Windows XP Usage Continues to Drop

[Rob Williams]

From our front-page news:

Have you ever been in a situation where you wished something would just go away, so that you could finally just get on with your life? It could be anything, from a person, a nasty software issue, to anything, really. For Microsoft, the bug that won't disappear is Windows XP. It might seem strange to think about, but that OS is over eight years old, and it's still the dominant version of Windows.

But Microsoft can finally begin to relax, because it looks like XP's market share is finally starting to go down, albeit a bit slowly. Usage fell 1.1% during August, which may seem small, but that's 1.1% of the entire Internet, so it's not exactly insignificant. One main reason for the drop is no doubt the looming release of Windows 7, which has had great reception during its beta stage.

Since I love delving into stats like this, I decided to check out how things have fared on our site over the past few months. Between August 8 and September 8, 56% of the 88% of people who use Windows to visit our site were running XP. By comparison, 57.39% ran XP from July to August and 58.94% from June to July. Going way back to January of this year, during that month, 63.55% of our readers were running XP.

I'm very interested to see how things will go as soon as Windows 7 hits. Sadly, our stats software isn't capable of singling out 7 right now for some reason, so I assume it groups it in with Vista.

XP's continuing dominance presents a serious problem for Microsoft. Enterprises staying with XP means they're not paying for upgrades to Vista or Windows 7. As for consumers who opt to stay with XP, the problem isn't really upgrade revenue, because consumer upgrades are a drop in the bucket. The real problem is that XP users don't buy new PCs, and so Microsoft is losing out on new sales.

<table border="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td>Source: Computerworld</td> <td>
</td></tr></tbody></table>​

 

[2Tired2Tango]

From our front-page news:

Have you ever been in a situation where you wished something would just go away, so that you could finally just get on with your life? It could be anything, from a person, a nasty software issue, to anything, really. For Microsoft, the bug that won't disappear is Windows XP. It might seem strange to think about, but that OS is over eight years old, and it's still the dominant version of Windows.
​

I still get people bringing me their machines willing to pay money to get rid of Vista. Really... people around here really hate that version!

In my general body of users (about 300) I still have several who use windows 2000 Professional on their server machines, some even still on their desktops. Most (I'd guess close to 80%, without counting) are still pleased as punch with XP 32 bit. A couple have gone to XP64 which caused a weeks long driver scramble while we got that sorted out. One of the offices I work for recently purchased 15 new machines, without operating systems and had me install XP.

Methinks XP isn't dead yet.
But then, there are still people running Windows98....

Now, if Microsoft wants to make an obscene amount of money for an easy project they should come out with a version of Windows XP with all the end user crap and eye candy pulled out of it... Barebones small and fast... Now THAT'S an operating system my clients would climb all over....​

 

[Psi*]

I have XP64 on 4 systems. Recommended OS by my expensive software vendors as recently as this past Spring.

Well, that is unless you end up talking to 1 of the linux fanatics.

 

[MacMan]

XP

Personally, I still like XP and I can't see me ever really getting rid of it. I guess I'm just the old sentimental type.

 

[2Tired2Tango]

Personally, I still like XP and I can't see me ever really getting rid of it. I guess I'm just the old sentimental type.

I don't think it's sentimental at all... I think it's common sense.

Starting with windows 98 and it's bundled browser Microsoft has made a steady policy of form over substance, with each subsequent release being more laden with stuff nobody ever uses.

XP is the last version that will still run and still register with all that crap pulled out of it. It's the last worth while OS Microsoft produced.

I have stripped down versions (using nlite) that will install in as little as 300megs of disk space and idle in less than 32 megs of ram... On systems over 1gig I routinely disable the swap file and it's never been a problem.

The thing is they're going the wrong way... Faster, more stable, more flexible are the goals they should be shooting for... not eye candy, media players and CD burners... There's all kinds of 3rd party stuff for that crap.

 

[Kougar]

Depends. XP makes plenty of sense for older systems, and systems that shipped with XP on them, but it doesn't support new technologies that well. That's why I'd only recommend Windows 7 on a new PC today... if the user is savvy enough to run Linux that's great, or if they can afford OS X and that gray Apple badge on the case then that's great too. But otherwise, for a newly bought or (especially) built system I'd only recommend Windows 7.

Something I did find very interesting were those statistics... The steam hardware survey noticed a -1.56% decrease in XP 32bit users for the month of August, most of that was directly put into the 7 category. Even Vista 32bit lost users for the month. They show XP with 53.48% share currently.

 

[Rob Williams]

The thing is they're going the wrong way... Faster, more stable, more flexible are the goals they should be shooting for... not eye candy, media players and CD burners... There's all kinds of 3rd party stuff for that crap.

Perhaps for Windows 8, we can wish for a complete OS re-write like the one OS X just received? *wishful thinking* Of course, there's more to it than that, but the definition of bloated will vary. A lot of what you don't use on a machine, someone else will. From Microsoft's viewpoint, it's better to have it there then hassle the user into go download something they expect to be already on the machine.

 

[Psi*]

Personally, I still like XP and I can't see me ever really getting rid of it. I guess I'm just the old sentimental type.

My sentiments exactly as it was for W2K, but alas ... SolidWorks and even my number crunchers' GUI demanded at least XP so I begrudgingly upgraded. I always keep those programs current because development is quite dynamic and for best support. The lack of interest for upgrading OS is partially "its not broke" and partially no reason to spend the $$.

I suspect once a new & stable MS OS is released that I will have to upgrade again for the same reasons.

 

[2Tired2Tango]

Perhaps for Windows 8, we can wish for a complete OS re-write like the one OS X just received? *wishful thinking* Of course, there's more to it than that, but the definition of bloated will vary. A lot of what you don't use on a machine, someone else will. From Microsoft's viewpoint, it's better to have it there then hassle the user into go download something they expect to be already on the machine.

Yes, the root cause of bloatware... "Just in case".

Here's an example: Remember when MSN first started and you could download their special browser into your Win95 installation? Well, they bundled that browser (56megs) in Win98 along with IE... and they still bundle it today even though there is no means to use it.

Another example: Look at the performance hit I discovered because of the CDRom service... That service is a hangover from Windows 3.x. It's there just in case some fool has a 20 year old 4x cdrom drive in their machine.

And Another: Did you know that Windows installations still bundle over 200 drivers for dialup modems? None of which work with modern equipment.

Just look at the massive failure Plug and Play has turned into... They bundle all these drivers, thousands of them, and where do most people get the drivers for their new hardware? From the CD that comes with the device, not from windows pre-installed plug and play cache. All those drivers sit on your hard disk, "Just In Case" while we all dutifully install drivers from other sources....

Having this stuff on MY hard disk, just in case I might use it someday is lunacy... especially in a world where downloading is beyond easy.

I could go on for a long time about this one.... So lets cut to the chase....

What should Microsoft do to improve Windows:

1) Remove all user mode drivers from their distribution disks.
It would be simpler and far more efficient to bundle only text mode (install time) drivers and let the Plug and Play mechanism access an online database of drivers for things like modems, printers, etc. (Don't forget, most of these will continue to come from the manfacturer's CDs, not Microsoft.)

2) Remove all bundled features.
Install only the core OS and networking features. After the install completes and networking is running, provide the end user with a screen showing downloadable features such as CD Burning, Web Browser, Email Clients, Instant Messaging, Desktop Enhancements, etc. AND! Do not make this into prepackaged bundles... I don't want to install the $1,000 sound system so I can get the $150 Cloth Seats!

3) Strip out all legacy apps.
When's the last time anyone used the MSN Browser or WinChat? How many people actually use the native CD burning software? Really the disk space we recover is more valuable than any of these apps.

4) Stop bloating the OS with backup copies of everything.
MSI installers are the biggest cause of bloat I've ever seen... Everything is stored in a hidden folder after it's installed... in case you want to re-install it... then it makes a restore point which creates a third copy in the Volume Information folder of your OS drive. Install clean, remove clean... If someone needs to reinstall an update, make it available for download... don't bloat their OS with it.

5) Make Updating a deliberate action.
Remove the Automatic Update feature entirely. Prompt users once a month to go to the Windows Update site and let the site provide you with a list of available updates. Do not force me to install every stupid update that comes along.


Now we have a sleek, small and very fast OS that's not going to get slower and slower as time wears on. But it's not limited, users can customize it to their heart's content and can add or remove features and functionality to their heart's content....

Linux users... Does any of this sound familiar?

 

[2Tired2Tango]

Depends. XP makes plenty of sense for older systems, and systems that shipped with XP on them, but it doesn't support new technologies that well.

LOL... it would if they'd continue updating it.

Service Pack 4 anyone?

 

[Psi*]

Everything that 2Tired2Tango suggests can be accomplished with Windows CE & Mobile apps on the desk top. I'm good for that. NOT!!!!

 

[Rob Williams]

Having this stuff on MY hard disk, just in case I might use it someday is lunacy... especially in a world where downloading is beyond easy.

I wasn't referring to drivers and the like, but applications and other tools.

I completely agree with everything you recommend though, and really can't add too much. I always hoped for a Windows installer that would give you the option of a straight-forward install (for those who don't care to spend the time tweaking, or who are PC novices) and then another option for an advanced install. SUSE Linux's installers have worked like this for YEARS. Surely, Microsoft can pull something similar off with Windows.

Remove the Automatic Update feature entirely. Prompt users once a month to go to the Windows Update site and let the site provide you with a list of available updates. Do not force me to install every stupid update that comes along.

I couldn't agree more... the forced prompt is one of the most frustrating features of the OS. A few weeks ago, I had my notebook doing something, and I stupidly allowed it to download updates prior to heading to bed. I woke up... fresh desktop. The stupid feature actually killed what I had running, just to reboot. As if it was THAT necessary.

Linux users... Does any of this sound familiar?

This is kind of hard to explain, but I'll do my best to do so with as little words as possible.

The amount of "bloat" on a Linux machine will vary, and usually if there is bloat, it's with the number of applications installed. Distros like Ubuntu will install a fair number of applications, but no duplicates (meaning, two applications that do almost the exact same thing). As for drivers, distros like Ubuntu will first detect your hardware and then install whatever driver is necessary. It does a good job, but it DOES install more drivers than is needed (but all these drivers use up very little system resources).

Here's the thing with Linux. MOST of the drivers you'll need are available in the Linux kernel - somewhat similar to the Windows cache that you speak of. But, rather keep binary drivers on-hand all the time, what's here is the source code (which takes up far, far less space. The Linux kernel source folder is about 300 MB, but supports thousands of devices). So if you want a driver, you go configure it into the kernel, and it will build the driver for you. Most distros make this an easy process.

But yes in general, Linux has far less bloat than Windows, that's for certain.

Edit: Err, the source has grown since I last checked, it seems:

techgage ~ # du -sh /usr/src/linux-2.6.31
404M /usr/src/linux-2.6.31

 

[Rebeca]

I use Windows XP and Windows Vista. (I'd be using Windows 7 RC if the computer I had wasn't falling into pieces.) Most of the people I know of either:

1. Tend to stick with whatever OS came with their computer. If their computer is newer, this will be Vista. If not, it can be XP or any of its predecessors.

2. Switched from Vista to XP because of software or hardware incompatibility and then stayed with XP, thinking Vista is the devil.

In both cases, people had very little or average knowledge about what an OS was. And as someone pointed out earlier, there's people who are still using Windows 98. Do you know if any of your current visitors use Windows 98?

 

[Rob Williams]

Do you know if any of your current visitors use Windows 98?

During August, our reader Windows stats went like this:

Windows XP: 56.36%
Windows Vista: 30.00%
Windows NT: 11.53%
Windows Server 2003: 1.36%
Windows 2000: 0.63%
Windows 98: 0.08%
Windows CE: 0.03%
Windows ME: 0.01%
Windows 3.1: 0.00% (one visitor!)

The thing is though, it's hard to really understand who refuses to upgrade and who's not, because a lot of our visitors likely read the site at work, so they're stuck to whatever OS is on the PC. Lots of smaller companies try to go as long as possible without upgrading the OS. I'm also not sure what "NT" refers to above, because I under no circumstance would understand how it (NT 4) would have more usage than 2000, especially 18x. I have a feeling 7 is being grouped in with that category, but I'm not sure. Hopefully Google will update their stats software soon so we can begin tracking users running 7.

 

[Rebeca]

Interesting. Thanks for sharing those stats. You do bring up a good point too.

To whoever is using Windows 3.1: Call me. I will install linux on your old computer and give you free technical support.

 

[gibbersome]

The thing is though, it's hard to really understand who refuses to upgrade and who's not, because a lot of our visitors likely read the site at work, so they're stuck to whatever OS is on the PC. Lots of smaller companies try to go as long as possible without upgrading the OS. I'm also not sure what "NT" refers to above, because I under no circumstance would understand how it (NT 4) would have more usage than 2000, especially 18x. I have a feeling 7 is being grouped in with that category, but I'm not sure. Hopefully Google will update their stats software soon so we can begin tracking users running 7.

I have Vista and there's many times that I wish that I could go back to XP (lost the license). I'm a casual gamer and games ran so much better on the XP than they do on Vista.

Furthermore, my school made a conscious decision NOT to switch to Vista when it came out. It wasn't about the money, Vista was just not as secure, as fast or as stable as XP is.

Windows 7 is a step is the right direction. It takes less resources than Vista and I love the interface of it. Yet, I'm keeping Vista as my primary till they've worked out the bugs in it.

 

[Rob Williams]

Furthermore, my school made a conscious decision NOT to switch to Vista when it came out. It wasn't about the money, Vista was just not as secure, as fast or as stable as XP is.

That's a little strange... that's the first I've heard of XP being more secure than Vista. Even at launch, I'm quite sure Vista was far, far more secure than Windows XP.

 

[gibbersome]

That's a little strange... that's the first I've heard of XP being more secure than Vista. Even at launch, I'm quite sure Vista was far, far more secure than Windows XP.

It had a lot to do with our Anti-virus provider (Symantec) having trouble when Vista first came out. There were also some firewall issues, but neither of these was a problem with Vista itself, just the failure of a giant university to adapt to it. Plus I suppose it saved us the trouble of having to update all the computers (less than half of our labs have Core 2's).

But you're right, I didn't mean to perpetuate the myth that Vista is less secure.