What will happen to XP next year?

stevek93

Hi all,

Microsoft are saying they are stopping support for XP of April next year. Wondering what does this mean for business school and colleges. Will they continue to use the operating system even though it will become unsecure? Were I work and my college nearly everything is XP?

Torqay

stevek93 wrote: »

Will they continue to use the operating system

I hear, people are still using Windows 98 although support ended 7 years ago. Do the maths.

frankmul

Some places are moving to windows 7 , it must have proved to be stable enough

Antar Bolaeisk

frankmul wrote: »

Some places are moving to windows 7 , it must have proved to be stable enough

And in ten years time we'll be having the same problem with Windows 7 and there'll still be a heap of people using Windows XP/Server 2003 and wondering why their crappy old computers are so slow and can't run the latest software instantly.

paulheu

If companies or institutions wait for XP support to end, while it has been announced YEARS ago it will and when, it's entirely their own problem if they run into issues..

Windows 7, being available for well over three years now, has proven itself as a much better and extremely stable OS when compared to XP so ppl should have switched long ago. Windows 8 is even better but as it's quite new people may want to go with Windows7 which will be supported until 2015 (mainstream) and 2020 (extended)

stevek93

paulheu wrote: »

If companies or institutions wait for XP support to end, while it has been announced YEARS ago it will and when, it's entirely their own problem if they run into issues..

Windows 7, being available for well over three years now, has proven itself as a much better and extremely stable OS when compared to XP so ppl should have switched long ago. Windows 8 is even better but as it's quite new people may want to go with Windows7 which will be supported until 2015 (mainstream) and 2020 (extended)

Its not just businesses that are going to suffer have you ever seen a ATM booting up? Typically it is some version of XP or OS from Microsoft from that era what will happen next year when Microsoft desicde to stop releasing security update bug fixes and patches for these machines or severs. Who will be at fault when your data is stored on a unsecured operating system. Yes I agree 7 is a amazing OS that is very stable indeed but it fails to run on older hardware. Where I work we are head of I.T and most of the offices are still using PCs with Windows 2000s labels running XP and do the job fine no way in hell are these going to run 7 I see it as a unnecessary upgrade as most of these PCs are used to perform simple tasks inputting data likes of Excel and Database.

Saganist

stevek93 wrote: »

Who will be at fault when your data is stored on a unsecured operating system.

You will. :rolleyes:

stevek93

Saganist wrote: »

You will. :rolleyes:

We dont control the software we are just to manage it.

DesperateDan

I thought they stopped supporting it last year? Certainly I remember going to some help pages and them warning me lots of times that it was archived information and not officially maintained or supported anymore

yoyo

stevek93 wrote: »

Its not just businesses that are going to suffer have you ever seen a ATM booting up? Typically it is some version of XP or OS from Microsoft from that era what will happen next year when Microsoft desicde to stop releasing security update bug fixes and patches for these machines or severs. Who will be at fault when your data is stored on a unsecured operating system. Yes I agree 7 is a amazing OS that is very stable indeed but it fails to run on older hardware. Where I work we are head of I.T and most of the offices are still using PCs with Windows 2000s labels running XP and do the job fine no way in hell are these going to run 7 I see it as a unnecessary upgrade as most of these PCs are used to perform simple tasks inputting data likes of Excel and Database.

Many ATMs are still using OS/2 worldwide! Making XP seem fresh and modern in comparison :pac:

Nick

stevek93

yoyo wrote: »

Many ATMs are still using OS/2 worldwide! Making XP seem fresh and modern in comparison :pac:

Nick

lol. They must have there own security if thats the case? Was wondering if the big security firms likes of McAfee and Symantec will be releasing there own security updates and patches when MS cloeses it update site.

desaparecidos

How many patches are released for xp these days? Surely all major flaws are fixed at this stage.

stevek93

desaparecidos wrote: »

How many patches are released for xp these days? Surely all major flaws are fixed at this stage.

Its stable as it going to get imo correct me if my wrong but as new threats come out people are going to find hole in the OS unfortunately these won't be fixed maybe if you have a good AV you should be safe.

Gadgetman496

There's years left in XP yet, if it's doing what you need it to do and you're happy with it, carry on until you have no choice. The majority of PC users aren't like the "Fruit people" They don't pander to the powers that be who try to market OS's in such a way as to make you believe you actually need it let alone have to have the latest

You can always use something free like "WSUS Offline Update" to create an offline backup of all current XP Updates and use it to increment any future XP updates for as long as they continue to be available. You will then have all the available updates offline in the event you need to do a clean install even if MS stop making them available.

You might even get away with it untill everything is deployed to the Cloud

Torqay

DesperateDan wrote: »

I thought they stopped supporting it last year? Certainly I remember going to some help pages and them warning me lots of times that it was archived information and not officially maintained or supported anymore

Maybe it's time for you to apply Service Pack 3?

Support for Windows XP SP2 has indeed come to an end a few years ago, but all XP editions are supported until April 2014, provided SP3 is installed. For every rule, there is an exception: Windows Embedded Standard (PoS, kiosk, etc) will be supported until 2019.

yoyo

stevek93 wrote: »

lol. They must have there own security if thats the case?

You would have to wonder though wouldn't you! Even more shocking it is not unknown for ATMs/TVMs to also still be using Windows NT4, you wouldn't exactly trust these OSes for Internet browsing these days now would you :pac:

Nick

paulheu

stevek93 wrote: »

Who will be at fault when your data is stored on a unsecured operating system. Yes I agree 7 is a amazing OS that is very stable indeed but it fails to run on older hardware.

You will be at fault as Microsoft has given ample and very advanced notice of when support for this OS will end. If you choose to ignore it and go 'oops' when you get your *ss burnt you only have yourself to blame.

Windows 7 runs just fine on anything Pentium4 or better, maybe not as snappy, but it runs fine. Manufacturers/developers of the applications you talk about have had well over three years now to migrate, they have known for longer when XP support will end. So yes, you only have yourself to blame..

stevek93

paulheu wrote: »

You will be at fault as Microsoft has given ample and very advanced notice of when support for this OS will end. If you choose to ignore it and go 'oops' when you get your *ss burnt you only have yourself to blame.

Windows 7 runs just fine on anything Pentium4 or better, maybe not as snappy, but it runs fine. Manufacturers/developers of the applications you talk about have had well over three years now to migrate, they have known for longer when XP support will end. So yes, you only have yourself to blame..

As I said above we do not control the software we only manage it. It is out of our control which piece of software is deployed on a certain machine.

GreenWolfe

While we're at it, don't forget Windows 2000 in the Royal Navy -

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/26/windows_boxes_at_sea/

stevek93 wrote: »

As I said above we do not control the software we only manage it. It is out of our control which piece of software is deployed on a certain machine.

If there isn't a migration plan in the works, you may want to start polishing up your CV.

There's still some of the old AIB ATMs around, they're on either OS/2 or NT 4.

I think Microsoft shot themselves in the foot with XP. It was the first widely available Windows OS that for the most part "just worked." It didn't have the stability issues of the MS-DOS/9x series and while it still had compatibility issues (like NT and 2000 before it), they had implemented compatibility modes to reduce the impact. Of course, the long development time (and subsequent negative impression) of Vista certainly didn't help either. A lot of people said "XP does what I need, if it ain't broke..." and for many this is still the case.

I don't think it's the same as Windows 98 in 2006 because 98 was built on a much more fickle and unstable platform - there was a real benefit to be had by moving to XP.

Torqay

EarthlyPangaea wrote: »

While we're at it, don't forget Windows 2000 in the Royal Navy

Well, that was 6 years ago. Last year, the biggest operator of warships in the world, the U.S. Navy has announced to migrate the entire fleet to Linux systems. Apparently, Windows 7 and 8 don't really cut it anymore for the DoD. The announcement followed the discovery of a virus which had infected the Windows operating systems on the U.S. Air Force’s drone control system (didn't they loose a few of their gadgets to the Iranians?). Imagine a bot net armed with Hellfire missiles.

RodgersLFC

Its going to be very interesting. XP still has a large portion of the market share and a lot of businesses seem to be still running XP even with all the warnings currently around from Microsoft. I suspect a large number of people will continue using XP despite the lack of updates - imagine trying to persuade an elderly person who's had their computer for years and years, and only use it to check email now and again, to pay hundreds of quid for a new one? Its not going to happen.

Torqay

RodgersLFC wrote: »

imagine trying to persuade an elderly person who's had their computer for years and years, and only use it to check email now and again, to pay hundreds of quid for a new one? Its not going to happen.

And then there is "de economy", you know. Gone are the Celtic Tiger days when people bought a new computer just because the old one was infected by some virus.

A few quid for some extra RAM might squeeze another few years out of the old box. For example, a 2006 dual core computer is still sufficient for many casual users and it will be for some years to come.

RodgersLFC wrote: »

Its going to be very interesting. XP still has a large portion of the market share

It was only a few weeks ago, that Windows 7 finally overtook Windows XP, in fact, Windows XP kept gaining market share until about a year ago*. So it is safe to assume that there are still billions of XP machines out there, and they won't just vanish in 2014.

* probably due to extended downgrade rights. Speaking of which, as things stand, Microsoft's downgrade rights regarding Windows XP Professional remain valid throughout the entire life cycle of Windows 7, which will end in January 2020. The call it operating system that just won't go away for a reason.

RodgersLFC

Torqay wrote: »

And then there is "de economy", you know. Gone are the Celtic Tiger days when people bought a new computer just because the old one was infected by some virus.

A few quid for some extra RAM might squeeze another few years out of the old box. For example, a 2006 dual core computer is still sufficient for many casual users and it will be for some years to come.



It was only a few weeks ago, that Windows 7 finally overtook Windows XP, in fact, Windows XP kept gaining market share until about a year ago*. So it is safe to assume that there are still billions of XP machines out there, and they won't just vanish in 2014.

* probably due to extended downgrade rights. Speaking of which, as things stand, Microsoft's downgrade rights regarding Windows XP Professional remain valid throughout the entire life cycle of Windows 7, which will end in January 2020. The call it operating system that just won't go away for a reason.

I didnt know that last part. So Microsoft are happy to honour downgrade requests up to the end of the life cycle of 7, they just wont provide any security updates....something's wrong with that picture!

But yep, its remarkable that XP will end up having a total lifespan of 13 years, considering the advances in technology since 2001. Its a mark of the quality of the system I guess (and the service packs!)!

Antar Bolaeisk

RodgersLFC wrote: »

I didnt know that last part. So Microsoft are happy to honour downgrade requests up to the end of the life cycle of 7, they just wont provide any security updates....something's wrong with that picture!

But yep, its remarkable that XP will end up having a total lifespan of 13 years, considering the advances in technology since 2001. Its a mark of the quality of the system I guess (and the service packs!)!

That and the fact that it was around for so long before something new came out.

RodgersLFC

Antar Bolaeisk wrote: »

That and the fact that it was around for so long before something new came out.

And also when something new eventually came out, it was a resource-hogging disaster (Vista).

Squeaky the Squirrel

Torqay wrote: »

For every rule, there is an exception

Windows XP End Of Support Countdown Gadget

404 days

Freddy Smelly

stevek93 wrote: »

Its not just businesses that are going to suffer have you ever seen a ATM booting up? Typically it is some version of XP or OS from Microsoft from that era what will happen next year when Microsoft desicde to stop releasing security update bug fixes and patches for these machines or severs. Who will be at fault when your data is stored on a unsecured operating system. Yes I agree 7 is a amazing OS that is very stable indeed but it fails to run on older hardware. Where I work we are head of I.T and most of the offices are still using PCs with Windows 2000s labels running XP and do the job fine no way in hell are these going to run 7 I see it as a unnecessary upgrade as most of these PCs are used to perform simple tasks inputting data likes of Excel and Database.

those atm's you speak of have windows nt 4 not xp :eek:

Freddy Smelly

Freddy Smelly wrote: »

those atm's you speak of have windows nt 4 not xp :eek:

No, most recent ATMs are on XP Embedded.

Overheal

It will finally die the slow, agonizing death that it should have years ago. good riddance.

As for critical infrastructure still running it: the hope would be that nothing networked (or at least externally networked) is going to be running legacy software. reminds me of the dude that came on the forum last year looking how to connect his Power-plant-operating Windows 95 computer onto the internet because he was bored at work. The mind boggles.

demanufactured

Overheal wrote: »

It will finally die the slow, agonizing death that it should have years ago. good riddance.

As for critical infrastructure still running it: the hope would be that nothing networked (or at least externally networked) is going to be running legacy software. reminds me of the dude that came on the forum last year looking how to connect his Power-plant-operating Windows 95 computer onto the internet because he was bored at work. The mind boggles.

Most big businesses are still using xp and are only now migrating to windows 7
I know because the last company I worked in I was in the IT dept and even new laptops that were bought with windows 7 were formatted and xp out on..that was only last year.
Big companies will always get as long as they can out of something. Its all about the monies...volume licenses arnt cheap.

Overheal

Then they appear to have more money than sense; the cost of rolling back laptops only to have to be forced to upgrade shortly anyway is going to hurt them more, in the long run.

The oldest machine we keep in operation is a training PC, just for employees to access our eLearning website from. It has Vista on it, and a PC fan that is about to give up the ghost any day now. Everything else including rather expensive POS equipment is all up to Windows 7.

Torqay

Overheal wrote: »

Then they appear to have more money than sense; the cost of rolling back laptops only to have to be forced to upgrade shortly anyway is going to hurt them more, in the long run.

Shortly? I thought Windows 7 is good for another 7 years.

In recent weeks I had to "roll back" at least two dozens of new machines, mostly to Windows 7, but a few still wanted XP and the hardware is still supported in general (although in one case I gave up, because no audio driver would work with with the headphones jack), which shows that hardware manufacturers are still catering for XP. And until the big players like Intel, Nvidia and AMD eventually drop their support, there will be people out there using Windows XP or Windows 7 (the last Microsoft product you can call an operating system with a straight face).

Squeaky the Squirrel

Overheal wrote: »

It will finally die the slow, agonizing death that it should have years ago. good riddance.

12yrs 5Mts, it's only 2 and half years over the norm. Seems more. NT was 11 years 5Mts.

Overheal

Torqay wrote: »

Shortly? I thought Windows 7 is good for another 7 years.

Read the post, they rolled them back to XP.

In recent weeks I had to "roll back" at least two dozens of new machines, mostly to Windows 7, but a few still wanted XP and the hardware is still supported in general (although in one case I gave up, because no audio driver would work with with the headphones jack), which shows that hardware manufacturers are still catering for XP. And until the big players like Intel, Nvidia and AMD eventually drop their support, there will be people out there using Windows XP or Windows 7 (the last Microsoft product you can call an operating system with a straight face).

8 is Windows 7 with an updated Start Menu, support for Apps, and new Search features. Get over it.

paulheu

8 is quite a bit more. Under the hood it is a major change from 7 and much, much more solid and smooth.. Try using 7 on say an Asus Eeepc netbook, then install 8. The difference in performance is staggering.. (with 8 being the clear winner there..). 8 is worth it for the improved scheduling alone IMO.

The UI changes may be obvious, but the core improvements are way more important to your every day use of the OS.

stevek93

paulheu wrote: »

8 is quite a bit more. Under the hood it is a major change from 7 and much, much more solid and smooth.. Try using 7 on say an Asus Eeepc netbook, then install 8. The difference in performance is staggering.. (with 8 being the clear winner there..). 8 is worth it for the improved scheduling alone IMO.

The UI changes may be obvious, but the core improvements are way more important to your every day use of the OS.

I wouldn't go as far as saying it is more stable. Windows 7 has had 3 years of patches security updates and bug fixes, Windows 8 has only been released a few months.

monkeypants

yoyo wrote: »

Many ATMs are still using OS/2 worldwide! Making XP seem fresh and modern in comparison :pac:

Nothing went wrong with OS/2 that a good reboot couldn't fix.

A company I used to work for is still running Win3.1 on one single PC. This PC is only used to run one particular, in-house application, so it's simply not worth it to even contemplate a change. It works and it's stable.

Torqay

paulheu wrote: »

Try using 7 on say an Asus Eeepc netbook, then install 8. The difference in performance is staggering.. (with 8 being the clear winner there..).

If the Eee PC and Windows 8 is such a winning combo then why did ASUS and others abandon the netbook? Truth is, they've pulled the plug on netbooks (much to the dismay of Intel) because of Windows 8. The licensing fees (twice as much as Windows 7 Starter), upgrades in LCD panels to higher resolutions and touchscreen functions added to netbook costs forcing netbook vendors to give up the product line before entering the Windows 8 generation.So if you're looking for a travel companion with 8-10 hrs battery life that get's the job done (such as my Eee 1005HA) you'll have to pay a lot more than 250 yoyos in the future, last but not least thanks to Microsoft's new "retail platform".

paulheu

While the netbooks do not _officially_ support the required min resolution but that is easily resolved. That said it does not take anything away that WIN8 actually runs more smooth than WIN7..

Torqay

paulheu wrote: »

WIN8 actually runs more smooth than WIN7..

Not as smooth as XP (or lightweight Linux distros) on such rather underpowered devices, not by a long shot.

But may that as it be, Windows 8 has been the death knell for netbooks. Doubled licensing fees, the requirement for a higher resolution (no, manufacturers don't do "workarounds") with touch capability would easily drive the costs into the region of a regular budget laptop. Manufacturers always struggled to make a profit from a PC that will only sell for 250 yoyos or so at retail, even at the best of times. And thus ends the tale of the netbook, which once provided the most cost-effective computing solution for people with a substantial workload to be dealt with while being "on the road".

Anyhoo, Microsoft and netbooks (mind you, their initial success played no small part in the extension of the XP life cycle) is a fascinating story, however, not the subject of this thread.

Overheal

Torqay wrote: »

If the Eee PC and Windows 8 is such a winning combo then why did ASUS and others abandon the netbook? Truth is, they've pulled the plug on netbooks (much to the dismay of Intel) because of Windows 8. The licensing fees (twice as much as Windows 7 Starter), upgrades in LCD panels to higher resolutions and touchscreen functions added to netbook costs forcing netbook vendors to give up the product line before entering the Windows 8 generation.So if you're looking for a travel companion with 8-10 hrs battery life that get's the job done (such as my Eee 1005HA) you'll have to pay a lot more than 250 yoyos in the future, last but not least thanks to Microsoft's new "retail platform".

So why did I just inbox a Lenovo tablet last night with a 32 bit windows 8 OS powers by an Intel atom processor?

Abandoned my arse. The netbook just became a tablet, thanks to Windows 8. Windows 8 didn't kill the netbook, the kindle fire did. In 2011. And people can still avail of the chromebook, which for the type of person who liked the netbook is still a fine option.

riclad

Many business,s use xp, on pcs, not connected to the internet,
running MS office or other programs.They work fine .IF the programs ,you use ,work on xp, win 8 is irrelevant.
IF a company bought 30 win8 pcs, they,d have to train staff ,how to use the os,install software on each pc.
I understand if pcs are connected to the web, win8,or win7 is secure.
There,s banks still using win nt, and ie 6 browser, because the specialist
software they use is designed for that os.

AS PCS are replaced,new ones bought ,win7,and win8 will replace xp.
IF most of your pcs, run office 2007 ,theres no great benefit to switching over to windows 8.
Companys ,buy 100s,or 1000s of licenses for software,
its expensive to switch over to a new os.
AS new volume licenses would have to be bought.
I Think win8 tablets ,will be like like windows phone,
it,ll get about 2 or 3 per cent market share,
its too expensive, in a market that has good android tablets for 200 euro.
IT has the advantage of being more secure,some compatibilty with
ms office,server ,email apps
Theres plenty of tablets with 7/8 hours battery life ,200 or less euros.

i think ms designed win8 ,works on pcs,tablets, Touch screen compatible.
One os to rule them all.

Overheal

Obscure piece of Yeats?

Squeaky the Squirrel

Overheal wrote: »

Obscure piece of Yeats?

I think someone needs a venti shot hazelnut vanilla cinnamon white mocha with extra white mocha and caramel coffee?

Torqay

Overheal wrote: »

Abandoned my arse. The netbook just became a tablet, thanks to Windows 8. Windows 8 didn't kill the netbook, the kindle fire did. In 2011.

You're talking rubbish. The Kindle Fire is a rather limited entertainment device, I'm talking about serious work, not browsing the Amazon store. A tablet is fine for many but certainly no substitute for a real computer.

Overheal wrote: »

And people can still avail of the chromebook, which for the type of person who liked the netbook is still a fine option.

Google's Chromebook is trying to be a netbook, but it isn't. Too limited are the offline capabilities and it can't run MS Office or other "legacy apps" either.

Overheal wrote: »

So why did I just inbox a Lenovo tablet last night with a 32 bit windows 8 OS powers by an Intel atom processor?

Seriously??? You want to sell me the Lenovo ThinkPad Tablet 2 as the "new netbook"? Then you'll have to do a helluva lot better than 800 dollar (the price of the Lenovo tablet and the keyboard dock). Unlike a $250 netbook, this is not what I call a "cost-effective computing solution". ASUS "invented" the netbook in 2007 as a Linux-based $200 dollar laptop* and everyone (including Microsoft) was laughing at them, until the Eee PC was flying off the shelves, and the secret of its success was affordability, plain and simple. This ain't gonna happen with $800 tablets.

* the Eee PC was also the first laptop with a Solid State Drive, putting even the fastest high-end laptops on the market to a shame in a boot race, making everyone wanting a SSD.

Overheal

Torqay wrote: »

You're talking rubbish. The Kindle Fire is a rather limited entertainment device, I'm talking about serious work, not browsing the Amazon store. A tablet is fine for many but certainly no substitute for a real computer.

LOL. You fail to realize the unit's existence wasn't fueled by the 1% of business execs who would get a real kick out of running their powerpoint presentation on something that portable, it was fueled by low income/low spend consumers that wanted the cheapest common denominator.

You're arguing three different angles on portability, performance, and price. Fact is, I sold the netbook alongside the first gen tablets. I can tell you why the netbook was discontinued: up against a more expensive iPad, even before the Kindle Fire came out, nobody bought the netbooks bar the odd person who was trying to buy something with buttons and a shoestring. The netbooks sat on the shelves and plenty went EOL. Meanwhile we were regularly sold out of the tablets. The only time netbooks sold ever again was at christmas, to last minute gift buyers with no other options. Truth be told, customers during discussions were not fond of the idea of navimigating the Windows UI on a little trackpad with kiddie keys. Right next to a netbook, for another $20-50, always sat a full sized laptop with 64-bit OS, a much bigger screen and twice the performance parameters, battery life be damned as most users don't require wilderness-stamina battery life. There were a lot of reasons for the netbook dying, but it wasn't because someone in an exec chair decreed it.

Google's Chromebook is trying to be a netbook, but it isn't. Too limited are the offline capabilities and it can't run MS Office or other "legacy apps" either.

Which is a problem for a lot of people, but not for that "I'm broke/I don't want to spend the money I just want to Check email/browse/facebook/etc" crowd. And just like the netbook before them, sold out over christmas and sit on the shelves the rest of the year.

Seriously??? You want to sell me the Lenovo ThinkPad Tablet 2 as the "new netbook"? Then you'll have to do a helluva lot better than 800 dollar (the price of the Lenovo tablet and the keyboard dock). Unlike a $250 netbook, this is not what I call a "cost-effective computing solution". ASUS "invented" the netbook in 2007 as a Linux-based $200 dollar laptop* and everyone (including Microsoft) was laughing at them, until the Eee PC was flying off the shelves, and the secret of its success was affordability, plain and simple. This ain't gonna happen with $800 tablets.

People similarly laughed at the laptop, I am sure. How could it possibly take off when it had to be carried around like a bomb, needed to be plugged in, and had fractional performance of traditional computers. Oh. How. They. Laughed.

But hey, what are you complaining about, you will probably be running that netbook on Win 3.1 well into the next quarter century, right?

* the Eee PC was also the first laptop with a Solid State Drive, putting even the fastest high-end laptops on the market to a shame in a boot race, making everyone wanting a SSD.

You got me there, in that it's not really relevant where the SSD birthed, it's still a fantastic core component at both the high end and low end.

Torqay

Overheal wrote: »

nobody bought the netbooks bar the odd person who was trying to buy something with buttons and a shoestring.

Ridiculous. ASUS alone sold tens of millions of Eee PC over the years, even when the iPad hit the market in 2010, they have sold over 5 million units.

A Chromebook might work well in your cozy little shop or around Time Square, NYC but in rural places or less developed countries, you're f***ed, simple as that.

And why would I use Windows 3.1 when even my oldest netbook from 2007 is running Windows 7 like a charm? Or the operating system which happens to be the subject of this thread, for that matter.

Overheal wrote: »

You're arguing three different angles on portability, performance, and price.

Certainly not on performance as any netbook will perform just as well as your Atom tablet. The price difference, however, is enormous. And since Microsoft does no longer sell Windows 7 licenses and does not offer a Windows 8 Starter edition suitable for netbooks at a reduced price, this is the end of fully fledged mini-laptops at an affordable price. No matter how you spin it, the netbook was the most cost-effective mobile computing solution ever. Most students simply can't come up with 800 yoyos for something you're so desperately trying to sell as the "new netbook", at least not in this country. Forget it, it's just not it. And no, they won't get their work done on a Kindle Fire.

Squeaky the Squirrel

http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0

Current Market shares

Overheal

Squeaky the Squirrel wrote: »

http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0

Current Market shares

Id like to see the geo-specific information, but the hell that im paying for that

Torqay

Me too. Quite interesting figures though. Vista and Windows 8 just about beat Mac OSX, for every two Linux computers there is one running Windows 2000, still. I'm sure there are regions where Windows XP has got the better on Windows 7.

The April 2014 deadline is not really that important. As long as the hardware and software makers support Windows XP on a large scale, there will be people using it. And almost 40% is a figure way too big to be ignored. Microsoft shot themselves in the foot when they prematurely ditched support of actual Internet Explorer versions on older systems (first with Windows 2000, later with XP). This move didn't make users switch as expected but instead gave rise to alternative web browsers. Now that XP is no longer supported with Microsoft Office, the question becomes, will users abandon their "beloved" OS or will they be looking for alternatives (unlike Internet Explorer, Office is their cash cow after all)?