Slashdot Mirror
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."
It's actually 66.6%
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.
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.
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.
It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
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.
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.
-Styopa
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.
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.
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
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'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.
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.
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.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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!
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
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.
"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.
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
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!
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.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
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...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
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.
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.
C - the footgun of programming languages
"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.
... 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.
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
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.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Assuming you can find a driver for all your hardware for xp, which is becoming more and more unlikely.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Comment of the year
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.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
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 will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
Everybody knows the real reason not to switch to Win 7 is because Civilization V runs better with DX9 than with DX10.
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.
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...
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
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.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
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.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.