New Microsoft infographic gives Windows XP a retirement party

With Microsoft still planning to end its official support for Windows XP less than nine months from now, the company is trying to get as many Windows XP users, particularly large businesses, to move to their current operating system, Windows 8.

A newly discovered infographic from Microsoft, shown below, gives Windows XP a retirement party (and a fun looking one at that) while at the same time offering some reasons why businesses should transition to Windows 8. Some of the reasons are certainly spot on, such as the Windows To Go feature that lets users copy their Windows 8 image on a USB drive so they can run it on any Windows PC.

Some of the other reasons are a little more suspect, such as the selection of Windows 8 apps in the Windows Store, which, as we have mentioned before, is still lacking in major apps such as official Facebook and YouTube programs. The infographic also mentions the upcoming Windows 8.1, saying, "It's Windows 8 but even better."

Currently, the research firm Net Applications shows that Windows XP is installed on over 37 percent of all PCs worldwide, which means that Microsoft will have to work hard to get that number down. The company recently indicated it had a goal of seeing the market share of Windows XP to be below 10 percent worldwide before the support cut off date of April 8, 2014.

Source: Microsoft via Winbeta.org | Image via Microsoft

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft Paint is the canvas for 97-year-old legally blind artist

Next Story

Intel's fanless and energy efficient Haswell chip coming later this year

75 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

What are those people at the bottom supposed to be? Is Microsoft trying to be hip again? They really need to stop that, it's embarrassing. Like when old people use outdated slang trying to act young and cool.

I don't know what is worst:
1) the cheap work.
2) the "xp is gone, hail to the king 8".
3) the balloons.
4) the people at the bottom, are they rapping?. (yuck!).
5) all the above.

At least they don't used Comic Sans.

anyways, windows 8 is not so bad, it is just that the ugly front-end is useless and annoying. Outside that, it feels snappy

Recently upgraded my uncle from XP -> 8 ... He is having a somewhat hard time adjusting. Mainly because he keeps thinking "there was nothing wrong with my XP computer!! It was good!!" Mind you all, it was a Pentium 4, 512 ram etc etc... Crap machine. While he is a little older, he just seems stubborn to learn, gets frustrated when some things that were 'easy' in XP are now 'hard' in 8. I (have to) assume that majority of the users out there still on XP are like him, stubborn, fearful and probably unwilling to accept change. All others have already upgraded (at least to Windows 7)

There is no reason to change their ways tho.
Let them be happy, give em a classicshell, disable the hotcorners.
I did upgrade a few from XP to 8 lately, and I placed a classicshell installation file with a nice help.txt to guide them through it incase they miss it So far they don't seem to miss it to much though.
But it helps just giving them the 'power of choice', seems to make it easier for them to 'give it a try' and end up accepting it.

I was hoping this infographic would have looked back more at Windows XP's legacy and history... rather than just be another advert for Windows 8. But I guess I'm not surprised...

Windows To Go requires Windows 8 Enterprise edition and you need to boot it on a computer that is running Windows 7 or Windows 8.

Windows 8 is only a "downgrade" (compared to 7 and earlier) if you are dependent on the Start menu. Otherwise (and I'm speaking as someone that is running 8.1 Preview today), you lost nothing.

I haven't gained anything either. Faster startup? I guess I might care if I restarted more than once a month and even then I'm not sitting on the edge of my seat thinking "omg hurry up". It's really not a big deal at all. I don't want Metro and its silly fullscreen apps eating up gigabytes of disk space for no reason since I'm never ever going to use them yet I'm not allowed to uninstall them.

To me the new UI is hideous without Aero and looks unfinished, reminds me of Starter Edition with Aero disabled and the flat ugly buttons. Fact is Windows 7 does absolutely everything I need it to, is completely stable and fast and it doesn't come with a lot of crap I don't want or take away usability in order to shovel mobile phones onto the market or compete with Apple's app store.

I think even though Win7 was good, we are overdue a "Windows version" like XP, hopefully soon.
Rewritten, recoded and more importantly STABLE, with users not having to read up on how to use it, or have dumb videos showing them. Thats what made XP so great, get it, install, and USE because you used previous windows versions!
If you were old enough and lucky enough to embrace XP (I Been using it since day of launch, and will do so until it stops getting updates), a piece of our IT will fade away, possibly never refilled.

Please - XP was originally *despised*; in fact, even Windows 2000 Professional was not liked THAT much. What saved both was users getting past the angst and misinformation and actually using both OSes. (In both cases, the most loved business OS was (don't faint) NT4WS - because it looked like the hyperpopular 9x, with which it shared a UI, and that it could run on even a 486SX; as NT4WS killed the 386-class CPU, Windows 2000 Professional would do the same to the 80486-class CPU.) Why was XP despised initially? Believe it or not, it was the UI (remember the "Fisher Price UI" comments?) - "Luna" was disparaged as "un-businesslike"; the Classic UI option didn't even change Luna that much. So stop trying to blow smoke up my butt, please.

Where did you get that BS about Windows 2000 Professional not being well liked? Its clear you are 15 years old. Windows 2000 Professional was a God Send for business PC's and IT Pros. Unlike Windows NT Workstation, Windows 2000 Professional which was targeted as a business operating system had features like USB support, Power Management (something that was not in Windows NT), so you could finally use NT on a laptop without worrying. It also had DirectX support, which made many gamers end up choosing it over Windows 98 run their games, it didn't break like Windows NT, I remember running NT 4 and it crashed almost everyday. Windows 2000 Professional was a sticky OS, up 2008 I still saw it heavily in use. Japan has hundreds of thousands of Windows 2000 Professional which they had no funds to upgrade when it reached EOL. Windows 2000 Professional introduced many innovations such as SFC/File Protection, Encrypting File System, Windows Installer Technology, it was just darn reliable, I could keep it running for months without shutting down. I remember when I worked at this company, even on the weekends I left my old Dell on and returned Monday morning and picked up from where I left off.

Although Windows XP was version 5.1, it really did not add much, but it was significantly faster than Windows 2000 Professional in some scenarios. It also made dealing with digital media at the time much easier with things like Digital Cameras, USB Sticks, CD-Burners coming into play. It made dealing with these technologies much easier, examples include System Restore, Photo Printing Wizard, built in CD Burning. The interface was actually refreshing and friendly and made Windows seem less boring with the gray Windows. I remember seeing installed on Administration computers at the library and seeing the Welcome screen.

PGHammer said,
Please - XP was originally *despised*; in fact, even Windows 2000 Professional was not liked THAT much. What saved both was users getting past the angst and misinformation and actually using both OSes. (In both cases, the most loved business OS was (don't faint) NT4WS - because it looked like the hyperpopular 9x, with which it shared a UI, and that it could run on even a 486SX; as NT4WS killed the 386-class CPU, Windows 2000 Professional would do the same to the 80486-class CPU.) Why was XP despised initially? Believe it or not, it was the UI (remember the "Fisher Price UI" comments?) - "Luna" was disparaged as "un-businesslike"; the Classic UI option didn't even change Luna that much. So stop trying to blow smoke up my butt, please.

*lol* what? NT4 was more popular then 2K because of the UI? um, 2K didn't use theming in the desktop like XP did.. 2K was one of the more popular OS's NT4 was a pain in the butt at times

I said that XP was despised initially because of the UI - Luna (XP's UI skin) was called "Fisher Price" by many, including here on Neowin. Windows 2000 changed only in terms of the internals; the UI hardly changed at all. Businesses initially hated Windows 2000 Professional because those older 486-class NT4 desktops had to be replaced, as Windows 2000 no longer supported them. (I was working for an enterprise that changed over from NT4WS -> Windows 2000 Professional during 2001 - we HAD no 486-class boxes, hence no hardware upgrade costs. What nearly ground the upgrade to a halt was SOFTWARE update/upgrade costs. At home, I had, in fact, been running 2000 Professional since launch - instead of Windows ME or 98SE (which I crossgraded from). The why of THAT was easy enough - stability, stability, stability.)

XP was despised initially the same reason Vista was despised.

3rd party support was absolute rubbish trying to use their 9x drivers on NT kernel.
Using their crappy 9x practices on XP wasn't helping and it took until SP2 before XP really took over and stuck to people.

It surely wasn't the theme, most people seem to know how to change themes (at least in those days) as the silver version of Luna was used very much. Probably a close second to Luna itself. So people that changed it, have noticed classic and decided to stick with default luna or the silver one.

PGHammer said,
I said that XP was despised initially because of the UI - Luna (XP's UI skin) was called "Fisher Price" by many, including here on Neowin. Windows 2000 changed only in terms of the internals; the UI hardly changed at all. Businesses initially hated Windows 2000 Professional because those older 486-class NT4 desktops had to be replaced, as Windows 2000 no longer supported them. (I was working for an enterprise that changed over from NT4WS -> Windows 2000 Professional during 2001 - we HAD no 486-class boxes, hence no hardware upgrade costs. What nearly ground the upgrade to a halt was SOFTWARE update/upgrade costs. At home, I had, in fact, been running 2000 Professional since launch - instead of Windows ME or 98SE (which I crossgraded from). The why of THAT was easy enough - stability, stability, stability.)

Windows 2000 Professional was actually nice to use, it had a lighter gray scheme, drop shadow under pointers, menus, animation when you clicked a menu, show window contents while dragging, personalized menus. No one expected or wanted a disruptive change to the UI in Windows 2000 since it was really about technology, especially integration with Active Directory and being fully 32 bit. Just improvements like Power Management really made Windows 2000 the best OS at the time for laptops. Considering that Windows 2000 Professional RTMed in February of 1999 (I remember, because I even watched the web cast with Patrick Stewart and Bill Gates). You wouldn't expect many businesses to start migrating to it right away, but there were sites already deploying just for the technological improvements. Considering that most large businesses that did start deployment likely had a volume license agreement, they moved at their own pace. Where I worked, deployment didn't really start until about 2002 and accelerated in 2003. I do agree, Windows NT 4 was light and I saw a mix of it where I worked with 2K for some time, but it was minimal, only scientist running some really specialized apps still kept running it years later.

CygnusOrion said,
Cheap ass businesses won't pay the $199 license fee for Windows 8.

If they did, would it make them an extra $100 a day? No. So there's no point. Most businesses now days run on web-based apps. Internet, email and Office are really all they need.

CygnusOrion said,
Cheap ass businesses won't pay the $199 license fee for Windows 8.

So these "Cheap ass businesses" should fork out $199 for the license, loose productivity for X number of employee's while they figure out the new OS, and in the end the machine won't create any additional revenue. Now we see why you're not a business owner

CygnusOrion said,
Cheap ass businesses won't pay the $199 license fee for Windows 8.
Oh boy! There's a lot more to it than your simple solution.

Kelxin said,

So these "Cheap ass businesses" should fork out $199 for the license, loose productivity for X number of employee's while they figure out the new OS, and in the end the machine won't create any additional revenue. Now we see why you're not a business owner


All those employees already use Windows 7/8 at home. Get out of your hypothetical stone age. People have computers at home. There's no more "getting used to" to do!

Very short sighted. All it takes is one security vulnerability to be exploited and the business would incur far more in losses than the $1000 cost for an OS and hardware upgrade. While it may not create additional revenue it is just plain common sense.
Windows 7/8 are inherently far more secure than XP.

CygnusOrion said,
Cheap ass businesses won't pay the $199 license fee for Windows 8.
Most ignorant comment I've seen all day. $199 doesn't sound like much but small companies might have 10-20 PCs and larger companies can easily have over 1000 PCs (that's $199,000, hard to justify.....but but the employees will get pretty tiles! lol)

Larger companies are usually under a volume license agreement that includes a volume discount, and have Microsoft Open and Microsoft Select licensing options. With KMS and Windows Deployment Services, rolling Windows 7/8 upgrades for your organization are incredibly easy, as long as you are qualified to work in IT.

It's far less than that, but the deployment costs and training costs are what really make it pricey. Think of how many downright stupid and helpless people there are out there who don't want to take on the responsibility to change their habits or learn something new. Plus, an OS upgrade can also require client software upgrades. For a financial firm like I work for, that could mean buying upgrades for the 10+ pieces of corporate spyware (I kid you not) installed on every workstation.

xpxp2002 said,
as long as you are qualified to work in IT.

Keep in mind that a lot with MSTSC licenses and such got their licenses by learning the list of random questions from the "test course". And don't know how to open up services without going through the control/admin panel.

Think there keeping Windows XP on here at work for a while, but will just pay for patches like they do for NT, idiots!!

drzr said,
I can't believe people still use XP and are actually proud of it...
Still a good OS. I use it on a machine that never goes on the internet. I play my old games on it and it runs as smooth as butta!

Any specific reasons for doing so?

Anyhow I was referring to people using it as their main OS. I loved XP back in 2008 as well but seriously even if you hate Windows 8, it's senseless to not have moved to Windows 7 by now.

drzr said,
Any specific reasons for doing so?

Anyhow I was referring to people using it as their main OS. I loved XP back in 2008 as well but seriously even if you hate Windows 8, it's senseless to not have moved to Windows 7 by now.

I just rather have my very old games run natively. Rather not go through the whole compatibility mode thing just to get an old game running. I also just love old hardware. The Windows XP I have is running on a Pentium 4 with an ATI 9800 Pro AGP video card. I used this machine full time back in 2002 I believe.

Ah, that makes sense. I probably have a Pentium machine set aside somewhere in storage, it'll be fun to test it out and see if it's still functional when I eventually get around to clearing that space sometime down the years ;-)

drzr said,
I can't believe people still use XP and are actually proud of it...

What is there about a supermarket self service machine that you think it needs W7 or W8 because it having XPe makes it unable to do?

drzr said,
I can't believe people still use XP and are actually proud of it...
For a lot of businesses upgrading for the sake of upgrading doesn't always make sense. Let's take an admin assistant for example, his/her computer is most likely used for typing documents with Office and maybe the odd browsing the web (modern web browsers can be used on XP, firefox and chrome). How would upgrading her computer to Windows 8 benefit the organization? So he/she can have fun with the pretty tiles?

You're oversimplifying a bit there but like I mentioned in my comment above they should at least upgrade to Windows 7. The superbar and shortcuts are more efficient, libraries also, aero creates a better working environment, better resource management which means it will run faster on same or older hardware, more secure and stable, better networking setup. And above all an operating system which is supported till 2020.

JHB - ninety-nine out of one hundred cases, the Compatibility Mode testing (if needed) has already been done for you, as starting with Windows 2000 Professional, Microsoft has been building a database of software (applications, games, utilities, etc) that requires a specific OS and/or specific settings (to install, run, etc.) - that means the user need do nothing but install the software. A larger issue are installers that aren't designed to be run on x64-based Windows, as opposed to games themselves (that's why GOG and GreenManGaming have been developing installers such as Capsule).

JHBrown said,
I just rather have my very old games run natively. Rather not go through the whole compatibility mode thing just to get an old game running. I also just love old hardware. The Windows XP I have is running on a Pentium 4 with an ATI 9800 Pro AGP video card. I used this machine full time back in 2002 I believe.

Ever thought about virtual machine with XP?
I use it for most pre-vista day games and except a few they all run fine on today's virtual machinery. This wasn't the case 1-2 years ago though.

Businesses are especially loathe to have anything to do with Windows 8. Aside from being new and untested, Win 8 is less efficient, less productive, and less functional. Can you imagine professional musicians, artists, programmers, and server administrators using Win 8 to manage their multitasking workflow? LOL

MS is now ****ing on customers heads and telling them it's raining. Their attempt to force desktop users to familiarize themselves with the metro UI in order to make them more likely to buy Windows phones and tablets has not only failed spectacularly, it's backfired into plummeting PC sales. Party on, MS.

startscreennope said,
Businesses are especially loathe to have anything to do with Windows 8. Aside from being new and untested, Win 8 is less efficient, less productive, and less functional. Can you imagine professional musicians, artists, programmers, and server administrators using Win 8 to manage their multitasking workflow? LOL

MS is now ****ing on customers heads and telling them it's raining. Their attempt to force desktop users to familiarize themselves with the metro UI in order to make them more likely to buy Windows phones and tablets has not only failed spectacularly, it's backfired into plummeting PC sales. Party on, MS.

Well, I'm currently working on upgrading most of my organisation to Windows 8 and Server 2012. I manage my 'multitasking' flow without any issues on Windows 8, in fact it's a much better OS than Windows 7 in my opinion. HyperV has certainly had a well deserved upgrade.

startscreennope said,
Businesses are especially loathe to have anything to do with Windows 8. Aside from being new and untested, Win 8 is less efficient, less productive, and less functional. Can you imagine professional musicians, artists, programmers, and server administrators using Win 8 to manage their multitasking workflow? LOL

MS is now ****ing on customers heads and telling them it's raining. Their attempt to force desktop users to familiarize themselves with the metro UI in order to make them more likely to buy Windows phones and tablets has not only failed spectacularly, it's backfired into plummeting PC sales. Party on, MS.

I thought about writing a long reply to your comment... but it seems like a utter waste of time.

Go use Windows 8 for yourself before judging it. I'm a programmer and I use Windows 8. Nothing changed from when I used Windows 7. Nothing at all.

If you're talking about the Start Screen... I never used the Start Menu on Windows 7. There was no need to. All my applications were pinned to the Taskbar. Same on Windows 8.

' All my applications were pinned to the Taskbar. '

That's all well and good if you are only ever using about a dozen applications, but not much help if you have the thick end of a hundred or so applications installed, all used with varying degrees of regularity.

Personally, I absolutely detest the Metro UI and it's user hostility on a non-touch enabled machine, I still rue the day that I ponied up 25 quid to buy Win 8.

Installing Classic Shell was the only thing that stopped me from junking Win 8 and going back to Win 7.

MidTxWRX said,

I thought about writing a long reply to your comment... but it seems like a utter waste of time.

Go use Windows 8 for yourself before judging it. I'm a programmer and I use Windows 8. Nothing changed from when I used Windows 7. Nothing at all.

Making a "you're not worth my time" post while presuming I haven't tried Windows 8. Your post perfectly encapsulates the ignorant, belligerent posters that don't understand why Windows 8 is functionally inferior, and so make presumptions and insults towards people who understand more than them. Luckily for your ignorance I'm graciously providing you the below link to educate yourself.

http://www.neowin.net/forum/to...-improve-on-with-windows-81

Pinning all your programs to the task bar? Don't make me laugh.

XP isn't retiring (that happened in 2008), it is dying next April. There is no "should" about upgrading, instead it is a "must"

The last XP update should go out on April 1st, disable all HIDs, crank the volume, and permanently turn every single computer on XP into a Rickroll bot.

JHBrown said,
I may cry. Windows XP is a legend! No other OS may come as close to its popularity other than Windows 7.

The ironic part is there were a lot of complaints about upgrading to XP at the time too, lol.

From the usual hardware/drivers, or that NT was never meant to play games, or the best one IMO, complaining about the new fisher price /kids crayola interface Microsoft decided to skin XP with.
And it is weird that Microsoft went to all that trouble, yet they released what... 5 new themes over the years? Yet, the community hacked themes there are 1000s out there.

sagum said,

The ironic part is there were a lot of complaints about upgrading to XP at the time too, lol.

From the usual hardware/drivers, or that NT was never meant to play games, or the best one IMO, complaining about the new fisher price /kids crayola interface Microsoft decided to skin XP with.
And it is weird that Microsoft went to all that trouble, yet they released what... 5 new themes over the years? Yet, the community hacked themes there are 1000s out there.

Yes, I do remember those fine times. You also brought up a fond memory. Windows XP was so customizable. That is how I found Neowin. I was searching for themes and came across this site and fell in love with the talent here.

JHBrown said,
Yes, I do remember those fine times. You also brought up a fond memory. Windows XP was so customizable. That is how I found Neowin. I was searching for themes and came across this site and fell in love with the talent here.

I also came across Neowin when looking for XP customizations/optimizations. And started learning _how_ it actually all works.

On XP at this moment - and still loving it. It's about the apps stupid (and good antivirus software...).

Walk around shopping centers in Australia, and you'll see XP still dominates and Windows 98SE comes second. With the rate of change here, it will probably stay like this for years to come.

I assume you're referring to PoS terminals, in which case yeah, XP and 98SE are widely used because there's no reason to upgrade them because doing so would provide almost no benefit. They upgrade only when fixing the system costs more than replacing it.

Using that as a business-use example is kind of inaccurate.

The Dark Knight said,
That is seriously UGLY!

You are right as ugly as metro UI. Xp is not going anywhere. It will be still there lurking for next 5 years atleast.

As a graphic designer, i totally agree. Metro itself is not ugly though, it's modern and beautiful, when done right.

The only thing i like about this graphic is the reflection on the balloons - it's actually a Win 8 logo.

The Dark Knight said,
That is seriously UGLY!

Not only is it ugly, but every single point isn't aimed at an XP user. Don't know what they were smoking when they created the graphic, but honestly they weren't thinking of XP at the time.

1. Re-imagined a version of windows for someone who's still using XP. Not only removing the start menu, but also all the other changes to windows that have happened in previous versions is going to be a very different world for most XP users. This is not a bonus for them, its a ball ache. They WILL spend more time searching and less time doing.

2. If they're still using XP, the chances are they already have all the 'apps' they need and are quite happy using them, that's why they've not upgraded. doh.

3. Honestly not needed. For the majority of businesses, they either have a laptop or the machines are refreshed over the network anyway. Microsoft has got a looong way to go before they can convince businesses to do it another way if they've not upgraded from XP yet.

4. IE... Yeah, because they're not using firefox or chrome already on XP. This comes from an era where IE is very much frowned up on, it's like they're giving reasons not to Windows 8.

5. See point 2. They already have what they need/want.

6. Probably the only one Microsoft could have gone with, except they've already killed off some of the best features of Windows 8 with the connected accounts. The messaging hub that is next to useless now that they've killed off windows live messaging service and created a separate Skype app. No real integration, and that few apps that do it such as Pictures is so far remove from what an XP user is used to, it's not even!

7. Install Windows 8 on the same hardware that could run Windows 7! That's great.. oh wait, they're running windows XP...

8. Same experience you're comfortable and familiar with... if you we're comfortable and familiar with windows 8. See point 1. XP users are comfortable and familiar with XP, not 8.

To top it off, they say Windows 8.1 is Windows 8, but better.. great, I'm sure XP users will love that.

Not sure I'd go as far as calling it "ugly," but those two ghetto silhouettes that the balloons appear to be tied to just seem a bit out of place.

sagum said,

7. Install Windows 8 on the same hardware that could run Windows 7! That's great.. oh wait, they're running windows XP...

Windows 8 runs fine on most XP hardware. Most XP machines I do see are P4 HT/core2duo and up with 1,5-2gb of ram.
Which will run Win8 as decent (or crap) as WinXP
Drivers can be a problem though.