Slashdot Mirror
Windows XP Falls Below 25% Market Share, Windows 8 Drops Slightly
An anonymous reader writes: Despite support for Windows XP finally ending three months ago, the ancient OS has only now fallen below the 25 percent market share mark. To add to the bad news for Microsoft, after only nine full months of availability, its latest operating system version, Windows 8.1, has lost share for the first time.
For desktop browser share, Chrome is up, taking mostly from Internet Explorer and Firefox. For mobile browsers, Safari continues to fall while Chrome maintains strong growth.
I read the very short article, so you don't have to.
Windows is the bulk, at 91.68%, of that Windows 7 is 51.22%
Mac is 6.64%
And overall, Linux is 1.68%
A loss in percentage doesn't mean jack for loss of units.
Windows XP is basically going to cling to the bitter end. I expect we'll see small amounts of XP attrition up until July 2015 (when MSE stops support).
After that we'll probably see a freefall.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I don't see how Chrome is gaining share on mobile...constant freeze, lag, and crash on all phones I use it on. The default Android browser and Firefox are the same. Opera is the only thing that is remotely reasonable, even if it is a bit slow at times it is head and shoulders above anything else.
The real path to male liberation
Microsoft just needs to make an OS that delivers what end-users actually want, with a solid XP emulator so people can continue to run their mission-critical stuff that still requires it.
8 and 8.1 were arrogant attempts at pushing on to end-users a GUI that Microsoft thought they should want, for reasons that did not benefit the end-users at all but did benefit Microsoft quite a lot (in theory, that is).
Microsoft can win by viewing end-users as its clients (heresy, I know), getting back in touch with what they want, and delivering. Until then, expect continued weirdness.
It looks like this count is coming from someone monitoring what OSs they see in use. That being the case, it must be greatly under-counting Windows 8 and Win 8.1, since while they may be on many more computers, they are unusable.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
On Steam and for gamers, XP is dead. Under 5% share between x32 and x64. With Win8 gaining market share around 27%.
Om, nomnomnom...
If Windows XP runs better than Windows 7 on your legacy PC, consider trying Xubuntu or Lubuntu. The apps you currently use under Windows may have Linux equivalents or may work under Wine.
In a lot of cases, you want to count actual use. Someone who uses a computer more is likely to spend more time on your web site, buy more from your online store, etc.
A question, and please give this some thought before answering...
If something does what its user needs it to do, then how is it outdated?
I'm typing this on a nine-year-old Dell Latitude D410 running Windows XP. I've got a current version of Firefox, current versions of all of the plugins I use on a regular basis, and just about the only thing the laptop won't do well is full-screen flash video at high res, but that seems to be more a function of the poor implementation of flash than of the computer itself, and even with only 2GB RAM it's still faster than the four-years-newer Atom-based Ideapad S10-2 with Windows 7 that we got free with my wife's then-new computer. In some ways it's superior in that when my fancy Linux box's graphics broke I was able to use the serial port on the docking station to TTY in to the Linux box to work on it with just a null-modem cable, didn't need anything else.
For web surfing this old thing does just about everything that I need it to do, with the licensed OS that came with it, even with the original amount of RAM and the original hard disk drive. So, why should I change this? Because Microsoft wrote shitty code full of holes and now refuses to fix those holes?
This machine doesn't go out of the house, and at home it's behind a firewall. I've got noscript, flashblock, adblock, and https everywhere installed, so it'll be very difficult to infect it through the web browser. without a compelling reason to change it, why would I spend my hard-earned money on something that won't be used for more than I use this thing for now? It's for when I'm lounging on the couch being lazy.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
8.1 might be a huge step up, but it doesn't matter. People remember the UI disaster that was Windows 8, and figure 8.1 can't be that much different. It has such a bad reputation, they'll need to call it something else to sell it at this point. Would you even consider having a doctor give you Cancer.1, or would you hear the question and immediately get yourself a new doctor without even finding out what Cancer.1 was?
WINDOWS 8 PIECE OF SHIT!
If something does what its user needs it to do, then how is it outdated?
The user wants the operating system to work. In order for it to do that, it has to not be vulnerable to common threats, and it has to be compatible with common technologies. The former fades quickly, the latter typically a bit more slowly but it's still an issue. If you wanted filesystems over 2GB or USB support you had to "upgrade" to NT4. If you were otherwise happy with 3.51 you know how distressing that move was. Stability went way down in NT4. Not when using it as a desktop, but definitely when using it as a server.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Not really. 7 is supported until 2020, and from previews, it looks like 9 is going to be just like 8 in all the aspects that people hate. It's more of the "hey, phone's touch interface on on desktop can be made to work (and we want to use it to stop our phone strategy from being a trainwreck that it is)".
I suspect that 7 is the new XP in that it's currently the most functional desktop OS in windows family, matched only by XP in usability and functionality. So in a way, it is a good news for microsoft, as it means that it's desktop domination and income from "microsoft tax" isn't going anywhere.
It's bad news for microsoft because it continues to show that their design paradigms, with which they are sticking for 9 btw, are an abysmal failure. And while they have five more years to produce replacement for 7, it's not looking like they have the people who want to. Instead they are still focusing on leveraging desktop dominance to push for marketshare in mobile by destroying the desktop windows.
And as long as 7, the last actual version of windows designed for desktop exists, any such attempts will likely fail just like 8 did. Because there will always be a much better alternative to whatever "mobile OS interface on desktop" version of windows microsoft will continue to try to peddle. As we have seen with 8, even forcing OEMs not to offer 7 at all in favour of the newer OS doesn't fix the problem.
That would be because of DX10 and 11 not being released for XP. It was the reason I upgraded my machine as well.
If DX11 was available for XP, my new machine would still be running XP. As a gamer, I appreciate the fact that XP is far more lightweight and consumes much less overhead than 7.
This. Last year I finally bought a new laptop not because Microsoft EOL'd XP, but my hardware was dying. Went with 8.1, once I de-Metrod it I quite like it.
Win 8.1 is a solid OS. Metro is a steaming turd.
One typically uses different sites on mobile. For example, mobile lacks an SWF player, lacks a precision pointing device (touch needs larger target areas than a mouse), often has a 5" or smaller screen, usually lacks a keyboard suitable for touch typing, and usually lacks a way to make multiple documents visible at once without buying and using multiple devices, one for each simultaneous document. And Safari for iOS intentionally lacks support for WebGL, WebRTC, and uploading any content type other than photos or videos.
Safari percentage is a function of how many mac users switch to Chrome. I did.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Like any other browser in the App Store, Chrome for iOS is a Safari wrapper that solves none of the missing HTML5 features that Apple deliberately omitted from Safari. I've listed them in another comment.
(rereading) Oh, my fault, I missed "Mac" in TechyImmigrant's comment.
Because it makes no sense to support that many desktop versions for the OS when 8 and 8.1 aren't "worse" than XP after installing a few easy to download fixes (like classic shell). All "XP 2.0" would be is 8.1 with classic shell installed.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Because does what it needs is not the antonym for outdated. Stovetop percolators make good coffee, I think better coffee than the drip coffee makers used today, that doesn't change the fact they are outdated. Windows XP doesn't fit current software and presents all sorts of problems that Windows 7/8 would not. Does it run the application you want / need? Sure. Does it run the current applications? No. QED.
My old home desktop computer's PSU blow up last night after getting home. I thought it killed my hardwares like HDDs. :/ They were fine today after the smelly dead PSU was replaced. See http://aqfl.net/node/11092 for the details.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Of course it would be awesome for Microsoft's customers. So what? The customers who want XP buy and large want it because they are cheap and don't want to update their hardware and OSes. That is they don't want to pay Microsoft. Sure they would be thrilled if Microsoft assisted them in spending very little on Microsoft. The same way Exxon's customers would be happier if Exxon sold gas below their cost of oil.
Google needs to step in and produce Android for Desktop. The market share is ripe for the picking.
... Oh, wait! It's already happening!
Considering the number of titles that use DX11 are very few, that's kinda moot. And there are ways to get DX10 to run under XP. And really, if you haven't given 8 a try you should. It runs anywhere between 250-500mb lighter in memory overhead, and isn't nearly so bad as XP or 7 was in terms of game compatibility. Even older titles like Klingon Academy work under 8, where they wouldn't work for me under XP or 7.
Om, nomnomnom...
Why are the stats so different from different sources? StatCounter puts Chrome at 46% for desktop browser share and IE at 20%.
If the graphics break again and the network is up then try PuTTY.
http://www.chiark.greenend.org...
Ooops, sorry, wrong OS.
Microsoft is dead, Netcraft confirms it!
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I'm only using Windows to test web applications on older browsers. And it's Windows XP (in VirtualBox). I agree with you that newer does not always mean better. Windows 8 is an example. But I'm on a Mac (latest OS) and my feeling is that Apple is also ( since a couple of years ago ) on a slippery slope. Annoying bugs not fixed, lack of innovation...
Back to XP, the reason I'm glad it disappears - and that explains my parent post - is that I'm writing web applications, and supporting IE < 8 is and has always been a pain. At least from Windows 7, users smoothly upgrade to an earlier version.
Also, please see jbolden post above.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Yeah, I think you're correct. Windows 9 is just Windows 8.3 released as a new OS, since MS seems desperate to wash the taste of Windows 8 out of their mouths.
Unfortunately, it appears to be just Windows 8 with most of the glaring problems removed, but probably not compelling enough to make it anything of a must-buy, except for Windows 8 users. They're still too firmly focused their app store as a means to prop up their phone and tablet sales, rather than making actual improvements for their core users. It's sad that the features most anticipated are the return of the start screen, the ability to run Metro apps in a window, and generally not acting so much like a tablet OS. In other words, Windows 7, but with a flat, ugly UI. Whee.
I'm betting that Windows 10 will shift focus back to the desktop where it should have been all along, and we'll have finally broken Microsoft's "even=bad, odd=good" cycle, not with two successes in a row, but two failures. Apparently, they now have to release two OS failures in a row to have the lesson sink home. Probably the only way to avoid that will be if they give Windows 9 away as a free or very low-cost upgrade to Windows 7 and 8 users, in which case adoption rates might be boosted at the expense of sales revenue.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
As a gamer, I appreciate the fact that XP is far more lightweight and consumes much less overhead than 7.
Not really. Windows 7 is essentially as lightweight as XP.
Everyone that wanted to upgrade from XP already did. If the hardware didn't support current windows versions, it certainly won't run any future Windows versions.
That 25% Windows XP will only be reduce very gradually, by failing hardware, which could take another 5 years.
I expect the last 32-bit firefox to be a few years away, and websites to support that last version for a few more years, so these machines remain perfectly usable for another 5 years. That 25% is perfectly happy running an outdated OS, and will continue to do so until the hardware dies.
If I'm in need of a job during the next few years, I'd know what to do:
Sell brand-new desktops and laptops with dual-boot XP / some-linux-or-another, loaded with the latest open source software (on both OS's), and help these 25% with copying there files and bookmarks.
Spoken like somebody who has no fucking clue what "improvements for their core users" MS put in Windows 8 (that's 8.0 RTM, build 9200, though they've made significant improvements since then too).
Multi-monitor support: Taskbar across multiple monitors, with the option of app icons appearing on the taskbar of the monitor their window is on. Per-monitor DPI settings. Wallpaper spanning.
Performance: Page-combining for substantial reductions in RAM usage. Ludicrously fast boot time (and that's *actual* boot, not the hibernate-based thing you can do instead of real shutdowns).
System management: Greatly-improved Task Manager (examples include the ability to suspend/resume processes and the ability to control startup tasks). Win+X menu (also available by right-clicking the Start button) with a ton of handy Admin tools now at just two clicks away.
Virtualization support: Client Hyper-V is built in (OK, higher editions only). Built-in support (in the UI) for mounting VHDs.
Security: High-entropy ASLR and other exploit mitigation features/improvements. The option of using the sandboxed Windows Store apps (though yeah, their interfaces usually suck). Built-in anti-virus software. BitLocker volume encryption more widely available than before.
Convenience: Settings and some files can be set to automatically sync between different machines using the same Microsoft (formerly Windows Live) account. Password reset for your MS account - possible online - also lets you get back into your computer if you forget the password. Built-in email, calendar, and IM apps (they kind of suck but hey, they exist. It pissed me off that Vista had a perfectly good calendar app and then Win7 removed it). Ability to search the Store for an app that opens an unrecognized exception (again, app is likely to suck but that's better than getting a .7Z file from your tech-literate grandson and having no idea how to go about getting a tool that can open it). Built-in ISO mounting.
Repair/recovery: A better backup system than any previous Windows built-in one I've seen (not a very high bar, but still good). Ability to "refresh" the system to like-new state but without losing your files. Ability to easily create images for later reset operations (user-friendly OS snapshots, basically).
Other: Awareness of non-unlimited-data connections, with ability to limit background usage and set warning thresholds.
Don't get me wrong, they made a lot of wrong steps too (the way they butchered Start search pisses me off, though at least that one was fixed in 8.1, and the way you now find the Shutdown/Restart/Log Off options is initially confusing to practically everybody). The new desktop window decorations and so on (and lack of ability to go back to the old ones) is also a very questionable decision. For a lot of people, 8.0 isn't worth upgrading to even if they know about the improvements (especially since a lot of those improvements only really matter in certain configurations, like multi-monitor). But it's just wrong to claim that the OS doesn't have "improvements for their core users". That's true whether you consider "core users" to be business workstations, tech-savvy home users, or computer-illiterate grandparents.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
1. Unlike previous versions, in this OS, you have to have a hotmail/live/outlook.com account to do the first step - logging in. Something that wasn't required in Windows 7. I had a Nokia Lumia Phone previously and had no issues w/ that, but the requirements are different. In Windows Phone 8, having that profile enabled me to just transfer everything to a new phone if needed.
No. You don't. There's any number of ways to configure it not to require a Microsoft Login.
Here's the steps with screenshots:
http://www.hanselman.com/blog/...
I agree its stupid and designed to lead you into creating/usding a Microsoft account, but its trivially easy to bypass.
2. The apps ain't much different either. Contacts - w/ phone#, just like in Windows Phone? Are they retarted - this is a PC. Yeah, one can Skype, but there's a separate Skype app for that. Doesn't need a separate Contacts list
How is this a "problem".don't use contacts. Right click on it, unpin it from your start screen. Done. That said, for people who drank the MS kool-aid and bought a phone and signed in with their MS Live account -- easy automatic sync from phone to PC to Tablet ... etc. Is it useful? To someone probably, to me? Not at all, but I don't use the MS calculator app either, but I don't go around complaining about it.
3. Weather - see #2. On a phone, it makes sense. On this, how is it any better than the sidebar that Vista had? Oh, and now PCs/laptops, like phones, want my permission to determine my location. Naah-ah!!!
See number 2 above. Really, you are complaining about the selection of bundled freebie apps? Weather is at least marginally useful, its the ONE tile I let be "live" on the start screen on my HTPC.
4. When you do log into Windows, you are confronted w/ the Metro screen. Yeah, you can install Classic shell, like I did, but that won't change that.
8.1 lets you boot directly to the desktop if you prefer. Its simple setting change.
5. For me, the last straw was that my palms would rest on the trackpad, and while typing, sometimes the charms bar on the right would pop up, along w/ a network panel somewhere in the south west of my screen, inviting me to enable the wi-fi or whatever. It's irritating if you are in the middle of something else & are forced to tap the trackpad to get rid of it
Agreed. Hot corners are stupid. I hate them too. You can disable a couple of them in 8.1, but (last I heard at least) you can't completely turn them off without 3rd party utility/hacks.
Following this, I decided to bite the bullet and install PC-BSD, a DVD of which I had gotten some days ago
Here we go...
I initially had some issues, since it wouldn't recognize either my mouse nor the wi-fi. So I had to get another mouse, and an ethernet cable, and then disable UEFI, and then install it
Sounds like a clusterfuck to me.
Of course, I'd be happier once FreeBSD/PC-BSD supports Wi-Fi on this laptop.
The last straws for windows 8.1 was the charms bar, and a weather app you didn't need, but apparently network support is only a "nice to have"? Get real.
Typing however is a charm, since PC-BSD doesn't recognize the trackpad, so it never comes in the way and I don't need touchfreeze or anything like it.
You realize you can turn your trackpad off in windows too right? You don't need touch freeze, you can disable it outright in device manager. Not to mention other options depending on the trackpad.
I'm typing this on a nine-year-old Dell Latitude D410 running Windows XP. I've got a current version of Firefox, current versions of all of the plugins I use on a regular basis
Your fully patched browser and plugins still make heavy use of operating system DLLs, and those DLLs are no longer getting security updates. This puts you at risk.
Continuing to use old hardware is fine, as long as the OS is updated and secure. I have a similarly old machine that I put Linux on.
I'm afraid your highly modded comment might make non-technical people think using XP to browse the web is still OK. It's not. Even with a fully updated and patched browser.
Speculation of course, but I think they were told to push the Metro UI by upper management. The obvious culprit would be Ballmer, but he is already gone.
So you may end up being right about the UI team being fired when someone is needed to take the blame. But I doubt they deserve it.
C - the footgun of programming languages
Microsoft just needs to make an OS that delivers what end-users actually want, with a solid XP emulator so people can continue to run their mission-critical stuff that still requires it.
They could call it something like "Windows 7 with Windows Virtual PC".
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Maybe it's also because I hate the new skeuomorphic design aesthetic. What's wrong with gloss, gradients, transparency, and attractive animations, or even a bevel or link here and there so we can actually tell something is clickable rather than playing mystery-meat navigation? I swear, everything is going flat-shaded, blocky, ugly, and indistinguishable, all because that's now the new "hip" look.
Skeumorphism - the use of design elements that mimic real life objects with similar functions, is actually the opposite phenomenon from the flat, light-on-pastel design trend. Though I fully agree with you - both of these UI philosophies have been severely overused.
A bit of googling will turn up plenty of articles analyzing the history of the skeuomorphism-versus-flat debate particularly at Apple, which I would argue has been one of the biggest influences in UI design over the last few years. Basically, the loss of skeuomorphism advocates such as Steve Jobs and Scott Forstall led to the pendulum swinging completely in the other direction, and many gimmicky and dated interface elements such as notes apps that look like real paper and a game center that looks like a cheap felt billiard table have been stripped away. But - what to replace it with? Well, everybody wants to stay on top of the latest design trend, and Microsoft and others seem to be migrating to flat designs, so flat it is.
Although you could argue over who copied who, essentially what you have is Microsoft and Apple in a race to see who can flatten their interfaces and strip out any traces of skeuomorphism the fastest. Sure, it looks trendy, but it's reached the point where we are sacrificing usability and accessibility in order to have the most "modern" design. Here's where I have a problem with the whole thing: computer interface elements have been pretty consistent over the last 20+ years or so. Everything behaved as expected and usually acted pretty consistent between operating systems. This is great for users, since they can focus on the task rather than the tools needed to accomplish them, and using the interface becomes second nature. To those who *design* computers rather than *use* them, this is a problem - you want the bling to be noticed. The old way of doing this was to show off your new hardware by making the UI flashy, bright, colorful, inviting - basically by ramping up the skeuomorphic elements to 11.
The problem is, the novelty of this wears off fast, and these interfaces quickly become dated. Now, flat is in, and anything that even remotely resembles skeuomorphism is stripped out. I have a number of problems with the current trend:
1) interface elements are hidden or played down, making them hard to find. Often it's hard to tell if I'm just not looking hard enough for that feature, or if it has been removed altogether.
2) It does away with conventions that have been standard for decades. This means that every time designers go wild designing a new interface, users have to spend time and effort learning a new way to accomplish a task.
3) It's less accessible. Razor thin text is hard for some people to see. Pastel on white and white on pastel text may look "hip" but can incredibly difficult to read. Interface elements that are marginalized can be hard to hunt down if the user doesn't know where to look.
4) It's inconsistent. Some programs hide buttons and scroll bars, some do not. Some use vastly different elements for simple actions such as "close window" so that the user is left guessing at the function of a UI element.
My prediction is that in a few years, "flat" will look as equally dated as skeuomorphism does now.
They'd be doing with Windows what Google is doing with Android. Get with the times. Offer it for free and people will fight for your updates. Then load it with all your bloatware like Internet Explorer and such, and use that bloatware to steal their info from end user license agreements. Honestly how the hell have they not figured this out by now?
If someone can't look cool inside of a Starbucks coffee shop with your product, they aren't going to pay for it.
The last straws for windows 8.1 was the charms bar, and a weather app you didn't need, but apparently network support is only a "nice to have"? Get real.
Wi-Fi support is nice to have. I do have Network support, it's there via my Ethernet. Not ideal, but functional. As for touchpad, I have tried disabling it in both Windows 8, and on a different laptop, in Windows 7. Didn't work - needed Touchfreeze. Reason I complained about Weather is that Windows 8 is the first OS that wants to know my location. I don't want it to be Windows Phone 8, iOS or Android.
I can see how Notepad is useful on both phones & laptops. I can't see the same about Contacts. Rather, they could have just made Skype the platform for sharing contacts b/w phone & laptop, assuming that it's needed.
Simple , I am in a real world where we have work to do in the company.
In August 2014 , my desk at work is win 7 pro with XP mode. Win7 is set to legacy mode ( XP look with no fla fla) I still need XP mode for legacy application that I can't run in 7.
In labs we are still 90% XP because we need to interface instrument and hardware that doesn't follow fashion (machine tooling and optical inspection instruments). I still have a critical win2000 machine working 24/7/365 in environment control. We are slowly moving old stuff (apps and hardware) to win7 on new hardware. All new machine we buy are set to corporate win7 with downgrade right. I haven't seen a single win8/8.1 machine yet and it is not surprising considering corporate IT troubles to assimilate that.
Also problem rising at work is not much the OS but the Office suite that continue to degrade since Office2003. Now we have Office365 (office2013) which is even worst and force your in your troat the cloud ( Nightmare for controlling ITAR and intellectual property documents...) . This was apparently a smart idea from the corporate headquarter !!! Now it is more and more difficult to work with that office suit with this constant loss of usability. This ribbon and cloud shit as even contaminated Matlab and other application where the usable menu user interface is destroyed and where the help files are on clouds and not local. Now try to work with a slow network...
At home I have win7 for few portable and for game computer. I have win8.1 in a VM that I boot one or two time a month to see updates & patches then I shutdown... I used to have linux in a VM ( yes that game OS where the objective of the game is to install it ! ) but I don't have the time to waste anymore. ... I know all of them and I know What I am talking about...
I have a Mac that stays at 10.6 (I will not free upgrade to the cloud shit) for browsing
Now I see that Win7 is almost gone if you want to buy a new portable and you are stuck with win8. Some Lenovo can be ordered with 7 but few. I don't know about Dell. I guess that Win8 will eventually win by lack of alternative for replacement of old hardware as they die...
I do not fear for Microsoft since they still suck huge money from company to OS volume licensing and Office. I just wish that they let us work...
Dann
That seems like quite a bit of extrapolation. Why do those status tell you that MS OSes have "totally sucked" rather than tell you that people are resistant to change and will keep using something that is just good enough to meet their needs?
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
It ain't a mere question of being cheap. It's a question of overhauling existing setups, particularly in offices, where the implications are work disruptions & worse. If it was just a question of paying MS the $200 or whatever it costs, it's one thing. But coming along w/ that would be all the migration pains. Plus Windows Vista & beyond were built on a win64 subsystem, and there are a lot of XP applications that companies didn't or can't upgrade, which would not run on 7 w/o either XP-Mode or Hyper-V.
I do think Microsoft should consider a model where they sell improved kernels, w/ whatever UI customers want - be it Metro, Aero, XP or classic NT. After all, 8 is better under the hood, if the UI could be the same as before. Maybe in installation, give users a choice of interfaces - making the newest the default but traditional UIs optional, so that it can be adapted by businesses w/ minimal disruptions.
That's a nice list of improvements, and I'm glad you're happy with them. Personally, I'll be waiting for a version of Windows that doesn't actually degrade the UI experience from Windows 7, or the year 2020, whichever comes first.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Most people never need this option to spawn single 7 disk over multiple computers. And in event of a critical fuck up, you can always either call MS to have your OEM version reset, and if that doesn't work, just crack it.
Almost all modern games offer DX11 rendering path nowadays, often with massive graphical improvements. Quite a few AAA titles no longer offer DX9 rendering path, which means that you can't even run them on XP any more.
Latter is what forced me to upgrade - I wanted to play BF3.
Which is why essentially all games that run on both XP and 7 list system requirements in the following fashion:
XP: X gigs of RAM.
7: X+1 gigs of RAM.
Clearly, they're hating on 7. It's not like it has a massively larger system overhead. Honest!
Both XP and 7 grab about 500 megs of RAM on startup.
But does it bring you coffee to bed and wake you up with a blowjob?
Considering all this shilling, I think you certainly earned it!
People were not so "resistant to change" when MS came out with Win3, or Win95. People were lining up around the block for it.
People were not so "resistant to change" when Apple came out with the iPhone.
People are "resistant to change" when the new product is substantially worse then the old product.
I do not think that is even close to being accurate.
System requirements for XP are 64MB RAM minimum and 128MB RAM recommended.
System requirements for Win7 are 1GB RAM minimum and 2GB RAM recommended.
I have tried it myself.
Let's separate the two issues partially for a moment. There is the use of lower end computers, and updating them less frequently rather than being on a schedule of continuous improvement using latest and newest version. That was driven by a desire for cost savings. Then there is also the issue that the larger the stack of layers replacing a lower layer becomes exponentially more expensive.
x86 is way ahead of Android at the high end, example Apple rMBP or MacPro. Android likely won't be comparable to those sorts of systems for a decade. If Microsoft could drive up average spend so that OEMs were doing research themselves, plus allowing for higher cost of parts... that would in turn allow applications to be more sophisticated and make greater demands on the OS and hardware... This pushes off the date of crossover when Android becomes "better" or at least "close enough" to x86. To do that one of the elements is a culture of continuous improvement which would decrease migration hassles since IT shops would be setup for replacing operating systems regularly.
You see this on iOS. Apple because they essentially force annual upgrades of the operating systems with often breaking API have required IT shops to budget for operating system upgrades and application upgrades annually. Microsoft may never be able to push their base quite that far, but there is a lot of distance between where they are now and where they could be.
First off the applications should be upgraded. That's part of the culture change they need to drive. But certainly XP-mode was designed to act as a intermediate system for companies not quite there yet.
They need to disrupt the applications if they are going to get them the applications to take advantage of Metro. They don't want the applications to support the legacy interfaces. That's a negative for Microsoft.
1) Design an OS which can run the legacy system and can run new style hardware (windows 8)
2) Get the OEMs up to the point that they are bringing out Windows 8 style hardware (percentage rising rapidly, I think they should be pushing harder).
3) Get the application vendors to convert over to Metro style (not happening yet).
oh come on, big ass Cisco mainframe directors, Palo Alto firewalls and Arista switches use them
USB to serial adapter are under five bucks on ebay
Less overhead than 7? Give me a break. The driver model is so much more efficient for Windows 7/8 that using another 500MB of RAM is meaningless. Unless you're a impoverished third world child an extra 500MB of RAM won't break the bank at about $5.
Windows XP is not "Efficient" it's just obsolete. Most of the increased memory usage and "overhead" in 7/8 is just intelligent memory management and pre-caching. It's not wasteful, it's smart. What's really wasteful is having 16GB of RAM just sitting there unused sucking up electricity not giving you any benefit.
None of those things were minor improvements to existing products that already met peoples' needs, either. Windows 3.1 and 95 were huge upgrades that did things their predecessors were completely incapable of, and the iPhone may as well have been a completely original product, given that its competition was composed of clunky bricks with terrible UIs.
What about Win 7 is "substantially worse" than XP? Or 8, after you turn off Metro?
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
This doesn't make sense: the legacy interfaces are the installed base for which Microsoft has a market in the first place. They are an aspect of the product that their customers like. Companies like Cigna or BofA or 21st Century or Disney are not in the business of having their employees change their computing habits every few years. So if the applications they are using do not require touchscreens, why force it on them? The applications won't have any use for Metro unless there is something about touch screens that they can use. For instance, ATMs, which would do fine w/ a Metro interface to the OS.
I agree that upstream, since Intel is changing the architecture of their CPUs, Microsoft needs to do something that makes it a good idea, say, for someone to prefer a Core i3 to an Atom. But that's something Microsoft can do w/ the underlying architecture - like moving to a more microkernel like OS, having different 'personalities' on top of those, allowing multiple virtual desktops (like KDE) and so on. But at the user level, they should change as little as possible. It's not their job to disrupt the operations of their customers, or else, before they know it, they won't have any. Rather, design the OS and future versions of the applications so that they take advantages of the newer features. At the OS level, maybe, make VMs of previous models the default for people who have ancient CDs they just have to run.
Microsoft's assumption and I believe they are correct in this is that the amount disruption that changing platforms would induce dwarfs the amount of disruption that changing their customers over to a new interface induces. That's the calculus. That they can force this change with very little damage to their enterprise customer base. I think they are absolutely correct in this assessment. If you think they are wrong think about the costs of walking away from Windows entirely for many of these very organizations. They may be unhappy about the extra costs associated with an interface change but they don't have a viable alternative at any price remotely similar to what accepting those interface changes would be like.
Microsoft has made a decision that the interests of the broad ecosystem require them to force their customer base to do things they would rather not do. They aren't denying that. So when you say that their customers don't want to do something you aren't disagreeing with Microsoft you are simply refusing to consider the overall strategy. They are thinking long term. They are thinking strategically. They are once again leading the x86 ecosystem. Their customers are thinking short term. Their customers are thinking tactically. Were they to follow their customer's lead they would be forced into servicing an ever decreasing market and becoming ever more irrelevant to computing. Their highest point of overage 15 years is likely now. If they are going to have to undergo this change eventually, now is the time when they can force the change without hemorrhaging customers.
So yes it is their job to disrupt the operations of their customers.
Selling land on the moon is >>> that way.
A user keeps a machine for a purpose, and not for the sake of keeping the machine. Any definition of "outdated" that doesn't define "outdated for what purpose?" is useless mental masturbation.
So if the Windows XP machine does its job, it is not outdated for its purpose. If an application runs currently, it is "current application" for the purpose of running. So the Windows XP machine runs "current applications".
It does not run some software being produced today. The machine is outdated for running those software. But running them is not the purpose, so the machine is not outdated for its purpose.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
That's not what the word "outdated" means. What you are arguing is that it is OK to be outdated as long as it still serves its purpose. That's fine. But it doesn't change the status of being outdated. Lots of people use outdated things. I use a fully mechanical watch. My father uses a fountain pen. The fact that they serve a purpose doesn't mean they aren't outdated.
When looking at an icon/button with a flat edge vs. one with a beveled edge, the beveled edge gives the impression that the clickable area itself is smaller. This wasn't an issue with a cursor, but for touch you want the biggest possible touch areas for items without looking goofy. While its true that the area itself isn't really smaller, making it appear smaller makes people more hesitant with their presses which subconciously makes the UI feel 'slower.' I beleive this is why companies have migrated to the flat look.
You're refusing to define outdated for any meaningful discussion to take place. Then you are assigning the quality of outdatedness as per your whims.
Either you'll have to let everyone decide what is or is not outdated, or define it precisely. I have defined it precisely as far as a purpose goes.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Outdated: not modern or current.
I know. Not precise enough to disagree with someone, but precise enough if there is agreement. There isn't now so this definition is not enough.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
OK well for OSes and most software they are sequentially number.
Outdated = A system for which there is or has been substantial migration from the user base to a higher numbered version.
So XP gets "outdated" once Vista comes out.
Yes, now the definition moves from imprecise to useless. The other remaining deficiency is that it still doesn't define the purpose for which it is outdated - for developing latest software to sell to currently selling and upcoming versions of the operating systems - yes it is outdated. For running your DNS server, browsing slashdot after adequate safeguards? No, only an idiot would call it outdated for that purpose.
Why useless? Just because something is defined as outdated by jbolden without even taking into account the purpose , doesn't mean anything as to the usefulness of using it. Which was my original point - it is mental masturbation having no impact on real life.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
You are trying to reintroduce the purpose definition. I was rejecting that. A device or piece of software isn't outdated for a purpose it is simply outdated. There are things I liked better about Decnet than TCP/IP. I'm sure it would still work fine for many purposes, that doesn't change it being outdated. As I mentioned my father likes the way ink flows better from a classic fountain pen, and it still writes. That doesn't mean it isn't outdated. There is a whole movement of men moving back towards safety razors away from cartridge razors. That doesn't mean that safety razors aren't outdated.
Outdated has nothing to do with something still being able to fulfill some purpose.
______
What outdated does say is that there are substantial legacy costs over the long haul. As more applications move away from XP the costs of data translation and support go up. As others have mentioned the usage has to be vastly restricted for safety. Given that cheap computers are capable of doing what XP is able to do in most situations asserting it is outdated is asserting that the cost of remaining is likely substantially higher than the cost of remaining, even if the immediate costs are lower.
Of course a DNS server can possibly run fine on XP. DNS ran fine on Windows NT 3.51. So what?
So it's not outdated for running DNS servers !
If outdated is defined without a purpose, what are the real life implications of something being outdated? You yourself admit that they are fit for some purposes.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
a) Cost of integration. As time passes the system fits less well with the rest of the software / hardware ecosystem
b) Cost of transitioning at a later date. There is a window to transition after that it becomes a very complex project.
c) Cost of maintaining and modifying. As knowledge of the system decreases this can skyrocket
etc...
Cost is a noun, I asked the implications.
I asked the implications of something being "outdated" , not those of time passing.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Those are the costs of being outdated.
Windows XP was released October 25, 2001.
OSX 10.1 was released about the same time.
OSX 10.2 was released May 6, 2002 which is when 10.1 became outdated.
Most 10.1 software had compatibility problems. January 10, 2006 Apple released their first version of their OS where OSX 10.1 programs had to run in emulation. August 28, 2009 OSX 10.1 applications would't run by default. July 20, 2011 no OSX application will run at all even under emulation. It requires a virtual machine.
Which means if I had stayed on OSX 10.1 for an extra decade when I went to transition it would have required a complete top to bottom replacement of the entire application stack.
The same amount of time passed between 2001 and 2011 for Microsoft and Apple. But Apple is more aggressive about outdating software hence the implications are more serious. Those 3 that I listed are the implications of being outdated.
Those 3 that I listed are the implications of being outdated.
No.
a) Cost of integration. As time passes the system fits less well with the rest of the software / hardware ecosystem
Time passes continuously. Time doesn't start passing once jbolden threshold of outdatedness is attained.
b) Cost of transitioning at a later date. There is a window to transition after that it becomes a very complex project.
This is very arbitrary as some essential assumptions are not mentioned, but presumably this is not directly related to outdatedness but an effect of even more time passing after something getting outdated.
c) Cost of maintaining and modifying. As knowledge of the system decreases this can skyrocket
You haven't proven knowledge must decrease. Use of knowledge, as well as its decrease, are dependent on purpose which you refuse to discuss.
So no, these are not answers to my questions.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
These are known to have timing issues, so are unsuitable for a variety of uses.
Clearly, you have not actually tried that. Even at launch, XP on 128MB was painful. Last time I tried it (about a year ago) XP (fully patched) on 512MB still required plenty of swapping.
For what it's worth, I've been running a media player (no AV, minimal overhead) on 1GB and 7 x64. It wasn't until last month's updates when it finally showed signs of insufficient RAM.
My guess is those numbers are for the x64 version, which does use more RAM.
There was also a lot less concern over people keeping old versions (updates weren't released every month) back in the day.
People often demanded newer software packages, which didn't run well on older machines. As a result, the lifespan of the PC was a lot shorter, and the OS was upgraded with newer hardware. This meant the new option had a selling point, which many people do not see when they look at new versions of Windows.
It takes pants on the head kind of crazy to make up reasons like these just to justify one's convictions.
Wi-Fi support is nice to have
For anybody over the last 10-15 years wifi is not "nice to have" its fundamentally broken if it doesn't work.
l. As for touchpad, I have tried disabling it in both Windows 8, and on a different laptop, in Windows 7. Didn't work
If you disable it in device manager its gone.
Reason I complained about Weather is that Windows 8 is the first OS that wants to know my location.
It wants to know what city you are in so it can show you the right weather. I'm having hard time getting upset. Even windows 95 wanted to know what time zone you were in so it could show you the right time.
On Linux this is done in many distros by selecting the nearest large city on a map... Oh noes!
I don't know why you don't want to tell your local pc what city you are in. This is not 'secret'. For most of us, it could fairly accurately geolocate itself by public ip address anyway, at least to city/country sized regions.
Rather, they could have just made Skype the platform for sharing contacts b/w phone & laptop, assuming that it's needed.
Not all of us use skype. There are a multitude of softphone software out there -- a 'contacts' app makes sense.
Linux has "GNOME Contacts" and has had it forever. OSX has a contacts app too. Its hardly a new idea on computers. You many not need it, and that's fine... its not like you have to use it.
but they can be used for the appliances I mentioned. you don't need 57kbytes/sec for a terminal you know, nice and easy 9600 kbs or even less is fine
They may work for these (I haven't checked) but it's not about throughput. A USB->RS232 wouldn't help with that anyway. The main issue is timing, but here's a discussion about several more issues that pop up with these adapters.
Some people need a real serial port (for various reasons), and these adapters are not (always) suitable replacements.
you'll note in your link that proper cable wiring often fixes those problems. I do know POS application that require true serial but PC are still sold for business POS use with multiple serial port for barcode scanner or receipt printers (etc), and more than half of motherboards still have serial ports even if wiring from header and external plug not supplied, just a matter of having ribbon cable.