The results are in: Windows XP is the most popular OS among dotTechies
February 13, 2010 37
Email article | Print article 
A couple of weeks ago I asked dotTechies “What operating system do you use the most?” Now the polls have been closed and the results are in – Windows XP is the clear winner with Windows 7 following in second place:
[poll id="12"]
To be honest, I was expecting Windows XP is the most popular, but was a little bit surprised to see how many dotTechies have adopted Windows 7 so early after its release. Usually people decide to wait before upgrading to Microsoft’s newest products (so Microsoft has had a chance to iron out the bugs) but apparently pre-release marketing of Windows 7 was done exceptionally well. (It also didn’t hurt that Windows 7 received praise from pretty much across the whole board.)
Another interesting thing I was found was a comment:
Ashraf: “Indeed at my most recent job, it was very shocking to see that most of the computers in the building(s) were running Microsoft Windows 2000, even though – at the time – the Windows series was up to Vista.”
Is it so hard for you to figure out why?
“VERY SHOCKNG”, INDEED!! Well I’ve got news for you, Ashraf. I use Windows 2000 Professional; AND I LOVE IT! Of all Microsoft Operating Systems, Windows 2000 is THE BEST – very robust, very stable, very reliable, etc. And dare I say, Windows 2000 is a very smooth, and unintrusive, operating system. I guess You Did’t Know All That!!
That’s Why, Ashraf, “…that most of the computers in the building(s) were running Microsoft Windows 2000, even though – at the time – the Windows series was up to Vista.”
The women and the men behind those Windows 2000, understand TLC – the pricelessness of DEVOTION, BEAUTY, LOVE, FIDELITY, RELIABILITY. The secret behind UPS success!!!
I rest my case.
-Chindu.
It wasn’t the first time I have heard someone praise Windows 2000 in such a manner, but when I first heard it, I just dismissed it as someone who is unable to let go of things. Now, however, it seems Windows 2000 still has a strong following. Interesting. (Windows 2000 was “before my time” so I can’t say much about it personally.)
(BTW Chindu: the reason my work still were running Windows 2000 were not because they “loved” it as you say. It was because they couldn’t afford to upgrade =P.)
Thank you everyone that participated, and see everyone in the next Ask dotTechies poll!
I am not too surprised :-)
BOTH with the result OR that Windows7 is so popular.
I guess most dotTechies maybe TRIED “Vista” and changed back to XP almost at once :-)
Windows7 got good “scores” all the time…from early beta to the final OS.
I have it installed… AND USED on more than a few machines in our network… BUT got to admit I feel more “at home” with Windows server 2000 AND / OR WinXP…. Yes…. I am utterly old fashioned.
I do like Windows 7..and are using it more more and more often-For old ppl like me- I just need to get used to the new OS :-)
We also use Linux on some machines or a combination.
I am responsible for most of the IT systems at work and DO want it all to be changed to Linux.
OK..sorry… I way too often speak too much :-)
I’ve 3 PCs here at home. One has Win XP Pro SP3, one XP Home SP3 and one runs Win 7 Pro 64-bit.
Win 7 is to Vista what XP was to ME.
But the reason I only have Win 7 on one machine is because the two older ones are P4 – 2 GHz with only 2 GB RAM. If I hadn’t upgraded to a Quad-core Q9300 machine, I’d never have put Win 7 on it. (Plus I was able to get a very competitive price for an OEM version of the software which helped a lot too. )
BTW great website. Thanks for your hard work!
Windows Vista/7 may be nice, but I suspect that for many users the required hardware upgrade is simply too expensive or unnecessary. I think this is probably the main reason for XP’s lingering popularity, although product pricing, familiarity, resistance to change, force of habit, driver issues, program incompatibility, and teething issues also affect the slow transition to Vista/7.
For now, XP delivers what current users need. I remember that there was a lot of resistance and criticism when XP came out, but attitudes have changed since then. The leap from XP to Vista/7, though, is much greater than with previous releases of Windows, so I suspect the changeover may take longer.
Windows 2000 Is an extremely good operating system but it is like Xp … getting old.Soon I will be migrating again,but this time Linux will be the choice mainly based on price (or lack of :-) )
It is quite likely that WinXP decline rate may now speed up.
I use XP 32 bit SP2 mainly because it supports most apps. I use SP2 because it is more prevalent than SP1 or SP3 & my acquaintances say it is comparatively much better. WinXP SP2 is stated to be more prevalent than SP1 & SP3. All this might change now change more rapidly because among other things:-
1)Win7 is of late offering apps which only work on Vista & Win7 and not on XP
2)Wikipedia says that as on July 13 this year Microsoft would withdraw support of SP2 in WinXP
In the first 12 months of Win7 it had gained a mkt share of around 9%. During the same period XP had an 8% share loss. Overall windows share dipped. Therefore it is quite likely that the entire gain of Win7 was at the cost of XP.
By withdrawal of SP2 service on July 13 this year Microsoft is obviously trying to accelerate XP decline – a kind of “managed cannibalization”. As far as I can tell Microsoft has not shared the reasons on the internet so far. Possibly this is also due to increasing pressure on Microsoft from the hardware guys as well
Ramesh
haakon
Actually haakon preferring xp at home is neither old fashioned & simultaneously preferring linux in the office is neither self contradictory nor surprising. I was quite surprised to learn these mkt share figures & am therefore sharing them with you.
Windows has a 90% mkt share in “client” computers aka home computers & only 1% share in “server” computers segment aka office computers. The 90% mkt share in the “client” segment is (61%Xp + 29% all others put together)
Linux is exactly the reverse of Windows. Linux has only 1% in “client” segment aka home computers & 90% mkt share in the “server” segment aka office computers. BTW these figures have remained unchanged even throughout the .NET era!
Therefore you’ve chosen the “best” in the home segment (i.e.XP) & the “best” in the office segment (i.e.Linux). Millions of others do exactly what you do haakon.
Since mkt share is the best indicator of consumer preference it means that the latest version is not necessarily the best preferred. The reason/s could be anything
Windows has got its act right at home & Linux has got its act right at the office!
Ramesh
I, too, love windows 2k. The only reason I switched to linux is because of its lack of wifi support and windows love messenger. It runs much faster than any other version of windows I’ve ever tried.
While I’m at it, I suggest switching from XP to 7, it’s beautiful, smooth, and runs nearly as fast as xp.
@Ramesh Kumar: The reason MS is removing XP SP1 suport is because they only suport a product so long, and since SP3 is out the problems people with SP2 may have are fixed in SP2. It does make a lot of bussiness sense to drop SP2 suport.
Windows 2000 was before your time? WTF are you doing writing here then ? I figured a bunch of kids were the writers here, but now I know for sure. Yikes.
@Clarkson: If it makes you feel any better 2k wasn’t before my time.
@Clarkson: I consider Samuel my granddad. Does that make you feel better?
(Just kidding, of course. No offense intended Samuel!)
@Ashraf: I’ll take it as a complement.
Samuel (comment 8)
Thanks.:) Also understood the reasoning behind it. So from July 13 there is going to be only one security patch i.e.SP3 as far as XP is concerned.
Ramesh:D
@Ramesh Kumar: SP stands for Service Pack, but yes that’s the idea.
One thing keeps me back from delaying migration to Win7. To me the guys behind Windows7 don’t act very self confidently. One eye is wishfully trained into Windows 8 i.e. the future & another on the past i.e.XP. At least they could have been private about Windows8. There is no end to this. Another reason is I’ve tried to get answers to some questions & failed. Plain & simple how many apps which run on XP run well on Win7. That is a priority need for me. Also I’ve never felt this earlier – why is Microsoft “force killing” XP. Its like a WWF Match between Undertaker (XP) & Ray Mysterio (Win7). Why tie one of Undertaker’s hands behind his back just because he is much larger than Mysterio. That’s just an analogy. :D They are creating new apps which work only on vista or win7. Somehow my earlier experience with Microsoft was more pleasant because I felt there was lesser conflict of objectives – i.e. what benefitted the company benefited the consumer & vice versa :( I mean if XP lingers it is because it is preferred
Ramesh
@Ramesh Kumar: For the recored they’ve done the kill thing beore, do they make programs for DOS any more? no. They only make for the newest OSs. The problem is that while XP is about a DECADE old, people want it to still be the newest and the greatest. That and since usually MS went 2/3 years per OS people were not as set in their ways (95 to 98 to 2000 to XP (which is about 2002 offically).
Well, my answer is Windows Vista. What!? it’s to late!
I forgot to vote =P
Samuel
Any concept – including “timeout” has to serve a business objective of the developer too – aka “profit maker” & “innovator”. It has to make techno-commercial sense always. “Techno” as well as “commercial”. No problem with that. I am in total agreement with you on that. My disagreement relates only to the manner it is being done.
Let’s look at this from a “developer” perspective. A later genre of development i.e. “techno” part could as much be conveyed by an “entirely new OS name” or by “version numbering” or by doing “both”. In fact one can even adopt both strategies.
Version numbering can actually save the company some overheads & costs too because you are retaining some coding & perhaps only adding to it. For the finance guys 2 ratios actually improve – “Sales per employee” & “business per dollar invested”. The upgrade can be “charged” rather than being offered “free”. Microsoft is a bold innovator on technology can they not be a bold innovator on pricing strategy as well?
For the marketing guys a demanded consumer benefit can continue to be served.
The overall mkt share drops in recent times for this huge & excellent company is a humbling lesson for Microsoft despite its being huge & excellent.
I know that they are a smart company & would bounce back.
XP & Win7 are not merely “different” OS but “different genres” of OS – including the way they manage run time. Retaining both genres means protecting both genres. Choosing to drop one (even eventually) may either mean relinquishing that one genre to a competitor as well as ceasing to serve a consumer benefit.
As a well wisher I’d like to share a very shocking fact. Microsoft actual mkt shares are actually much lower than its reported market shares purely because the method by which market shares are being collected. Many users use “user switching agents”. When the “stats counter analyzers” pick up market shares they interpret the “browser” or “email client” or whatever based upon what the “user agent” says it is & not based upon what it actually is.
Many users mimic usage of Microsoft software for various reasons. There is therefore all the more concern
Ramesh :)
In fact Steve Ballmer of Microsoft himself has said that he thinks Linux market share is “actually” 5% & not 1% as “reported” by stats counter analyzer
Ramesh :)
@Ramesh Kumar: I see what your saying, and the debate can go either way. My point was more that MS has done this before (droping the DOS kernal for the NT one), and even Apple did it when they moved to Intel. MS’s problem is really more that people are too atached to XP.
An average a Microsoft OS lifespan is 2 to 3 years. After that Microsoft tries to move to its next OS.
Win7 has some teething problems over an extended period of time. The low adoption rate & low market share are perhaps symptoms of a “teething problem which has gone on for too long a time”.
It means that Win7 has teethed over 50% of the time (if its lifecycle is 2 years) & 33% of the time (if its lifecycle is 3 years). Isn’t a teething phase lasting 33% to 50% (of total lifespan) a bit too long? Would anyone tolerate a car which “teethes” over 33% to 50% of its time?
Win7 is baking into the Win7 OS (aka “backward integration”) several functionalities which earlier existed as separate-standalone-not-baked-into-the-OS apps. Given the extended teething phase Microsoft could consider running Win7 for more than 3 years so that the teething phase at least in percentage terms (if not in years) reduces sharply.
Running Win7 for more than 3 years would help Microsoft gain even more consumers. Consumers who are currently marginally brand loyal (e.g. Linux users, users of both OS etc) would express greater “goodwill”, “feelgood” & “loyalty” if Win8 is introduced only after Win7 problems are solved. This is as true for software as it is for any other product category.
Some Win7 problems are expressed in our forum. People have even suspected likelihood of Win7 BSOD due to recent Win7 updates!
One person has not got a Win7 physical media even after two & a half months of requesting it (refer forum). Why? Is it because OS system files are continually changing because newer functionalities are getting baked into Win7 OS? Could be?
It would be nice & & fortunate if some professional who is appropriately placed in life answers this. If nothing else it might solve issues or eradicate wrong impressions. Were those impressions incorrect it could well be corrected on either side.
Ramesh :)
@Ramesh Kumar: I think you miss understood of what I said. For the most part Win7 is LESS integrated than previous versions of windows. They removed Windows Messenger, Windows Movie Maker, Windows Mail, and Windows Calendar while only adding Native VHD support. Now those list are Vista to 7 only but you get the idea (if you do XP to 7 it gets more complex making it harder to say how much was added and how much was removed.
As to the low adaption rates, where are you getting those facts? Win7 is doing very well, though some of that might be because of the PR nightmare that was Vista.
As to introducing an OS on the late side, while your point is a good one they can’t wait too long or they run into the problems XP-Vista change had. They key is two balance the change rate, and 2-3 years does seem good.
As to the problems with 7, I can’t really save why that person is getting a BSOD, since BSOD are very hard to diagnose remotely I’ve found. As to the media problem I don’t think it’s because they’re adding features, more likely I’d guess there’s a backorder problem.
As to your teething concept, that’s actually a common idea, the idea being not to buy an OS till after the first SP, the idea being that the first SP with have fixed most if not all of the main bugs.
@Samuel:
Since there are several points I’ll break my reply into a couple of posts rather than one huge post. Kindly bear with me on that.
Functionality Removal – Versus Vista Win7 has reduced the number of baked in apps you say. That naturally saddens Vista users who have migrated to Win7 “at least as of now” – “a bird in hand being better than two in the bush”. Versus XP it need not be difficult to answer a complex question. Just take WinXP SP2 (start date) as a reference point & compare Win7 versus that. In any case some point or the other needs to be taken anyway for the analysis.
Other things remaining any consumer feels sadder when features are removed simply because he gets less bang for his buck. This includes Win7, cars, refrigerators etc etc. If integration takes longer, consumers would remain sadder; longer
Ramesh
@Samuel:
Now for the point relating to why I feel Win7 needs to be for more than 3 years.
It is a consumer-oriented argument & not company-oriented “in the short term”. I say this with respect & self confidence because I know what heading a business means. In this case, it won’t give the company a short term gain but a long term gain. In the interim the Win7 team may face some pressure but it would eventually end happily even for them because doing what I suggest would increase Win7 installed base rather than eroding it.
I am aware of the company announcing that its profits went up exponentially in the previous quarter & that it was ascribed to Win7. So why do I say this?
Unlike consumer products & consumer durables, when it comes to software, especially OS there is one very significant difference. In consumer products & consumer durables sales revenues are directly correlated to mkt share. That’s because FMCG & consumer durables are sold whereas software is licenced.
Therefore despite Xp mkt shares being substantially higher than Win7 the revenues from WinXp is substantially lower than Win7. After all the entire licence amount is collected at the very beginning. review if that can change.
Another reason for improved profits is that Microsoft has vastly improved control over piracy in recent years. This has helped improve both profitability & liquidity. Piracy controls are much improved now versus initial Xp days. Therefore ascribing improved profits or record profits to “greatness” of Win7 alone is something I cannot “fully” accept.
My homework also tells me that when global meltdown happened Microsoft year on year sales in fact dipped significantly. Therefore there was all the more reason to push out Win7 even faster even if it was not fully “de-bugged”. The finance guys also must have offered sound internal reasons because the company’s debt-equity ratio also was 1:1 (Google’s is 1:10). Debt discharge takes place even faster when there is cash sales & not merely a large installed base. Oh I know the company has huge reserves therefore this point is not so crucial.
Don’t you think all this is fine from a shareholder’s point of view. Why should a consumer bother if he remains dissatisfied? That’s why I say that in this context an exception should be made to the philosophy of “2 to 3 years”. “2 to 3 years” satisfies shareholders but not consumers.
Microsoft is an excellent company. I am certain a little profit lost today would be more than recouped with profit made tomorrow. It helps the marketing team too simply because the ratio of “satisfied users” divided by “total users” would increase even more.
Ramesh :)
@Samuel:
BSOD & Other Bugs related To Win7
1)Why should a consumer bother if the problem is caused by a bug, an update, a backorder problem or any other reason. As far as that consumer is concerned he has already paid for it & is still unable to use the product aka still suffering!
2)For the moment let us assume it is a backorder problem & not a bug. If backorder queue is long it only proves my point that there is a long queue of dissatisfied consumers – even though reason could be different. Perhaps the backorder department is busier catering to irate consumers who have already licenced Win7 rather than new customers who have not yet licenced Win7?
3)In any case its quite unlikely that a large & wonderful company such as this cannot manage its production well enough to satisfy sales. Further more because in a recession ridden global economy most companies are actually hungry for sales – so they would manage production vigorously anyway even if it meant manpower redeployment, manpower expansion or outsourcing
4)Even if “backorder” is suffering due to a long queue how would one suffering BSOD be pacified by knowing that others are standing in line to licence Win7. He (aka poor guy) is bothered only about his own “ailment” even though there would be fellow-ailers or other ailers with different ailments?
Therefore in any case a solution is required. I say all this with utmost respect & forethought because we all love this company & wish well for it always
Ramesh :)