Linked by David Adams on Sat 3rd Mar 2012 00:26 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y On the heels of yesterday's launch of Windows 8's preview, new statistics show that Microsoft's decade-old Windows XP again plummeted in usage share and will be surpassed by Windows 7 in June.
Thread beginning with comment 509446
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: I wonder ...
by bassbeast on Sat 3rd Mar 2012 10:16 UTC in reply to "I wonder ..."
bassbeast
Member since:
2007-11-11

I wouldn't mind knowing that myself, heck i know there are still DOS machines running industrial jobs as I built one for a company a few years back.

Microsoft is simply showing yet again that Ballmer simply isn't got what it takes to run the company. it is NOT time for Windows 8 yet, he's just now gotten momentum behind Win 7 and before the corps can even begin rollout of large deployments he's already hawking Win 8, aka Wintab.

Ultimately he needs to go back to what they had with WinNT/Win9X, have the LTS business OS on a different timetable than consumer. i know that after getting the last of my customers switched to Win 7 neither they nor I will be in ANY hurry to even so much as discuss Win 8, heck Win 7 is barely 3 years old!

With the speed of modern computers the era of changing every 3 years is over, even many corps are hanging onto PCs longer because there is nothing that new quad is gonna do in a business setting that dual, triple, or quad from a few years back can't do just as well. With the average machine having multicores and 2Gb+ of RAM there really isn't a point in the upgrades anymore, but these companies got spoiled by the MHz wars and act like that is still the norm when it frankly isn't. Heck I'm just now building new quads for my kids as their games are finally outgrowing their 6 year old dual cores!

Come back to sanity MSFT, if you want in mobile so badly spin off the division, nobody is gonna be happy when they buy a Win 8 tablet and find Windows don't run Windows programs so just stop it. Go back to your core strengths, which is business and consumers desktop and laptop Operating systems, stop trying to get "synergy" between x86 and ARM (never gonna happen) and instead simply make sure that it all "just works" nicely together, keep major rollouts on a 5 year schedule and accept you are NEVER gonna be Apple and simply enjoy that money truck that backs up to your building every year. these new moves look for all the world like a lost company throwing poo at a wall and hoping something sticks.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: I wonder ...
by moondevil on Sat 3rd Mar 2012 19:27 in reply to "RE: I wonder ..."
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

That is exactly the main problem for Microsoft and the majority of computer manufacturers.

For the type of tasks most people do, even a 10 year old computer is more than up to the task.

Which means there is a tendency to have a decline in sales, as only gamers and the type of people that want to have the latest hardware/software, will be upgrading.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: I wonder ...
by orfanum on Mon 5th Mar 2012 13:38 in reply to "RE[2]: I wonder ..."
orfanum Member since:
2006-06-02

I completely agree. I still have a G4 Sawtooth. It's been beefed up (1.42 ghz CPU upgrade, and maxed out with RAM) but it's getting on for 13 years old and is still entirely capable. In fact, I have not long decided to re-install OS 9 on this machine, to make it feel even more responsive, ironically because in part I had heard that browser support is getting better but now (because this computer will be nowhere near an ethernet cable, and won't have wireless just yet) because I may end up being more productive on it as a standalone. I have tons of serviceable software still from a previous existence.

Why OS 9? Well, apart from the speed increase, has anyone gone back to look even at OS X Tiger recently - really the only Apple alternative - which I have just done in resurrecting this piece of kit? Shockingly basic in navigability (I am not a keyboard whiz) and visual appeal. For me in that sense, OS 9 represents a mature system, for all its final technical shortcomings compared to more 'modern' systems. I for one am going to enjoy this 'retro' experience....

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: I wonder ...
by zima on Sat 10th Mar 2012 21:15 in reply to "RE[2]: I wonder ..."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

For the type of tasks most people do, even a 10 year old computer is more than up to the task.

10 yo is stretching it, at this point. I do keep kinda such machine around, with an Athlon XP 1700+ (debuted at the end of 2001, got mine in the middle of 2002 ...though in fact, this PC was largely born in 2000, with a Duron 600).

Yes, it can keep up - but it absolutely wouldn't be able to do so with its original amount of RAM.
(back then between typical and somewhat high; generally, that machine is a bit of a "ship of Theseus" - not many original parts left: first major overhaul when replacing SDR mobo with DDR one, then some parts dying along the way ...a buddy had unneeded, retired spares; but notably, its even older GFX card - Matrox G400 from 99-2000 - keeps on going)

And that's still largely thanks to keeping only snappy software on it...
(which can also mean recent, with very visible benefits from ~recent browser improvement - optimisations targeting mostly x86 after all, so without the quirks of, say, orfanum's Powermac)
...also remembering that there are just some things it won't do.
(HD video most notably; though I successfully toyed with editing an HD video project, via proxy editing: working on a low-res copy of the footage, then exporting & saving the edits on HD original; basically just to prove somebody that it can be done :> ...but exporting took a long time, needed to run overnight, and the poor thing wasn't able to play the file it spew out :> )
"Most people" are possibly unable to be careful in those regards.

only gamers and the type of people that want to have the latest hardware/software, will be upgrading

BTW I wouldn't be too surprised if, in 5 years or so, games settle so much on the architecture and power provided by Intel integrated GFX, that there won't be much point also for gamers.
(and anyway, what are "gamers"? FB and generally browser games? Pebble? WoW? Such are the most popular...)

Reply Parent Score: 2