Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Microsoft Windows Operating Systems Upgrades

66% of All Windows Users Still Use Windows XP 931

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

66% of All Windows Users Still Use Windows XP

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    It's actually 66.6%

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by leuk_he ( 194174 )

      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: (Score:3, Informative)

        by nacturation ( 646836 ) *

        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: (Score:3, Funny)

      by BrokenHalo ( 565198 )
      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...
    • My Motto (Score:4, Funny)

      by arcite ( 661011 ) on Sunday October 03, 2010 @11:53AM (#33776868)
      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: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by ani23 ( 899493 )
        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.
  • by bsDaemon ( 87307 ) on Sunday October 03, 2010 @10:51AM (#33776414)

    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.

    • by schnikies79 ( 788746 ) on Sunday October 03, 2010 @10:55AM (#33776428)

      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

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

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by schnikies79 ( 788746 )

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

          • by zoom-ping ( 905112 ) on Sunday October 03, 2010 @11:33AM (#33776698)

            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 [electronista.com] for you.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              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/ [electronista.com].

              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 y

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Raenex ( 947668 )

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

        • by Pentium100 ( 1240090 ) on Sunday October 03, 2010 @11:07AM (#33776518)

          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).

          • by beelsebob ( 529313 ) on Sunday October 03, 2010 @11:11AM (#33776556)

            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%

            • by Pentium100 ( 1240090 ) on Sunday October 03, 2010 @11:19AM (#33776606)

              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.

              • by Anne Thwacks ( 531696 ) on Sunday October 03, 2010 @11:33AM (#33776692)
                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)

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

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by kimvette ( 919543 )

                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.

                • by cheekyjohnson ( 1873388 ) on Sunday October 03, 2010 @11:38AM (#33776750)

                  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.

                  • by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) * on Sunday October 03, 2010 @01:39PM (#33777484)

                    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: (Score:3, Insightful)

                      by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) *

                      $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: (Score:3, Interesting)

                  by Pentium100 ( 1240090 )

                  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

                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by vlm ( 69642 )

                  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

                • by hairyfeet ( 841228 ) <bassbeast1968@@@gmail...com> on Sunday October 03, 2010 @03:37PM (#33778132) Journal

                  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 [tigerdirect.com] 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 [tigerdirect.com] or a triple for $320 [tigerdirect.com]. 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 [www.ibm.st] 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: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Abstrackt ( 609015 )

            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

      • by arth1 ( 260657 ) on Sunday October 03, 2010 @11:11AM (#33776558) Homepage Journal

        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?

      • by commodore64_love ( 1445365 ) on Sunday October 03, 2010 @11:36AM (#33776724) Journal

        >>>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: (Score:3, Informative)

          by benwiggy ( 1262536 )

          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 lo

        • by CarpetShark ( 865376 ) on Sunday October 03, 2010 @12:38PM (#33777122)

          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: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by bemymonkey ( 1244086 )

        +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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Alcoholist ( 160427 )

        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

    • by pla ( 258480 ) on Sunday October 03, 2010 @11:05AM (#33776494) Journal
      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by JWSmythe ( 446288 )

      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

    • by transporter_ii ( 986545 ) on Sunday October 03, 2010 @11:54AM (#33776872) Homepage

      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!


  • Yawn (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 03, 2010 @10:55AM (#33776430)

    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jedidiah ( 1196 ) on Sunday October 03, 2010 @11:06AM (#33776506) Homepage

      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.

  • by jzarling ( 600712 ) on Sunday October 03, 2010 @10:55AM (#33776432)
    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.
  • Price (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jav1231 ( 539129 ) on Sunday October 03, 2010 @10:58AM (#33776450)
    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 (Score:4, Insightful)

      by v1 ( 525388 ) on Sunday October 03, 2010 @11:43AM (#33776798) Homepage Journal

      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 (Score:5, Informative)

        by Fast Thick Pants ( 1081517 ) <fastthickpantsNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday October 03, 2010 @12:49PM (#33777194)

        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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by 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 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by tsj5j ( 1159013 ) on Sunday October 03, 2010 @01:04PM (#33777280)

        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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by JackSpratts ( 660957 )
        Yours is really an argument against DRM more than anything else, and around here you're preaching to the choir, myself included.
      • Re:Price (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Rich0 ( 548339 ) on Sunday October 03, 2010 @02:03PM (#33777622) Homepage

        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.

  • I still use XP (Score:5, Interesting)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Sunday October 03, 2010 @11:01AM (#33776470) Journal

    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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MoeDrippins ( 769977 )

      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

    • Re:I still use XP (Score:5, Informative)

      by cbhacking ( 979169 ) <.moc.oohay. .ta. ... isiurc_tuo_neeb.> on Sunday October 03, 2010 @02:37PM (#33777832) Homepage Journal

      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.

  • by arth1 ( 260657 ) on Sunday October 03, 2010 @11:01AM (#33776472) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by Anti Cheat ( 1749344 ) on Sunday October 03, 2010 @11:20AM (#33776618)

    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: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Spad ( 470073 )

      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 *w

  • Rightly so (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cheekyjohnson ( 1873388 ) on Sunday October 03, 2010 @11:26AM (#33776658)

    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.

  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Sunday October 03, 2010 @11:36AM (#33776726) Journal
    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!

  • No raise for you! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by clinko ( 232501 ) on Sunday October 03, 2010 @11:37AM (#33776740) Journal

    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.

  • PCs last longer (Score:4, Insightful)

    by flyingfsck ( 986395 ) on Sunday October 03, 2010 @12:12PM (#33776972)
    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...
  • by hydromike2 ( 1457879 ) on Sunday October 03, 2010 @12:15PM (#33776990)

    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.

  • by grandpa-geek ( 981017 ) on Sunday October 03, 2010 @12:33PM (#33777098)

    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.

  • Civ V (Score:5, Funny)

    by mmaniaci ( 1200061 ) on Sunday October 03, 2010 @02:52PM (#33777900)
    Everybody knows the real reason not to switch to Win 7 is because Civilization V runs better with DX9 than with DX10.
  • Anybody want it? (Score:3, Informative)

    by macraig ( 621737 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [giarc.a.kram]> on Sunday October 03, 2010 @03:06PM (#33777974)

    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.

  • New PC with W7 (Score:3, Informative)

    by ThePhilips ( 752041 ) on Sunday October 03, 2010 @04:28PM (#33778498) Homepage Journal

    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 [computerworld.com] really helped??

    P.S. And tray icons now rearranged in a confusing way...

  • Here's The Reason... (Score:3, Informative)

    by pandrijeczko ( 588093 ) on Sunday October 03, 2010 @05:09PM (#33778884)

    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.

Nondeterminism means never having to say you are wrong.