Thanks Pooh Bear....I saved this information for future use. I have a Dell Desk Top with XP, a Dell Lap top with Vista and my husband has a Dell Desk top with Windows 7. I love my XP....in my humble opinion, I think XP is the best program so does my Computer man.

I read this in WorldStart Newsletter today 5/10/13:

"XP users refuse to let go.

With the official retirement date Windows XP on April 8, 2014 inching closer and closer, the number of people using XP isnâÂÂt dropping. According to Net Application the number of XP users dropped by only half a percentage point in April. XP accounts for 41.7% of all Windows systems worldwide, barely down from 42.2% in March.

The adoption rate for the highly controversial Window 8 inched up only by half a percent in March to 4.2% of all Windows users."

It has been reported that the core reason of XP remaining popular is it is the version with the most new users ever, particularly senior citizens. Comfort and familiarity go a long way for some people as they can be resistive to change.

DA

XP was the only Windows version available for more years than any other so far, that's why the installed base is so large. Also, the fact that its replacement (Vista) had some problems kept people clinging tightly to XP.

Most users don't upgrade to new Win versions (unlike Apple OS users), so machines that started with XP mostly kept it unchanged. The XP percent of the installed base will decrease as those machines die, not as a result of popularity or preference.

My guess is that many senior citizens have XP machines because as a user group, they tend to have older machines than the general population of PC users.

This post was edited by snidely on Fri, May 10, 13 at 12:17

Vistas "problems" in general were more preceived than actual. It was a system advancement focused on security with 80% of the code the same as W7 which later upon frelease focused on performance.

The "gamers" , who at that time were driving the home PC industry, didn't like the Vista performance, and that cast a cloud over the system. Also, Vista pared away obsolete code that rendered some peripherals obsolete. (A user can kind of read future 64-bit releases here too.)

Now with multi-media, "the cloud", and portability driving the industry there just might be a time when users will have to abandon XP if they wish to utilize then current offerings.

However, until that time everyone can enjoy as they wish. I still run my Vista at home. It's stable, fast, and multi-featured.

DA

Wasn't Vista a complete rewrite, and so the first Win version that wasn't sitting on top of DOS? I may not have that right.

For many years after XP was long gone from the retail scene, Microsoft allowed large enterprise customers (like my employer, with many tens of thousands of users) to continue to have their supplier PC manufacturers install XP and similarly outdated versions of Office on new machines. It was strictly a cost matter, not out of reverence to XP. It was because of a decision that changing existing training programs and materials, support processes, staff retraining, and changes to custom applications was too costly and provided little benefit in return. As a result, we were many versions behind with popular programs we used but everything worked well together year in, year out.

Well gentlemen...it looks to me as though MS blended the best of both worlds [XP-SP3 and Vista] under the heading of Win 7. And Win 8, going forward, will more than likely be geared towards the gamers of the virtual world. I'm a non-gamer senior citizen who upgraded from XP-SP3 to Win 7 and Office 2010 for security and ease of operation. I didn't even bother with Vista. It had too many issues just out of the gate. I'll stay with Win 7 and Office 2010 until there's something better that fits my personal needs whether that be tomorrow or ten years from now. Security is my major impetus.

Anne

S,

As I recall Vista was still on the NT architecture as was XP.

I could have writen your comments in regards to employer lag time. During the winter they provided me with a new W7 system. It is absolutely a better system than the XP-SP3 I was using, and it is certainly nice to use current versions of software.

I can't compare it to my Vista as the W7 is business configured where the Vista is home configured. Apples and oranges in this case.

Anne,

Can't disagree with your staying with W7 one bit. If Scotty could beam my Vista desktop over to you other than superficial I bet you would barely notice the difference between it and W7.

You may remember I was going to purchase a W8 laptop during the winter as a toy. I never got around to it, and haven't spent but a few moments at Best Buy on one.

DA

This post was edited by damccoy on Fri, May 10, 13 at 15:14

Yup...you may be right about Vista, DA. Personally, not having tried it...I can't attest to its actual performance but I'm liking whatever it contributed to Win 7. Personally [again], I think MS was pushed by their own hype, fueled by public pressure, to create a new version of Windows after they issued SP3 for XP and Vista was the result of that pressure. It needed a little more tweaking from everything I read and had they spent just a little more time with it...it would have been the Win 7 that we have today. Win 7 is still a little ahead of public demand performance wise so I think it'll be supported longer than they first intended. It..with the addition of Office 2010...is a terrific system IMO.

I don't think you've missed anything by delaying/postponing or ignoring the purchase of Win 8 unless you're into gaming, DA. And....if you are...save your coins and wait for Win 10. It'll far outshine v.8....IMO.

Anne

The only problem I had with vista was a white page, but that was very rare. W7 was hard to learn, but I stuck with it and I like it as just as well as XP. I am not excited about W 8, but am anxious to see if W 10 is different from 8 or if it made along the same lines.

Anne, software companies produce new product versions just as car companies do, and clothing manufacturers do, and .....(fill in the blank). It's what they do - you can't sell the same old thing over and over again, customers expect new products with new features. Whether they need them or not, and whether it matters or not.

Having been on the inside of many software companies, I can tell you that features and specs for many "next version" development projects are often set well before the preceding version is even released. Given a list of new or demanded features, decisions are made about which get incorporated sooner and which are delayed for the next version.

S wrote, "..... I can tell you that features and specs for many "next version" development projects are often set well before the preceding version is even released."

Well, this hurts but he is right at least this one time.

As an example, the current release for Chrome is v26.0.410.64. The current beta version is v28.0.1500.5 Dev. Between them there were 24 beta and development releases. Most likely not all of these versions were consecutive in nature. Some were undoubtedly concurrent.

DA

I don't want cause the sand castle to collapse, DA, but you have said that a time or two before. That gives me a goal to aim for.

Most companies use very rigorous methodologies to keep track of what version is which and who's working toward what end. Some of what's done is called "branching", where locked down features get spun out of the development stream. That way, development can continue but the subset of locked down features can be completed, tested, and released.

All the good ideas and previously identified improvements are rarely all put into the "next version". First of all, not all may be done before when the new version needs to be released. Also, doing so would leave the cupboard bare for things to throw into the version after the next one.

Simply stated, rarely. However, I always attempt to give credit or support when due. Even if it galls me. The concept is called honor.

DA

When evaluating software or hardware, it makes sense to ignore the popular press, especially the tech blogs and to an extent, consumer opinion.

Change is difficult for us humans and the early reviews of XP bear it out.

Below is a snapshot of cnet's Windows XP review back in 2001. I got to this page using the web archive. Note that cnet bemoans the fact that a user can only load XP on one computer. Really cnet? And note user opinions: 48% disliked XP after its first several months.

Microsoft was roundly criticized for not having an OS that would work across all platforms: computer, tablet and mobile phone. Now Win 8 is negatively reviewed for not having a start button. Anyone remember when the criticism was that Windows had a start button?

I use Win7 home premium on this computer and Win7 Pro on my daytrading rig. The next computer I buy will have Windows 8. I am sure it will be fine.

Here is a link that might be useful: XP back then

John I agree, it is hard for most people to change and usually those people just use the computer as a tool. I am lucky I can adjust to most any situation or anything. As far as PC's go, it's far more than a tool to me. It is the world's largest encyclopedia and I can find answers to all of my questions about any and everything. I love setting up a new system and then learning it. I feel so good when I accomplish some small thing that is annoying me like no quick launch on W 7.

I resisted moving to XP because, I really loved windows 98, however, once I finally installed XP, I have really liked it too. I also have a Vista machine here, and I like it a lot too. I admit to using the XP a lot more than the Vista, but, that is because, I dislike the wide screen monitor on the vista. I dislike that with a passion. I have no plans at this time, or anywhere in the near future to upgrade from XP or Vista. I have used windows 7 machines though, and would probably be quite happy with one, once I got used to it. The one time, I used windows 8, didnt impress me much.

John,

Read and chuckled at your link. Thanks.

DA