Are businesses still reluctant to retire Windows XP?

Windows XP was a very well received OS. From its release in October 2001, it received three service packs and is still actively supported by Microsoft. Certain members of the IT community love it, and still use it, for its ease of use, speed of operation and supported hardware base. Windows Vista ended up being a mess for Microsoft, but they righted that wrong with Windows 7, which was nearly universally praised by the technical community and consumers as a whole.

With Windows 8’s arrival today, Microsoft is still facing a battle to migrate the loyal Windows XP users away from the aging OS. Now, StatCounter has shown that from September 2011 to September 2012, XP still holds a global OS market share of just over 33%. StatCounter CEO, Aodhan Cullen, has given his take on the figures:

Our stats confirm the theory that business users in particular have been reluctant to move from XP. The new Windows 8 interface represents a radical overhaul for Microsoft, allowing it to enter the tablet market with the new Surface. The scale of change of the desktop experience, however, may heighten the initial reluctance of traditional business users to upgrade to this new OS.

It’s no secret that Windows 8 has split users. Some love it and others simply hate it. We recently reported that businesses may be planning to skip Windows 8, at least for now, and the above statement by Cullen only adds to the stories bleeding from Windows business users; they just aren't ready for the Windows 8 just yet.

That being said, Windows 7 has sold more than 630 million licenses and that number should continue to grow, likely eating away at the XP market share. With Windows XP still under extended support until April 8th 2014, Microsoft don’t have much longer to wait until they can drop support for the OS and push Windows 7 and/or 8 as more than suitable replacements.

Source: Business Wire

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Gigabyte's Windows 8 hardware unveiled

Next Story

Lync for Windows 8 and RT, app now available

59 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Browsing the Internet with IE6 must suck with the responsive craze going on. IETester shows these sites as absolute crap.

Windows 7 is the new XP! - It works, fast etc and in the case of the NHS, we cannot just move from 1 OS to another easy - We have so many national applications and custom programs to support/check and certainly standards to stick to - We have only just this year been given the go-ahead to use IE7 after testing...and as for x64 editions....they are refusing to test that..which is a shame. Working in IT, I piloted using Windows 7 x64 on my work laptop..so far, everything i have tried works...but because the NPfIT has not tested it...it wont be rolled out to the estate..Plus there is the training implications when upgrading etc. We are now rolling out Office 2010 and that is a nightmare in itself!

Yes, because it does the job. I still use XP at work, and there is absolutely no appealing reason to upgrade. It is easy to manage, compatible with everything, and (with a good anti-virus) secure.

I get a feeling that those enterprises that skipped Vista and 7 weren't waiting for 8. In all likelihood, they have apps that aren't compatible with any of these.

Remember that the driver model changed with Vista, as well as default access permissions across the board...apps no longer run as admin by default...a *very* long-standing assumption made by just about all Windows software. So even if you had the source for all software you're using, it's not just a matter of recompiling--some things have to be redesigned.

And as others have pointed out, during the last decade, some companies that wrote some of the software still being used are simply not around anymore. So it's not surprising anyone's been postponing that expense for as long as possible.

We have a increasingly shorter deadline (They keep moving it forward) to roll out Win 7 on existing systems of which several hundred are getting replaced with new hardware/Win 7 based systems anyway. But, since some software isn't Win 7 ready and likely never will be, some systems are being held out to the last minute. Or in one case, the version of software to work with Win 7, it is over $18K to buy. So, it is either fork over the extra $$$ or shop for different software.

I remember working at a place where I was non IT at the time, and they had all their machines running Win 2K or Win NT 4.0 on them back in '05. I remember when they rolled out XP to certain users at the time, I was still wondering why they didn't do so, and later found that XP 'broke' their software which was running due to the different GUI. Sometimes, for places it is cheaper to stay with the older and move with the new only when they are forced to. In this case, 2014.

Medfordite said,
We have a increasingly shorter deadline (They keep moving it forward) to roll out Win 7 on existing systems of which several hundred are getting replaced with new hardware/Win 7 based systems anyway. But, since some software isn't Win 7 ready and likely never will be, some systems are being held out to the last minute. Or in one case, the version of software to work with Win 7, it is over $18K to buy. So, it is either fork over the extra $$$ or shop for different software.

I remember working at a place where I was non IT at the time, and they had all their machines running Win 2K or Win NT 4.0 on them back in '05. I remember when they rolled out XP to certain users at the time, I was still wondering why they didn't do so, and later found that XP 'broke' their software which was running due to the different GUI. Sometimes, for places it is cheaper to stay with the older and move with the new only when they are forced to. In this case, 2014.

Still have a few machines running W2K where I used to work at, otherwise, all others are XP.

Definitely not a cheap thing and definitely not as easy as a home user thinks!

Joshie said,
Wake me up when more offices jump on the BYOD/virtualization path.

While parts of the armed forces have migrated partly to thin clients and virtualization, very little of the government will due to security concerns - even with such security improvements as Windows to Go, as regulations won't permit it. Part of the reason that incidents like AMCONSULATE Benghazi happen is the horrific lag it takes to build a new embassy OR consulate to spec - even if the Seabees or the Corps of Engineers do the building - which is the case most of the time. (I wish I WERE kidding - look up the horrible story involving the construction of AMEMBASSY Moscow,Russia as evidentiary data.)

At the company I work for, there are applications that are not able to run under Windows 7. These are what you could call mission-critical applications and cannot be easily updated "on the fly" to a version that will run under Windows 7. So Windows XP will continue to be supported even past the official "drop dead" date by Microsoft, simply because of the requirement that these applications remain operational.

Meanwhile, the average office worker will get migrated to Windows 7 by the middle of next year. In fact we've migrated about half the systems in the company to Windows 7 (there's about 180,000 machines that are in use) but there will be people who will drag their feet because they prefer Windows XP. (Never mind that they can't use the newer versions of Office and Internet Explorer on XP...)

It's never easy to migrate a very large company to a new operating system.

XP Still works OK and I work in a very large UK council, cant tell you which one as I might get into trouble. Usually we get crashes and BSOD's due to dodgy builds or a certain DLL becomes corrupt or overwritten by a untested application. You will find that not all the updates MS chucks out are installed either. Then like a lot of people have said before its cost, not just hardware, but bespoke apps need to be developed, tested, user training. You upgrade someone from office 2003 to 2007 and watch them try and figure out were things are on the ribbon. Plus also being in the public sector we have to be seen in saving money were and when we can. XP still works and is a proven OS, it gets the job done and its still supported.

On a side note I left XP when vista came out and then left vista when win7 came out and I am currently running Enterprise Evalulation on Win8, but I only have 2 desktops and a server "ahem!! 2003" and 4 laptops to think about and no daft applications

We are still sitting on old and now seriously lagging XP. Simply because our business cannt afford to upgrade the existing licenses, not to mention some of the hardware does not support Win7.

My brother spent a year working in Korea and told me that everyone uses a specific version of XP there because lots of their pirated software doesn't work in Vista and Win7 or even fully updated XP. This isn't just individuals, but many businesses and government entities as well. As a result, viruses run rampant there.

While many businesses do have legitimate reasons for sticking to XP (listed by other commentors above), I'd imagine this phenomenon contributes significantly to the global popularity of XP.

I personally like Windows 8 but I honestly don't see us upgrading at work nor do I even see myself recommending it in the first place. They simply can't expect business users to work with that horrendous start screen or Modern apps that look absurd on large screens.

They should have spent a lot more time on Windows 8 Pro to ensure the business / desktop side of things is up to snuff because it's far from it. I tried to get used to using the Start screen alone and the more I try, the more I realize they should've just left the start menu alone in the Desktop mode. Charms bar is not intuitive either. NOBODY knows that it even exists. NOBODY knows how to configure their apps, NOBODY knows how to search their mail app....

What is it that you personally like about Windows 8? I'm honestly asking because I'm interested in people's perceptions of it and you gave plenty of specific reasons that you don't like it, but didn't give any reasons that you do...

Obry said,
I personally like Windows 8 but I honestly don't see us upgrading at work nor do I even see myself recommending it in the first place. They simply can't expect business users to work with that horrendous start screen or Modern apps that look absurd on large screens.

They should have spent a lot more time on Windows 8 Pro to ensure the business / desktop side of things is up to snuff because it's far from it. I tried to get used to using the Start screen alone and the more I try, the more I realize they should've just left the start menu alone in the Desktop mode. Charms bar is not intuitive either. NOBODY knows that it even exists. NOBODY knows how to configure their apps, NOBODY knows how to search their mail app....


I agree it's not ideal and it's a hell of a way to push the product, but look how quickly people got used to Windows 95 over 3.11 and since then, 17 years, we've had the same interface. It's time for a change to be honest but I know that I was a little weirded out at first.
I like Windows 8 too, just feels good to use and compatibility with all the apps I run is 100%.

yeoo_andy_ni said,

I agree it's not ideal and it's a hell of a way to push the product, but look how quickly people got used to Windows 95 over 3.11 and since then, 17 years, we've had the same interface. It's time for a change to be honest but I know that I was a little weirded out at first.
I like Windows 8 too, just feels good to use and compatibility with all the apps I run is 100%.

Windows 95 was a lot easier to adjust to than the Modern UI in my mind. I'm still debating about migrating to Windows 8 personally, there are things I like under the hood that would improve the computer operation... it's just that the chassis is ugly as bat guano and Microsoft wants to alienate legacy users completely.

Even very long term things like Nuclear reactors, they are designed to last 30 years but they apply and push for extensions and small tweaks and fixes to get an extra 20 years.

Most concrete structures are designed to last 50 years but they keep on pushing it with maintenance etc.

It's human nature, they don't really budget for the future. The best example for me is British housing, so many houses built before 1960 are still being used and only have a lifespan of 50 years. UK is going to have a big housing problem in the next 3 decades.

Gaffney said,
Even very long term things like Nuclear reactors, they are designed to last 30 years but they apply and push for extensions and small tweaks and fixes to get an extra 20 years.

Most concrete structures are designed to last 50 years but they keep on pushing it with maintenance etc.

It's human nature, they don't really budget for the future. The best example for me is British housing, so many houses built before 1960 are still being used and only have a lifespan of 50 years. UK is going to have a big housing problem in the next 3 decades.


Going to have? we already do!
and they are not building new housing fast enough or cost effectively enough

StatCounter's stats are somewhat skewed, as they simply list the top 5 operating systems in general - not specifically related to those used just by businesses!

often the causes for business sticking with XP are the businesses themselves through:

1) slow development and testing of their in house software.
2) making that software poorly so it becomes a disaster moving forward.
3) probably coding their internal intranets and the like to run on IE6 only (seen this before...comical)
4) sometimes a general lack of a need to move to new software. A few years back (2008 to be precise) I worked in a data centre and there were still some customer machines running things like NT4.

technikal said,
often the causes for business sticking with XP are the businesses themselves through:
3) probably coding their internal intranets and the like to run on IE6 only (seen this before...comical)

That's why many developers - ourselves included - dropped support for IE6 a long time ago! We we getting frustrated with corporate customers requesting IE6 support for our web app that we took the decision to no longer support it in IE6, as it was taking up too much of our time and significantly holding back development of our software. ...but large business/corporations aside, Microsoft themselves should be doing far more to get people away from IE6! I blogged about "The great IE6 debate: Are Microsoft holding back the web?" last year - http://blog.mid.as/2011/07/20/...osoft-holding-back-the-web/

GreatMarkO said,

That's why many developers - ourselves included - dropped support for IE6 a long time ago! We we getting frustrated with corporate customers requesting IE6 support for our web app that we took the decision to no longer support it in IE6, as it was taking up too much of our time and significantly holding back development of our software. ...but large business/corporations aside, Microsoft themselves should be doing far more to get people away from IE6! I blogged about "The great IE6 debate: Are Microsoft holding back the web?" last year - http://blog.mid.as/2011/07/20/...osoft-holding-back-the-web/

To be fair to MS, they have been pushing to get people off IE6 recently.

technikal said,
To be fair to MS, they have been pushing to get people off IE6 recently.

They've actually been pushing people off since Internet Explorer 7 (circa 2006) so it is more than just 'recently' - it has been pretty much an uphill climb to undo all the stuff they promoted back in the Internet Explorer 6 days.

siah1214 said,
If you're a large company that is afraid of the cost of Windows 7, maybe you should consider software assurance...

It's not a matter of being afraid of the cost - more about not having enough cash to spend on it!
There are always more pressing things to spend money on than replacing something that works...

S_Herbie said,

replacing something that works...

XP works? Between the driver crashes, BSoDs, buffer overflows, constant malware infections, and increasing device incompatibilities, I kinda forgot there was an operating system there to use.

siah1214 said,
If you're a large company that is afraid of the cost of Windows 7, maybe you should consider software assurance...

Because that doesn't cost anything. Not to mention hardware, time, etc..

siah1214 said,
If you're a large company that is afraid of the cost of Windows 7, maybe you should consider software assurance...

It doesn't cover the cost of the all compatibility testing for all your apps (including the one old Bob down in accounting runs that nobody remembers ever installing but is really important for historical data), then the time to install, training, support etc

Dot Matrix said,

XP works? Between the driver crashes, BSoDs, buffer overflows, constant malware infections, and increasing device incompatibilities, I kinda forgot there was an operating system there to use.


time to lay off those pron sites there champ

Dot Matrix said,

XP works? Between the driver crashes, BSoDs, buffer overflows, constant malware infections, and increasing device incompatibilities, I kinda forgot there was an operating system there to use.

Don't experience any of those issues - maybe that's because it was fully tested for compatibility before being rolled out.
We adopted XP around about the time of SP2 coming out, but pushed SP1 out to all users because it was what we had tested. We have since updated with SP2, followed by 3 - each time following testing under all configs and with all hardware.

S_Herbie said,
It's not a matter of being afraid of the cost - more about not having enough cash to spend on it!
There are always more pressing things to spend money on than replacing something that works...

Yeah, like the CEO having his 6 figure salary, private jet and that all important dinners at exclusive restaurants where they can do 'smoozing' with 'clients'. Always enough money for stuff like that but never enough to keep the 'engine of business' running smoothly.

Also there is the reason of COST. Windows costs money to buy, if windows xp works for businesses and they aren't having virus/malware problems etc then there is no reason to upgrade to a newer version of windows until april 2014 when MS abandons it. By that time Win 8 SP1 may possibly be out (assuming they do release service packs for windows 8). Or they could just switch to win 7 sp1 (assuming ms doesn't decide to release a sp2).

I went in HSBC bank in uk a few months ago to sort out a new bank card and they were using windows xp. A multi-billion global banking giant using a 12yr O.S.

torrentthief said,
Also there is the reason of COST. Windows costs money to buy, if windows xp works for businesses and they aren't having virus/malware problems etc then there is no reason to upgrade to a newer version of windows until april 2014 when MS abandons it. By that time Win 8 SP1 may possibly be out (assuming they do release service packs for windows 8). Or they could just switch to win 7 sp1 (assuming ms doesn't decide to release a sp2).

I agree with the part about not switching if it's working fine, but as you mentioned, XP is nearing the end of it's support and it does take time to integrate a new platform as the company's default. So people will start switching really early. However, as mentioned, the cost and time of comparability testing and porting things over, people will still be using XP until it is pretty much at the end of it's development cycle and then switch when things have been fully tested. That's typically how it works, anyways.

torrentthief said,
Also there is the reason of COST. Windows costs money to buy, if windows xp works for businesses and they aren't having virus/malware problems etc then there is no reason to upgrade to a newer version of windows until april 2014 when MS abandons it. By that time Win 8 SP1 may possibly be out (assuming they do release service packs for windows 8). Or they could just switch to win 7 sp1 (assuming ms doesn't decide to release a sp2).

I went in HSBC bank in uk a few months ago to sort out a new bank card and they were using windows xp. A multi-billion global banking giant using a 12yr O.S.

The cost of support is higher than the OS license itself. And they know they can't stay on a single OS version forever (it will eventually stop getting security updates).

torrentthief said,
Also there is the reason of COST. Windows costs money to buy, if windows xp works for businesses and they aren't having virus/malware problems etc then there is no reason to upgrade to a newer version of windows until april 2014 when MS abandons it. By that time Win 8 SP1 may possibly be out (assuming they do release service packs for windows 8). Or they could just switch to win 7 sp1 (assuming ms doesn't decide to release a sp2).

I went in HSBC bank in uk a few months ago to sort out a new bank card and they were using windows xp. A multi-billion global banking giant using a 12yr O.S.

Large corporations don't pay on a per-unit licence ala end user retail - they have a subscription they pay per year to Microsoft thus the 'cost' expense of the software itself isn't justification. For many in such institutions the said computer is little more than glorified dumb terminal - my own bank has Windows XP running but everything they do is done through their web browser with all the processing occurring on the server itself so the question is raised why even spend the money (the money being the cost of installation, retraining etc).

Queue all the 12 year old posters who just don't understand that you can't just flick a switch and make a change to a new OS in all businesses.

Precisely. I wouldn't say that business are reluctant to switch, but there is a lot of testing needed to be done, something a home user doesn't do to the same extent. We've been testing Windows 7 for a long time now and we're only just starting to roll it out to our users.

Simon- said,
Queue all the 12 year old posters who just don't understand that you can't just flick a switch and make a change to a new OS in all businesses.
But but but it was so easy on my pc at home....

Simon- said,
Queue all the 12 year old posters who just don't understand that you can't just flick a switch and make a change to a new OS in all businesses.

couldnt have said it better myself mate!
we fit exactly into the above category due to working in the pharma sector and being regulated/validated systems which take years to replace/validate and verify are FDA & 21CFR compliant. Were planning our migration to Win7, why? because Win8 is a dog and would require even further testing/validation before even being considered and quite frankly, were not scrapping one year of development to amend it to run in Win8 which is literally just out....I have 528 days and counting to finalise verfication & validation/rollout of new systems of W7.

Mando said,

couldnt have said it better myself mate!
we fit exactly into the above category due to working in the pharma sector and being regulated/validated systems which take years to replace/validate and verify are FDA & 21CFR compliant. Were planning our migration to Win7, why? because Win8 is a dog and would require even further testing/validation before even being considered and quite frankly, were not scrapping one year of development to amend it to run in Win8 which is literally just out....I have 528 days and counting to finalise verfication & validation/rollout of new systems of W7.

Holy crap, I'm pretty much exactly in the same boat as you.

True, it's not just the extensive testing but also the cost of licenses...
We're not a massive company - over 10,000 employees so probably around about 8,000 installations to upgrade - some older hardware may need to be replaced as well.

Hopefully we will be in a position to roll it out next year, but even though planning has already commenced I wouldn't expect the actual roll out to be until at least H2.

At my place of work only have a handful of laptops (as getting to them is a pain at times) left running XP, were mostly Windows 7 now and that took 2 years to get that far.

So the kids that thinking upgrading is not that difficult, need to try working in IT in a business for a living before saying "it's not hard".

Simon- said,
Queue all the 12 year old posters who just don't understand that you can't just flick a switch and make a change to a new OS in all businesses.

We're rolling out Windows 7, but in line with a 3 year rolling hardware refresh. So XP will be gone within 1-1.5 years. We're not allowing anybody to have XP any more, even if they ask for it as we're unwilling to be supporting XP after it has gone end of life in 2014.

HoochieMamma said,

Holy crap, I'm pretty much exactly in the same boat as you.

it kinda sucks sometimes, also why a 3rd party OEM system we have onsite is still stuck on W2k SP4 and talks to a sql server 2k!

StevenNT said,
At my place of work only have a handful of laptops (as getting to them is a pain at times) left running XP, were mostly Windows 7 now and that took 2 years to get that far.

So the kids that thinking upgrading is not that difficult, need to try working in IT in a business for a living before saying "it's not hard".


I agree, completely. I did another article on businesses planning to skip W8 with a couple of reasons/theories behind it.
I do think that a migration to Windows 7 in any environment is one of the simplest tasks, but it's the application compatibility, user impact, and policies/compliance that cause the headaches.

Simon- said,
Queue all the 12 year old posters who just don't understand that you can't just flick a switch and make a change to a new OS in all businesses.

Of course not, there are always problems with adapting company software, costs, training people on them, etc.
But that's the main problem, is the software costs to put a new OS on each company system. Then the company software issue follows. A lot of companies switch to a new platform and expect everything to work, and end up with down time.

The local Wal Mart did that when switching to a new Windows platform and something to do with their cell phones/registration process (can't remember exactly what it was) was down for a few days because of a lack of support. Something didn't integrate properly. Another waste of time and money.

Simon- said,
Queue all the 12 year old posters who just don't understand that you can't just flick a switch and make a change to a new OS in all businesses.

Queue all the people who work in businesses complaining that nearly 6 years isn't long enough to migrate Operating Systems, and demand Microsoft support them longer.

McKay said,

Queue all the people who work in businesses complaining that nearly 6 years isn't long enough to migrate Operating Systems, and demand Microsoft support them longer.

It isn't that simple. If you only had to migrate the OS (and perhaps a limited subset of applications) then there would be no problem. As you say, 6 years is plenty of time to test and rollout to a limited userbase, with a limited selection of applications.

However add tens or hundreds of departments into the mix, add bespoke applications, add applications written by vendors who no longer exist, applications which departments cannot afford to replace, and users who simply do not understand why they need to change. It's not always as clear cut or as simple as some people think.

Chicane-UK said,

I know it's not simple and clear cut, the people I work for will probably be on XP for the next 10-15 years, some computers are still 98, others NT 4.0, some are even DOS terminals. I know one section is migrating to server 2007 and Windows 7, but that is because the latest program they need no longer works on XP. I'm just saying that if companies aren't going to make the transition on time, they can't bitch and blame Microsoft and other software/software companies for halting support of Windows XP.

Simon- said,
Queue all the 12 year old posters who just don't understand that you can't just flick a switch and make a change to a new OS in all businesses.

No, but it shouldn't take 12 years to test and verify your in-house software works with a newer OS. And if it doesn't, how about getting their in-house devs to update their software? That used to frustrate me at my last job.

'Oh no, we can't upgrade. Our data recovery software doesn't work with anything above Windows Vista.....'

Simon- said,
Queue all the 12 year old posters who just don't understand that you can't just flick a switch and make a change to a new OS in all businesses.
Well said! And it's not always about the time or testing. Business is business and exists to make money. If I have a thing that's doing a job perfectly well, why do I want to spend money on a new thing that will do the same job? The economy isn't great at the moment, so my company wants to get as much out of its WinXP machines as it possibly can. Bit of Outlook, bit of Excel, bit of Word - all still rocking on WinXP on a day-to-day basis perfectly fine.

Cryton said,
Well said! And it's not always about the time or testing. Business is business and exists to make money.

So why should Microsoft, (A business) extend support because companies haven't been able to migrate from an ancient Operating System in nearly 6 years?

McKay said,

So why should Microsoft, (A business) extend support because companies haven't been able to migrate from an ancient Operating System in nearly 6 years?

I'm not asking MS to extend WinXP support.

briangw said,

No, but it shouldn't take 12 years to test and verify your in-house software works with a newer OS. And if it doesn't, how about getting their in-house devs to update their software? That used to frustrate me at my last job.

'Oh no, we can't upgrade. Our data recovery software doesn't work with anything above Windows Vista.....'

It can take AT LEAST that long when there are legal/regulatory hurdles to deal with as well. The legal and regulatory hurdles can actually cost more than the licenses (this is in reference to the user below talking about license costs) - remember, Windows - with or without Office - costs businesses and government agencies less than it does even SMBs, let alone individuals; it's why the lag time for the United States government (even Congress) can be horrendous.

PGHammer said,

It can take AT LEAST that long when there are legal/regulatory hurdles to deal with as well. The legal and regulatory hurdles can actually cost more than the licenses (this is in reference to the user below talking about license costs) - remember, Windows - with or without Office - costs businesses and government agencies less than it does even SMBs, let alone individuals; it's why the lag time for the United States government (even Congress) can be horrendous.

You don't need to preach to me about that. I worked at a Sarbanes Oxley governed company and the one I'm talking about here was a data recovery company where we had a top secret certified room just for the government to ask us to recover data.

Unfortunately, the reasons you mentioned were not the case for me. It was pure laziness and the holding out to see how long we could milk XP before truly upgrading. Problem is, let's plan the project when we have 5 times as much work later than what we had years prior....

Simon- said,
Queue all the 12 year old posters who just don't understand that you can't just flick a switch and make a change to a new OS in all businesses.

But equally there are many lazy businesses who fail to maintain and give their code the required TLC so then migrations to newer operating systems in the future aren't a painful experience. The problem ultimately sits with management and their refusal to see that code requires regular maintenance which means you might actually need to fork out some money for sufficient staff to take care of the task. For how many years have Microsoft made it known that VBA was coming to the end of its life? how many businesses out there knowing full well that it was the case still sat on a mountain of code doing nothing to migrate it or even plan a migration path? I'm not saying though that if everything was up to date there would be no problems but if managers and the IT department did their job then the migration from Windows XP to Windows 7 to Windows 8 shouldn't be a painful experience.

Btw, as for end users - with unemployment being the way it is a good 'shape up or ship out' message is in order for those who can't adapt with the times.

StevenNT said,
At my place of work only have a handful of laptops (as getting to them is a pain at times) left running XP, were mostly Windows 7 now and that took 2 years to get that far.

So the kids that thinking upgrading is not that difficult, need to try working in IT in a business for a living before saying "it's not hard".

StevenNT said,
At my place of work only have a handful of laptops (as getting to them is a pain at times) left running XP, were mostly Windows 7 now and that took 2 years to get that far.

So the kids that thinking upgrading is not that difficult, need to try working in IT in a business for a living before saying "it's not hard".

The key word is "kids." They seem to be the only ones lost in the rapture of Windows-8 on tablets.