Comments
Windows 8.1 Makes Gains, XP Hangs On
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
Gary_EL
100%
0%
Gary_EL,
User Rank: Ninja
6/2/2014 | 3:35:42 PM
XP
It's been said before, and I'll say it again. Other than the fact that Microsoft doesn't support it anymore, there is/was no reason for most of us to leave XP. Since Window 7, which I now use, is closest in look and feel to XP, that's what most others have chosen, too. Microsoft may have given a party, but very few people choose to attend.

I don't care that it's however old it is. For those of us who aren't professional developers, XP was perfectly adequate. As more and more of what most of us do is on the cloud anyway, the operating system itself is a smaller and smaller issue.

What I really resent that if you're big enough, like the British or Dutch governments, you get to stay with XP. What I really admire is China's move to Linux
danielcawrey
50%
50%
danielcawrey,
User Rank: Ninja
6/2/2014 | 3:48:58 PM
Re: XP
The only reason is Microsoft's reason: They must continue to iterate in order to make money. In a subscription-based SaaS world, that doesn't make any sense. Going forward, I hope that Microsoft sees the err in its ways and just sell licensing for a period of time.

Then they can make users happy that want to stay on a previous OS. I like Windows 7, what's wrong with that?
cafzali
50%
50%
cafzali,
User Rank: Moderator
6/2/2014 | 9:59:32 PM
Re: XP
@Gary_EL Substitute Windows 7 for XP and I'd completely agree with you. There were lots of improvements -- chiefly stability -- that came with Windows 7. But your basic point is spot on in that people are enjoy using various software applications and don't really care about the OS. It's only when developers are motivated/pushed to make apps that won't run on older OSes do most people bother upgrading.

This is doubly true now that computer reliability has gotten much better than it was even a few years ago.
Todder
50%
50%
Todder,
User Rank: Strategist
6/3/2014 | 1:03:53 PM
Re: XP
XP was fine and I was corporately forced to move to Win 7 about 7 months ago. Of course I also got a new laptop and enjoy the clean look & feel of 7 & performance wise it is far superior. Sadly though, like XP, after a while you get perofrmance drag after applying so many service releases and the easiest thing to get that performance share back is a re-image to latest rev and re-load 3rd party stuff.


Our home is largely a Linux shop (me, wife, 3 kids). We run Mint and Ubuntu of various vintages without issue, and even on older hardware Linux beats Windows hands down.
Gary_EL
50%
50%
Gary_EL,
User Rank: Ninja
6/3/2014 | 1:28:17 PM
Re: XP
One good thing about the abandonment of XP is that there are a huge number of PC's and laptops on the market now that don't have the horsepower to run 7, let alone 8 or 8.1. I picked up a tiny laptop with a 15 gig SSD instead of a HDD. It runs Ubuntu 12.04, and I'm azazed at what it can do. I'm moving more and more towards Ubuntu, but I will maintain at least one Windows machine into the foreseeable futute, because there is always going to be SOMETHING that I will need to do that can only be done from the Microsoft platform.
mak63
50%
50%
mak63,
User Rank: Ninja
6/2/2014 | 6:49:26 PM
newest platforms
"Apple has been more successful than Microsoft in moving users to its newest platforms"

Not really by a huge margin though: 56% vs 50.2%.
Taking in consideration that Mavericks and 8.1 are free updates/download, I wonder why we don't see more people upgrading their systems.
cafzali
50%
50%
cafzali,
User Rank: Moderator
6/2/2014 | 9:56:15 PM
Re: newest platforms
@mak63 That's a great point, even more so when you consider the fact that Apple's percentage isn't weighed down as much by large corporate clients that stay one release behind. Add to that, Apple gives major updates away whereas Microsoft doesn't, so if you can't get radically more people to adopt a new OS despite giving it away, that shows most aren't really as motivated by OS upgrades as companies would like them to be.
SaneIT
50%
50%
SaneIT,
User Rank: Ninja
6/3/2014 | 7:22:24 AM
Re: newest platforms
I think we see the slow upgrade cycle because "things work".  It isn't typically until something stop working or something can't be installed and used that your average computer user even considers the OS.  What kills me though is people with really old PCs blaming the OS that they've been running for the past 10 years for not being able to do what another brand new OS can't do.  
dwebb608
50%
50%
dwebb608,
User Rank: Apprentice
6/3/2014 | 12:21:00 PM
Re: newest platforms
For some of us, it's because the upgrade from Windows Update won't complete properly, and we don't have the time and/or inclination to find a way to impliment the Win8 ->8.1 update.
Charlie Babcock
50%
50%
Charlie Babcock,
User Rank: Author
6/2/2014 | 9:18:45 PM
Microsoft shouldn't have to support everything it's ever produced
I think a very good case could be made that Windows XP should have been continued to be supported, given the large user base. But making the case that a software company must continue to support every product that it's ever produced would make the software business untenable. Some future Harvard Business Review case study will examine a company that attempted to do that -- and failed as a business. Software products should have a lifecycle. But when the product still has many millions of users, it's a gargantuan job to convince them that its lifecycle is over.
Michael Endler
50%
50%
Michael Endler,
User Rank: Author
6/3/2014 | 2:07:54 PM
Re: Microsoft shouldn't have to support everything it's ever produced
I'm with Charlie on this one. It's unrealistic to expect Microsoft to support products indefinitely. One can argue that Microsoft might have offered XP users a paid update plan. But to just continue dispensing updates until all XP computers finally melt? That's not sustainable.

With Windows XP, Microsoft was beyond the point of making much money. XP doesn't effectively allow Microsoft to showcase new products, takes up resources that might go toward new innovations, and threatens Microsoft's relationship with developers, among other factors. Granted, one can argue that Microsoft cultivated this mess due to its lack of foresight, and that users shouldn't have to suffer because of its strategic misses. This might be true, but only to a point.

The fact remains that all software companies, at some point, will find it untenable to indefinitely support older products. As long as end-of-life deadlines are clearly published ahead of time and allow for a reasonable produce life (both criteria that Microsoft has fulfilled), I don't see a problem. We simply cannot argue that Microsoft has an obligation to support its products as long as people keep using them. That said, we can argue that Microsoft should have found a way to monetize ongoing Windows XP support, rather than simply dropping the OS altogether--e.g. something like Microsoft offers its biggest enterprise customers, but at a much lower cost, and for everyone. That would give exiting customers a choice, while putting pressure on Microsoft to show how its newer products are worth the upgrade. But if we want to talk about Microsoft offering XP updates via subscription or something, that's a question of the company's execution in handling a huge chunk of users, not its inherent obligations as a maker of software. Quite often, I see people arguing that Microsoft has an intrinsic duty to support XP until users finally decide they've had enough-- which is a different, and less tenable, contention.
Li Tan
50%
50%
Li Tan,
User Rank: Ninja
6/4/2014 | 3:03:06 AM
Re: Microsoft shouldn't have to support everything it's ever produced
I do agree on this. As a software development manager with maintenance responsibility, I do know how painful it is to support an outdated and deprecated product. The extended support contract sounds attractive and win-win deal from the beginning. But soon you will find out how much cost you need to bear and how much pain you will suffer as the vendor. Furthermore, it's a loss to customer as well - by staying with old product, they cannot enjoy the new features/growing user community, which is a loss in the long run.
Whoopty
50%
50%
Whoopty,
User Rank: Ninja
6/3/2014 | 10:49:06 AM
Windows 9
I think like with Windows Vista and its much more successful sequal, Windows 7, we aren't going to see a big move from XP until Windows 9 shows up and only then if it's any good. 

If Microsoft can address the concerns of the many, many people that don't have any plans to move on to Windows 8, it may be able to retain its audience. If not, it risks sending them into the arms of some of the much more consumer friendly Linux distros that are around this days. 
Michael Endler
50%
50%
Michael Endler,
User Rank: Author
6/3/2014 | 2:22:24 PM
Re: Windows 9
It's interesting that Windows 8.1's reputation is still so poor. I guess the presence of Live Tiles and the absence of a Start button are sticking points.

Windows 8 is an OS that you can learn to use, but the payoff simply isn't there.

Windows 8.1 is an OS that's easier to learn, but again, the payoff still really isn't there.

With Windows 8.1 update, though, I think Microsoft's done a good job. I rarely use the Start screen, but I regularly use a handful of Modern apps. Being able to launch and manipulate them from the taskbar, just like they were desktop apps, is really fast and easy. It takes a bit of configuring to get everything set, but once it's tuned, 8.1 update is just fine. If all things were equal, I'd prefer OS X, but with Windows 8.1 update, I don't think Microsoft's OS has to be avoided. Earlier versions-- yeah, probably wise to steer clear, especially if you don't know what you're in for. But the newest iteration? From a UI perspective, I'm pretty satisfied. Don't love it, could be better-- but it's not a disaster, especially if you spend a few minutes in the settings.

That said, I think Windows 9 will do much better, as you suggest. Microsoft needs a new release to wash away the bad taste left by earlier mistakes. It also needs headline features that sell themselves-- such as a resurrected Start menu. That said, the since-deleted Microsoft Research video that surfaced a few months back gives me some hope that Microsoft will turn Live Tiles into something useful. In the video, the researcher demonstrates tiles that essentially allowed you to access a lot of a given app's controls from within the tile, without fully launching. Not useful for everything, and it'll still be a tough sell on some form factors, but it's nonetheless an intriguing direction.


The Business of Going Digital
The Business of Going Digital
Digital business isn't about changing code; it's about changing what legacy sales, distribution, customer service, and product groups do in the new digital age. It's about bringing big data analytics, mobile, social, marketing automation, cloud computing, and the app economy together to launch new products and services. We're seeing new titles in this digital revolution, new responsibilities, new business models, and major shifts in technology spending.
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
White Papers
Current Issue
InformationWeek Tech Digest - July 22, 2014
Sophisticated attacks demand real-time risk management and continuous monitoring. Here's how federal agencies are meeting that challenge.
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
InformationWeek Radio
Archived InformationWeek Radio
A UBM Tech Radio episode on the changing economics of Flash storage used in data tiering -- sponsored by Dell.
Live Streaming Video
Everything You've Been Told About Mobility Is Wrong
Attend this video symposium with Sean Wisdom, Global Director of Mobility Solutions, and learn about how you can harness powerful new products to mobilize your business potential.