Microsoft wants Windows XP's market share to be below 10 percent by support cut off

On April 8th, 2014, Microsoft will officially cut off support for Windows XP, over 12 years since it officially launched.  Despite its age, the OS is still used by a ton of people around the world. The latest figures from Net Applications shows that Windows XP is currently installed on over 37 percent of all PCs worldwide.

Microsoft has been warning about the support cut off date for Windows XP for well over a year. During a session held at Microsoft's Worldwide Partners Conference this week, ZDNet reports that Erwin Visser, the General Manager of Windows Commercial, stated that Microsoft is making the push to get businesses to stop using Windows XP a priority before April 8th.

Needless to say, this will be a pretty major task. Visser stated that to beat the deadline, 586,000 Windows XP PCs will need to be upgraded to at least Windows 7 per day. In reality, Microsoft's goal is to get the market share for Windows XP below 10 percent before April 8th arrives.

Microsoft is offering a variety of programs to help businsses update to either Windows 7 or 8. It's also working with other PC OEMs to reach its goal. One of them is HP, which has launched a program that includes an offer for HP ElitePad notebooks at special prices for businesses that make the move to ditch Windows XP for Windows 8.

Source: ZDNet | Image via HP

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

New Windows Phone 8 Facebook beta lets you unfriend and unlike

Next Story

Microsoft settled 3,265 software piracy cases in last fiscal year

84 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

The problem is the home user has no comprehension of security updates, all they will see is after April 2014 their computer is still working just fine.

It might happen. The people still using XP are large educational institutions and large businesses. Only a tiny fraction of people still run XP for home usage. Love it or hate it, schools and businesses are going to choose Windows 7 because of its proven stability and because they don't have to retrain staff--which cost money. As for home users, they'll get off it eventually.

I actually still encounter XP plenty in home use. If I'd use it as statistics I'm guessing close to 10% of the people.

I upgraded my sister to Win8 from XP just a few days ago.

It's about the apps, not the OS. Apps (Office/web/email) get the work done/bring in the money (not WordPad/Paint/Windows 8 Start screen).

But x64 helps a lot with media tasks...

68k said,
It's about the apps, not the OS. Apps (Office/web/email) get the work done/bring in the money (not WordPad/Paint/Windows 8 Start screen).

But x64 helps a lot with media tasks...

Are you saying all you can do on Windows 8 is Paint and Wordpad? Because I recall being able to do Office/Web/Email on my Win8 machines, with the Start Screen making many tasks easier than without it.

Hell, I'm replying to this on Windows 8 with an employer owned device!

I bet you didn't know Paint was so robust in Win8, did you?

/s

Office/web/email apps that run on XP are still fully compatible with the latest standards.

I would never use IE on XP - it always was the slowest browser.

68k said,
Office/web/email apps that run on XP are still fully compatible with the latest standards.

I would never use IE on XP - it always was the slowest browser.


You must've never tried Netscape or the Mozilla browser on XP in IE6's release time.

Sad but true, although Win7 is still more upto date now, 4 years after release then XP was doing 4 years after its release. If we would ignore the change in hardware in those 4 years after XP and the little changes hardware has undergone the last 4 years.

Bogdan Calapod said,
Don't get me wrong - I love Linux and I'd use it daily.

But try doing serious media work on it. (read: advertising/video). You can't.


In his defense. If more people would use Linux, those programs would also be available on Linux, like many are for OSX.

I can't wait for business users ditch Windows XP and move on to Windows 8. Windows XP is so ancient for crying out loud. Get a Surface Pro and you'll be all set for the future.

sn0wbl1tz said,
I can't wait for business users ditch Windows XP and move on to Windows 8. Windows XP is so ancient for crying out loud. Get a Surface Pro and you'll be all set for the future.

XP still gets the job done though. Windows 7 or 8 won't bring in extra revenue.

Edited by 68k, Jul 10 2013, 5:49am :

sn0wbl1tz said,
I can't wait for business users ditch Windows XP and move on to Windows 8. Windows XP is so ancient for crying out loud. Get a Surface Pro and you'll be all set for the future.

What would your average business user, just doing a bit of light internet / intranet usage, and office applications not be able to achieve on Windows XP that they could on Windows 8? Please break it down for me.

Chicane-UK said,
What would your average business user, just doing a bit of light internet / intranet usage, and office applications not be able to achieve on Windows XP that they could on Windows 8? Please break it down for me.

Run software targeting the current versions of the OS and get security updates, pretty compelling reason. You could say that exact same thing about Windows 95. How long do you expect a company to support something that's that old? Not just Microsoft but other software companies as well. Want familiar, go with Windows 7, supported until 2020.

Chicane-UK said,

What would your average business user, just doing a bit of light internet / intranet usage, and office applications not be able to achieve on Windows XP that they could on Windows 8? Please break it down for me.

XP doesn't run modern versions of Office for one, can't support modern web standards for two, doesn't fully support modern hardware for three...

Need I continue?

Can't run modern versions of Office. Doesn't receive security updates. Doesn't support modern web standards (presumably you refer to IE here)?

So.. because Microsoft actually stopped writing software for the product, that makes it defective somehow? Fundamentally the product would work just fine if Microsoft continued to develop Office / IE / security updates for it. Which they won't cause they have a new version of Windows to sell.

But my point was that fundamentally, assuming it were still being supported, there is nothing wrong with the product, and nothing that it couldn't do for your average business customer, that Windows 8 can.

Chicane-UK said,
Can't run modern versions of Office. Doesn't receive security updates. Doesn't support modern web standards (presumably you refer to IE here)?

So.. because Microsoft actually stopped writing software for the product, that makes it defective somehow? Fundamentally the product would work just fine if Microsoft continued to develop Office / IE / security updates for it. Which they won't cause they have a new version of Windows to sell.

But my point was that fundamentally, assuming it were still being supported, there is nothing wrong with the product, and nothing that it couldn't do for your average business customer, that Windows 8 can.

Fine, if you want, we can talk about all the buffer overflows, driver crashes, security woes, etc that plague the OS. How's that for "defective"?

Clearly having an opinion that differs to yours is upsetting you greatly, so lets not draw this out too much further.

But in my experience I've never found Windows XP any more "unreliable" (i.e. failing with the sorts of problems you're describing) than the newer versions of Windows.. and I'm talking in a corporate environment of several thousand workstations.

I only originally moved off Windows XP and onto Windows Vista and then Windows 7 because I got bored of how it looked (dated & grey!) - I was never dissatisfied with reliability, or performance problems.

Dot Matrix said,

Fine, if you want, we can talk about all the buffer overflows, driver crashes, security woes, etc that plague the OS. How's that for "defective"?

Actually out of all the versions of Windows it's the one that has been pounded on the most. So secure flaw wise it might be better than the others.

As far as the modern web standards argument doesn't firefox work on ie?

So what if you had a customer that didn't have their XP connected to the internet and just uses as a computer which has nothing to do with the internet, would you tell tell them to upgrade?

Edited by warwagon, Jul 10 2013, 3:05pm :

warwagon said,

Actually out of all the versions of Windows it's the one that has been pounded on the most. So secure flaw wise it might be better than the others.

As far as the modern web standards argument doesn't firefox work on ie?

So what if you had a customer that didn't have their XP connected to the internet and just uses as a computer which has nothing to do with the internet, would you tell tell them to upgrade?

I can't think of anything that doesn't require an active Internet connection anymore. A device without it is a dead weight. Unless they're using ancient, and I'm talking ancient, software, they'll have to go online sooner or later, and XP and the Internet don't mix, especially an out of date XP. So, yes, I would tell them to upgrade, as sooner or even sooner, they'll have to upgrade regardless.

How long is long enough? No other operating system supports a single version for such an absurd amount of time. And it's not just Microsoft, how long do you think third parties are going to go out of their way to ensure their software/drivers/etc runs on a legacy OS? It's also holding back developers who are forced to use old runtimes (both MSVC and dotNET) instead of taking advantage of new features and other benefits that the later versions bring.. once again you got to make an exception for the holdouts.

And yes, XP's reliability is questionable at best, nothing like having Explorer crash on a whim for example. Throw on modern hardware that may not even have drivers, poor 64 bit support, poor multitasking, poor memory management, etc etc.. it's just not worth it anymore.

Chicane-UK said,

So.. because Microsoft actually stopped writing software for the product, that makes it defective somehow? Fundamentally the product would work just fine if Microsoft continued to develop Office / IE / security updates for it. Which they won't cause they have a new version of Windows to sell.

Uhm no, those new products use OS API's not available in XP. To backport this stuff into XP, will mean they will have to completely rewrite XP to such an extend it will be less backwards compatible than going with any of the newer windows releases.

Shadowzz said,

Uhm no, those new products use OS API's not available in XP. To backport this stuff into XP, will mean they will have to completely rewrite XP to such an extend it will be less backwards compatible than going with any of the newer windows releases.

Ok.. so Microsoft didn't bother developing the API's either. But it's still Microsoft who chose that path - the product, Windows XP, could have continued to be supported and developed.

Listen - I need to be clear here - I fully accept that people need to move on. Windows XP has passed its useful life, and I'm playing devils advocate here. BUT. I just can't bear to read these comments that make out that Windows XP is some kind of DINOSAUR, and is a terribly flawed and dated product. It only got dated because Microsoft stopped releasing stuff for it - the core product is still perfectly suitable for the average joe to do work at home or in an office. The only reason it's no longer serviceable is because Microsoft stopped wanting to support it, or release software for it.

Kelxin said,

No, but you may want to start over and actually use facts instead of things you made up. https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/browser/

Ok? Just because Chrome runs on XP doesn't mean you're getting the same experience as you would on Windows 7 or 8. For example, Windows XP doesn't support Direct2D, DirectWrite, or Media Foundation.

Chicane-UK said,

Ok.. so Microsoft didn't bother developing the API's either. But it's still Microsoft who chose that path - the product, Windows XP, could have continued to be supported and developed.

Listen - I need to be clear here - I fully accept that people need to move on. Windows XP has passed its useful life, and I'm playing devils advocate here. BUT. I just can't bear to read these comments that make out that Windows XP is some kind of DINOSAUR, and is a terribly flawed and dated product. It only got dated because Microsoft stopped releasing stuff for it - the core product is still perfectly suitable for the average joe to do work at home or in an office. The only reason it's no longer serviceable is because Microsoft stopped wanting to support it, or release software for it.

What do you mean "could have"? XP would never have supported newer technologies without a complete re-write (which is what Vista *was*. There was a reason Microsoft dumped the XP codebase for the Server codebase during development).

XP is a dinosaur in the fact that it doesn't fully support modern multicore architecture. It doesn't fully support hyperthreading. It doesn't support x64 computing at all. It doesn't support modern hardware acceleration technologies (Why newer versions of IE don't run on XP). It doesn't support newer driver architecture. The list goes on...

This isn't a case of Microsoft "not releasing stuff for it", Windows XP is by all means a dinosaur in every sense of the word.

Edited by Dot Matrix, Jul 11 2013, 1:16pm :

Dot Matrix said,

There was a reason Microsoft dumped the XP codebase for the Server codebase during development).

Thank you for really showing how much you know about computers in that comment. You might want to do a little more research on the progression from NT > 2k > 2K3 > 2K8 and 98 > Me > XP > Vista.

Release dates say nothing about codebase.

Win98-ME are 9x, not even NT kernel, not even related to his post.

XP comes from Windows 2000, a desktop NT version.

Vista comes from Win2003, at least that what wasn't rewritten since a lot has been.

And Win7 and Win8 appear to have parts based on Midori as well. (not comfirmed by MS though)

sn0wbl1tz said,
Better yet get a Surface Pro and you are all set.

Unfortunately, the Surface Pro won't suit my needs.

What needs are you missing that Surface Pro won't satisfy you? I can do everything on my Surface Pro for personal and business use.

Quad-core (plus) hyper-threading CPU and upgradable RAM are critical. I sometimes need to have multiple (4+) virtual machines running at once - each with a 100% CPU load. 24" inch monitor is also my minimum. The new Mac Pro (running Windows!) would be perfect in my case.

But for many everyday tasks, yes, a Surface Pro would do. I just wish there was a 14" version.

sn0wbl1tz said,
Better yet get a Surface Pro and you are all set.

Stop suggesting the Surface Pro for everyone it doesn't work for everyone. It has a ULV processor so that is a huge limit there and then a measly 4GB RAM which is laughable in a $1000 computer in 2013.

Better yet purchase a new Surface Pro and it include a copy of Windows 8 Pro. I assume most Windows XP users are still on their ancient machines that's in need of a upgrade.

Windows 8.1 is a free upgrade for all Windows 8.1 beta testers like myself. Everyone should have gotten Windows 8 when it launched.

I wonder if it might benefit Microsoft to push back XP's shelf date, say, 3 months so that companies tap the breaks on early upgrades.

By then, Windows 8.1 should have had a chance to prove itself as more desktop friendly, as well as allow manufacturers to push out even less Windows 7-based hardware, thereby forcing the decision.

pickypg said,
I wonder if it might benefit Microsoft to push back XP's shelf date, say, 3 months so that companies tap the breaks on early upgrades.

By then, Windows 8.1 should have had a chance to prove itself as more desktop friendly, as well as allow manufacturers to push out even less Windows 7-based hardware, thereby forcing the decision.

We have 3 big clients testing Windows 8.1, and from our meetings, Windows 8.1 is still not enough for them to go full throttle on. 1 is still testing, the other 2 are going with Windows 7. As far as what you said about hardware, won't ever happen for a while. Hardware manufacturers would be committing suicide to stop supporting Windows 7.

Windows XP has it's extended life support until 2014! How many months or years does corporate need in order to ditch Windows XP and move to Windows 8? They should have done it already when Windows 7 launched in 2009.

sn0wbl1tz said,
Windows XP has it's extended life support until 2014! How many months or years does corporate need in order to ditch Windows XP and move to Windows 8? They should have done it already when Windows 7 launched in 2009.
Except it's too easy for bean counters to cut/deny funding when there is no immediate danger in 2009, 2010, 2011 or 2012. Now that it is 2013, HOLY CRAP, WE NEED FUNDING!

I've seen that play out a few times already. One of the funniest moments was when one team was asked "why didn't you do this sooner" to which they replied, "you denied our funding requests 3 years in a row".

JHBrown said,
We have 3 big clients testing Windows 8.1, and from our meetings, Windows 8.1 is still not enough for them to go full throttle on. 1 is still testing, the other 2 are going with Windows 7. As far as what you said about hardware, won't ever happen for a while. Hardware manufacturers would be committing suicide to stop supporting Windows 7.
Oh, I don't expect them to end support. Just quit shipping new machines with Windows 7 on them, which is reasonable given that it will be around 4 years after Windows 7's release at that point.

pickypg said,
I wonder if it might benefit Microsoft to push back XP's shelf date, say, 3 months so that companies tap the breaks on early upgrades.

Crap no. It was already extended way beyond it's original end of life date, further extensions are just counter productive. They should never have extended it in the first place.

XP's fine if you're in a disconnected environment, but if you're online, you really shouldn't be using it. It's just not secure enough against modern threats.

Dot Matrix said,
DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE.
Wait until Windows 7 loses support!

Edited by JHBrown, Jul 10 2013, 3:50am :

Dot Matrix said,
DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE.

Pointless post.
XP has a lot going for it. For many people it met their needs. It was/is very useable in a conventional WIMP setting. The attitude of its many users is no doubt "If it ain't broke don't fix it".

There must be a REASON why 37% of the market still use it. Ask yourself why, don't just troll.

gb8080 said,

Pointless post.
XP has a lot going for it. For many people it met their needs. It was/is very useable in a conventional WIMP setting. The attitude of its many users is no doubt "If it ain't broke don't fix it".

There must be a REASON why 37% of the market still use it. Ask yourself why, don't just troll.

Agreed. I don't understand why so many people fail to understand this. Windows XP still would do the job for most people. The only reason it's becoming less desirable because of Microsofts planned obsolescence for it (e.g. not releasing newer versions of Internet Explorer for it, etc). There's no technical reason why it's not a perfectly serviceable OS for most people still.

Because it's a support nightmare all around. For starters, any one who uses 7 or 8 daily, your workflow is broken. There's no Search. Security is a nightmare, driver support is an even worse wreck at this point, upon a heap of other issues.

There's a reason many don't support it (me included) already anymore. It's not worth the time or the energy.

Dot Matrix said,
Because it's a support nightmare all around. For starters, any one who uses 7 or 8 daily, your workflow is broken. There's no Search. Security is a nightmare, driver support is an even worse wreck at this point, upon a heap of other issues.
There's a reason many don't support it (me included) already anymore. It's not worth the time or the energy.

You're mixing up support and workflow, and in neither case addressing the real point.
XP does the job for many users, who have conventional desktop hardware.

I recall that in a previous thread you recently stated that "nobody uses traditional setups any more", or some such nonsense, in defence of the UI changes in Win8.

Well, 37% of the entire Win user base is clearly still on traditional setups (and that's before we add Vista, Win7 etc). They would need a good reason to change. Admittedly security is itself a good reason, but that 37% figure is a VERY telling statistic in regard to other matters debated in these forums.

gb8080 said,

You're mixing up support and workflow, and in neither case addressing the real point.
XP does the job for many users, who have conventional desktop hardware.

I recall that in a previous thread you recently stated that "nobody uses traditional setups any more", or some such nonsense, in defence of the UI changes in Win8.

Well, 37% of the entire Win user base is clearly still on traditional setups (and that's before we add Vista, Win7 etc). They would need a good reason to change. Admittedly security is itself a good reason, but that 37% figure is a VERY telling statistic in regard to other matters debated in these forums.

I never said that. Tranditional systems are going the way of the Dodo, though, as time moves on. But even on these devices, support for XP is ****. XP doesn't play well with today's hardware.

Dot Matrix said,
Because it's a support nightmare all around. For starters, any one who uses 7 or 8 daily, your workflow is broken. There's no Search. Security is a nightmare, driver support is an even worse wreck at this point, upon a heap of other issues.

There's a reason many don't support it (me included) already anymore. It's not worth the time or the energy.


I still Officially support it. But it won't be forever. between 2014/2017 is when i will drop official support for it.

Microsoft is going to face this issue more and more in the future as modern OS's and desktops are enough for a lot of people people for the first time. Getting rid of 7 will probably be a similar ordeal one day.

Windows 7 adoption rate to soar like never before. Microsoft is hoping everyone will move to Windows 8 but that won't happen.

Does anyone else notice that every article's first post is by a troll?

Are they refreshing Neowin every 5 seconds to be first or something?

Go away!

Seketh said,
Does anyone else notice that every article's first post is by a troll?

Are they refreshing Neowin every 5 seconds to be first or something?

Go away!

Yeah.. yours is not very informative either.

Seketh said,
Does anyone else notice that every article's first post is by a troll?

Are they refreshing Neowin every 5 seconds to be first or something?

Go away!

What makes this a troll post? Seems like you are the troll for trolling what I said. What I posted makes perfect sense and we will see Windows 7 market share grow. Now you can go away!

JHBrown said,
What makes this a troll post? Seems like you are the troll for trolling what I said. What I posted makes perfect sense and we will see Windows 7 market share grow. Now you can go away!

You'll also see 8's grow as well. To say it won't is what makes your post trolling.

Dot Matrix said,

You'll also see 8's grow as well. To say it won't is what makes your post trolling.

Read my post Dot! I did not say Windows 8 won't grow. I made a point to say that Windows 7 will soar because most businesses will be moving to Windows 7, not 8. Re-read the definition of a troll.

Did you noticed that you didn't made a point at all? You said Windows 7=growth, Windows 8=stagnation:

"Windows 7 adoption rate to soar like never before. Microsoft is hoping everyone will move to Windows 8 but that won't happen."

You wrote that like a troll. Next time, if you're just hating on Windows 8, like you usually do by your posts, at least try to make a proper argument so people can discuss it..

Seketh said,
Did you noticed that you didn't made a point at all? You said Windows 7=growth, Windows 8=stagnation:

"Windows 7 adoption rate to soar like never before. Microsoft is hoping everyone will move to Windows 8 but that won't happen."

You wrote that like a troll. Next time, if you're just hating on Windows 8, like you usually do by your posts, at least try to make a proper argument so people can discuss it..

No Seketh, I will continue to make my argument the way I see fit. If you don't like it, then don't post. Some unbiased members here actually understood my post. Anyone who says anything bad about Windows 8 is a troll I guess? Well I guess I literally know thousands of trolls(clients) in the United States and overseas.

Seketh said,
Does anyone else notice that every article's first post is by a troll?

Are they refreshing Neowin every 5 seconds to be first or something?

Go away!

TIL If you post something that Seketh disagrees with then he/she will automatically label you a troll.

Ever thought that maybe there are legitimate complaints about Windows 8 and that Microsoft is hell bent on ramming this new vision of computers down the collective throat of users whether they like it or not?

Mr Nom Nom's said,

TIL If you post something that Seketh disagrees with then he/she will automatically label you a troll.

Ever thought that maybe there are legitimate complaints about Windows 8 and that Microsoft is hell bent on ramming this new vision of computers down the collective throat of users whether they like it or not?

This is clear to me now. I believe I've ran into him before when he found out I wasn't a Windows 8 evangelist.

JHBrown said,
Windows 7 adoption rate to soar like never before. Microsoft is hoping everyone will move to Windows 8 but that won't happen.

Couldn't agree more, although after reading the rest of the posts, I would include Windows 8 growth will soar also, unfortunately!

The simple reason 8 will soar is all the new computers that come with it pre-installed though!

I'd take XP over 8 any day of the week, if it wasn't simply for the fact that support is almost done for it.

cork1958 said,
I'd take XP over 8 any day of the week, if it wasn't simply for the fact that support is almost done for it.

Why? If I wanted to I could tweak 8 into something a bit more classic-like in seconds. No amount of tweaking will get XP up to par by today's standards.. missing APIs, missing features, inefficient performance, poor x64 support, crazy instability, lack of support, etc etc. Or just exercise those downgrade rights and get Windows 7. There's just no reason to be using an OS this old anymore.