News - PC upgraders chose Windows 7 over Windows 8.X during March

[HEXUS]

Also Windows XP still has 27 per cent of the pie, with less than a week of support left.

Read more.

[zaph0d]

And the worrying thing is that a large percentage of the Business XP machines still around are the Cash Machines run by the banks. Banks who have no interest in upgrading their Cash Machines until they are proven to be so unsecure as to be easily hacked with a smartphone, as that would cut into their profits.

[shaithis]

Seems we have a news story about this every week.....corporate environments move slowly, bespoke applications and costs cause people to keep to their older and working software. Windows 8 isn't ready for the corporate environment and end users are silly (building a new PC and putting a slower, older OS on it).

What exactly has changed in 10 years?

[Corky34]

And the worrying thing is that a large percentage of the Business XP machines still around are the Cash Machines run by the banks.

IIRC Banks that are still running XP on ATM's past the EOL of XP are going to pay for extended support.

Windows 8 isn't ready for the corporate environment and end users are silly (building a new PC and putting a slower, older OS on it).

What exactly has changed in 10 years?

Nothing. Newer OS's are not faster, depending on what benchmarks are used both the old and new can be shown to be slower or faster than the other.

[DanceswithUnix]

And the worrying thing is that a large percentage of the Business XP machines still around are the Cash Machines run by the banks. Banks who have no interest in upgrading their Cash Machines until they are proven to be so unsecure as to be easily hacked with a smartphone, as that would cut into their profits.

So how would your smartphone connect to said cash machine in order to hack it?

If you go surfing for pr0n with an unsupported OS then sure you will get owned, but an embedded box like that will be stripped down and just running the one control application on a private network. I think the attack vectors are different enough that you can ignore them here.

[shaithis]

Nothing. Newer OS's are not faster, depending on what benchmarks are used both the old and new can be shown to be slower or faster than the other.

Of course, except when they actually put stuff in that is faster...like Windows 8/8.1 did with DX11.2 codepaths....and better fastboot support..and...

[crossy]

Of course, except when they actually put stuff in that is faster...like Windows 8/8.1 did with DX11.2 codepaths....and better fastboot support..and...

... and breaking app compatibility. Which is why I assume businesses are steering clear. That, and of course, the fear of having to spend $$$'s retraining the staff for the new UI. Got an app here that works fine on '7, but has some pretty severe failings on '8 - so I'd have to wait until the vendor "gets with the program" and gives an '8-viable version.

Then again, I'm biased, on the two '8 boxes here I've yet to see ANY evidence of it's advantages like this oft-praised "fastboot". Now my Ubuntu system, on the other hand, genuinely IS fastboot and other than the OS being on an SSD there's no mods to it, (no stripping of system services etc). Once SteamOS starts supporting the A-list titles, I'm going to be ditching Microsoft's OS's - I'm thoroughly sick of BSODs, reboots after any update, and all that nonsense, (not having a good day - does it show?!).

[zaph0d]

So how would your smartphone connect to said cash machine in order to hack it?

All you need is a Card to Phone interface, I presume you remember the "ATM Hack" from Terminator 2? Same principle applies.
Card Skimmers are already halfway there as it is.

[Roobubba]

I just ordered bits for a microATX portable gaming rig for home and when I'm away during the week at work. No way I was going to bang win8 on it. I have no interest in the stupid UI and several of the games I play have people complaining about issues in win8 on their forums.
That, and the DX11 changes in win8 don't change anything in my favourite game NS2, where I choose the DX9 renderer as it's faster and less prone to errors on alt-tab in that (small indie) title. But then I'm a competitive gamer so I don't care much about eye candy - at least in NS2 - I want it to run fast and keep up with my 120/144Hz monitor.
Windows 8 does nothing to help me achieve that, and brings with it a host of possible issues that I know are not present in windows 7. Not worth the risk.
Besides, if nothing else, I want to make M$ aware that I don't care one iota about having an OS optimised for touch-screen devices on my DESKTOP GAMING rig. I understand why they did it, to make their life simpler and make a unified OS across phones, tabs, notebooks and PCs, but at the least it should ALL be disabled by default on devices with no touchscreen.

[Corky34]

Of course, except when they actually put stuff in that is faster...like Windows 8/8.1 did with DX11.2 codepaths....and better fastboot support..and...

And if you don't use this new faster stuff that has been put in, you will find that contrary to your statement that older OS's are slower they are actually faster in some usage scenarios. Like i said, depending on what benchmarks are used both the old and new can be shown to be slower or faster than the other.
In other words YMMV as to what version of an OS is faster.

[zdn1042]

No surprise there. Now, I'm really interested to see how will the next version of Windows fare.

[iliosis]

@crossy. Gotta love the Linux users comparing their boot speed to Windows. Well Duh! Linux OS is 10x smaller than Windows, so obviously it will boot faster. BSODs? Last time I saw this was in WinXP when I had driver issues. Sure for a power user Linux gives far more options and customizations, but that is the price you have to pay so that the 'average' user can use the system easily (and we all know how average users can be).

[crossy]

Sorry guys (and gals?) I'm going to go off topic here ... just couldn't let that one stand

@crossy. Gotta love the Linux users comparing their boot speed to Windows. Well Duh! Linux OS is 10x smaller than Windows, so obviously it will boot faster. BSODs? Last time I saw this was in WinXP when I had driver issues. Sure for a power user Linux gives far more options and customizations, but that is the price you have to pay so that the 'average' user can use the system easily (and we all know how average users can be).

No, that's a fallacy - next you'll be trotting out the old chestnut of "all Linux users need to recompile their kernels". What does Linux not do that Windows does (apart from BSOD of course <grin>)? So if it is, as you say, "10x smaller than Windows" then aren't you just stating that, in a roundabout way, that Windows is a bloated mess? You said it, not me! My last BSOD was "driver_irql_not_less_or_equal" while playing SimCity two nights ago.

As to "average users" - hmm, let me think, I've had a cub pack, a ten year old girl and someone who claimed that "I don't like computers" all using a modern Linux distro without issue. That last luddite was very much impressed that they had ONE place to go to if they wanted to make sure software was updated - including apps such as Libre, Chrome, etc. And the only time a reboot is needed is if you have a kernel update.

Those usage cases where "it just has to be Windows" for home use are - thankfully - getting fewer by the year. This is a good thing all round since genuine competition for Windows, (I don't count OS X - too niche), can only make Microsoft "up their game". Which given the woeful effort that was Windows 8 (probably a good OS at it's core, but appallingly badly pitched) the only way is up. And before you mark me down as "Linux fanboy", I'll say now that IF Microsoft make good on the promises for Windows 9 then I'll be slapping in a pre-order the same way I did for Windows 7. And here's something for you, if I'm a Linux fan, then why did I get my copy of Windows 7 (which is running on this PC in front of me at the moment) more than a year before I could actually use it? Like the folks in the article I went from XP->'7, skipping Vista, and a generation skip from '7 to '9 is currently on the cards.

[Wh00pS]

Like the folks in the article I went from XP->'7, skipping Vista, and a generation skip from '7 to '9 is currently on the cards.

You say your skipping a generation yet a few post up say you have "two '8 boxes"?
The last time i saw a BSOD was about 3 years ago on 7, been running 8 for 18 months and had no problems, no BSOD's, no probs in games no problems with apps etc. Fired up the laptop the other day which still runs 7 and it just feels so slow and "clunkey", i could never go back now.

[zaph0d]

Ya gotta remember that at the core Win 8/8.1 is based on the same NT6 core code as 7 and Vista. MS optimised the code from Vista to 7, then again to 8 and 8.1. The newer options are faster at the core OS level than the prior incarnations resulting in slightly better performance and Ram use... however as has been mentioned they are also more bloated with addition cra... shi... unwanted features.
From a usage POV I like 7 more that Vista or 8, from a performance POV I prefer the more optimised code of 8. For an allrounder.... yeah that's probably going to be Win9 - especially if it's on the new NT7 core kernal and brings back the much missed full desktop mode, I don't mind the loss of start menu that much, that can be compenasated for... I just hate with all the fiery passion of hell the Start Screen and Modern UI.
MS seems to follow the Sweet, Shh...ugar product cycle, '95 good, 98 bad, 98se better, ME the less said the better, XP good, Vista... yeah Ballmer Ballsed up there, 7 good, 8's back in the pan. 9?

[iliosis]

So if it is, as you say, "10x smaller than Windows" then aren't you just stating that, in a roundabout way, that Windows is a bloated mess? You said it, not me!

No I am not stating that Windows is a bloated mess, although I do believe it can be smaller. However, Windows supports far more drivers than any Linux distribution I have ever used, and implements more networking, development, and other tools out-of-the-box as well, I mean .NET Framework on its own takes a gig or two. So yeah, if you want a lean OS where you can install exactly the components and driveres you need - if you can find them, then yes use Linux, but to the average user who wants to install the OS in 30 minutes (including all or almost all the drivers) with little or no knowledge of the computers, then Windows is still your first choice.