Intel: XP users causing weak sales

[+Warwagon MVC]

Maybe because you've used it more often ... 

I don't ...

 

Well I mean everything is still in the same place as with Vista and 7 and XP .. for the most part. The control panel pretty much the same. so is my computer , folder options and stuff.

[Eric Veteran]

Apart from cost,time constraints,lack of software/hardware support and lack of money you mean

 

That's part of the cost of doing business. If you can't afford to keep your infrastructure up to date you either shouldn't be using computers or shouldn't use a commercial OS you're unable to maintain.

[Dot Matrix]

So what you are saying is you really don't know where anything is at, you just search for everything.

Why needlessly click around like a lunatic? Search is just easier, and is a huge time saver. I don't need to know where anything's at, and nor does the user which is another huge productivity gain.

[MikeM97]

Well I mean everything is still in the same place as with Vista and 7 and XP .. for the most part. The control panel pretty much the same. so is my computer , folder options and stuff.

 

Hmm ... I see ...

[MorganX]

People use OS' to run applications and in many large environments, one single application (Medical, etc.). If XP is all they need ... they should upgrade though. It's too old and insecure.

 

Intel is also seeing slow sales because software hasn't really caught up to the power currently available on average desktops. Just look at what DX12 will do just from optimizing how software takes better advantage of hardware. Delays in Skylake don't help.

 

With x99 on ITX, USB 3.1, Intel is do for some increased sales toward the end of the year. With Xbox for Windows 10 and more console ports being unchained on the PC platform, there's plenty of sales to come. Intel can blame themselves for this lull as much as anyone else. I'm ready to buy, but what am I going to buy? I have a 4790k, GTX 970, 16GB DDR2400, 144Hz Gsync 1080p ... my next upgrade will be ASRock's ITX x99, DDR4 2400 16GB, i7-5820k, and a 30"+ when G-sync is available at that size < 60Hz. And even then it's only as an enthusiast, not because I "need" it. Nothing taxes what I have now. If it's not free, I have no compelling reason to go to Windows 10.

[+Warwagon MVC]

Why needlessly click around like a lunatic? Search is just easier, and is a huge time saver. I don't need to know where anything's at, and nor does the user which is another huge productivity gain.

 

What happens when the issue you are fixing is broken search? How do you find anything?

 

What are some of the things you always search for?

[Mockingbird]

My parents had already upgraded a lot of PCs in their building.

 

Obviously, everyone who does actual subcontracting work already have computers running Windows 8.1 (with Start Menu replacement), but the people doing paperwork and such were still running PCs with Windows XP.

 

Rather than upgrading those PCs to Windows 8.1, my parents went on a buying spree and bought a lot of those cheap $200 desktop PCs from Dell.

 

Anyway, they still have a lot of PCs with Windows XP running slideshows or connected to ancient peripherals, but those don't connect to the internet so they don't count as part of the market share.

[Dot Matrix]

What happens when the issue you are fixing is broken search? How do you find anything?

 

What are some of the things you always search for?

I have never seen Search broken. I'm searching for apps, system settings, and network configurations.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

How is anyone working on an OS, where it takes twice as long to do anything as it would on Windows 7 or Windows 8? I HATE remoting into an XP, and not finding where I need to go because it's buried in pop up box after pop up box, and there's no search. Don't even get me started on window management.

 

Windows XP only ever did one thing well, and that's this:

 

 

/snip

 

 

Sounds like you need a new profession.  

[Dot Matrix]

Sounds like you need a new profession.  

No, these companies just need to get off XP.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

No, these companies just need to get off XP.

 

I do not know what you do...but if you're in the tech support business then you need to accommodate the client needs.  If you can not provide services that they are paying for or if you hate it that much...you should probably find a new profession.

 

Obviously your hatred for XP has clouded your judgement regarding it.

[n_K]

How is anyone working on an OS, where it takes twice as long to do anything as it would on Windows 7 or Windows 8? I HATE remoting into an XP, and not finding where I need to go because it's buried in pop up box after pop up box, and there's no search. Don't even get me started on window management.

 

Windows XP only ever did one thing well, and that's this:

 

and:

Listen, don't blame XP because you're using it very wrongly. No one else has had these problems.

[+Warwagon MVC]

Obviously your hatred for XP has clouded your judgement regarding it.

 

His hatred for XP runs deep, VERY deep.

 

I remotely connect into customers who are still running XP machines all ... mostly home users. I am self employed doing computer repair and have been for the last 12 years. When I see an XP machine, I will recommend they upgrade (Upgrade is usually done by purchasing a new computer.) .. Most of the time they don't want to, they pay me for my services and that's it. I don't refuse to work on their machine just because they have XP , like some members of this community have said they do when someone brings in an XP machine.

 

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink!

[PGHammer]

And why ARE they "freaking"?  Mostly because WE (the folks that support them) are ALSO either freaking OR deploying click-bait posts and articles simply because we don't want those same folks to move or upgrade.

 

When it comes to being change-averse, some of us are more opposed than our user-base.  (Folks that I support ARE buying touch-screen portables and AIOs - and without my having said diddly to them about them; my mom is a major example.  Note that I personally don't own such a device.  Her BFF went the touch route also - in this case, it was a tag-team recommendation from both her own hands-on with Mom's touch AIO, and my own recommendation as far as portable-computer capabilities; she got herself a touch-based portable running 8.1 Pro.)

 

We're basically treating the folks we support as so many pre-teens (or worse - children) "why"?  Do we think we know better than they do what they want?  Or is it that we want them to keep "needing us" - and want to keep them ignorant?

 

If EITHER is the case, that makes our own actions part of the gol-darned PROBLEM.

 

As the father eagle said to the mother eagle "The chicks have to leave the nest sometime."

[spaceelf]

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink!

Sure you can, shoot em and let em fall in...

 

Listen, don't blame XP because you're using it very wrongly. No one else has had these problems.

I had BSODs regularly on XP and XP x64.  Vista didn't clear them up entirely but it was a damn good start.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

I had BSODs regularly on XP and XP x64.  Vista didn't clear them up entirely but it was a damn good start.

 

Obviously something was wrong with your particular setup(s).  Not saying that blue screens didn't occur...but I'd certainly wouldn't say I had them "regularly". 

[spaceelf]

Obviously something was wrong with your particular setup(s).  Not saying that blue screens didn't occur...but I'd certainly wouldn't say I had them "regularly". 

Yes, the fact that I play high end games with dedicated sound hardware was pretty much enough.  DirectSound was notoriously unstable.

 

That wasn't all of it, but it was a good chunk of it.

[+Random Stranger Subscriber¹]

i did not read the whole thread, but come on,  windows XP had WAY MORE CRASHES then any windows since.  there is no two ways about it.

 

yeah, many were fixed with patches...    but overall,  in XP world,  I had to do fresh installs all the time.   since Windows 7, i only did system restore a few times due to drivers, but that is all.

 

XP needed clean installs, because it was almost impossible to get it working properly otherwise.   if you use the computer heavily and install and uninstall programs,   XP did NOT stay same.

something was building up, and clean install was the only safe bet to get PC running max performance.

 

 

 

and i LOVED XP.    but i was seen BSOD there all the time.   in Win7 and up -  it is a novelty.  in XP it was part of life.

Listen, don't blame XP because you're using it very wrongly. No one else has had these problems.

 

 

Are you joking?  

No one else had these problems with XP?   

As much as I liked XP,  over the life of it,   BSOD were extremely common.    It is a fact..     

Maybe the very lastest updated XP runs great,  but if you are a user since day 1... you have seen those screens hundreds of times.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I did however try Win ME before..     Now that was a clusterfudge if i ever seen one.   I could not last more then a week, before returning to Win98 SE

 

So XP was a great breath of fresh air.    it did crash a lot though... not near as much as ME, and maybe even less then 98 (which was pretty bad until 98 SE) ... but it still crashed a lot.

[Dot Matrix]

Listen, don't blame XP because you're using it very wrongly. No one else has had these problems.

Windows Rot != "using it wrongly". Are you Steve Jobs now? Windows Rot was a fact of life for millions of XP users -and still is. XP PCs are still the most commonly reimaged systems where I work.

[Ian W]

I had BSODs regularly on XP and XP x64.  Vista didn't clear them up entirely but it was a damn good start.

Yes, thanks in part to the Windows Display Driver Model. Prior to this, Microsoft had stated that display drivers were responsible for "up to 20 percent of all blue screens" in Windows XP.

One of the principal goals during development of WDDM

[+Warwagon MVC]

but overall,  in XP world,  I had to do fresh installs all the time. 

 

I lived 4 years off a single XP install

[Noir Angel]

Why needlessly click around like a lunatic? Search is just easier, and is a huge time saver. I don't need to know where anything's at, and nor does the user which is another huge productivity gain.

 

That quote really sums it up. The problem isn't with XP, it's with you. A decent worker ALWAYS learns to use the tools of his or her trade properly.

[Dot Matrix]

That quote really sums it up. The problem isn't with XP, it's with you. A decent worker ALWAYS learns to use the tools of his or her trade properly.

I know how to use Windows.

 

A true Windows pro isn't going to waste their time clicking around like a madman, like you're forced to in XP. Windows XP is very much the definition of "Anti-productive".

[Noir Angel]

I know how to use Windows. A true Windows pro isn't going to waste their time clicking around like a madman, like you're forced to in XP. Windows XP is very much the definition of "Anti-productive".

 

That's utter nonsense, settings really aren't that hard to find in XP if you actually know what you're doing. I can set up XP machines just as quickly as 7/8.x machines.

[+Warwagon MVC]

That's utter nonsense, settings really aren't that hard to find in XP if you actually know what you're doing. I can set up XP machines just as quickly as 7/8.x machines.

 

Correct, plus there is something called the "Run" box. Which I use quite freqent on XP .... want the control panel on XP? ...Windows key +R then type control and press enter.

 

services? Services.msc and press enter

 

clicking around like a madman

is what you do when you can't find what you are looking for

 

You make it sound like it takes 100 clicks to do anything, you are just being overly dramatic.