Microsoft tries to get tech savvy customers to help get rid of Windows XP

How desperate is Microsoft in its quest to get as many people to stop using Windows XP? Based on the tone of a new blog post from the company today, it's very desperate to stop folks from using the 12-year old operating system before it stops supporting it on April 8th.

The post on the Windows Experience blog says that if you are reading it, "it’s unlikely you are running Windows XP on your PC However, you may know someone who is and have even served as their tech support." Therefore, Microsoft seems to think that you are the perfect person to spread "the word to ensure people are safe and secure on modern up-to-date PCs."

It suggests that readers help others with Windows XP to see if that PC can run Windows 8.1 or simply buy a new computer with the newest version of the OS installed. The blog adds, "Once they choose and buy a new device, they can transfer their files from their old PC by copying them to an external hard drive, USB flash drive, or cloud storage like SkyDrive."

The latest numbers from Net Applications show that Windows XP is still being used by nearly 30 percent of all PCs worldwide. Even in the United States, recent numbers from StatCounter show that the OS is installed on over 12 percent of PCs. It's likely that Windows XP will continue to be used by a pretty significant fraction of computer owners after April 8th.

Source: Microsoft | PC help image via Shutterstock

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Apple removes popular Bitcoin app from iOS App Store

Next Story

Downing Street Police officers found sharing pornography, through Bluetooth

109 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I upgraded my Dads family computer to 8. I spent 15 minutes with him afterwards explaining the start menu had changed into the start screen and how it worked. How to pin and launch apps, how to shutdown etc. Haven't had a single phone call about computer problems since, and I used to get them so regularly.

I've converted a few people over to using iPads. All they need is something simple basically for internet and email. They don't need a full blown PC and all the crap that comes along with owning a windows PC. like viruses, malware constant updates..etc.

Whoever is still running XP is welcome to it, but don't come complaining when it gets destroyed by zero-day exploits after April.

You've had years of warning, plenty of cheap upgrade offers, and tons of time to save up for a computer from this decade. Continue at your own risk.

People who still use xp are those who are not into computers anyway. If that's the case I would not steer them to windows 7 but to Google Chromebook instead. It's not fair that people can't use their reliable working computers just because Microsoft doesn't feel like supporting it anymore.

At least with Chromebooks, the updates are free and easy and best of all inexpensive.

I don't feel like you are contributing anything with that post. If you want to steer people to chrome, that's your choice because the point of this article is to get people not to use XP. All updates are free as long as you are in that version e.g window 8 --> window 8.1 (free).
I pity the person that listen to you just because you are not helping the person with their actual need.

VictorWho said,
It's not fair that people can't use their reliable working computers just because Microsoft doesn't feel like supporting it anymore.

Microsoft can't support their old software forever. They are business not a charity. It costs them a lot of time and money to keep supporting Windows XP yet they have done so for over a decade. How many other software companies can say they support their products that long?

I have an old Deskpro 386 in my closet that works perfectly. Should Microsoft continue to support Windows 3.1 just because I might want to keep using it? What is not fair is for people using ancient computers from a decade ago to expect Microsoft to keep supporting them. You can get a used PC that runs Windows 7 or 8 perfectly well for almost nothing these days; there is no excuse.

Edited by Thrackerzod, Feb 8 2014, 8:25pm :

People using Chrome pay much more than money, they pay for their privacy and a much restricted experience.

Unless all these people do is run Facebook, chrome os isn't an option. Whether or not chrome os is still around in a decade or so is debatable.

And of course their machines aren't magically going to stop working come April. Microsoft has supported XP for more than 12 years. There is no consumer grade os with such a long support cycle. And it's not like MS has suddenly decided to stop supporting the product, in fact they have extended the already very generous support cycle.

People have no issues buying 4-500 dollar smartphones every two years, but whine about a 30 dollar windows license, that last them 12 years !

"doesn't feel like supporting it anymore". Yeah right, so why don't you come back after more than 12 years and let's see how well Google is supporting that same POS Chromebook.

I'll upgrade my family and friends to Windows 7....but I'll be using my 1 - 2 user Windows 7 Pro product key for all 10 them because they'yre too tight to fork out for an OS licence.

Is that okay with you Microsoft?


Yeah, I did''t think so

Why would that be okay for Microsoft ?. Piracy is stealing.

These people bought a computer with XP, license cost probably around 30 bucks, which amounts to say 3 bucks a year. They have enjoyed over 12 years of support, which compared to other operating systems (such as OSX for instance) is an exception.

If these people are to tight to invest, let them continue to run XP, it would be hilarious if they fell victim to a nasty hack that cost them financially. At least they can't claim they haven't been warned...

The only people I know that run XP are older ones who don't do much on their computers. Email, Facebook and a few crappy games. A perfect example of a casual PC user. And a lot of them have either a smartphone or a tablet that has taken over a lot of tasks they used to do on their PC.

This is the problem Microsoft is facing, a huge chunk of their OS user base are these kinds of casual users. Sitting at a desk in front of a screen is not something many people will do.

And in the case of people using XP, it does what it needs to do and that's about it. Most of them don't even know what an operating system is or what the difference between storage and memory is. I would never tell them to upgrade their entire system or purchase a whole new PC when for the same price they can have a tablet or smartphone and do the majority of things they do on their PC.

The operating system market is shifting towards more service packs and less major releases. I just hope Microsoft can adjust accordingly.

stevan said,
The only people I know that run XP are older ones who don't do much on their computers. Email, Facebook and a few crappy games. A perfect example of a casual PC user. And a lot of them have either a smartphone or a tablet that has taken over a lot of tasks they used to do on their PC.

You are resuming 90% of the users.

VMware Player hasn't failed me yet. It emulates ECW midis, something LONG sought after by electronic musicians. Let the good times roll. Enjoy a future OS + a VM to take care of your legacy functions.

I usually tell people to buy a new machine. Between the cost of XP, my labor and more ram they are better off getting a new machine

I just saw a machine that had a P4 with 512 megs of ram that wanted to install 7. I told her you might as well just replace the machine.

Edited by warwagon, Feb 8 2014, 3:23pm :

I know a lot of people who are like my brother. They ask me will XP still work after that April date and I have to tell them yes, it will. They simply say there's no reason to upgrade then.

I definitely wouldn't tell them to upgrade to Vista OR Windows 8 though, but have tried getting them on Windows 7, but they still refuse.

I've downgraded WAY more machines from Windows 8 to 7, then the other way around though!

If that's the case, stop telling people Windows 8 sucks. All you do is in 10 years make Windows 7 go through the exact same pile of dogsh*t Windows XP is going through right now.

THANKS MAN!

Well done.

You don't like (in other words can't be bothered to / are unable to learn a few new things), so you put everyone else off of using it.

warwagon said,
He's probably downgrading them because people ask him too.

People ask me too, but when i come with simple reasoning like "Its much more secure, has a much safer environment, harder to screw it up for them on their own so they need some IT guy help and that besides this its basically Windows 7 once you install classicshell or similar" few people pick a previous Windows.

Not hard to change their minds on something they hate because 'the internet said so'.

warwagon said,
He's probably downgrading them because people ask him too.

It's usually much easier to give a 1 minute tutorial and directly address their questions than it is to completely reinstall Windows 7 and set it up the way they like it (updates, programs, etc). Even installing a start menu replacement program would be easier.

But it's more profitable when doing support to just pander and charge them for an hour or so of work.

Would love to, but tried this with some old relatives and had to beat a hasty retreat within 2 days. Eventually decided the best course of action was to slap in more RAM and install Win7, which they're happily using now. Too bad, but can't be helped.

UI obviously, both of the OS and programs. Similar in many ways but obviously not the same and they were often at a loss to locate things (they couldn't understand where all the Windows program names had gone and why they had to use these other ones and who could remember the names of these other ones and why items inside had moved and...). They'd have struggled with Win8 too without a Start Menu replacement, which is why I activated with an unused Win7 license I had. Also issues with drivers for some peripherals and of course other stuff where they were afraid to proceed due to complete unfamiliarity. Some issues they couldn't even describe properly and just got clubbed together under the same banner of "put the computer back just the way it was". I finally thought enough with the complaining, it's better to go clean out their system once in a while than deal with this on a daily basis.

That's weird. The people I switched over were using the same apps in Linux as they did in Windows (Firefox, Chrome, ThunderBird, etc) and the new ones such as Simple Scan and LibreOffice were easy to learn, in fact they were happy to go back to a more familiar interface in the case of LibreOffice! The Gnome interface is easily configurable to look like Windows' taskbar and start menu (just drag and drop in place, then lock it to prevent modification), that's what I did. I even put commonly used programs on the desktop. They loved it!

In the case of drivers, I wonder what hardware they were using? I haven't come across a piece of hardware that Linux couldn't handle. In fact, I was able to get some webcams and scanners to work in Linux that vendors dropped support for in Windows Vista and above (remember this? http://pcsupport.about.com/od/termshm/g/windowshcl.htm )

Some of these people were looking to move to a newer PC since they had Pentium 3 level hardware, I built the boxes myself and didn't come across anything that wouldn't work.

Sorry to hear about your bad luck!

Edited by Geezy, Feb 9 2014, 10:06pm :

It's funny how much MS relies on techies to provide free help. I've done my share in the past, 10+ years of supporting Windows machines for family and friends without charge. It took up a lot of my free time. No offense, but I quit!

My family has over the years increasingly been using iOS and Android devices. Do you think it has reduced support calls to me? Sadly no, since technology remains too complex for many and they need a helping hand regardless of which company they go with. It's the curse/cross one must bear when one is recognized as the family or neighborhood's tech guru.

That's too bad for you. I guess after using PCs for that long, my family/friends have gotten used to how things work... The only problems they had where when something unintentional happened, which I had to clean up. Ever since I got them off Windows, I only get hardware failure and maintenance questions.

I work in an NHS hospital. We're still running Windows XP and due to upgrade from July-September. They're unsure of the dates so far.

Listen and understand. Windows XP is out there. It can't be bargained with, it can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear, and it absolutely will not stop. Until you are dead.

"Once they choose and buy a new device, they can transfer their files from their old PC by copying them to an external hard drive, USB flash drive, or cloud storage like SkyDrive."

Execept, the SkyDrive windows applications ISN'T available on XP (http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/skydrive/windows-app-faq) ...so they'd have to manually upload files through their web browser (does skydrive.com even work on IE8!?)

SkyDrive is NOT a suitable data-transfer solution for those migrating from XP!!

GreatMarkO said,
"Once they choose and buy a new device, they can transfer their files from their old PC by copying them to an external hard drive, USB flash drive, or cloud storage like SkyDrive."

Execept, the SkyDrive windows applications ISN'T available on XP (http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/skydrive/windows-app-faq) ...so they'd have to manually upload files through their web browser (does skydrive.com even work on IE8!?)

SkyDrive is NOT a suitable data-transfer solution for those migrating from XP!!

The Files and Settings Transfer Wizard works from when it was first implemented to 8.1. Run it on XP, upload the archive to SkyDrive, reinstall, download the archive and restore it. Done!

GreatMarkO said,
SkyDrive is NOT a suitable data-transfer solution for those migrating

Well, it certainly isn't for those who have a large amount of data, a slow internet connection, or a small download limit...

The sad truth: If they claimed they haven't had time or money to upgrade yet, they never will.

Corps who say these things will stay and have no plan to leave. Same with users. Good news is most businesses are finally leaving. Many smaller ones will keep XP

eilegz said,
i have another idea why microsoft wont open source windows xp, let others do the job....


Because that would also open source vista, 7, and 8. Deep down inside they're very closely related. Open source isn't the solution to everything, I hate that fallacy.

siah1214 said,

Because that would also open source vista, 7, and 8. Deep down inside they're very closely related. Open source isn't the solution to everything, I hate that fallacy.

Correct, not to mention the fact that it would make no business sense at all. Why would they want to release a free product that is going to compete with sales of their current product?

This has to be without doubt one of the most inane suggestions I've ever heard. Ignoring for a moment what siah1214 and Thrackerzod rightly stated, instead of wasting the open source community's time and energy fixing an ancient OS (even if they cared), why don't you just install the latest version of Linux? Or is that too much for you to handle?

"or simply buy a new computer with the newest version of the OS installed."

Not everyone needs, wants or is able to buy a new computer just because Microsoft say so.

lkernan said,
"or simply buy a new computer with the newest version of the OS installed."

Not everyone needs, wants or is able to buy a new computer just because Microsoft say so.

Microsoft has extended the lifespan of Windows XP on a number of occasions to appease these people. If there are still people out there who are unwilling/unable to migrate from XP, then too bad for them.

Kaze23 said,

Microsoft has extended the lifespan of Windows XP on a number of occasions to appease these people. If there are still people out there who are unwilling/unable to migrate from XP, then too bad for them.

Yeah, I think 12 years is very very kind. How much is the price per year then of Windows? Is MS losing money from Windows XP users and their demands of indefinite support. Well, those XP users are hardly a source of revenue.

If people can't be bothered to update to a newer version of Windows than XP, then too bad for them.

Convinced several family members to make the switch to 8 already. Definitely a learning curve, but SHOCK no moaning, whining, or complaint, and now they love it.

It's amazing what a lack of self entitlement gets you

That is my experience as well, also with colleagues that were extremely sceptical towards Windows 8, they grumbled for a few weeks and then if given the choice to downgrade to Windows 7 they laugh at the mere suggestion.

Windows 8.1 is that good. It blows all other versions of Windows out of the water.

Here is the thing, it isn't just about 'upgrading' their current computer to run Windows 7/8.

It is about how inexpensive it now is to have a MUCH faster computer with a new OS.

People are too keen on dragging around older PC hardware, well because we can. Windows 8 will install on a computer built in 1998, even a modern Linux distribution will have problems with this old of hardware.

Besides the 8" Tablets and netbook class computers, there are a lot of low end notebooks in the sub $250 range. If you look at the low end notebooks with a Celeron/Pentium processor, don't be fooled by the CPU naming, it is nothing like the Celeron or P4 generation, and their per core speeds are often faster than the fastest AMD desktop CPU.

They are going to be several times faster than anything made prior to 2009.

Even the Atom class devices and Tablets are going to be faster than any Pentium 4 era system and any AMD class processor made prior to 2009 - yes faster than even a quad core Phenom 9750.


So instead of focusing on getting users to spend/dump $100 for an OS upgrade, tell them that for $200-300 they can get a new OS and a new computer that is many times faster.

Even donate the old computer to a group that recycles/rebuilds hardware so it still isn't wasted.

Mobius Enigma said,
If you look at the low end notebooks with a Celeron/Pentium processor, don't be fooled by the CPU naming, it is nothing like the Celeron or P4 generation, and their per core speeds are often faster than the fastest AMD desktop CPU.


OK, I'm looking at notebooks with Celeron/Pentium processors. I notice they're all slower than the fastest AMD desktop CPU.

Atlantico said,

OK, I'm looking at notebooks with Celeron/Pentium processors. I notice they're all slower than the fastest AMD desktop CPU.

Keyword in reading comprehension: 'often'


Mobius Enigma said,

Keyword in reading comprehension: 'often'


Yeah, but that isn't correct either. Often would be wrong, rarely would be wrong, once in a blue moon would also be wrong. I read you just fine, even comprehended what you wrote.

However, Pentium or Celeron Intel laptop CPUs are *never* faster per core than top of the line AMD CPUs. Per core or otherwise.

You can certainly find i5 and i7 laptop CPUs that perform faster than top of the line AMD desktop CPU per core. Pentium/Celeron low voltage CPUs just aren't in the same league. Not even Intel is claiming that.

Atlantico said,

Yeah, but that isn't correct either. Often would be wrong, rarely would be wrong, once in a blue moon would also be wrong. I read you just fine, even comprehended what you wrote.

However, Pentium or Celeron Intel laptop CPUs are *never* faster per core than top of the line AMD CPUs. Per core or otherwise.

You can certainly find i5 and i7 laptop CPUs that perform faster than top of the line AMD desktop CPU per core. Pentium/Celeron low voltage CPUs just aren't in the same league. Not even Intel is claiming that.

I'll grant you it is a bit hyperbole; however, in the class of desktop processors consumers are buying this does hold true.

This is a quick and dirty go to list, of single thread/core performance of CPUs.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

Notice the fastest AMD CPU in single core performance:
AMD FX-9590 Eight-Core - 1751

Now notice the fastest Pentium moniker CPU in single core performance:
Intel Pentium G3420 @ 3.20GHz - 1845

The Pentium is FASTER...

Now spend a minute scrolling through the list, and especially take note of the latest generation of Intel i3/i5 processors. They are significantly faster than anything AMD is offering.

Now look at low end laptop CPUs, you can buy tons of $300-400 i3 based laptops that if you reference their exact CPU in this list, it is faster than 99.99% of all the AMD CPUs ever made.

If you reference the low end notebooks with Celeron/Pentium moniker CPUs in this list, they score faster than the majority of AMD CPUs users are still buying.

Example, for gaming, Tom's Hardware recommends: These AMD CPUs
A10-5700
FX-6300
... which people are still buying for desktop computers.

Now look it up on this list, they both fall below a majority of notebook class 3rd/4th generation Pentium/Celeron CPUs and significantly before i3s.


When your single core performance is 20-50% faster, a dual core Pentium/Celeron is going to best a quad core AMD CPU in a lot of things, including gaming, that needs fast core speeds for their main loops.


So I admit I was a bit too general, but I still stand by what I said.

I'm in a race @ work, swapping out ancient as PCs for less ancient PCs that run Windows 7. Only a few left to dispose of thankfully. I'd prefer 8.1, but I'll take what I can get.

Many people are stuck with PCs that can't run 7/8 at reasonable speeds, their only option is to keep using what they have, or buy a new machine. Average Joe isn't going to spend the money in this economy until their PC stops working.

As for the remaining people who have PCs capable of running 7/8, Microsoft needs to lower the price of Windows, period.

completely agree, most people dont even update windows it get stuck with the one that comes with the new pc.

there are no incentive to get a new version, plus why update if the current one works....

It's strange, somehow the marketeers have managed to persuade people to update their phones every year or two; but they haven't with PCs. People find hundreds of dollars for a new phone, but half that on a PC is too much. I think when MS finally get Windows 8 and Metro right, maybe by Windows 9, and there's more decent Metro Apps (cos let's face it most currently aren't so hot) then people will feel the need to update. By then also there will be better hybrid devices, despite some good efforts there's too many flaws and compromises with all the PCs on sale these days. Sure many people love their Surfaces or whatever, but they aren't mainstream devices.

For now I'd just buy a 3 to 5 year old desktop, that should be $100 and give that to anyone with Win7 or 8 on it. That really isn't a big expense and it will give them a bit more future proofing.

That 'no apps' crap is wearing a bit thin now. But go ahead and scan a list of ios and / or Android apps to find some crape that no one uses, just to sat that it isn't on Windows 8 yet.

And it's Modern UI, not Metro. Has been for a long time now.

I didn't say 'no apps', just that a lot of the Windows 8 apps aren't so hot. Compare that to the iPad where they are a lot of well designed tablet apps (not so much the case for Android). I don't have or want an iPad, much rather stick with my Windows machine which is way more useful; but when it comes to the Metro/Modern side of things I accept we don't have as many good apps yet. So not having an iPad I won't give you a list, but I know they exist - and am hopefully most of them will come to Windows before Android.

I prefer Metro, I will continue to call it that. MS need a good catchy name. Android works, people get it - branding is worth more than a lot of people realise - and "Modern UI" just does nothing. Anyway, Microsoft call them "Store Apps" not Modern UI" if you want to be pedantic.

But seriously speaking win7 is heaps better than 8 I've tried both. But maybe win9 will be better again, Microsoft tend to make better OSes after the next one but everyone will need to update their PC

starman444 said,
Microsoft tend to make better OSes after the next one but everyone will need to update their PC

Untrue. You're just following all the other sheep who say that. If you even just look at some releases:

Win 3.0 - Mixed bag. Bad compared to 3.1 but good compared to what was before it
Win 3.1- Good
Win 95- Good (but many hated the Start menu on release. The irony)
Win 98 - Bad
Win 98 SE - Good
Win 2000 - Good
Win ME - Bad
XP - Considered BAD and hated on release
Vista - Bad

And by your logic 8.1 should also be a "good" OS if 8 is apparently "bad". And before you say it's a .1 update and not a new OS, thats not true either. Win 3.1 was a new OS. OSX releases in .1 version increases and they are new OS's too. 8.1 is a new OS with a new kernel and updated backend, it also completely replaces Win 8 for sale.

Edited by NoClipMode, Feb 8 2014, 10:06am :

NoClipMode said,

Untrue. You're just following all the other sheep who say that. If you even just look at some releases:

Win 3.0 - Mixed bag. Bad compared to 3.1 but good compared to what was before it
Win 3.1- Good
Win 95- Good (but many hated the Start menu on release. The irony)
Win 98 - Bad
Win 98 SE - Good
Win 2000 - Good
Win ME - Bad
XP - Considered BAD and hated on release
Vista - Bad

And by your logic 8.1 should also be a "good" OS if 8 is apparently "bad". And before you say it's a .1 update and not a new OS, thats not true either. Win 3.1 was a new OS. OSX releases in .1 version increases and they are new OS's too. 8.1 is a new OS with a new kernel and updated backend, it also completely replaces Win 8 for sale.

Careful, you are mixing three different OS technologies in your list.

Win3.x (16bit DOS - some 32bit extensions.)
WinNT (32/64bit Object based client/server kernel.)
Win9x (Assembly optimized monolithic 32bit kernel.)

All new versions of OSes are usually hated upon release. I can even give you a similar lineage with OpenBSD, FreeBSE, Linux or even Apple System/OS X; where almost each new version was hated by a vocal number of their users.

The only OS I would agree with in your list that was a 'bad' OS is WinME, and that was because it was trying to do things beyond the capabilities of the Win9x kernel, that caused more problems than it helped. (A FS level technology like 'System Restore' on a dumb FS also wasn't so great.)


Sorry, you need to activate your mechanical lathe before using it. Please connect to the internet first!

im tech savvy and i wouldnt tell them ditch XP if their pc wont work on new windows version that needs more ram and higher requeriments while windows xp can even work on 128mb ram

buying a new pc means need more money and its something that people wont afford and i wouldnt spent if it works...

Kaze23 said,

Then no, you're not. Not in the slightest.

Oh and throwing a perfectly good computer is?! Yeah that will make these users listen to you right away. Lol

I would advise Linux with xfce. I hate Linux zealots and frankly find them naive in their own world, but that is the only option for these users

sinetheo said,

Oh and throwing a perfectly good computer is?! Yeah that will make these users listen to you right away. Lol

Yes. Because using XP after April is absolutely not an option for normal users who still want to connect to the internet. Not an option.

Shadowzz said,
You are aware XP needs a 3ghz 512mb ram system to run properly right?

And let that be the exact same specs Windows 8 needs to run properly.

Yep. Run XP with less than 1GB ram at your own peril. The 233Mhz and 64MB official minimum requirements are bunk.

rfirth said,
Yep. Run XP with less than 1GB ram at your own peril.
If you weren't joking then I would say this is absolute tripe. I have personally run XP for years on first 256 and later 512MB RAM and it ran like a champ. I would also never run 7 with less than 1GB RAM, and even that is borderline unusable. 2GB and it chugs along quite nicely though.

rfirth said,

Yes. Because using XP after April is absolutely not an option for normal users who still want to connect to the internet. Not an option.

If no banking or critical things are done then XP is here to stay

Why throw out a perfectly good computer?!

If it is financially important to make money and be secure then you have an argument

sinetheo said,

If no banking or critical things are done then XP is here to stay

If you're going on the internet, you can't use XP after April. It would be suicide. Expect dozens/hundreds of 0-day exploits that will never get fixed, probably installing rootkits and key loggers and other bad things.

Either move to Linux, install a later version of Windows, spend $100-200 on a better machine that can handle a later version of Windows, or take your XP machine off the internet.

I don't think MS is desperate. I mean using XP is still Microsoft OS one way or another. The only reason I could think of is, when MS stop updating XP, hacker would start wrecking havoc and that's bad for MS.
On the other hand, 12 years of keeping XP alive is the longest in tech world time. The longest I've kept my TV for was 6 years.

Thanks for that link. Will pass this around the office. I have figured out why I dislike Metro. Nightmares from using AOL with my high speed 56k modem in the 90's.

JHBrown said,
Thanks for that link. Will pass this around the office. I have figured out why I dislike Metro. Nightmares from using AOL with my high speed 56k modem in the 90's.

That has been posted so many times on Neowin... and I know you frequent here enough... it would be nearly impossible for you to not have seen that yet.

Don't worry Microsoft, I've done a few dozen XP->7 upgrades in the last couple of months, and it doesn't seem to be slowing down!

try it on a pc with less than 1gb of ram pentium 4.... yeah those thing are still around and i wont get a new machine if it works...

A wise move by a very helpful person. The move to Windows-7 is a large enough leap for XP users. There is no need to also have to "deal" with the default Metro UI of Windows-8. As for all those workarounds in Windows-8 to simulate Windows-7, not worth the additional aggravation for both the installer and the new user.

eilegz said,
try it on a pc with less than 1gb of ram pentium 4.... yeah those thing are still around and i wont get a new machine if it works...

They can easily be migrated to Windows 7 or even 8 if you work around the RAM detection.

Windows 8 on 512mb is faster than Windows XP. Windows 7 on 512mb is about identical to XP.

Mobius Enigma said,

Windows 7 on 512mb is about identical to XP.

But considering the price of RAM, it's really not much of an excuse today.

old machine rams cost a lot, i really doubt that windows 8 run on pentium 4 since it dont have dep...

and no i tried windows 7 on anything below 1gb of ram its not worth it, its run slow and that without antivirus or programs imagine adding that the thing wont be usable

Are you kidding win 7 does not run CLOSE to XP with 512?!

People do more than just be boot. Chrome, outlook, and word with several documents and tabs can eat 2 gigs of ram fast on 7/8. Practical wise XP is your best option on such an ancient box.

If security wasn't an issue after April XP is the way to go. I hate Linux zealots but if you are poor Linix mint with xfce or Ubuntu with it is the best thing to do after XP is gone.

Never mind the cost of RAM, I'm sure most people could pick up a decent 3 to 4 year old PC for $100 that would run 7 or 8 and give them a much better experience.

TheShark said,
Never mind the cost of RAM, I'm sure most people could pick up a decent 3 to 4 year old PC for $100 that would run 7 or 8 and give them a much better experience.

Old RAM *IS* cheap, but a good point you make - old (but decent) PC's can be had for a bargain!

Raa said,

Old RAM *IS* cheap, but a good point you make - old (but decent) PC's can be had for a bargain!

Still an ancient AGP card won't have a native video card driver. I had a semi modern ATI 5750 and that had crappy 1024 x 768 no acceleration. Think you could do anything more than boot with 512 ram!

Windows 8 is not designed for such a thing.

Make Windows 7 a reasonable price so people can afford to upgrade. $30 or $40. Then you get people off XP and make some money.

jefflang09 said,
Make Windows 7 a reasonable price so people can afford to upgrade. $30 or $40. Then you get people off XP and make some money.

I loved 7, but I love 8 (.1) too. Would never go back lol

jefflang09 said,
Make Windows 7 a reasonable price so people can afford to upgrade. $30 or $40. Then you get people off XP and make some money.

And don't forget to adjust it to local incomes in developing (/5) and undeveloped countries (/10). Even $40 is too much. I can buy Windows 8, but 340 rub ($10) is the limit. Same goes for office. Even small and middle business can't afford it here. Corporate licensing is so complicated and prices are robbing. Make it 10 times cheaper and people will start purchasing it.

I'd rather them use an outdated OS in XP than Vista any day. But I'd help push people over to Win7 way before Win8 but they still have the damn prices for OEM copies still so expensive!

sava700 said,
but they still have the damn prices for OEM copies still so expensive!

haha - capitalism and built in obsolescence at work. Of course Microsoft want you to keep giving them hundreds of dollars per year. Unfortunately for them, the old "drivers" were a better/faster experience, and even though Windows 7 is good, XP is "enough" for most people still using it.

I agree Windows 7 is the best O/S out there today, they have buckleys getting people to move to Win 8, they couldn't even give it away for $40 in the early days.

sava700 said,
I'd rather them use an outdated OS in XP than Vista any day. But I'd help push people over to Win7 way before Win8 but they still have the damn prices for OEM copies still so expensive!

You'd rather people use a highly outdated, insecure, dimly SMP-aware OS, rather than the one that is more or less backend-identical to the last three OS releases Microsoft has put out?

I don't understand helping someone to upgrade their PC by recommending window 7 or else no help at all if these someone wants window 8 is actually what I would call a helpful person. If these individual have reason such as no "Start Menu" validates a reason to steer other person not to upgrade window 8, then I pity that someone for choosing you as a friend, relatives, sibling.
Window 8 has app store that can install mini program just like iPad without costing an arm and leg just to play casual games, listening music and video; Netflix or Hulu. Window 8 also has desktop like window 7 that's equally as powerful except without start menu. Installing desktop program can be done as well

Athernar said,
...
dimly SMP-aware OS...

I agree with everything else, but not this. XP and Vista are nearly identical with regard to SMP.

It changes considerably in 7 though.

Mobius Enigma said,

I agree with everything else, but not this. XP and Vista are nearly identical with regard to SMP.

It changes considerably in 7 though.

Not really, 7's changes in regards to SMP are only really relevant at core counts of 64 and up. It was Vista which brought the big improvements.

Athernar said,

Not really, 7's changes in regards to SMP are only really relevant at core counts of 64 and up. It was Vista which brought the big improvements.

Ya really...

The only major change from XP to Vista was a universal HAL, that was the result of the relayering of the MinWin project at Microsoft. The overhead, scheduling, tables, etc did not change. (Essentially a dedicated HAL for non-SMP and SMP was no longer needed, and these were changes in the HAL, not the kernel and served no performance difference.)

Windows 7 was the FIRST and ONLY major kernel change to NT's SMP and scheduling.

It was based on a new model (theory) to reduce scheduling overhead that allows the kernel to run on a single system with up to 256 cores/CPUs without a negligible performance offset. (It was also done to expand NT's scheduling for software CPU/GPU thread management that was used with DX11 and DirectCompute; essentially the software version of HSA/hUMA.)

These changes are one reason Windows 7 is faster than Vista, as even with just 2-4 processors, the way SMP overhead is handled offers a performance increase.


Prior to Windows 7, most OSes that tried to move past even a few CPUs, started to incur more overhead than the performance benefit the additional processors would provide.

So even though NT or Linux could in theory handle 1000 processors, moving past 8 on Linux or 16 on NT was counterproductive as the OS spent too much time managing threads.

With Windows 7, the 'client' OS's default settings can easily work with up to 64 processors and the Server 'settings' are configured to handle up to 256. (These are only configuration differences between client/server as they use the same codebase and even the same binaries.)


I think what is amiss here is what you and others might think of XP's SMP capabilities, as it was far more advanced than hardware of the time allowed it to be showcased.


SMP was a tenant of NT's core design, and going back to its inception, the entire way the kernel was crafted was around this tenant.

This was preserved even at the cost of side optimizations that could have been made at SMP's expense to improve pre-emptive multi-tasking on a single core/CPU. -Apple made the mistake of making similar changes to the XNU kernel to improve single core/CPU performance that still cripples SMP in OS X to this day. (Even with the recently added SMP APIs, the core OS and process can still too easily funnel lock in OS X.)


Vista had a lot of improvements, but it really wasn't until Windows 7 that major changes were made to the kernel itself. A lot of things were added on to the kernel, as is the nature of the NT architecture, but the core kernel itself wasn't significantly different even with regard to SMP/scheduling/etc. (Memory flags/prioritization were added, but that isn't a SMP specific difference.)

(Windows 7 was also the first time someone other than Dave Cutler's team worked on this portion of the NT kernel.)

dvb2000 said,

I agree Windows 7 is the best O/S out there today, they have buckleys getting people to move to Win 8, they couldn't even give it away for $40 in the early days.

Windows 7 is the best OS? in what way is it better then Windows 8 exactly?

Athernar said,

You'd rather people use a highly outdated, insecure, dimly SMP-aware OS, rather than the one that is more or less backend-identical to the last three OS releases Microsoft has put out?

Yes, well a lot of persons think they are "computer-savvy", but in actuality they're just aping what they heard some script-kiddie or a geriatric whine about.

Windows 8.1 is the best OS Microsoft has made. Ever.

Mobius Enigma said,

<snip>

Dredging up old articles/testing on the subject disagrees, Vista demonstrates improved scalability over XP.

Not only that, but I've watched the 44-minute long interview with Mark Russinovich regarding 7's kernel changes and surrounding discussion. Do the changes in 7 result in performance improvements? Sure, but we're talking small gains at consumer-level core counts.

You're also incorrect about the scheduling not being changed in Vista: http://technet.microsoft.com/e...ne/2007.02.vistakernel.aspx

Another Russinovich article on Server 2008 (Same codebase) indicates improvements to scalability: http://technet.microsoft.com/e...agazine/2008.03.kernel.aspx

Athernar said,

Dredging up old articles/testing on the subject disagrees, Vista demonstrates improved scalability over XP.

Not only that, but I've watched the 44-minute long interview with Mark Russinovich regarding 7's kernel changes and surrounding discussion. Do the changes in 7 result in performance improvements? Sure, but we're talking small gains at consumer-level core counts.

You're also incorrect about the scheduling not being changed in Vista: http://technet.microsoft.com/e...ne/2007.02.vistakernel.aspx

Another Russinovich article on Server 2008 (Same codebase) indicates improvements to scalability: http://technet.microsoft.com/e...agazine/2008.03.kernel.aspx

This has just become silly.

Vista's slice changes to scheduling changes had NOTHING to do with SMP.

The changes for NUMA were NOT SMP specific.

Of course Vista is going to scale and run better than XP, that is NOT the point. The point is that SMP kernel code for Vista and XP are virtually the same.

Unless Dave Cutler is lying to me, I'm going to go with him on this, not you.

Mobius Enigma said,

This has just become silly.

What is it with you and getting flustered over nothing. Calm down.

Mobius Enigma said,

Vista's slice changes to scheduling changes had NOTHING to do with SMP.

The changes for NUMA were NOT SMP specific.

That's not what the linked article seems to indicate.

Mobius Enigma said,

Of course Vista is going to scale and run better than XP, that is NOT the point. The point is that SMP kernel code for Vista and XP are virtually the same.

How can Vista have better SMP scalability than XP if relevant code was not altered?

Mobius Enigma said,

Unless Dave Cutler is lying to me, I'm going to go with him on this, not you.

And I'm more inclined to go with the information available, rather than some article commenter that has yet to provide a single citation/source for his claims.

Athernar said,

What is it with you and getting flustered over nothing. Calm down.

That's not what the linked article seems to indicate.

How can Vista have better SMP scalability than XP if relevant code was not altered?

And I'm more inclined to go with the information available, rather than some article commenter that has yet to provide a single citation/source for his claims.

I'm just going to flat out apologize for both of my responses.

I recently had surgery and in rereading my posts, notice that pain meds make me even more supercilious and bitchy than normal.

I was bugged that NT/XP's SMP capabilities were portrayed as poor. (Which was my over reaction.)

In comparison to Win7/8, there is a world of difference, which is the important thing for readers to understand. Vista made things easier, but the actual SMP changes were minor and more facilitative to get to Win7. (I didn't want readers to think Vista had major SMP changes when the real SMP story is what happened with Windows 7.)

Take care, and I'll try to refrain from comments while taking drugs in the future.

Mobius Enigma said,

I'm just going to flat out apologize for both of my responses.

I recently had surgery and in rereading my posts, notice that pain meds make me even more supercilious and bitchy than normal.

That would make sense.

PUI never tends to end up well.