Windows

Poll: Which of the following Windows versions is the most prevalent among your end users?

Dell and HP's decision to continue selling a nearly seven-year-old operating system, got Bill Detwiler thinking about which Windows version TechRepublic members most often support. Answer the following poll and let us know which Windows version is the most prevalent among your end users.

As I recently wrote, Dell and HP are selling select, business computers loaded with Windows XP Professional. Customers can have Windows XP preinstalled and get a DVD to upgrade to Vista when they are ready.

Dell and HP's decision to continue selling a nearly seven-year-old operating system, got me thinking about which Windows version TechRepublic members most often support.

Answer the following poll and let us know which Windows version is the most prevalent among your end users.

About

Bill Detwiler is Managing Editor of TechRepublic and Tech Pro Research and the host of Cracking Open, CNET and TechRepublic's popular online show. Prior to joining TechRepublic in 2000, Bill was an IT manager, database administrator, and desktop supp...

28 comments
fretlessjv
fretlessjv

When you consider how there are so many changes for a new system to be not just learned but ALSO TESTED....!!!...one tends to, after many years, learns NOT to get the new op sys untill all the "I gotta have it now" bozos ( I used to call 'em yahoos but that went south) figure out how to use it and report all the glitches, have MS fix them with updates, THEN purchase it. Looks like the bozo's have it! They (MS) have yet to fix all the problems. So why have the DOWN TIME when the whole idea of computers is to have NO down time. Might as well wait. Because the VISTA sys. has tons of issues and we'll be darned if we will be their guiny pigs to help them tweak something that should WORK FROM THE GET GO!!!! Here's an idea........let's do this. I'm (we) writing a song, with hopes of going top #1. I enlist YOU to email us with the parts of the song that are missing, for it to be finished. YOU send me the needed chords to fix the chorus and also adjust the pitch so most people can sing it............THEN I TAKE YOUR SUGGESTION......USE THEM.....IMPROVE the product...........IT GOES TO #1 and then I TELL YOU... That NOW, it costs you boo-coo bucks to have it AND you can only play it on ONE CD player out of 3 that you own!!!!!!! Ya want to play it on ALL your CD players?.........then money buddie, or we'll make it so you CAN'T even use ONE of your CD players. Talk about a gimic!! A SCAM to the enth degree!!!! AND WE ALL HAVE TO EAT IT. Or go Linox, hey there's a thought.......well gotta go. I have 25 updates to install on my new Vista sys.

Laura
Laura

As Microsoft keeps trying to make us all change to Vista they need to see the reality that the market does not want to spend the money in time, hardware and traing for a mediocre product like Vista. Most companies are looking for cost effective IT investments and this new OS is not one of them.

ricardo.garmendia
ricardo.garmendia

As a member of an IT dept. in a school district, I can tell you that we'll keep XP until 2010. What is holding us back are the software companies that market their product to schools. At least 40% of software products are not compatible with Vista. We rely on their solutions. They know that not all school districts have the hardware to run Vista. So, they do not invest on R&D to upgrade their products. the solution?- The latest trend from the software manufacturers is to sell web based software, therefore only requiring a computer with a browser and network connection. What makes it attractive to the software companies is that now they sell their product as a subscription generating a steady annual income. As opposed to selling perpetual licensing. Clever, isn't it?

Troy Wilkinson
Troy Wilkinson

Absolutely. Managed services is the future for any organization not requiring an overly proprietary application, in my opinion. I would look for more of this trend in the very near future. My money is on it.

AnswerMan
AnswerMan

Definitely XP Pro ..... for sure. The Gamers aren't going to VISTA... NONE of the businesses I know of are going to VISTA... that only leaves the poor uninformed retail consumer to brave the challenges of MS latest train wreck.

mmu10021952
mmu10021952

XP Pro until Vista gets all the bugs fixed.

MGP2
MGP2

I work for a town in Massachusetts and we've still got many users still on W2K. We just bought some used Dells (about 3 years old) that we're deploying so users can upgrade to XP. I don't see Vista on the horizon anytime soon.

thompsonwj
thompsonwj

I have been supporting XP in my workplace and will for another 1 to 2 years. I remember when W2k and XP came out and they were both bad until sp 2 was available. Vista has sp 1 now and many of the compatibility problems are reduced. I have a few vista systems and I have little to no truoble with them except when they need to talk to XP for file or printer share. but these are small issues. I know that it will be moving forward just like I did with previous OS's as drivers get better. I use HP and Dell desktops and once I replaced the drivers the test systems were stable. So onward to the future. I will hold off on Windows 7 the same way.

mjd420nova
mjd420nova

Of all the users I've serviced who tried Vista have regreted doing so. Mostly not because it didn't fulfill their hopes of what the next generation OS should be but because M$ has not provided the support they are used to and the difficulty in returning their systems back to XP. XP is undoubtedly the most extensively tested and refined OS fielded to date and so far the most liked for that reason. The system hardware requirments needed to run Vista efficiently seem to be to far fetched and even when those parameters are met, run too slowly to be even a marginal advancement. M$'s failure to provide proper source codes to third party mfgrs is a big part of the platforms downfall and users can't understand why what worked perfectly under XP shouldn't continue to work under any newer OS, even one touted to be the next advancement of a popular OS family.

Bill Detwiler
Bill Detwiler

In and IT Dojo blog poll, I asked TechRepublic members to tell us which Windows version is the most prevalent among their end users. Original post: http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/itdojo/?p=147 The early results show Windows XP the clear favorite with Windows 2000 in second. As of this post, Windows Vista doesn't have a single vote. Windows 2000 and Windows XP are going on nine years and seven years respectively--longer than many people keep their cars. With several service packs and countless updates having been released for each, their current incarnations are probably the most well tested and stable Windows versions. But will their age eventually increase support costs as newer hardware and software is designed for Windows Vista and Windows 7? How long do you think and operating system should last--5, 10, 15 years?

jesusjones
jesusjones

That must be the cry of impotent rage of millions faced with yet another obscure Vista crash. I'm pretty good on my IT but Microsoft have pushed me too far this time. Ubuntu is running nicely thank you.

frankiesmum
frankiesmum

Our firm uses a four year hardware upgrade cycle tied to the major software suites we use. So XP wasn't deployed until it had been out for two years (SP1) and the legacy software had been upgraded. We're still buying XP this year so we'll be supporting it through at least the 2011 year.

finkey
finkey

An OS should last as long as it's secure and useful. How transparent: Microsoft tries to force feed us Vista, for more control and money, of course. So I've lately installed Ubuntu Intrepid, and keep the Windows XP Pro default and active.

rcfoulk
rcfoulk

Personally I keep my cars more than 7 years. I don't replace them until they either don't work or a new one affords features I desire. XP works quite adequately for most small business users and the feature set does not deprive them of anything they truly need. The added bonus is that it's already owned, runs well on existing equipment and with add-on and network appliances to enhance security it is just as secure as Vista. Vista offers nothing that offsets the costs associated wiht upgrading for the vast majority of businesses. They will continue to use XP regardless of Microsoft and the market's efforts to force them to upgrade for their own benefit. This will persist past Windows 7 if it doesn't offer clear paybacks for the necessary investment to upgrade. As I've said before, new is not out of hand better.

ramnet
ramnet

I agree with you 100% - at last an analyst not in Microsoft's hip pocket or a Linux/Apple lover identifies why most will stick with XP for as long as they can. XP gives us 99% of what we want , use and need 99% of the time. I not wasting time , effort and new dollars trying to chase a hypothetical gain of 1% if indeed that was a deliverable. Microsoft constantly thinks(believes its own publicity) and tries to convince its customers by stealth that we are missing something. In doing so they only harm themselves further and continue to alienate customers who once would have supported them. Its quite sad Microsoft cannot simply say we stuffed up VISTA lets get on with Windows 7 and this time get it right. Lets build on all the wanted XP features users liked and accepted and lets give them something compelling like blistering speed , much faster internet access and the ability to get voice and video streaming correctly over the net. Ken Melbourne

Zeppo9191
Zeppo9191

My apologies, but I found this article a bit hard to read - I stumbled over a couple of unnecessary commas. Humor me a moment while I play Grammar Nazi. The first sentence of the first paragraph should read, "As I recently wrote, Dell and HP are selling select business computers loaded with Windows XP Professional." The second paragraph should read, "Dell and HP?s decision to continue selling a nearly seven-year-old operating system got me thinking about which Windows version TechRepublic members most often support." Sorry, but I don't know the rules of grammar well enough to explain why. I pretend to know grammar; I don't pretend to know the RULES of grammar. ;) Otherwise, thanks for the poll. I'm not terribly surprised by the results, but it was interesting to have my suspicions confirmed.

MGP2
MGP2

The entire article is four sentences long. Actually, five if you want to include the poll question. According to Microsoft Word's "word count" feature, those five sentences total 92 words. If you find it THAT hard to read, I don't think a few extra commas are what's causing the problem.

rfolden
rfolden

I'm not sure it is my job (or yours) to point out the supposed ineptitude of others. What I would do, instead, is encourage parents to make sure their children are taught by teachers who appreciate and adhere to the coventions of what I like to call American Revised Standard English. Unfortunately, the acronym for this is ARSE. If I were the edu-nazi, I would force kids to take (and pass with a C+ or above) the following two classes: 1. Touch-typing. (Or 'Keyboarding', as it probably is called now.) 2. Technical Writing. The above-mentioned two classes have helped me more in life than ANY other tutelage.

d50041
d50041

All the companies I support are interested in the applications, not the underlying OS. Given that XP is as stable as it is today, and all the functions needed run fine, there is no supportable business need to change. The cost of changing, including hardware upgrades and user training and loss oif productivity, is financially unacceptable.

Chaz Chance#
Chaz Chance#

The company I work for created a system for a niche market many years ago, which runs under Windows NT. Having achieved 100% saturation of the market, which means no competition, with a product that did exactly what it was supposed to do, there was no need for upgrades. It's still out there, in daily use, and because NT4 with Servicepack 6A is the most stable OS that MS ever made, reboots, much less support calls, are rare. One system I worked on recently was last rebooted in '03. Does anyone here know of another MS OS that has clocked up as much operational time?

rfolden
rfolden

... probably has more 'total hours' without reboot time logged than even NT 4. I also believe time has shown Windows 2000 to be even more stable than Windows NT 4. As an added bonus, Windows 2000 has plug n pray and a pretty interface. Those don't mean much to server dudes such as ourselves, but you must admit it is a little easier to interact with. And the incredible driver set available to Windows 2000 is HUGE. El-Robusto!

IT_Goddess
IT_Goddess

with the exception of many recent MS updates that have hosed some profiles. 2K was [and IMHO still is] the stablest, most robust OS created so far. XP just doesn't thrill me... Vista is ok, some nice eye candy if you have the power to run it, which most business users don't and won't due to cost of upgrading or replacing hardware.

mikemajor3
mikemajor3

finally comes a time when the core base of the OS can't handle new technology; that's when, as one poster already put it, its more expensive to fix that replace. I hated XP when it first came out, chortled wickedly when sp1 blew more things up...since sp2, I have to admit the damn thing won me over; and I agree with some of the previous posters, its the stablest and best-tested OS out there. Does what its supposed to, doesn't do too much stuff it's not (long as you reboot every coupla days, so it puts its toys away properly), and unlike VIsta, I don't have customers calling me to ask about Linux LOL have a great one

Troy Wilkinson
Troy Wilkinson

I really don't think that the deciding factor should be a number. I don't believe an OS should stop evolving. The OS should be replaced if and only if it no longer meets the needs of the users and has become more expensive to update then to replace it. It seems to me and many others, I'm sure, that the "new OS" game is a revenue generator only and is not done for anything except profit. Selling a new face and perceived value add is a salesmen's tactic and is not always in the best interest of the consumer. I do understand the high cost of continued development and support of all OSs, but the argument doesn't stick if you consider that a stable and constantly refreshed product will continue to sell lots of licenses. Perhaps a new sales approach for upgrade options could be developed while providing the same stable OS that business owners, CIOs and CFOs can appreciate. If the current approach is not changed I believe the consumer will eventually open their minds to another developer offering the next best thing. This market is ready for a new developer with fresh ideas that benefit all parties involved. Watching the rich get richer in this economy only makes it that much more desirable to move on to our own idea of the next best thing.

normhaga
normhaga

"I don't believe an OS should stop evolving. ... If the current approach is not changed I believe the consumer will eventually open their minds to another developer offering the next best thing." The problem is that even among the alternative OS's such as Linux and OS X there is more of a move to glitter than functionality which seems to follow the Vista path.

Wally Bahny
Wally Bahny

Windows XP is tried, tested, and still viable today in 2008 -- probably more so than in 2002 when it was released. Also, as another poster said, there are just to many horror stories with Vista for a sensible network admin to _want_ to switch to it. XP didn't have as many problems on Day 1 as Vista does post-SP1 -- there's something to be said for that.

Sagax-
Sagax-

The bottom line is the functional adequacy. Personally I still like Win2k better than XP. But the withdrawal of M$ support eventually forced the upgrade. I am posting this from a Mepis Linux box that I set up as a test station. When the inevitable demise of XP comes, I will be familiar with an alternative to Vista.