Windows XP And Windows 8: The Worst Possible Combination For Microsoft

[Turk]

By Steve Ranger February 2, 2014 23:00 GMT

Summary: ZDNet's Monday Morning Opener: The death of XP and the birth of Windows 8 could create an unexpected opportunity for Android and Apple.

Timing is everything, and the conjunction of the death of Windows XP and the birth of Windows 8 has created an window of opportunity for Microsoft's rivals keen to nibble away at the company's desktop dominance.

Here's why. Windows XP, probably Microsoft's most popular operating system of all time, will soon be laid to rest. As of 8 April 2014 Microsoft will stop providing any patches or bug fixes for XP, which is now a dozen years old.

Even today (despite much urging from Microsoft that customers should ditch XP in favour of newer versions of its operating system) XP still runs on between a quarter and a third of the world's desktops. Launched way back in October 2001, XP was the most popular desktop operating system in the world until July last year, at which point it was finally overtaken by Windows 7.

Nevertheless, XP has proved to be such a reliable and stable workhorse that many organisations are unwilling to part with it even now, and are unlikely to do so even after Microsoft ends support, even if this may be a risky proposition.

Part of the reason for this reluctance to move is the expense involved; moving to a new operating system can cost millions and take years for even medium-sized organisations. That's hard to justify especially if XP is working just fine, as it is for many organisations.

When the economy was doing better, regular upgrades were grudgingly accepted by firms as a regular cost of doing business: in addition, apart from Windows, there was no realistic alternative save for those few brave souls willing to go down the Linux route.

But the old certainties are being swept away. PCs are no longer the automatic choice for business, thanks to the rise of the tablet. Neither is Windows, with Android desktops and Chromebooks also on an upward trajectory. And, thanks to BYOD, most firms are already used to staff turning up with iPads and Kindle Fire tablets; Microsoft's desktop dominance is already fraying around the edges.

But, perhaps bigger reason for companies' inertia is their concern about the kind of Windows these companies would be upgrading to. Windows 8, with its new tiled interface, may be making organisations more reluctant to upgrade, not less.

Windows 8 will be 18 months old when XP is laid to rest. It's mature enough (now it's onto its 8.1 iteration) that enterprises should be making their migration plans. And yet it's Windows 7, as the last old-style desktop version of Windows, which will undoubtedly be getting a boost from the XP refugees who move according to the tech chiefs I speak to.

The additional training, the cost of new hardware, and the sheer newness of the user interface in Windows 8 will all be offputting for traditionally cautious tech professionals. For some, the shock of the change from the old desktop view is so great that they might as well look at Android or Chromebooks or iPads when they are looking to upgrade.

By updating the look and feel of Windows to cope with the threat from tablets, Microsoft may have opened the door to its rivals, not slammed it in their faces — hence the profusion of Android desktops generating excitement at CES this year, for example.

There are excellent reasons why Microsoft has redesigned Windows, and there was never going to be a good time to make such a big change to its UI, although many would argue it could have been handled better. The era of the automatic multimillion dollar upgrade are coming to a close.

For firms that see huge upheaval ahead in terms of user training, hardware and apps, taking the extra step and moving away from Windows — or at least supporting a much more deliberately mixed environment encompassing Windows, Android and iOS — is no longer as terrifying as it once might have been.
http://www.zdnet.com/windows-xp-and-windows-8-the-worst-possible-combination-for-microsoft-7000025788

[davmil]

My last 2 clients paid $50 extra per machine to get Win 7. That's Microcenter's surcharge for machines preloaded with the old stuff. That's indicative of how badly small organizations don't want to retrain.

[MidnightDistortions]

I don't know but for those running Windows, may want to stick with Windows so they will probably go to W7. But MS will lose part of their users to Apple, Google and Linux. Windows is losing me as well.

[eurobyn]

whats wrong with windows 8.1 ? people wo have windows 8 can get 8.1 for free. and even 8.1 update 1 for free.

i do not see any problems with windows 8.1 or 8.1 update 1.

i like it. (without using metro) and start is back.

[Avitar]

Long ago the ads used to read "Upgrade here to <<Newest OS>> for $50"

Today they read "Downgrade from WIN 8 and WIN 8.1 to WIN 7 for only $50"

WIN 7 is so stable, everything just works. For the life of me my win 8.1 metro apps won't launch. They just start blank and never load.

[Bob Scott]

win 8 is a junk, even its latest version 8.1 is rubbish...Win7 Rulez (rock)

[CODYQX4]

.

Edited April 28, 2019 by CODYQX4

[Co admin]

nice info...i like windows 8.1 as new gf........

[pulga08]

win 8 is a junk, even its latest version 8.1 is rubbish...Win7 Rulez (rock)

dude.. don't be lazy.. there's a lot of stuff to get an amazing look for windows 8 and 8.1.. look: :)

[derty2]

>> "there's a lot of stuff to get an amazing look for windows 8...look" -- pulga08

That screenshot looks like bloated resource-hogging eye-candy bullshit to me.

If you can make Windows 8 have EXPLORER.EXE and the DESKTOP look like EXACTLY like in Windows XP classic view no-extras no-wallpapers no-eyecandy, then get back to me........Otherwise I stay on NT5 Window XP forever ........and as things stand now, if I was pushed into a desperate corner, I would jump onto Linux while telling Microsoft and their fag "new" design team to go fuck themselves.

FYI, I posted this comment at a public forum a few hours ago:

It is strange how the world of "interface design" has some kind of never-ending quality leading to eternal clashes and debates.

I have often thought why 'Window Managers' and 'Graphical Interfaces' were not hot-swappable and user-customizable against a programming SDK.

An example (I'm a Windows user) -- The audio player 'foobar2000':

It has an SDK. It does not lock you into a fixed GUI paradigm. Every single graphical element is customizable or hot-swappable with something else.

If you go to the website 'deviantart' you will find a whole community devoted to customized and ready-to-use skins and themes for foobar2000.

You can skin foobar to look exactly like 'Notepad' or 'Winamp' or 'iTunes' .....If you have the skill and patience, you can even make it look like Slashdot (classic view) !!!

Another example:

The Windows operating system. Why doesn't Microsoft allow it to be TOTALLY skinned like foobar2000 ? If this was the case, then -for example- you could customize newer versions of Windows to look EXACTLY like Windows XP to every last detail...that includes making EXPLORER.EXE and your DESKTOP look exactly like the one in XP. Conversely, if you are happy to make your Windows box look and act exactly like your favorite mobile phone GUI, you can do that too.

If the world of 'interface design' was like this, then all these arguments up and down the internet WOULD JUST STOP! There would no longer be clashes and debates about the next Windows version or why this design was better than that design.

Looking into a crystal ball, I have a feeling that the future of computing MUST progress towards something like I described. Otherwise we will be stuck in a never-ending loop we don't want to be in.

[pulga08]

>> "there's a lot of stuff to get an amazing look for windows 8...look" -- pulga08

That screenshot looks like bloated resource-hogging eye-candy bullshit to me.

If you can make Windows 8 have EXPLORER.EXE and the DESKTOP look like EXACTLY like in Windows XP classic view no-extras no-wallpapers no-eyecandy, then get back to me........Otherwise I stay on NT5 Window XP forever ........and as things stand now, if I was pushed into a desperate corner, I would jump onto Linux while telling Microsoft and their fag "new" design team to go fuck themselves.

FYI, I posted this comment at a public forum a few hours ago:

It is strange how the world of "interface design" has some kind of never-ending quality leading to eternal clashes and debates.

I have often thought why 'Window Managers' and 'Graphical Interfaces' were not hot-swappable and user-customizable against a programming SDK.

An example (I'm a Windows user) -- The audio player 'foobar2000':

It has an SDK. It does not lock you into a fixed GUI paradigm. Every single graphical element is customizable or hot-swappable with something else.

If you go to the website 'deviantart' you will find a whole community devoted to customized and ready-to-use skins and themes for foobar2000.

You can skin foobar to look exactly like 'Notepad' or 'Winamp' or 'iTunes' .....If you have the skill and patience, you can even make it look like Slashdot (classic view) !!!

Another example:

The Windows operating system. Why doesn't Microsoft allow it to be TOTALLY skinned like foobar2000 ? If this was the case, then -for example- you could customize newer versions of Windows to look EXACTLY like Windows XP to every last detail...that includes making EXPLORER.EXE and your DESKTOP look exactly like the one in XP. Conversely, if you are happy to make your Windows box look and act exactly like your favorite mobile phone GUI, you can do that too.

If the world of 'interface design' was like this, then all these arguments up and down the internet WOULD JUST STOP! There would no longer be clashes and debates about the next Windows version or why this design was better than that design.

Looking into a crystal ball, I have a feeling that the future of computing MUST progress towards something like I described. Otherwise we will be stuck in a never-ending loop we don't want to be in.

There's a huge difference between your example of foobar2000 and windows os.. one is freeware the other isn't.. and as you said, if you have the skill and patience, you could have and xp gui in a later version of windows.

[derty2]

>> "There's a huge difference between your example of foobar2000 and windows os.. one is freeware the other isn't" ----- pulga08

You are not engaging with the point of my post. If application or system software was designed correctly then userland would never have to argue about choice of graphic user interface or which 'Window Manager' is the best.

>> "and as you said, if you have the skill and patience, you could have and xp gui in a later version of windows" ----- pulga08

How do you make EXPLORER.EXE in Windows NT6 look and act EXACTLY like the one seen in NT5 XP ??? ....YOU CAN'T.

How do you make THE DESKTOP(+Taskbar+StartMenu) in Windows NT6 look and act EXACTLY like the one seen in NT5 XP ??? ....YOU CAN'T.

BUT .... if graphic user interfaces were totally modular and hot-swappable like plugins; if every single GUI element rendered on your monitor could be 'officially hacked', then this level of customization would be possible. It requires insightful planning, engineering and design from the host software manufacturer right from the get-go. At the moment, Microsoft do not have such an "insightfully designed" operating system.

I brought up foobar2000 as an example of an "insightfully designed" application software; whether it is free or not is irrelevant to my discussion.

If the Microsoft Windows design team could take the design paradigm of foobar2000 and apply it to an operating system then userland would NEVER AGAIN have to argue about their visual preferences.

I think what I am saying is especially relevant in today's world, where we have multiple graphical paradigms, with mobile phones and tablets appearing on the scene.....

Now throw into that mix the conservative business user who does not want to change his Windows XP GUI one little bit....so he buys a newer NT6 Windows 8 machine and skins it to look and act EXACTLY like NT5 Windows XP......BUT THIS NOT POSSIBLE AS WE SPEAK, because Microsoft has not created an "insightfully designed" operating system.

DO YOU SEE WHAT I AM SAYING NOW ??????????

Edited February 7, 2014 by derty2

[Bob Scott]

pulga08, dude, the screenshot you've made doesn't show anything different from Win7...Win8 is an example of a product developed just because developers like the idea of having such software, not because users need it... when I wrote that win8 sucks, I refer to Metro UI mainly...people wants their desktop not some tiles as a first screen....

[VileTouch]

How do you make EXPLORER.EXE in Windows NT6 look and act EXACTLY like the one seen in NT5 XP ??? ....YOU CAN'T.

How do you make THE DESKTOP(+Taskbar+StartMenu) in Windows NT6 look and act EXACTLY like the one seen in NT5 XP ??? ....YOU CAN'T.

what chu talkin 'bout willis?

http://www.deviantart.com/customization/skins/windows/windowblinds/?order=9&q=Luna

[MidnightDistortions]

I'd seen some interesting tweaks since Windows 98. Not everyone possesses the skill or the patience to do all that. I could probably make my W7 look like W95 or W3.1 if i wanted to. I just don't have the free time for all that. It would be a different story if MS had more functionality in desktop design but they are too busy trying to flaunt the start screen and it's solid colors to really care what people want.

[Sonar]

new doesn't always mean better... for me I havent had no major problem with windows 8.1 yet.

[smallhagrid]

Old thread, I know:

win 8 is a junk, even its latest version 8.1 is rubbish...Win7 Rulez (rock)

Quick addition that speaks for itself=>

http://www.davescomputertips.com/8-reasons-why-windows-8-sucks