Windows XP use keeps going up; Windows 8.1 stalls in February's OS data

With less than 40 days before Microsoft pulls the plug on supporting Windows XP, the 12-year old operating system seems to actually be gaining a few more users. That's according to the data collected by Net Applications, which shows that Windows XP had a market share of 29.53 percent for the month of February.

That number is up compared to January 2014, when Windows XP had 29.30 percent of the OS share. It's becoming clear that Microsoft's attempts and pleas to get people and businesses to stop using XP won't be enough to reduce its worldwide percentage substantially by the support deadline of April 8th.

At the same time, Net Application's data shows yet another OS problem for Microsoft; lots of folks are simply not updating their Windows 8 PCs to the new, and free, Windows 8.1, despite its improvements and new features. The firm's February data shows that Windows 8.1 now has just 4.30 percent of the OS market share, compared to 3.92 percent in January. That's a very tiny rise for a update that is completely free for Windows 8 users. 

The February data shows Windows 8 still has 6.38 percent of the OS share worldwide, compared to 6.62 percent in January. Combined, Windows 8 and 8.1's share amounted to 10.68 percent, which is only slightly higher than its 10.54 percentage level in January.

Windows 7, to no one's surprise, remains the most used PC operating system. The new data for February show it holds a 47.31 percent of the market, compared to January's 47.46 percent.

Source: Net Applications | Image via Net Applications

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft to hold official Xbox One Titanfall launch event March 10th in Austin

Next Story

Microsoft's latest TV ad takes a jab at Apple for not offering touchscreen Macs

201 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I still run Windows XP! In a VM. It never connects to the internet, it doesn't even have networking. It's purely to run a couple of legacy apps. So I'm guessing that's not counted in their statistics

Have you SEEN the average user? They consider installing VLC an endavour, because it asks them which filetypes to associate with. And you are asking them to upgrade from XP to 7 or 8.x and submit themselves to a UI change and risk broken compatibility with hardware drivers? Yeah right. People upgrade their system only when it stops doing what they want. Sad but true. And most people don't really upgrade, they just get a new PC.

My group supports about 1200 computers that have all kinds of special software. This has been a job upgrading these to Windows 7 and we're still not done. As a matter of fact we're probably going to purchase extended patching until we're done. If our computers were normal office machines with browsers, email and Office we could have knocked them out in a few months. The thought of having to do this again in 5 years makes my stomach turn. I see us pulling our computers off the network completely instead of going through this again not just because of the time it's taken, but the cost of new software and hardware.

My friend still uses WinXP because he got it free (legal copy) and the computer free, but it's just a small system so it mostly likely won't run Win7it does everything he wants and I going to give him a copy of my Nero 9 too run on it

Since so many haven't updated Win8 to 8.1 (either don't wish to or don't know) are we going to have three different version of Win8 showing up in this metric soon? Win8, 8.1 and 8.1 Update 1.? At least the Update will be through WU so should end up being done my most.

Interesting thought though, will the Update 1 show up if they are still on Win8 and just not install or force a full update at that time?

Microsoft must release Windows 7 SP2. (with better security)
After that they can busy with Windows 8.x or maybe Windows 9

utomo said,
Microsoft must release Windows 7 SP2. (with better security)
After that they can busy with Windows 8.x or maybe Windows 9

I'd much rather have Microsoft devote its time into building Windows 9.

utomo said,
Microsoft must release Windows 7 SP2. (with better security)
After that they can busy with Windows 8.x or maybe Windows 9

Windows 7 isn't getting a second service pack. In fact, Microsoft isn't even releasing service packs (in the traditional sense) anymore.

utomo said,
Microsoft must release Windows 7 SP2. (with better security)
After that they can busy with Windows 8.x or maybe Windows 9

Or in their new verbage - Windows 7 SP1 Update 1 rofl.

utomo said,
Microsoft must release Windows 7 SP2. (with better security)
After that they can busy with Windows 8.x or maybe Windows 9

They "must"? Says who?

It just goes to show that, organisations are not willing to change their entire systems over to Windows 8 because it isn't resourceful, and it'll cause so many issues with training and support they're not willing to sacrifice their IT Department.

Change + Training = Mayhem

Its time to let go already. Windows 8.1 is perfectly fine. I really dont know what all the fuss is about. I work for Verizon and we finally dumped XP for Windows 7 and I love it. XP had its day but Its time to let it go... RIP XP

When we made the change we only had about a week of mayhem.. Now all is super smooth with no XP in the mix..

That doesn't explain individuals. Enterprises I get - however, individual aversion is largely about aesthetics (as in no Start menu).

To all those saying "I'm going to stick to Windows XP because Windows 8 sucks!"

I say bullsh*t. Windows 7 came before that and you didn't upgrade either. Explain yourselves.

The people that complain about Windows 8 just boggle me completely. They call it a mess. It's terrible. It's awful. It's horrible. What? It's just a better version of Windows 7 that has an OPTIONAL touch interface. Yes, it's optional. I run Win8 as my primary desktop. I very seldom see the start screen. I think some people just complain to, well, complain.

I tried using it again last night on a VM.

It is too painful and ugly. Where is my aero? The colors on the desktop resemble a disney cartoon. The icons in control panel are gone and in the wrong places. It has no rounded corners. You can't stack metro apps on the task bar.

I still had to bing how to shut it down. I used VMWare's power off to shut it down. Office 2013 is ugly too and all blinding white with a stretched ribbon that takes up valuable pixels on my 23 inch screen! Office 2010 works and I need to repurchase it if I upgrade.

Windows 7 is well worth the $100 to upgrade from that unusable ugly mess

laserfloyd,

Perhaps the people who are complaining have good reason to. If you enjoy Windows 8, good for you. But many people don't. In the end, folks will use what works for them. It's really not a big deal or something to be boggled over. Life is too short, is it not?

Shut down? in 8.1, Right-click the Start button.

Or learn to use the charms! Top or bottom right corner, Settings, Shut down. It's actually the same number of steps as in Windows 7.

If you think Windows 8 is "ugly" you need to get out of last decade. 8 was at the forefront of simplified, readable, typographic driven interfaces. Aero is useless skeumorphic garbage.

Websites change more than Windows did from 7 to 8, and yet people moan more about Windows. Sigh.

My only complaint about Windows 8 is that they need to update ALL the icons. At the moment it's a confusing mixture of 7/Vista/Modern, even quite a few small XP icon leftovers. Microsoft need to complete the transition to modern icons. Make it more consistent.

james.faction said,
Shut down? in 8.1, Right-click the Start button.

Or learn to use the charms! Top or bottom right corner, Settings, Shut down. It's actually the same number of steps as in Windows 7.

If you think Windows 8 is "ugly" you need to get out of last decade. 8 was at the forefront of simplified, readable, typographic driven interfaces. Aero is useless skeumorphic garbage.

Websites change more than Windows did from 7 to 8, and yet people moan more about Windows. Sigh.

My only complaint about Windows 8 is that they need to update ALL the icons. At the moment it's a confusing mixture of 7/Vista/Modern, even quite a few small XP icon leftovers. Microsoft need to complete the transition to modern icons. Make it more consistent.

How is color skeumorphic? Office 2013 is blinding white and HORRIBLE just like Metro. MS thinks skeumorphic means dragging the mouse around all over the dang place like a retard and clicking everywhere in corners just to do this charm thing. Or I can click start button and hit shutdown in 1/7th the time? MS also thinks sheumorphism means color and features. so anti askeumorphism must mean read content only with no options at all in blinding white or washed out Disney colors. The red color of the button and grayish cartoony title bar in Windows 8 is a prime example of this.

Windows 7 works fine thank you very much and we will fight MS tooth and nail with this constant upgrade treadmill!!

The XP users are sending a message loud and clear to Microsoft that we wont tolerate being used as a marketing tool to sell more phones. Normally I am not anti technology here but I like my gradients, aero, tiny pictures on sites that do not take up the whole darn screen, and menus. They work and why change for the sake of change?

After what happened with slasdhot.org and msnbc.com with their beta's and users SCREAMING MURDER they put a classic option back. The new look has no research behind it whatsoever other than art professors who have no experience in UX design say this is the future. No one wants this.

I do agree with you with the mix. That is why modern must die if it wont become desktopified. Market share statistics back me up too regardless of the propaganda from MS. 90% of users prefer XP, Mac, and Windows 7.

We have work to do and if we just want to focus on content only notepad would have replaced word by now. The modern design team admitted it that they only cared about that. So since we only focus on the road why don't we make a car out of glass so we can see the road at all times but do not include doors. After all doors are skeumorphic and the focus needs to be on the road. ... the drivers can climb in from the top etc.

Metro is not optional. If it were, no one would be complaining. it was intentionally designed to be on your face, so users would get used to Microsoft's touch based products.

What puzzles me is that some seem surprised that users are resisting that shameful strategy.

You can select a dark theme for office btw. I have it darkish/grey. Just select it from the options.
shortkeys still work too. And having to move mouse more is your issue. Customize the ribbon bar to suit your own needs and you don't have to painstakingly go through hordes of menu's to do simple things.
My windows title bar isn't cartoony. Full black with a grey text. As I personally like it and had it on Windows 7 (had aero but just a little glass). I for one like flat simple designs. And so do many people. If you don't... http://www.wincustomize.com and have fun.

Just because _you_ don't completely like Windows out of the box, change it. No reason to stick with an older version. Microsoft can't cater every individual. They go for the masses. And the masses aren't the one screaming and hating on Windows 8. On the contrary. (no matter how you think the world is, most people can use Windows 8 just fine and don't complain so much from 3 years old to 90 years old.)

Microsoft is not stopping us from customizing the OS. With Windows 8 itself I had a few issues and used classicshell, even some aero glass mod for a while and some little tweaks here and there. 8.1 fixed many of my issues and now I personally need less tweaks.
But I still tweak my OS to suit my OWN liking. And even if there's plenty to critize upon, overal no matter how you put it, Windows 8 kicks 7's ass.
Also you help improving the OS by giving the customer feedback Microsoft included with Vista. Let them know HOW you use the system. I have and many with me. It is on that where they based Windows 8 on.

Let's face it. in XP days there was a start menu and runbox. Vista merged this and degraded the start menu to a fancy search box. 7 degraded the desktop to be a static junk of icons. (removing active desktop and later in its life killing off the gadgets)
Windows 8 merged this in many ways. 2 things you used to use a lot right? Menu's and the desktop. In one.

A window with static/live icons that features anything both the desktop and start menu once offered seperately.

But no, keep hating dude

I honestly cannot fathom why anyone actively running Windows 8.0 wouldn't update to Windows 8.1

When they come out with Windows 9, they had better make sure it will upgrade anyone on windows 7 and windows 8.x directly to 9, without making them reinstall all their desktop apps, and they should price it at $49 max for people upgrading, and $99 max for everyone else (new installs, and upgrading from Vista or XP which are basically new installs anyway).

pmbAustin said,
I honestly cannot fathom why anyone actively running Windows 8.0 wouldn't update to Windows 8.1

When they come out with Windows 9, they had better make sure it will upgrade anyone on windows 7 and windows 8.x directly to 9, without making them reinstall all their desktop apps, and they should price it at $49 max for people upgrading, and $99 max for everyone else (new installs, and upgrading from Vista or XP which are basically new installs anyway).

It wont! People are afraid of change after Vista and Metro and unlike XP, 7 doesn't have security issues or windows rot as much.

Unless Windows 9 is something so revolutionary and a must have people will just keep their older win 7 boxes as they work fine.

The 1990's are over. There is no reason to upgrade operating systems anymore as they are now mature.

You can bet many will go out of their way to wipe win 9 and put win 7 back too out of familiarity like some do today with Xp over win 7.

pmbAustin said,
I honestly cannot fathom why anyone actively running Windows 8.0 wouldn't update to Windows 8.1

When they come out with Windows 9, they had better make sure it will upgrade anyone on windows 7 and windows 8.x directly to 9, without making them reinstall all their desktop apps, and they should price it at $49 max for people upgrading, and $99 max for everyone else (new installs, and upgrading from Vista or XP which are basically new installs anyway).

I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you're talking about how Windows 7 didn't support in-place upgrades from XP. There were a million and one reasons as to why. First of all, XP was a fundamentally different OS, with a different structure. Vista, changed that, and 7 built off of that. Second, XP was a 32 bit OS, and 7 mainly 64 bit. You cannot upgrade a 32 bit OS to 64 bit. That requires a clean install.

I think even if w7 did support in place upgrades the users won't upgrade. There is no reason as what they have already works.

The users left do not care about computers like we do and view them like a refrigerator or garden hose. It is just a tool. If it works why replace it.

Geeky or semi geeky ones have mostly replaced already. There are a few computer geeks who still use XP because they are die hards and hate change. But they are in a minority my guess is.

Dot Matrix said,

I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you're talking about how Windows 7 didn't support in-place upgrades from XP. There were a million and one reasons as to why. First of all, XP was a fundamentally different OS, with a different structure. Vista, changed that, and 7 built off of that. Second, XP was a 32 bit OS, and 7 mainly 64 bit. You cannot upgrade a 32 bit OS to 64 bit. That requires a clean install.

No, I'm talking about how Windows 7 users can upgrade in place to 8.0, but not to 8.1. I thought that was pretty clear in my post.

My point is that when they come out with Windows 9, they really need to ensure that you can upgrade in place (without having to re-install all your desktop apps) from not only ANY version of 8.x, but also from Windows 7. If they don't do that, they're actively creating another "XP" situation where people will just sit on it forever, because upgrades are too painful.

One thing I've taken away from this, is that Windows 8 users are simply not using the Microsoft Store. I actually see this in my day to day interactions. I've seen a co-workers Windows 8 laptop with something like 32 Windows Store updates. His reason when I asked, "I don't ever click on the store tile."

warwagon said,
Microsoft REALLY needs to bring back the $40 windows 8 upgrade!

Why? - almost no one bought it, because they don't like the metro interface. They could make it free and the result would be the same.

I beta tested Windows 8, and it was the first ever Windows beta program that I dropped out of, and never bought the product when it was released.

warwagon said,
Microsoft REALLY needs to bring back the $40 windows 8 upgrade!

They should allow the user the choice of either: enable the start button or disable it, ZorinOS allows something similar.

I have a lot of clients who have old Pentium 4's with 512MB RAM that run XP. Its hard enough to get them to run Google Chrome as their browser, let alone buy a new PC and upgrade to Windows 8.1.

Max™ said,
I have a lot of clients who have old Pentium 4's with 512MB RAM that run XP. Its hard enough to get them to run Google Chrome as their browser, let alone buy a new PC and upgrade to Windows 8.1.

With 512 meg of ram opening google chrome would bring that system to it's knees.

warwagon said,

With 512 meg of ram opening google chrome would bring that system to it's knees.

Which in all honestly, is pretty ridiculous. When I think of memory intensive applications, a simple web browser doesn't seem to fit into that category. Nothing is optimized anymore. An N64 should be able to run a web browser!

AR556 said,

Which in all honestly, is pretty ridiculous. When I think of memory intensive applications, a simple web browser doesn't seem to fit into that category. Nothing is optimized anymore. An N64 should be able to run a web browser!

A web browser is an application platform to run webapps. Not a text viewer with a few pictures circa 1996 anymore.

sinetheo said,

A web browser is an application platform to run webapps. Not a text viewer with a few pictures circa 1996 anymore.

I agree that a browser is more than just a browser these days, but seriously, what are some truly complex webapps that are system taxing?

AR556 said,

I agree that a browser is more than just a browser these days, but seriously, what are some truly complex webapps that are system taxing?

It's not just webapps, modern browsers sandbox each tab. Each tab now runs in its own separate process, requiring processing power and RAM.

As for webapps, many require the use of Flash, Java (ugh), Silverlight, etc...

JavaScript and flashes action script are full blown languages complete with APIs, objects, frameworks, etc. Just like real computer programs.

They all cache data to ram with bloated APIs like jQuery which do all but the kitchen sink. Now imagine msn.con which has freaking 20 ad networks! All 20 use jQuery and action script frameworks ....that is just one tab. 20 x 10 for 10 tabs and you have now 200 instances running cached to ram.

XP machines from 2004 have 512 megs of ram were designed to run IE 6. Firefox was a niche geek thing and IE 6 did not have tabs so the problem wasn't there.

A n64 has power for a single limited api.

Xitox said,
Can someone tell me , why they still use window xp? even though window 8.1 is new one?

It works. It is familiar. They have old apps like Adobe CS 2, IE 6 intranet, Corel CD Creater, etc. The biggest reason <b>there is no need to switch</b>.

sinetheo said,

It works. It is familiar. They have old apps like Adobe CS 2, IE 6 intranet, Corel CD Creater, etc. The biggest reason <b>there is no need to switch</b>.


There is every reason to switch. And if you're still using IE6 today, then may the fire of a thousand suns rain down upon you, and a thousand lawsuits await you in court.

And the interesting thing is, the amount of people that are asking to have their machines downgraded to Windows 7 versus the amount of people wanting theirs upgraded to Win 8.
I've got more and more customers asking for the downgrade - whether they have downgrade discs or not.
Not had a single client yet ask for an upgrade to Win 8.
Sounds good to me.

It takes a while to get an environment and older machines ready to move from XP to 7, as well as application issues. But it's happening, especially in secure environments. It starts slow, but come Mid to late March, you'll see the numbers move. But the major share will go to 7, not 8.

simplezz said,
How awkward - cutting off support for 30% of your customers.

Yes, because every company should support things forever! Where are my updates to DOS 6.22? Microsoft should never have cut off support to that! /s

Max Norris said,
How long are they supposed to support it? I can't think of any OS that supports old versions that long...

Oh, if you pay Microsoft, they'll continue to support it. Look at the NHS.

Enron said,
I'm willing to bet that not all 30% of those customers are paying customers.

Are all of the Windows 7 / 8 users paying customers?

simplezz said,
Oh, if you pay Microsoft, they'll continue to support it. Look at the NHS.

Yes, there are operating systems that'll let you pay for extended support, even some that aren't Microsoft. But still doesn't answer the question of which OS does support a particular version of their OS for that long before dropping it cold?

simplezz said,

Are all of the Windows 7 / 8 users paying customers?

Not all, but XP was so easy to pirate, just look at China.

Max Norris said,
How long are they supposed to support it? I can't think of any OS that supports old versions that long...

MS needs to start a subscription model. Yes, we HATE THEM. But it is the only way to remain secure for neophytes who do not go on tech sites and have no need to ever upgrade anymore.

XP is not going to be Microsoft's biggest headache. Windows 7 is! The resistance to change is HUGE and there is zero compelling reason to ever leave unlike XP which had some quirks, security problems, and occasional windows rot.

MS can get money for those who want to stay behind and corps who want to test everything out first to pay for the security updates. This new age we are in is the end of operating systems I hate to say.

XP works really well and 10 years behind doesn't mean much like it once did. In 1995 the difference between 1985 DOS vs 1995 Windows 95 was astronomical!

The difference between 1995 Windows95 vs 2005 WinXP was fairly big. To the user it had a mickey mouse annoying GUI but could do everything Windows95 could. Maybe crash less as the real work was under the hood etc.

2005 vs 2015 Windows XP vs Windows 8.1/9? Small difference. No difference other than an annoying learning curve. Maybe the user wont get hacked is about it. He or she can type just as quickly. Can listen to music on Pandora. etc

2015 vs 2025? Nothing. Maybe more cloud stuff but we can't see into the future. If you asked us in 2005 what 2015 would look like, none of us would believe you if you said people would still be using XP 10 years from now etc.

Enron said,
I'm willing to bet that not all 30% of those customers are paying customers.

If not all Since standalone ATM systems and cooperate environments (internetless machines) are not included here.

Max Norris said,
How long are they supposed to support it? I can't think of any OS that supports old versions that long...

You know - I've never seen a statement of a windows retail box that you buy from the store, or an OEM machine, that says "This Windows product is time bombed - we will only support it for x years (or until x date) then you are on your own and we don't care what happens to it".

dvb2000 said,
You know - I've never seen a statement of a windows retail box that you buy from the store, or an OEM machine, that says "This Windows product is time bombed - we will only support it for x years (or until x date) then you are on your own and we don't care what happens to it".

Can't think of a single product that does advertise that on the box, and yet stuff drops out of support all the time (software or otherwise), has been happening for decades. Good thing that sort of information is really easy to find.

sinetheo said,

MS needs to start a subscription model. Yes, we HATE THEM. But it is the only way to remain secure for neophytes who do not go on tech sites and have no need to ever upgrade anymore.

XP is not going to be Microsoft's biggest headache. Windows 7 is! The resistance to change is HUGE and there is zero compelling reason to ever leave unlike XP which had some quirks, security problems, and occasional windows rot.

MS can get money for those who want to stay behind and corps who want to test everything out first to pay for the security updates. This new age we are in is the end of operating systems I hate to say.

XP works really well and 10 years behind doesn't mean much like it once did. In 1995 the difference between 1985 DOS vs 1995 Windows 95 was astronomical!

The difference between 1995 Windows95 vs 2005 WinXP was fairly big. To the user it had a mickey mouse annoying GUI but could do everything Windows95 could. Maybe crash less as the real work was under the hood etc.

2005 vs 2015 Windows XP vs Windows 8.1/9? Small difference. No difference other than an annoying learning curve. Maybe the user wont get hacked is about it. He or she can type just as quickly. Can listen to music on Pandora. etc

2015 vs 2025? Nothing. Maybe more cloud stuff but we can't see into the future. If you asked us in 2005 what 2015 would look like, none of us would believe you if you said people would still be using XP 10 years from now etc.


If the subscription allows the use of a pc, instead of it being the way it is now, would drive users away. I for one would not support such a subscription.

soldier1st said,

If the subscription allows the use of a pc, instead of it being the way it is now, would drive users away. I for one would not support such a subscription.

What do you suggest?

Users are going to have their accounts hacked as operating systems are all the same and the need to never ever upgrade will be mainstream form this time forward.

I think a time limited Windows based on security is good and many users would gladly pay $40 to keep XP on for another year. Similiar to that lady who wanted XP you mentioned.

With the internet you need to be patched and users wont ever upgrade and wont go to tech sites to know they are vulnerable.

MS is in a timewarp. People won't wait outside CompUSA overnight for the next Windows anymore. Windows95 is done.

I think Windows 10/9 will be subscription. A very cheap $120 for 5 years is $24 a year. I see no other way for MS to remain profitable and users protected.

Hello,

At the same time, Net Application's data shows yet another OS problem for Microsoft; lots of folks are simply not updating their Windows 8 PCs to the new, and free, Windows 8.1, despite its improvements and new features.

Microsoft (and developers) should force users to upgrade to Windows 8.1

Decebalvs Rex said,
I say... leave the Windows XP users into the snow, prey to viruses and compatibility issues due to lack of support.

I agree. They'd be more inclined to upgrade to GNU/Linux then.

simplezz said,

I agree. They'd be more inclined to upgrade to GNU/Linux then.

And as the typical person who moves to Linux then within a month is back on Windows due to Linux having its own issues.

riahc3 said,
Hello,

Microsoft (and developers) should force users to upgrade to Windows 8.1
The service pack should be though WU instead.

Does anyone think at some point Ballmer threw his chair across his office, screaming "I'm gonna effing kill XP!"?

Lord Method Man said,
Sick freaking tragedy that Windows 8 still has more share than 8.1. Pushing the upgrade via the store is a massively boneheaded move by MS.

Add to that the there is no way to download the update for safekeeping, like you could a service pack. Also, whatever idiot at MS decided 8 product keys don't activate 8.1 installs needs their face put to a belt sander.

Lord Method Man said,
Sick freaking tragedy that Windows 8 still has more share than 8.1. Pushing the upgrade via the store is a massively boneheaded move by MS.

Also the forcing of an MS account(creates hidden hotmail account) Bad move MS.

8 keys activate just fine on 8.1, they just cannot be used to install it from the 8.1 media, thats what generic keys are for.

Why don't these idiots go to Windows 7? Are their machines that old they can only run XP? I am sure these people are not installing Windows XP on a Windows 8 machine, because the vast majority of them will unlikely be able to disable or know how to disable Secure Boot so they can install anther OS. Also drivers wouldn't be available for these new PC's for Windows XP.

I don't think the increase in XP usage has that much to do with Windows 8. There has to be other factors. Almost any older Windows XP system can run Windows 7 without any issue. I installed Windows 7 recently on a Dell that is nearly 10 years old and I had no issues.

sinetheo said,
Because there is no reason too.

It works fine for them

Then why did they ever get XP to begin with? "640k ought to be enough for anyone" so they should still be on DOS!

Nogib said,

Then why did they ever get XP to begin with? "640k ought to be enough for anyone" so they should still be on DOS!

Many smart engineers and IT geeks ran DOS with a smile and sense of pride except this was years after Window 95!

A few gray hairs too ran dos and wordperfect 5.1 back in 1998. Their 386's ran fine and there was no need to change.

If it weren't for office and the internet last decade they would still run it. Hell DEC PDP 11's still run nuclear power plants in Europe! If it aint broke don't fix it.

You neowin readers think XP addiction is bad now? Just wait until 2020 when Windows 7 goes EOL?

There is a shift in technology. Operating systems have matured just like steam and coal engines of the last century. After the 20th century started many factories which upgraded all the time in the last half of the 1800's stopped upgrading. Things halted. There was nothing a newer coal powered turbine can do compared to last decades model etc.

Computers have matured and there is little to no reason to ever upgrade them anymore. Cell phones too by the end of this decade will go stale. We hit the end of Moores law. Software wise really what can 8.1 do that XP can not?

Can the secretaries type letters faster? No. Can they multitask more? XP can multitask fine unless you have a 8+ core system running benchmarks or some niche sql database or something the answer is NO. Can a user use the internet better on Windows 8.1 vs XP? No. With 640k you could not run a modern GUI and do multimedia. But today Windows 7 and older operating systems work just fine.

The only reason to leave XP behind is security and driver support.

Welcome to the new age folks. My 5 year old phenom II which is a hex core funs fine as well. I did upgrade to an SSD and a newer video card to run some games and have performance in vmware workstation for IT things I want to do and learn. But if I became a math teacher (another previous goal of mine) I would not bother to upgrade it as it met my needs.

MS needs to have notifications or time periods that get billed each year or life cycle for new updates. Otherwise our grandchildren will run XP. Actually your grandchildren will run IE 6. I guarantee it in a VM of course but since so much business processes are tied to ancient software it just won't leave.

I know plenty of machines even today that are still build on DOS.
Major chainstore here just recently started upgrading their 10s of thousands of systems from DOS!? to Win7. And this started ~1 year ago.

Thing is, these networks are not connected to the internet (they use the internet but encrypted VPN and such through direct connections (it doesn't go to anywhere else on the internet but their stores and ISP)). So security is an absolute non-issue.
Those nuclear powerplant computers are in absolutely no way connected to any form of internet what so ever. So security is also a non-issue. And these systems are typically so 'custom' that the hardware runs smooth on fore xample XP but on no other version the stability will be so high. Even if the systems have enough horsepower to run Windows 8 and can even use its speed advantages. Stability is often more important.

So for these situations upgrading is completely pointless.

Hi_XPecTa_Chens said,
Why don't these idiots go to Windows 7? Are their machines that old they can only run XP? I am sure these people are not installing Windows XP on a Windows 8 machine, because the vast majority of them will unlikely be able to disable or know how to disable Secure Boot so they can install anther OS. Also drivers wouldn't be available for these new PC's for Windows XP.

I don't think the increase in XP usage has that much to do with Windows 8. There has to be other factors. Almost any older Windows XP system can run Windows 7 without any issue. I installed Windows 7 recently on a Dell that is nearly 10 years old and I had no issues.


I have an old toshiba laptop that is 12 years old and it cannot run Windows 7 at all.

I suspect that some of this might be due to people booting up their old machines and patching them in anticipation of the support cutoff. Regardless, fluctuation, as others have said, is understandable.

Romero said,
The existing updates won't be cut off come April 8.

Of course, but some people might want to get a leg-up on that.

It all comes down to how one uses their computer--play or work. One uses the OS that best meets one's needs and requirements.

The mother of all the mistakes was to offer W8.1 through the store...
I do understand MS desire to increase awareness of it to users but they should have also pushed some mechanism through WU that automatically opened up the store and presented W8.1.

IMO they could've merged WU and Store updates. I know plenty of people still in 8 because people are unaware. I had to manually go to the store, find it and install it. Many people don't use the store and the livetile rarely shows the notification (mainly other games/apps)

3.6 GBs is a WHOLE f***ing lot to download, don't you think? On top of it, the failure on most attempts to upgrade from Windows 8 to 8.1 is darn high! Microsoft as well recommend a clean install, but because the new embedded key, this is impossible for a lot of users who bought computers preloaded with Windows 8.

They are, the problem is 8.1 doesn't accept 8.0 keys to install so 8.1 discs won't read the key in an 8.0 system. You have to use a general 8.1 key to clean install and then enter your 8.0 key to activate. Why for the life of this Microsoft did this, I don't understand.

Well it kind of makes sense, If you have an 8.0 disc you install from that and upgrade via store, the only way you can get an 8.1 disc without a key is pirated or custom 8.1 slip streamed(??) So anyone with a legit 8.1 disc will have a key and it should install same as normal.

As for people having trouble upgrading from 8 to 8.1 via store, Microsoft should be busy ironing these issues out.

Sadelwo said,
They are, the problem is 8.1 doesn't accept 8.0 keys to install so 8.1 discs won't read the key in an 8.0 system. You have to use a general 8.1 key to clean install and then enter your 8.0 key to activate. Why for the life of this Microsoft did this, I don't understand.

Probably to try to tackle piracy.

My wife's older brother (nearing his 60's) is still running my old AMD FX-62 system that I gave him eons ago. He's also still using an 80 gig hard drive. Does he want to install something newer than XP... Absolutely not! XP is sufficient for his basic needs. There's still a lot of people like him!

My current system is nearing 3 years old. Can I afford to upgrade just because Microsoft made a new OS? Nope. I don't have a money tree in my backyard.

So, who's forcing you? Keep rocking your old PCs for as long as possible and try and remain malware free meanwhile (people like your brother-in-law generally know nothing about computer security). Eventually you both will be forced to buy new hardware anyway.

Romero said,
So, who's forcing you? Keep rocking your old PCs for as long as possible and try and remain malware free meanwhile (people like your brother-in-law generally know nothing about computer security). Eventually you both will be forced to buy new hardware anyway.

When the hardware fails and replacements are impossible to find.

soldier1st said,
When the hardware fails and replacements are impossible to find.
What I said. Eventually it's bound to happen. Till then hopefully such people will be responsible about securing their outdated OSes so as not to cause problems for the rest of us, but in many cases of course that's just not going to be true.

It's weird seeing comments that "Microsoft should give 8.1 free to XP users" or that they should give them some sort coupon worth several hundred dollars. That just seems asinine. What exactly does MS (or any company) owe anyone who's still using a 10 year old OS? By now those consumers and businesses have recouped any costs associated with the OS and the hardware through it's daily use. If anything, users on XP are holding the entire tech world back due to it's reliance on ie7/8 and extremely vulnerable systems that make up the bulk of botnets.

MS just needs to draw a line in the sand and stop offering patches/updates regardless of what issues may pop up.

Ya for XP!

If it ain't broke, why fix it and why spend good money on that totally confusing Windows 8 crap, when not necessary.

People are using smart phones and tablets so much, which we all know how secure those are, that computers just aren't being played with even.

I just found out yesterday that a good friend of mine, who owns and runs his own computer repair shop, is going out of business on March 15th and attributes that to the use of smart phones and stuff.

While I think people SHOULD upgrade to Windows 7 at least, you just can't force them to.

Most machines that can run XP can also run Windows 7 without to much of a hassle. I know that because I have 7 different machines which have been upgraded like that. These same machines could also run Windows 8, but I'm not into that mess of an OS!

In which case you do not own an HP! I have two HPs that are no more than 3 years old that cannot be upgraded except to Vista (!) cose HP do not provide either the W7 or W8 drivers and compatibility mode does not work! Just go to HP's web site and read the complaints.

MS should just offer a 30 day $200 gift certificate for anyone running XP who cannot upgrade because of hardware (or cannot afford to) for use against any W8 machine. That would solve the upgrade problem and move a lot of that inventory on retail shelves.

cork1958 said,
Ya for XP!

If it ain't broke, why fix it and why spend good money on that totally confusing Windows 8 crap, when not necessary.

People are using smart phones and tablets so much, which we all know how secure those are, that computers just aren't being played with even.

I just found out yesterday that a good friend of mine, who owns and runs his own computer repair shop, is going out of business on March 15th and attributes that to the use of smart phones and stuff.

While I think people SHOULD upgrade to Windows 7 at least, you just can't force them to.

Most machines that can run XP can also run Windows 7 without to much of a hassle. I know that because I have 7 different machines which have been upgraded like that. These same machines could also run Windows 8, but I'm not into that mess of an OS!

"If it ain't broke"? Sir, XP was broke in every way imaginable.

Dot Matrix said,

"If it ain't broke"? Sir, XP was broke in every way imaginable.

No kidding, all these years of its successful use...it sure was broke in every way imaginable.

Oh right. Granted...it is now out of date and practically obsolete...but it was never broken.

Now, Windows 8 on the other hand....just gotta laugh at it.

jjkusaf said,

No kidding, all these years of its successful use...it sure was broke in every way imaginable.

Oh right. Granted...it is now out of date and practically obsolete...but it was never broken.

Now, Windows 8 on the other hand....just gotta laugh at it.

Security, stability, and Windows Rot were all MAJOR issues with XP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C..._Windows_XP#Security_issues). In fact, I remember quite well, Microsoft throwing on the brakes to everything back in the early 2000's to formulate Trustworthy Computing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...t_and_Trustworthy_Computing) as a result of XP being so horribly broken.

Please spare me the BS.

Oh? Mom has had a legacy laptop (Gateway Solo) that is only capable of running XP (no driver for most of the hardware for Vista, let alone 7), and since then, she has gotten herself a Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 (7" wi-fi model) that has LESS storage than the laptop. So what does she take with her when she's traveling? The tablet running Android - not the XP laptop.

Fols aren't upgrading their hardware (or operating system, for that matter) for three reasons - a still-rotten economy, inertia, and a trainload of FUD. Even the critics are admitting that inertia has a lot to do with it - listen (actually LISTEN) to their arguments (mostly of the "if it's not broken, don't fix it" school). I called that argument the "comfortable shoe" argument way back during the Windows 8 Consumer Preview - so it's not like I didn't understand it. However, once they realized that inertia IS just an excuse, those same critics started bring out the FUD to cover up their excuse-making.

I can understand inertia - but don't even think about trying to blow smoke up my posterior.

Dot Matrix said,

Security, stability, and Windows Rot were all MAJOR issues with XP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C..._Windows_XP#Security_issues). In fact, I remember quite well, Microsoft throwing on the brakes to everything back in the early 2000's to formulate Trustworthy Computing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...t_and_Trustworthy_Computing) as a result of XP being so horribly broken.

Please spare me the BS.

I never had a problem with XP I ran the same install for 5 years and never got a virus not even blaster.

Dot Matrix said,
Security, stability, and Windows Rot were all MAJOR issues with XP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C..._Windows_XP#Security_issues).

Well, at least on my own systems, always felt WinRot was a myth due some users not taking care of their stuff/lack of basic maintenance, I've had installations that lasted years without issue. That aside, stability I have no argument with. I could cause Explorer to crash just by looking at it funny, never mind it being a rather bad file manager to begin with, plus the occasional kernel crash just for the hell of it. Security was bad too, out-of-the-box defaults were awful and most people probably didn't know/bother to tighten it up. Not going to cite malware, 99.9% of the time that's user error anyway, I've gone years without issue there too. Looking at it in a VM, can't believe I've used that old OS as long as I did.

Don't you find it incredibly interesting that most people think/remember XP as this wonderful piece of software that was the best thing ever created?

And then, most of us tech followers, we used it from day one and know how BAD it was. XP was laughably flawed until, which one was it, service pack 1 or 2 that made a world of a difference? Whichever it was - jeez it was ages ago - that sp basically changed the whole system, only then was XP a good system, and then that's all people remember. MS could have released it as a new and improved windows and then that is the one that would have been so beloved. Instead, they released it as a free upgrade, so most people think XP was the golden era, when this is very much not so by and large.

In a way, I understand the renaming to Windows 9 we'll see next year, but you have to wonder that were they to stick to the 8.x naming, 5 years from now everybody would remember win8 as the best thing there ever was. Then again, that's a big if/risk when you take into account the stink that vista/win8 have with people, which is quite undeserved.

Xabier Granja said,
most of us tech followers, we used it from day one and know how BAD it was. XP was laughably flawed

I think I stopped using 2000 and started to use XP full-time beginning with Release Candidate 1. Can't say I remember it as being laughably flawed compared to 2000.

After Vista can you blame them?

It taught them to install old oses on new hardware. Most think 7=8 due to aero making it look similar. Now they see 8 and you expect them to change?!

So XP last good is and everything is change for the sake of change altitude that we have now. Also why change? XP has worked fine for 12 years and all a new OS has to offer is lost money, high learning curve, and more mouse clicks to do the same job XP already does??

This comment rubs many neowin readers who like technology the wrong way but it's what these XP users feel and why they are turning die hard or not giving a rats ass about their computer

It is amazing what a bad OS like Vista can do to public perception.

What is no surprise is people like things once they are used to it after a few years and the brain relaxes and just memorizes mouse clicks and the way things always look. Fear of change happens next.

Most XP users today are in China or are home users who do not know, care, or just see no reason to change for what works.

Changing something that works and is familiar is a powerful reason to avoid new. XP will be with us all this decade. It won't be going away anytime soon. MS will have to release an update with a notification to update or remotely disable them after they have been rooted.

Those people will be kicked off the internet soon enough.
At least here in NL the case currently is, that pretty much every ISP will cut you off if enough malware/spam reports come from your IP address.

And requirements for unlocking are strong, first time offense. manual cleanup will work. second offense requires showing you have a secure and clean system (so proffesional has to look at it and you need the receipt) and they require proper software on the system. (supported OS's for one, AV/FW etc)

Our banks moved to, if you have issues on your your e-banking account and you want your money back, you need a secure and safe system/network in your house. If not, no money back garantee.

Dot Matrix said,

Security, stability, and Windows Rot were all MAJOR issues with XP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C..._Windows_XP#Security_issues). In fact, I remember quite well, Microsoft throwing on the brakes to everything back in the early 2000's to formulate Trustworthy Computing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...t_and_Trustworthy_Computing) as a result of XP being so horribly broken.

Please spare me the BS.

BS? Funny as the usage, even today, shows that I'm not spreading BS.

What exactly were you trying to prove in the above post? Any operating system has vulnerabilities which, hopefully, get patched. Not sure how that proves that Windows XP was so horribly broken like you claim.

I also do not see anywhere that Trustworthy Computing was a direct result of XP's failure. Hmm..BS?

jjkusaf said,

BS? Funny as the usage, even today, shows that I'm not spreading BS.

What exactly were you trying to prove in the above post? Any operating system has vulnerabilities which, hopefully, get patched. Not sure how that proves that Windows XP was so horribly broken like you claim.

I also do not see anywhere that Trustworthy Computing was a direct result of XP's failure. Hmm..BS?

Usage doesn't mean a thing. XP was fundamentally broken. It was vulnerable to even the basic of security threats, as it didn't even have adequate security until SP2. Trustworthy Computing was a direct result of XP's inability to safe guard users against security threats. It wasn't just a project that Microsoft would eventually bake into their code, Trustworthy Computing was a sudden, "stop the presses," maneuver. Between Blaster, Sasser, MyDoom, , etc. Windows XP saw more worms and malware than any OS before - or after it.

If that, along with XP's general instability, isn't broken, than I don't know what is.

warwagon said,

I never had a problem with XP I ran the same install for 5 years and never got a virus not even blaster.

That more to do with you being a sensible computer user with common sense, than XP magically protecting you.

TCLN Ryster said,

That more to do with you being a sensible computer user with common sense, than XP magically protecting you.

Same can be said for any version of windows.

jjkusaf said,

Granted...it (XP) is now out of date and practically obsolete...but it was never broken.

Now, Windows 8 on the other hand....just gotta laugh at it.

You, sir, must be very young. Windows XP was mocked by many, when it was initially released. The Fisher-Price start button, lack of drivers, some new PC's with only 128-MB of RAM that took 5 minutes to boot. Limiting OEM XP installs to one machine per product key, where 98 and 2000 were uncontrolled, was unliked by many. XP was not the smooth running OS that it became, when it first went RTM in 2001. I couldn't even find Okidata printer drivers at the time. By SP1 it was quite usable. SP2 brought better security and more polish. By the time SP3 came out, everyone forgot what a pain XP originally was.

warwagon said,
I never had a problem with XP I ran the same install for 5 years and never got a virus not even blaster.

I ran XP for a couple of years without an antivirus, because I found all the antivirus makers were deliberately putting in false signatures to kill things other than viruses. I had some network monitoring software removed, Others had critical O/S files removed causing the machines to fail to boot, others had "keygens" removed because the antivirus companies made a "political" decision to remove them, even though they were not viruses, etc, etc etc.

Likewise I never had any issues, and never got infected with a virus without these antivirus programs, My machine actually ran faster without them.

seeprime said,

You, sir, must be very young. Windows XP was mocked by many, when it was initially released. The Fisher-Price start button, lack of drivers, some new PC's with only 128-MB of RAM that took 5 minutes to boot. Limiting OEM XP installs to one machine per product key, where 98 and 2000 were uncontrolled, was unliked by many. XP was not the smooth running OS that it became, when it first went RTM in 2001. I couldn't even find Okidata printer drivers at the time. By SP1 it was quite usable. SP2 brought better security and more polish. By the time SP3 came out, everyone forgot what a pain XP originally was.

You sir, shouldn't assume. The first computer I bought in high school had 3.1 and I went through the normal upgrades as they were released (aside from Vista and 8). I never had issues with XP...only virus I've ever gotten was tentacles on Windows 3.1.

You can not argue, nor can Dot Matrix, that by in large XP has been very successful. One can say that Win 3.1 - ME were broken...yet they all had their pros and cons (well ME didn't really have any pros). XP was a significant leap from 98/ME in both terms of stability and security.

XP...fundamentally flawed. No. Out of date. Certainly.

Windows 8 is showing to be fundamentally flawed. Maybe if Microsoft keeps backstepping they will get it right.

jjkusaf said,

No kidding, all these years of its successful use...it sure was broke in every way imaginable.

Oh right. Granted...it is now out of date and practically obsolete...but it was never broken.

Now, Windows 8 on the other hand....just gotta laugh at it.


Windows 8 is a joke. I doubt 9 will be any better, but cannot judge Windows 9 just yet.

soldier1st said,

Windows 8 is a joke. I doubt 9 will be any better, but cannot judge Windows 9 just yet.

Well, I hope you are wrong...just for the sake that Windows 7 will eventually become obsolete. Still hard to believe that Microsoft built upon XP with Vista and just about perfected it with Windows 7...only to totally fubar that progress with Windows 8.

Windows 7 probably won't ever be obsolete.

Here is the problem. Like Moores law we are at the end of technology. Each release gives less and less value and therefore demand/need to update.

XP still works for people and is evident. Why leave if it works? Windows 7 is an improvement with security. If I had a crystal ball you can bet in 2019 in neowin we will have graphs showing it having a 40% marketshare near EOL. LOL. Unlike XP, these 7 users will be die hard fanatics after seeing METRO about 7 etc.

So what can MS do in Windows 9 or Windows 10? Nothing. Maybe have metro apps in a windowed mode on the desktop.

My hunch is it will be subscription and cloud based with HUGE OMG NOOO haters all over the place pledging lifetimes to 7 bla bla.

I think a cheap subscription like $25 a year or $125 for 5 years is the only way to go otherwise people won't ever upgrade and will be left insecure.

jjkusaf said,

You sir, shouldn't assume. The first computer I bought in high school had 3.1 and I went through the normal upgrades as they were released (aside from Vista and 8). I never had issues with XP...only virus I've ever gotten was tentacles on Windows 3.1.

You can not argue, nor can Dot Matrix, that by in large XP has been very successful. One can say that Win 3.1 - ME were broken...yet they all had their pros and cons (well ME didn't really have any pros). XP was a significant leap from 98/ME in both terms of stability and security.

XP...fundamentally flawed. No. Out of date. Certainly.

Windows 8 is showing to be fundamentally flawed. Maybe if Microsoft keeps backstepping they will get it right.

Windows 8 is far from fundamentally flawed. User habits and trends are changing, and Windows 8 is changing to match these new trends and habits.

Edited by Dot Matrix, Mar 2 2014, 3:59pm :

sinetheo said,
Windows 7 probably won't ever be obsolete.

Here is the problem. Like Moores law we are at the end of technology. Each release gives less and less value and therefore demand/need to update.

XP still works for people and is evident. Why leave if it works? Windows 7 is an improvement with security. If I had a crystal ball you can bet in 2019 in neowin we will have graphs showing it having a 40% marketshare near EOL. LOL. Unlike XP, these 7 users will be die hard fanatics after seeing METRO about 7 etc.

So what can MS do in Windows 9 or Windows 10? Nothing. Maybe have metro apps in a windowed mode on the desktop.

My hunch is it will be subscription and cloud based with HUGE OMG NOOO haters all over the place pledging lifetimes to 7 bla bla.

I think a cheap subscription like $25 a year or $125 for 5 years is the only way to go otherwise people won't ever upgrade and will be left insecure.

Of course Windows 7 will be obsolete given time. In fact, it's soon going to enter extended support. By 2020, it will have been grandfathered out by Microsoft.

Of course if you're going to be one of those users who clings to it like flies on dog poo, then that's your prerogative, but it's not going to be supported forever, neither by Microsoft, or third parties.

sinetheo said,
Windows 7 probably won't ever be obsolete.

Here is the problem. Like Moores law we are at the end of technology. Each release gives less and less value and therefore demand/need to update.


What are you talking about? Windows 8 exists because of the revolution going on right now where mobile devices are quickly becoming as powerful as laptops. At the end of technology!? In a few years, virtual reality will have been revived with the tecnology finally there to offer lifelike 3D experiences on consumer hardware (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=776513), and tablets will let you work with software that demanded at least a laptop only five years ago.

Windows 7 will be obsolete in less than 10 years because app store content will now dominate the application market on both Windows and Mac, and Windows 7 doesn't support the Windows Store. Windows 8 marked the beginning and Microsoft will just push harder ahead here because there's so much money to gain. Meanwhile, consumers will benefit from a unified store, so this is a win-win scenario. AAA non-app store apps will eventually only be found via BitTorrent.

Edited by Northgrove, Mar 3 2014, 10:55am :

Service Pack 2. While SP1 did make some improvements, it was SP2 that had the greatest impact (for the better) on XP. And XP did indeed come in for a LOT of skewering - in fact, Neowin itself was a source of a lot of the skewerage, especially in terms of XP's UI/UX (the original Start menu - which looks a LOT like 7's default - was actually XP's default at first; what the advice of a LOT of Neowinians was in terms of dealing with it was to change to the "Classic Start menu" ALA Windows 2000 Professional - the XP Start menu was dismissed as being to "toyish").

Lastly, the OTHER reason XP sales went through the roof was all those upgrades from 98 Second Edition - ME was a disaster (primarily due to security issues). Those of us on Windows 2000 Professional did have it easier - we could actually upgrade in place to XP and lose little or nothing.

Microsoft needs to be more proactive on the XP EoL plan. They should run ads and offer a free upgrade to Windows 8.1 to all XP users. Then if they get hit by major exploits MS can say they ran public campaigns and offered a free update.

I completely agree; they should seriously consider advertising every where possible... TV, online, newspapers, magazine, billboards... perhaps even sneak something into XP's Windows Update triggering a little popup to display when you start the computer warning you... they could be more proactive in informing the world, the majoirty of which don't really understand what will/won't happen on April 8th

Hopefully Microsoft makes a stand and becomes a man like the expression and just keeps moving forwards and still keep there words and finish off xp once and for all. That OS is so outdated it is not even funny anymore. Business use that OS so much since they had it that it will be crazy for them to say they did not recover the cost of the license since then and even made profits off of it. Instead of given out bonus to there employee they should upgrade there network like that they will have another 5 to 10 year to go.

Tech world is a fast moving thing if they want to be part of it they have to do so, there is no way out of it. Now i am not saying the cost is low but they are making so much profit with what they can do with it, they can not complain. And the difference with us the customers is that they can write off the cost or a good chuck of it.

Concluding from that data that xp is on the rise is clickbait. The only thing you could conclude is that the market shares has not changed much this month.

Once major attacks start coming out, Microsoft might have to backpedal on their decision.

I would like to see MS release a few EOL packages for users. Ones that would make sure updates are all applied and be super annoying until they are, disables lots of features like IIS and things if you're a simple home user, a firewall comber for extra open ports/programs, links to update Java, Flash, etc.

AmazingRando said,
Once major attacks start coming out, Microsoft might have to backpedal on their decision.
Why would they? You think they haven't considered the possibility of attacks and haven't been warning XP users for ages now? After April 8 any users running XP are on their own, and it's their sole responsibility to know what they're doing.

Absolutely agreed. XP has been supported for more than a DECADE for Christ's sake. Anyone who expects them to give more support is delusional, they already got way more support than they could ever dream of. Tell Apple to support OS X 10.1/.2/.3... yeah right.

It's been super talked about for people in the know. I think they are severely underestimating the amount of people out there who have no money to upgrade and no clue that XP is dying and what that even means.

There's a large swath of end-users who are going to be hit by this and not realize what's going on and it could really back-fire for Microsoft.

AmazingRando said,
There's a large swath of end-users who are going to be hit by this and not realize what's going on and it could really back-fire for Microsoft.

Disagree. I can't see this backfiring on Microsoft in any way. Phone call:

- Hello, Microsoft? Mi machine just got mega hacked by all viruses in existence. Fix my XP machine!
- Well sir, your XP machine is 13 years old. Normal products are supported for a couple years and then you need to upgrade them. We were kind enough to support XP for more than a decade. Nobody does that, you're welcome. It finally came time to stop supporting it.
- Whaaaaaa? Why are you no longer supporting it?
- Because we're a business, not an NGO.
- What can I do then?
- Buy a new machine. If you have software dependencies, you've had a decade to figure it out.
- Shameful! I'll never buy another MS product!
- Great, good luck getting more than a few years support. Nobody else will support your software for a decade. You'll end up spending more money than with us. Have fun. *click*
- Hello? Ahm... ok... I'll stop being so cheap...

Most of the people using Windows XP use old hardware, that's one of the main reason not to updating the OS.

Xahid said,
Most of the people using Windows XP use old hardware, that's one of the main reason not to updating the OS.

I have a old compaq computer that has xp on it. cant put linux on it due to hardware issue it doesnt like and cant upgrade to newer hardware on it due to the motherboard being so out of date.

Got two systems left in the house that's still running XP.. one's an old tablet from the Project Origami era.. only reason it's still got XP is due to no drivers for the touchscreen past XP, kinda sorta works on 7 via a third party driver but no calibration, etc, it's a wreck, and Linux is even worse on it. One of these days will have to get a Surface Pro and toss this thing into the garbage, XP Tablet Edition is painful to use.

The other is a virtual machine I had to set up a week or two ago just for Visual Studio 2008, had to compile a few Python packages since that's what they used for the 2.7.x series and didn't want to pollute my file system with all that legacy stuff that goes with it. Eesh after using 7 and 8 for some years it's just awful to use XP nowadays, thank God for VM's.

Max Norris said,
Got two systems left in the house that's still running XP.. one's an old tablet from the Project Origami era.. only reason it's still got XP is due to no drivers for the touchscreen past XP, kinda sorta works on 7 via a third party driver but no calibration, etc, it's a wreck, and Linux is even worse on it.

Have you tried installing 8 on it? I'm curious as to the result.

Sadelwo said,
Have you tried installing 8 on it? I'm curious as to the result.

Nah, won't run 8, it's reeeealy old and the processor isn't compatible with 8's requirements of SSE2 and NX. Best it'll do is 7.

Maybe once we have 8.1 update 1... they're supposedly bringing the requirements down and in some cases not requiring hardware validation checks. Might make your pc a bit unreliable... but who knows, these are uncharted waters for MS.

Still, I have to ask... what do you use XP-era machines for? Just thinking about it makes me cringe. I haven't bought a new pc with every windows, that's for sure, I bought one with XP, one with Vista and now one with 8 (so, say every 4 years or so). Thinking about using the XP machine I had gives me the cold sweats... it would be so slow and "bad quality" compared to the hardware I have now, and I haven't even splurged or anything.

Xabier Granja said,
Maybe once we have 8.1 update 1... they're supposedly bringing the requirements down and in some cases not requiring hardware validation checks. Might make your pc a bit unreliable... but who knows, these are uncharted waters for MS.

If they remove the CPU requirements (I doubt it but...) I'd love to try 8 on the thing.. I have zero expecations, it's a f'ing Celeron with 512MB, even XP was painfully slow.. but if it works, I'm game, 7's ok with touch but 8's wayyyy better. Not too worried about it, I do plan on getting a Surface Pro or equivalent down the road once the prices settle down a bit more. Put this old thing to good use as a doorstop, it's better suited to that anyway.

Xabier Granja said,
Still, I have to ask... what do you use XP-era machines for? Just thinking about it makes me cringe.

I hear that, I just keep a VM around purely for Visual Studio 2008 for the occasional compile against that version of the SDK, just don't want it cluttering my main system with something I'll never use otherwise.. and the only reason I picked XP was just because I used an nLite'd ISO with the majority of the guts ripped out for a small install size.

Xahid said,
Most of the people using Windows XP use old hardware, that's one of the main reason not to updating the OS.

A large chunk are ATMs, movie ticket dispensers, and airport flight status displays. Things that won't ever be upgraded and will go a long time before being replaced.

Brandon Live said,

A large chunk are ATMs, movie ticket dispensers, and airport flight status displays. Things that won't ever be upgraded and will go a long time before being replaced.


These statistics are based on internet capable machines.

Xabier Granja said,
in some cases not requiring hardware validation checks
Where did you read this? There's very little chance of this happening.

dsbig said,

I have a old compaq computer that has xp on it. cant put linux on it due to hardware issue it doesnt like and cant upgrade to newer hardware on it due to the motherboard being so out of date.

and the cost of Win 8 to upgrade is more than the machine is worth anyway - it already has an XP licence with it for free.

Xahid said,
Most of the people using Windows XP use old hardware, that's one of the main reason not to updating the OS.

That's not entirely accurate. some are even running newer hardware. I put together an up to date pc for someone and she wanted XP on it.

soldier1st said,

That's not entirely accurate. some are even running newer hardware. I put together an up to date pc for someone and she wanted XP on it.

I hope you explained why that is a bad idea with EOL and how the machine might not work at all with it due to the lack of drivers.

I would have put Windows 7 on it and would remind her it is not Vista!

Romero said,
Where did you read this? There's very little chance of this happening.

Well I didn't read it, I heard it either in What the Tech or Windows Weekly, one of those podcasts. About 2 weeks ago. I remember because Paul Thurrott mentioned he had been hearing this and, like him, I feel this would be a very bad idea since even validated machines aren't super reliable these days, but it was mentioned as a way for OEMs to release even cheaper devices. Don't shoot the messenger!

Shadowzz said,

These statistics are based on internet capable machines.

Right. The things I mentioned are generally internet connected device. Though I haven't looked into this particular report's methodology enough to know if it would generally be counting them or not.

Hopefully, most people probably aren't aware that there's an update, yes it's on the store as soon as you open it up. But a store to many signifies cost, so they probably won't want to go on. It needs a large tile putting at the top of the start menu when there's a significant update, make it more prominent to the user.

Jas-n said,
It needs a large tile putting at the top of the start menu when there's a significant update, make it more prominent to the user.
Gee, I wish they had thought of a way to inform users about the update. Something like this perhaps: http://i.imgur.com/1t8pEOr.png

CJEric said,
That's a pretty a̶n̶n̶o̶y̶i̶n̶g̶ blunt way of informing the user, you gotta give 'em that.
It's required I suppose, and yet you see the huge percentage who have ignored it. Microsoft really should have pushed it out silently via Windows Update.

Except it doesn't work.

I got that screen when setting up a new laptop for someone. I let it download the update and then it failed to install. Looked up the error and seems it's a common problem related to a driver somewhere that the update doesn't like. So you end up having to do a clean install.

protocol7 said,
Except it doesn't work.
One, it has worked fine on all the PCs I've encountered it on so far, and two, even if it didn't work for you that doesn't negate my point that they did inform users about the update. If you note there's no way to even cancel the dialog, but many people allow the Store to open and then close it immediately thus canceling the download.

Not necessarily. It happened in one of my PCs and since I didn't have time, I left it undone, then forgot about it. A few days later I found that my PC had downloaded whatever it needed on its own and eventually installed the 8.1 update. I only knew because it asked me to reset at some point and when I did, voila, I was in 8.1.

Romero said,
It's required I suppose, and yet you see the huge percentage who have ignored it. Microsoft really should have pushed it out silently via Windows Update.

Except very few people have ever seen that dialog. As far as I know, they've only turned it on for a small subset of machines. Either custom installs, or machines where the OEM has approved it (which hasn't been many).

So no, it's not that people are ignoring it necessarily.

If that's true then they're even more bone-headed than I thought. Why wasn't that dialog shown on every Win8 PC? And don't you agree that they could have as well pushed it out through Windows Update and saved themselves a whole lot of grief? Enterprises of course would have ways to block it if they didn't want it or weren't ready, as is the case for every SP (even though technically this wasn't an SP), so it's not as if that would have been an issue.

Xabier Granja said,
Not necessarily. It happened in one of my PCs and since I didn't have time, I left it undone, then forgot about it. A few days later I found that my PC had downloaded whatever it needed on its own and eventually installed the 8.1 update. I only knew because it asked me to reset at some point and when I did, voila, I was in 8.1.

I had 0 notification that 8.1 was ready. Only the store app showed it, tile too sometimes but usually shows crappy games or IMO useless apps.
I had to manually go to the store and download/update it.
I run Windows 8 OEM/selfbuilders edition. (not pro)

Dot Matrix said,
I wonder if MSFT has a plan to push 8.1 in a different manner once Update 1 is released.

Maybe they can hire people to physically push the install DVD down Windows XP users' throat.

Romero said,
If that's true then they're even more bone-headed than I thought. Why wasn't that dialog shown on every Win8 PC? And don't you agree that they could have as well pushed it out through Windows Update and saved themselves a whole lot of grief? Enterprises of course would have ways to block it if they didn't want it or weren't ready, as is the case for every SP (even though technically this wasn't an SP), so it's not as if that would have been an issue.

Some like my Vaio Pro took a while to officially support 8.1. Sony had to do firmware updates to address compatibility issues, for example. Others are just really conservative (or just plain lame) about how they support OS upgrades on their machines.

I think it is within an error margin compared to January, but it is clear that Windows XP is going nowhere, whetter Miscrosoft likes it or not

Yogurth said,
I think it is within an error margin compared to January, but it is clear that Windows XP is going nowhere, whetter Miscrosoft likes it or not
It's not like people running XP machines can just install Windows 8 on them. While those machines work, they will be used. This is not a question of a mere software upgrade, but a system upgrade - hardware and all.

January and February are months that don't see any significant computer sales, they are the slowest months of the year in retail. I'm not surprised there's no change.

RabbitPunchies said,
We'll see what happens when the patches stop but the exploits don't...

I think nothing will happen, people still using XP most likely don't care about patches. Sadly a lot of people actually never update their computers because downloading updates is annoying and they don't have time for that geeky nonsense. They just want to play Angry Birds and get on Facebook.

Thrackerzod said,
Sadly a lot of people actually never update their computers because downloading updates is annoying and they don't have time for that geeky nonsense. They just want to play Angry Birds and get on Facebook.
Sadly true, but what makes me angry is that their PCs will be used to attack ours. Morons.

Atlantico said,
It's not like people running XP machines can just install Windows 8 on them. While those machines work, they will be used. This is not a question of a mere software upgrade, but a system upgrade - hardware and all.

January and February are months that don't see any significant computer sales, they are the slowest months of the year in retail. I'm not surprised there's no change.

True, but Windows 7 is an option on those older PC's.

greenwizard88 said,

Actually, Windows 8 would run better on them.


Windows 8 runs fine as low as 2,5-3ghz single core 1gb ram. Most XP machines have that or higher. Not all though.

Yogurth said,
I think it is within an error margin compared to January, but it is clear that Windows XP is going nowhere, whetter Miscrosoft likes it or not

Couldn't possibly be that (compared to other MS OSes) Win 8.x is a failure? No, that couldn't be it.... It is no "margin of error".

runningnak3d said,

Couldn't possibly be that (compared to other MS OSes) Win 8.x is a failure? No, that couldn't be it.... It is no "margin of error".


Selling 200million copies of a minimum 50E upto 200E in 1,5years is a failure? Really?
The computer market today is bigger then the number of people on earth. Was this the case back in 2000? Not even close.

Romero said,
In many cases they can.
So you say, but one needs a modern CPU and a gigabyte of RAM just for entry to Windows 8.

There are not "many" machines that fulfill that requirement yet run XP.

runningnak3d said,

Couldn't possibly be that (compared to other MS OSes) Win 8.x is a failure? No, that couldn't be it.... It is no "margin of error".

Win7 is still available. This isn't an issue with Win8, but more people not understanding what is at risk or why XP is a bad idea. They have options.

Hi_XPecTa_Chens said,
True, but Windows 7 is an option on those older PC's.

Win 8 is lighter and uses less RAM than 7. It will be better for older XP machines. Microsoft are also lowering the RAM usage further in Update 1, as well as the disk space requirements so that it will run on systems with just 1GB RAM and 16GB of storage.

Atlantico said,
So you say, but one needs a modern CPU and a gigabyte of RAM just for entry to Windows 8.

There are not "many" machines that fulfill that requirement yet run XP.

Almost every CPU released in the last decade or so supports PAE, SSE2 and NX and can run Win8. As for RAM, depends on how much there was but if low it is easy to chuck in some more. I've lost count of how many XP PCs and laptops I've simply installed Win7 on or upgraded just the RAM to run Win7, and 99% of those would run Win8 just as well or perhaps even better.

RabbitPunchies said,
We'll see what happens when the patches stop but the exploits don't...
They're in a tough spot, either users will upgrade, or they will blame Windows and switch to something else, or ditch the desktop entirely for a tablet.

Geezy said,
They're in a tough spot, either users will upgrade, or they will blame Windows and switch to something else, or ditch the desktop entirely for a tablet.

lets just see what happens when that time comes to see what users will do.

greenwizard88 said,

Actually, Windows 8 would run better on them.


if the pc has sufficient hardware, then it may. or just stick to 7.

We'll see what happens when the patches stop but the exploits don't...

Yeah, which is why i was forced to dump Windows XP on my old PC from 2001 and put Linux (Lubuntu) on it. it's just a old PC but it's a backup PC in case my primary one goes down so i can use it to order more parts as while it's slow it's OK for very basic internet as websites load fine but are sluggish when scrolling a website until the page is fully loaded. it's a 1.2Ghz Athlon with 1GB of RAM.

but basically... Linux is the only option for that PC since Windows Vista/7/8 ain't a real option due to lack of hardware support.

soldier1st said,
if the hardware isn't compatible or doesn't have a compatible driver then it won't run.
Your point being? That's why I didn't say it was possible in "all cases", and I'm going by the number of machines I have personally upgraded from XP to Win7 or 8.

Geezy said,
They're in a tough spot, either users will upgrade, or they will blame Windows and switch to something else
If we're talking about enterprises tied in to XP for some reason, or clueless users who can barely use XP, or people who are happy with XP because it still does what they want, none of these are going to move to an alternate OS. The second and perhaps the third category might move on to tablets but they're not likely to switch to Linux for example.

Edited by Romero, Mar 2 2014, 4:52pm :

You're right, most times XP is good enough and there is no reason to upgrade, not to mention learning a new interface (which may be familiar but everything is relabeled, has new icons, options in a different place or called something else), and re-customizing all of their preferences.

Pretty much any PC newer than 7 years old has that kind of specs.

Are there really that many PCs out there older than 7 years old? HDDs don't normally last longer than that... unless they're only turned on once or twice a week.

Yogurth said,
I think it is within an error margin compared to January, but it is clear that Windows XP is going nowhere, whetter Miscrosoft likes it or not

Classic example of "This is what I want, not what will actually happen". XP support ceases in a little over a month, and those people still running it will just have to deal with it.