What will happen to XP next year?

Overheal

Then they appear to have more money than sense; the cost of rolling back laptops only to have to be forced to upgrade shortly anyway is going to hurt them more, in the long run.

The oldest machine we keep in operation is a training PC, just for employees to access our eLearning website from. It has Vista on it, and a PC fan that is about to give up the ghost any day now. Everything else including rather expensive POS equipment is all up to Windows 7.

Torqay

Overheal wrote: »

Then they appear to have more money than sense; the cost of rolling back laptops only to have to be forced to upgrade shortly anyway is going to hurt them more, in the long run.

Shortly? I thought Windows 7 is good for another 7 years.

In recent weeks I had to "roll back" at least two dozens of new machines, mostly to Windows 7, but a few still wanted XP and the hardware is still supported in general (although in one case I gave up, because no audio driver would work with with the headphones jack), which shows that hardware manufacturers are still catering for XP. And until the big players like Intel, Nvidia and AMD eventually drop their support, there will be people out there using Windows XP or Windows 7 (the last Microsoft product you can call an operating system with a straight face).

Squeaky the Squirrel

Overheal wrote: »

It will finally die the slow, agonizing death that it should have years ago. good riddance.

12yrs 5Mts, it's only 2 and half years over the norm. Seems more. NT was 11 years 5Mts.

Overheal

Torqay wrote: »

Shortly? I thought Windows 7 is good for another 7 years.

Read the post, they rolled them back to XP.

In recent weeks I had to "roll back" at least two dozens of new machines, mostly to Windows 7, but a few still wanted XP and the hardware is still supported in general (although in one case I gave up, because no audio driver would work with with the headphones jack), which shows that hardware manufacturers are still catering for XP. And until the big players like Intel, Nvidia and AMD eventually drop their support, there will be people out there using Windows XP or Windows 7 (the last Microsoft product you can call an operating system with a straight face).

8 is Windows 7 with an updated Start Menu, support for Apps, and new Search features. Get over it.

paulheu

8 is quite a bit more. Under the hood it is a major change from 7 and much, much more solid and smooth.. Try using 7 on say an Asus Eeepc netbook, then install 8. The difference in performance is staggering.. (with 8 being the clear winner there..). 8 is worth it for the improved scheduling alone IMO.

The UI changes may be obvious, but the core improvements are way more important to your every day use of the OS.

stevek93

paulheu wrote: »

8 is quite a bit more. Under the hood it is a major change from 7 and much, much more solid and smooth.. Try using 7 on say an Asus Eeepc netbook, then install 8. The difference in performance is staggering.. (with 8 being the clear winner there..). 8 is worth it for the improved scheduling alone IMO.

The UI changes may be obvious, but the core improvements are way more important to your every day use of the OS.

I wouldn't go as far as saying it is more stable. Windows 7 has had 3 years of patches security updates and bug fixes, Windows 8 has only been released a few months.

monkeypants

yoyo wrote: »

Many ATMs are still using OS/2 worldwide! Making XP seem fresh and modern in comparison :pac:

Nothing went wrong with OS/2 that a good reboot couldn't fix.

A company I used to work for is still running Win3.1 on one single PC. This PC is only used to run one particular, in-house application, so it's simply not worth it to even contemplate a change. It works and it's stable.

Torqay

paulheu wrote: »

Try using 7 on say an Asus Eeepc netbook, then install 8. The difference in performance is staggering.. (with 8 being the clear winner there..).

If the Eee PC and Windows 8 is such a winning combo then why did ASUS and others abandon the netbook? Truth is, they've pulled the plug on netbooks (much to the dismay of Intel) because of Windows 8. The licensing fees (twice as much as Windows 7 Starter), upgrades in LCD panels to higher resolutions and touchscreen functions added to netbook costs forcing netbook vendors to give up the product line before entering the Windows 8 generation.So if you're looking for a travel companion with 8-10 hrs battery life that get's the job done (such as my Eee 1005HA) you'll have to pay a lot more than 250 yoyos in the future, last but not least thanks to Microsoft's new "retail platform".

paulheu

While the netbooks do not _officially_ support the required min resolution but that is easily resolved. That said it does not take anything away that WIN8 actually runs more smooth than WIN7..

Torqay

paulheu wrote: »

WIN8 actually runs more smooth than WIN7..

Not as smooth as XP (or lightweight Linux distros) on such rather underpowered devices, not by a long shot.

But may that as it be, Windows 8 has been the death knell for netbooks. Doubled licensing fees, the requirement for a higher resolution (no, manufacturers don't do "workarounds") with touch capability would easily drive the costs into the region of a regular budget laptop. Manufacturers always struggled to make a profit from a PC that will only sell for 250 yoyos or so at retail, even at the best of times. And thus ends the tale of the netbook, which once provided the most cost-effective computing solution for people with a substantial workload to be dealt with while being "on the road".

Anyhoo, Microsoft and netbooks (mind you, their initial success played no small part in the extension of the XP life cycle) is a fascinating story, however, not the subject of this thread.

Overheal

Torqay wrote: »

If the Eee PC and Windows 8 is such a winning combo then why did ASUS and others abandon the netbook? Truth is, they've pulled the plug on netbooks (much to the dismay of Intel) because of Windows 8. The licensing fees (twice as much as Windows 7 Starter), upgrades in LCD panels to higher resolutions and touchscreen functions added to netbook costs forcing netbook vendors to give up the product line before entering the Windows 8 generation.So if you're looking for a travel companion with 8-10 hrs battery life that get's the job done (such as my Eee 1005HA) you'll have to pay a lot more than 250 yoyos in the future, last but not least thanks to Microsoft's new "retail platform".

So why did I just inbox a Lenovo tablet last night with a 32 bit windows 8 OS powers by an Intel atom processor?

Abandoned my arse. The netbook just became a tablet, thanks to Windows 8. Windows 8 didn't kill the netbook, the kindle fire did. In 2011. And people can still avail of the chromebook, which for the type of person who liked the netbook is still a fine option.

riclad

Many business,s use xp, on pcs, not connected to the internet,
running MS office or other programs.They work fine .IF the programs ,you use ,work on xp, win 8 is irrelevant.
IF a company bought 30 win8 pcs, they,d have to train staff ,how to use the os,install software on each pc.
I understand if pcs are connected to the web, win8,or win7 is secure.
There,s banks still using win nt, and ie 6 browser, because the specialist
software they use is designed for that os.

AS PCS are replaced,new ones bought ,win7,and win8 will replace xp.
IF most of your pcs, run office 2007 ,theres no great benefit to switching over to windows 8.
Companys ,buy 100s,or 1000s of licenses for software,
its expensive to switch over to a new os.
AS new volume licenses would have to be bought.
I Think win8 tablets ,will be like like windows phone,
it,ll get about 2 or 3 per cent market share,
its too expensive, in a market that has good android tablets for 200 euro.
IT has the advantage of being more secure,some compatibilty with
ms office,server ,email apps
Theres plenty of tablets with 7/8 hours battery life ,200 or less euros.

i think ms designed win8 ,works on pcs,tablets, Touch screen compatible.
One os to rule them all.

Overheal

Obscure piece of Yeats?

Squeaky the Squirrel

Overheal wrote: »

Obscure piece of Yeats?

I think someone needs a venti shot hazelnut vanilla cinnamon white mocha with extra white mocha and caramel coffee?

Torqay

Overheal wrote: »

Abandoned my arse. The netbook just became a tablet, thanks to Windows 8. Windows 8 didn't kill the netbook, the kindle fire did. In 2011.

You're talking rubbish. The Kindle Fire is a rather limited entertainment device, I'm talking about serious work, not browsing the Amazon store. A tablet is fine for many but certainly no substitute for a real computer.

Overheal wrote: »

And people can still avail of the chromebook, which for the type of person who liked the netbook is still a fine option.

Google's Chromebook is trying to be a netbook, but it isn't. Too limited are the offline capabilities and it can't run MS Office or other "legacy apps" either.

Overheal wrote: »

So why did I just inbox a Lenovo tablet last night with a 32 bit windows 8 OS powers by an Intel atom processor?

Seriously??? You want to sell me the Lenovo ThinkPad Tablet 2 as the "new netbook"? Then you'll have to do a helluva lot better than 800 dollar (the price of the Lenovo tablet and the keyboard dock). Unlike a $250 netbook, this is not what I call a "cost-effective computing solution". ASUS "invented" the netbook in 2007 as a Linux-based $200 dollar laptop* and everyone (including Microsoft) was laughing at them, until the Eee PC was flying off the shelves, and the secret of its success was affordability, plain and simple. This ain't gonna happen with $800 tablets.

* the Eee PC was also the first laptop with a Solid State Drive, putting even the fastest high-end laptops on the market to a shame in a boot race, making everyone wanting a SSD.

Overheal

Torqay wrote: »

You're talking rubbish. The Kindle Fire is a rather limited entertainment device, I'm talking about serious work, not browsing the Amazon store. A tablet is fine for many but certainly no substitute for a real computer.

LOL. You fail to realize the unit's existence wasn't fueled by the 1% of business execs who would get a real kick out of running their powerpoint presentation on something that portable, it was fueled by low income/low spend consumers that wanted the cheapest common denominator.

You're arguing three different angles on portability, performance, and price. Fact is, I sold the netbook alongside the first gen tablets. I can tell you why the netbook was discontinued: up against a more expensive iPad, even before the Kindle Fire came out, nobody bought the netbooks bar the odd person who was trying to buy something with buttons and a shoestring. The netbooks sat on the shelves and plenty went EOL. Meanwhile we were regularly sold out of the tablets. The only time netbooks sold ever again was at christmas, to last minute gift buyers with no other options. Truth be told, customers during discussions were not fond of the idea of navimigating the Windows UI on a little trackpad with kiddie keys. Right next to a netbook, for another $20-50, always sat a full sized laptop with 64-bit OS, a much bigger screen and twice the performance parameters, battery life be damned as most users don't require wilderness-stamina battery life. There were a lot of reasons for the netbook dying, but it wasn't because someone in an exec chair decreed it.

Google's Chromebook is trying to be a netbook, but it isn't. Too limited are the offline capabilities and it can't run MS Office or other "legacy apps" either.

Which is a problem for a lot of people, but not for that "I'm broke/I don't want to spend the money I just want to Check email/browse/facebook/etc" crowd. And just like the netbook before them, sold out over christmas and sit on the shelves the rest of the year.

Seriously??? You want to sell me the Lenovo ThinkPad Tablet 2 as the "new netbook"? Then you'll have to do a helluva lot better than 800 dollar (the price of the Lenovo tablet and the keyboard dock). Unlike a $250 netbook, this is not what I call a "cost-effective computing solution". ASUS "invented" the netbook in 2007 as a Linux-based $200 dollar laptop* and everyone (including Microsoft) was laughing at them, until the Eee PC was flying off the shelves, and the secret of its success was affordability, plain and simple. This ain't gonna happen with $800 tablets.

People similarly laughed at the laptop, I am sure. How could it possibly take off when it had to be carried around like a bomb, needed to be plugged in, and had fractional performance of traditional computers. Oh. How. They. Laughed.

But hey, what are you complaining about, you will probably be running that netbook on Win 3.1 well into the next quarter century, right?

* the Eee PC was also the first laptop with a Solid State Drive, putting even the fastest high-end laptops on the market to a shame in a boot race, making everyone wanting a SSD.

You got me there, in that it's not really relevant where the SSD birthed, it's still a fantastic core component at both the high end and low end.

Torqay

Overheal wrote: »

nobody bought the netbooks bar the odd person who was trying to buy something with buttons and a shoestring.

Ridiculous. ASUS alone sold tens of millions of Eee PC over the years, even when the iPad hit the market in 2010, they have sold over 5 million units.

A Chromebook might work well in your cozy little shop or around Time Square, NYC but in rural places or less developed countries, you're f***ed, simple as that.

And why would I use Windows 3.1 when even my oldest netbook from 2007 is running Windows 7 like a charm? Or the operating system which happens to be the subject of this thread, for that matter.

Overheal wrote: »

You're arguing three different angles on portability, performance, and price.

Certainly not on performance as any netbook will perform just as well as your Atom tablet. The price difference, however, is enormous. And since Microsoft does no longer sell Windows 7 licenses and does not offer a Windows 8 Starter edition suitable for netbooks at a reduced price, this is the end of fully fledged mini-laptops at an affordable price. No matter how you spin it, the netbook was the most cost-effective mobile computing solution ever. Most students simply can't come up with 800 yoyos for something you're so desperately trying to sell as the "new netbook", at least not in this country. Forget it, it's just not it. And no, they won't get their work done on a Kindle Fire.

Squeaky the Squirrel

http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0

Current Market shares

Overheal

Squeaky the Squirrel wrote: »

http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0

Current Market shares

Id like to see the geo-specific information, but the hell that im paying for that

Torqay

Me too. Quite interesting figures though. Vista and Windows 8 just about beat Mac OSX, for every two Linux computers there is one running Windows 2000, still. I'm sure there are regions where Windows XP has got the better on Windows 7.

The April 2014 deadline is not really that important. As long as the hardware and software makers support Windows XP on a large scale, there will be people using it. And almost 40% is a figure way too big to be ignored. Microsoft shot themselves in the foot when they prematurely ditched support of actual Internet Explorer versions on older systems (first with Windows 2000, later with XP). This move didn't make users switch as expected but instead gave rise to alternative web browsers. Now that XP is no longer supported with Microsoft Office, the question becomes, will users abandon their "beloved" OS or will they be looking for alternatives (unlike Internet Explorer, Office is their cash cow after all)?

riclad

0f course theres still millions of pcs running xp,
Win 7 AWASs only released winter 2009.
WIn xp released in 2001.
Many people just used xp, never bothered getting windows vista installed.