Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Michael B Garrett
316 Followers
Radz Mangsat
1 Followers
Ferdous Mahmud
52 Followers
shammi sultana
0 Followers
panyanxian
35 Followers
Willi Pratama
13 Followers
danbarkerOct 4, 2010
And... this is obvious. Win7 hasn't been out that long and Win Vista is a pile of crap.
JamSquadOct 4, 2010
I agree, why would you be on vista, its buggy, and loves to eat up for memory.
slizzoOct 5, 2010
It's not "eating up your memory". It's UTILIZING it by caching commonly used applications in memory so they launch faster for you.
If you're that concerned about it you can revert to the early 2000's (e.g. Stone Age) and turn it off.
lvaneedeOct 5, 2010
With service pack 2, vista is a perfectly good operating system. I use it all the time at work.
stignordasOct 4, 2010
Makes sense, win7 is takes a truckload of hardware to run well, XP still runs on crappy old hardware.
omarbonillaOct 4, 2010
Windows 7 hardly needs a truckload of hardware to run well by today's standards. Runs perfectly with my three year old 1.6 GHz AMD Turion notebook with 2 GB of memory.
Closed AccountOct 4, 2010
<cough> you're full of s**t. </cough> Only if you have the OS running on minimum settings maybe... and that would make it XP pretty much.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
riotbladeOct 4, 2010
I don't know if this is considered a truckload of hardware but it runs fine on my P4 2.8 ghz with 2 gB of ram (normal settings).
soycapOct 4, 2010
Sorry, but gotta agree with omarbonilla. In my experience, Windows 7 is super stable and better than XP even on a somewhat older machine. It is not only about the Areo interface, 7 is a tighter and cleaner OS. I run 7 on a 4 year old Lenovo T60 (2.0 Ghz, 2.5 GB) with Areo and it runs just as quick and is more stable than XP.
piddlydOct 4, 2010
I'm running Win 7 Pro on an Atom 1.6 notebook, with Aero. It isn't winning any 3D gaming events, but it runs stable and quick. Ubuntu 9.10 was far more difficult to install and ran much slower on this particular system (A Lenovo S-10 netbook). I've been watching streaming video using the Boxee app on it over a 3G MiFi hotspot, and it works fine in this capacity - no noticeable frame-rate stutter or artifacts.
XP might run *quicker*, but it lacks a lot of features, security and comfort of Win 7. The trade off in performance is worth the modern interface. If speed of the OS was the primary concern, you would run DOS 3.3, before all the Dos 5 and later bloat slowed things down. These arguments are stupid. Of course a 10 year old OS is going to be more lightweight and run faster than a modern OS built to leverage the performance capabilities of modern machines. It isn't all about speed. XP has had an unnaturally long lifespan and enjoyed strong after-market support. XP was a great OS - Anyone who remembers wanting to see the stability of Win NT 4.0 merged with the ease of use and commercial support of Win95/98 knows that Win 2000 was the down-payment on that promise, and Windows XP was the delivery. Likewise, Vista was the teaser and Windows 7 was the delivery on a significant enhancement on XP, which is obviously dated at this point.
But if you can't get Win 7 to run on low-specced hardware, you're doing it wrong. Sounds like operator error, to me.
Closed AccountOct 4, 2010
..And XP will still run MUCH better on that system. Don't kid yourself, you know it's true.
danbarkerOct 4, 2010
No, it doesnt.
omarbonillaOct 8, 2010
So would Windows 3.1.
pinkythewinkyOct 5, 2010
Thats not true... Someone in my office upgraded to Win7 and 2gb ram ran out constantly. He could only run one application at a time.
polux246Oct 5, 2010
Windows 7 runs on a pentium 2 :
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Windows-7-Pentium-II,8110.html
zephyrninetyOct 5, 2010
Yeah, and doesn't run anything pre-2007. Don't even mention XP-Mode because we've all tried it and it almost never works.
trick07Oct 5, 2010
Loaded Windows 7 on a 9 year old Intel 1.7GHz P4 with 768MB of ram we had sitting around, ready for the surplus pile. It didn't like the Radeon PRO II card but ran just as well as XP did. Boot time was a bit longer than XP but once loaded, the performance was what you would expect from XP. I was really surprised how well 7 worked on this machine...
saturn5Oct 5, 2010
I have Win7 running on a laptop with a 1.6GHz Celeron and 1GB of ram. It runs just as well as XP did. And no more "Antivirus 2010" or other malware that XP will happily install for you.
maximmOct 5, 2010
vista needs a truckload of hardware to run. win7 will run on old machines and runs well. simply the best os m$ ever put out.
hselomeinOct 5, 2010
But windows 2000 runs on even crappier hardware and 98 even more crappier, doesn't mean people should stick to the older software, any computer built in 2004 and newer can run windows 7 fine.
b0nemanOct 4, 2010
My crappy hardware used to have an advanced mouse (Logitech MX700). I installed Windows7 and have been transported, at once, to 1995 and 2010 because the drivers for it are non-existent. My old ATI AIW 9600 card doesn't have all its bells and whistles either .
Support for our aging machines was not in the plans. It makes sense but it still kind of hurts that some of our peripherals that we know and love have to die. I will keep searching for the hack that makes my mouse come back as going back to XP is not an option. Windows7 is a great OS.
bdbrOct 4, 2010
Its not quite that bad, but close. The driver model changed with Vista, so basically everything before about 2008/9 won't work unless the hardware vendor wrote drivers for older stuff (unlikely).
lucidboomerOct 4, 2010
Proof that viruses are hard to kill.....
i0110110Oct 4, 2010
The article seems to miss the fact that most people's primary Operating System experience isn't a matter of their choice. The high percentage of Windows XP installation is primarily due to the install base of businesses. As danbarker commented, Win7 has not been out that long. Most large companies haven't had the time to do proper compatibility testing and distribution builds. Add onto that the necessitated equipment updates that are also required pushed back the time it takes to adopt. The graph clearly shows a upward trend in adoption. It isn't going to immediately change. The fact that 16-bit application support is gone will also keep a few companies from EVER being able to move from older platforms, at least on certain key systems.
Home users are a whole other issue. How many home users actually upgrade their OS? They may do updates, but a very small percentage will upgrade the OS that comes pre-installed (no matter how easy it is to do). Most home users will just keep the OS that comes on the machine until they eventually upgrade to a whole new computer. I have actually recently seen a Windows 98 machine in the wild because the owner has not seen the need to upgrade and they DON'T want to change the software. It runs fine for what they do. While it is insecure for internet use, when it only drives an older pattern-sewing machine, why go through the hassle of upgrading and finding the drivers for a new system?
starshipOct 4, 2010
sew what's your point? ;)
dfarqOct 4, 2010
Indeed. I have a friend who just bought a Windows 7-based laptop. He's been running Windows 98 for the last 12 years or so. He was happy enough with how it worked, and all the software was familiar. I think the main reason he upgraded was fear that the hardware didn't have much life left in it, which, after 12 years, is certainly valid.
I have some other acquaintances who continue to swear up and down that Windows 98SE was the last good version of Windows, and go out of their way to mention "my tried and true Win98SE" every chance they get, regardless of the topic at hand.
I don't know if they tried XP early on and had a bad experience, or if they just saw it and didn't like it and never tried it, but for whatever reason, they hold on tightly to 98SE.
So, no, XP holdouts won't surprise me one bit.
And yes, in business, not being able to go about your daily routine is very expensive. So any migration away from XP is going to be slow, careful, and considered. Just like the upgrade TO Windows XP was. It came out in 2001, but many businesses didn't have it completely deployed for another three or four years after that.
trick07Oct 5, 2010
We have 2200+ workstations on our campus... we just officially rolled out Windows 7 64-Bit and that is mainly on the new computer arrivals. 99% of our computers are less than five years old and are capable of running Windows 7 64-Bit, but with only three working techs older workstations will only get 7 as needed or when they are worked on...
FPSmotoOct 4, 2010
I'll be installing Windows 7 when I get the time and effort to organize my PC. And since that will not be happening any time soon, looks like XP and I will be best buds for a few more years.
confuciussayOct 4, 2010
Many will be forced to switch soon as product vendors phase out support for their applications on win xp to take advantage of 64bit architectures.
acknotswOct 4, 2010
And many more will be forced to stay with windows XP because of the need to support legacy systems that simply won't run under 7 or even in XP mode under 7. XP use is certainly on the decline, but it's going to be around for a good long while yet.
soycapOct 4, 2010
If you want 7, but still need XP you have the option to run the XP mode Virtual Machine which is a free download for 7 Pro, Enterprise, or Ultimate.
acknotswOct 4, 2010
Some older programs don't work well or at all in virtual environments.
icexeOct 4, 2010
Most people nowadays don't know and don't care what OS their machines are running. It's simply a platform from which to launch their web applications or the one or two productivity apps they use daily.
I recently replaced my mother-in-law's ancient XP machine with a shiny new Win7 machine and not one single time has she ever explored anything beyond finding out where the "blue E" went. She could care less about the new UI, document libraries, Aero peek, the new task bar, or the new easier ways to share files. I could put her back on that old XP machine tomorrow, and I doubt she would even notice.
With the vast majority of the user base being just like her, combined with the crappy economy, it's hard to justify the expense of upgrading or purchasing new machines just to handle Win7.
acknotswOct 4, 2010
My father is the same way, we replaced his laptop with an iPad and he has yet to find anything he did on the laptop that he can't do with his iPad.
Of the dozen or so people in my family where I'm well acquainted with their computer use, all but 2 could easily do with just a decent tablet device, iPad or Android, it would be all the same to them.
PC’s are going to be around for a very long time, especially in corporate environments, but I wouldn’t be too surprised to see a massive decline in desktop/laptop purchases by consumers in the coming years. Gamers and students will probably be the main desktop/laptop consumers outside the business world, and of course, people who work from home. Interesting times……
mredofcourseOct 4, 2010
This is part of the reason why Microsoft's stock has been stagnant.
Microsoft is in a catch-22 when it comes to Windows, Office and some other cash cows.
With Windows, the problem is that if they create an OS that pushes forward to far, they'll break compatibility with hardware and software as well as upset people by doing things differently and forcing them to learn the new ways. The "problems" will be seen as bugs with the new OS and people will put off upgrading...at least until the point where they take the upgrade with the new PC it comes preloaded on and the old OS isn't available.
However, if they do a minor upgrade, people will see the new OS as not being worth it because nothing significant has changed.
What Microsoft ends up with is an ever increasing R&D cost for Windows, but the sales of Windows tied more and more to replacement PCs. This is much different from the 90s where the PC market was growing rapidly and even upgrading rapidly and where Microsoft could also make a lot of money on upgrades to Windows.
Not to be a fan boy (as this has nothing to do with what OS you prefer), but this is contrary to Apple; wherein Apple makes a frequent number of minor upgrades, charging along the way. Apple sells the upgrades based mostly on new *consumer* features and ease of upgrading for the minor upgrades. From time to time they do major upgrades, but aren't afraid to cut off the old as obsolete. The trade off here is that this can really piss people off, but if you "subscribe" to Apple, then they get you upgrading and make money from either the OS upgrade, the hardware upgrade and now sometimes with the software and even peripheral upgrades.
theyac3Oct 4, 2010
I still run XP. Windows 7 is a good OS though. Microsoft just angered a lot of people with Vista and the grudge seems to be holding....
bdbrOct 4, 2010
The rationale for upgrading from Win95 to Win98 to XP was easy - those earlier versions were horribly unstable. I've been running Win7 at work for two months, and I really can't see a reason to upgrade my home systems.
dfarqOct 4, 2010
Agreed. The $150 price for the Win7 family pack is tempting, but I really don't want to upgrade to Windows 7 until I can go fully 64-bit. And I can't do that until I have at least a 64-bit web browser with the necessary plugins (Flash being the biggest one) and a 64-bit Openoffice/Libreoffice to run on it.
I can go buy Windows 7 and new hardware in anticipation of that, but how long will I wait? Six months? A year? Two years? If it's longer than the beginning of next quarter, there's no point because by the time the software catches up, the hardware will be better and cheaper.
What I have now is dated, but it works very reliably and at the moment there isn't anything I need to do that I can't. So it's not like I'm hurting for Windows 7.
saturn5Oct 5, 2010
I upgraded all of my home systems. Windows 7 is far superior to XP for a lot of reasons, but especially because of the greatly improved security. A laptop that my wife and son use had XP. Even with MSE installed I had to remove Antivirus 2010 or some other fake antivirus almost every week. I haven't had a single problem with it since upgrading to Win7, even without an AV installed.
seroevoOct 5, 2010
You're going to the wrong porn sites. Or your wife keeps looking up celebrity gossip.
JamSquadOct 4, 2010
I'd be on XP if my comp didn't blue-screen every time I launch from the disk.. FML.
Closed AccountOct 4, 2010
You're obviously doing something wrong.
jdjackson920Oct 4, 2010
you like it, i love it!
Closed AccountOct 4, 2010
slow economy... people are keeping computers longer... and why upgrade? if you are using a windows xp computer, chances are an upgrade will make your computer run slower, unless you upgrade hardware too... and by then you might as well buy a new tower or laptop... and people dont have that kind of disposable income right now
pudgyvOct 4, 2010
ALPS finally quit making printers that can print both gold and silver. I have one of the earlier models of which I had more than enough trouble getting to run under Windows XP. Driver support evaporated after Windows 98! The supplies will be available for another 5 years. Maybe by then, when my stash of ink cartridges is used up, I will upgrade to a new tower and OS.
bdjcOct 5, 2010
Windows 7 on your PC with a Windows 98 Virtual PC/VMware image to support your printer seems like a good idea for situations like this. You can have the best of both worlds.
chrballOct 5, 2010
Consumers aren't stuck in 2001. They're just a few years behind (Windows 7 being included on systems is still relatively new). The bigger problem is that almost all school districts and corporations are still running on old XP systems and have no ambition to upgrade.
Consumers will almost always support the latest & greatest products. Establishments are MUCH slower to adopt new things.
itcollOct 5, 2010
well,that is not surprising one bit,is it?
noneofthemOct 5, 2010
I have tried both Windows Vista and Windows 7. The latter scores a lot better than Vista but still doesn´t suit me well enough to give me a reason to switch. I actually switched from Windows XP to Ubuntu in 2005 because I wanted to use a modern OS on my machines that just works. Both Windows Vista and now Windows 7 did not qualify for my needs. Of course there are many users out there who simply don´t want to try something new or they are not able to, so they stick to what they have until they have no choice (no support from MS). Sad but true. Microsoft should stop giving their users what Microsoft wants them to use, they should give their users what the users want.
nuttehOct 5, 2010
Article fails to take in Enterprise at all.. Which is the REAL reason Microsoft want to transitition users from XP to 7.
Problem is enterprises with 5000+ computers like mine cant simply just move to windows 7. Application planning and compatibility has improved since we started looking at moving from XP to Vista, its still a lot of manual work to ensure that everything transitions smoothly.
gkiltzOct 5, 2010
Those things that it was designed to do, it was actually quite good at!
seroevoOct 5, 2010
It's all relative.
For the average person, there is absolutely no reason to upgrade your OS, especially when doing so can cost $150+ (or involve pirating it).
I still run XP on my PC which is a 2.8 Ghz Pentium 4 from 2004. Between 2005-2007 I upgraded a few things for a variety of reasons, like adding a hard drive, replacing a failed power supply, upgrading optical drive, video card, and memory. But for the last few years it does everything I need it to, which is basically be a media center, browser, print center.
To upgrade the OS on that machine when XP does everything I need isn't resistant to change or behind, it's just outright unnecessary. When I need to get a new PC, I'm sure it'll have Windows 7 installed and I'll stick with that, I won't revert, but in the meantime it's just not necessary.
slink73Oct 5, 2010
Cause it has turbo debugger
johnilmOct 5, 2010
Upgrading is too expensive and too 'complicated' for most users. People see it as a hassle, not a must-have.
They say most people are still using XP. I bet they are probably still using XP SP1 and don't even know about SP3. If upgrading isn't done automatically, most people probably aren't going to do it.
lrstratOct 5, 2010
Microsoft needs to do what Apple did with MAC OS-X. Tell all the hardware and software vendors to embrace the new OS and kill all backwards compatibly. Its sad that Windows 7 biggest problem is with lazy third-party developers.
max1001Oct 5, 2010
I tell you why. Because most IT managers are pussy and they are too scare to adopt a new OS. Doesn't matter what that OS is.
pijussau1Oct 5, 2010
i tried this too. Cool :)
dancon7Oct 5, 2010
I recently went into a FedEx Office to print a groupon out of my email, and their computers are still running '98. I thought that was odd for a company that was selling me access to the internet, and they have a 12 year old OS, but I guess it would be pretty expensive for a company-wide upgrade of that scale.
joshcdtOct 5, 2010
The fact of the matter is that XP is the most stable option at the moment. Win7 is great, but people who don't update their tech regularly.
-ComputerFitness.com
freeman249Oct 8, 2010
nice it.......