Windows XP market share GROWS AGAIN, outstrips Win 8.1 surge If you don't believe in the undead, think again: Windows XP may be just over a month from its much-publicised demise but is now Microsoft's fastest-growing operating system in terms of market share. For that zombie-like assertion we can thank Netmarketshare's new data about operating system market share. As we reported in …
This is truly a monumental achievement for Microsoft. In less than a month, this corporate behemoth will tell a significant portion of humanity around the planet to go fuck itself, while feeling omnipotent in its power as King Rat, gazing scornfully down upon the wretched masses scrabbling among the little black turds at its feet.
Ignore the Rat's words; focus on its actions.
Not wanting to appear a Microsoft appologist, they have extended the deadline from 2010 and users and companies have had over half a decades warning that they need to look for an alternative to XP. It isn't as if this date appeared out of nowhere at short notice (unlike Snow Leopard being put to sleep without even informing users).
@big_d yes, but that's because nobody wanted their new OS. And they have had 3 years to fix that and still nobody wants their new OS.
As I see it Microsoft have a very embarassing situation on their hands.
If they let XP support expire and the world becomes one big virus ridden botnet then its their fault. Even though they gave fair warning that will be the perception. But a u-turn would be seen as "oh they'll keep extending it". So that's not a winable start point either way.
I reckon they are hoping that they can drown out the bad news with the hoped good news of the big rush of sales on windows 8.1. I don't think this will happen. People don't want to do that kind if thing. You don't replace your washing machine if it still works because zanussi stopped making parts for it. Especially if there is no material value in a replacement. (i.e. Spare parts doesn't count). And remember most of these people won't be techies and understand the value of patching.
What Microsoft should have done is reskinned windows 8 with an alternative XP style(a bit like Linux has with gnome,KDE etc) and made it cheap (Like 19.99) and less resource hungry to run on older kit. People like the XP/windows 7 experience and making them not have the choice is the mistake.
This isn't going to end well for anybody on either side of the fence.
What they need is another FLP.
FLP was XP-lite for old Pentium 2s etc. that were running Win 9x to bring them up to the NT/XP line.
An FLP2 based on 8.x, with TIFKAM nonsense removed, but which runs on anything from a 1.5ghz atom up, would be useful in getting people off XP.
Wow this is the first time I ever heard of this version of XP. I bet this would be so awesome on that old ass P1 Noteblock I have somewhere in cold storage. It runs XP now more or less. Actually less, but then not as badly as say my more thoroughly modern Netbook with its Windows 7 Starter Edition. I would suspect both of these Machines could have benefited greatly from this OS Version.
Yes, except for one tiny little detail.
Windows 8 wasn't about re-skinning Windows 7, it was about shifting the market dynamics so Microsoft has a reliable future revenue stream. And you can't really re-skin that.
There's really only one was for MS to displace their entrenched XP users, and in 12+ years they haven't been able to do it: Make an obviously superior OS that people want to buy.
If you look at those numbers I think what you see is enterprise has adopted Windows 7 because they needed the support contracts while consumers mostly stayed on XP. The other people you have moving to Windows 7 were those foolish enough to have tried Vista. And old the committed Kool-Aid drinkers are adopting Windows 8.
True, but our Intellectual Property laws are such that no other company can take on support for Windows XP until 2096 or thereabouts, even though Microsoft don't want it. They should either support it, sell it to a willing third party, or open source it so we can all support and develop it collaboratively.
True, but our Intellectual Property laws are such that no other company can take on support for Windows XP until 2096 or thereabouts, even though Microsoft don't want it. They should either support it, sell it to a willing third party, or open source it so we can all support and develop it collaboratively.
Open the XP Source Code FECKING LOL..... Oh yeah that's soooo gonna happen... And MicroSoft will bring back the Start Button in Windows 8 SP1 too.....
Not wanting to appear a Microsoft appologist, they have extended the deadline from 2010 and users and companies have had over half a decades warning that they need to look for an alternative to XP. It isn't as if this date appeared out of nowhere at short notice (unlike Snow Leopard being put to sleep without even informing users).
One MicroSoft should have been an**r**ed by the DOJ, and European Courts for interfering with the development of the Netbook, and consequently destroying that concept. By shifting the only half-decent OS MicorSoft, had at the time for it. Before gracing us with Vista Duce (a.k.a Windows 7 Starter Edition), Which I gathered runs in much the same way as Vista on a sub 1Gb RAM, and no Video Acceleration did.
As to this "Alternative" please enlighten us with your great wisdom? The only natural successor to XP really is Windows 7, and MicroSoft has already struck that Stake though the Heart (of it). By completely removing Windows 7 from the Channel come by October at the latest.
I hate to be the One to break this to you, but Windows 8 is a non-starter. Unlike Vista, which was at least fixable, with a decent Video Card, and some Cheapo RAM. You can't fix that broken Interface FKAM. Perhaps this new 8.1 Update will yet prove me wrong. But, the damage is done. If Windows 8.1 really is such a great diversion back to the 7/Vista/XP way of doing things. Then they could do worse then rename this OS to Windows 9. As no One with a free floating Brain Cell would want Windows 8 now, if they didn't already want it, or have it.
And it's about to get a whole lot worse in mobile. Spot the pattern: Microsoft write new OS, which is shit. Users avoid it. Microsoft spends zillions marketing it. Users still avoid it. Microsofts last resort is to go nuclear to force users to use it.
Now think about mobile. Microsoft launches shit OS ... repeat as above, except the new popular OS everyone wants is Android on Nokia kit. Android on Nokia proves a massive hit so Microsoft then ...?
The writing was on the wall for XP regardless of whether or not Windows 8 was a success.
The double standard here is that no one seems expect any other company to support a 12 year old operating system, it's only MS who must have some devious master plan behind dropping support for XP, other than it being 12 years old of course.
It's not reasonable to expect any company to support a product that is more than a decade old when they have released 3 major versions in the meantime. Exclude Vista for a moment as it is pants, and even if you don't like Windows 8, Windows 7 is far superior to XP.
No one seems to expect to be able to buy a phone with Cupcake on it, why on earth are they so attached to XP? I liked XP in the day but Windows 7 is far better.
The end of life for XP isn't news and MS have given everyone plenty of time to move over.
You could say this for almost every software product in existence.
The software industry is built on incremental improvements to an existing code base until supporting that legacy becomes too much, at which point you get yourself on to a new more modern one. No one rewrites the product on every version, nor should they.
If you're coming from XP, I would say 7/8 is a significantly new OS in terms of features and architecture. Going from 7 to 8, it is more of an incremental change.
@John P " Going from 7 to 8, it is more of an incremental change."
True. Vista/7/8 are all the same underlying architecture with different UI elements so its minor updates from that perspective one to the other. With the massive UI swap - 8 becomes a defacto major upgrade, but underneath its essentially 7.1 for the "meat and potatoes" of it.
NT4/2K/2k3/XP are significantly different underlying architecture which makes Vista/7/8 a significant upgrade from an architectural perspective.
Actually no. MS really muddied the waters here because Windows 8 has two underlying architectures. One is similar to 7, the other is radically different. We tend to overlook it because one of the architectures, the one not like 7, is selling to the one for 7 like Windows 8 total sales compare to Windows 7.
Because it was close enough to being a monopoly to make little difference.
Because the replacement was so poor and so incompatible (you couldn't install a vista machine on an AD with lots of policies and expect it to work properly without a lot of changes) that users avoided it.
The replacement for Vista, although a good version of windows, still had the same issues with migration.
And the replacement for that, although probably the soundest core ever for windows, had a UI that was a showstopper.
My opinion is that whenever they fix a bug that dates back to XP, they should fix it for XP too.
If it has a bug then they have sold a faulty product, and should fix it. If they fix it for other versions of windows, then they are pointing out a hole for malware authors to use. This is very close close to blackmail. (Of course many domestic users will just say sod Microsoft and buy an iPad or Nexus)
Sometimes you have to make big changes in your product that necessitate a more involved migration process.
Microsoft's failure is in not going to the effort to make the migration path smoother. You can go from XP -> 7, but not XP -> 8, but you can go 7 -> 8. MS would be in fewer admin's bad books if they automated these processes so even if it is 2 separate steps, you do it in the background thus making the choice of migrate or not that much easier.
Having said that, I don't think not migrating because it is hard is sufficient excuse. Have a go at MS for making it difficult by all means, they deserve it. That, however, doesn't stop it needing doing, even if it is harder than you would like.
You shouldn't be running 12 year old PCs, so why is it okay to be running a 12 year old OS?
Uh, because it works ?
You people banging on and on about how Microsoft has alerted people for years and so on really should get a reality check.
Rule #1 : The Customer Is Always Right
Rule #2 : Getting Money From The Customer Is Hard To Do
Most importantly :
Rule #3 : A Customer Will Not Replace Something That Works Fine
The vast majority of customers are not PC fans, OS adulators of any side, or actually care about PC stuff in any way. They are much more involved with their personal lives/hobbies/problems which can be in activities ranging from caring for actual, living people to going fishing or watching football with friends and a beer (or three).
There is only a tiny percentage of PC users (of which I am part) who truly care what the OS they run is doing on their hardware and ensure that the thing is optimized and running properly.
Now turn the problem the other way around : how many of you who berate users for not moving to at least Win7 are out every weekend polishing their car ? Because car polish is essential for the proper preservation of the paint color and general durability. And you should use <insert brand name> products only, because they have a proven history and have never used <insert chemical product> at any point in their production history since it is proven that <insert given adverse effect>.
So all you XP-demonizers out there need to pull your own heads out and realize that a PC is not the most important thing in most other people's lives.
The customer is always right. Deal with it.
Meanwhile in Redmond:
"Hey, this Pascal guy is right! Our customers won't replace something that works fine. What we should do is, we should screw up XP so it doesn't work any more! Get me the dev team, I feel an urgent "security patch" coming on..."
> Most importantly : Rule #3 : A Customer Will Not Replace Something That Works Fine
That's so wrong it's not even funny. The person sitting right next to me in the office has had all incarnations of Apple's phones sequentially; they all still work fine. She's far from an exception: the person sitting on the other side of my desk takes 1-year phone subscription so he can get a new phone every year, despite the old one still being fully functionnal. We are putting in a lot of purchase orders for the latest version of MSOffice this month, despite all the old installs that they are meant to replace still working a charm.
So, Rule #3 is really "Given the Chance a Customer Will Replace Anything and Everything With a Newer Version Without Thinking Twice, Even When They Really Shouldn't"
I gladly disobey this law (in fact I'm posting this from an XP machine), but the vast majority of users just want the latest shiny-shiny. Which makes MS' failure to get wide adoption for Eight all the more worrying.
It'll be because most of the world don't really care about OS. They've bought a PC back in the days that XP came with it, and it's been doing sterling service for them since. It works on the old machine they've had, and now they're being told that they need to spend about 20-25% of the cost of a new PC just so that they can carry on doing what they already do? They have no interest in Win7 being good. And from the ones I know, they have absolutely no intention of moving anything to windows 8 (some are actively avoiding getting new hardware because it comes with Windows 8, because it just irritates them to use it, and they have better things to do than be irritated by something that's just supposed to work for them, not dictate to them.
This is the idiocy of MS Marketing. Technically, 8 is a good move forward under the covers. Forcing that ridiculous new interface (that pisses off an awful lot of people) on everything just for the sake of politics (which it was) is insanity.
When I first heard about Windows 8, it was supposed to be one API for everything (code once, run on any device). That would have been great. Especially if they'd allowed a GUI to be alterable (so you could have Win7/XP lookalike if you wanted), it just ran Win 8 apps. That would have really had people jumping up and down with enthusiasm. Instead, they fragmented the devices (code once for each OS type), and forced the GUI to be the same in all use cases..
That, guys, is why you don't let Marketing make the tech calls.
Actually I think they do. Not so much because they want to, but because they have to. I very much doubt all of those systems that are still running XP are 12 year old (or more) systems. I think half of them were people who specifically bought an XP system right before MS pulled the OEM licenses. They bought it because they wanted hardware they knew was going to be good for another 4+ years while they could still get the OS all the rest of their software runs on. Think about it. How much do you spend on the PC, and how much do you spend for the rest of the software that runs on it? In most cases you have more invested in the software than you do in the PC, even if you consider the OS part of the PC when it is properly part of the software. People are tired of spending that much money on all that additional software every time an MS CEO sees his shadow.
Yeah, yeah. Everybody is always looking for the One Ring.
Louis Sullivan coined the phrase "Form follows function" to describe architecture, but its even more true in computing. While it is true that both ranch houses and skyscrapers have walls and windows the infrastructure supporting, and even the nature of the walls and windows built into the structures is completely different. In the same way, the needed light weight, low memory requirements of a phone or a tablet are different than the needs of a workstation or server. There's no need for the OS on the phone to support the overhead necessary on the server. Therefore the OSes which optimize for the two systems will always be different, sometimes radically so. This is true even with Linux. The difference with Linux is that since it has a modular approach to its construction, even though the loaded OSes are radically different for the different devices, it has a commonality that makes it feel the same. And despite all their press releases, MS still haven't learned how to do that.
It works on the old machine they've had, and now they're being told that they need to spend about 20-25% of the cost of a new PC just so that they can carry on doing what they already do? They have no interest in Win7 being good. And from the ones I know, they have absolutely no intention of moving anything to windows 8
This explanation ^right here^ has my Parents down to the Tee.... I had do deal with so much bitching when I wanted to switch them off to Cinnamon Mint. Sadly their POS Shuttle with its shi-y Windows ONLY S3 IGP. made this change untenable, no Linux Drivers were to be had unfortunately. So I had to break down and get them a Windows 7 Disc off of Fleabay. Which to their credit they weren't to keen on either cause it wasn't XP. At which point I just said either deal with it, or install bloody XP yourself! I'm still not quite sure what their opinion of Windows 7 is, but I gather they we're bemused by the rotating Desktop Screens.
"No one seems to expect to be able to buy a phone with Cupcake on it, why on earth are they so attached to XP? I liked XP in the day but Windows 7 is far better."
Because it works, and their experience of upgrades is finally sinking in : upgrades are OK if you're starting afresh with a new machine but the cause of inevitable problems for your older software.
In my opinion Microsoft should not be required to support antique operating systems but should be leaving Win 7 on the table as an option. However there are ways to make Win 8 and 8.1 look and feel a lot more like Win 7 and thus XP. The solutions are free or cheap; search for Windows 8 /Windows 8.1 Start menu apps IE Classic Shell ("free") , or Start8 ($4.99, US).
Win 8.1 update 1 is out in RTM now to be released on April 8th for the rest of us and is supposed to give back a few features and Win 7 like defaults (not enough for me). Hopefully this will not become an argument for or against Win 8 since I respect all of your opinion please respect mine. Michael
* XP has been around since 2001 (out April 8th), Vista since 2007 (out in 2017), and Windows 7 since 2009 (out in 2020).
**From microsoft.com/gp/lifepolicy
”4. Will Microsoft offer support beyond the Extended Support phase?
Microsoft understands that local laws, market conditions, and support requirements differ around the world and differ by industry sector. Therefore, Microsoft offers custom support relationships that go beyond the Extended Support phase. These custom support relationships may include assisted support and hotfix support, and may extend beyond 10 years from the date a product becomes generally available. Strategic Microsoft partners may also offer support beyond the Extended Support phase. Customers and partners can contact their account team or their local Microsoft representative for more information.”
13. How does the Support Lifecycle policy work with Premier support agreements?
In the Mainstream Support phase, customers receive the same support as they do today with no additional contracts or agreements. In the Extended Support phase, paid assisted support and security update support is provided. An Extended Hotfix Support contract is required to receive the ability to request non-security hotfixes for products in extended support. Premier Support is a prerequisite for Extended Hotfix support enrollment. Customers with existing Premier support contracts can work with their technical account manager (TAM) or with their technical account specialist (TAS) to determine the options that are available for their specific circumstances.
Note A hotfix is a modification to the commercially available Microsoft product software code to address specific critical problems.
In my opinion Microsoft should not be required to support antique operating systems but should be leaving Win 7 on the table as an option. However there are ways to make Win 8 and 8.1 look and feel a lot more like Win 7 and thus XP. The solutions are free or cheap; search for Windows 8 /Windows 8.1 Start menu apps IE Classic Shell ("free") , or Start8 ($4.99, US).
Again my Padiwan you fail to see that People will refuse to pay others to fix injected "problems" that nobody wanted in the first place. The ONLY People who need to fix this are none other then MicroSoft themselves, and to do so would undermine their whole Metro World. Sadly reality is finally starting to sink into those thick Skulls over in Redmond that TIFKAM is an utter failure, and a return to some kind of sanity, is the only way to possibly save it from itself. The only probblem is they should have read this Memo, back when the Beta Testers we're all like HELL NO WTF IS THIS SH--!?
At this point the best thing to do is to just give everyone what they want, an XP/7 eXPerience, and quickly burry the Turd known as Windows 8 ASAP!
Not so much a devious plan as a grave of their own making. Windows 7 may actually be superior to XP, but the average consumer can't buy it right now. Every time I look at an add for consumer level hardware here in the US the OS is Windows 8*, which is even more pants than Vista was. So the consumer is stuck between using a functional but unsupported OS or a piece of crap they don't want. Of course they're opting for the unsupported OS.
*The sole exception to this seems to be Lenovo, who sell Windows 7 and had solid earnings numbers for hardware last year. Of course, being based in China sort of proves the point about US manufacturers.
For a very simple reason - noone pays a licensing fee for a new os on the phone, every corporate identity out there paid for many years for XP support and the migration involves massive costs, more often then not associated with lack of specialized software compatibility, hardware upgrades and staff training.
>The double standard here is that no one seems expect any other company to support a 12 year old operating system
Depends upon what you mean by 'support'.
Yes Microsoft's chosen business model is to offer free support for n years, where 'n' is determined by either the original release date or the last service pack date.
However, actually other companies do 'support' 12+ year old OS's! albeit not for free.
AIX 7.1 (released 2010) is binary compatible with AIX 5L (released 2001) and IBM will support me today using 5L compatible applications running either directly on 7.1 or within a "workload partition" (a type of virtualised container). Where this differs from MS is that as from April 2014, MS will no longer support XP-mode within Win7.
Personally, I think MS scored an own goal by not ensuring Win7 was binary compatible with XP and by withdrawing support for XP-mode now rather than when Win7 reaches end of extended support. Binary compatibility would of helped to decouple Windows upgrades from third-party application upgrades, reducing the resistance to a desktop refresh.
The double standard here is that no one seems expect any other company to support a 12 year old operating system
They do when it's an OS for serious business computing.
IBM still supports VSE, an OS that first came out in 1965. They released a new version last year. Of course mainframe OSes are a continuing revenue stream for IBM, since they're generally leased and/or have attached maintenance charges.
If XP were purely a consumer OS, that'd be one thing. But Microsoft wanted to own the corporate desktop, they got it, and then they weren't able to demonstrate sufficient value in any post-XP OS1 to get their reluctant/conservative/cheap customers off it. They bought that problem.
Microsoft has two choices (and has had since 2005): support XP, or create incentives to get customers off XP. (Well, they have a third choice, which is to ignore XP holdouts. That's not likely to pay off.) They've consistently failed to be sufficiently successful at the latter, and so they've been forced back to the former. At this point it's too late for further positive incentives - new features, performance and stability improvements, etc - before the current XP deadline, so they're stuck with negative ones, chiefly nagging and threatening.
1Personally, I thought some of the improvements in Vista alone justified the move from XP - including the unfairly-maligned UAC (though the "over your shoulder" heuristics were an abomination that should have been clubbed to death long before Vista was released) and LUA token-splitting. But of course my risk and cost models and experience preferences are by no means universal.
This isn't embarrassing for MS at all.
They announced end of life of XP in 2002. 12 Years ago. They refreshed the date in 2008, 6 years ago. The only people this is embarrassing for are the ones who have sat on their hands for over a decade and done nothing to plan for the change.
2002 - Windows XP EOL announced as 2010
2008 - Windows XP EOL extended to 2014
2009 - Windows 7 released
2011 - Windows 8 released.
2014 - Windows XP EOL.
So EOL on XP was announced 7 years before Windows 7 was released and Win8 hadn't even been announced. Windows 7 has been available for 5 years and Windows 8 (for all it's issues) has been available for 3 years.
So again, how exactly is it embarrassing for MS that end customers haven't pulled their heads out of their arses and done something about it in spite of having 12 years to plan for it?
I'd try to explain it to you, but it is beyond the ability of mere mortals to explain it to anyone who can write the above line with a straight face. If you can't be arsed to remember rule #1, you are a lost cause:
Rule number 1: The customer is always right.
Rule number 2: If the customer is wrong, refer to rule #1.
Except they aren't.
Rule one only applies when your customer can go elsewhere. Like it or not, there are no practical alternatives for enterprise class operations who want to maintain continuity for their desktop environments. Despite all the discussion about porting to Linux or use of VM's or compatibility modes etc, in practical terms these are as much if not more work to implement in the current timescales than going down the MS upgrade path.
Realistically, if you wanted to get of the Windows merry-go-round you should have started planning the jump 5 years ago when MS extended the end of life to 2014. You'd be about ready by now if you had.
As far as MS are concerned in this, Rule One can go screw itself.
You can whinge all you like about whether MS is right or not to do this, it doesn't change the fact that they are doing it. They told the world they were going to do it, gave the world an extra FOUR YEARS to deal with it and now everyone is getting all upset that they are actually doing what they said they were going to do 12 years ago.
The numbers of XP desktops out there, still in daily production use indicates that the IT world has had it's head up it's collective arse the whole time.
Whinging about it and claiming the customer is always right is just the verbal equivalent of ramming it that bit further up there, when push comes to shove you're still going to end up eating shit.
Whilst some have noted that people won't upgrade what already works and has been working since they bought the machine it resides on another thing worthy of note is that, when upgrading an OS, 3rd party software manufacturers normally take the opportunity to fleece you for a new version of their product and everyone knows this. Just one more reason not to bother.
This is a positive for MS. The ad slogan in their future will be: "The OS experience you'll refuse to leave behind, even for us."
I remember when XP first arrived and people preferred Win 98. People will upgrade when forced to do so. Have to say, think I still do prefer 98 as a Windows flavor.
They announced end of life of XP in 2002. 12 Years ago. They refreshed the date in 2008, 6 years ago. The only people this is embarrassing for are the ones who have sat on their hands for over a decade and done nothing to plan for the change.
Your missing the point. Its not so much about the EOL of XP, as to what do I replace it with? Thankfully OEMs like HP have bought back Windows 7 as an option. Well until October anyway... I wonder why this isn't being plastered just about everywhere, any why MicroSoft are so damned incessant on shooting themselves in the Foot with Windows 8?
People like to bitch about how shi--y Vista was. But unlike Windows 8, you could at least fix Vista with some better Hardware. (e.g. With Video & RAM Upgrades.), Sadly such Upgrades can't fix that broken pile of fail a.k.a TIFKAM....
I think XP is an embarrassment for MS! and will probably go down as a text book case study in how not to do things!
One of the big factors in the success of XP in the market and why we are largely talking about it as a current issue, has been Microsoft's good performance in releasing patches etc. and poor performance in delivering a sufficiently compelling replacement and for that replacement to be in the market for a sufficient length of time to gain traction, particularly in the enterprise space.
Reading the long-term trend graphs it would seem that MS might of done better by simply releasing W7-SP2 and forgetting about releasing W8 on anything other than a phone and tablet.
Well it seems to be a working scenario shared by other Publishers. I wouldn't care to draw parallels to Polyphony Digital (i.e. Of Gran Turismo 5 & Academy fame), with MicroSoft. That would just be plan silly. They have however nonetheless have decided to can the On-Line Support for GT5 come May though. This in-and-of-itself isn't nearly as infuriating (to me), as much as that they will also be pulling all the additional DLC Content from the PlayStation Network at the same time.
In the hopes that this will get everyone to move onto GT5.1 *cough* GT6 *cough*...
Anecdotally, a great many XP machines reside in developing nations (...)
A multinational company I worked for – which by revenue and head count could well apply for recognition as its own country, albeit a "developing" one – still used Windows XP in all employee machines by the time I left late last year, without any update plan that I'd heard of. Said company markets Windows 7 PC's and has warehouses full of them, but every time one is allocated to internal staff, it is promptly wiped and reformated with Windows XP by the sysadmins.
Come April I'll get in touch with some of my former colleagues and ask how they're faring. I just don't have the heart now.
The big uns like that will continue to receive help/updates from MS
I doubt it. Enterprise has become MS's most important market, so it is in Redmond's best interests that the "big uns" let go of XP. And those are pretty much the clients that need to be prodded: ordinary consumers will upgrade automatically the next time they buy a PC, but big companies with IT departments can always get new machines wiped and refitted with Windows XP, for as long as the drivers remain compatible.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
