# Number Of Windows XP Users Increasing?



## flavallee (May 12, 2002)

Here is an interesting article that I just read:

http://www.neowin.net/news/report-windows-xp-market-share-went-up-in-january-2012

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


----------



## flavallee (May 12, 2002)

Even the "White House" is still using Windows XP. 

http://www.neowin.net/news/is-the-white-house-still-using-windows-xp

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


----------



## dotty999 (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm sticking with it through thick and thin until it finally dies a death!


----------



## TerryNet (Mar 23, 2005)

About two weeks ago I went back to using XP (instead of Puppy Linux) on my ancient laptop that I use as a "music player." Guess I'm responsible for part of that increase.


----------



## flavallee (May 12, 2002)

I bought a Compaq Presario SR5450F desktop over 3 years ago that came with Windows Vista pre-installed and which I subsequently upgraded to Windows 7. 

I didn't like or need all the extra "glitter" that came in it and found it more difficult to navigate in and work with, so I downgraded it to Windows XP.

All 4 of my desktops now run Windows XP and will remain that way until keeping them properly secure on-line becomes an issue. 

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


----------



## pyritechips (Jun 3, 2002)

TerryNet said:


> About two weeks ago I went back to using XP (instead of Puppy Linux) on my ancient laptop that I use as a "music player." Guess I'm responsible for part of that increase.


Me too! This was originally a Vista box but I "improved" it to XP. Now why doesn't MicroSoft issue a new OS that is based upon a more efficient and stable design but offer a "Bare Bones" or "Light" version without all the bells and whistles that seem to increase the clicks required to do simple tasks yet they always claim improve and make simpler those tasks? I'm sure neophyte users are taken in by all the eye candy but methinks real users turn off all the crap.


----------



## dvk01 (Dec 14, 2002)

This is a typical example of misquoting statitistics
The statistics are for the OS that connected to a certain subset of WEB SITES that allow their visitor figures to be amalgamated & used

It dosn't state how many XP/W7/vista etc computers are in use, but how many connected to the websites

Now bots & malware will account for a fairly high proportion of the XP computers and I see it on my web stats as well. ATTEMPTED attacks & connections from infected XP computers ( and a lot from India & China being used by spammers) Many of the spam farms in India & China use old recycled XP machines to do their nefarious deeds



> Can you explain the Net Market Share methodology for collecting data?
> 
> About our Methodology:
> We collect data from the browsers of site visitors to our exclusive on-demand network of HitsLink Analytics and SharePost clients. The network includes over 40,000 websites, and spans the globe. We 'count' unique visitors to our network sites, and only count one unique visit to each network site per day. This is part of our quality control process to prevent fraud, and ensure the most accurate portrayal of Internet usage market share. The data is compiled from approximately 160 million unique visits per month. The information published on www.netmarketshare.com is an aggregation of the data from this network of hosted website traffic statistics. In addition, we classify 430+ referral sources identified as search engines. Aggregate traffic referrals from these engines are summarized and reported monthly. The statistics for search engines include both organic and sponsored referrals.
> ...


----------



## flavallee (May 12, 2002)

I don't know how accurate those statistics really are, but the number of people in these forums(including me) who have downgraded their computers from Windows Vista/7 to Windows XP is a pretty good indication of how popular it still is.

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


----------



## bp936 (Oct 13, 2003)

I agree with keeping XP for as long as possible. I didn't like Vista, nothing but troubles.
Im afraid of buying Windoes 7, too fancy, I like to do my own thing.
Microsoft should listen.


----------



## DoubleHelix (Dec 10, 2004)

What can you not do on Windows 7 that you can on Windows XP? I think that's just a misunderstanding and general resistance to change. I wouldn't trade Windows 7 for Windows XP. I've never had a Windows system as stable as Windows 7.

If you're one of the rare few who doesn't use a computer at work and don't need to know anything about current technology, then use whatever you want. But technology will continue to change regardless.


----------



## dotty999 (Feb 3, 2006)

I think some of us would prefer to remain in our comfort zone, I like XP and did have a brief look at Windows 7 but found it a little hard to get my head around, it wasn't as straightforward as XP or perhaps it's because I don't like such a drastic change, I know we all have to accept it eventually but for some it's hard to make such a transition when they're happy with what they have


----------



## DaveBurnett (Nov 11, 2002)

I think it is down to three things:

1) Comfort zone for older users. I've lived through the whole PC cycle of Windows and I have my favourites. I do not play games as such , so all my real use has been from a technician/programmer/office user point of view.
I liked: Dos 4 then 6.22. Windows 3.11, then 98SE. Windows 2000, Pro, XP Pro,and 7. Is still have copies and use all in support. I mainly use Win 7 until I need to do something highly technical, then resort to one of the earlier versions where things aren't quite so hidden.

2) Availability. I deal a lot with people who need and use computers for work and tend to buy second hand. Most of the machines come with a licence key on the bottom and that tends to be XP Pro - So saving the cost of buying a licence.

3) Functionality and stability. There are certain versions I will avoid like the plague, having used them and ditched ASAP. 
95, ME, XP Home, and Vista being the worst offenders. I tend to see lower spec machines most of the time and do like to push the boundaries on occasions. I also do need to support people with most versions, so have to keep them around for testing. I think the vast majority of users wouldn't know the difference between the versions anyway, so as long as it does what they want, they couldn't care. 
From a technical point of view, I think the newer the version, the less real control the user has, and I'm not looking forward to having to support Windows 8. I also think that the newer interfaces do NOT help new users to find functions and features that they didn't know about. I learned from seeing things on a menu and wondering what they tasted like. Hoow the hell are people supposed to find things using the newer interfaces without WORDS to describe them. I tried a sample of the new Win 8 Tonka toy interface the other day. After an hour I had actually done no work as all I had done was struggle to find anything other than games and Antisocial Media interfaces. As for support tools, I didn't see a single one.


----------



## dvk01 (Dec 14, 2002)

I can't disagree with you on the W8 tile interface Dave, but we have all only seen the developer's preview so far & until Microsoft do release the beta, we don't know whether there will be a "standard" easy to access start menu interface that we all are so used to using 

Rumour says that there won't be but we all know how wrong previous rumours have been


----------

