store common files between users. There is also the ProgramData folder which has Read/Write permissions for User. This has been true since XP, nearly 10 years ago. How old is this program?

Re:If not Program Files, then where?

[Lonewolf666]

Oh, I won't bet against it. Until recently, software from the company I worked for used to dump configuration data (which may be changed during everyday operation) into the application directory. That is C:\Program Files\$INSTALLDIR or something similar, again depending on OS language.

But with Vista and Windows 7, the "Virtual Store" feature makes the behavior of writing to this directory pretty difficult to predict. See also http://www.itwriting.com/blog/141-peeking-into-vistas-virtual-store.html. The rules are somewhat complicated.

So I pushed for changing that on the project I was responsible for, and at least the .ini-file moved to CSIDL_COMMON_APPDATA. I can only hope the rest of the project will follow.

Re:If not Program Files, then where?

[tepples]

your settings should carry over to other user profiles. However at the same time - why on earth do you need to do this?

Some game settings, such as the difficulty, UI theme, or note mark shapes, should be per user (and stored in %APPDATA%). But other settings, such as low vs. high graphic detail or low vs. high quality audio mixing, should be machine-wide because they depend on the capability of the hardware more than they depend on which member of the household is logged in at the moment.

Re:If not Program Files, then where?

[tepples]

There is also the ProgramData folder which has Read/Write permissions for User.

It's a lot harder to get to hidden folders like this on Windows (a user-account-wide setting buried in Folder Options) than on GNOME (Ctrl+H in any window). Please see my other comment.

Re:If not Program Files, then where?

[DarkXale]

Just let each user configure it on their own. Some prefer higher graphics and lower framerates, other prefer higher framerates even at the cost of graphics. If you force it to be universal - you rob them of this choice.

Re:If not Program Files, then where?

[man_of_mr_e]

A user shouldn't have to get to hidden folders. The program should manage the shared files.

In fact, OS's like Linux or MacOS don't even have a place to share read/write files. An administrator would have to setup a location specifically for it.

Re:If not Program Files, then where?

[Anonymous Coward]

However, Microsoft have now deprecated the use of the CS_XXXX constants and introduced yet another method to find the locations of various system directories.

Re:If not Program Files, then where?

[tepples]

A user shouldn't have to get to hidden folders. The program should manage the shared files.

This just goes to cement the mistaken view that a document is "in" a program. Compare the people who think that their Word documents are "in Word" because they're in the folder that Word automatically shows when the user chooses "Open" or "Save As...". I take it you mean that a program like StepMania should rely on "Import Song", "Import Banner Art", "Import Background Art", "Import Background Video", "Import Songs from Package", "Export Songs as Package", and "Export Songs as Packages for CD".

In fact, OS's like Linux or MacOS don't even have a place to share read/write files. An administrator would have to setup a location specifically for it.

Then how do programs like Microsoft Word for Mac OS X let the user contribute, say, a document template to a local pool?

Re:If not Program Files, then where?

[tepples]

Just let each user configure it on their own.

Which creates confusing "it's broken for you, but it works for Joshua" situations for the parent-administrator.

Some prefer higher graphics and lower framerates, other prefer higher framerates even at the cost of graphics.

I'm not entirely convinced that you've played StepMania, or even Dance Dance Revolution for that matter. In this sort of rhythm game, the player wants low audio latency, high display frame rate, and high input read rate, so that the player can aim for the center of the judgment window and miss fewer notes. One of the reasons that Dance Dance Revolution Konamix was panned was that it still used the 30 fps engine from DDR 4th Mix rather than the 60 fps engine from the Japan-exclusive DDR 5th Mix, making it more difficult to judge when to step.

Re:If not Program Files, then where?

[tepples]

However, Microsoft have now deprecated the use of the CS_XXXX constants and introduced yet another method to find the locations of various system directories.

The new method requires Windows Vista. Has Microsoft also deprecated developing applications that are compatible with Windows XP, which is still in extended support?

Re:If not Program Files, then where?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what the problem with that is though? Older Applications that worked across the 9x vintage and NT vintage stuff place some or all of their files under the 'All Users' directory, NOT the username. The one that caused the most problems for me was 'Test Drive Unlimited' which placed a file called 'radial.cdb' in a hidden dir off All Users, which was meant for the in-game advertising that failed to materialize (thank god.). Long story short it tried updating every time you were online, and after a while it would hang the game anytime you went into the game world, if you didn't remove it first.

The other place it becomes an issue is backing up said files for a migration to Windows 7. How many people could even figure out how to do that nowdays? Back during the 9x to XP transition it could either be handled by the OS, or for those of us with minor technical understanding it was relatively easy to migrate over by hand. But by dropping XP->7 upgrade options and having to rely on third party documentation of where your application settings, saved games, etc end up you really have no reason to rock the boat rather than simply reinstalling XP over your old XP install.

Re:If not Program Files, then where?

[Lonewolf666]

Migrating applications to a new Windows installation is tricky anyway. In my experience, the most common problem is that the app puts some essential config data into a non-obvious registry key. You don't know about that => you fail to get the migrated application to work.

Usually, just backing up the documents and installing the apps from scratch on the new OS is the way to go.

Re:If not Program Files, then where?

[fwarren]

Because Microsoft believes that end users can not be trusted to back up their data on their own.

If a user wants reliable data backup they need to purchase a program that is able to do it for them.

Power users have already changed their File Explorer settings to show hidden and system folders and can find the data just fine on their own.

Re:If not Program Files, then where?

[Anonymous Coward]

The old API call still works, and "deprecated" is AC hyperbole. MS recommends that new software use the new API (subtly encouraging developers of new software to abandon XP), but MS has a long track record of backwards compatibility - they know it's a huge part of what retains their desktop market share. Removing or stubbing an API function is extremely rare. Of course, completely new folder locations will only be supported by the new API, but then those folders won't be available on XP anyway, so that's irrelevant.

- T

get the facts

[Anonymous Coward]

How was usage of XP Mode taken into account in this study?

Ground-control to Major Tom

[Progman3K]

After 6 years of having switched to Linux, all these discussions have a slightly unreal feel to me.
I wonder why people would put up with it, being on a corporation's time-table for software upgrades...

It seems REALLY alien to me because I am running the latest version of Linux with enough eye-candy to make Vista blush and it's all so run-of-the-mill...

I don't need to jump for the arbitrary "CHANGE PLACES" call inevitably issued by MS or Apple...

Am I the one that's crazy?

Re:Ground-control to Major Tom

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you checked out Civ V?

Oh wait, it won't be available under wine for another 5 years...

Re:Ground-control to Major Tom

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize the major distros are made by corporations too right?

PCs last longer

[flyingfsck]

PCs now last longer, since the exploding capacitor problem was solved. The result is a dip in sales of new machines and therefore a dip in whatever new junkware comes with new PCs...

Re:PCs last longer

[WuphonsReach]

PCs now last longer, since the exploding capacitor problem was solved. The result is a dip in sales of new machines and therefore a dip in whatever new junkware comes with new PCs...

Funny you should mention that. As we lose a part or motherboard or PSU about once a quarter from that fiasco. In fact, I just swapped out a video card this weekend that went belly-up due to the goo leaking out the top of the capacitors.

This is hardware that's been running for probably 3 years without issues. So the cap issue can be extremely well hidden and may only show up after a few years.

Re:PCs last longer

[dbIII]

PCs now last longer, since the exploding capacitor problem was solved

So you can reverse the polarity now without getting a big bang?
Oh, you mean the slow leaks of electrolyte instead.

Microsofts Real customers

[hydromike2]

Not that I would expect any less from this crowd (myself and virtually every one I know included), it seems that every family, sometimes it rolls over to aunts/uncles, grandparents, cousins, too, has an computer person in their family who has almost complete power over what computer they will be using because thy do not know anything about it. Perhaps instead of marketing to the individual with the 'i created windows' shit, they should have aimed towards the family IT guys with something that makes their lives easier. Myself and my cousin told our families that we would not support them if they used windows, so now all of our family members use macs and the only issues I have are helping them figure out how to use MS office. Like previous commenters have said that they did not want to support multiple operating systems, I certain was not going to learn the quirks of 7 just for my family.

Re:Microsofts Real customers

[pandrijeczko]

Myself and my cousin told our families that we would not support them if they used windows, so now all of our family members use macs and the only issues I have are helping them figure out how to use MS office.

That doesn't actually say very much for OS X if a couple of self-indulgent religious zealots need to essentially blackmail their families into using it!

I use Linux pretty much exclusively but there's rarely a day goes buy when I don't have a family or friend PC here that I'm fixing for them - and remarkably, if it comes into me with a busted version of Windows then it goes back out with a fixed version of the same version of Windows and not a replacement installation of Ubuntu, Fedora or some other Linux iteration.

I put that down to the fact that I'm confident enough with my own decision making process that I neither need peer approval nor need to use gangster tactics to get acceptance for my OS of choice.

Re:Microsofts Real customers

[fat_mike]

Like previous commenters have said that they did not want to support multiple operating systems, I certain was not going to learn the quirks of 7 just for my family.

Wow, you're a dick.

Did your parents tell you that you could only play soccer or they wouldn't support you?

Did they say you could only eat refried beans or they wouldn't feed you?


Yeah, you're a dick.

Re:Microsofts Real customers

[hydromike2]

Self-indulgent, possibly in certain respects, religious zealot, nope. I do not understand how this has become a matter of 'peer pressure' for you. I have taken fire from people who are very similar to yourself it seems, since I first got a mac for myself. If I conformed to what you think of me then I should be using windows 7 if I was going for 'peer approval' that is. Using macs for my family makes my life easier(and my family's).

Now I'll add to the fire, I use and iphone(big surprise, I know) have an iPad and use an airport extreme. In many respect Apple products make my life easier, but I'm not so naive as to not recognize their limitations.

My router to the internet is a wrt54g with ddwrt, I only use the aebs as an access point and to use time machine wirelessly. Back to the self indulgent remark, yes I spent a nice bit on my mbp, but there is no way in hell would I pay for another mac just to use it as a htpc. I use ubuntu and boxee(i
I did not force anyone to purchase a mac, I moved them to what was an easier to use system for them and easier to maintain for me, I did not want to have to learn a new operating system just so that I can support other people. I have setup a system that requires virtually no maintenance short of hardware failures(yes my mac is not indestructible, apple's superdrives in the early mbps are shit).

This is not a perfect system, there isn't one but this is the best I have come up with for my family.

Re:Microsofts Real customers

[pandrijeczko]

I do not understand how this has become a matter of 'peer pressure' for you.

Like I said, it doesn't.

I have taken fire from people who are very similar to yourself it seems, since I first got a mac for myself. If I conformed to what you think of me then I should be using windows 7 if I was going for 'peer approval' that is. Using macs for my family makes my life easier(and my family's).

I don't care what you use, you know best what fits your needs best. But pressurising others to use what you use *JUST* because it makes *YOUR* life easier smacks of zealotry.

Now I'll add to the fire, I use and iphone(big surprise, I know) have an iPad and use an airport extreme. In many respect Apple products make my life easier, but I'm not so naive as to not recognize their limitations.

Again, your money and your choice. But I'd argue that a truly informed person looking for the best value for their money won't automatically gravitate towards one single vendor for everything they use.

My router to the internet is a wrt54g with ddwrt, I only use the aebs as an access point and to use time machine wirelessly.

Sorry, why's this relevant? I'm not aware that Apple makes routers (or router firmware) such that the above statement would serve to help disprove Apple zealotry.

I did not force anyone to purchase a mac, I moved them to what was an easier to use system for them and easier to maintain for me

So therefore it doesn't matter that they were probably used to running Windows & had all their PCs set up just the way they wanted - and probably just wanted your help fixing their PCs. If anything, the statement above makes you sound worse as a person because you don't even understand how selfish your attitude is.

This is not a perfect system, there isn't one but this is the best I have come up with for my family.

Good luck to you, whatever works. But this still gets back to the difference between fixing something for friends or family & getting them to change what they do & how they do it just because it makes life more comfortable for you.

Re:Microsofts Real customers

[jmottram08]

So you would have recommended win7 if their marketing was better?

Sorry, MS knows that the geeks already know about their products' merits.

Just because you base your recommendations based on marketing (apple) doesn't mean that all computer savy people do.

I made the switch

[Anonymous Coward]

I made the switch from XP 64-bit to Windows 7 64-bit. Why? Because I gawd dang felt like it.

I hate the new aero interface and replaced it with bblean. They yanked the GUI for creating advanced file associations and made this a registry only function for some reason, so I worked around that by installing FileTypesMan. I had a few apps that didn't work, but nothing I couldn't find an alternative for. There are a lot of little annoying changes, like crap just renamed and moved around to piss you off. Other than that it is OK and I no complaints. Had I not been building a new quad core system, I don't think I would have been bothered to try it.

Anyway, thats my experience. Who freaking cares, right? Great, now beat it.

Hidden costs of the upgrade

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm buying a new PC, and that will run XP.

I'd be happy to run a new OS, but I'd have to upgrade a whole load of software that I own and the costs of that could be over £1,000 ($1,500).

Windows 7 has an XP mode, but I don't want to risk by shiny new dual core running like a 486.

If Windows 7 were more compatible with older software, or if there were more reasonable upgrade costs for the installed software, I'd be happier to switch.

Activation and slipstreaming

[tepples]

When the hard drive dies, what's stopping you from just re-installing XP using the license you already have?

For one thing, you'll likely have to activate your copy of Windows XP again. The last time I tried this, it involved placing a voice call, waiting minutes on hold (which gets expensive if one isn't on an unlimited minutes plan), and trying to understand someone with a thick South Asian accent. For another, if your replacement hard drive is SATA, installing Windows XP requires either A. a floppy drive or B. access to a friend's PC with a burner and broadband to make an install disc slipstreamed with a SATA driver and Service Pack 3.

Re:Activation and slipstreaming

[Straterra]

This information is just plain wrong. You do NOT need a floppy drive or slipped stream disk for SATA. You can put the SATA controller in to Legacy or IDE mode and XP will recognize it just fine. There are only a couple of circumstances where you need to slipstream or use a floppy. One is if you insist on using AHCI. AHCI is nice as it provides stuff like NCQ, but its not a necessity. Outside of AHCI, you only need to slipstream or use a floppy if you have a semi-recent RAID card that XP doesn't have drivers for, or if your card won't go in to legacy mode. If you are in this 'minority', then you should be able to easily find a CD burner and/or a USB floppy drive. FYI, even Windows 98 lets you install on a SATA drive.

Re:Activation and slipstreaming

[indi0144]

ahh the glory of living in developing countries, If I buy a used OEM box and the sticker key is banned (not so common) just have to email a photo/scan of the sticker and box details and MS sends me a new key via email all in less than 3 hours. I never had to fight with some callcenterdroid, actually Local MS offices are known by their good customer support. Not that it changes what i think about MS personally.

The win7 x64 pro retail I run now automagically activated once I connected to internet.

Did you know that you can transfer your XP validation copying two system32 files? "requires" you to use the same hardware but I tried HDD and CPU replacements and it worked just fine.

Was it worth to change to Win7? The thing seems stable, tweaking msconfig and activating multicore kernel + readyboost have really speed up things, I mean, Adobe CS4 feels like its actually a(n) slim and nonbloated piece of software. Only Fedora is faster on that machine, but thats a given. Had some problems with hibernation and some drivers need a lot of tweaking so is not a flawless experience but so far, better than XP.

Re:Activation and slipstreaming

[Hamsterdan]

"if your replacement hard drive is SATA, installing Windows XP requires either A. a floppy drive or B. access to a friend's PC"

or C- a machine with native SATA (I don't need the floppy to install on my desktop, and my eeePC doesn't even have a floppy)

Re:Activation and slipstreaming

[espiesp]

Either of these solutions are easier and cheaper than going out and spending $100 on a new copy of Windows. So I fail to see your point here.

Re:They can still run XP even after they get a new

[man_of_mr_e]

Assuming you can find a driver for all your hardware for xp, which is becoming more and more unlikely.

It's a hidden folder

[tepples]

CSIDL_COMMON_APPDATA

And on my English copy of Windows XP Home Edition, this resolves to C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data. So why does Windows mark this folder hidden so that the end user can't easily back up the files inside to removable media or send them to other people over the Internet?

Re:It's a hidden folder

[julesh]

And on my English copy of Windows XP Home Edition, this resolves to C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data. So why does Windows mark this folder hidden so that the end user can't easily back up the files inside to removable media or send them to other people over the Internet?

Because it's designed for application-specific data that shouldn't be manipulated by users in ordinary circumstances (which is what is most commonly stored in Program Files). If you want users to see the files, you could try CSIDL_COMMON_DOCUMENTS instead, which even has a nice handy shortcut in the "other places" bar in the side panel of the "My Computer" window ("Shared Documents").

Re:It's a hidden folder

[Nimey]

That is a terrible annoyance, isn't it? I've only run into one application I know of that saved its data there, so naturally I usually don't back that folder up when I switch users to new computers.

That mistake cost a user several hours of work.

XP is easier to repartition for Linux dual boot

[grandpa-geek]

I run Linux as my basic operating system but like to keep Windows around for purposes such as tax software that require it. If a machine came with XP pre-installed, I could squash the Windows partition down to about a quarter or less of the hard drive. Starting with Vista, you had to use M$'s partition resizing tool and it would not go to below half the hard drive. I managed to get XP for all my systems.

I don't know what I'll do some time in the future when I might need a new machine. Perhaps FOSS partition resizing will have caught up by then.

Re:Pooched my wife's Cannon printer's software wit

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it Microsoft's fault that Canon wont release a new driver for some ancient printer/scanner?

Chuck "Home Edition"s

[istartedi]

They should just chuck the "Home Edition"s. Nobody really wants a crippled version, which is what I (and probably a lot of other people think) when they hear "Home Edition".

If it's about discounts for consumers vs. businesses, they can probably find some other way to provide a consumer discount.

Well, duh.

[jimngo]

A direct "upgrade" from Windows XP to Windows 7 requires the user to backup their data, reload the OS and reinstall all of their apps. I can understand why a typical XP user wouldn't find the process at all appealing. It was and still is a mistake for Microsoft to not provide a one-step upgrade path from XP to W7 that maintains the user environment. Since it's not impossible but requires a costly two-step upgrade from XP->Vista->W7, Microsoft could have offered a one-step XP->W7 process but apparently chose not to.

Still using?

[unitron]

I'm just now "upgrading" from 98SE to XP, provided I can get a non-counterfeit, non-OEM copy.

Most people don't "use" an OS

[Anonymous Coward]

They use applications (word processor, spreadsheet, web browser).

Programmers use operating systems (module_init(), atomic_read_and_sub(), kmem_cache_shrink()).

Re:Most people don't "use" an OS

[jimngo]

They use applications (word processor, spreadsheet, web browser).

Programmers use operating systems (module_init(), atomic_read_and_sub(), kmem_cache_shrink()).

I wonder how "most people" launch and switch between their word processor, spreadsheet and web browser without using the OS?

Re:Most people don't "use" an OS

[nedlohs]

You upgrade your word processor because the new version has some features you want/need. Or because people you work with keep sending you files that require the new version.

You upgrade your OS because the new version has some features you want/need. Or because some application you want/need requires the newer OS.

There is nothing in windows 7 related to launching and switching programs that is so much better than windows XP to be worth upgrading. And there's no new feature worth it either. And there's no user application that most people want that requires it.

Re:Most people don't "use" an OS

[jmottram08]

Some games run better with dx10. thats a big no-no on xp.

A real 64 bit OS, and apps? not on XP.

In terms of window management, the new half screen snap winkey+arrows is worth the price of the upgrade. You don't realize how shitty XP was at window management till you have to use it again on some poor saps computer, and spend half your time dragging windows to an appropriate size / shape.

What about the new sound mixer with levels controlled per application? Amazing compared to XP. Leaving my browser muted is great for adds that make it past adblock.

finding / launching rarely used apps is EASY and fast. just search.

Finally being able to see HDD usage bar graphs in my computer?

The new performance monitor?

There are a TON of small things that makes life so much better in win7. Are they strictly necessary? No, but neither is cruise control on a car. You don't know how nice it is till you have to use a car without it.

Re:Most people don't "use" an OS

[nedlohs]

Games using dx10 are a niche, and gamers likely upgrade more often than the average anyway.

64 bits is meaningless. We are talking about running a word processor, a spreadsheet, and a web browser. The user doesn't care how many bits are used for addressing.

As I said in another post I like Windows 7 - I use it on my new laptop and my new PC. Those improvements aren't significant enough to get me to upgrade existing machines though.

Re:old hardware, probably - No, it's compatibility

[walterbyrd]

At least that is what I am seeing.

I have been involved in several desktop deployment projects lately. Companies are upgrading from old PCs running XP, to new PCs running XP. The reason is to maintain compatibility with old software. Maintaining compatibility with hardware, such as printers, can also be an issue. As I understand it, my HP 3015 will not work with Win7.

Another reason, I suspect, is that win7 does not offer anything really compelling. Just an interface that is supposed to look more cool. I prefer something functional.

VM's and such

[dasherjan]

I still run it. It is very cooperative as far as running in a virtual machine. So I get to play my aging games/business type software without installing wine. :)

Re:66% still are using the same old hardware - No

[walterbyrd]

I have been involved in several desktop deployment projects lately. From what I have seen, companies are moving from old machines running XP, to new machines running XP. It's mostly a matter of compatibility with existing software applications.

Re:Pooched my wife's Cannon printer's software wit

[Blakey Rat]

The reason people don't upgrade Microsoft crap is that you never know what's going to suddenly stop working.

Ok, I used to be a Mac user and ... wow!

I'm guessing you missed out on the System 7 fiasco, when something like a third of all older Mac apps stopped working?

I mean, I totally get your argument, but to suggest Apple is *better*! That's ridiculous.

Windows 7 needs one fix

[Anonymous Coward]

Your files... ARE YOUR FILES. I want the old MSpaint from XP/Vista on windows 7 because I like editing by pixels. The new mspaint sucks... but to do involves me fiddling with settings, even though I am the only user of my computer, thus, I am the admin.

Whoever at Microsoft thought that "TrustedInstaller" should have more rights over the files than me, needs to pull their head out of their ass and fix that.

But overall, Windows 7 is pretty damn fast to be honest, over XP.

MSE + Improved Windows Firewall

[Anonymous Coward]

Having MSE + the decent built-in firewall should be enough for anyone still paying for AV to upgrade.

And what's up with all the double standards? MS stops supporting something after 10 years, and people complain. Good luck getting Apple to support anything older than 2 years, and good luck getting Linux to NOT break application compatibility every other month (mitigated by the fact that it's mostly OSS so it's easier to fix, an I'm exaggerating a little, but still). If we apply the same support standards to OS X, Apple would still be actively developing for the original OS X release.

As for all the complaints to the effect of "oh they didn't backport feature X to XP!! OMG EVIL!!", well, tough. It's called a new release for a good reason, namely because it has, oh, I don't know, new features.

one very good reason to stick with XP

[Anonymous Coward]

games!, too many won't run under Vista6/7, I just a bought a new gaming PC from a local seller, my main condition of sale was it came preloaded with XP and had the XP install disk included, he was happy to oblige, I was happy to pay more than PC world would have asked, everyones happy, everything else i own is running Ubuntu/Mint/Slackware.

Dumb windows 7

[SuperTechnoNerd]

Windows XP is just fine for my needs. In fact - get ready for it- It's better than windows 7. (I won't even mention that crap Vista.. Oops I just did.) I bought a new notebook with windows 7 and I HATE IT. It's dumbed down, and bloated, and full of DRM and god knows what else. I have nothing good to say about it. I just built a rockin' new i7 Core 950, and what did I install on it? - XP and Linux. If I can't use XP anymore my upgrade path will not be to windows 7 or windows anything - anymore. I'm officially done with Microsoft. I'll be %100 pure Linux by then. I know many others who share my feelings about windows 7. I think its clear Microsoft is on a downward slide anyhow.

#1 Reason: Costs way too much

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm thinking that the number 1 reason why people aren't bothered to upgrade to Win7 if they already have a computer at home with XP on it is: COST! Apple charges $35 for a copy of OSX that comes with all the features enabled. MS charges $150 for a castrated "home" version. Why blow so much money to replace something that already works well enough (XP) and that came "free" with the computer you purchased? Perhaps the laws should be changed to prevent MS and manufacturers from forcing Windows down everyone's throat (if you want Windows, you pay for it separately at the time of purchase). If MS wants to bundle Windows in with premade machines, they should start their own hardware business just like Apple.

Or if Apple were to suddenly sell OSX to the unwashed masses, I'm willing to bet that there would be a mass stampede away from Windows overnight.

Good For Them

[Anonymous Coward]

When I heard about the new Vista thing, I never expected Microsoft to be able to make people switch, no matter how many bells and whistles they added. (Yes, I buy into the conspiracy theory that Vista was a dud operating system to start enthusiasm for windows 7.), and I didn't for a moment ever think that users on even Vista would consider upgrading. Why? Because I've been trying to do the same thing since I started using linux; telling people to upgrade. Most people just don't care, and that's because they all already have an operating system they call "adequate", nobody has ever really argued that windows was better, most people just aren't interested in a better operating system, by whatever definition of better you care to describe. And why? Because a computer to most people is a tool of some variety, normally quite specialised and not terribly important to them, or computers that are important mustn't be changed lest they find it harder to use.

It has always been acceptable to wait 10 minutes for a computer to get going, or for software to work unreliably. Computers have certainly changed over the years, but people haven't, and what worked 10 years ago and was sufficient is still the same today, computer's don't age relative to themselves, they age relative to the new computers on the market; so most computers that work today can be switched off for any period of time, for one night or even 20 years, and still achieve their intended purpose upon reactivation! Computers tend not to age and wither like living organisms, they're machines, especially the older computers that were built with the long term in mind.

While modern computers are certainly faster, more reliable, do more, etcetera, many people still only require them to do what any computer could do 10 years ago. So the question is: Why upgrade? This article isn't stating that 66% of windows users are stupid, (More like 100%, haha, j/k) but rather stating that at least 66% of windows users are basic utility users who are sensible enough to ask themselves whether they really care what colour the start bar is, or where the clock is, or how much RAM their computerr can accomodate, or whether their files can be accessed by viruses.

I propose that the ever improving computer industry has saturated the market, and need to desaturate it with questionably true claims that the computers in peoples homes are redundant, and are merely trying to sell the same product, the same basic technology, something that does the very same thing, over and over again, for more and more money each time. Computers are already sufficient, there is no real need to upgrade for most people, a revolution in computing can rage on and on, but peoples lives will only ever unfold at the same rate as they always have.

Re:Good For Them

[cheekyjohnson]

"(More like 100%, haha, j/k)"

Close! I'd estimate around 95% of users don't know how to do much more than access a website or operate a television remote.

"the computers in peoples homes are redundant, and are merely trying to sell the same product, the same basic technology, something that does the very same thing, over and over again"

This is true, Windows 7 doesn't add anything groundbreaking. There's no reason to upgrade to it except a few very small reasons.

Building a laptop?

[tepples]

It's a shame that more people don't just build their own computers and save money

I didn't know laptop components had been standardized to the point where building a laptop makes sense.

Re:Building a laptop?

[cheekyjohnson]

I meant desktop computers. You have a point there, though.

Windows fragmented?

[tepples]

I'm not the standard user I suspect (3 Linux machines, 1 mac) [...] I seriously think MS is going down the wrong path with having like 6 versions of the operating system.

How many versions of GNU/Linux are there? Canonical alone puts out Ubuntu Netbook, Ubuntu Desktop, Ubuntu Server, Kubuntu, etc.

Re:Windows fragmented?

[thetoadwarrior]

And they're all free so you can choose which ever you want rather than sticking with a lesser version because you can't afford the more expensive one.

And all of Canonical's distros can run anything the others can. They just have different software installed by default. You can't turn your Windows 7 home edition into the Ultimate without paying more money.

1 reason

[Anonymous Coward]

you can take DDE data exchange only from my cold dying hands...

Probably enterprise users

[rxan]

Enterprise users are the most likely to remain with a working technology. Windows 7/Vista doesn't add value over XP for enterprise. They'll just stick with what works. Plus they'd lose money in having workers transition to 7.

Re:They can still run XP even after they get a new

[symbolset]

Ah, back in the day this was a huge argument against Linux - and stayed so long after it was patently untrue. Back then you had to check the specs quite carefully, do your research and make sure that your product was supported by the community because some component vendors weren't just non-supportive of Linux, they were actively hostile. They would obscure the interface and not make public specs so everything had to be reverse engineered.

Now development of an XP driver, which as the fine article plainly states serves two thirds of the device market, is a well established process, requires no new training or hiring. It's a sunk investment for hardware manufacturers. The only possible reason to withhold this driver is to force people to move on to the next version of Windows - and that's neither any of the hardware vendors' business nor is it in their best interest to ignore two thirds of the Windows market. So if XP drivers are getting scarce it's not because of lack of demand. Whatever could the reason be? The reason could not be in your best interest as a consumer.

Whatever. Turnabout is fair play. You have to check the Internet and the vendor website to make sure drivers are provided before you buy a PC to move your XP experience to. If the vendor won't provide XP drivers there's no reason to just throw it away. Linux works with just about everything out of the box, and it won't stop working just because Linus wants you to "move along" to the next version.

Windows XP is still used by 100% of...

[noidentity]

...Windows XP users. This is what Microsoft should be most worried about. Er, wait...

Microsoft should blame it's marketing department

[Anonymous Coward]

for the poor adoption rate of Windows 7. It's the same with IE7,8, and 9.

1) Leave the controls where they are and looking like those that I'm used to. It took me a while to become really comfortable with the controls and UI in XP. I don't want to have to go through that learning curve again.

2) Fire the guy that decided to have six million flavors of Windows 7. Which one do I use? I don't want to spend a lot of money just to find out I can't do some of the stuff I could do with XP.

I'm running Win7_64bit, kinda wish I wasn't

[Anonymous Coward]

I love older games (The original Doom series for example) and I'll be damned if I can figure out how to play them on my new machine. I've got a virtual machine set up with Windows98SE to play them but needless to say this is HARDLY ideal.
True, I can play the new games, but I miss the ones I grew up with. :/

Re:I'm running Win7_64bit, kinda wish I wasn't

[Anonymous Coward]

Forgot to mention, I do use DOSbox for all my DOS programs. It's the Win9x versions that I own that are giving me headaches. :)

Re:I'm running Win7_64bit, kinda wish I wasn't

[Anonymous Coward]

There are source ports that can natively run Doom on anything that has a button and a screen. There are several ports for Windows.

Macs aren't perfect I know but still

[crovira]

the hardware is much better controlled than the dog's breakfast on Windows.

It happens to last a lot longer too.

I still have a G4 PowerBook. Earlier this year I replaced it with a MacBook Pro but not because I had to.

In the same time I have seen my friend's PC based laptops fry, break, get crufty with registry snot and slow down.

I have also bought and disposed of two Windows based PC boxes, though that was mainly because of hard disk failures.

I have also been able to update my G4, G5, Intel from one revision to the next without problem and from one version to the next (except that OS X Leopard was the end of the line for the PowerPC based machines.)

Basically, I'm a whole lots more satisfied with the OSX Macs that the Windows box.

Windows XP, Vista and 7

[Murdoch5]

Well let me say this I just upgrade to Windows 7 and I've never looked back. There were two high points after Windows 2000 / Me for the desktop, XP and 7. Vista was an experimentation on how badly an OS can get screwed up and it lead to advancements being taking in 7. Even as as Linux user I can say that I like XP and 7, they work, there quick and not over bloated and they do what an OS should. Allow you to run your programs quickly and acuratly with little crashing. Now vista on the other hand, that was the one week I couldn't go back to Linux fast enough!!!!

XP was a solid system, it was fast, nice graphics and everything seem to have a logical place. I would compare it to Ubuntu 7.04 ( of course I'm a Gentoo user so thats my closest compairison). 7 brings the best of XP up to a new user experiance and does it well. I would rate Windows 7 to be just on par with a good Linux distro and thats saying alot. Windows has never really been able to compare to a good Linux install, in terms of speed, user experiance and over all features. This might be the first time Windows and Linux are on a fair field and I'm happy about it.

XP was great and 7 is great and it's nice to finally have Microsoft turning out quality Operating Systems, of course after Vista you really couldn't get worse I mean even Me was better then Vista and thats saying alot.

Windows 7 . . . HA! not on your life!

[Anonymous Coward]

My elderly father had to replace his defunct XP machine. I tried to persuade him to go Apple (as I have), but he was bent on getting a laptop and Apple Laptops are outrageously expensive (although I've had one for 5 years, without a problem). He finally got a Toshiba, 17 inch with . . . Windows 7. I told him I know nothing about Windows 7 and would not be able to help him when he gets into trouble or needs help with it. (by phone, I in Raleigh, he in Cleveland). He was so used to calling me and I'd work out a solution or use LogMeIn to look at his computer from mine. But, as things would be, he couldn't set up e-mail. What I found out, through a friend who has Windows 7 on his laptop and from reading on the Internet . . . surprise surprise! Windows 7 does NOT have an e-mail program. Nada . . . nothing. The only thing they offer is some contrived "cloud" program that requires you to be connected to the Internet in order to read and write e-mail. You cannot load it to your computer for reading off line!!!! How ludicrous is that!!! His grandson downloaded FireFox and Thunderbird for him to use. But, given that one huge ommission on the OS, I would not even consider for a moment a machine with Windows 7 on it. What absurdity!!! Insanity at MS. Glad I'm an Apple guy. Simple, works, intuitive and doesn't crash. Thank you Apple.

Hardware dies all the time

[sjbe]

I haven't seen a full system failure (motherboard, power supply, etc.) in years.

Then you haven't been around enough hardware. I have half a dozen laptops with various cooked circuit boards, defective power supplies and other similarly fatal issues in my office upstairs and I don't even do hardware support for a living. Computers die all the time. Any IT department of any size will have copious numbers of deceased machines. Hard drives are probably the most common failed equipment due to the moving parts but solid state parts fail quite regularly as well.

Honestly I'm one of the people who just hasn't "upgraded". I've got no problem with Windows 7 aside from a general distaste for Microsoft, but my current hardware that runs XP works fine for my needs and Windows 7 gives me no compelling reason to switch. Only way I'll end up with a machine running Win7 is with a new computer of some sort but I don't see that happening any time soon.

Re:They can still run XP even after they get a new

[man_of_mr_e]

Vendors don't like maintaining old versions of drivers because you have to double, or triple the amount of work to be done for each new device. Would you rather maintain 3 versions or one version?

You make it sound like a conspiracy, and there is no effort involved in creating multiple versions of drivers. That's simply not true.

No.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just not going to pay $119.99-$219.99 for a new windows OS or any OS.

Wait...

[Beelzebud]

You mean MS isn't seeing the same type of sales, during a recession, than they did in the 90's. I'm utterly shocked!!!

Power supplies don't like to die alone

[sjbe]

Power supplies are not a full system failure, do tend to crap out, and are also easily replaced.

Problem with power supply failures is that they too often will take other components with them when they die. I have replaced power supplies on numerous machines where the power supply was the only problem. Easy fix but probably 1/3 of the time (my own anecdotal experience) the problem that took out the power supply took out some other components as well. Again, not necessarily permanently fatal but sometimes so expensive to fix a new machine is warranted.

Re:Power supplies don't like to die alone

[AJWM]

Yep. I had a PSU failure take out the onboard electronics for two hard drives (one IDE, one SCSI - this was a while back), two CPUs, a graphics card, and a few other odds and ends. The surprising thing was that anything at all worked after that (SCSI controller and NIC were OK -- although I didn't trust them after that).

The drive circuitry failed spectacularly, blowing ICs off the cards and vaporizing circuit traces. The sound and smoke was my first clue that something was seriously wrong. I made sure I got a high-end, high-power PSU for the replacement box.

Just XP, or a variety of Windows OSes?

[LoudMusic]

66% of All Windows Users Still Use Windows XP

I am a Windows user.
I use Windows XP.
I also use four installations of Windows 7.

What are the percentages of Windows installations? I bet there are still a few very active Windows 3.x installations doing important things in the world. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

My XP computer is a laptop on a custom shelf in front of the treadmill. My Windows 7 computers are a desktop at work, a desktop at home, a work laptop, and a TV PC. And I use each of them at least once a week.

hardware

[luther349]

people don't upgrade there machines all the time like they used to. pretty much as long as there hardware is working they keep using it. most people are running dule cores or p4 single cores. unless your a pc gamer there is no point in running a badass gpu and 6 cores with 16gb of ram. the only reason i upgraded to a dule core system i have a gamer buddy who gives me his old hardware. all of witch can still play all games just not at full settings like he likes. so now i have a gaming laptop 4gb of ram a nivida gtx overkill for what i need from it. my desktop is still a single core 2gb ram xp machine. and my netbook runs linux.

$109 too much

[sjbe]

Then buy the OEM version, its only $109 for home premium.

Only $109? You have a funny notion of value. That's $109 more than I'm willing to spend on any version of Windows for my current XP running machines which are working-just-fine-thank-you-very-much. Why would I spend even half that much on an operating system that requires significantly more hardware for no actual features I need?

Even if I wanted Win7, the hardware in my current machines would be barely adequate. I've got 2GB of RAM on the machine I type this on which is typically more than adequate for my needs with XP but I'd run out of headroom fast on Win7 unless I severely restricted the enabled features. If I do that there really isn't much point in "upgrading" now is there?

Re:Windows 7 . . . HA! not on your life!

[Anonymous Coward]

Glad I'm an Apple guy.

      Yes. You sound like the typical Apple snob, rebuffing your father for not choosing an Apple like yourself, and unwilling to even put a bit of effort into helping him out if he runs into trouble. Keep your overpriced junk and wear it as a badge for lousy human beings.

No good reason to upgrade

[Runaway1956]

The banter goes back and forth, and no one seems to note one important thing: THERE IS NO COMPELLING REASON TO UPGRADE. Many, many computers are 5 years old, or more. Those computers aren't going to run any faster with Win7. If you want a high user rating, or experience rating in 7, you'll have to upgrade the video, and that's going to cost almost as much as buying a new netbook. So, no Aero, slightly increased resources consumption, and you have to learn new interfaces on the same old hardware - why PAY for this aggravation? Win7 just offers nothing that is worth paying for, if you already have XP on old hardware. People who are upgrading hardware are much more likely to pay for Win7. Unless they own an installation disk for XP, AND they have all the drivers they need, they almost have to pay for 7.

Re:No good reason to upgrade

[T-Bone-T]

I installed Windows 7 on my 7-year-old laptop and it runs even better than with XP. I don't get Aero but most of that is just eye candy. I can do almost everything else.

Why upgrade?
1. Runs better on old hardware.
2. Better security model.
3. Better interfaces.
4. Not a decade old.

PS Try actually using 7 before you bash it and sound completely ignorant.

Re:No good reason to upgrade

[tuppe666]

I run Windows 7 on my my new Revo box 64-bit 2core, 4GB, Nvidia, 500GB Hard Drive. Runs so slow. I spent £300 on it because of lies like yours. The application that brings it to its knees is Word. Its not the only thing...The one peripheral that it connects to is a scanner. It doesn't work. Its quite common to see this post everywhere. Its a lie...I don't know what this lie is trying to achieve. It doesn't promote Windows. I'm just more annoyed at it, and tell people its a lie.

Windows 7 does not have the same hardware support as Windows XP it is also slower on the same hardware

Re:No good reason to upgrade

[T-Bone-T]

Why are you calling me a liar? I didn't force you to buy a computer loaded down with crap. I keep seeing posts like yours, too, so I guess you are a liar, too.

Re:No good reason to upgrade

[Runaway1956]

Sound completely ignorant? Did you ASK if I've run it? No need for you to exercise, right? You get plenty, jumping to conclusions. If Win7 runs BETTER on old hardware, then you most likely found an isolated instance in which XP wasn't properly installed in the first place, using the wrong drivers. If, indeed, XP was properly installed and configured with all the right drivers, then you got lucky, in that Win7 had an even better driver for some key component. As I stated, Win7's resource requirements are bit higher than XP. It isn't going to run as well as XP on systems that are short on resources. Better security model? Yeah - I like that. Better interfaces? Subjective opinion. Not a decade old? XP SP3 isn't a decade old, nor are the updates being pulled off the web when you update today.

Re:No good reason to upgrade

[Aldenissin]

I found that Windows 7 ran better on the girlfriend's old dell, compared to a fresh install and upgrade to service pack 3. Upgrading the drivers made no real notice improvement. I can see where Windows 7 could run worse on certain or really old hardware, but I think if it isn't too slow to begin with Windows 7 is definately snappier than XP with the bloated service pack 3. SP2 was great, but 3 is just downright sluggish in comparison on said hardware. Maybe she was "lucky" too, but I doubt it, and even if so still speaks to how Windows 7 is better at least in this instance... And I do like the interface better as well. It was a change, but less than one to Ubuntu from XP, although Win 7 and Ubuntu (With Compiz) remind me of a lot of each other...

Re:No good reason to upgrade

[T-Bone-T]

If XP was using the wrong drivers, that's another win for 7. Windows 7 will pick better drivers for your hardware. Why choose XP again?

Re:No good reason to upgrade

[jesset77]

I run Windows 7 on my my new Revo box 64-bit 2core, 4GB, Nvidia, 500GB Hard Drive. Runs so slow. I spent £300 on it because of lies like yours.

Alrighty. I run Windows 7 on my old Dell Inspiron 1520 with 64 bit dual core, 4GB (aftermarket), Nvidia and 120GB Hard Drive. Bought it in Feb 08 with XP on it. This was during the reign of Vista and this was the only laptop Dell still sold with XP on it.

Got hit by a virus (damn AVG Free did not protect me; even though I scanned the suspect file thoroughly before trying to use it. Switched to Avira, we'll see how that does ;D) and had to re-install. I had already tried Win7 during RC and decided it is marginally better than XP, just not better enough to switch unless you're rolling a new OS anyway.. and now I was. So I switched from 32 bit XP to 64 bit 7.

Now it seems to run every bit as fast as XP did, with Aero turned on. It eats more RAM (900MB used at startup instead of 350MB, overhead appears constant after days of uptime) and this is after applying most of Black Viper's recommended service tweaks to both OSen. I find win+tab is handy when you've got a ton of browser windows open (each with tabs; I generally run one window per distinct project) and want to quickly get to one which is visually distinct.

so tuppe, does my counter-example anecdote mean that you're the liar now? Or perhaps we should yeild the predictive power of all of our personal one-off experiences in favor of actual research?

ZDnet's benchmarks maintain that Windows 7 is faster than XP for standard use, although XP remains more capable for devices with limited memory and outdated graphics.

Maximum PC's benchmarks claim that Win7 simply feels faster than XP on the hardware they tested.

Tom's Hardware's netbook benchmarks show that Windows 7 does not beat XP on the netbook but that it is quite responsive, and would probably surpass XP with better driver support.

TechRadar's benchmark includes many plusses and minuses for Windows 7 with a net plus, but clearly states that it provides "better performance than XP can deliver on today's hardware."

I'm not picking up on any benchmarks that have the same trouble you've had, so unfortunately I have no way to confirm you did not just misconfigure your machine.

Re:No good reason to upgrade

[tuppe666]

The only crap on the machine is Windows 7 and Office, because that is all that is on it. The crapware thing is a lie too. In fact I will go further its not the user...it never was. Windows 7 is slow thats why they STILL sell XP on Atoms. Thats why netbooks are so tricked out with hardware just run the OS that the iPad which may as well be made of gold looks reasonably priced, and has no price difference to a laptop with a full size keyboard.

At least have the decency of accusing of not accessing me of accessing porn.

Re:No good reason to upgrade

[tuppe666]

I'm glad you chose benchmarks as an example. Unfortunately in a real word example...typing a letter...pressing a damn key and the letter appearing is the slowdown. Thats using the bread and butter of Microsoft Office+OS combo. Must me the user ;). I wonder why all those netbooks are STILL sold with XP.

Re:No good reason to upgrade

[T-Bone-T]

If there's one thing we could agree on, it is crapware from manufacturers except you somehow think that is a lie. That's messed up, dude.

Re:No good reason to upgrade

[T-Bone-T]

It sounds like something is seriously wrong. You should really look into that.

Re:No good reason to upgrade

[jesset77]

I'm glad you chose benchmarks as an example. Unfortunately in a real word example...typing a letter...pressing a damn key and the letter appearing is the slowdown. Thats using the bread and butter of Microsoft Office+OS combo

Then this might not be an OS problem but an MS Office problem. I don't use Word at all. I use Google Docs on occasion and OpenOffice on occasion (mostly for spreadsheets or for zero-config collaboration) and tons of plain text, as formated text isn't used too often in my bare metal work.

Otherwise, I never experience a hard time typing save here: in Slashdot's comment section (on sev'ral web browsers). I certainly can't blame the OS for that.

Re:No good reason to upgrade

[smash]

Corollary to that is that there is no good reason NOT to upgrade.

If you have the hardware available (and really, if your computer is more than 5 years old it is likely running WIndows XP + SP3 + required software to keep it anywhere near secure/usable like a PIG anyway.

If you have a machine with 1GB ram and a pentium 4 or more recent however Windows 7 is actually more usable. I know, because as a test I worked with a Dell D510 lappy with 1gb of ram for a week to test for minimum usable spec for our SOE cutoff. It even installed and ran reasonably well on a D505 with 512mb ram, but the video adapter just was not supported. No big deal because the battery on that machine was fucked and D series spares are not really available any more.

Re:No good reason to upgrade

[smash]

If you have a USB 2 port available, try sticking in a 4GB flash disk to use with readyboost. It will be even better.

Re:No good reason to upgrade

[smash]

Win7 eats ram for cache. As does LINUX, or any other reasonably modern OS. "free" memory is pointless, wasted memory. Using it for disk cache until it is needed is far more effective and speeds the system up. If 7 runs out of "free" memory it dynamically shrinks your disk cache (again, like any other sensible OS of recent memory) and returns that ram for use by programs.

Re:No good reason to upgrade

[smash]

They're still sold with XP because they are cheap.

Re:No good reason to upgrade

[Runaway1956]

And, I think we're almost in agreement. Win7 is a little better OS than XP - with the real improvements being in the security model. Everything else is *mostly* subjective. There's no compelling reason to choose one over the other - except COST. And, really, that was my point. Those 5 to 10 year old computers sitting in people's homes that came with XP pre-installed may or may not run equally well with Win7. The most critical factors in the dicision will be the video, and the amount of memory. Few people can justify the cost of upgrading the video, plus upgrading the memory, so that they can spend MORE money on a new version of Windows. Let's bear in mind that while memory is very cheap for today's more modern computers, it can still be pretty expensive to buy a gig or two of PC-2100 or PC-2700 memory. It can actually be cheaper to just buy a new computer with Win7 installed!

Re:No good reason to upgrade

[jesset77]

Win7 eats ram for cache. As does LINUX, or any other reasonably modern OS.

Yeah, OK. Again, I've got 4 gigs. So instead of never going over 2 gigs used now I never go over 2.5. I dun care. :3

Still, if what you say explains the readings I get from Task Manager, then why not can they put a separate line for amount of memory used by disk cache? Kind of like the optional "kernel" line for CPU usage, or like the "+/- buffers" column in linux' "free" command.

Re:No good reason to upgrade

[mikael_j]

While I agree that using unused RAM for disk caching is good I'm not a fan of how many operating systems seem to do this. It seems a lot of times the disk cache is given a bit too much priority, I'm not going to single out Windows here because I've seen it on other systems as well. Basically what seems to happen is if I have (as an example) two active GUI applications each using 400 megs of RAM each out of a total of say, 1500 available after the OS gets its share then without making any tweaks to the system the OS will happily swap out the apps if they're inactive for more than a minute or so. What this means in practice is that if I'm working with something and switching between the two application windows every 10-20 minutes then I'll end up having to wait for the applications to be read back into RAM from the swap partition/file just about every time. And when I've checked what the RAM ended up being used for instead of keeping app in RAM it was always disk cache, because being able to quickly access some non-running program is apparently more important than the apps I'm using now not being slow as shit.

So yeah, if I have to choose between stupid disk caching and memory management or the operating system simply not doing disk caching I'll probably choose no disk caching at all. I'm just glad that swappiness can be controlled on most operating systems so I don't have to make that choice...

Re:No good reason to upgrade

[operagost]

Acer sells Atom notebooks with Windows 7.

Re:No good reason to upgrade

[mcgrew]

Got hit by a virus (damn AVG Free did not protect me; even though I scanned the suspect file thoroughly before trying to use it. Switched to Avira, we'll see how that does ;D) and had to re-install.

The best AV is made by Apple, Ubuntu, Suse... if you're sick if viruses, stop using Microsoft OSes. Microsoft has the only OSes that there are viruses in the wild for.

That said, my netbook came with Win7, and it seemed faster than XP to me, but then again the netbook's dual core and the old PC I had XP on (dual boot, of course, with networking disabled on the Windows side) was single core at the same clock speed. The real question is "is it fast enough?" The answer is usually "yes" no matter what OS.

Re:No good reason to upgrade

[merockstar]

Try avast if you haven't already. It's not the prettiest/lightest weight creature but it sure picks up viruses.

Re:No good reason to upgrade

[smash]

They do. See "cached" reading

Re:No good reason to upgrade

[smash]

Be careful what you wish for without doing performance testing.

Re:No good reason to upgrade

[smash]

Thing is if you have an enterprise agreement or technet sub - you get win7 upgrade for free...

Re:No good reason to upgrade

[jesset77]

They do. See "cached" reading

Alright, so now for instance my graph is at "1.17GB" while the stats below (which I rarely read being that they never seem to add up, and .. they're not a graph ;D) Say:

Physical Memory (MB)
Total: 4094 (sounds right to me)
Cached: 1911 (more than the graph has .. so not represented in graph?)
Available: 2887 (?)
Free: 1046 (?)

Not that this is a Window's howto forum or anything, but I just rely on the graph to tell me how much RAM I have free. I never see problems until that graph is at 100% memory utilization (which in turn has never happened to me since upgrading to 4gig .. yes I run hundreds of tabs in 4 web browsers plus 3 dozen other applications sometimes :D)

If My graph shows ~500MB more used on startup than it did when I was in XP, and if the cache you mention is not represented in that graph, then it's not relevant to my measurement. Of course, if I've got four gig (as did OP) and never remotely approach that in either OS, then memory usage might not be OP's problem either.

So, just saying. Thanks for the input, just doesn't look relevant. :3

Re:No good reason to upgrade

[Anonymous Coward]

ah yes, the ol' "benchmarks beat user experience" argument.

Re:No good reason to upgrade

[smash]

Hmm, another thing Win7 does is superfetch the prefetcher.

I'm not sure where that memory shows in terms of usage.

You can turn that off, but again, its memory being put to use rather than sitting there idle.

I haven't tested with it off vs on, but some have and noticed it does speed up application launch after it "learns" what to keep pre-fetched. YMMV...

Re:No good reason to upgrade

[smash]

All I'm saying is that you may end up getting faster app change time, but reducing performance in the app(s) while actually using them.

At the end of the day, ram is cheap - if you're waiting for the app to be paged in then it had to be paged out because you don't have enough RAM. Yes, disabling disk cache may free more RAM, but you'll probably just kill all i/o throughput in the process.

Despite popular opinion - Microsoft developers are not completely retarded when it comes to performance tuning. Win7 / 2008 / other products of this generation have been made to work well at the majority of tasks, with hardware spec expected during the product's life-cycle.

Of course there are cases where this may not be exactly right (hence you can turn shit like superfetch off, and tweak kernel parameters if you look it up), especially during the early days of the OS's life. People seem to forget that when XP itself was released, it was a complete dog compared to Windows 2000 or 98 unless you gave it an appropriate amount of RAM. The min spec was 32 meg; I challenge anyone to try running it with that and not rage-quitting the OS...

AS you see more modern hardware becoming more common, the performance advantages of 7 over XP are only going to grow.

XP is "good enough"

[nedlohs]

It hard crashes far less often than 98SE did (ME is a figment of your imagination, that was just a bad dream).

Vista and 7 just haven't added anything to make it worth upgrading. I prefer Windows 7 to Windows XP, and my new laptop runs it. But not enough to install it on a machine that already runs XP.

XP was actually good enough - which is a disaster for a software company that wants upgrade dollars.

Many don't want to pay $ to upgrade

[davidwr]

If I could've done it for less than $20 a machine I would've upgraded all my Windows-7-capable XP machines within 6 months of Windows 7 coming out.

But nooo, Microsoft wants close to $100 per box to upgrade.

So I'll leave them at XP until they are replaced, which should be well before XP goes "out of service" in 2014.

What does this policy mean for Microsoft? It means instead of 2/3 or more of XP users upgrading, only 1/3 upgrade.

Oh, I would've skipped Windows Vista even if it were free. On the same hardware, WIndows Vista is a lot less annoying and it's easier to disable features so it works well on mid-2000's-era hardware. I can slap 7 on my "barely meets Windows 7 hardware requirements" boxes, turn off some eye candy, and have a machine that performs like the Windows XP box but with the security of Windows 7. To do the same with Windows Vista would require more RAM and probably a somewhat faster CPU.

Obvious financial reasons...

[Phizzle]

Many of the systems running XP are worth less than the upgrade to Windows 7. There are many people running systems that were donated to them by their more tech-savvy neighbors and friends - I donated 2 of my old desktops and one of my old laptops that all had XP Pro on them. I am the local "computer guy" and most of the folks who ask me to tend to their old systems are running P4 boxes with XP Pro. There are also tons of off-lease HP/Dell/Emachines/Gateway systems being sold on ebay in the hundred bucks range that come pre-loaded with XP. The only way these people will be upgrading to Windows 7 would be if it will come installed on their next system. This is not a reflection on Microsoft - just the economic reality of the times.

I consider myself a rather "expert" on Windows

[fluor2]

as of today, Windows 7 gives me nothing but a few advantages for my company.

1. More satisfied users, as they feel the Windows XP is rather old.
2. uhh.

That's it.

Windows 7? Nothing to see here. Move along.

Still no reason for me to upgrade

[sjbe]

Well, there are lots of reasons to upgrade, imho:

Then we disagree. I think Win7 is fine but there is little/no reason for me to upgrade anytime soon. If it comes on a new machine that I need Windows on, I'd be fine with Win7 but that doesn't come close to being a reason to change my already working systems. I'd upgrade in a heartbeat if I saw any real advantage to me in doing so but so far there isn't one. Seems like most XP users have come to a similar conclusion.

1) Far more secure 2) Far more stable

You're going to have a hard time backing this up. XP is pretty darn stable and Win7 users have no lack of security problems compared with XP users. It's not as if we are hearing a mass sigh of relief from Win7 users that they no longer have security problems. Windows security issues run far deeper than that.

3) Doesn't seem to suffer from 'windows rot' like XP (where it gets slower and slower over time)

Since Win7 has only been out for just over 1 year, how could you possibly know this?

4) Better UI with more hot-keys and short-cuts, makes for more efficient usage

Better is pretty subjective so you'll need more than a blanket assertion that it is better. I've used every version of Windows since version 2 and Win7 is not enough improved over XP for me to justify any outlay of cash. The only people that make any significant use of hot-keys (aside from copy/past/etc) are geeks like those of us here.

5) Up to date technology support 6) PnP just works, better drivers, smoother hardward support (device stage) 7) Easier/better network management, especially wireless 8) Some great time-saving laptop-specific features turn things that were a pain in XP into a breeze

All my hardware works just fine under XP. All the hardware I am likely to buy anytime soon will work just fine under XP. Win7 provides me precisely zero additional benefit in this regard. I'm geeky enough that even the "pain" setup problems are not that big a deal and once they are set up I rarely have to deal with them again.

9) Can run the latest versions of Windows Live Essentials and the soon-to-be-released IE9, and the list of software that relies on Win7 features will keep growing

I don't use Windows Live Essentials nor do I know anyone personally who does. Obviously some people use it but this is again no reason to upgrade for most of us. I use Firefox or Safari for most of my browsing and really don't give a flying monkey's ass if IE9 will not run on my machine.

10) Smoother multi-tasking and UI due to refinements in the kernel and GUI subsystems 11) Real 64-bit support, vastly improved Media Center, vastly improved Media Player, "Play to" feature, easier sharing, etc.

All marginal improvements at best, most of which don't affect me at all. I don't have a 64 bit machine, I don't have any meaningful problems with the multitasking, and I don't run a Media Center. No value to me there. Furthermore Win7 requires significantly more hardware to provide what I already have with XP. Don't get me wrong, I'd upgrade in a heartbeat if it provided some real value but for most of us, Win7 is just a prettier and more resource hungry version of XP. The benefits do not justify getting rid of XP in favor of Win7.

12) Far less "naggy"... doesn't interrupt you, nag you, and bother you all the time.

Are you seriously claiming that Win7 is less naggy than XP? If so I want whatever you are smoking.

Move product

[symbolset]

The goal of a hardware vendor is to sell as much hardware as possible. Whether it's laptop wireless chipsets, motherboard chipsets, webcams or whatnot the goal is to move product. XP is still two thirds of the Windows software market. If a hardware vendor ignores the vast majority if their established market, what else could the purpose be? We're not talking about drivers for OS-X here, or Linux with a tiny market share. We're talking about more than half of the people in the world who might use the product. It just does not make sense for a hardware developer to spend the money to develop only for the smaller fraction and not the larger one unless there is some other motivation.

Re:Move product

[man_of_mr_e]

You assume that people with old hardware buy as much, or more equipment as people with new hardware. That's not a valid assumption.

60% of the people may still own Windows, but 90% of new hardware purchases are likely to be for new computers. Yes, I just pulled those numbers out of my ass, but they are in line with my experience.

Sorry Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason a P4 or Athlon 64 machine isn't still perfectly adequate for me is The Dark Mod (www.thedarkmod.com). Unfortunately for you, this is cross-platform. That means I can keep my old XP machine for 99% of my games and build a new one for $450 to play TDM and not give you a dime.

It is worth mentioning that I don't buy PC games anymore for Windows. I called it quits when they started installing malware, like hidden drivers and so-called release-checking software. Any new games I buy will either run natively in *nix, or WINE, where they can't screw with the internals of my system.

I also don't trust your update system anymore. Remember the time you installed a WGA notification tool that phoned home every single day?

We're still too early to judge

[bashmohandes]

Windows XP has been in the market for almost 10 years, while Windows 7 has been in the Market for less than a year, and as far as the numbers go in one year Windows 7 already surpassed what Windows Vista did in 4 years or so.

Re:We're still too early to judge

[pandrijeczko]

In what way has is surpassed Vista?

If you mean that there are more Windows 7 users now than there were Vista users when it was the same age, then that is to be expected.

Let's be honest here - the people who want the latest OS when it comes out moved from XP to Vista at the earliest opportunity; and when Windows 7 came out, they immediately went from Vista to it.

Add to that the people who have bought new PCs and went straight from XP to Windows 7, then naturally the numbers for Windows 7 will be higher than for Vista, but without actually proving very much.

The only way to prove this definitively would be to remove the instances of Vista and 7 that come pre-installed on new PCs (because most people just use what's on the PC) and just look at physical shrinkwrapped box sales of both.

Even then, Vista got bad press from the outset whereas 7 got good press - so if less people bought boxed copies of Vista than they did 7, then that may just be because Vista didn't achieve its expected sales rather than 7 overachieving its expected sales.

That's a load of Crap

[gadlaw]

What I'm reading here is a commercial from you friendly Windows company. When you try to denigrate people for using machines and OS's that work you're only illustrating how evil the companies are to design their software and the new OS's so that there is compatibility between versions. Except, it's not just really old versions and newer versions, it's this version and the last version. Last computer I built I built with XP, the newer versions are DRM laden bloat ware things that expect me and my computer to support their load of crap. If I upgraded right now I'd have to buy new software for most everything anyways. Now, me and 60 odd percent of my closest friends don't believe any of the hype, we know what works and whether you all put Jerry Seinfeld or shiny happy people all over the commercials telling how smart I am if I upgrade we are not buying that load of crap.

Ahhh...fanbois...

[Anonymous Coward]

*** Almost one year after the introduction of Windows 7 it appears that the hype surrounding the operating has faded ***

But the hype around Linux on the desktop still keeps chugging along... ...on the tracks to the pits of Hell, because, well, it's the only way it can go.

Re:Ahhh...fanbois...

[pandrijeczko]

Please provide a link to this "hype" because I cannot find it anywhere.

There are a minority of people in this world who need some of the complex macro functionality of MS Office or who need Photoshop for complex graphics or video editing - clearly for those people, Linux, OpenOffice.org and GIMP are probably not adequate replacements. There are more than likely a few more high-end Windows-only software packages that some people need to use where they could not move to Linux.

However, for the average home user who wants to surf the net, do a few emails, tinker with some photos, rip and play music or movies, play a few games, Linux is now mature enough to cope with this very well. And the fact that you don't realise this tells me you're simply just a fanboi yourself and/or out of your depth talking about a topic you clearly know nothing about.

Even though I'm mostly a Linux user, I still keep XP around for gaming & some killer apps that I use - I actually quite like it as an OS once you strip down the kindergarten default theme & go to a slimmer Windows 2000 look. But that's because I've got enough balls to admit that I treat operating systems as tools to get things done in, and I just use the best tools for the job I need to do.

Computer Industry Changing

[helix2301]

Well I think there is a lot of reasons why people will not move off XP I have noticed Vista really scared people from upgrading. Now people are scared to upgrade because of all the issue with Vista. Plus hardware has not really progressed a lot as of late. The PC market has been slowing down a lot in favor of cell phones and tablets.

Old hardware still useful, that's why

[guacamole]

I have seen many single core PCs that are perfectly adequate for running applications that their owners need (web, business apps, etc). This is for course, under Windows XP. Yet, they're not good enough to run Windows 7. I know that I can go into Windows 7 appearance settings and turn off all of the eye candy to make it reasonably responsive. But then, it looks and functions about the same as XP, so why bother? Why create headaches, pay license feels, etc? XP just works on those machines already.

Civ V

[mmaniaci]

Everybody knows the real reason not to switch to Win 7 is because Civilization V runs better with DX9 than with DX10.

Re:Civ V

[Anonymous Coward]

...when it starts and asks you if you'd rather the DX9 or DX10 version - maybe you could click 9 if you think it runs faster.

how did you get modded interesting?

Most of those problems come from DRM

[Animats]

Almost all of those problems are DRM-related.

I recently converted from Windows 2000 to 64-bit Windows 7. It wasn't bad at all. I'd never used Microsoft Office other than Word 97, and I didn't bother trying to re-install that on Windows 7. I'd been using OpenOffice for Word documents for years. Most of my programming is in Python, and I use mostly open source applications. MySQL installed nicely on Windows 7. Engineering tools for PCB design, electronic simulation, and CNC machining worked on both Windows 2000 and Windows 7; the API really hasn't changed much.

The only big headache was Visual SourceSafe. While my 10-year old boxed version of VSS refused to install on Windows 7, it turns out that when I copied over the VSS data directories, they contained a copy of the applications, and they didn't need to be "installed". All the client needed was a shortcut, and it ran fine. Even "analyze", the checking and recovery tool, runs. The VSS license from a decade ago permits a move to a new machine, so no problem there, and I now had access to my old files. I never used remote access to a VSS database anyway; my shared work is on Subversion. The Tortoise SVN client works fine on Windows 7.

The only new piece of software I had to buy was Adobe Photoshop Elements, a DRM problem, since installation ties it to a specific machine.

On the hardware front, Windows 7 recognized my old HP LaserJet 5L, even behind a USB to parallel converter, downloaded the appropriate driver, and ran it properly. I did have to replace my Canon LIDE scanner; Canon doesn't offer a 64-bit driver for the old model. But a newer scanner was only $50, and it's more than twice as fast.

Re:Pooched my wife's Cannon printer's software wit

[digitallife]

You have to be kidding. System 7 came out 20 YEARS ago.
I have an Apple iBook I purchased in 2003, and I upgraded it from Panther, to Tiger, to Leopard, without a single fresh install, and it still works great. Try doing that with a 2003 windows computer...

Anybody want it?

[macraig]

I actually have a copy of Windows 7 sitting here, intended to upgrade this machine, but have been dragging my feet doing it. There was only ONE single reason for the upgrade (GPT compatibility), that reason stopped being critical, and the "upgrade" will be a time-consuming sift-through-bits-and-pieces process that I despise. Windows XP works well enough.

For that matter, I only upgraded to Windows XP a couple years ago, again for ONE reason: Supreme Commander. A friend was desperate that we try it, and it would not run in Windows 2000 because of some weird dependency. 99.9% of all other Win32 software ran just as well in 2000 as XP. Windows 2000 worked well enough, too.

Re:Anybody want it?

[Nysul]

I'll take it and pay for shipping. My mom is running vista and constantly complaining about it. I tried linux but couldn't get the sound to work.

Re:Anybody want it?

[macraig]

Which "linux" did you try? Not every distro is identical. Ubuntu completely failed to install on a Toshiba laptop I had, but PCLinuxOS installed without complaint. If you tried Ubuntu and that didn't work, try openSUSE or PCLinuxOS or MEPIS. At least one is very likely to work. Frankly I thought openSUSE was a bit more polished than Ubuntu the last time I had a look at both.

Re:Anybody want it?

[macraig]

I was only kidding about giving it away, of course. I know I'll have to use it and go through the messy upgrade eventually, because if nothing else GPT ain't going away. The only thing that might actually allow me to get rid of it is migrating to Linux (since all distros support GPT), but software limitations are likely to prevent that for me. Supreme Commander and the like don't play so well in Wine, for instance....

Re:Anybody want it?

[vlueboy]

Slightly OT, if you're still into Toshiba laptops, give Ubuntu 10.10 a try. I reported some software and live-boot problems from USB before taking a closer look at this RC, but hardware wise, my 3 year old U305 model is running much like Windows.

I had skipped on 10.04 but updated kernels and the expected 9.04 backporting updates provided no improvement. Then, suddenly, 10.10 had my dual-monitor support, sleep, wobbly windows, blueetooth and the unfixable 0%-OR-100% volume-wheel-input working properly, all in a single major upgrade. I followed ubuntu from before even owning this laptop. YMMV since the RC came out only a couple days ago, and I will "rage" over whatever may have broken without my noticing... :)

Re:Anybody want it?

[Nysul]

Ubuntu and knoppix. Next time I'll try openSUSE.

What we've all found by now is that...

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Newer != Better.

This isn't exclusively a Microsoft phenomena. I use VMWare ESX 3.5i. Every new ESX version seems to get a little worse and causes me a a few more problems. I actually had to virtualize the latest virtual machine client application in a Windows XP environment in order to get it to work on Windows 7.

As an aside, things seem to have gotten *worse* since "Agile" got popular. Is there a connection or is it just me?

Im one of them.

[unity100]

im tech savvy, i play heavy-graphics games, i make my living from programming. yet, the pc in front of me is running windows xp.

why ?

because it works, i can do everything i need to do with it, and i dont need anything more.

lets admit it - leave aside the needs of everyday users, the current computer power and o/s power has gone above what even hardcore gamers need, a while ago. there is no need to upgrade, other than being coerced, forced into upgrading by tricks like microsoft pulled with dx10 getting locked into vista. and if it is forced as such, people will find a way to have what they are locked out of ...

Re:Im one of them.

[Ash-Fox]

I have three games right now that require DX10 or higher, and I'm not even that much of a gamer... From a gamer perspective, I suspect some may have moved to a newer operating system for that reason, which admittedly, even if all gamers moved to a higher version of Windows, is likely an insignificant amount of people in the percentage of the overall statistics.

Re:Im one of them.

[pandrijeczko]

The list of games that actually support DirectX 10 are here.

It's a fairly small list and it doesn't say if any of those games *DON'T* support DirectX 9 on XP. Bearing in mind I'm these days more of a casual than serious gamer (so not an expert on newer games), the only one in that list that I can remember did *NOT* support DirectX 9 was Shadowrun, and I assume that game did pretty badly because it started appearing in bargain bins fairly soon after release.

The piece you also failed to mention is that even if Vista and Windows 7 support DirectX 10 and 11 respectively, to make use of either the graphics card also needs to support them.

I am sure there are lots of gamers out there who bought new PCs with the latest graphics cards and Windows 7 included in order to play some of those games with the latest graphics technology - but by the time you've *UPGRADED* a gaming PC by buying a boxed copy of Windows 7 and a new GPU with DirectX 10/11 support, the cost difference of doing that over buying a completely new PC just don't make sense.

It's basically a "chicken and egg" situation because with so many people still using XP (and therefore limited to DirectX 9), games companies will commit commercial suicide if they release games that don't support it... and if they're not releasing games that don't support it, why upgrade?

And in my particular case as an example, I classify myself as a casual gamer but have played STALKER Call Of Pripyat to death recently - and whilst I can think of game mechanics improvements that could make the game more immersive or better, I don't believe the cost of upgrading from XP and my DirectX9 graphics card for slightly prettier graphics under DirectX 10 is justifiable.

Re:Im one of them.

[unity100]

what dx10 brings over dx9, is only water shading in certain circumstances. (beaches, lakesides). the difference wouldnt be noticeable in many gaming environments unfortunately, and they are noticeable in crysis because it passes in an island. not to mention that hacking the game makes it play with dx10 standards, ironically, under dx9, with all the bells and whistles dx10 would bring ...

Re:Im one of them.

[Ash-Fox]

The list of games that actually support DirectX 10 are here.

It's even an incomplete list too, FUEL, while not DX10 only, is a DX10 game and it's not on there.

It's a fairly small list and it doesn't say if any of those games *DON'T* support DirectX 9 on XP.

Indeed, it's still missing games on the list though.

to make use of either the graphics card also needs to support them.

Actually, I was running Shattered Horizon, which is a DX10 only game on a DX9 graphics card on Windows Vista. Please stop spreading misinformation.

Re:Im one of them.

[Ash-Fox]

what dx10 brings over dx9, is only water shading in certain circumstances. (beaches, lakesides). the difference wouldnt be noticeable in many gaming environments unfortunately, and they are noticeable in crysis because it passes in an island. not to mention that hacking the game makes it play with dx10 standards, ironically, under dx9, with all the bells and whistles dx10 would bring ...

I don't know if that's what it's used for. I just know that I have games that will not work on DX9, period. I don't know why games like Shattered Horizon would use it then since it's purely a space shooter, but I assume they had a legitimate reason of some kind. Either way, I can't play those games on XP.

Re:Im one of them.

[pandrijeczko]

Please stop spreading misinformation.

Please read my original post properly. I stated in there that I don't claim to be a DirectX expert, I made some informed assumptions that I am more than happy to argue over with someone else - or even learn something from their greater knowledge.

But informed assumptions are *NOT* the same as spreading misinformation.

Actually, I was running Shattered Horizon, which is a DX10 only game on a DX9 graphics card on Windows Vista.

Clearly you are no expert either. If you have a GPU that only supports DX9 then that is what it will use. Presumably Shattered Horizon detects the present of DirectX 10 and the whole purpose of DX10 as an API is to obfuscate the graphics driver from the game (and therefore the need for games programmers to worry too much about the graphics card's capabilities). So DirectX will run it in DX9 mode.

If anything, you giving that example serves to help my argument - as there is no reason why Shattered Horizon could not work on XP as clearly it happily works with DX9 cards.

Re:Im one of them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Maybe it's because you're a moron?

Re:Im one of them.

[unity100]

no, because i have at least two or more brain cells to enable me to have the brain processing power to perceive that what i have, is enough for my needs, in contrast to you.

Re:Im one of them.

[Ash-Fox]

I made some informed assumptions

There is a difference between saying "I assume X is not possible" verses "X is not possible".

If you have a GPU that only supports DX9 then that is what it will use.

Which was stated by Microsoft already in channel 9 videos as I recall in which they mentioned slower routines are used for backwards compatibility with older hardware and certain shaders would not be available.

If anything, you giving that example serves to help my argument - as there is no reason why Shattered Horizon could not work on XP as clearly it happily works with DX9 cards.

Except for the fact that the software (Windows XP) doesn't do DX10, which is all I care about at this point and likely all the user of the game cares about too and before you suggest it, km-soft's poor DX10 implementation does not work with Shattered Horizon and has not worked with other DX10 games I own either.

If you want to talk about what's possible, yes, it's entirely possible to make any kind of software abstraction layer for anything API related for practically any mainstream platform out there. Doesn't mean it doesn't require a large amount of resources to produce it.

happily works with DX9 cards.

Not really, the FPS in the game wasn't that great until I upgraded to a later card model that had DX10 support (which amusingly had less video ram).

Definition of old:

[Anonymous Coward]

Definition of old:

For Linux systems: old == made before 1980.
For Windows systems: old == made before 2010.

Definition of small:

For Linux: PC is small | memory 32MB
For Windows: PC is small | memory 2GB

Re:Pooched my wife's Cannon printer's software wit

[Blakey Rat]

Hey I hold grudges. Leave me alone.

If you hadn't mentioned it explicitly...

[Anonymous Coward]

...I would have guessed you were talking about OS X.

it's a cost efficiency thing.

[Dzimas]

My wife and I are still running Win XP, simply because I'm reluctant to spend several hundred dollars for Win 7. Our current machines should last several more years (barring catastrophic hardware failure), and it makes a lot more sense to migrate to Win 7 preloaded on a shiny new machine. In fact, I may keep my current machine around for a little while after the migration, simply because there are several pieces of software that I use, such as a specialized DSP assembler package, that aren't available on Win 7 or Linux.

Meh.

[antdude]

None of those new features interest me. I use W7 at work, and meh whatever. XP SP3 does fine for me what I do even as a computer geek/nerd. I don't do game much these days, and I still have old games (Crysis, C&C3:KW, World in Conflict, etc.) to resume and finish. Also, no time these days due to real life.

I will go to 64-bit W7 or whatever if better and newer when it's time and forced (unsupported by MS and other companies, major crash requiring a clean install, etc.).

My problem with windows 7

[stealth_finger]

Well not really with windows 7 per se is all the ads I've seen are for things xp can do but only slightly better. I have 3 machines running xp and have no need or desire to update any of them. I used windows 7 for a bit when they where pushing it at work and alot of it just seems new for the sake of it with a load of extra sheen like they want it to look like a mac because macs are cool nowadays.

Don't forget corporations

[UnknowingFool]

Many companies take a while to upgrade. Even if all the existing software is compatible, all the licensing is up to par, etc, it still will take some time.

New PC with W7

[ThePhilips]

So I built myself a new PC and thought that it's time to move on and bought the W7.

Largely disappointed.

Aero is nice and all, but the themes are generally unusable due to semi-transparent title bar. And it is noticeably slower compared to the basic theme and sometimes produces annoying flashing effects when restoring minimized window. Neither colors/fonts can be customized. Huh? Basic theme colors are hard coded - though even XP's Luna came with several color schemes (blue, silver, olive - now only the light blue). UI overall is a let down: Aero is fancy but unusable, Basic theme is too bright, Classic theme conflicts with bunch of applications since they assume "W7 == Aero/Basic." Heck, even Mac OS X has choice of blue vs. graphite themes and the default colors and effects aren't that eye irritating.

They have also f***ed up Control Panel. In XP/before I didn't need the search function there - now I have to use it all the time because CP was apparently designed by some clowns and finding there something is like looking for a tree in forest. The CP's applets also have the nasty habit to open to the whole screen: lots of white space for 2-3 options in the middle look ridiculous.

Explorer (file manager) finally caught up with Mac OS X's Finder - but lost many customizations and flexibility in the process. Folder properties are as buggy as ever and Windows oftentimes decides to forget my folder options and show that it knows better how the folder should be displayed. In XP I used both Explorer and alternative file manager - but in W7 there is little to no choice but to use an alternative file manager exclusively.

Desktop gadgets are great idea executed horribly. Standard gadgets are all show off (orange(!!! ) date gadget?? really???), uncustomizable and barely usable - unless you want to drill a hole in your eyes. Finding a decent unobtrusive gadget for a task is like digging see of sh*t with a tee spoon - hopeless. Gallery on Live is flooded with junk, lacking screenshots or even simple description what gadget actually does.

Keyboard shortcuts for the task bar probably the sole place which I would say has improved. But only because Windows lagged so much behind the Macs and Linux in the department. And Windows in the respect is still behind both Mac OS and Linux.

Looking back at the month I'm on the W7, I frankly can't get what the reviewers were so hyped about. Was Vista really that bad? Or could it be that the free laptop give away really helped??

P.S. And tray icons now rearranged in a confusing way...

It's The Fucking Article

[Rix]

Just FYI.

Security et al

[dandart]

Having a clue about security, I swiftly moved away from xp, and haven't used it for years.I think the Windows franchise was at its best around 1999 - windows 98se was fantastic for its time. However now everything else has surpassed it in terms of security, reliability, not just breaking randomly, more immunity to internet threats and portability. I could name a hundred more. But for your sake, if you're reading this, run away from xp very fast!

Re:Security et al

[pandrijeczko]

Rubbish.

I haven't used Vista or 7 so I've no reason to deny both have better security controls in place with that UAC stuff everyone keeps talking about.

But it's perfectly possible to run XP and keep it virus free by having some common sense - keep virus checkers & anti-malware programs updated, install the latest security patches when they appear, where possible get rid of Microsoft's own applications like Internet Explorer & Outlook that have very deep security hooks & permissions within Windows XP, don't open attachments from untrusted sources & double check links before you click on them. Plus if you like commercial software then have the guts to buy it rather than torrenting a virus-packed cracked version.

I actually use Linux mostly but still keep XP around & have always quite liked it. If I still need a Windows PC after 2014 when XP goes out of support, then I may have to buy the latest MS Windows iteration - but I'll worry about that then.

Re:Security et al

[Ash-Fox]

install the latest security patches when they appear

I will clarify for your benefit what is going on with XP:

No more mainstream patches. The only patches that are done now are funded by large corporations. Don't expect things like http://secunia.com/community/advisories/windows_insecure_library_loading/ to get ever fixed properly in Windows XP's system software now.

Re:Security et al

[pandrijeczko]

Can we stop with the FUD & look at the *REALITY* of the situation?

The methods I listed cover about 99% of protecting XP from security issues & malware, throw in things like NAT-ing and firewalling & there's a bit more protection for you.

As a home user of XP, there is nobody sat there on the big bad Internet waiting to pounce on me the moment I connect my PC up.

I run mainly Linux and I have a Linux server at home running SSH to the Internet and based on what I see in my system logs, that server generates far more interest from bot script trying their luck than my Windows PC ever will be (and since I only use RSA key authentication rather than passwords, even that is near enough 0% chance).

Big corporations are much bigger & juicier targets for malware, otherwise if you use the methods I describe, then as an insignificant home user amongst billions of home users, the only time you will be at any risk is if you do something stupid that draws attention to your XP PC or downloads malware onto it. Yes, I'm sure UAC & whatever other security technologies are in Windows 7 protect newbie users, but what they're doing is protecting them mainly from their own stupidity.

So, in other words, if you don't act stupid then XP is probably just as secure as Vista or 7.

Re:Security et al

[Ash-Fox]

Can we stop with the FUD & look at the *REALITY* of the situation?

I did, the reality is that many kinds of security related patches will not be made for XP any more, exploits such as the one I mentioned can be exploited through malware used on websites in various ways. One example is embedding windows media player component inside a webpage to play a DRMed media stream that needs to download managed code licensing, which uses the mentioned exploit to take control of the system.

As a home user of XP, there is nobody sat there on the big bad Internet waiting to pounce on me the moment I connect my PC up.

Of course not, you'll eventually come to them. That's how most malware works these days.

Big corporations are much bigger & juicier targets for malware

I disagree, credit card, bank details from individual users who are not experienced or even have any idea what is going on are generally a bigger and less risky target.

So, in other words, if you don't act stupid then XP is probably just as secure as Vista or 7.

Not in the scenario I suggested.

Why updagrade until they fix the bugs

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows vista is shockingly uncompilable and windows 7 wasn't much better
Windows XP works thats why most people stick with it
I know people who bought new computers with windows vista/7 and downgraded because it just pissed them off so much
Microsoft needs to stop thinking of novelty gimmick gadgets and actually make an OS that works

Run the numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

I have 3 newer systems that came with Windows 7, 1 with vista. I ran them, for a time, disabled as much flash as I could and tried them for a few weeks. Saw the time it took for me to flip windows and run things was slower than my older systems with XP installed 'properly', so did the upgrade back to Windows XP... What do I get? A little slower boot time, a whole lot more memory for my applications, and equal or faster performance in most things(before any memory wall is his). Even on the T4200 chips. There were a couple of features in 7 I thought I would miss, but honestly I don't even remember what they were now, and it's just a shame MS wouldn't take XP and add those features and spend that development time making the OS smaller, sleeker(smaller/faster, not visually shiny) and more secure on future versions vs adding marketing hype and bloat to help force the illusion of needing new hardware to keep the whole cycle going.

I'll be upgrading from XP to ReactOS

[Anonymous Coward]

That is if it's reached beta by the EOL time for XP in 2014

I see two lines trending steadily...

[liquiddark]

Over the past year it looks like XP has lost an absolute share of 20% of the market, Windows 7 has gained an absolute share of 20% of the market, and Vista has remained fairly steady state. There's not even a fucking flat part on the right half of the graph. It's ridiculous to try to say that represents anything other than a steady rate of adoption of Windows 7. Nobody who has a brain is surprised that it's not an instantaneous 100% adoption rate.

Re:I see two lines trending steadily...

[pandrijeczko]

Over the past year it looks like XP has lost an absolute share of 20% of the market, Windows 7 has gained an absolute share of 20% of the market, and Vista has remained fairly steady state.

Swearing doesn't offend me at all but people who need to use it start sounding like fanbois, so think about that in future.

I'd also love to know where you are getting your facts from with the above statement. I'm prepared to accept that Windows 7 has 20% of market share at the moment but I don't accept Vista has remained steady.

If you buy a new PC now, you're going to have real problems finding one pre-installed with Vista (or XP for that matter). So people who are buying new PCs now probably missed Vista entirely & went straight from XP to 7.

The people who originally went from XP to Vista are those people who will always upgrade to a new OS when it's available (and for reasons which are irrelevant to this discussion) and so it's safe to assume that they also went from Vista to 7 when Windows 7 also became available.

This would therefore lead to the inescapable conclusion that Vista is in decline and that the increase in Windows 7 marketshare is mainly due to that, and not so much about XP declining.

Re:I see two lines trending steadily...

[liquiddark]

Did you even read the article? The graph lines are there. All your arguments about how shit theoretically works fail against the fact that the ARTICLE FUCKING SAYS SO. Also, fuck your opinion on swearing, sweetie.

Re:I see two lines trending steadily...

[pandrijeczko]

The graph shows Vista peaking at close to 20% around September 2009 and dropping to around 12% now. When I did maths at school, that would have been seen as about a 40% decline, not staying constant.

Like I said, swearing doesn't bother me but it affects my opinion of you. Since I have now proven my argument, my opinion of you about being able to argue coherently was correct.

Have a nice life, fanboi.

Re:I see two lines trending steadily...

[liquiddark]

From the article: The Vista line starts around 15% and ends around 13.5%. Admittedly there's some growth and loss in the middle, but it isn't exactly a huge peak, and it certainly doesn't explain. Not sure where you get 12%, and I'm certainly not sure how you peg a 1.5% year-over-year drop in Vista's market share to account for a 20% Windows 7 market share gain. Must be them new maths.

Re:I see two lines trending steadily...

[pandrijeczko]

The graph clearly shows the trend - that is where I get the figures from.

If you don't accept it, your choice.

Re:I see two lines trending steadily...

[liquiddark]

It does clearly show the trend, you're right. The trend of XP users transitioning directly to Windows 7. You thinking that these were Vista users just shows that you have no idea what that graph is actually demonstrating. Here's a hint: At the start of the steady climb of Vista users, most new systems started coming with certificates for free upgrades to Windows 7. People were buying systems KNOWING they'd be using Windows 7 on them for most of the system lifespan. They just happened to have Vista for a period of a couple of months. Meanwhile the level of XP users was steadily dropping the whole time.

No matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows 7 (and Vista) is a turd. No matter how much you polish a turd, itsstill a turd!

Here's The Reason...

[pandrijeczko]

Vista got a lot of bad press and that put a lot of XP users off of upgrading. And having not upgraded, those same people have realised that they have a perfectly good OS in XP that continues to do what they need it to do & is still supported by just about anyone who makes hardware or software.

Consequently, despite the positive press for Windows 7, Windows XP still does what they need to whilst Vista has pretty much died a death now.

Incidentally, I'm not qualified to argue about the good or bad points of Vista or Windows 7 since I've used neither to this date - Linux & XP are what I use, the two of them combined do all I need a computer to do & I can see no reason to upgrade myself.

Re:Windows 7 . . . HA! not on your life!

[pandrijeczko]

I'm glad I'm a (mostly) Linux guy.

But I'm still compassionate & nice enough to fix Windows PCs of friends & family when they need it - I've even gladly helped friends & family choose their next PC and sat with them muddling through how to set up Vista or Windows 7 even though I myself have never used either.

Given the choice of being seen as a helpful considerate person who treats an OS as a tool, rather than a self-indulgent prick who treats their OS as a religion, I will always choose the former.

Re:Pooched my wife's Cannon printer's software wit

[RocketRabbit]

I guess you missed out on all the old DOS games that quit working when Windows 7 came out.

How about all the 16 bit Windows 3.1 apps that don't work under 64 bit Windows?

Trolling must be good fun, eh?

Family Pack Licenses

[eggman9713]

I used to have a neighbor who had about 5 computers in his house. He was ok with computer administration and troubleshooting but occasionally came to me for help. All his machines were running Windows XP at the time. Ignoring the hardware capabilities for a minute, upgrading all of those machines to Win7 would have cost several hundred dollars for not much forseeable benefit. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe Microsoft offers "Family Pack" licensing of OS like Apple does. Now switch over to me, I have about 10 computers in the house which includes 4 Macs as the primary machines for my wife and I (one desktop and one laptop each). When a new OS version comes out its around $160 for 5 licenses. Hell yeah! It pays for itself with just 2 copies installed. If Microsoft offered multiple-user home licenses like this you would probably see more people take the leap if they think their hardware can handle it. If this is already an option, mod me as "-1 Moot" and post the link to where you can obtain such licensing.

Re:Family Pack Licenses

[pandrijeczko]

When a new OS version comes out its around $160 for 5 licenses.

Try this or this - both are $0 for as many instances as your corporately locked-in mind can imagine.

Re:Family Pack Licenses

[eggman9713]

Maybe I should have clarified what other systems I run. I have two CentOS machines as well as an Ubuntu desktop. I am not the uneducated corporate shill that you assume I am.

Re:Family Pack Licenses

[pandrijeczko]

I am not the uneducated corporate shill that you assume I am.

With respect, I think you have a persecution complex. I merely countered your demonstration that OS X is cheaper than Windows by demonstrating Linux is cheaper than both of them.

If you've read more than that into it, then that's your choice - deal with it.

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

>>Especially Windows XP users seem to be happy with what they have and appear to be rather resistant to Microsoft's pitches that it is time to upgrade to Windows 7."

I am not in the least bit resistant to Windows 7. If Microsoft (or anyone else) want to pay for the new hardware, I am more than happy to move on up.

Re:Pooched my wife's Cannon printer's software wit

[Ol Biscuitbarrel]

Wasn't System 7 reallllly late in arriving, too?

Excellent.

[Anonymous Coward]

That means if all Ubuntu really replaces is XP, we still have majority share. We're rocketing into the future while it's basically EOL. This revolution may not be as hard as one would think, given the circumstances-- which I'm milking for all they're worth.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Oh well..

[Anonymous Coward]

Should have used Linux.

XP Works

[q256]

I have several computers around the house at work etc . . .

From my point XP works.

Vista was a boondoggle that someone stole money from you if you paid for it.

Win7 while I like and functions a bit better still can not be configured as easy or as well as XP. You can find out how . . . software . . . everything that can make XP do what a user would just about ever want to do . . . Win7 is far from that ability.

( btw : I have found Win7 so useful it is running a headless server . . . yes, it is reliable and works but just still not enough for the main desktop )

Switching from legacy to native mode

[tepples]

You can put the SATA controller in to Legacy or IDE mode and XP will recognize it just fine.

But if you install Windows XP in legacy mode, install the SATA driver, and switch the controller to native mode, will Windows still boot? Or will the sectors have been rearranged beyond what the operating system can understand?

Re:Switching from legacy to native mode

[Straterra]

Windows XP won't easily. Windows 7 is a completely different story though. It's VERY easy to switch to/from AHCI mode in Windows 7.

The reason why it isn't as easy for Windows XP is because when you switch the controller to native/AHCI mode, it appears as a completely different controller as before.

Ubuntu

[teachknowlegy]

Do the other 33% use Windows 7, Windows Mobile, or like me just use Linux. I'm a windows user. I have a netbook with XP (I usually boot into Chrome), a couple of Vista machines, a Windows 7 machine, but when I am happy I am sitting on an Ubuntu 10.10 machine at my favorite desk.

Not an easy upgrade path

[Anonymous Coward]

Upgrading my work computer from XP to Windows 7 means that I either need to:
1. Install Windows Vista first, then upgrade from Vista to 7, or
2. I need to find time when I don't need to do any work, hand over my system to my IT department for a day for a fresh system install, and then take 1-2 full days, including nights plus anywhere from 2 weeks to 1 month between projects to redo all of the little configuration tweaks that keep me productive.

If MS creates an install path directly from XP to Win7, I'll be there tomorrow. Our company is completely licensed for it.

besides the bells and whistles...

[Anonymous Coward]

It may be more that the general shift in recent computing has been toward web based software. Friends of mine who play games run Win7 just to takee advantage of their newer hardware, but for everybody else, what else do they do besides use the web and a word processor? And for that, a core2duo is plenty and XP is sufficient to go along with it. Until there is something offered beyond bells and whistles (which personally bug the hell out of me) I think OS developers are going to have a harder and harder time trying to make the annual mass sales that they have been used to in the past. Especially with the rise in free linux OSs and dedicated gaming hardware (consoles).

Still have to wait for the vendors

[dbIII]

There's still some software that won't work on MS Windows 7 64bit in "compatability mode". That meant the last Win7 machine I set up had to run XP in Virtualbox before the user could get anything done.

Vista scuttlebut

[nonguru]

Vista copped bad press over lack of third party vendor support - partly of Microsoft's own making. Longhorn was originally based on XP but midway through the project they switched to Server code base. (Corporate decision-making not to develop tow separate code bases.) A lot of the third party vendors didn't keep up and the release didn't meet expectations. Having said that, I "inherited" a copy of Vista upon purchasing a new laptop mid-2008 (after everybody had a chance to iron out obvious problems), and other than a student version of business software, I had no issues with using Vista for your garden-variety home office duties, configured in a home wireless network interconnected with Windows 7, Mac OSX, Ubuntu and XP machines, and a NAS server. I have never understood the bitching and moaning that persists to this day regarding Vista. And based on the same home office usage, I didn't see much benefit from upgrading from Vista to an Windows 7 (academic copy) for the same reason: Vista works...

They hate me?

[formfeed]

PC makers must have hated Vista a lot more than us

Why? I do buy new hardware, I use a PC at home and at work. So why would they still hate me?

Also where are they getting their information from

[Sycraft-fu]

A lot of these surveys use questionable, or down right bad, methodologies. Windows 7 has been the fastest selling MS OS according to articles I've seen, and Steam seems to back it up. Steam periodically does a hardware/software survey on users systems. While this survey suffers from selection bias in that only Steam users are included, it is highly accurate in that it actually checks the system to see what it on there. According to steam 41.29% of their users are running Windows 7 64-bit or 32-bit, 21.55% are running Vista 32 or 64-bit, and 33.78% are running Windows XP 32-bit. The remainder run MacOS (Steam is Mac now) or some other Windows OS (like Server 2003).

This survey includes a very large number of computers, and is accurate because it asks the computers what they have, not the user. While I'm sure a survey that didn't rely on Steam would have a bit different results, I question the massive difference. I think perhaps they wanted it to come out that way and found data to support it.

Obvious

[WinstonWolfIT]

The article just restates that most computer users will replace their hardware after 3 years, and get the current operating system with it.

That is the dumbest reason in a while

[Sycraft-fu]

First off, you can run the DX9 version in Windows 7 just fine. Windows contains COMPLETE backwards compatibility with DX, all the way back to version 1. While I can't say I've run anything that old, I've run Fallout on my Windows 7 64-bit desktop, which is DirectX 3, and it runs fine. As for DX9, the majority of games are still DX9 and they run great on Windows 7. In the case of Civ you get to choose which version you want, the DX9 version or the DX11 version, presuming you have DX10/11 hardware in your system to run it. IF you don't you'll need to run the DX9 version.

Second, says who it runs poorly in DX11 mode? In my experience it runs great. You get improved visual quality and it still runs nice and fast. Back up your bullshit please. I suspect you can't very well if you have such a poor understanding of DirectX that you think Windows XP is required for DX 9 though.

Seriously, if shoddy technical reasons for one game is the best reason you can find, you are grasping at straws.

Re:Pooched my wife's Cannon printer's software wit

[vlueboy]

"I'm guessing you missed out on the System 7 fiasco, when something like a third of all older Mac apps stopped working?"

Jeez, that's uncalled for. We might suppose Mac OS 10.0 brought him in, and 10.5 had him leave in disgust or something? But System 7... is extremely old. Nearly two decades, even. I cut my teeth on 7 back in 1996 and had no idea about that break till 14 years later.

Anyway, I do see your point on versions breaking stuff. I started with DOS / windows 3 / Windows 95, more or less.

Win95 broke some functionality in my autoexec scripts. Nothing big, but I missed having control of the PC boot process that Win3 previously allowed.
Win98 broke one of my JetFighter games. It also forced IE4 on us --MS's first major messup that allowed broken webpages/viruses to crash my whole OS shell. It stopped bundling with QBasic
Win2k broke my DOS compilers (Rhide), forced Guest Network access off and killed Reverb on my sound card. It also killed the very first $150 Logitech Quickcam Pro (drivers never came out for it). It also killed the venerable "reboot to DOS" option that was good for playing games in true DOS mode. I'm not sure if WinME did that first, though.
WinXP broke Final Fantasy 7 PC and my user escalation trick where my privileged DOS window could be escalated into an explorer.exe or control panel shell without wasting 10 minutes to log my users out, log myself in, log out and log the users back in.
Vista broke microphone-output-through-your-speakers and full-screen dos forever. The dll-replacement hack means I'll lose Aero now and who-knows-what later. It also lacks a bunch of VB dll files that old shareware requires to run --this probably happened during XP; redownloading and virus checking them is annoying.
Seven --haven't owned it yet.

MacOS 10 broke a legacy of pre-carbon and probably carbon applications, but at least provided an OS 9 emulator before that too was obsoleted half a decade ago. Not sure what's broken through the 0.1 version changes, because I no longer own a working Mac.

What about hand-me-downs ...

[Kittenman]

I had a nice little machine that I bought (well, put together with a pal) 5 years back. Six months ago the GPU went *phut*. As it was an AGP GPU, with DDR memory I replaced the whole box with a Windows 7 machine. And passed the XP Licence that I had onto friends, replacing their Ubuntu 9 OS with a more standard Windows one.

So yes, I've one less machine with Windows XP. But there's still one more machine out there.

Also let's give them a bit of credit.

[Sycraft-fu]

This is the one and only clean break in DirectX's history. Previously, you could support new APIs on old hardware that lacked the features with capability bits. Basically you said "Yes my driver support DX9c, but I can only do DX8 level shaders," or the like. That has returned post DX10. So a DX10 card can run the DX 10.1 or 11 APIs, and just won't have support for new shaders and so on. Also DX10+ hardware still supports the old APIs fine, going all the way back. So it isn't as though stuff has to be rewritten to run on Vista/7. You can play something really old, like Fallout (the original Fallout) which is DX3. Runs just fine on Windows 7 64-bit.

Then of course if you look at the architecture changes from DX9c-DX10 they were very major. Not just the multi-threaded rendering as you said (which is a major feature) but in terms of the fundamental shader design. In older hardware, the shaders were different units, discrete steps, in the rendering process. They only did one thing. They had different instructions and so on. In DX10 they are all unified. While there are logical differences in terms of a pixel shader is calculating on pixels and a vertex shader is calculating on vertices, they are the same actual, unified hardware, using the same instruction set. This is why all the GPGPU stuff suddenly started to come about with DX10 era (GeForce 8800s would be the first) GPUs. While GPUs were programmable before, the limits to their architecture made it hard to do anything but graphics. With the DX10 architecture, they were unified, just a bunch of fast stream processors, and thus useful for other things.

So I'll give them credit. They made one major break, for good reasons, in like 15 years. You can't support new features in old OSes forever.

Re:Pooched my wife's Cannon printer's software wit

[vlueboy]

I agree, but to be fair, you have only owned "inside" the OS X era and not "across into it from OS 9." OS 10 doesn't reinvent as many things from one 0.1 version to another, according to more attentive slashdotters than I as a former mac user.

Just like we can't upgrade a 2003 XP PC to Vista(*) it was maybe similarly expensive to upgrade a 1998 G3 mac (not imac) from its stock 32MB to the suggested 128 RAM IIRC, besides bringing the CPU up from a then-unusable 233 to a more practical 400Mhz range. Note the words "Similarly expensive," because the Mac was more scalable, while Windows PC upgrades to Vista-Aero were hit or miss due to the crappy stock GPU performance common on Wintels till Vista's release.

* practical computing power for it lagged a full year after Vista's launch. It's still sadly common to see stores selling NEW PC's scoring 2.x and 3.x out of 5, 6 or whatever on the official Windows benchmark.

It wasn't really that

[Sycraft-fu]

That issue affected a relatively small number of computers, and the companies involved by and large fixed the problem, even out of warranty. It is what computer hardware finally got fast enough to do what most people want to do. It was somewhere in the early Pentium D days or so probably, maybe a bit earlier. At any rate it was the first time new computer hardware didn't suck.

Basically computers were always slow before. New ones would be less slow than old ones, but still slow. I remember when we got a 486, it wasn't the highest end 486, but pretty new and high end. However I still had to wait on the thing all the time. Windows took many minutes to boot. When I'd go to print a paper I'd written I'd wander off to the kitchen for a snack as it slowly formatted and converted the document and sent it to the printer. While it was a new, fast, computer it was still slow. It took a long time and I had to wait for normal tasks. It was slow, despite being new and fast.

Well that stopped happening some years ago. Computers got fast enough that they could do normal, everyday, tasks without you sitting and waiting on them all the time. You could surf the web, print something out, maybe watch a video and your computer would fall over. It responded close enough to instantly to be good. Thus there isn't the need for new hardware as much. New computers are faster, and it does lead to a nicer experience. Also they can do more, and in some areas that matters. However for many, it is just a case of not caring. The current computer isn't "slow" so why spend money on a new one?

I can understand that. It even applies to the high end to an extent. I do a lot with my computer, I play the latest games, I do audio work which is very CPU demanding, and so no. I also have extremely high performance expectations. It is my primary hobby. So I spend a lot of money on my computer, I update it often... However for all that, I'm still running a Core 2 Quad Q9550. A good processor to be sure, but two years old. There's been a complete new architecture introduces, and a refresh on that, and I still have my CPU. In fact a new one is just about to launch. I'll probably look at getting a new CPU soon since the new architecture looks cool, but it'll more be a case of wanting it just because it is neat than honest need. I can load up a bunch of Virtual Instruments, effects and so on and still only hit 30-50% of my CPU's capacity. I am a "power user" and I find my needs not only met but exceeded by older technology.

It is a wonderful thing in my opinion, it is nice to not be wanting something better the moment you get something new. It is just one of the reasons people aren't upgrading as quickly I think.

66%

[Anonymous Coward]

of Windows users use Windex.

Hey.. what a great name for a nix distro..

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

Tiny7 and other builds or reduced 7 other than store purchased computers are what i have seen.

Always doing XP-downgrades with Slimmed Tiny or Micro XP

I predict the number using a certain generation of technology when they had the most freedom will continue to use resisting in order to be able to continue doing these actions.

I just think it's bizarre that people/businesses

[Anonymous Coward]

I just think it's bizarre that people/businesses don't upgrade, considering all the negative security hype surrounding XP. Isn't that why Vista was supposed to change the world? My org is a Win7 userbase under VMWare OSX, and I think it's a fantastic system, running Macs with Win7 in unity mode. So we are in the major minority in that opinion? Oh well, folks just don't know what they are missing then...

Re:Microsoft should blame it's marketing departmen

[KarmaMB84]

There's a total of 3 versions available at retail and I'm pretty sure the boxes tell you what each edition does.

Interesting

[mysidia]

Since 99.9% of the Win32/Blaster infections still in the wild are Windows XP based computers.

This doesn't say anything good about those 2/3 of those systems who are still running XP

I just have to say

[Anonymous Coward]

All i see in this thread is xp vs windows 7 no mention of vista lol seems like vista is the red headed stepchild of Microsoft like windows ME i run old hardware myself and xp runs fantastic were as windows 7 is well crappy on my older machine and until my motherboard and cpu sh*t the bed i have no intention of upgrading to 7 i like it and its a Vast improvement over vista but come on if it is not broke don't fix it ... xp has turned out to be one of those os's most ppl that upgraded to xp came from the 98 generation and as a pc tech it was a hard knock life getting ppl to xp and now that vista came out and flopped customers are very weary of 7 Microsoft needs to get there shit right befor releaseing some thing new and full of swiss cheese thats all im sayin

4GB of RAM?

[ScottCooperDotNet]

You don't have any systems with more than 4GB of RAM?

No! The game has changed!

[mcrbids]

Some of us Slashdot old-timers have been waiting for the "Linux desktop" to arrive for a decade or more. And it's been a decade, and I'm typing this note on my Fedora Core 13/64 Laptop. Linux has been "good enough" for me for a very, very long time.

But Windows had a lock, a hegemony, on the desktop. Windows had developed strong market forces that enforced its position. And so long as the Desktop computer remained the desktop computer, this was never to be challenged. People needed perfect compatibility with MS Windows because that's what they knew. And Linux, despite its numerous technical advantages, didn't have this one. It was "inferior" because it wasn't Windows.

But times have changed.

Just a few weeks ago, I purchased my very first natively Linux-based computer.* My Motorola Droid II smart phone is just simply amazing! I've already found that I do a majority of my browsing on it. (typing is still a bit slow, though) It's always with me. I play games on it. I listen to my music with it. I've watched shows on it with my son. (TED.com, I love you!) It gives me turn-by-turn directions when I need them. I'm never out of touch with my email, nor my network monitor. The interface is slick, clean, smooth. The phone is fast. The user Interface is so good I was able to use it within minutes, and I've already purchased several apps that interest me. It was painless!

It's not just me. My non-tech business partners also have Android phones and they LOVE THEM! Google's Android (Linux-based) O/S gained an astonishing 41% growth in market share in a single quarter in this most recent quarter, growing from 12 to 17% market share. And all signs are pointing towards increased growth in the Android market, even as every other platform faces market share losses, even the Apple iPhone just after a major release.

The Linux "desktop" has arrived, in my phone. This is it!

* Technically, it's my second Linux based computer. My dish DVR was Linux based as well, but I didn't own it. And while I've had many Linux computers over the years, NONE of them came preloaded with Linux - I've always loaded it on myself - even the several dozen servers I've purchased in my various roles in tech

Duh.

[crhylove]

Windows 7 is just a crap 1.2 release of Vista. I myself am currently unhappily stuck on a Windows 7 box, and can't wait to get the time to format back to TinyXP, or better yet Linux Mint.

Windows has been crap for the better part of a decade. How is this news?

Burninate

[Anonymous Coward]

I refuse to work on XP anymore. If someone asks for my help, and they still run it, I tell them to buy a new computer. I don't care what the problem is. If these people feel that XP is "good enough", fine. Let them burn. If you let them run XP, and you keep fixing it for them, they will never learn. They deserve every single problem coming to them. Hell, even the DoD has moved off of XP. And well, we know how they are with their technology...

IE9

[Anonymous Coward]

Is M$ way of pushing you xp'ers off a cliff.

No one has more XP than, us, M$. So when we say no XP, we mean NO! *Launches Windows mana drain level 7!* /Shoryuken

Can anyone answer as to why /. are reporting this?

[Tomsk70]

These people are going to have to upgrade if they want to even partially consider themselves safe.

This happens every single time - "I'm not upgrading from 98SE/ NT.40/ XP - my old system runs all my games fine and I'll never need to upgrade" - as if the OS world will stop and wait for them to figure it out.

Then the press report it as some sort of barometer about the next OS's popularity, before quietly shutting up a year later once most of the old OS boxes have been thrown away.

I'm just surprised that Slashdot apparently don't have enough news today - and doubly surprised that they use this kind of non-article filler.

Re: XP & Vista - XP & Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought two PCs with Vista and I already had two running XP. Both Vista machines were running OK but there were some bugs that had to be fixed. Vista got such a bad name that MS ditched it completely and released Vista SP2 as Windows 7 in about a year after my purchase, asking $300 to upgrade my ultimate edition to the 7 equivalent.
It's been almost a year since then and now 3 machines are running Linux, the other one XP, for games.

Why I stick with XP

[anasciiman]

The primary reason why I continue to use XP is really rather simple. To date, nobody has indicated to me any functional advantages that Win7 may have over XP *for my needs*. Long ago I left the paradigm which claims you need to update just for the sake of having the newest, shiniest thing. If there's added functionality which doesn't get in my way and doesn't make me re-learn how to do what I've done for (mumble, mumble) years, why in the name of Persephone should I bother?

ms backpedaling from xp to win7

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be forgeting the initial dx 10 spec which required unified shader architecture which appeared with the gf 8/7 series and the ati xhd series. Ms eventually made an exception so ati could catch up by changing it back to non unified solutions, i.e. pixel and vertex shaders. This was not a well known backstap by ms to the end user, but one of the reasons we can have hacked dx10 initially work with xp. With a bit more elbow grease shader model 4 could have been supported, but like the coveted winFS, it was never meant to be had. I use xp because I can not yet completely dissect win7 and remove pesky features, not to mention lacking a hw virtualization capable set of machines. Win7 has problems, and my xp runs off of a usb hdd with colinux... I am content... Though I do have win7 on another drive and I miss having a compositing window manager, the eye candy isn't worth it. Shell extensions, uber compatibility, and the (user forced) modularity of xp is what makes it a superior os for the workhorse workstation. The best tool for the job wins longest in the face of its progeny, period. Multitouch support is cool, but it ain't worth my time on a daily basis. Call me when we can stripmine win7...

I always said this before...

[hesaigo999ca]

Until they actually come out with something that I need for my PC that is only in windows 7 or 8 etc....I will stick with xp.
No need to improve on what is almost perfect, from a regular user's point of view. If they can prove to me (which they have yet to do)
that 7 is so much more secure for x,y,z reason, and that i do not need an anti virus any longer because it is THAT secure....
or that the media center built in, comes with all the gadgets I need for my home theatre....which i get out of my vid card....why change??? Why pay more, when I have a non legit copy of xp....seriously, they need to move on from the model they USED to work and use back when 95 came out...xp was the last of its kind...to use that model and succeed. People now are more like linux users, want it for free and to run great for a very long time....

EOL: 2014-04-08

[Anonymous Coward]

I expect XP to live, until its "end of life" date, April 8, 2014. I don't see using it as a viable option for end users after MS stops issuing security patches.

I expected more outcry at w2k's end-of-life, but c'est la vie. What will happen when this financial downward spiral continues and tax dollars for education, etc. get even tighter? Will schools and all government be able to replace their entire installed base of XP in time for that deadline? I doubt it, that deadline is sooner than it sounds. (Boy, what a missed opportunity that DOJ didn't get more when settling the antitrust action.) One can hope that this planned obsolescence forces a rethink of buying into the proprietary model and finally forces getting off that arbitrary upgrade treadmill.

Re:Windows 7 . . . HA! not on your life!

[Desirsar]

Have you even read your other comments on this article? Does this particular reply mean you'll be taking down that shrine to Linus now?

Windows 7 was my idea.

[Desirsar]

I thought to myself, "Windows 7 should run any piece of software written for DOS, or any version of Windows 95 through Windows 7, without having to install additional software, emulators, or configure anything specific to that program... and then, it just worked!" Windows 7 was my idea.

Sadly, none of us will ever see that commercial on TV. If an OS does not run all of my software, on the same hardware, either more reliably or faster, I have NO reason to upgrade. Hell, they won't even be able to get close to "killer app" for me, as I won't even buy new consoles until I know there are more than two titles out that I am interested in. (The only time I've broken this rule with myself was for a 360, racing wheel, and Forza 2, and that's not even a fair example as I knew more titles I would play would come out for it, in addition to the incomplete backward compatibility.) Aside from a new game genre or blend of genres, it's not like they can come up with a completely novel piece of software that everyone will want to have - everything that can possibly be done already has been done and will run on XP.

7 ?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Arent we waiting for Windows8 already?

No. 1 Reason: you CAN'T upgrade from XP

[donak]

As I understand it, if you want to install Win 7 over Win XP, it recommends you "backup all your data and then do a fresh install".
There is no "upgrade" option, unless you were running Vista.

When you consider I upgraded from Windows 98 to Windows ME then to Windows XP using upgrade discs I bought retail,
having Microsoft tell me "not this time Buddy, no upgrade for you" was a clear sign to try to convert my wife to using Linux.

When I bought my netbook the model loaded with Windows XP was sitting right next to the exact same model with Windows 7 Starter,
and the latter was priced approx. $200 more.

We're still running XP, dual booted with whatever flavour of Linux I like ... and when I can't keep them going anymore, it's likely we'll be running all Linux,
unless the price comes a long way down, or the upgrade option magically appears.

Windows Vista and 7 obsolete alot of hardware

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to have a video card that supports Aero (128 MB of Video RAM). That knocks alot of systems (laptops especially) out of the game.

Windows 7 doesn't work with KVM's...

[Anonymous Coward]

... due to it's insistance upon getting an EDID from the monitor and ignoring what drivers you may install. MS's "solution" to this is to buy another KVM - and considering large scale facilities use KVM's over Cat5 - Windows 7 is DOA for many sites. As as evaluator for my company, when Windows 7 came out I was tasked with determining if it was "mature" enough to migrate to on a large scale. Since KVM's are on everyone's desk connected to multiple machines and those monitors tend to be very large and top of the line, the fact that Windows 7 doesn't play nice with the KVM makes it DOA. MS's recommended solution is to either buy new KVM's - many of which do not support the resolutions required - or to purchase EDID emulators for approx $50/machine - this on top of the cost of migrating up to Windows 7 and the headache of drivers - not to mention the rat's nest of cabling this leads to.

A conservative estimate was an upgrade to Windows 7 would cost approximately $2000/system on our network and no guarantee that the tools various departments depend upon would work - mostly due to lack of drivers, and the fact that even if the driver works, Windows 7 may or may not use it. While we had a similar nightmare upgrading to XP - 64bit (which is actually 2003 server) - it was required at the time. Now it is more of a choice - till MS addresses many of the most egregious issues with it's latest OS, we will sit on XP 64-bit, and have begun deploying large scale Virtualization software so that for those few people that must have the latest OS, we just set up a VMWare image for them.

Virtualization seems to solve many of the biggest problems, since the host system - either Linux or one of the "bare-metal" virtualization environments, tend to support all of the present hardware needs, and maps the various OS's running under them, so they work with the hardware hosting them. This was the recommended way of handling "upgrading" to Windows 7, since it is just the latest problem-child we have to deal with from MS - virtualization forces each to "play nice" within our environment.

subject line

[Anonymous Coward]

If it was a free upgrade to windows 7, then sure.
Buy xp works, and paying to upgrade to 7 has no appeal to me.

I'm also driving a 10 year old car, using a 4 year old laptop, and a CRT TV.
Progress is great and all, but older stuff still works fine.

People who upgrade operating systems and programs simply because "there's a new one", are just as bad as people who buy the latest fashions every year.

Unslashdotted Cache of TFA

[wickedskaman]

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:beb7G4KtQP0J:www.conceivablytech.com/3227/business/66-of-all-windows-users-still-use-windows-xp/+http://www.conceivablytech.com/3227/business/66-of-all-windows-users-still-use-windows-xp/&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

It's really pretty simple

[blueocean43]

Unlike the vast majority of people on this site, I am a typical XP user. I turn my computer on, i browse the internet, i play minesweeper, i use microsoft office, i turn it off. So why do i need to pay a hundred quid or so? Is it the joy of sorting through my computer, finding all the useful software and documents, finding all the disks that go with them, upgrading, discovering that half the old software doesn't work, swearing a lot, discovering that the OS crashes or doesn't install at all because my computer is too rubbish, having to relearn a whole new way of doing things etc. Does this sound like a fun day or two (with no email at that) to you? Because it doesn't to 66% of the population. Moving to Windows 7 has basically all the disadvantages of moving to some form of Linux for the typical user (i.e. "what does this button do? why wont dungeon keeper go?? where has the off button gone this time???"), and if you can't convince people to do that for free, why would you be able to convince them to pay a rather large sum of money for the privilage?

Cost too much.

[Hillgiant]

$70 for an upgrade from XP. I might have considered it for $35, I definitely would have done it for $20 or less. There are features I like about Win7, but none that make it worth the price of admission.

It's not that I'm cheep, it's that I'm broke. And frankly, if I could find a way to get iTunes to run consitantly on any other operating system* on my current hardware... I would have ditched Windows entirely long ago.

*I tried many different solutions under Linux and couldn't find one I liked. I tried hackintosh, but it bricked my motherboard (no POST, even after a hard reset).

Of course we use WinXP

[WillAffleckUW]

you'll force me to go Win7 when I buy my next laptop and reimage it with a MacOS/Linux dual boot overlay.

As in, for about two days.

Friends don't let friends run Windows.

Go ahead, don't update

[QuantumBeep]

Go ahead, don't update your stuff.

But don't you dare complain if you can't do stuff.

Pure simple XP

[luk3Z]

Windows XP + nLite - best M$ OS ever... What do I need more ? (nothing)