# Percentage Of XP, Vista, 7 Users



## flavallee

Here is a graphic chart showing the increase and decrease in XP, Vista, 7 users during the past year.

http://news.softpedia.com/newsImage/XP-Fading-while-Windows-7-Gains-Ground-3.jpg/

XP appears to still lead the pack with 48%.

-------------------------------------------------------


----------



## TheShooter93

It's about that time where the old hardware isn't doing enough for people with older computers, so they have to go out and buy a new one that has Windows 7 installed already.

Something I noticed around here on campus is that most machines run Windows 7, but then places like my "math lab" (essentially a room with around 300 desktop computers in it) have all Windows XP machines.


----------



## Firebreather

TheShooter93 said:


> It's about that time where the old hardware isn't doing enough for people with older computers, so they have to go out and buy a new one that has Windows 7 installed already.


Maybe you are right..... Even at our university most of the computers (both laptops and desktops) run XP. Very few are there with Windows 7. Thankfully, our ergonomics lab has both XP and 7.

Another thing I noticed is that not everyone is comfortable using 7..... God knows why, they still prefer XP.


----------



## flavallee

The simplicity of XP compared to 7 is what I believe keeps many people from making the switch from XP to 7 and what keeps XP still so popular.

As long as hardware and software have support for XP, I don't see its demise anytime soon.

Let's see what happens after Microsoft stops supporting it in Spring 2014.

-------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Noyb

Firebreather said:


> .. God knows why, they still prefer XP...


W7 ..
Can't see Icons on the desktop without disabling Thumbnail Browsing.
Can't manually sort the contents of a folder.
Can't customize the R Click Context menus
Doesn't like my KVM switching and dual displays.
Can work faster in XP without all the Nag/Confirmation popups .. Even if it didn't have a SSD
As near as I can tell at this point .. W8 is just W7 with a new interface.


----------



## SevenUp132

Noyb said:


> W7 ..
> Can't see Icons on the desktop without disabling Thumbnail Browsing.
> Can't manually sort the contents of a folder.
> Can't customize the R Click Context menus
> Doesn't like my KVM switching and dual displays.
> Can work faster in XP without all the Nag/Confirmation popups .. Even if it didn't have a SSD
> As near as I can tell at this point .. W8 is just W7 with a new interface.


Sorry but...
I can see my icons on the desktop without disabling thumbnail browsing.
I can manually sort content of a folder.
I can customize my R Click context menu.
All the KVM switching and dual, triple and quad display I've done so far works like a charm.
All the new hotkeys and the docking system makes win7 much,much faster.
Finally, W8 is still at development state and cannot be compared to any polished OS.
...I dont know what your talking about.


----------



## valis

interesting find, flavallee.....going to have to explore that.


----------



## Noyb

SevenUp132 said:


> Sorry but...I can see my icons on the desktop without disabling thumbnail browsing.


If you've found a way to disable Thumbnail viewing on the Desktop *ONLY* ..
I'd sure like to know how .. I can't see/find what I'm working with .. And I'd like to be able to use my all of my customized Icons.
Were's the animated gif Image or the movie ???

Rather than HiJack this thread .. PM me


----------



## JustJudy

I'd like to know how they collected their data. If it's by computer and laptop sale and the OS on them, then it would be a flawed accounting since people change them (upgrade or downgrade). I'm just curious.


----------



## valis

Just saw another stat (forgot where) that says with the advent of smartphones and tablets, IE has finally sunk below 50% of the total browser usage.......thought that was impressive as well.


----------



## daniel_b2380

JustJudy
everytime you open a web-page, YOUR computer sends that info - just to be able to do the 'hand-shake' - [to be able to display the page for you], haven't you ever noticed some sites even telling you your version of windows and your browser and version?

so you just have to have an app that will keep track of that statistic for you - then write an article about it 

how about this:
http://www.google.org/flutrends/

then here:
How does this work? 
http://www.google.org/flutrends/about/how.html


----------



## JustJudy

daniel_b2380 said:


> JustJudy
> everytime you open a web-page, YOUR computer sends that info - just to be able to do the 'hand-shake' - [to be able to display the page for you], haven't you ever noticed some sites even telling you your version of windows and your browser and version?
> so you just have to have an app that will keep track of that statistic for you - then write an article about it


Daniel, 
I don't mean to be dense but, basically it only calculated the people that were on a certain webpage? If that's the case it's still flawed. One person (whose OS is XP) might go on that page 10 times whereas another (Whose OS is Win7) might have only gone to that page once. Or maybe I am misunderstanding?
Actually I do believe that XP is still way out front (in terms of quantity) of Windows 7 , and that is just going by our school district. We aren't ready yet (old equipment, not enough RAM, software issues- not to mention the cost) to migrate over to 7 yet. I imagine many are in the same boat.


----------



## daniel_b2380

JustJudy said:


> Daniel,
> I don't mean to be dense but, basically it only calculated the people that were on a certain webpage? If that's the case it's still flawed. One person (whose OS is XP) might go on that page 10 times whereas another (Whose OS is Win7) might have only gone to that page once. Or maybe I am misunderstanding?....


i don't personally know - i read the article also - it didn't seem to say - if the info had been gleaned from a number of browser search engines, etc - BUT - that's the WHY you can make numbers SEEM to back you up for whatever kind of statement one chooses to make  



> ....Actually I do believe that XP is still way out front (in terms of quantity) of Windows 7 , and that is just going by our school district. We aren't ready yet (old equipment, not enough RAM, software issues- not to mention the cost) to migrate over to 7 yet. I imagine many are in the same boat.


i wouldn't doubt that for a moment - for instance, i still smoke - BUT - less than 18%, [if we are to believe a bunch of numbers] - still do - HOWEVER - look inside at people in their vehicles going up and down the highways - i just don't seem to find that finding to seem to hold water  

and if congress doesn't get their heads from where they DON'T belong and start doing something for this country - may be a whole lot of companies AND individuals staying with some of the older oses

there, better get off my soapbox and quit hi-jacking the thread or flavallee will be throwing rocks at me


----------



## flavallee

Judging by the number of people in these forums who still use Windows XP in older computers and who buy newer computers with Windows Vista and Windows 7 and then downgrade them to Windows XP, it's pretty obvious that a large number of them are still happy with Windows XP - regardless of what the true percentage of Windows XP users is.

--------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Wino

Five PC's and one Media Center, all XP save one - so 5 to 1. Considering upgrading Media Center (MCE2005) to WIN 7 Home Prem. as MS has killed the MCE2005 TV Guide which kills the easy PVR feature setup and some other feature I don't recall.

Do not plan to upgrade the other four PC's (and all but one would run WIN 7), not so much for economics, although that plays a part, just don't have any reason as they all run just fine with XP. Where economics really kicks in is newer software and hardware peripherals I have that won't run under WIN 7 and may or may not work in W7 XP Mode virtual, which is really a PITA IMHO.

I'd venture a guess that my 5:1 ratio is pretty close to the average XP vs. W7. With the economy in it's current state I'd expect most corporation and small business see no drastic need to upgrade and with WIN 8 just around the corner will probably wait. Most of my industrial customers remain with XP. As I build my own PC's I'm fairly flexible - laptops, not much choice. Two of my PC's also dual boot with Ubuntu, which gets better and better with each release. I don't believe MS is in the drivers seat at this point.


----------



## Gswiss

Anybody using XP should stick with it. The motto in IT is "Never upgrade when you're happy with what you've got". It's only when you need new features that you should. Look at all those whiz kids who upgraded to Vista (Ha-ha) simply because it was new. You were a sissy if you didn't. Even Intel banned the product internally.

XP is still used in companies because they're wary of W7, although this is a better product than Vista (is Vista worse than Windows Millenium?). And as a John Doe user, you're better off keeping XP.

Note that all new MB's from ASUS support XP and Windows 2000 (SP4 was excellent).


----------



## Noyb

Gswiss said:


> Note that all new MB's from ASUS support XP


:up: I've been thinking about building my next computer so I could have a faster one with XP Pro 64.
The good XP tools I like and use have been left out of W7 and it looks like W8 is no better.


----------



## Gswiss

Anybody using XP should stick with it. The motto in IT is "Never upgrade when you're happy with what you've got". It's only when you need new features that you should. Look at all those whiz kids who upgraded to Vista (Ha-ha) simply because it was new. You were a sissy if you didn't. Even Intel banned the product internally.

XP is still used in companies because they're wary of W7, although this is a better product than Vista (is Vista worse than Windows Millenium?). And as a John Doe user, you're better off keeping XP.

Note that all new MB's from ASUS support XP and Windows 2000 (SP4 was excellent).


----------



## dotty999

I hope to have XP for as long as possible, I don't even like the look of Windows 7, had a quick try out but it's nowhere near as user friendly


----------



## TheShooter93

> I don't even like the look of Windows 7


Have to agree there -- Windows XP has the best look out of all of them.


----------



## Ent

Personally I use and really like Vista, but it can be annoying if you don't take the time to learn how it works. 

As to how they measured the thing, I've got no special insights into the matter but it strikes me that people aren't considering the awfully simple techniques. For example, you can still send a survey to a large random bunch of people to get a feel for what proportion of the population does something.


----------



## DaveBurnett

I've tried them all on several of my machines. As an ex MVP I got them free to try and took advantage.
In my opinion, ME and Vista were both marketing stopgaps and should never have been released.
I use Windows 7 on a daily basis on a machine that shouldn't be powerful enough to run it, but I also have XP Pro and Linux on it.


----------



## gyrgrls

What about Ubuntu and OSX users?


----------



## gyrgrls

DaveBurnett said:


> In my opinion, ME and Vista were both marketing stopgaps.


You are 100% correct, in my opinion. Yes, Windows 7 is good. But Unix is better.


----------



## dotty999

XPeeeeeeeeee!


----------



## gyrgrls

Don't forget:
Windows Millennium was designed to keep Windows 2000 out of the public pool, so to speak. Win 98 was supposed to be the end of life for non-NT operating systems on consumer machines. The next step was NT 5, but Mickey-Soft couldn't bear to market Windows 2000, and for a good reason - it was not user-friendly enough, and would generate a barrage of tech support calls - as did Me and Vista. Go figure.

XP is living proof that Billy should have left well enough alone, until his engies could come up with something stable, like 7.

Why, even Jobs conceded, that he was losing hold in the market, and finally put OSX on the IBM platform (starting with either Tiger or Snow Leopard...???)

But I digress.


----------



## gyrgrls

dotty999 said:


> XPeeeeeeeeee!


I still use XP SP2. It is an excellent version of Windows.

But, alas, software and hardware support are already dwindling

Time to start working on writing Linux drivers, I guess...


----------



## gyrgrls

Re: XP

Until a few years ago, i ran Windows 2000 on all my home workstations.
All of my friends ran W2K on their machines, as well
But then, after MS EOL'ed it, it became impractical, and one by one,
we were booted (no pun intended) to XP Pro.


----------



## gyrgrls

Noyb said:


> :up: I've been thinking about building my next computer so I could have a faster one with XP Pro 64.
> The good XP tools I like and use have been left out of W7 and it looks like W8 is no better.


Most of the tools are there, but you have to glean them from the install CD and the extra CD.

Trouble is: many store-bought systems come "pre-installed", with no install/recovery CD. This is tough doo-doo. This irks me. This is why I build my own systems, and buy retail (rather than OEM) products, especially operating systems. I will settle for certain OEM hardware, like bare drives, ethernet cards, ATM cards, etc... but that's about it.

Even Adobe and Wacom provide full install CD's or DVD's, so what's up with Mickey-Soft? Maybe MS went to Dell Hell.


----------



## gyrgrls

Gswiss said:


> Anybody using XP should stick with it.
> [cut]
> and Windows 2000 (SP4 was excellent).


Oh, I agree, wholeheartedly!

But I like RHEL 7 and CentOS, too!


----------



## Noyb

gyrgrls said:


> Most of the tools are there ...


NO ... You can't turn off folder sorting so you can manually sort.
Can't turn off the monitor search so you can use a KVM and Boot with no monitor connected.
Can't customize the R Click context menu
Can't disable Thumbnail viewing on the desktop ONLY so you can see Icons on the desktop and still browse in Thumbnails ..
etc ..etc ...
I think there was a shortage of OFF switches when W7 was Built ..
and it seems that M$ has forgot there's a difference in the purpose for (and the display of) Icons and Thumbnails


----------



## Blackmirror

dotty999 said:


> I hope to have XP for as long as possible, I don't even like the look of Windows 7, had a quick try out but it's nowhere near as user friendly


it took me 3 weeks to get used to 7 
i have found it very user friendly now !!!!


----------



## Noyb

I spent about a year or two trying to Hack W7 to get it to work as good as XP ..
I found it's easier to just use XP .. LOL


----------



## dotty999

I can't be converted to 7! I'll go screaming and shouting when my XP eventually gives up the ghost!


----------



## dukevyner

Noyb said:


> W7 ..
> Can't see Icons on the desktop without disabling Thumbnail Browsing.
> Can't manually sort the contents of a folder.
> Can't customize the R Click Context menus
> Doesn't like my KVM switching and dual displays.
> Can work faster in XP without all the Nag/Confirmation popups .. Even if it didn't have a SSD
> As near as I can tell at this point .. W8 is just W7 with a new interface.


*WINDOWS 8 IS GARBAGE... *win8 is win7... without a start menu yeah that one thing that every computer user knows and loves... GONE... its a damn over sized windows phone! "i don't want to live on this planet anymore" i personaly will be staying with windows xp and windows 7... yes i love xp but windows 7 is nice too... *BOYCOTT WIN8* LOL


----------



## Noyb

Metro on Office ???????


----------



## Firebreather

I'll second you dukevyner. :up:


----------



## gyrgrls

Noyb said:


> NO ... You can't turn off folder sorting so you can manually sort.
> Can't turn off the monitor search so you can use a KVM and Boot with no monitor connected.
> Can't customize the R Click context menu
> Can't disable Thumbnail viewing on the desktop ONLY so you can see Icons on the desktop and still browse in Thumbnails ..
> etc ..etc ...
> I think there was a shortage of OFF switches when W7 was Built ..
> and it seems that M$ has forgot there's a difference in the purpose for (and the display of) Icons and Thumbnails


These gui tools are overrated. Were these really removed from Windows 7?

Folder sorting can be disabled by either directly editing the registry, or via a free utility such as TweakUI.

Every new version of Windows seems to have some old, favorite, features removed.

As for right-click menus, there are many freeware aps that can take care of that, as well.

I never even bother with MS's sloppy thumbnail voew - I use either ACDSee or Irfanview to handle that.
Thumbnail viewing left a bunch of "thumbs.db" files all over the place, anyway, so it's one of the FIRST things I disable in XP.

YMMV.


----------



## Blackmirror

dotty999 said:


> I can't be converted to 7! I'll go screaming and shouting when my XP eventually gives up the ghost!


you old fogie


----------



## flavallee

Blackmirror said:


> you old fogie


Hey! Watch that "old fogie" comment. 

--------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Blackmirror

flavallee said:


> Hey! Watch that "old fogie" comment.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------


Sorry


----------



## dotty999

indeed!


----------



## Gswiss

DON'T switch from XP-SP2 to SP3. When I bought laptops with Vista pre-installed and installed XP in a dual boot mode, I chose XP3. Awful. A number of programs could no longer run with SP3 and especially a VOIP program. Do stick with SP2.


----------



## JustJudy

Gswiss said:


> DON'T switch from XP-SP2 to SP3. When I bought laptops with Vista pre-installed and installed XP in a dual boot mode, I chose XP3. Awful. A number of programs could no longer run with SP3 and especially a VOIP program. Do stick with SP2.


You can't install Office 2010 unless sp3 is installed.


----------



## jp1203

Noyb said:


> NO ... You can't turn off folder sorting so you can manually sort.
> Can't turn off the monitor search so you can use a KVM and Boot with no monitor connected.
> Can't customize the R Click context menu
> Can't disable Thumbnail viewing on the desktop ONLY so you can see Icons on the desktop and still browse in Thumbnails ..
> etc ..etc ...
> I think there was a shortage of OFF switches when W7 was Built ..
> and it seems that M$ has forgot there's a difference in the purpose for (and the display of) Icons and Thumbnails


I agree with you.

Another two things that drive me crazy in Windows 7:

-The start menu--Why would I want to scroll through a list of programs and click every folder to get to what's within it when in prior versions I could just mouse-over everything and see it all at once...no scrolling necessary. No way to revert this back.

The taskbar "icons"--I can't understand why an icon is supposed to be easier to use than a program (pictures just don't do it for me)... and if you have multiple instances of a program open, you have to play "hide and seek" to see which you want. Of course, this can be reverted to the 2000 style.


----------



## flavallee

Yep, there are a number of programs that won't install or update if Windows XP hasn't been upgraded to SP3.

You also installed Windows XP in a computer that was designed for Windows Vista, so I wouldn't be surprised if you also have a device driver issue.

--------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Wino

JStergis said:


> I agree with you.
> 
> Another two things that drive me crazy in Windows 7:
> 
> -The start menu--Why would I want to scroll through a list of programs and click every folder to get to what's within it when in prior versions I could just mouse-over everything and see it all at once...no scrolling necessary. No way to revert this back.
> 
> The taskbar "icons"--I can't understand why an icon is supposed to be easier to use than a program (pictures just don't do it for me)... and if you have multiple instances of a program open, you have to play "hide and seek" to see which you want. Of course, this can be reverted to the 2000 style.


All my XP's have My Computer docked on left side of screen and Control Panel on right side, which made for very quick one click access to just about everything. I miss being able to do that with W7. Can't imagine what MS thought they were accomplishing by making everything difficult to access - not to mention it appears many accesses have been moved around just for the sake of moving with no rhyme or reason as to why other than making W7 have a "new" feel.


----------



## jp1203

I cheated with 7 and just made a new toolbar that points to the start menu programs folder. Much quicker and easier.


----------



## Noyb

Did I forget to mention that W7 can't make a new taskbar and park it (them) on any edge of your screen(s)
You can only make a new task bar in the already crowded task bar.

Seems to me that for each new OS with more Toys, Gadgets and Eye Candy .. We loose more Tools.

After several hours of looking got the OFF button in W8 .. I went to the W8 Forum.
They knew where it was hiding in the fine print of an Metro App.
It can also be found about 2 inches below the screen in the lower left .. About where my speaker is.
Touch that on your screen   

About the end of 2012 .. We'll be asking about XP > W7 & W8  
I'm wondering if that's why the Mayan calendar ends there ????


----------



## gyrgrls

flavallee said:


> Hey! Watch that "old fogie" comment.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------


La linda Vista no corre bien, de nada, nunca en cada machina. ...

the puns aren't even funny in castilian, are they?

Coming soon: COBOL! ;->


----------



## Gswiss

I'd like to comment on 2 observations made by members a few days ago here.

Somebody mentioned that XP wouldn't work on a particulat PC because it was designed for Vista. That is incorrect. Since the advent of Vista, I've set up at least 20 laptops to dual boot with Vista or Win7. The XP's were installed on pre-installed Vista^s and Win7's. No problem at all. The hardware on those machines can accommodate even WIndows 2000-SP4, the best in the series!

Another item concerns Office 2010 not running under XP. That's true. But, if you're an individual, why bother to use Office 2010 or Office 2007 for that matter. Office 2003 has everything you need. The newer versions have practically the same features but they switched things around (so that things look new) and changed colors so you spend days trying to find where they hid the items you used.


----------



## Ent

I don't think it's a question of XP not running on newer machines so much as one of drivers not being provided for newer hardware for XP. It'll install, but it won't necessarily work quite as it's designed.


----------



## Gswiss

I installed XP-SP2 on Toshiba, Asus, Sony and HP laptops. HP even tried to make things tough by not providing the XP drivers but I found them on Intel and other proprietary sites. Things work fine (no hangups, BSODs, etc.) and users don't want to change! Of course, they are average users who use mail, browse on the Internet, communicate with Skype or edit their snapshots. They're not gurus or whiz kids who run the latest games.


----------



## JustJudy

Gswiss: Office 2010 works with XP but you need to have service pack 3 installed.
I agree with Ent, it's not that XP won't load on newer computers its all the added peripherals (printers, wireless items, scanners, etc...) that there might not be drivers for. I work for a school district and we haven't yet migrated over to Win7. We have however continued to purchase new desktops and laptops- which came with either Vista or Windows 7 loaded, but I imaged them with Windows XP. I have not had any problems finding drivers for any of the computers so far. We do have one room that is Windows 7 because we needed to run special software that needed a huge amount of RAM which of course XP can't utilize. So I imaged that room with Windows 7 64 bit. That's my Speedy Gonzales room.


----------



## DaveBurnett

How about XP 64 which can use the full RAM??


----------



## Gswiss

If you're an average user as mentioned in my previous note, is there anything to gain by switching from 32bits to 64 bits? I don't believe so.


----------



## JustJudy

Dave, we need to move forward though. We are a school district and need to "try" to keep up with technology. We aren't serving our students well if we don't progress. The room running Windows 7 is a great test room to see how our network, and security software run before it's deployed. So using XP wouldn't have even been considered in this case.
Gswiss- yes, for the average user 32 bit is fine, but when someone is running CAD programs or heavy-duty editing software 64 bit is the only way to go.


----------



## DaveBurnett

Oh, don't get me wrong. I fully agree with moving forward. I only mentioned it as you implied that the only reason you went to Win 7 was the extra memory and XP didn't support it. I just thought that it was worth pointing out that XP can support it if needed. But if you DO need to install again to go to 64 bit, it is worth going to WIN7, especially when it was probably pre-installed.
I have the advantage of being an ex MVP so I had access to all versions of Windows and use Win 7 on most of my machines - but they still multiboot with XP Pro and Win 98SE, as well as Linux. I have copies of most Windows - mainly for support - although I do keep 98SE for Norton Utilities on FAT16/32 devices - mostly USB.


----------

