Microsoft: Businesses waste money with Windows XP

Microsoft has been telling the general public, and especially businesses, who still have Windows XP installed on their PCs to upgrade to Windows 7 ASAP. The official support for Windows XP is due to end from Microsoft in less than two years. Today, Microsoft issued a new report, in collaboration with the analyst firm IDC, that claims to show businesses that still have Windows XP could benefit from an upgrade to Windows 7.

The official Windows Business blog links to a new whitepaper from IDC that goes over all of the reasons businesses should ditch Windows XP. The report's conclusion states:

Given the age of Windows XP, which is now two generations behind Microsoft's current product technology, the time has come for customers to realistically consider that they are placing their businesses at risk by continuing to utilize Windows XP. Organizations that continue to retain a Windows XP environment not only are leaving themselves exposed to security risks and support challenges but also are wasting budget dollars that would be better used in modernizing their IT investments.

So what if you have a business and just don't want to upgrade Windows XP because it "just works" for you? Microsoft and IDC say that would be a mistake. Microsoft's blog says:

IT labor costs go up 25 percent in the fourth year of continuing to run Windows XP past deadline, and user productivity suffers as well, with an increased cost of 23 percent. In the fifth year, IT labor increases by an additional 29 percent, and user productivity costs jump up a staggering 40 percent.

Microsoft is currently scheduled to end official support of Windows XP on April 8, 2014. Currently, Windows XP is still the most used PC OS in the world with Net Application showing it to have 46 percent of the total market share for PCs.

Source: Microsoft Business blog

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Italy ISPs ordered to block access to KickAssTorrents

Next Story

Bing Maps now using Nokia Maps for traffic and geocoding

93 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Problem is, MS makes $ when anyone buys win7, so they're not just motivated, but expected to say XP stinks - upgrade. If they released a statement saying the opposite how far would their stock drop? OK, so you go for an independent point of view -- where ya gonna find that? Folks can of course listen to all the fan boys, so many of whom seem to really enjoy calling them [XP users] stupid -- after all, calling someone stupid really enhances your credibility.

So at the end of the day you've got the same ol' status quo stalemate. Both sides of the debate have just enough truth on their side to keep those that are neutral, neutral, so Microsoft will continue spending marketing cash in a vain. Life goes on.

MS needs to push a SP4 for XP or a complete rollup before no longer supporting it. Last time I did a XP install which I do many, It took in over 100 updates past SP3 which is enough to warrant work on a service pack.

sava700 said,
MS needs to push a SP4 for XP or a complete rollup before no longer supporting it. Last time I did a XP install which I do many, It took in over 100 updates past SP3 which is enough to warrant work on a service pack.
Not really about 90% of that was security security patches.

sava700 said,
MS needs to push a SP4 for XP or a complete rollup before no longer supporting it. Last time I did a XP install which I do many, It took in over 100 updates past SP3 which is enough to warrant work on a service pack.
I don't see them wasting there time to do that on a walking dead OS...

sava700 said,
MS needs to push a SP4 for XP or a complete rollup before no longer supporting it. Last time I did a XP install which I do many, It took in over 100 updates past SP3 which is enough to warrant work on a service pack.

If they released a new service pack, they would have to support it per their support policy. Microsoft wants to ditch the XP baggage, not support it further.

sava700 said,
MS needs to push a SP4 for XP or a complete rollup before no longer supporting it. Last time I did a XP install which I do many, It took in over 100 updates past SP3 which is enough to warrant work on a service pack.

Or you could create your own custom slipstreamed install, as XP was the last OS that supported that technology.

It seems stupid that the article suggests maintaining support costs of XP will cost more than upgrading to Windows 7.. maybe with a handful of PCs..

Many of the businesses still to move are massive organisations with mountains of migration issues (custom apps with dependencies etc). The upgrade costs for many are in the millions. I just cant see how maintaining an XP fleet would cost more than the millions to move.

I can see Microsoft's point, but they are in this to make money and that means releasing new OS's.. it is their bread and butter... but along with that goes the continual forcing companies to upgrade so they can continue to make money.

The fact is, without the forcing of the hand, many many companies would happily stay on XP for many years to come and be happy with this (their risk, their decision, their business)

One of the dumbest things I've heard in a long time. To continue running XP, that is going to be supported for almost another 2 whole years, IS NOT costing anyone anything, period!

That's almost like saying Microsoft's updates aren't any good anymore either then.

MS just wants the money and to get IE9 ranked higher.

simplezz said,
Businesses lose money upgrading hardware unnecessarily.
Provided they have at least Core 2 Duo systems (maybe a Pentium D but that's pushing it significantly) with at least 2GB RAM, then they will run Windows 7 fine.

Hell, I ran Windows 7 on a P4 HT 3.4GHz with 2GB RAM and an old ATI X300SE and it ran well enough to let me do the basics (Office, Internet, etc.), which was all it needed to do.

Douglas_C said,
Provided they have at least Core 2 Duo systems (maybe a Pentium D but that's pushing it significantly) with at least 2GB RAM, then they will run Windows 7 fine.

Hell, I ran Windows 7 on a P4 HT 3.4GHz with 2GB RAM and an old ATI X300SE and it ran well enough to let me do the basics (Office, Internet, etc.), which was all it needed to do.


That's fair enough, but I've found the graphics to be the most troublesome area going from XP -> 7. Many systems just can''t run it. Memory is the second problem. XP works really great on 1GB of ram, and adding additional older memory is very expensive.

I just wish MS were more consistent with their products, at least for their business line.
Ppl don't care about nice effect, etc.
They want something simple, intuitive and consistent.
Anyone who works in the IT field will understand what i am talking about.

Imo Apple has a huge advantage there, would that be with OSX or iOS.

Krpano said,
I just wish MS were more consistent with their products, at least for their business line.
Ppl don't care about nice effect, etc.
They want something simple, intuitive and consistent.
Anyone who works in the IT field will understand what i am talking about.

Yes, I know exactly what you're talking about. It's called Windows 7.

Krpano said,
Imo Apple has a huge advantage there, would that be with OSX or iOS.

Er, no. As someone who's used computers for longer than I care to remember, every time I go and use OS X, it frustrates me to no end, and that's when I've fiddled with it enough to get it to behave in something that resembles a sane fashion.

I have no comment on iOS because I don't use it regularly.

jasonon said,
what will they say when its time to upgrade from win 7 to 8?

Its gonna be one f**kin' hard sell, that I'll tell ya. The days of large scale Windows upgrades are over, businesses are gonna stick with Windows 7 for a long, long time. Windows 7 is like the new XP x2 - hard to get rid of.

BumbleBritches57 said,
That was a typo, what they meant to say was "Business waste money running Microsoft Windows" at all. lmfao

Hilarious. I guess 90+% of the corporate world is wasting money then.

Phew, good thing my old workplace switched FROM Windows and ended up saving a ton of money in the process since they were able to toss out SQL servers, Exchange servers and lot of overpriced Windows server crud.

Not to mention they all run better now, on Linux.

MiukuMac said,
Phew, good thing my old workplace switched FROM Windows and ended up saving a ton of money in the process since they were able to toss out SQL servers, Exchange servers and lot of overpriced Windows server crud.

Not to mention they all run better now, on Linux.

Sure, if all you are doing is accessing Twitter, Facebook and Neowin now.

MiukuMac said,
Phew, good thing my old workplace switched FROM Windows and ended up saving a ton of money in the process since they were able to toss out SQL servers, Exchange servers and lot of overpriced Windows server crud.

Not to mention they all run better now, on Linux.

Right. I worked for a big support company with hundreds of users, who decided to ditch exchange.

There is NOTHING, that ditching exchange makes more efficient. there is no good alternative, only lots of lesser ones, and instead of one great solution, you have to use a ton of crappy ones. I think they knew that as well since they kept Exchange for upper management.

and besides, of course you saved money, that's what the article states. you where probably runnign old versions of windows.

_Heracles said,
XP: Oh hello, mr malicious executable from %tmp%, how are you?

7: GTFO K THNX


Hello Mr. Secpol.msc and Group Policy to lock that XP machine and Limited User Account.

FUD of desperation from Microsoft. But it won't be enough for people who see through their ways. Power users don't want to downgrade to a less customizable OS.

xpclient said,
FUD of desperation from Microsoft. But it won't be enough for people who see through their ways. Power users don't want to downgrade to a less customizable OS.

Speak for yourself. I'm on Windows 7 and 8 and have not looked back.

xpclient said,
FUD of desperation from Microsoft. But it won't be enough for people who see through their ways. Power users don't want to downgrade to a less customizable OS.

You're right, who would want to downgrade back to Windows XP? Might as well downgrade my car to a horse and carriage while I'm at it.

xpclient said,
FUD of desperation from Microsoft. But it won't be enough for people who see through their ways. Power users don't want to downgrade to a less customizable OS.

No, power users want to upgrade to a faster more streamlined and efficient OS. customizibility is worthless for them. power user != customizer/tweaker

Smells like FUD

I didn't bother reading the article but in this story and all the comments so far I have NOT seen any specific data to back up these claims being made..
On the contrary I see opinions thrown around proudly proclaimed as IT pro facts LOL

The xp won't run on new computers comment was funny.

The x64/8gb of ram comment was funny too
I guess buddy never heard of WINDOW XP 64BIT ?
I used it for a while solid as a rock

Not all companies need to rely on MS security updates I'd imagine

I can't imagine P2 or P3 computers sitting in offices using Windows 7
not happening..
Hence you would have to buy new machines.
So MS is saying ASAP all companies world wide should pour gasoline
on their xp machines and light the match, regardless of how smoothly they work
And then of course BUY new computers which I'd guess could cost a lot ?

I couldn't care less what machine I'm fixing for someone either
I actualy find working with xp to be a more easier to trouble shoot
Less bloat and garbage scattered everywhere, less services etc etc

Neowin is a den for tech nerds that just jump like lemmings to whatever is new
Anything old should be laughed at mocked and burnt at the stake .

I am Not PCyr said,
The x64/8gb of ram comment was funny too
I guess buddy never heard of WINDOW XP 64BIT ?
I used it for a while solid as a rock

Windows XP 64-bit isn't Windows XP, it's Windows Server 2003 with an XP shell slapped on it and the server components mostly removed. A lot of software that runs on XP 32-bit is incompatible with XP 64-bit.

FrozenEclipse said,

Windows XP 64-bit isn't Windows XP, it's Windows Server 2003 with an XP shell slapped on it and the server components mostly removed. A lot of software that runs on XP 32-bit is incompatible with XP 64-bit.

XP x64 was also about as stable as a straw hut in the blowing wind.

Higher Costs eh well from my paperwork and billing to all my businesses I deal with that use XP exclusive its been getting cheaper for them.... stop riding the H8 XP bandwagon...hell I got some clients who still use Win98 in theyre business and guess what doesnt cost them more to run it. Get your head out of the sand you dont need to upgrade if u dont need to and u got to remeber not all Business networks are connected to the internet

I own a till that is very widely used in petrol stations across the UK and Europe, it ran NT4 until 2008/2009, it was only upgraded to XP becasue they had to for the introduction of PCI DSS in credit card transactions which NT would support, i can't really see them upgrading it again anytime soon and dont see why they would want to can run 24/7 for 6 or 7 months at a time without needing to be restarted, i doubt windows vista or 7 could last like that.

It also connects to a back office that runs Windows 3.11

[quote=atkinsn2000 saidi doubt windows vista or 7 could last like that.

It also connects to a back office that runs Windows 3.11[/quote]

Uh, Windows Vista/7 are based on the same NT code base, so yes, it could last just as long. I have run Vista and 7 for months at a time without restarting. Becareful of misconceptions. Your situation is, Windows XP works for you and you don't require the upgrade, nothing more, nothing less.

atkinsn2000 said,
can run 24/7 for 6 or 7 months at a time without needing to be restarted, i doubt windows vista or 7 could last like that.

Why ? in a situation like this, it would be capable of running stable for at least as long as NT and XP. in fact Vista and 7 are both more resilient than NT/XP and capable of running for far longer even in a chaotic home user environment. in your situation I could see it running until the computer dies of old age without needing anything.

atkinsn2000 said,

It also connects to a back office that runs Windows 3.11

I have some pretty old hardware that I love to tinker with every now and then, but I have to say... if you have NT clients running against a 3.11 server, that set-up alone is so specialized, it has no bearing in the real world of decision-making. Nobody entering the work force today would be able to manage that network in the future. You're probably working with staff that has been around since that software was installed.

Also, Windows 3.11's hardware support is so archaic and covers stuff so long out of production, I almost feel like doubting your story. Hardware can last a long time if it's well taken care of and not heavily used, but a 24/7 server environment? On storage that old? Limited to file systems that inefficient? Depending on cards, motherboards, and input devices from that era? I doubt they're being dusted regularly, and you clearly aren't taking them offline for service very often.

If those things really are up and running, they WILL crash and burn some day, from simply hitting the lifespan of irreplaceable components. You won't find people able to service, repair, or replace anything, unless you spend personal time scouring eBay and the like (just to find hardware that won't be in tip-top shape).

Nothing lasts forever, and if your business can't afford to overhaul its tech at least every 8-10 years, I have serious doubts about the people in charge and their qualifications as management.

As an IT Admin windows 7 is so much easier to deploy and maintain then windows xp. For non power users it does not matter but for power users and the admin staff its a huge difference. As soon as people at work got windows 7 at home they were demanding it be installled on their machines.

majortom1981 said,
As an IT Admin windows 7 is so much easier to deploy and maintain then windows xp.

Exactly, that time and effort saved piles up over time, making 7 a much better investment.

majortom1981 said,
As an IT Admin windows 7 is so much easier to deploy and maintain then windows xp. For non power users it does not matter but for power users and the admin staff its a huge difference. As soon as people at work got windows 7 at home they were demanding it be installled on their machines.


It's true. You'll occasionally see some ragtag group of IT people posting on Neowin who talk about their "clients" not being able to do this or that, and yada yada should stay on XP, and I don't know what podunk town they're running IT in, but I'm amazed by their inability to grasp how the big players work.

I see how businesses can just see a giant cost of upgrading as too much to handle, but if they looked at the long term, they would probably end up saving money over a couple years. XP usually costs more to just maintain and support than 7 and if you have a massive enterprise environment, that cost adds up over time. If you factor in a couple years, the cost of keeping XP up and running will eclipse the one time cost of upgrading to 7.

XP even performs worse on newer hardware since it can't take advantage of any of the new tech. While this may seem like no big deal, if one employee saves 15 minutes a day and you have 10,000 employees over the course of a year or so, thats a lot of time saved in just waiting for your computer to complete tasks.

On top of that, with so many virtualization options for applications in 7, having old enterprise apps really isn't that much of an issue anymore. You can upgrade your clients to 7 and still run all your old apps.

What worries me the most, however, is security. While most IT guys will claim that XP is secure, 7 is lightyears ahead. Especially when you are dealing with employees who may not totally understand computers, XP is far more likely to get infected or even hacked. There's time lost and even the possibility of losing customer records or sensitive corporate data.

Chrono951 said,
I see how businesses can just see a giant cost of upgrading as too much to handle, but if they looked at the long term, they would probably end up saving money over a couple years. XP usually costs more to just maintain and support than 7 and if you have a massive enterprise environment, that cost adds up over time. If you factor in a couple years, the cost of keeping XP up and running will eclipse the one time cost of upgrading to 7.

XP even performs worse on newer hardware since it can't take advantage of any of the new tech. While this may seem like no big deal, if one employee saves 15 minutes a day and you have 10,000 employees over the course of a year or so, thats a lot of time saved in just waiting for your computer to complete tasks.

On top of that, with so many virtualization options for applications in 7, having old enterprise apps really isn't that much of an issue anymore. You can upgrade your clients to 7 and still run all your old apps.

What worries me the most, however, is security. While most IT guys will claim that XP is secure, 7 is lightyears ahead. Especially when you are dealing with employees who may not totally understand computers, XP is far more likely to get infected or even hacked. There's time lost and even the possibility of losing customer records or sensitive corporate data.

Calling XP secure is like calling the Titanic unsinkable.

Er, wait....

Chrono951 said,
.

I have seen Windows 7 catch the same viruses as a Windows XP systems. It still requires the same degree of lock down as an XP system. Preventing unauthorized .exe's from running, much of which is done through Group Policy, once you have done that, you can make Windows XP just as secure as Windows 7. There are some low level improvements to Windows 7 such driver signing, patch guard, standard accounts, but I still Windows 7 systems compromised, fully updated or not updated.

It really boils down to how you approach security. If you lock down both, you can keep them secure.

Mr. Dee said,

There are some low level improvements to Windows 7 such driver signing, patch guard, standard accounts

Address Space Layout Randomization, Data Execution Protection, Protected Mode (Internet Explorer Sandboxing)

Exploiting a buffer overflow in Windows 7 is much much more difficult than it is in Windows XP, where it is a trivial task.

With Windows 7, if you see an infected system, it's probably because somebody was stupid and thought it would be a good idea to install a Trojan - for whatever social engineering-based reason.

Dot Matrix said,

Calling XP secure is like calling the Titanic unsinkable.

Er, wait....

I wonder in a few years time if we will see "7 is as secure as a cheese grater - get Windows 9 to be safe".... I have a client who uses XP a lot more securely than other clients with 7.

Depicus said,

I wonder in a few years time if we will see "7 is as secure as a cheese grater - get Windows 9 to be safe".... I have a client who uses XP a lot more securely than other clients with 7.

Windows 7 has been out for 3 years now, and neither it nor Vista have had the serious security vulnerabilities that forced XP SP 2 or the Trustworthy Computing. I think it's safe to say, while not perfect, it's DAMN better than XP was at the same point in its lifecycle.

My school still has XP machines in the lab. Each time I use one, I have to manually search the Start Menu, Control Panel, or whatever the frak else I need to search to find what I need, I can no longer easily snap windows to the side, no jumplists, heavily dependent on archaic drop down menus, inefficient UI.... I'm wasting too much time literally clicking around the OS for what I need, which hinders my workflow.

Come on guys, it's 2012, it's time. It's been time.

Edited by Dot Matrix, May 25 2012, 2:36am :

Mr. Dee said,

...

Was that really necessary? And is that really your response to a lack of Aero Snap and no search bar in the Start Menu in XP?

Mr. Dee said,

Windows logo key +Tab
Cycle through programs on the taskbar by using Aero Flip 3-D

Ctrl+Windows logo key +Tab
Use the arrow keys to cycle through programs on the taskbar by using Aero Flip 3-D


The funny part is, you don't even know what you posted... you just copy and pasted from some website. Not all these commands are available on Windows XP, like the ones I've quoted above. That's not going to help your argument that you can do anything you want to do in Windows 7, in Windows XP using keyboard shortcuts.

This is a pile of horse ****. The real waste would be upgrading to Windows 7 just for the sake of having Windows 7, and just as Windows 7 is going out the door at that. Windows XP is stable, familiar and fast on the cheapest hardware. What the **** does Windows 7 have to offer over it? Retraining all your staff, buying new computers and buying new versions of your software - possibly even having to rewrite some of your custom software? Yea. Real savings there...

Fry said,
This is a pile of horse ****. The real waste would be upgrading to Windows 7 just for the sake of having Windows 7, and just as Windows 7 is going out the door at that. Windows XP is stable, familiar and fast on the cheapest hardware. What the **** does Windows 7 have to offer over it? Retraining all your staff, buying new computers and buying new versions of your software - possibly even having to rewrite some of your custom software? Yea. Real savings there...

What happens in 2014 when you're running unsupported software? How much money will be wasted when a problem rises? (And it will)

Fry said,
This is a pile of horse ****. The real waste would be upgrading to Windows 7 just for the sake of having Windows 7, and just as Windows 7 is going out the door at that. Windows XP is stable, familiar and fast on the cheapest hardware. What the **** does Windows 7 have to offer over it? Retraining all your staff, buying new computers and buying new versions of your software - possibly even having to rewrite some of your custom software? Yea. Real savings there...

one of the more obvious areas is for those with more than 4GB of ram a 64bit OS is REQUIRED (if you want to use the 8GB of course) which basically means you want either Vista or 7.

so while many older PC's are 4GB or RAM or less most modern PC's have at least 4GB of RAM in them and sometimes more as you can get 8GB of RAM (DDR 1333mhz (2x 4GB)) for about $40 right now which is dirt cheap for that much RAM and with 8GB your pretty much future proofed into the foreseeable future.

Fry said,
This is a pile of horse ****. The real waste would be upgrading to Windows 7 just for the sake of having Windows 7, and just as Windows 7 is going out the door at that. Windows XP is stable, familiar and fast on the cheapest hardware. What the **** does Windows 7 have to offer over it? Retraining all your staff, buying new computers and buying new versions of your software - possibly even having to rewrite some of your custom software? Yea. Real savings there...
This.
Upgrade the OS when you upgrade the machines, there is literally no benefit of upgrading the OS if it's all running smoothly already.

Businesses wasting money running XP? Hardly. It is called getting one's moneys worth out of an Operating System, hardware, and software. Businesses are not like some people who feel the need to have, or can afford, the "latest and greatest" toy. If and when XP is no longer viable, Windows-7 becomes a possible good choice; as businesses can still get several year's use out of their hardware (and possibly software). Windows-8? Hardly--hence MS's major miscalculation with its pandering to the smartphone/tablet form factor. Businesses are not going to spend the needless extra expense to get touch-screens to use the Metro interface. Besides, they will still need to use keyboards and mice.

Just out of curiosity, why would IT labour costs increase when continuing to use XP?
Is it perhaps because security exploits will no longer be fixed by Microsoft?

Also:

IT labor costs go up 25 percent in the fourth year of continuing to run Windows XP past deadline...

But if the XP support deadline isn't for another two years or so, that labour cost increase is approximately six years away, correct?

Cute James said,
Just out of curiosity, why would IT labour costs increase when continuing to use XP?

With 7 came a huge a number of improvements that make it easier to deploy, maintain, and even provide support. By continuing to use XP, you are not only going to spend tons on keep the environment secure, but just the overall day to day costs of running XP compared to 7 in a huge enterprise environment are higher. This adds up over time in money and man hours.

Just look at the time it takes to install 7 vs XP. XP can take upwards of an hour whereas 7 can be up and running in under 20 minutes.

Cute James said,
Just out of curiosity, why would IT labour costs increase when continuing to use XP?
Is it perhaps because security exploits will no longer be fixed by Microsoft?

Also:

But if the XP support deadline isn't for another two years or so, that labour cost increase is approximately six years away, correct?

On the contrary, I have seem Windows 7 systems just as easily compromised and messed up as Windows XP after a few months. I have work education and I use EDU which heavily locks down Windows XP and it does a good job of making my customers (secure, bored and focus on what they should be doing), which are just using Microsoft Office and a web browser. Not to mention, upgrading these systems to Windows 7 would slow them down.

Chrono951 said,

With 7 came a huge a number of improvements that make it easier to deploy, maintain, and even provide support. By continuing to use XP, you are not only going to spend tons on keep the environment secure, but just the overall day to day costs of running XP compared to 7 in a huge enterprise environment are higher. This adds up over time in money and man hours.

Just look at the time it takes to install 7 vs XP. XP can take upwards of an hour whereas 7 can be up and running in under 20 minutes.


I've found it takes a lot more than an hour in general, updates, sourcing drivers, platform updates to allow modern apps to be installed (if compatible) not to mention the new apps that will simply run buggy and slow on XP.

XP is EASILY customizable, the GUI is what I need it to be.

Mac is what it is regardless of your smarts.

Linux is customizable but it's difficult as hell and not usable for a production environment.

Windows 7 is Vista++, it just wastes slightly less RAM (while still wasting tons of it for no justifiable reason) and 8 bloats Windows Explorer's toolbar with every option. No, a tiny 18 pixel high toolbar doesn't count, that's too small to click on. The gigantic toolbar is too massive and you can't customize it at all.

What the hell happened to Microsoft? Some people may say 7 is the new XP but by the time XP is using a GB of RAM I've already been working for two hours. 7's Windows Explorer toolbars keep jumping around whereas XP's stay reliably predictable. XP has a modest classic start menu whereas 7 has a gigantic bloated unorganized juggerf#$k.

Yeah, save money by spending money and downgrade to a worse user interface?

Queue troll comments from people who the moment they boot open a video game and call that OS interaction.

JAB Creations said,

Windows 7 is Vista++, it just wastes slightly less RAM (while still wasting tons of it for no justifiable reason)

This just killed your argument's credibility.

JAB Creations said,
XP is EASILY customizable, the GUI is what I need it to be.

Mac is what it is regardless of your smarts.

Linux is customizable but it's difficult as hell and not usable for a production environment.

Windows 7 is Vista++, it just wastes slightly less RAM (while still wasting tons of it for no justifiable reason) and 8 bloats Windows Explorer's toolbar with every option. No, a tiny 18 pixel high toolbar doesn't count, that's too small to click on. The gigantic toolbar is too massive and you can't customize it at all.

What the hell happened to Microsoft? Some people may say 7 is the new XP but by the time XP is using a GB of RAM I've already been working for two hours. 7's Windows Explorer toolbars keep jumping around whereas XP's stay reliably predictable. XP has a modest classic start menu whereas 7 has a gigantic bloated unorganized juggerf#$k.

Yeah, save money by spending money and downgrade to a worse user interface?

Queue troll comments from people who the moment they boot open a video game and call that OS interaction.

Huh? Windows Vista and Windows 7 use more RAM, because unused RAM is wasted RAM. Look it up sometime, it's called SuperFetch. And when the system needs the RAM, SuperFetch releases it, to be used. This has been common knowledge for a while now. Time to get out from that rock.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...I/O_technologies#SuperFetch

JAB Creations said,
8 bloats Windows Explorer's toolbar with every option. No, a tiny 18 pixel high toolbar doesn't count, that's too small to click on. The gigantic toolbar is too massive and you can't customize it at all.

The QAT is about all the customization you need, especially if all you seem to be using is a few commands. Also, the Ribbon does have some nice organization tools that are now more accessible. I especially love the Copy to Path feature.

JAB Creations said,
XP is EASILY customizable, the GUI is what I need it to be.

Mac is what it is regardless of your smarts.

Linux is customizable but it's difficult as hell and not usable for a production environment.

Windows 7 is Vista++, it just wastes slightly less RAM (while still wasting tons of it for no justifiable reason) and 8 bloats Windows Explorer's toolbar with every option. No, a tiny 18 pixel high toolbar doesn't count, that's too small to click on. The gigantic toolbar is too massive and you can't customize it at all.

What the hell happened to Microsoft? Some people may say 7 is the new XP but by the time XP is using a GB of RAM I've already been working for two hours. 7's Windows Explorer toolbars keep jumping around whereas XP's stay reliably predictable. XP has a modest classic start menu whereas 7 has a gigantic bloated unorganized juggerf#$k.

Yeah, save money by spending money and downgrade to a worse user interface?

Queue troll comments from people who the moment they boot open a video game and call that OS interaction.


it never fails to amaze me just where ideas such as this spring from, they have no basis in reality. You must have read some uninformed idiot speak it years ago and just stuck with it, well done you

What if you buy new computers for a business. Windows XP won't support the new hardware. I don't get these businesses that refuse change.

DPyro said,
What if you buy new computers for a business. Windows XP won't support the new hardware. I don't get these businesses that refuse change.

That's wrong.
It will run just fine, just not utilize all the bang and power.

Certainly enough for most of office work out there.

I see where MS is coming from though and they are not just trying to get more money by licensing a more current and hence more expensive OS.

GS:mac

Glassed Silver said,

That's wrong.
It will run just fine, just not utilize all the bang and power.

Certainly enough for most of office work out there.

I see where MS is coming from though and they are not just trying to get more money by licensing a more current and hence more expensive OS.

GS:mac


Sorry Ms. Silver, but the new computer I bought recently will not run or even work with XP except in a VM. attempted to set it up as a dual boot; basically it just sat there and looked at me as if I was the dumbest person on earth.

Pam14160 said,

Sorry Ms. Silver, but the new computer I bought recently will not run or even work with XP except in a VM. attempted to set it up as a dual boot; basically it just sat there and looked at me as if I was the dumbest person on earth.

That's interesting, as so far I've seen XP run on virtually anything.
What's the build like?

GS:mac

Glassed Silver said,

That's wrong.
It will run just fine, just not utilize all the bang and power.

Certainly enough for most of office work out there.

I see where MS is coming from though and they are not just trying to get more money by licensing a more current and hence more expensive OS.

GS:mac

Hardware isn't meant to run XP anymore, especially newer hardware which has no XP drivers. The market has moved on, so why can't these people?

Glassed Silver said,

That's wrong.
It will run just fine, just not utilize all the bang and power.

Certainly enough for most of office work out there.

I see where MS is coming from though and they are not just trying to get more money by licensing a more current and hence more expensive OS.

GS:mac

What does GS:mac mean?

ccoltmanm said,

What does GS:mac mean?

Could be wrong, but I believe it's just his username's initials combined with whatever platform he's using to make the post on, in this case, a Mac.

Dot Matrix said,

Hardware isn't meant to run XP anymore, especially newer hardware which has no XP drivers. The market has moved on, so why can't these people?

Really !!!!!!

I can see you would want to push people to 7 or 8 but I don't think you can ever say machines aren't meant to run XP. As far as I know there aren't many 128bit processors in the wild so why would XP not run on any modern machine. Hell I run XP on a Macbook Air 2012 so while it wasn't easy to install the hardware was "meant" to run it.

Depicus said,

Really !!!!!!

I can see you would want to push people to 7 or 8 but I don't think you can ever say machines aren't meant to run XP. As far as I know there aren't many 128bit processors in the wild so why would XP not run on any modern machine. Hell I run XP on a Macbook Air 2012 so while it wasn't easy to install the hardware was "meant" to run it.

Huh? You're going to shoehorn XP onto modern, multi core, x64 bit processors, wasting all but 2GB of RAM, not to mention fight the machine trying to install third rate drivers onto that new SSD or SATA drive. Not to mention put that new DX11 graphics chip to shame. You'll be lucky if have this stuff has XP drivers to begin with.

You tell me hardware is still built for XP.

Dot Matrix said,

Huh? You're going to shoehorn XP onto modern, multi core, x64 bit processors, wasting all but 2GB of RAM, not to mention fight the machine trying to install third rate drivers onto that new SSD or SATA drive. Not to mention put that new DX11 graphics chip to shame. You'll be lucky if have this stuff has XP drivers to begin with.

You tell me hardware is still built for XP.


The article is about business use (aka office use as opposed to gaming etc).
Whilst the hardware isn't built for XP anymore, it certainly still supports it most of the time and that's what this is about.
Microsoft says you end up paying more if you stil to XP and there are reasons why they are right, but certainly the "getting 100% out of your rig" isn't to be applied here, wrong topic.

GS:mac

Glassed Silver said,

The article is about business use (aka office use as opposed to gaming etc).
Whilst the hardware isn't built for XP anymore, it certainly still supports it most of the time and that's what this is about.
Microsoft says you end up paying more if you stil to XP and there are reasons why they are right, but certainly the "getting 100% out of your rig" isn't to be applied here, wrong topic.

GS:mac

Honestly, it's not at all about gaming. Most PCs you buy today, are all x64, 4GB RAM, DX10/11 ready systems. If you have a company going for a hardware refresh, then that is when you move to 7. But anyone stupid enough to shoehorn XP onto these systems, is going to pay for the man hours and support needed to do that.

Dot Matrix said,

Honestly, it's not at all about gaming. Most PCs you buy today, are all x64, 4GB RAM, DX10/11 ready systems. If you have a company going for a hardware refresh, then that is when you move to 7. But anyone stupid enough to shoehorn XP onto these systems, is going to pay for the man hours and support needed to do that.


That's basically what I tried to say

GS:mac

soldier1st said,

Wrong.

Windows XP can only utilize 2 gigs though. I don't care if you have 16g of ram- it can only use 2g of it. There are 3rd party tools to remove that restriction though.

butilikethecookie said,

Windows XP can only utilize 2 gigs though. I don't care if you have 16g of ram- it can only use 2g of it. There are 3rd party tools to remove that restriction though.


AFAIK the real limit is 4GB and beyond. No chance there, anything else is golden.
The 2GB bottleneck is that ONE application cannot use more than 2GB on 32bit in Windows.

GS:mac

Chica Ami said,
How can business lose money with Windows XP? Strange and interesting fact.

No clue especially since many of the clients I deal with whom are still running XP are doing so because they are also running proprietary software that will not run on Vista/Win7.

I wonder if this analyst has calculated the additional costs of upgrading these systems. I've seen costs estimates for upgrading this systems nearly reach into the 100k range, programmers don't come cheap you know.

Scorbing said,

They are not Chica Ami. That's just Microsoft being dicks about it and trying to force business and people to jump on the latest and greatest version of Windows. An OS cannot make a business lose money if its doing what that business wants it to do. Microsoft is full of sh....t.

Can't blame them from wanting to kill off an operating system they do not want to support. I'm sure you know of all the security benefits moving to a newer OS would bring.

Also, every time a system goes down and XP has to be re-installed, all the updates, software etc have to be re-installed. Takes up time on the systems administrator.

My work uses Windows 2000 CE on it's dumb terminals and they're always crashing for silly things. Annoy's customers more than us staff.

Scorbing said,

They are not Chica Ami. That's just Microsoft being dicks about it and trying to force business and people to jump on the latest and greatest version of Windows. An OS cannot make a business lose money if its doing what that business wants it to do. Microsoft is full of sh....t.

Do you really expect Microsoft to support a now 11-year old OS forever?

Chica Ami said,
How can business lose money with Windows XP? Strange and interesting fact.

Maybe they are referring to businesses buying new computers and downgrading them from Windows 7 to XP?

There's hardly any point in reading the article when it's so biased as it is.
It's like Nike telling you that you're wasting money buying old clothes. Of course they'll say such a thing to sell their product.

Microsoft has been telling the general public, and especially businesses, who still have Windows XP installed on their PCs to upgrade to Windows 7 ASAP.