Microsoft's ten percent marketshare goal looking unrealistic as XP remains strong

Microsoft is due to cut off official support for Windows XP on April 8, 2014, or just over eight months from today. However, the latest worldwide desktop operating system market share numbers from Net Applications still show a lot of PCs are using the 12-year-old Windows XP.

The numbers released for July show that Windows XP still holds 37.19 percent of the OS market share. That's actually slightly higher than the firm's numbers for June, which showed Windows XP with 37.17 percent. Microsoft reps recently said that their goal is to get Windows XP down to less than 10 percent by the support cut off date but these new statistics show that Microsoft will have to work very hard to reach that goal.

Microsoft has actively been informing Windows XP users about the support cut off date for over two years now.  However, it would appear their efforts have not been enough to convince a large percentage of those owners to upgrade to Windows 7 or 8. August 2011, Net Applications showed that Windows XP had 52.46 percent of the OS market share. That's a drop of just 15.27 percent in two years.

If Microsoft is to reach its goal of getting Windows XP down to below 10 percent, it will definitely need to step up its efforts. That might include sending Microsoft IT workers directly to major businesses that still use Windows XP to help them with the upgrade process or bringing in third party IT companies to do the same.

Of course, Microsoft could extend the Windows XP support cut off deadline once again, but so far the company has shown no interest in doing that. However, we have recently seen Microsoft change its mind on more than one occasion and it's possible that the company could do so again in this case.

In related news, Windows 7 is firmly in the number one spot, with 44.49 percent of the OS market share, up from 44.37 percent in June. Windows 8, which reached the RTM stage a year ago today, is third with 5.40 percent, up from 5.10 percent in June. Windows Vista is fourth with 4.24 percent, but is still higher than any other Mac or Linux OS on the chart.

Windows 8.1, which launched as a preview version in June, is only taking up 0.02 percent of the OS market share in July, according to Net Applications.

Source: Net Applications | Image via Net Applications

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Netflix launches profiles to separate user ratings on same account

Next Story

USB SuperSpeed + specification approved as USB 3.1

95 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Still rocking XP here at work :-/
For a forward thinking company we are very backwards in this regard... though we're going to 8 or 8.1 at the end of this year, thank christ.

My Local Council (UK) has just upgraded from XP to Win7... Windows 8.x is at least 2 or more years away.

Don't know what British Telecom is like now, but they used take several years of assesment before upgrading to a new OS!

I upgraded us at home to Windows 8 just because the offer was so cheap, but we have disabled ALL touch, Metro and Apps, and we've installed Start8.

The more I hear about the way Microsoft is going though, the more I am tempted to go back to Windows 7. We have no use for touchscreen, Apps or The Cloud so Apart from a few bug fixes and tweaks Windows 8.0 is pretty much the same as Windows 7 (just duller looking). But by the sounds of Windows 8.1 things are getting worse rather than better (no we don't use the StartScreen either).

No surprise there. It is a good, solid OS that does what people want it to do with their hardware and applications. Maybe, step it up a notch with Windows-7. Regrettably, Windows-8 is hardly a step forward, especially when on considers the huge hardware costs to use its "flash and sizzle," converting applications to use the "flash and sizzle," and training.

...but Windows 7 and 8 have nearly identical specifications except for screen resolution where the reccomended for 8 is 1366x768?

not for long
with their policy of stop selling older windows 18 months after a new release

guess that would mean by April 2014 they would stop selling Windows 7 as well right?

I bought something at Staples last week and every single one of their checkout computers was running Windows XP. Pretty embarrassing for a technology store to be running on a 12 year old OS. If MS can't even get major front facing partners like Staples to upgrade once in 12 years, then they have a serious challenge.

Avatar Roku said,
I bought something at Staples last week and every single one of their checkout computers was running Windows XP. Pretty embarrassing for a technology store to be running on a 12 year old OS. If MS can't even get major front facing partners like Staples to upgrade once in 12 years, then they have a serious challenge.

it's very common for ATMs and checkout machines to run windows xp embedded.

as long as they are administered properly (i.e: running on an isolated network), it's not a problem to continue to use them after 2014.

windows xp is still much more common than win7 embedded on that kind of machine.

Upgrade programs usually aren't very effective against the pirated base. Really all they care about is share of supported systems, since that's all that matters for their costs.

How many of those are bootleg copies in China or people who can't use any version of Windows newer than XP RTM because that's the only version their 2001 Activation-free Enterprise ISO copy will allow?

I wonder how much will Windows XP marketshare be without Windows 7? Probably over 70-80% and for a OS that is over 12 years old, that is not bad.

Proves people don't care about upgrading their OS. =P

The fact that windows 8 has barely inched past vista a year after it hit rtm says it all.

Users want something to upgrade to that has as good as or better user experience than xp.
Windows 7 is a great upgrade from xp however vista was a failure and now we have windows 8 which is even more of a failure.

A consistent and successful upgrade path is needed if you want people to leave xp but its just not there and Microsoft can only blame themselves.

Vista was partially an issue of 3rd party drivers and laptops that shouldn't have had Vista on them.

Win 8 is almost entirely MS's own start screen footbullet.

Yeah, vista really wasn't that bad. There were two major things that caused its bad reputation:

1. Poor release drivers. The changes in the driver architecture between vista and XP were massive, and device manufacturers had a hard time getting the drivers to a good state, and it was one of the major things that made vista seem "buggy/slow" compared to XP.

2. Hardware manufacturers selling "vista ready" machines with only 512mb of ram, that is the bare minimum for running vista and its no surprise these machines ran like crap. with 1-2 gigs of ram vista ran fine.

Wouldn't work. Most Win XP users don't have the gpu and ram to run Win 7 at an acceptable speed. They would have to add a free computer to make the deal work.

Besides, Microsoft is having a hard enough time pushing Win 8 as is, even without having to compete against a free Win 7.

kayan said,
Wouldn't work. Most Win XP users don't have the gpu and ram to run Win 7 at an acceptable speed.

Memory is very inexpensive if it's even needed (people here seem to assume that everybody running XP only has 256MB or something..), and you don't need a fancy GPU to use it. One of my junker systems is using a Riva TNT2 video card with Windows 7 just fine. No Aero obviously as the card only supports DX8 if I recall, but zero issues with desktop applications and really really old games.

Max Norris said,

Memory is very inexpensive if it's even needed (people here seem to assume that everybody running XP only has 256MB or something..), and you don't need a fancy GPU to use it. One of my junker systems is using a Riva TNT2 video card with Windows 7 just fine. No Aero obviously as the card only supports DX8 if I recall, but zero issues with desktop applications and really really old games.

You can run XP acceptably with less than a 1GB of RAM and old integrated graphics. Upgrade the same computer to Win 7, and you're going to have a bad time. It might "work" but it will be much slower. Because it was already low hardware specs, that's a jump from old but still useful to not useful. You can disable Aero and tweak it all you like, if you know what you're doing, but the best it will get is almost as quick as the same computer with XP. The hardware requirement differences between for those OS's are just that stark.

kayan said,
You can run XP acceptably with less than a 1GB of RAM and old integrated graphics.....

XP with say 512MB nowadays is just as painful to use as well, open a program or two up and watch it beat your swap file to death as it thrashes like mad, unless of course your running equally antiquated software on it. And again.. adding a gig or two of memory to an older system is very inexpensive.. even if I were in the mood to stick with something that old and risk the loss of support from not just Microsoft but third party developers, I'd still want to upgrade the thing to something a tad more usable, with that little memory its not much better than a doorstop. And as far as graphics goes, I did mention that system in question is using a TNT2 based video card.. originally released in 1998.

volodoscope said,
If Microsoft really wants to make that 10% they should make upgrades to Win 7 for free.

Or they should have kept windows 8 pro at $40

I love the arguments to keep using XP. Gesh, hello 2013 and modern day security issues that XP simply can't deal with.

Not quite sure what the big deal is with the support cut-off. It's not like Windows XP machines will suddenly stop working!

The only change will be no Windows updates. Do MS still even release [u]many[/u] updates for XP these days? Don't think much will go missing TBH.

[There's sufficient numbers of XP PCs in use that technical support companies will continue to cater for; if MS or other software/hardware companies don't release fixes/updates then if the customer is actually affected by [u]that issue[/u] then you tell them so (and recommend OS upgrade/new PC). For most issues however, this won't be the case, therefore no real impact, surely.]

I have a client that, his own client (an important chilean mine, big enterprise) has personnel working in their office for a specific project.

The curious thing about this is that, the 10 people uses the same 10 Laptops HP EliteBook, with Core i5 vPro, etc.).

4 of them had Windows XP installed, the rest Windows 7. Same applications, same VPN Software.

So, maybe is not about resources. It's only laziness or a IT department that is not doing his job.

So, maybe early 2014, these guys will need to really WORK, so the Windows XP marketshare will down.

Sorry my english.

Saludos.

Dot Matrix said,
It'll shrink considerably after April 2014 when it get inundated with attacks.

maybe, but a considerable amount of people (especially in china) use pirated copies of windows xp sp1/sp2 and are already running with windows update disabled. End of support won't do much difference to them.

link8506 said,

maybe, but a considerable amount of people (especially in china) use pirated copies of windows xp sp1/sp2 and are already running with windows update disabled. End of support won't do much difference to them.

It's not that hard to also pirate a copy of Vista or 7 for them either.

Dot Matrix said,

It'll shrink considerably after April 2014 when it gets inundated with attacks.


I would agree with that to some extent. It won't quite be "inundated with attacks" from day one,
immediately after Microsoft cutoff security updates. Attacks are more likely to become more
frequent over time, as Windows XP becomes gradually but increasingly more insecure due
to vulnerabilities discovered after EoL that will remain permanently unpatched.

Give it about, say 6-12 months after the cutoff date before it becomes "inundated with attacks".

kayan said,
You say that as if Windows XP wasn't inundated with attacks from August 2003-2013.

xp users who didn't disable windows update weren't at risk.

there has never been any major malware spreading through a 0day flaw.

even blaster/sasser spread using a flaw for which a patch was available for months. But at that time, a lot of users were running with automatic updates disabled.

next year will be a different story. There will be no security updates at all (for the general public)

GP007 said,

It's not that hard to also pirate a copy of Vista or 7 for them either.

no, but it's harder to make win7 run on computers with 256mb or 512mb or ram.

there are lots of pentium4 era computers still being used everywhere in china.

If its a really old pc, start saving for Black Friday/Christmas to upgrade. The milk in the fridge (XP) is about to expire, it will still be a liquid, but if you get poisoned drinking it after the cutoff date, its your fault. The warning was out for a very long time.

link8506 said,

there has never been any major malware spreading through a 0day flaw.

Microsoft's own security bulletins tell a very different story! I doubt there's been a single a time when all KNOWN zero day flaws in Windows XP have been patched, let alone all ones in use in the wild. Back in the 2000's, when I subscribed to Microsoft's security bulletins, I'd get a message nearly every two weeks about new flaw, affecting all known and fully patched versions of Windows, granting full control to attackers with no user intervention, already being used in the wild, through an exploit in IE, ActiveX, Java, Office, or some other weak point. Flaws were discovered quicker than they were being patched, and all sorts of malware was loose in the wild. SPAM emails have flowed freely over the Internet for many years because there's never been a shortage of infected Windows XP machines to send it.

kayan said,

Microsoft's own security bulletins tell a very different story! I doubt there's been a single a time when all KNOWN zero day flaws in Windows XP have been patched, let alone all ones in use in the wild

I'm talking about flaws widely exploited in the wild.

at no time a fully patched windows xp has been attacked by malwares without user intervention.


Back in the 2000's, when I subscribed to Microsoft's security bulletins, I'd get a message nearly every two weeks about new flaw, affecting all known and fully patched versions of Windows, granting full control to attackers with no user intervention, already being used in the wild, through an exploit in IE, ActiveX, Java, Office, or some other weak point.

flaws in browsers and plugins can't be exploited without user intervention.

it requires surfing on a site serving malwares. Such malwares have no way to spread massively and automatically.


Flaws were discovered quicker than they were being patched, and all sorts of malware was loose in the wild. SPAM emails have flowed freely over the Internet for many years because there's never been a shortage of infected Windows XP machines to send it.

you might be shocked to learn it, but even today, there are hackers in the world who own 0day exploits for any browser on any widespread platform.

but of course, as long as these exploits are not massively known, the risk is low.

but the fact is, every browser/OS has its flaws patched weeks or months after their discovery. And by the time flaws are patched, there are already a few other flaws that are discovered by someone else, and potentially sold to governments or used for malicious purpose.

windows XP is not the only OS being targeted. And it was not the most vulnerable OS either.
the vulnerabilities stats (like tthose available on secunia) show that over the years, windows xp/IE6 had less security flaws than osx/safari or any Linux distro with Firefox over the same time period.

of course modern OS have less security issues than in the past, but the fact is that WinXP was definitely not the garbage you think it is. The competitors were not better.

link8506 said,
at no time a fully patched windows xp has been attacked by malwares without user intervention.

flaws in browsers and plugins can't be exploited without user intervention.

it requires surfing on a site serving malwares. Such malwares have no way to spread massively and automatically.

FALSE. Ever hear of drive by downloads? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive-by_download

link8506, pretty much everything you said is wrong. Malware has spread on Windows XP, automatically and without user intervention, on fully patched systems, many, many times, often exploiting built in features of the OS (like IE or ActiveX). It's all very well documented and happens quite often. At least a dozen people you know personally, and maybe even yourself, are likely to have been victimized by malware on Windows XP. Its security record is infamous and no other major OS comes anywhere close to it. The only logical reason I can think of for you to ignore this reality is combination of cognitive dissonance and Stockholm Syndrome.

Dot Matrix said,

FALSE. Ever hear of drive by downloads? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive-by_download

yes, but obviously you failed to read my post properly.

drive-by download attacks don't happen without user intervention. The user has to visit an infected site.

and drive by download attacks still exist today, even on osx, win7, Linux, Firefox, ...

my point is that xp was never vulnerable to malwares spreading from computers to computers without user intervention. All the major malwares (conficker, blaster, ...) were spreading due to users who disabled automatic updates, or who chose poor passwords vulnerable to brute force (which has allowed conficker to spread in enterprises).

kayan said,
link8506, pretty much everything you said is wrong. Malware has spread on Windows XP, automatically and without user intervention, on fully patched systems, many, many times, often exploiting built in features of the OS (like IE or ActiveX). It's all very well documented and happens quite often. At least a dozen people you know personally, and maybe even yourself, are likely to have been victimized by malware on Windows XP. Its security record is infamous and no other major OS comes anywhere close to it. The only logical reason I can think of for you to ignore this reality is combination of cognitive dissonance and Stockholm Syndrome.


seriously people, read the posts you answer to before replying!

I said there was no widespread malware attack infecting computers without intervention.

how the hell would a malware spread from machine to machine using a browser exploit?

as to the security records, you don't know what you're talking about.

even IE6 has had much less security flaws (critical or not) than Firefox during the same time period (look the stats on secunia, and prepare you for a shock)

of course, with IE having 90% of market share in 2003, flaws in Firefox were not often exploited in the wild until the end of that decade.

however, they did exist. The fact that a browser doesn't have his flaws exploited doesn't make it more secure. It's just the consequence of being less popular.

btw, security researchers back in 2004 found that IE was actually the only browser who received serious quality testing before being released.
all the other browsers (Firefox, opera, and even lynx) had a lot of easy to detect memory corruption bugs (which could be turned into exploitable flaws) that were exposed thanks to a simple fuzzing tool.

link8506 said,


seriously people, read the posts you answer to before replying!

I said there was no widespread malware attack infecting computers without intervention.

how the hell would a malware spread from machine to machine using a browser exploit?

as to the security records, you don't know what you're talking about.

even IE6 has had much less security flaws (critical or not) than Firefox during the same time period (look the stats on secunia, and prepare you for a shock)

of course, with IE having 90% of market share in 2003, flaws in Firefox were not often exploited in the wild until the end of that decade.

however, they did exist. The fact that a browser doesn't have his flaws exploited doesn't make it more secure. It's just the consequence of being less popular.

btw, security researchers back in 2004 found that IE was actually the only browser who received serious quality testing before being released.
all the other browsers (Firefox, opera, and even lynx) had a lot of easy to detect memory corruption bugs (which could be turned into exploitable flaws) that were exposed thanks to a simple fuzzing tool.

here are a few links to prove what I'm talking about:

http://www.securityfocus.com/a...632/2004-10-15/2004-10-21/0

vulns stats:
ie6: 371 flaws in 12 years (2001-2013)
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/11/?task=statistics

Firefox 1 to 3.5 (2004-2010)
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/4227/?task=statistics
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/12434/?task=statistics
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/19089/?task=statistics
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/25800/

209 flaws +
154 flaws +
161 flaws +
161 flaws
=685 flaws in only 6 years.

and I didn't count flaws found in more recent versions of Firefox that probably existed in these older versions of Firefox too.

of course these are raw numbers, and the comparison is imperfect.

but back in 2004 when IE had a higher number of (discovered) flaws, MS haters used the same kind of stats to prove that open source software was better.

since then security researchers have been looking for flaws in Firefox too, and the trend has completely changed. Which tends to prove that IE being full of flaws is a myth. Any browser at that time had a lot of flaws. And IE was not the worst. It was just the most targeted.

The difference in publicly disclosed flaws has everything to do with Firefox being open source and IE being closed source, and bears little correlation to the actual amount of malware in the wild exploiting each browser to compromise Windows.

Firefox is an open source browser. Millions of people can look at its source code and identify its flaws. And they have a strong positive motivation to make these flaws public: because the Firefox team can develop and distribute fixes quickly, making Firefox safer.

IE is closed source - only a small team at Microsoft has direct access to the source code. When flaws are found by hackers, they could tell Micorsoft about it - but it's a far more profitable use of their knowledge and time to sell exploits they discover to malware developers. So there's a steady of stream of flaws used by malware developers before Microsoft has any clue they exist. Even when Microsoft is eventually informed of flaws, major updates to IE take years to get released, and public adoption of Windows Updates are painfully slow - so the even the exploits known by Microsoft keep getting exploited for months or even years.

People are safer browsing with Firefox instead of IE, eventhough there have been many exploits found in Firefox, sometimes used in malware, because the community identifies and fixes flaws rapidly. IE is a different story - there is not a huge altruistic community identifying IE flaws for public good - it's mostly just a small overworked team at Microsoft, who can't get convince their customers to download updates anyway, and a vast array malware profiteers, with clear motive to not help Microsoft identify or patch their numerous security flaws.

kayan said,
The difference in publicly disclosed flaws has everything to do with Firefox being open source and IE being closed source, and bears little correlation to the actual amount of malware in the wild exploiting each browser to compromise Windows.

Firefox never had more than 25% market share, while IE had 93% market share in 2003, and still has 56% market share today. That's the reason Firefox was not massively targeted.

malwares developers are interested to target the maximum amount of people with the minimum amount of work.

with IE's market share dropping, what became the most interesting target was not Firefox, it was flash player, because its flaws were exploitable no matter the browser, and because it was installed on 95% of users' PC.

open source has nothing to do with that fact.



Firefox is an open source browser. Millions of people can look at its source code and identify its flaws. And they have a strong positive motivation to make these flaws public: because the Firefox team can develop and distribute fixes quickly, making Firefox safer.

sorry but that's a myth.
Mozilla, google, and MS all take weeks or months to publish security updates.

Mozilla is not faster. If you don't believe me, take a look at the security bulletins, and look at the publishing date of the bug reports on bugzilla. It usually takes about 45days before an update fixes a flaw. Sometimes a whole year.


IE is closed source - only a small team at Microsoft has direct access to the source code. When flaws are found by hackers, they could tell Micorsoft about it - but it's a far more profitable use of their knowledge and time to sell exploits they discover to malware developers. So there's a steady of stream of flaws used by malware developers before Microsoft has any clue they exist. Even when Microsoft is eventually informed of flaws, major updates to IE take years to get released, and public adoption of Windows Updates are painfully slow - so the even the exploits known by Microsoft keep getting exploited for months or even years.

People are safer browsing with Firefox instead of IE, eventhough there have been many exploits found in Firefox, sometimes used in malware, because the community identifies and fixes flaws rapidly. IE is a different story - there is not a huge altruistic community identifying IE flaws for public good - it's mostly just a small overworked team at Microsoft, who can't get convince their customers to download updates anyway, and a vast array malware profiteers, with clear motive to not help Microsoft identify or patch their numerous security flaws.

wait, you seriously think that Firefox is more secure than IE??

the whole security community disagree with you.

Firefox still hasn't any sandboxing feature like those in IE7/vista or chrome.

on the security landscape, it's now Google Chrome VS IE.
Firefox didn't manage to evolve and it now lags way behind in terms of security.

http://www.neowin.net/news/cha...safest-computing-experience
http://www.neowin.net/news/fir...ding-to-google-funded-study

even during the last Pwn2Own contest, hacking Firefox (or safari on osx) would make you earn less money than hacking ie9 or chrome, because it's considered to be a easier achievement.


concerning the time people take to apply updates, it's not specific to IE. Few companies use Firefox as their main browsers, but among those who do, many are still running the unsupported Firefox 3.6 despite 0day exploits targeting this version.

you can't blame MS for the time enterprises take to apply security updates.

The totals in web based tracking like this tend to vary a lot, and don't reflect the whole population very well. This can only tell you definitely about the people on Net Application websites. The totals from W3 Schools and other websites are very different. The trends they show, instead of the totals, are more informative and universal. For example, it shows a Windows XP market share only dropping 4% over the last year (from 41.2% to 37.2%) with Windows 7 and 8 combined only gaining 5.6% (from 44.3% to 49.9%). This is a very slow change - clearly there's a lot of resistance to upgrading Windows past XP.

startscreennope said,
MS has to create better products customers want to spend money on.

Windows 7 is very well liked... still didn't move everyone from XP.

Actually, from what I heard, Microsoft expects that 20% of users will still be running Windows XP when support ends in April 2014.

however, for big enterprises with very costly support contracts, Microsoft will still provide important and critical security updates until 2018 (from what I can remember). Low and medium security flaws won't be patched though.

obviously, these patches will certainly leak on some forums on the internet, but they won't be distributed on windows update or the Microsoft download center.

link8506 said,
Actually, from what I heard, Microsoft expects that 20% of users will still be running Windows XP when support ends in April 2014.

however, for big enterprises with very costly support contracts, Microsoft will still provide important and critical security updates until 2018 (from what I can remember). Low and medium security flaws won't be patched though.

obviously, these patches will certainly leak on some forums on the internet, but they won't be distributed on windows update or the Microsoft download center.

Are those the support contracts where they actually pay to get the patches? I honestly don't think it's worth it, they should just upgrade and save that way, if you really need to run old XP era apps then it's time to use App-V or some other VM solution.

GP007 said,

Are those the support contracts where they actually pay to get the patches? I honestly don't think it's worth it, they should just upgrade and save that way, if you really need to run old XP era apps then it's time to use App-V or some other VM solution.


AFAIK, enterprises are required to pay 15 million dollars per year to get that extended support.

it's definitely aimed at enterprises that CAN'T upgrade to win7, like those using embedded systems : screens in public places running with old hardware such as VIA cpus with 256mb of ram. Or embedded computers for the industry where it's impossible to replace the embedded computer, and where OS changes are not supported by the manufacturer and would invalidate the device certification (keeping the device in a state certified by the manufacturer is critical for industrial devices performing measurements, or safety related operations)

ATMs running windows XP, SCADA systems running xp (controling things like power plants) also costly to upgrade, and since they run on isolated network, they don't receive security updates anyway.

security updates are deployed on such systems only when there is a major threat (like the RPC flaw used by blaster/sasser), to avoid that technicians using potentially infected laptops infect the whole isolated network when they connect to do maintenance work.

so, you can expect windows xp usage to remain high in these kind of places, and getting support a few more years is very welcome.

Are you self employed? in the computer repair business? How much do you charge them for Windows 7 / 8 plus the full reinstall?

warwagon said,
Are you in the computer repair business? How much do you charge them for Windows 7 / 8 plus the full reinstall?

They pay for the license, I charge $60 an hour for the work involved. WET makes it pretty quick and simple. Most of the people I work with are in higher ed so they get discounts on the license ($20 for a license)

siah1214 said,

$120-180, not including the license.

not worth upgrading, brand new machines would cost slightly more than $180 + the license ($100).

for $300-350 you can find reasonably good machines.

warwagon said,
What about if their computer is 10 years old? do you say "I'm not going to work on this until you buy a computer?"

Where I work we don't support any OS that isn't supported by Microsoft directly. That means right now we only support the most recent service pack for Windows XP. When EoL hits around for XP completely we will likely drop the support soon after. People will have to either go with Vista, 7, or 8 at that point if they want us to do OS support. I did try to support Windows ME recently (actually had someone with that) and there were no drivers so couldn't do anything for them.

siah1214 said,

$120-180, not including the license.
Seriously? $180 dollar for just the upgrade? You work 3 hours on a upgrade? Do you also count the moments you can't do nothing 'cus Windows is installing? That's not very fair (and even then, how do you get 3 hours on that?).

warwagon said,
What about if their computer is 10 years old? do you say "I'm not going to work on this until you buy a computer?"

When the cost of me working on the computer is greater than the cost of a new computer (when a better computer could be had for $300), yes. It's not my primary source of income so I have the luxury of refusing service, however, usually when I've told people that they need to get a new computer, and shown them how cheap they are now, they've gone ahead and gotten the new one.

Why have them spend a few hundred on me fixing the computer when they could buy a brand new one with modern hardware and software for the same amount of money?

siah1214 said,

When the cost of me working on the computer is greater than the cost of a new computer (when a better computer could be had for $300), yes. It's not my primary source of income so I have the luxury of refusing service, however, usually when I've told people that they need to get a new computer, and shown them how cheap they are now, they've gone ahead and gotten the new one.

Why have them spend a few hundred on me fixing the computer when they could buy a brand new one with modern hardware and software for the same amount of money?

I guess it depends on how much you charge to repair a computer. Technically i'm 55 per hour, but for malware removal and windows reinstall I usually charge a total of 88.28 (includes tax)

warwagon said,
What about if their computer is 10 years old? do you say "I'm not going to work on this until you buy a computer?"

10 year old systems can run 7 ok. One of my "random crap" workstations laying around the house is an Athlon XP system circa 2003. Zero issues. Reasonably sure one of my first generation Proliants ML370 (dual 800MHz) rackmounts had 7 running on it as a larf for a while too, more or less 10 years old.

As a programmer we won't support legacy operating systems. Once XP's cutoff date passes, no more working for XP based systems, which I'm personally glad for, it's getting old having to do special cases to work around the things that XP's missing. (API's, runtimes, etc.) I get wanting to skip 8, but not jumping from XP to 7.. aside from wanting to save a few bucks it just doesn't make much sense.

Max Norris said,

10 year old systems can run 7 ok. One of my "random crap" workstations laying around the house is an Athlon XP system circa 2003. Zero issues. Reasonably sure one of my first generation Proliants ML370 (dual 800MHz) rackmounts had 7 running on it as a larf for a while too, more or less 10 years old.

As a programmer we won't support legacy operating systems. Once XP's cutoff date passes, no more working for XP based systems, which I'm personally glad for, it's getting old having to do special cases to work around the things that XP's missing. (API's, runtimes, etc.) I get wanting to skip 8, but not jumping from XP to 7.. aside from wanting to save a few bucks it just doesn't make much sense.

10years ago, computers used to ship with 256 or 512mb of ram.

of course if you were a power user at that time, your computer probably had 1gb or ram, or more. But that wasn't the case for most users.

I wouldn't advise anyone with such a computer to pay for the ram upgrade and the windows 7 license...

link8506 said,

10years ago, computers used to ship with 256 or 512mb of ram.

of course if you were a power user at that time, your computer probably had 1gb or ram, or more. But that wasn't the case for most users.

I wouldn't advise anyone with such a computer to pay for the ram upgrade and the windows 7 license...

I agree! I'm not going to refuse service to ANYONE just because they are running xp.

Max Norris said,

10 year old systems can run 7 ok.

By running ok, I guess you mean not nearly as responsive or fast as it just was with XP, changing from old but useful computer to useless junk in one leap. What a reasonable "upgrade."

Maybe a 10 year old system with lots of RAM and an exceptionally good graphics card can run Windows 7 well. But that's not the norm. The real world hardware requirements for Windows 7 are much, much steeper than XP - I don't know how you can deny that most 10 year old computers are better off staying with XP.

Edited by kayan, Aug 1 2013, 3:41pm :

kayan said,

By running ok, I guess you mean not nearly as responsive or fast as it just was with XP, changing from old but useful computer to useless junk in one leap. What a reasonable "upgrade."


Any of these computers on this page can be had for under $400:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...rder=RATING&PageSize=20

And would be better than any 10 year old system out there. I got my wife an i3 with 4 GB of RAM for $330 on sale.
If you're holding onto XP you're a luddite.

link8506 said,
10years ago, computers used to ship with 256 or 512mb of ram.

Sure if you were buying used hardware, should check your history a bit..

Besides, if you're using a system that only has 256 or 512MB RAM then good luck running anything remotely current beyond a Notepad knockoff.. if that's the hardware in question then sure, may as well stick with XP because you're going to have serious performance issues anyway.. the hard drive is going to hate you due to the swap file thrashing. Even with XP 512MB isn't really enough to run it comfortably. It'll work, but it'll run like ass.

link8506 said,

10years ago, computers used to ship with 256 or 512mb of ram.

of course if you were a power user at that time, your computer probably had 1gb or ram, or more. But that wasn't the case for most users.

I wouldn't advise anyone with such a computer to pay for the ram upgrade and the windows 7 license...

If we're talking an old PC that sold with that little ram then we're talking what? first gen DDR at best? You can't even find the memory needed for the upgrade anyways I bet. The problem, and the reason XP is still around is because people don't upgrade PCs like they upgrade cell phones (once a year or every two years), so they last till they break or some new game/app you want to run can't and you get forced to.

kayan said,
By running ok, I guess you mean not nearly as responsive or fast as it just was with XP, changing from old but useful computer to useless junk in one leap. What a reasonable "upgrade."

No, it runs more or less the same actually, in some cases better, sorry. Certainly not "junk" by any stretch. Resource usage is better, and is super stable, unlike XP which tends to crash for no good reason, Explorer was especially bad. Add in the missing features/APIs/etc, I have zero reason to ever want to run XP on it again, and this is a system from late 2003.

Max Norris said,

Sure if you were buying used hardware, should check your history a bit..

I bought a laptop in 2004, and it came with 512mb of ram.
it was brand new and cost me 900€.

so, i can assure you that computers in the year 2003 didn't all ship with 1gb of ram. Far from it!

link8506 said,
so, i can assure you that computers in the year 2003 didn't all ship with 1gb of ram. Far from it!

Of course not. Nor did they all ship with 512. So what?

siah1214 said,
If someone comes to me with a computer with XP I refuse to work on it til it's on 7 or 8.
Anyone holding on to XP at this point is a luddite.
LOL. Insult the customer in action. There are many reasons someone might 'hold on to XP'.

startscreennope said,
LOL. Insult the customer in action. There are many reasons someone might 'hold on to XP'.

Stupidity. Anyone that wants to hold on to XP is more trouble than they are worth.

siah1214 said,

Stupidity. Anyone that wants to hold on to XP is more trouble than they are worth.
Posters who blandly and deliberately flame and insult people with fallacious "they're using something I don't like therefore they're stupid" posts should be banned immediately.

startscreennope said,
Posters who blandly and deliberately flame and insult people with fallacious "they're using something I don't like therefore they're stupid" posts should be banned immediately.

Not flaming anyone, just saying that anyone still trying to hold on to XP at this point is stupid. I wasn't directing that at you unless you are one of those people.

siah1214 said,

Stupidity. Anyone that wants to hold on to XP is more trouble than they are worth.
Because migrating all your apps and files from one PC to a new PC is easy, takes no time at all, and you get something special out of the hundreds of dollars you have to spend to do it. Because if all you're doing is browsing the Internet, playing music, and using Quicken, spending hundreds of dollars on a new PC is totally worth it! Total stupidity

siah1214 said,

Not flaming anyone, just saying that anyone still trying to hold on to XP at this point is stupid. I wasn't directing that at you unless you are one of those people.

I don't think of them as stupid at all for Still using XP. They are just people who have something in front of them that does EVERYTHING THEY NEED IT TO DO ... and they see no reason to upgrade. They have no comprehensions of security updates. To them they can browse the web, do email and Facebook.

What I tell people is you have til April, 2014 at which time you will want to probably get a new computer. Most computers running XP would are old and wouldn't be worth the cost of an upgrade.

I don't just refuse the work on them. That would be unprofessional and rude.

Edited by warwagon, Aug 1 2013, 5:38pm :

siah1214 said,

Not flaming anyone, just saying that anyone still trying to hold on to XP at this point is stupid. I wasn't directing that at you unless you are one of those people.
"I'm not flaming anyone, I'm just calling anyone using XP a stupid luddute!"

Only on Neowin (tm)

Max Norris said,

Of course not. Nor did they all ship with 512. So what?

so, saying that you can upgrade 10 years old computers to windows 7 is false.
most computer sold 10 years ago don't have enough RAM. And most of the people who use them never upgraded their RAM either.

link8506 said,
so, saying that you can upgrade 10 years old computers to windows 7 is false.
most computer sold 10 years ago don't have enough RAM. And most of the people who use them never upgraded their RAM either.

Kind of making generalizations there just to prove a point aren't you? I know many people who have upgraded their XP machines past what was factory shipped due to performance issues with only having a small amount of memory. You != everybody. You're trying to make it sound like it's impossible to upgrade an old system to a newer OS, which is just crap.

You can run what you want, you wouldn't believe just how much I don't care about random forum user's systems, but trying to pass off "it's totally ok to run an OS that's about to be killed off" as 100% good for everybody without future ramifications is just silly. There's already stuff that doesn't run on XP (including third party stuff), once Microsoft officially axes it that's just going to get worse, never mind the security implications that go with it.

Studio384 said,
Seriously? $180 dollar for just the upgrade? You work 3 hours on a upgrade? Do you also count the moments you can't do nothing 'cus Windows is installing? That's not very fair (and even then, how do you get 3 hours on that?).

An hour for the upgrade / restoring settings / etc.
Another hour to an hour / two hours for training depending on their proficiency. Sorry if that doesn't meet your fairness standards.

link8506 said,

so, saying that you can upgrade 10 years old computers to windows 7 is false.
most computer sold 10 years ago don't have enough RAM. And most of the people who use them never upgraded their RAM either.

Correct! 10 years ago in 2003 computers usually shipped with 256 megs of ram sometimes 512 if you paid more. So windows 7 would run good on that huh?

siah1214 said,

WET makes it pretty quick and simple. Most of the people I work with are in higher ed so they get discounts on the license ($20 for a license)

What is WET?

FalsePositive said,
What is WET?

Windows Easy Transfer.

warwagon said,
Correct! 10 years ago in 2003 computers usually shipped with 256 megs of ram sometimes 512 if you paid more. So windows 7 would run good on that huh?

As a computer guy you've never upgraded an XP machine? Never mind 256MB nowadays is extremely limiting on what you can run... even with XP.

Edited by Max Norris, Aug 1 2013, 7:07pm :

Max Norris said,

Kind of making generalizations there just to prove a point aren't you? I know many people who have upgraded their XP machines past what was factory shipped due to performance issues with only having a small amount of memory. You != everybody. You're trying to make it sound like it's impossible to upgrade an old system to a newer OS, which is just crap.

no, I'm just saying that upgrading 10 years old machines to win7 is not worth it in most situation, because most people don't do hardware upgrade during the lifetime of their machine, so a 10years old PC is unlikely to have more than 512mb of ram.

so, adding more RAM, paying a license for win7, and paying the technician who will do all the setup is not worth it. It would cost almost as much as a new PC.


You can run what you want, you wouldn't believe just how much I don't care about random forum user's systems, but trying to pass off "it's totally ok to run an OS that's about to be killed off" as 100% good for everybody without future ramifications is just silly. There's already stuff that doesn't run on XP (including third party stuff), once Microsoft officially axes it that's just going to get worse, never mind the security implications that go with it.


you misunderstood what I said.
I'm not saying users should stay on XP. I'm saying they should buy a new (low end) computer instead.

upgrading the HW and OS of a 10 years old machine is just a waste of money.

Studio384 said,
Seriously? $180 dollar for just the upgrade? You work 3 hours on a upgrade? Do you also count the moments you can't do nothing 'cus Windows is installing? That's not very fair (and even then, how do you get 3 hours on that?).
Even If I am waiting for Windows to upgrade it is still my time they gotta pay for. And you know its more than just installing Windows. You have to install everything else.