backtop


Print 80 comment(s) - last by Dorkyman.. on Oct 24 at 11:34 AM


Windows 7 is the new king of the OS market, passing Windows XP.  (Source: Take Two Interactive)
Microsoft hopes to follow up resounding success with slick Windows 8

StatCounter, a top market analytics firm, recently announced that Microsoft's Windows 7 had attained a milestone accomplishment, surpassing Windows XP to become the most used operating system in the world.  

While "market gurus" and financial pen pushers tend to dwell on Microsoft Corp.'s (MSFT) recent misses, they tend to miss that in the operating systems business, the company is relishing the greatest sales success in its history.  Selling faster than any other version of Windows -- or any other operating system in the history of the world, for that matter -- Windows 7 soared to a 40.21 percent (appr.) installation rate in under 2 years, bumping the much beloved Windows XP to second place (38.64 percent).

Windows 7's success was bred of one of the company's most maligned efforts to date, Windows Vista.  Vista, launched in late 2006, tried unsuccessfully to replace the popular five-year -old XP.  Many of its biggest problems were due to issues outside Microsoft's control -- including glitchy support peripheral driver support from its hardware partners.  Other issues -- like the bloated memory and processes footprint -- were certainly pinned solely on Microsoft.

But for the shortcomings of Vista, it debuted many of the features including the gaudy Aero graphical interface, which would reinvent Windows.  They just needed a polished package.

That package arrived with Windows 7.  The biggest story of this operating system came well before launch, with Microsoft giving away millions of free beta copies in the largest OS beta test in world history.  The builds had their issues and could be buggy at times -- but customers understood this -- after all, they were using a test product.  And the innovative approach yielded great rewards.  Microsoft caught over 2,000 bugs during the test cycle and used its telemetrics to drastically slash the processor and memory footprint to the point where the new OS could be run on a lowly Pentium II.

Microsoft also benefited from the learning experience of Vista, warning hardware partners not to dare pull a Vista, when it came to driver support.  The crackdown paid off.  By launch time it was relatively rare to find a incompatible peripheral.

The new face of Windows launched Oct. 22, 2009, to much excitement.  Lean and stable in performance, familiar yet more stylish graphically, Windows 7 managed to pass its predecessor in nine months (July 2010).  It sold 240 million licenses in its first year, according to market research firm Gartner, Inc. (IT).

Today it has sold 450 million licenses.  And that total is expected to rise to 635 million by the year's end, with 94 percent of new PCs currently shipping with Windows 7.

Looking ahead Microsoft is eyeing a fall launch for Windows 8.  The new operating system has a tough act to follow, given the mega-success of Windows 7.  But Microsoft -- about to enter its 37th year -- continues to show it has some tricks up its sleeve.  With Windows 8 it will add support for ARM architectures CPUs, opening the gates to a host of power-savvy system-on-a-chip driven designs.  

And Windows 8 will also add the vibrant Metro UI found on Microsoft Windows Phone line.  Developers will be able to create their own chic animated Metro UI tiles, bringing a new level of touch-friendly and visually striking interaction to end users.

And with its market of over 1 billion Windows PCs at stake, Microsoft isn't about to take any chances with stability or performance.  It recently launched a public preview test build to work out the various bugs in the trial build.  And it has cut the memory footprint and number of processes from the already lean Windows 7, despite running built-in antimalware protection and Metro UI for the first time.

Whether Windows 8 turns out to be a hit or miss in sales, Microsoft can take comfort in what it learned in the Vista-Win7 arc -- that even a "failed" effort can breed a new market leader.  But for now the story is Windows 7, and it seems only appropriate to conclude by honoring Windows 7's accomplishment with a quote from a familiar Windows video game character -- "Hail to the king, baby!"

Source: StatCounter



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Well
By Dr of crap on 10/17/2011 12:50:34 PM , Rating: 2
Well yea.
Because Vista had the black mark people stayed away. After the many years inbetween the early years of XP to Win 7 there had to be an upgrade, and I'm sure Microsoft knew that. It's like a given. The next OS after Vista had to be a better product and then the masses needed to either get a new PC or upgrade to Win 7.
Win 8 will get sales from new PCs, but the real increase is from leaving XP to go to something newer, be it Win 7 or Win 8.




RE: Well
By augiem on 10/17/2011 1:16:38 PM , Rating: 3
I doubt too many win 7 users will feel the need to upgrade to 8. That is unless ms pulls another crippleware trick like xp being capped to ie7 and dx9... Buy vista if you want the latest updates! That's fair now 10 years out, but the dx cap was put in place many years ago.

I for one have ZERO intention of using or supporting Metro. I'm sorry, you can throw around "post pc era" all you want, real computers used for productivity can never be replaced by dinky touch and swipe toys. Its a mistake for ms to try to force this dummy mode on all users, especially business and productivity users. I predict they'll end up having to branch windows again because of metro... Windows Serious and Windows Dumb@**. Put Windows Dumb@** on the recipe touchscreen in your microwave and leave the real computer users alone.

god I hate touchscreens!!1 It took me about 10 minutes to write this on this Touchpad! What a joke. These dinky consumption boxes aren't useful for much of anything. Post pc era my foot.


RE: Well
By cjohnson2136 on 10/17/2011 1:34:39 PM , Rating: 2
The nice thing about Win 8 though is you still have your Win 7 when you pick Desktop. So you can run all your programs that you can now. But I do agree that the whole post-pc era thing is not really here yet.


RE: Well
By Mitch101 on 10/17/2011 4:31:06 PM , Rating: 2
If they can speed up the Voice to Text option thats in the Windows Phone 7.5 into the tablet who needs a keyboard. It really does a great job sometimes a little slow in figuring out what was said but overall its come a long long way.


RE: Well
By augiem on 10/17/2011 5:01:37 PM , Rating: 2
To me the post PC era will only really happen when we all have Star Trek's computers. Voice regcognition is only the tip of the iceberg. Most importantly a real AI that can understand us and actually DO the work for us (Iron Man movie computer comes to mind). Either that or some neural interface.

I shudder to think of writing programming code, using a spreadsheet, or doing 3D modeling/animation on a touch screen or voice interface!


RE: Well
By cjohnson2136 on 10/17/2011 5:07:15 PM , Rating: 3
I can't imagine writing C# with voice controls. A bunch of developers talking to their computers and all their code is getting messed up because it picks up little pieces of what others say. Or sitting there saying "if left parenthesis x plus one right parenthesis carriage line..."


RE: Well
By UnauthorisedAccess on 10/17/2011 10:24:48 PM , Rating: 3
...and you can bet someone in the office will sneak up and shout the equivalent of format c drive into your microphone.

Huge difference between media consumption devices and real PCs imho.


RE: Well
By Samus on 10/18/2011 3:15:35 AM , Rating: 3
Considering Vista was virtually unusable on most PC's sold at its launch due to improper hardware configurations (not enough RAM, 4200-5400RPM hard disks in laptops, driver problems...especially 64-bit) it carried that stigma throughout its very short run.

By the time Windows 7 rolled through, mainstream retail computers had 2-4GB RAM, and SSD's were finally inexpensive (compared to 2006 prices) so it didn't even have to improve performance. And it didn't. Windows 7 was less bloated, but is basically the same thing as Windows Vista.


RE: Well
By retrospooty on 10/17/2011 1:50:44 PM , Rating: 2
"Its a mistake for ms to try to force this dummy mode on all users, especially business and productivity users. I predict they'll end up having to branch windows again because of metro"

That interface is not forced on anyone... It's designed for tablets. For your PC, you will have the normal familiar interface. Relax, all is well in the world.


RE: Well
By augiem on 10/17/11, Rating: 0
RE: Well
By cjohnson2136 on 10/17/2011 4:08:57 PM , Rating: 2
Except remember this is a developer preview, not even beta. A lot can still change from now to release. If enough people ask for it they could add a setting to allow for changing of the default.


RE: Well
By retrospooty on 10/17/2011 5:03:15 PM , Rating: 2
"Disabling it may be possible, but not default, which shows MS's intention to migrate away from the icon-based desktop into Metro in the long term. It's an experiment, but doomed to fail. "

The whole point of this dev preview is so that developers can see the new UI and prepare for it. That by no means makes it default on the release version... and if it is, so what? Its actually good for newbs and non-techies. Anyone technical enough to want the old UI is surely technical enough to find the control panel and turn it off. Its nothing to be upset about, sheeat, if you dont like it, don't use it.

Do you pay for cable TV and get angry because you hate the lifetime channel and HGTV? No, you just dont watch those channels.


RE: Well
By augiem on 10/17/2011 5:51:44 PM , Rating: 2
I don't agree this is good for the non-technical. Metro is pretty much a mess. It's like throwing everything in a big grab bag. It's very much like Windows Media Center which is a PITA to find anything if you have a library larger than 20 items. It's clear they want the Metro UI to become the primary go-to guy for all tasks, therefore even for basic users, it's going to get cluttered beyond imagination. They even encourage you to pin websites to it. Even non-techies like my dad have hundreds of bookmarks. And yes, they can still use the IE bookmarks system, but you know these basic computer users will do what's easiest and just plop everything onto metro (like they do with the desktop now).

Like I said in my first post, I will not use it or support it, so yeah, I'm already doing what you're suggesting. If it's forced on us, I'll disable it. I still don't like it or agree with the design. A big step backwards in UI design IMO and very poor use of screen space.


RE: Well
By augiem on 10/17/2011 5:54:03 PM , Rating: 2
Let me qualify that as saying a very poor use of screen space for a desktop/notebook PC. For a tablet or smartphone, it's fine.


RE: Well
By kleinma on 10/17/2011 8:52:35 PM , Rating: 2
It is just a new glorified start menu. Other than the start menu, the desktop works just like Windows 7. How often do you go into the start menu anyways?


RE: Well
By borismkv on 10/17/2011 10:34:14 PM , Rating: 2
About a thousand times a day...


RE: Well
By augiem on 10/18/2011 2:00:45 AM , Rating: 2
And if MS has their way, every single time I boot my PC.


RE: Well
By Da W on 10/17/2011 1:51:21 PM , Rating: 3
It took about 10 minutes and the hacking community disabled Metro and re-enabled standard Start menu on Windows 8 devlopper preview.
I agree we got to voice our concerns to Microsoft so they can act. I think the only flaws are starting in Metro by default and having a metro start page instead of standard start menu / application launcher. While it's a good idea to have both paradigms, there's got to be another way to switch between the two. And i want my desktop to boot on standard desktop mode.... correction, i will certainly hack my way out of it, but as a stockowner, i want the masses to be able to boot on standard desktop mode.


RE: Well
By cjohnson2136 on 10/17/2011 1:56:40 PM , Rating: 3
Or why not give MSFT the suggestion to change the settings. Some people could like it starting in Metro while others would prefer the standard desktop. I for one would prefer it starting as a split screen with weather on the side and the desktop view on the big side. If MSFT could give you the option of how it looks when it boots it would satisfy more customers


RE: Well
By Mitch101 on 10/17/2011 4:14:20 PM , Rating: 3
Just use the Windows 8 Tweak UI.

Metro UI Tweaker for Windows 8 Released
http://www.thewindowsclub.com/metro-ui-tweaker-win...

Tweak Windows 8 with the 'Metro UI Tweaker for Windows 8'
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/tweak-windows-8...


RE: Well
By augiem on 10/17/2011 4:33:02 PM , Rating: 2
The split screen idea is essentially a slightly modified version of what Windows Vista / 7 have by default -- Windows Sidebar. Live widgets on the right and a desktop on the left.


RE: Well
By cjohnson2136 on 10/17/11, Rating: 0
RE: Well
By augiem on 10/17/2011 4:19:26 PM , Rating: 2
The fact that it had to be hacked in the first place to disable Metro says a lot. Microsoft is so confident in Metro as the future of the GUI they don't even have a mechanism for disabling it. I suspect this will change by the time it comes out, but it still shows their underlying thought process, which is troubling.

Metro will work splendidly for you as long as you don't have more than 20 or 30 things on your system (including programs, shortcuts, links, etc). It's a super simplified interface designed for use on devices that don't do squat, and to even consider making this the default interface for all PC's is ludicrous. Someone at the company is either seriously underestimating their customers or is just forging ahead, eyes closed, ears plugged, with his own idealistic and naieve vision of the future.


RE: Well
By cjohnson2136 on 10/17/2011 4:31:16 PM , Rating: 2
Except your forgetting its still in development what they released just recently can drastically change from its final release.


RE: Well
By augiem on 10/17/2011 4:39:09 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not forgetting at all. I do hope they get away from this idea by the time it's done. But Metro is the most trumpeted feature of Windows 8, so I doubt it will fall to the background by the time it comes out. The stark difference of Metro vs the Windows desktop is a very obvious interface feature MS can and will use as a marketing tool to convince users to upgrade. Its their hook this time around. Can you really see that as becoming an optional, manually enabled choice by release time? The best I can hope for is an easy way to disable it, which I'm sure we'll get. But what I'm saying is its illogical to put a phone/tablet/media center pc interface as the default.


RE: Well
By cjohnson2136 on 10/17/2011 4:45:11 PM , Rating: 2
No but I also don't see this as being the next major OS going on every PC with Windows. I see it going on tablets and PC of that that nature. I still think MSFT will over Win 7 on its desktop and laptops


RE: Well
By augiem on 10/17/2011 4:57:30 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm, that's interesting. That's the first I'd heard of that concept. Possible, but I don't believe that will be the case for several reasons:

1. Microsoft will have to be maintaining 3 separate, current OS's simultaneously (7, 7 phone, 8) along with its other aging yet supported OS's (Vista, Windows 6.5 phone), not to mention Server and Media Center versions.

2. I've not heard anything about Windows 8 not supporting the full set of hardware/drivers Windows 7 does, not supporting Direct X, etc. (But it is supposed to have a smaller memory footprint).

3. It seems like it would be a very bad marketing move to sell tablets and other consumption devices with an OS braded at version 8 while selling desktop PC's branded at 7. Consumers would very likely feel like they're buying an old OS.

I don't know. It's all speculation at this point.


RE: Well
By cjohnson2136 on 10/17/2011 5:04:06 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed also they are trying to integrate WP7, Win 8 and Xbox so they all work together. All of them are going with the Metro theme.

At the same time if they do move Win 8 as the primary desktop computer, which to me wouldn't make sense since it is very touch oriented, people experimenting with the Developer Preview and beta need to let it be known we want that setting to change the default start up


RE: Well
By augiem on 10/17/2011 5:38:44 PM , Rating: 2
From everything I read it looks like they indeed do intend for Windows 8 to replace Windows 7 on all devices:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20068119-260/sin...

quote:
"We tried with Windows 8 to re-imagine how you work with a PC," Sinofsky said on stage during an interview with D9 host Walt Mossberg.

He says it will work on laptops, desktops, and tablets, and that everything that worked with Windows 7 will work with the next-generation OS as well. When using existing desktop applications, the interface goes to a very Windows 7-like desktop.


From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_8#cite_note-2

quote:
Windows 8 is the next version of Microsoft Windows, a family of operating systems produced by Microsoft for use on personal computers, including home and business desktops, laptops, netbooks, tablet PCs, servers, and media center PCs.


The first quote from Steven Sinofsky says it all. They tried to reimagine how you work with a PC. Not a tablet or phone or set top box, a PC. So this is clearly the next PC OS and the successor to Windows 7.

Ugh. Reinventing the wheel for reinventing the wheel's sake always turns into a disaster. Designers who don't put functionality as the ultimate an unequivocal #1 are failures in my book. Form follows function, not the other way around. The function of a PC is to do everything the user may want to do, from entertainment, to productivity, to experimentation, etc. They're putting a square peg in a round hole. This is a phone/tablet UI. They just don't get it.


RE: Well
By captainBOB on 10/17/2011 10:20:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ugh. Reinventing the wheel for reinventing the wheel's sake always turns into a disaster.


Yep, the GUI was a total disaster. Because terminal gurus of yore weren't say the same thing you are now. (and still are saying)

Whether or not metro will pay off is still up for grabs, for one thing Microsoft better utilize the significantly higher resolutions of PCs well (which is something Apple forgot to do with launchpad on Lion), otherwise yeah, its just a tablet interface being bolted on a PC.

For now I am waiting till the public beta for further judgement. Perhaps Microsoft is crazy like a fox and knows something we don't yet.

I see great potential in Win 8, its just up to Microsoft and the OEMs to not let me down.


RE: Well
By augiem on 10/18/2011 1:58:15 AM , Rating: 2
History has FAR, FAR more examples of failed reinvention than success when its done not out of necessity but simply out of desire to be different. And Metro is already complete on Win7 so it's not like we have utterly no idea of what's coming even if they change a few things.

Change is good when there's a valid reason behind it and it helps achieve something beneficial (think evolution). Sweeping change for change's sake is 9 times out of 10 nothing more than a "look at me" attention grab and will be forgotton and paved over in time. Having a BFA have gone to an art design college, I know that 100% of design students out there want to make their mark by completely wiping the slate clean, starting over, and reinventing the wheel. They honestly think they can do it... they can swoop in and change the world and solve problems nobody could ever solve before. 100% fail, get real, and realize that progress is made through EVOLUTION, not REVOLUTION.


RE: Well
By augiem on 10/18/2011 2:18:07 AM , Rating: 2
edit: "Metro is already complete on Win7 Phone"


RE: Well
By ekv on 10/18/2011 4:55:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
They're putting a square peg in a round hole.
Methinks thou dost protest too much. Come on, admit it, you're really Eric Schmidt 8)
quote:
Schmidt said he believes Microsoft is “not driving the consumer revolution.” He doesn’t count Microsoft’s Xbox business because it’s “not a platform at the computational level.”
You can discount all you want. You certainly have every right to be concerned over Microsoft's execution of their business plan. Ballmer is not confidence inspiring. Etc.

Everybody likes to point to Minority Report, but Quantum of Solace shows better tech integration (naturally, and better chicks too). How do you connect all that stuff together?


RE: Well
By augiem on 10/18/2011 1:52:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Methinks thou dost protest too much.


I happen to be a very opinionated person when it comes to things I care about. Is that so bad?

Microsoft's track record over the years has been so full of bumbling and half attempts in so many varied areas that I'm always amazed at how successful they still are and wonder how big they'd be if they actually ran a tight ship. I see Metro as another bungled attempt at revolution in an area that really needs to revolution. PC/Mac GUI's have been refined to death! They're NOT hard to use, even for the technologically challanged, unless you start getting into file management. It bothers me because they want to make PC's more like smartphones. I think that's a seriously bad idea, but Joe Q. Public will decide in the end by purchasing what he wants and I will be left in the dust. I also happen to think Joe Q. Public is a moron who has taken too many things I am or used to be an enthusast in to the brink of hell with his buying choices (game industry, movies, much of TV). Joe/Jane Q is responsible for giving us reality TV. 'nuff said.

quote:
Come on, admit it, you're really Eric Schmidt 8)


I WISH! B)


RE: Well
By augiem on 10/18/2011 1:53:53 PM , Rating: 2
edit: "I see Metro as another bungled attempt at revolution in an area that really needs NO revolution"


RE: Well
By ekv on 10/18/2011 3:01:18 PM , Rating: 2
You wish you were Eric Schmidt? Guy's a jerk. I've always heard that money is simply an amplifier. Like, if you hit the lottery, what's already there is still there character-wise, you'd just have more money to carry it all out.
quote:
it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

My question was rather Socratic. And quite relevant, if you're a software developer, or even a so-called "power user". If you'd rather rant ... it's your tale 8)


RE: Well
By augiem on 10/18/2011 7:22:16 PM , Rating: 2
I wish I had his bank account, that's about it.

I voiced my opinions point by point on questions/comments made by people to my posts. By calling that a rant you, with one swoop, brush off everything I've said without the effort of any sort of discussion/counterargument/commentary. Nothing anyone ever says on a comment board is ever going to make any difference to the world. So what? Why point out the obvious?


RE: Well
By cjohnson2136 on 10/17/2011 5:13:18 PM , Rating: 2
Hell they could even change the name nothing says it has to stay as Windows 8 they could change it to Windows Tablet 7 or something similar to WP7 lol


RE: Well
By NellyFromMA on 10/18/2011 3:22:58 PM , Rating: 3
I extremely doubt this. XP's time limit had been reached. It got a little extension due to the bungle that was Vista (pre SP1, all that counts I guess) but otherwise, its not in anyones best interests to keep it around. Windows 7 is the superior platform and so there is no reason for the company to endlessly support both. This is just common sense. All software companies do this in some way or another, Microsoft obviously has the hardest time doing this because people rely on their system so much. So, you should actually appreciate that they want to spend as much time as possible refining it instead of being distracted supporting old technology.

Also, I don't think Windows 8 is about replacing Windows 7. Sure, most of it probably will although its too early to tell, but the real driver here is tablets.

If you're happy with Windows 7, keep it. I'm pretty sure they aren't going to force away their biggest marketting success yet two years in. Look how long XP has been around. Stop freaking.


RE: Well
By augiem on 10/18/2011 11:28:26 PM , Rating: 2
Was this message intended for me? (you replied to my post) Because if it was, I'm baffled. Where do you get the idea I'm advocating continued support of XP? XP is WAY beyond its prime and I know that. It's largely unsupported.

What I said:
quote:
Windows 7 users will not likely upgrade to 8 unless MS pulls tricks like they did with the XP/Vista transition trying to force upgrades (like discontinuing DirectX updates and IE updates for XP arbitrarily).


How is that some sort of advocacy for continued support for Windows XP? I'm complaining about Microsoft's past forced upgrade tactics.

quote:
Also, I don't think Windows 8 is about replacing Windows 7.


You're the second one to suggest that, but that's clearly not what MS has lead people to believe. Windows 8 is about replacing Windows 7. See my links below.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20068119-260/sin...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_8


RE: Well
By Aenslead on 10/23/2011 4:36:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
god I hate touchscreens!!1 It took me about 10 minutes to write this on this Touchpad!


AGREED!

I cannot stop thinking: "what on God's green Earth would those dumbass HP engineers be thinking when they launched their touchscreen AiOs." - just imagining all those thumbprints in the screen make me shiver.

They are a must for Tablets/smartphones, but definitely a NO-GO for desktop/enthusiast/workstations.

I dislike Apple PC clones, no matter how shiny. But His Jobness and Acolytes knew one thing: what people use and how they use it (mostly). And somehow, they were smarter and concluded that any touch-screen laptop/desktop would be a complete failure.


RE: Well
By Argon18 on 10/18/2011 4:33:20 PM , Rating: 2
How sad to be locked in to this crap. So glad I dumped Microsoft and their broken proprietary incompatible garbage years ago!


Well what do you expect?
By thisisaname on 10/17/2011 6:25:51 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Windows 7 Passes Windows XP in Just Two Years to Become Top OS


What do you expect? Microsoft has killed XP. With Windows 7 downgrade rights (to XP) having already expired some time ago, they are cramming Seven down our throats. I bet you if Microsoft was still selling XP, most corporations and probably the majority of end users would still be using it.
It seems with every iteration of Windows, it takes more and more resources to do the same thing. That's not progress, that's a step backward.




RE: Well what do you expect?
By Apone on 10/17/2011 7:24:06 PM , Rating: 2
"It seems with every iteration of Windows, it takes more and more resources to do the same thing. That's not progress, that's a step backward. "

- Well what do you expect? Technology continues to accelerate past consumer need so don't be surprised to see quad-core computers that are marketed for casual web-browsing & email. At least Microsoft is taking advantage of the raw horsepower available to make Windows more visually appealing and offering more features which is (I'm guessing) what consumers and the industry are demanding.


RE: Well what do you expect?
By Reclaimer77 on 10/17/2011 8:46:57 PM , Rating: 2
Dude come on, you cannot expect any OS maker to indefinitely support an OS. Do you realize how old XP is? They are not cramming anything down our throats! I too was one of the XP holdouts when Vista launched, but that was YEARS ago. It's just getting silly now. There is absolutely NO reason someone should still be using XP and not 7.

quote:
It seems with every iteration of Windows, it takes more and more resources to do the same thing. That's not progress, that's a step backward.


Ok you're an idiot. The resource management in 7 is the best of any Windows ever, maybe of any modern OS. Just because 7 takes advantage of all the excess power we have doesn't make it a hog.

Did you actually learn about 7? It sounds like you're just posting a bunch of incoherent FUD. Ignorant ass.


RE: Well what do you expect?
By thisisaname on 10/17/2011 11:32:26 PM , Rating: 1
I can do everything in XP that I can do in Seven, with less resources. XP just flies on my system. I am not compelled to "upgrade" since what I have works perfectly fine. I have used Seven a lot since my last two computers came with it (even did clean installs and tweaked the hell out of it), but I'm very disappointed and I stand by my statement, that it does require more resources to accomplish the same task.
To be honest, I really miss Win2000. It was a basic, WYSIWYG operating system, no frills, no fisher price UI, no tons of bloat and bundled programs, it was a true productivity tool. Since XP and later iterations, Windows just feels like a toy. I don't need flashy desktop effects, WMP, Movie Maker, Metro, Windows Live, IE or any of the garbage that MS bundles. With 2000, a basic install was 0.99GB. XP, 1.5GB. Then suddenly with Vista and Seven, 10 or more GB. My systems run slower, use more RAM. I just don't need the fluff.
Microsoft IS cramming Seven down our throats, because they have cut off all avenues of purchasing it. They no longer allow OEMs to distribute it, you can't "downgrade" any more, whenever you buy a new PC you are forced to buy one with a windows license whether you like it or not (or need it or not), which I think is why Seven has surpassed XP in terms of sales, for the sheer volume of PCs being sold.
Fvck Microsoft, I'm tired of their BS and their games.


RE: Well what do you expect?
By augiem on 10/18/2011 1:45:01 AM , Rating: 2
Ahh the days of Win2k... That was one sweet OS. I switched from 98 (and had one PC on ME, BLECH!) and never looked back. I was amazed that most everything I threw at it ran perfectly, including games surprisingly. I finally (and reluctantly) had to switch to XP around 04 or 05 which was ok since it had been patched to hell by then and was stable. Win2k's no-frills graphics not only made the system peppier, it sped up productivity not having to wait for a menu to fade/scroll in or watch some other equally useless animation 1,000 times in a day. I've always been sad that Microsoft, with each successive release, keeps trying and trying to evolve more into Apple, which never made sense to me since MS has always been the market leader (ever heard if it ain't broke don't fix it?). Flashier graphics and over-simplified interfaces, abstraction of everything remotely administration/system related (gotta love the new Windows 8 blue-screen... no information to help point to the source of the error!), burying any actually useful system pages under layer after layer of "friendly" junk pages whose sole purpose seems to be as warning signs that you're about to enter the deadly enchanted forest (networking properties for one), etc.

This trend is all really nothing more than a symptom of the shift in the computer user demographic over the last 20 years. The average user doesn't really want to DO much on their computers and they CERTAINLY don't want to deal with anything under the hood. They are the biggest piece of the pie now, not us technogeeks. They like drooling at glassy, shiny surfaces and being mezmorized by animated doo-hickies like a deer in headlights. Is it coincidence EVERY version of Windows since 2k has had a complete UI reskin? They know that if nothing LOOKS different, the average user will not feel like he's using a new product. Stupid, but it's psychology. I've never felt the need for my OS to entertain me or wow me with its slick aesthetics, but we all know in the larget market visuals sell (games, movies, women, cars, phones, etc.) and that what counts -- selling. We vulcans don't spend nearly as much cash or part with it nearly so easily as the others, so they drive the market. We wouldn't shell out hard earned cash because of the latest whiz bang effects in the UI, but seems like a lot of people do.

It's always frustrating to be left behind by the market. The same thing happened with console video games for me. With the release of the Playstation 1 the market started to shift from largely "nerds" to pretty much everyone, so the games changed to suit the new market. That's when I kinda lost interest. Same thing's slowly happening here.

XP really is still a more than capable OS. I installed Win7 on an older Core2Duo machine and was surprised at how much slower it ran than on XP. XP will still live on in virtual machines everywhere like mine I'm sure. Makes me want to see if Win2k will run in one...


RE: Well what do you expect?
By Reclaimer77 on 10/18/11, Rating: 0
RE: Well what do you expect?
By augiem on 10/18/2011 1:33:11 PM , Rating: 2
#1 You have no manners.
#2 You really must not read posts before you reply.

"Being left behind" in my context refers to the shift in target market. I am a "geek" in that I am an enthusiast in hardware and software. I am actually interested in the substance of a computer and the programs that run on it. I am no longer the primary market of PC technology. The people who "just want it to work" and want to share photos, videos, and tweet about everything under the sun while they play Farmville are the primary market now. THAT is how I was left behind. I am NOT complaining that Windows XP is no longer being sold.

Reading comprehension. Learn it.


RE: Well what do you expect?
By augiem on 10/18/2011 1:34:40 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and I don't care how many times you pull the BS bomb, I am never going to admin Windows 7 runs just as fast as XP did on my Core2 system BECAUSE IT DOES NOT PLAIN AND SIMPLE. Like it or not, it's a fact, deal with it.


RE: Well what do you expect?
By Makaveli on 10/18/2011 2:38:38 PM , Rating: 1
Reclaimer is right your full of shit how's that for a BS Bomb!


RE: Well what do you expect?
By cjohnson2136 on 10/18/2011 2:42:06 PM , Rating: 2
Just cause you won't admit it does not make it a fact.


RE: Well what do you expect?
By augiem on 10/18/2011 3:32:53 PM , Rating: 2
Okay guys... I'm tired of this. Argue with Microsoft will you?

Windows 7 System Requirements (http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/produc...
1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
1 gigabyte (GB) RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit)
16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)
DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver

Windows XP System Requirements: (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314865)
Pentium 233-megahertz (MHz) processor or faster (300 MHz is recommended)
At least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM (128 MB is recommended)
At least 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available space on the hard disk
CD-ROM or DVD-ROM drive
Keyboard and a Microsoft Mouse or some other compatible pointing device
Video adapter and monitor with Super VGA (800 x 600)or higher resolution
Sound card
Speakers or headphones


RE: Well what do you expect?
By Reclaimer77 on 10/18/2011 4:28:39 PM , Rating: 2
Ummm that's minimum system requirements. It's not ANY indication of how "fast" something will run on a modern system. Hello? Your logic is laughable. Obviously 10 years ago, when XP came out, things like Core2Duo's and i7's didn't exist.

Try playing a DX11 game or running a 64bit app and tell me XP is "faster". Ooops! So much for your theory.

The only way to properly do this is to benchmark speed tests on the same rig running both OS's. Yeah if ONLY someone did this....oh wait!

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/windows-7-build...

"Bottom line: Windows 7 build 6956 beats Windows XP SP3 in each of the tests."

You're done augiem.


RE: Well what do you expect?
By augiem on 10/18/2011 11:17:33 PM , Rating: 1
Oh my god, you are blowing my mind. I'm literally in shock at how illogical your arguments have become. But now that I read back, I actually don't see any logical arguments in your entire "discussion", just a bunch of screaming and personal attacks at everyone:

quote:
Ok you're an idiot.

quote:
It sounds like you're just posting a bunch of incoherent FUD. Ignorant ass.

quote:
But I can see I'm wasting my time, you're ignorant. You don't understand the basics of the computers.

quote:
Just stop with the bullshit.

quote:
Wtf are you talking about?


So I guess if there's one thing I can say for you is you're consistent.

quote:
Try playing a DX11 game...


You're trying to compare running DX11 on Windows 7 (obviously with a DX11 card) vs XP which is locked at DX9 and tell me THAT's why Windows 7 is faster?! Wow, you are REALLLLY digging to try to be right here -- this discussion is no longer about facts and frankly it never was on your end. It's like you have no clue what I even said.

#1) Let's get one thing straight right now. I never once said Windows XP was faster than Windows 7 in ALL SITUATIONS. Go ahead. Read all my posts again. Did you find it? No! You did not because I did not say it.

#2) Let's look at what I DID say. (And what you seem to take such great offense to.)

quote:
XP really is still a more than capable OS. I installed Win7 on an older Core2Duo machine and was surprised at how much slower it ran than on XP.


Okay, there you have it. Core2Duo machine. Did I mention Core i7's, SSD's, Quad GPU's? Nope! You're inferring statements that are simply not there. But in your desperate to be "right", you start making counterarguments against things I did not even say.

You are arguing that cutting edge systems loaded to the max run cutting edge games and software faster on Windows 7 than XP. Well DUH! You know full well DX11 is not supported in XP, a decision made by microsoft to drive sales to Vista. By this logic, you'd be comparing Gran Turismo 5 on the PS3 and XBox 360... Oh wait! GT5 is a PS3 exclusive! 360 loses because it runs at 0 fps. Your comparison is fundamentally flawed.

The latest crop of games isn't supporting DX9 anymore, so you cannot use a cutting-edge game as a speed comparison. But if the game does support DX9, you know what will happen when you play a DX11 game on it? The game will run in DX9 mode. Will it be slower? Nope. Will it have fewer shader effects and no support for hardware PhysX among other things? Yes. Regardless, this is irrelevant to my original point.

quote:
or running a 64bit app and tell me XP is "faster". Ooops! So much for your theory.


Since you obviously didn't know, Windows XP 64-bit did exist. Embarassing.

quote:
Ummm that's minimum system requirements. It's not ANY indication of how "fast" something will run on a modern system.


You think this is an illogical point? I'm really sorry you don't have the ability to get from A to C without having B spelled out for you. Okay, here's why it is relevant to this "discussion":

Two of thisisaname's original comments were as follows:

quote:
It seems with every iteration of Windows, it takes more and more resources to do the same thing. That's not progress, that's a step backward.

quote:
I can do everything in XP that I can do in Seven, with less resources...I stand by my statement, that it does require more resources to accomplish the same task.


He may not be able to do everything one can do in Windows 7 on XP such as run DX11 games or run an SSD, but that's not what I'm talking about. He mentions MORE RESOURCES twice. I agree.

If you paid any attention to the discussion, you'd see that I was talking about OLDER hardware (Core2Duo), but then you start throwing in talk of SSDs, DX11, and Core i7's in an attempt to resuscitate your failed argument and find SOMETHING you can win on. I'm going back to my original point -- older hardware.

Windows XP has far less overhead than Windows 7 will ever have, as evidenced by the system requirements. XP min = 64MB, Win7 min = 1024MB ... I'll do the math for you. That's 16 TIMES the minimum memory requirements as prescribed by Microsoft. Do you think they suggest you use 16X the memory because they have stock in RAM manufacturers?

Resource usage has a TREMENDOUS impact on the overall speed of the system if you don't have immensely more resources available than the system wants to use at one time. What happens in a Windows system when you run out of free physical memory? Ever heard of Virtual Memory? It's really fast isn't it. So, let's see, on an OLDER system with 1-2GB RAM, the OS that eats up fewer resources with its own needs will be less likely to run out of memory during daily use.

And finally, here's the B for you:
System runs low on resources, SPEED decreases. Illogical? Really?

quote:
The only way to properly do this is to benchmark speed tests on the same rig running both OS's. Yeah if ONLY someone did this....oh wait!


Wow that's showing some initiative there! Those are Windows 7 beta benchmarks from a full 10 months before it was even released. But I'll play along...

Beta benchmarks:
XP and 7 trade win/loss - http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2355729,00.as...
Oops, XP wins by large margin - http://www.overclockers.com/windows-xp-vs-windows-...
XP wins again - http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/841-63-windows-b...
Most other benchmarks of 3D rendering show Win7 is faster.

Retail Version benchmarks:
Games:
HOMM6: Virtually no difference among the OS's - http://benchmark3d.com/heroes-of-might-and-magic-v...
Rage: XP is faster - http://benchmark3d.com/rage-benchmark
Blackops: XP is faster - http://benchmark3d.com/black-ops-windows-7-vs-wind...

THIS IS POINTLESS. I only posted those to make a point that I can show benchmarks where XP wins handily. Benchmarks are useless. When I posted that my Core2Duo was slower in Win7, I was talking about system speed DURING ACTUAL USAGE (multitasking, etc), NOT benchmarking.

I'm going to go to the extra trouble do an informal benchmark. I set up a fresh copy of Windows 7 Pro SP1 and Windows XP Pro SP3 and did a boot time comparison:

(Boot is complete when the HD light stops thrashing and all items in tray have appeared.)
Win 7 Pro sp1 : 51-54 sec
Win XP Pro sp3: 20-24 sec

On this system, XP sp3 is CLEARLY faster at booting. There. Hey cjohnson2136, Windows XP IS faster on my system than Windows 7 for one aspect of every day use. I am simply not going to waste any more time on this to prove to you guys that XP is better on an older machine. I've put far more effort into this than any of you and I'm confident I made my case.

quote:
You're done augiem.


You have turned this discussion into a total farce. The fact that you can be SO wrong and SO arrogant while doing it astounds me.

But you know what? That's actually the first thing you've gotten right this entire time. Yes Reclaimer, I'm done with you.


RE: Well what do you expect?
By augiem on 10/19/2011 7:39:41 PM , Rating: 2
Not that I think anyone's reading this thread anymore, but I wanted to add one more startup test to the mix. For lack of time, my original benchmark was using XP Pro 32-bit SP3 and Windows 7 Pro 64-bit SP1. In fairness, I just did it again using Windows 7 Pro 32-bit SP1.

Windows 7 Pro 32-bit SP1: 42 seconds


RE: Well what do you expect?
By geddarkstorm on 10/18/2011 5:12:40 PM , Rating: 2
If you were talking about Vista, you'd be dead on. There's more reasons it was a terrible OS than just messed up third party support.


RE: Well what do you expect?
By Reclaimer77 on 10/18/2011 7:16:29 PM , Rating: 2
Actually if you check my link, Vista after the service pack is still faster than XP ever was.


RE: Well what do you expect?
By Digimonkey on 10/18/2011 8:54:07 AM , Rating: 2
So because it works for you they should keep supporting it along with new OS releases, or are you saying because it works for you it must work for everyone and they should just stay with XP?

You can turn Aero off. Windows 7 will use up memory that's available (memory you aren't using) to be more efficient in it's operations.

And really complaining about a OS taking up 10GB when Terabyte hard drives cost $50?


RE: Well what do you expect?
By Reclaimer77 on 10/18/2011 11:42:35 AM , Rating: 2
Yes and I can do everything in a cave that you can do in your home. That doesn't really address the issue.

But I can see I'm wasting my time, you're ignorant. You don't understand the basics of the computers. You should just buy Apple and be done with it.

quote:
Microsoft IS cramming Seven down our throats, because they have cut off all avenues of purchasing it.


Honda is cramming the Civic down our throats!! Why can't I purchase the CRX!!?? They've cut off all avenues of buying them whaaaaaaaa!

Do you realize XP debut 10 years ago? Come on man, it's time to move on.


RE: Well what do you expect?
By jiffylube1000 on 10/17/2011 10:48:54 PM , Rating: 2
"Cramming Windows 7 down our throats"? You mean they put it on new PC's like every major OS ever released by both Microsoft and Apple?

Microsoft is providing support for Windows XP until 2014 -- 13 years of support for the OS. That's way more than any other consumer OS in history. It would be dishonest for MS to continue to sell XP knowing that it has only ~2 years of support left.

http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-gb&C...


RE: Well what do you expect?
By cyberserf on 10/17/2011 11:48:51 PM , Rating: 2
maybe that shows how darn good it is.


RE: Well what do you expect?
By cjohnson2136 on 10/18/2011 2:36:58 PM , Rating: 2
Or maybe it just shows how many old people refuse to change


RE: Well what do you expect?
By Makaveli on 10/18/2011 2:36:05 PM , Rating: 2
I sure as hell would not be using Windows XP if it still available its old and unsecure no thanks.

Not to mention its not optimal for my Quad core box with 12GB's of ram.

From an end user stand point no thanks!


Yeah, but
By Dorkyman on 10/17/2011 2:34:39 PM , Rating: 3
What the article doesn't say is how much of the W7 count is due to the fact that MS forces it on nearly all new PC purchases. IOW how many W7 licenses were bought to replace XP, Vista, or (gasp) W98?

I don't think it's fair to crow about the large installed base if in fact most of that "installed base" came about because nothing else was offered on PC purchases.




RE: Yeah, but
By augiem on 10/17/2011 6:19:39 PM , Rating: 2
True, but consider the available pre-installed OS situation was the same back when XP came out. So you are comparing apples to apples here. (That's a lower case a, btw! :)


RE: Yeah, but
By mechBgon on 10/17/2011 10:08:26 PM , Rating: 2
I've watched the stats at Valve/Steam's hardware survey for years. WinXP was already losing ground to Vista at about 2% per month before Win7 arrived, probably due to DX10 support and >4GB RAM support, and of course new PCs that came with Vista. Anyway, the rate of WinXP abandonment on Steam's userbase appears to be about twice the mainstream.

Current data here, sometimes gets wonky at the start of a new month: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/


RE: Yeah, but
By cjohnson2136 on 10/18/2011 1:19:16 PM , Rating: 2
What would you expect them to offer. An OS that is 2 years old or an OS over a decade old? Why would you think MSFT would offer XP still?


RE: Yeah, but
By Dorkyman on 10/24/2011 11:34:00 AM , Rating: 2
That's exactly my point.

MS is in business to sell software. Once it's sold, unless the user signs up for some kind of support, no more revenue from that customer.

So MS needs to game the system by forcing a new OS on new hardware. Even though the old OS was fine for most purposes.

XP works just fine on all our systems. We will not "upgrade" until FORCED to do so from application incompatibility.


picture fail
By kattanna on 10/17/2011 12:36:51 PM , Rating: 3
after the turd that was DNF, using duke in any hail to the king reference needs to be removed LOL




RE: picture fail
By KungFu_Toe on 10/17/2011 12:46:16 PM , Rating: 2
It might be time to revert back to the Army of Darkness reference that Duke Nukem stole from.


RE: picture fail
By Reclaimer77 on 10/17/2011 12:51:47 PM , Rating: 2
lol yeah Ash's "hail to the king, baby" is the way to go on this.

This could work:
http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/...


Wait a second...
By dashrendar on 10/17/2011 12:17:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Windows 7 soared to a 40.21 percent (appr.) installation rate in under 2 years, bumping the much beloved Windows XP to second place (38.64 percent).


Installation rate? Does that mean Windows 7 installation rate is up to 40.21% right now compared to Windows XP installation rate of 38.64%... right now or 8 years ago?




RE: Wait a second...
By quiksilvr on 10/17/2011 12:23:11 PM , Rating: 2
Rate was incorrectly used. Installation BASE would have been the proper terminology.

For clarification, please refer to the link below:

http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-ww-monthly-200910-20...


RE: Wait a second...
By kittypuncher on 10/17/2011 12:28:51 PM , Rating: 2
Having read this news elsewhere, I think it's a bad choice of words. "install rate" should be "install base" or even market share.
I don't think XP is selling ~100M-150 copies a year, circa 2011.


Good to hear but
By bupkus on 10/17/2011 12:49:37 PM , Rating: 3
Admittedly, I only use desktops. I don't have a smartphone. I have a tablet but only because I caught the Touchpad price fever. I only use it occasionally.

I don't think there's any excitement in either the desktop or even the laptop world. They're not sexy but they're powerful, dependable tools that get the bulk of the work done for most people.

It's hard to give up one's 23-24" monitor and a full sized keyboard even though I kinda like pushing things around on a touch screen. Maybe some cheap version of the tablet or smartphone will replace my mouse. Who knows. Big screens are great but I wouldn't want a big 46" touch screen. Besides the obvious cost who'd want to stand all day.

Yep, I don't expect many posts on this thread.
Oh, and please do everyone a favor and don't turn this simple little article into a flame field for MS vs. Apple.




By jiffylube1000 on 10/17/2011 10:51:12 PM , Rating: 2
I think Windows 8 sounds appealing when combined with a new touchscreen PC or tablet, but I doubt I'll be upgrading my or my family's desktops and laptops any time soon. It looks like the Metro UI is less useful and functional for non touchscreen devices. Windows 7 is the new XP; a functional, fast, not-too-bloated OS.




why many XP users don't upgrade
By cyberserf on 10/17/2011 11:57:37 PM , Rating: 2
windows 7 looks like they are marketing it to kids.
instead of one step to use an menu option it takes 2-3 in windows7. that is progress?




Obviously.
By 0ldman on 10/18/2011 10:22:05 AM , Rating: 2
One of the main reasons for Windows 7 to outsell XP is because Microsoft is making XP more difficult to get.

This isn't really news, this is just stating that when Microsoft decides to make XP unavailable people will buy the newer version.

I sold 3 PC's this week that I needed XP Pro for custom software (small scale business app) and had to get Windows 7 Pro 32bit and hope for the best.

I like 7, but the rest of the world, particularly low volume business apps, are *still* not ready.




MS is hoping too much.
By zodiacfml on 10/18/2011 11:39:56 AM , Rating: 2
Good job for their on Win 7 but it's well good enough just to be replaced Win 8. MS should bet Win 8 on all new PC and devices.




"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki