Windows 8 and Windows 8.1 Pass 10% Market Share, Windows XP Falls Below 30% 470
An anonymous reader writes "With the release of Windows 8.1 to the world in October, Microsoft ended 2013 with two full months of availability for its latest operating system version. While Windows 8.1 is certainly growing quickly and eating into Windows 8s share, the duo has only now been able to pass 10 percent market share, while Windows 7 seems to be plowing forward unaffected. The latest market share data from Net Applications shows that Windows 8 and Windows 8.1 made steady progression in December 2013, gaining a combined 1.19 percentage points (from 9.30 percent to 10.49 percent). More specifically, Windows 8 gained 0.23 percentage points (from 6.66 percent to 6.89 percent), while Windows 8.1 jumped 0.96 percentage points (from 2.64 percent to 3.60 percent)."
It doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows 8 is still a piece of shit, and most people got it because their device came preinstalled with it... they didn't choose it.
Re: (Score:2)
Windows 8 is still a piece of shit, and most people got it because their device came preinstalled with it... they didn't choose it.
Since the vast majority of complaints come down to "the UI sucks" I agree in that so far. The only real complaint I have about it, is the changes to the audio subsystem and drivers. Which breaks a couple of pieces of software(gamemaker pro), which is rather old. But easy to get around if you disable the audio device first, then re-enable it. And any software like that, but in terms of performance for games, it works fine with no slowdowns, in fact it works better in some cases. Where some games wouldn'
Re: (Score:2)
What I find somewhat hilarious: If this works fine:
http://www.gamersonlinux.com/forum/threads/fallout-3-guide.154/ [gamersonlinux.com]
Re:It doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
THE FUCKING CHARM BAR.
I have a laptop with Win8 from the factory and every time I'd slide my finger onto the touchpad from the right edge (a habit I didn't know I had until this) the stupid bar would appear. It happened constantly and infuriated me every time. IT'S NOT A TOUCHSCREEN, IT'S JUST THE DAMNED TOUCHPAD. Who thought this was a good idea?! I have dual monitors set up with the laptop, and the bar would steal focus and I'd have to dick with the pointer to make it go away so I could get back to work!
Touchscreens on home computers have begun to destroy everything good about them. I still have yet to meet anyone who is willing to sit there with their arm outstretched constantly to do work on a flipping touchscreen. I'm also a "square" monitor throwback: my 1600x1200 monitor is more versatile than a widescreen of the same inch diagonal which tends to come in 1366x768 or 1400x900 resolutions and be very annoying when working with vertical data (spreadsheets, SQL queries, etc.)
Re: (Score:3)
Windows 8 is still a piece of shit, and most people got it because their device came preinstalled with it... they didn't choose it.
Well, to be fair, most people get Windows of any version because their device came preinstalled with it.
Re:It doesn't matter (Score:5, Informative)
Classic Shell fixes most of the issues in Windows 8.x. The Windows 8.1 update doesn't really fix anything.
Re:It doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly classic shell doesn't fix all the problems.
And 8.1 is indeed a faux fix, just designed to give apologists some more talking points. Actual fixes are nonexistent.
Re:It doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Actual fixes are nonexistent.
Installing Windows 7 (or Linux) is a fix.
Re:It doesn't matter (Score:5, Interesting)
Tried going the W7 route on a few systems. Driver issues suck. No USB or Ethernet or WIFI out of the box after downgrading to W7. Instead of using another machine to get the drivers I just popped in a Debian LiveCD and used Firefox on the WIFI to D/L the W7 drivers into the windows partition. Turns out inept windows developers can't even compile a USB and Ethernet driver properly. It all works fine on Linux out of the box, no special BS to do to get things working, but now I wait for the moronic devs for the windows drivers who didn't test the W7 drivers on their support site to get around to fixing it.
The thing works in W8. I've made my own drivers for my custom hardware projects. You literally just have to re-compile the damn thing for the right OS. If I had the windows driver source code I could do it myself. The team they outsource to create the Linux drivers was far less retarding than the Windows morons -- which supposedly has a larger market share... Really though? Each MFG has a different windows driver? Why? They all use a common set of chipsets, so one driver meets many separate devices -- typical windows inefficiency. Linux avoids this somewhat since they write drivers for the hardware, not the vendor. So either it's intentional ineptitude to drive W8 adoption, or just bat-shit insanity. I'd say screw dual booting this bastard, and just use Linux, running Windows in a damn VM like I always do (if needed) -- But the machine isn't for me. Had similar problems thrice now on different hardware vendor lines. If I didn't know better I'd think it wasn't a conspiracy.
Re:It doesn't matter (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It doesn't matter (Score:5, Interesting)
Turns out inept windows developers can't even compile a USB and Ethernet driver properly. It all works fine on Linux out of the box, no special BS to do to get things working, but now I wait for the moronic devs for the windows drivers who didn't test the W7 drivers on their support site to get around to fixing it.
Netgear now hands users off to a spyware third party before they permit driver downloads at all. Never buying another Netgear product. Couldn't download the drivers without enabling all scripts. So I haven't. I think I will buy some more hardware rather than turn on scripts. And I hope Netgear dies of ass cancer in a fire.
Re: (Score:3)
Can't argue there, but it pisses me off. Force feeding an OS no one wants, while disabling the one everyone does.
Re:It doesn't matter (Score:4, Interesting)
The head of the Windows division got fired shortly after Win8 shipped, and the whole company seems to be treading water while the board hunts for a new CEO.
It's unrealistic to expect any changes to the Windows 8 vision until that shakes out. But when it does, you can bet the Surface/metro thing will get ripped apart, and Julie Larson-Green will be replaced by someone who isn't just keeping a seat warm. Whether that's for better or worse really depends on who the CEO is.
Re:It doesn't matter (Score:4, Funny)
Then I saw a Surface have a Blue Screen of Death for the first time last week. All hope is lost.
Re:It doesn't matter (Score:4, Informative)
Sadly classic shell doesn't fix all the problems.
For me there are no showstoppers, though. I'd go as far as saying that I slightly prefer using 8.1 + Classic Shell (with filetype associations re-assigned to non-Metro applications) to a stock Windows 7 installation. Startup is quicker, the file copy dialogue and task manager are improved, and I never liked Aero Glass. There's certainly no compelling reason to 'downgrade' to Windows 7, any more than there is to 'upgrade' a Windows 7 system to 8. Of course, if I were stuck with a locked down Windows 8 installation with its horrible default configuration and jarring interface shifts, that would be an entirely different story. Windows 8.x is still an awful experience out of the box, but there's nothing serious that a knowledgeable user with an admin account can't fix in 10 minutes (or at least, nothing that has affected me so far).
Re:It doesn't matter (Score:5, Interesting)
For me there are no showstoppers, though. I'd go as far as saying that I slightly prefer using 8.1 + Classic Shell (with filetype associations re-assigned to non-Metro applications) to a stock Windows 7 installation. Startup is quicker, the file copy dialogue and task manager are improved, and I never liked Aero Glass. There's certainly no compelling reason to 'downgrade' to Windows 7, any more than there is to 'upgrade' a Windows 7 system to 8. Of course, if I were stuck with a locked down Windows 8 installation with its horrible default configuration and jarring interface shifts, that would be an entirely different story. Windows 8.x is still an awful experience out of the box, but there's nothing serious that a knowledgeable user with an admin account can't fix in 10 minutes (or at least, nothing that has affected me so far).
Pretty much this. The worst part of Windows 8, out of the box, is the interface shifts for tasks such as looking at image files. But fixing those is pretty easy. When the lousy "Photos" app opens, close it, right click the file, "Open with...", and change the associated app for all files of that type. Do it once and never think about it again. I can't remember the last time I was shunted into Metro.
If you don't like the start screen, install Classic Shell or Start8. (I actually prefer the start screen, but due to a multi-monitor issue--well, Eyefinity issue--I'm now running Start8.)
What I like is the number of suggestions to "just install Linux", as if Linux needs less configuration than the above. I think people who make that suggestion are ignorant, biased, or would always recommend Linux simply because it's their preference. The last one is fine in certain circumstances, but those people should be honest about it.
Re: (Score:3)
Didn't they ribbonify Explorer in 8? I'd call that a compelling reason to downgrade.
Using LibreOffice, the only ribbon I'm forced to deal with is Paint's, obviously on a very infrequent basis. I think Wordpad has one in W7 as well, but there's basically no reason to ever use Wordpad (except to fix line endings, which takes all of 3 seconds).
Re:It doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Did they kill the retarded Start screen yet? No? Then it's not fixed.
Re:It doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that the Start menu sucked*, but the Start screen sucks even more... you can hardly blame people for not wanting to use something that sucks more. More than just the Start Screen, the whole schizophrenic Metro thing is a PITA. True, you can take steps to actively avoid Metro, but that's another thing that sucks more than Windows 7. Personally, I put up with it for a year until I had a hard drive flake out. At that point, I realized how much less useful Windows 8 Backup was than Windows 7 Backup (no image???), and since I was reinstalling anyway I just loaded 7 on.
* The Start Menu was a stupid holdover from the Program Manager in Windows 3, which itself sucked. The idea that every installed application needs to be installed again in another place is just plain dumb. IMHO, Macs had a better solution in the early 90s, so it seems odd that they went the way they did. Smart people work at MS, so I assume it had to do with compatibility or performance on the limited machines of the time.
Re:It doesn't matter (Score:5, Interesting)
* The Start Menu was a stupid holdover from the Program Manager in Windows 3, which itself sucked
The Start Menu only peripherally resembles the program manager. Every modern OS has a way to start programs. You can start programs from the Apple menu.
The idea that every installed application needs to be installed again in another place is just plain dumb.
The idea that making a program shortcut is doing an install is just plain dumb.
IMHO, Macs had a better solution in the early 90s
From System 7 through System 9 the solution was precisely the same as Windows, indeed, in every way. The programs are installed to one location, and then if you want them to be easier to open, you'd create Aliases. And because of Windows envy, there were launcher apps for the control strip that would emulate a start menu. How can Apple have had a better solution when they had the same solution?
Smart people work at MS, so I assume it had to do with compatibility or performance on the limited machines of the time.
You're committing two failures here. One, assuming their solution was undesirable, which it wasn't as it worked quite well and the start menu has become the most copied interface element after the window and the close gadget. Two, assuming that smart people are calling the technical shots at Microsoft, when there's no evidence whatsoever that this has ever been true.
Re:It doesn't matter (Score:5, Interesting)
I am not entirely in agreement with you, as the apps that were launched from the Apple menu from 1984 up until System 7 were actually special apps that were allowed to run on top of the main app, back before the Apple could multitask. This is a holdover from the pre-hard drive days, when applications were not actually installed but lived on their own 3.5" disks. With System 7, Mac OS 8 and Mac OS 9, you could manually add apps to the Apple menu but that was not a default. Some installers would do it for you, some not.
But yeah, Apple made it easier to create aliases, and was actually pretty good about following the original on HFS no matter where you moved or renamed it. They had a lot of better usability, but from 1990 to 1998 their OS development had stagnated, letting Microsoft catch up and even surpass them until Mac OS X managed to mature enough to make Classic Mac OS obsolete.
The Start menu emulation that you are referring to came from a popular third party system extension (remember those?) but was not part of Classic Mac OS. I cannot speak for NextStep, as I never used that. I was a Mac user when Apple was doomed, not a Next user.
Installing applications in one folder is the philosophy that won out, as we see in Mac OS X since it went on sale. There is even a further division that you have the root Applications folder, but also each user has an Applications folder —that no one really uses, but since it would hurt the few that do use it to remove it Apple has left it as it is.
But your closing point, I agree. Microsoft in (especially in the Ballmer era) was never really driven by the developers, but by the sales force. They did have lots of great developers (and still do), but programmers and engineers do not thrive in a Glengarry Glen Ross environment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
See the previous two comments... Microsoft didn't 'fix' anything - Classic Shell fixes it.
Would you buy a user interface from this man?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAO2wk27Vmk
"Derp, derp, derp"...
Would you buy a shirt from this man?
Re:It doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course the most horrifying part of it is that Microsoft intended Windows 8 & Windows 8.1 to look and act that way.
Re:It doesn't matter (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the entire problem though: Microsoft apparently forgot that the vast majority of their users would not be using Windows 8[.1] on a touch enabled device, but chose to screw them all over anyway in a poor effort to chase the tablet market. What a way to shoot your foot, leg and pelvis off at one fell swoop!
Re: (Score:3)
Alt-F4 is also not the only way to do that action! The big red X up in the corner is visible, and even tells you what it does in common language if you hover over it, or go in the File menu and click Exit.
How the fuck am I supposed to know that Charms exist, let alone that that's what they're called? Hilariously, this is about as obvious (i.e. not at all) as emacs keybindings mostly starting with Ctrl+X. But anyone who starts using emacs is a masochist anyway, so they deserve it ;)
Re:It doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
First, I can walk up to almost any other computer around and figure out how to use it without a tutorial. If a Windows 7 user needs a tutorial to use Windows 8, but not Linux Mint, I'm going to suggest that Microsoft may not have made the optimum choice.
Second, I start using a computer to do something. It may be to write a program, check a website, play a game, whatever. I don't want to have to sit through a tutorial before I can use it. If I can skip the tutorial, it's useless, particularly if it isn't obvious how to get to it later. If I can't, it's annoying.
Third, people don't read manuals. They don't pay attention to tutorials. They have found that they don't need manuals and tutorials for most things.
In short, this is a typical Microsoft thing: create a problem, provide a bad solution, and claim it's the user's fault for not using their solution.
Re:It doesn't matter (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It doesn't matter (Score:5, Funny)
It gets even better when you've got two screens. Instead of being able to think of the two screens as one big screen with a large black bar in the center, you now have to consider the land mines planted near left edge of the black bar.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It doesn't matter (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
What are those "most of the issues" you speak of?
Is it the completely, un-mouse friendly interface to reach your settings, or anything at all actually?
The completely retarded replacement of the start button with a shortcut to the equally retarded start screen?
The utter lack of feedback from the UI? Is it working now!? maybe I missed the button - the scheduler knows, but why the fuck should it tell me, I'm just the user right?
Or could it be that you're referring to the fact that I have to run a shell command to setup which programs start with Windows?
Or that it feels like some smug 20-something year old asshole, fresh out of college, employed the entirety of his book learnedness to shit all over 30 years of UI design practices.
The Windows 8 UI is entirely un-userfriendly, couple that with the fact that a good portion of the install base came pre installed and therefore without a fucking manual to ease to transition. Have YOU tried this 8.1 piece of shit? Because I have and I am not impressed.
Re:It doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
"Hey honey - something wrong with your laptop?"
"No, i'm just sick and tired of it always shutting down (Windows updates to 8.1, etc, been updating every day since she turned it on) and the mouse is too sensitive (shes used to a desktop optical mouse) and I can't find my desktop! (the new interface is confusing)"
This is supposed to be Microsofts target demographic - and she already hates it, not even a full week after using it.
I almost couldn't believe that I had to download VLC because Media Player won't play DVD's because Microsoft didn't include the codecs? Why the hell did manufacturers install a DVD payer in the machine.
This Operating System sucks balls. I for one will never be upgrading my main system - ever.
Re: (Score:3)
The manufacturer is supposed to bundle a DVD player with the machine. Look for it. There should be one.
Re:It doesn't matter (Score:5, Interesting)
That's why they fixed most of the issues in Windows 8.1. You should try it.
Would love to try it, but after Dell updates and Windows Update had a fist fight on the new christmas present laptop for mum-in-law it meant that neither update system could complete all the updates thus leaving the OS in a position that it would not offer 8.1 in the store. Coupled with no obvious way to back out of the problem (no install DVD, and install-creator fucked up 3 times) - I gave up and she got Linux. It's not all Microsoft's fault - Dell's tools simply didn't work, however, there shouldn't be competing methods that you can't obviously switch off for doing things like this.
The funny thing is she doesn't even know she has Linux. She used to use Thunderbird, Firefox and libreoffice on Windows XP and so it just looks the same for her.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A little late for you maybe, now you can create a bootable DVD/ usb flashdrive for Win8/ 8.1
http://www.howtogeek.com/178487/how-to-download-windows-8.x-and-create-a-bootable-dvd-usb-legally/
Re: (Score:3)
Frankly said, if I get Dell anything (and our office is full of Dells!), I simply reinstall the OS from MS media. I don't think there's any piece of Dell-branded software other than OMSA running on the servers that anyone has any use for.
Re:It doesn't matter (Score:4, Insightful)
That's why they fixed most of the issues in Windows 8.1. You should try it.
I did. They haven't. It still takes me away from where I'm working (the desktop) into Metro at every opportunity.
Want to view an image? Let's go to Metro.
Want to play an mp3? Let's go to Metro.
Yes you can fix it [gizmag.com] but you have to do it for every single file extension, on every computer you own.
Or... I could just stick with Windows 7.
Hmmm. A difficult choice.
Not.
Dear Microsoft. If I wanted a tablet interface I'd buy an iPad. Got it?
Windows XP still at 28.98% (Score:2)
With Windows XP still at 28.98% you can only weep and cry. This means that nearly one third of all PC users are running disastrously old systems.
Re:Windows XP still at 28.98% (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as the old junk is better then the new junk. They continue to use it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So plenty of reasons until that killer app comes along that won't work on XP.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Office 2013 is an abomination and I'd rather it ran off a cliff. The font anti-aliasing and hinting have been broken and make my eyes bleed, the interface is worse than in 2010, less function more showing off.
The typing animation, that draws symbols on screen with a second or so delay is even worse (yeah, I understand it's for tablet users, so they don't feel like they're painfully slow when typing, but you could at least disable it on desktops, where it creates the impression of deadly slow computer).
Re:Windows XP still at 28.98% (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows 7 is better than XP, but not by a lot. That is, it is not worth the pain to reinstall Windows on the same PC (like it was upgrading from 98 and especially ME to XP).
Of course, when I built a new PC a couple of months ago I installed Windows 7 on it (8 just looks awful, even with ClassicShell).
Re:Windows XP still at 28.98% (Score:5, Informative)
XP has a number of limitations that Win7 and Win8 supercede -- nearly all XP installs still running are the 32-bit version with a 4GB limit on RAM and a 2TB limit for disk volumes, and as far as I know XP doesn't support TRIM for SSDs. It also limits out at DX9, important for gamers and there are probably other limitations due to its age and end-of-support status.
I'm OK with Win8, I run it exclusively in desktop mode where it presents a look and feel similar to Win7. I pinned my most used programs on the taskbar so I don't need to invoke the start menu very often. I have Vistart installed as a shell replacement but I could work without it if I had to. The upgrade to 8.1 on my main machine went OK apart from the very large download (3 GB plus) needed to make it happen but I was satisfied with the original OS release (I still have it on another desktop which is waiting for a replacement motherboard).
Re: (Score:3)
I agree that XP has a number of limitations. Actually, Bioshock Infinite was my main reason to build a new PC with Windows 7 (and two 6core CPUs). Having 32GB RAM is also nice. I use a 15kRPM HDD and not a SSD (as I did in my XP PC), so I do not care about TRIM.
However, for a lot of uses, XP is still good enough. For example, reading/writing MS Word documents, browsing the web works just as well on XP as it does on 7. If it wasn't for the games, I think I would have continues to use my XP PC for a couple of
Re: (Score:2)
A couple of years back I was contracted to help carry out a hardware upgrade cycle in a hospital, desktops with XP on them in the main with a few laptops here and there. Only a few machines were being heavily used to do imaging work and the like and we looked at upgrading those particular machines to XP 64-bit and giving them lots more memory (8GB or 16GB, a lot at that time) plus fitting them with SSDs but in the end the bosses just bought new hardware with Win7 preinstalled. Saved us a lot of grief...
The
Re: (Score:2)
I run unsigned drivers on my Win7 Ultimate/64 bit install. You just have to enable installing unsigned drivers. There are a half-dozen ways to do it, with varying levels of permanence and hackery required.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
All of which is hardware that doesn't exist on an old XP box unless you try to add it.
Re: (Score:3)
XP has a number of limitations that Win7 and Win8 supercede -- nearly all XP installs still running are the 32-bit version with a 4GB limit on RAM and a 2TB limit for disk volumes, and as far as I know XP doesn't support TRIM for SSDs. It also limits out at DX9, important for gamers and there are probably other limitations due to its age and end-of-support status.
You could turn that around by saying that XP just didn't need more than 4GB of RAM and 2TB hard disk space. And as for DX9, according to Steam's Hardware & Software Survey [steampowered.com], XP use is at 6.35% so it appears that gamers have already figured out that they need to upgrade.
Obviously the people using XP now are still satisfied with the OS. It is a vicious circle that you need to upgrade to use more hardware (RAM/HD), when it is only because that you have upgraded your software that you need to access more har
Re: (Score:2)
"You could turn that around by saying that XP just didn't need more than 4GB of RAM and 2TB hard disk space"
And nobody needs more than 640k of memory, right? That old quip always brought the house down as I recall...
More and more computing jobs do need more than 4GB of RAM or at least work a lot better if more than 4GB is available via a 64-bit OS. The killer upgrade is SSDs though, they are the biggest no-brainer boost-for-the-buck to productivity on the desktop/laptop and XP's inability to handle TRIM suc
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, it's arguable which one is better. Main advantages of 7 are DX11 and properly functional 64-bit OS.
XP on the other hand is significantly faster and comes with much lower hardware requirements both for OS itself and software that it runs. It also comes with functional tree-style start menu, without having to hack it in with classic shell.
7 has a much better indexing service/search though. XP's indexing it pretty dated and it shows.
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly, in my experience, XP is only significantly faster (and has a smaller memory footprint) until you install SP2. Then it's about the same as 7.
Re: (Score:2)
Windows XP is currently on my daughters netbook. It may well run Windows 7 or 8. However a quick check on Amazon and it costs £50-100 quid to update it, plus a chunk of my time. And I don't know for sure it will work.
To me that seams a good reason to run Windows XP. It is behind a firewall, runs AV software that is set to auto-update and the login my daughter uses can not install anything.
Why should I upgrade? What does Windows 7 or 8 give me in this case?
Re: (Score:2)
Why should I upgrade? What does Windows 7 or 8 give me in this case?
Security updates past April 2014.
The firewall and AV software are nice, and they help, but you should not have that netbook online after April of this year.
Frankly, for the cost of upgrading, given the age of that thing, buying a new one probably makes more sense.
Re:Windows XP still at 28.98% (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But all jokes aside, I don't think your view of XP is a realistic one. People continue to use it because it works well and does what they need, plus it's damned fast on newer hardware. I dropped a clean XP image on a fast quad-core desktop that really shouldn't have XP (due to 12GB of RAM if nothing else) and the boot times and overall performance were kind of scary. It's like when people started testing
Re:Windows XP still at 28.98% (Score:4, Insightful)
XP was mostly very badly received on geek sites like Slashdot
XP's greatest sin at the time was bloating up Windows 2000 without adding any significant features to compensate. Cheap memory and several service packs fixed most of those complaints. Vista had similar birthing problems, but in the end we got Windows 7, which is pretty good.
The thing about Windows 8 is that performance is not a complaint you typically hear. In fact, it seems faster than 7. No amount of hardware improvements will fix Windows 8's deficiencies, so we are left with service packs for hope. For the next few years, it's a non-issue as companies will run Windows 7.
Re:Windows XP still at 28.98% (Score:5, Funny)
...and 10.49% of all PC users are running disastrously new systems.
Re: (Score:3)
It's at least more or less OK as long as it is updated and patched. Happened to run across an XP machine a couple of weeks ago... which had not yet had SP1 installed yet. The weird thing was that it was actually in a quite good shape. I guess it was just too old for the vulnerabilities are exploited nowadays.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Nope. Pretty much any XP machine, even with full updates will be rooted within seconds of going onto public ip open to the internet. I've seen it happen. It's silly.
But you can secure a vanilla XP, or any XP machine regardless of its update status with some fairly rudimentary actions to the point where OS updates won't matter in a significant way for machine's security.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh the pain people have for those who won't upgrade. Give me a break. As long as it works, why not let it function? Is it because of the security boogy-man? NSA? What's the rub?
Re: (Score:2)
Botnets, sooner or later these computers with their unpatched software will end up spamming and DDOSing as part of large botnets.
Re:Windows XP still at 28.98% (Score:5, Insightful)
I knew I was going to see this here. Disastrous12 year old software. For the record system builders were stilled allowed to install XP on new netbooks up until October 22, 2010 [zdnet.com], and new machines were still being cleared from inventory Christmas 2011. So it is still pretty new to a few people. Up until three years ago it was still new software. That is not very old for a desktop installation.
But that doesn't play into your "not Microsoft's fault stupid people won't update their software every decade" theme you have to have going on here, does it? Now it's a matter of people getting jacked out of what they paid for sooner than a reasonable expectation, on hardware that won't even run the upgrade. Completely screws up your flow. Now it's not their fault. Sorry for ruining your party.
Re:Windows XP still at 28.98% (Score:4, Interesting)
Now it's a matter of people getting jacked out of what they paid for sooner than a reasonable expectation, on hardware that won't even run the upgrade. Completely screws up your flow. Now it's not their fault. Sorry for ruining your party.
It's certainly their fault. MS publishes the EOL dates for OSes and has been extending XP's EOL from many many years even though they didn't have to. People expecting updates till the end of time is not Microsoft's fault, everyone likes free stuff. The EOL dates are here. http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/default.aspx?LN=en-us&x=15&y=15&c2=14019 [microsoft.com] If you buy Windows 7 or 8 expecting support till 2050, it's certainly your fault if MS fails to meet your expectation.
Not to mention, a huge chunk of XP users are using pirated installs, especially in places like China. Which other company supports OSes for so long? Buy an Apple computer for 4 times the price in 2001 and it would've gone out of support in a few years. How many years does an Android phone get supported with updates? 2?
Not to mention that XP users are holding back web and application development. It's time to move on.
Re: (Score:2)
As I have an old retail license for XP, it fits the bill. It still works - rather like the 25+ year old fountain pen I used when at university. And it's legitimate. OK when XP goes out of support I may have to fork out 100+ GBP for Windows 8.1 (you can't ge
Sigh (Score:2)
when did this site become the new site for Microsoft uninteresting press releases about their so-called successes ?
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Funny)
when did this site become the new site for Microsoft uninteresting press releases about their so-called successes ?
Since this isn't a MS press release, I'm guessing "when" is "somewhere in the future".
You have been found out! [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
when did this site become the new site for Microsoft uninteresting press releases about their so-called successes ?
An anonymous reader submitted the article, it got voted up in the submissions page and samzenpus liked to publish it. There's no more magic to it.
What kind of article would you like to see [slashdot.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
Also, you should win things by reading it.
Glass have water (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Glass have water (Score:5, Funny)
But hey, at least Win8 beat Congress! [gallup.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly correct. What this shows is its really been hardware improvements that have driven OS upgrades on Windows PCs. With Windows 3.0 and Windows 3.95 (Windows 95), being exceptions; that people really did rush out to buy in a shrink wrapped box; No client Windows release has offered an improvement compelling enough for home PC users to bother upgrading.
Its almost the same story for business users but lots of desktops did get upgraded to XP, from Win 2k Workstation or Windows 9x; with relative haste.
On
Re: (Score:3)
That's okay. There's a plethora of properly secured XP machines that will continue working just fine after microsoft stops updating. There are ones that run now without any updates even. Unless microsoft breaks these machines in some way with the last update of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Then they are not, and will not be, "properly secured". I've encountered far, far, far too many environments that run absolutely critical business and engineering software on old XP systems without support, with no active virus protection, and rely on "we trust the people we work with" to protect their internal network from worms, trojans, and viruses infesting the rest of the hosts on their network. I'm only very, very rarely allowed to help clean up such messes, but these hosts are almost _inevitably_ inf
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that whereas windows costs a few hundred dollars and Microsoft is giving away free upgrades, a car costs tens of thousands of dollars and upgrades cost money.
If Windows suddenly had the equivalent of an oil change / tune up for a couple bucks a pop every few months, Microsoft would be more likely to continue to support Windows XP. Hell, it might even still be supporting Win95
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Vista still ahead of 8.1! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Not amazing. The number of users is probably dropping as well, just a tiny bit slower than the entire desktop market, giving the appearance of an increase. Many people simply migrate away from desktops.
My guess is that anyone with the slightest tendency to migrate threw out Vista either immediately or as soon as 7 was released, meaning that the ones who still have it are most likely to keep their system as is as long as possible. So, expect this ~3.6% result to stay remarkably stable compared to the others,
I sort of get what they were trying to do (Score:2)
I have a house full of laptops including a Lenovo Yoga with Win8. I sort of get what they were going for - a machine that's more 'live' in response to a very limited suite of core functions that people use tablets for. The problem is that all the underlying apps don't see the world that way - they work the old way. So you have to re learn a new way to access your old apps which still work more or less the same old way - except where they don't. Or where they for no reason left off basic apps like a DVD play
Linux record growth (Score:4, Funny)
And meanwhile, desktop Linux made record growth from 1.56% to 1.73%.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just had my first experiences with 8 ... (Score:5, Interesting)
The UI is a mess. It's completely alien to anyone coming from XP/W7, and the features that supposedly make it touchscreen-friendly are completely counter-productive to anyone who doesn't intend to use a touchscreen (for example people with a 27-inch screen that sits two arm-lengths away). Hotspots in particular - just moving the mouse cursor somewhere causing an action is an absolute no-no and very counter-intuitive. How is anyone supposed to know that moving the mouse cursor to the top right corner does something special and right-clicking in the lower-right corner has a completely different meaning than right-clicking anywhere else on the screen? Actions should be initiated by mouse clicks on visible UI elements, not by mouse movements to magic areas on the screen.
And the app store is a mess. I only knew the app store for Symbian and thought it was a mess since Symbian is officially dead and buried (app store full of nonsense crapware, X varitions of the same app with each author hoping you'll miss the best one and install his instead, etc), but the windows app store suffers from the exact same problems.
Oh, and it doesn't come with solitaire. And the solitaire from the app store (for which you nee an "MS account") is an overloaded piece of bloatware. Luckily, XP solitaire still runs on W8. This saved the day.
8 is the one to skip (Score:5, Informative)
I wonder W8.1 is a reference to the old days ... (Score:3)
Unrealistic Expectations (Score:3)
The windoes world is unlike the iWorld. People are neither forced or need to upgrade every time there is a new shiny out there. Windows 8 will not have significant widespread adoption until windows 7 pc's meet their physical demise. The upgrade from XP to 7 (if hardware capable) offered some advantages but not enough that hordes flew to 7. 8 vs 7 is the same phenom - its a bit faster, has a few new tricks but all in all for the average user that only desires the "desktop" its just not on that must have list. It is not that 8 is not good but that 7 is more than good enough.
I laugh... (Score:3)
Because I and a million others could have (and often did) tell you this would be the case back when I first tried a late Win8 preview build. MS could have had multiple times the current market share had they simply not *forced* Metro on people who didn't want it. You know, like do a quick check upon install to see if the PC is a touchscreen tablet and then default to the desktop with a classic Start Menu if you weren't on an appropriate device.
Instead, they chose to piss off tons of people by forcing their phone interface on people who use office applications. And now two years later, they get the market share they more or less deserve.
Re: (Score:2)
Strangely enough, I found out that my scanner wasn't supported anymore after I got a new machine with W8 on it. It worked just perfectly under XP, but under W8 the only choice is to throw it away (again: throw away a fully functional piece of hardware) and buy a newer one.
I think I'll try booting into a USB linux installation whenever I want to scan something.
Re: (Score:2)
It's fine if you disagree, but be so kind as to point me to an OS supporting roughly the same amount of hardware.
Strangely enough, I found out that my scanner wasn't supported anymore after I got a new machine with W8 on it. It worked just perfectly under XP, but under W8 the only choice is to throw it away (again: throw away a fully functional piece of hardware) and buy a newer one.
I think I'll try booting into a USB linux installation whenever I want to scan something.
Or you could install XP in a VirtualBox instance and not have to reboot when you want to scan something...
Re: (Score:2)
Can VirtualBox do USB passthrough for devices that the host OS doesn't have a driver for? Then it might be another solution I could look into.
Re: (Score:2)
I have the opposite problem -- my HP4850 scanner works perfectly well under Windows 8 (and XP and even Win2000 IIRC) but it's unsupported under Linux and always has been.
Win 8 and Win 7 before it have compatibility modes that allow them to run badly-behaving XP code; it's possible you could use your scanner that way. I've had some problems installing drivers for older hardware on Windows 8 but using the compatibility mode options usually got them up and running. The TWAIN interface for my HP4850 works under
Re: (Score:3)
Or you could buy a copy of VueScan and keep using the old scanner.
It's a third-party scanner driver package for basically every scanner ever. For Windows, Macs, and Linux.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Windows 8 task bars on every monitor (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah - so much easier than just right-clicking on the taskbar on the app you want to kill and selecting "Close".
Took myself and my boss ten minutes (we deliberately REFUSED to Google it, to simulate our users) to work out how to close a Metro app properly on a touchscreen (slide from top to bottom or whatever it is).
We honestly tried everything, gave up, Googled it, then turned off Metro as much as humanly possible before deploying it.