Windows

Windows XP continues to be the operating system that just won't die

Windows XP is slowly being phased out as new PCs are deployed, but the migration is still far from complete. Recent poll results suggest Windows XP is going to be around for a long time.

Over the past two years or so, I have polled TechRepublic members reading the Microsoft Windows Blog about Windows XP. And each poll result has basically told the same story: Windows XP works, and IT pros responsible for maintaining enterprise systems are in no big hurry to phase it out for Windows 7 or any other operating system you can name.

If you look at the results of the two poll questions I posed last month, you can see the sentiment remains the same. Windows XP is slowly being phased out as new PCs are deployed, but the migration is still far from complete. Comments in the discussion forums reveal many stalwarts who have no intention of moving off Windows XP, even if Microsoft discontinues support.

But there is another angle that interests me. When Microsoft released its latest quarterly financial results, it stated quite clearly that Windows 7 was selling very well and the company was earning tons of revenue from the process. The poll results indicate that Microsoft can count on a long cash cow from Windows 7 and, eventually, Windows 8 migration, because there are apparently plenty of OS migrations yet to take place.

Are you surprised by the poll results showing so many Windows XP installations still in place?

Also read:

About

Mark Kaelin is a CBS Interactive Senior Editor for TechRepublic. He is the host for the Microsoft Windows and Office blog, the Google in the Enterprise blog, the Five Apps blog and the Big Data Analytics blog.

52 comments
lpan7
lpan7

XP works! No people/companies are not just buying and downgrading but are not buying 7 and keeping WXP installed. I believe the only reason W7 has been selling is it is the only thing that you can now get on a new computer. They do NOT HAVE a choice as to XP or 7. As i said before Microsoft should improve what they have what actually works. WXP is that. Why cant they run and support both systems if they think 7 will make it or not.

jriedel
jriedel

I have breezed these articles for the past 6+ years and the only thing that is surprising is how many writers are still writing about it and how many readers are still commenting. I am dumbfounded still wondering, who cares? Enterprise businesses with 5000 users are not going to upgrade for several reasons that everybody knows, so what, leave them be. Small business will upgrade faster, great, leave them be. I think I am finally done peeking in these areticles thinking there is something new or somebody had a great idea, its just old thoughts being told over and over again.

tj243025
tj243025

Microsoft is making it harder and harder to get updates for XP. When I first install XP and (upgrade to SP3 as required to start a download it often times doesn't work when trying to get the initial updates. I have to turn on Automatic updates and wait for the first update from that before going directly to windows updates. Sometime the site appears to be down also. I guess they are trying to force Windows 7 on me. I did email tech support and was told a lot of registry settings to change to make it work.

seggsyuk
seggsyuk

In my office I buy new boxes with Win 7 but install Office 2003 as this is required for the main app we use. Vast majority machines still have Win XP and I expect will remain so for a couple of years yet. My users are less bothered by the change from Win XP to Win 7 than the change from Office 2003 to Office 2010. That is just not going to happen for a long while. One, our main DB app that is business critical has to use Office 2003 until the dev's release a new version. Two, the vast majority of my users are complete Luddites and trying to get them to accept anything new is almost impossible, and this comes right from the top as the biggest Luddite is the MD.......... Incidently my office box is Win 7 with Office 2010, but I am one of the few that doesn't use the main app.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

from Dell and similar organisations pays for a a Win 7 licences regardless of what's on it. What would be good to know is how many of those significant corporate purchases are actually running Win 7 in the office. I know many who buy the systems from Dell, HP, etc and then have their own tech unit re-image with the corporate XP image they just built for that model of system. The main reason many companies are staying with XP is they don't want to pay out big bucks to have dedicated systems rebuilt to work with Win 7 as they work well with XP but not so well with Win 7 or Win 7 in XP mode - which does NOT run all XP software anyway.

mikifinaz1
mikifinaz1

The techno-geeks are always slavering at the mouth for all sorts of cool but essentially junkware baubles. The rest of us just use the PC as a tool to get our real jobs done. Trying to juggle learning all the changes in every "new" system and getting your job done is a real pain. We just need a reliable system that is "good enough" where the controls aren't constantly being changed around. Haven't you guys wondered why there is s thriving cottage industry in making Vista and Windows 7 look like and work like XP? Because as good as all the photo, audio, libraries etc. stuff is most of us don't use it, especially at work. I don't care what the Microsoft human factors people say, new is not always better. I thought that they got the hint back when they put in the "switches' to change the desktop from that assinine new experience desktop to allow users to change the interface back to the old style. Guess not... The web is not the way...new is not always better...and you can't keep expecting people to pay for the same Edsel with a new paint job forever.

dfa19
dfa19

Like the saying goes, if it ain't broke don't fix it. It does everything our business needs so why switch. However, our corporate environment has alot more XP then our Partner shops and retail stores. 200+ use 7, 200 use XP and the other 150 use NT (sad but true).

glnz
glnz

In addition to expense, took me four years to learn everything I needed for our home network on WinXPPro SP3 and the connections to all our home network devices. Will keep using it till other devices no longer work with it, which was the only reason I ditched Win98SE on an old laptop 10 months ago.

Who Am I Really
Who Am I Really

I was at a shop last week I have a case with a dead board I'm getting a new board, RAM, CPU, & PSU guess what ! ! I'm installing XP on it when it's ready

mwclarke1
mwclarke1

XP for a long while Much is going to VM's for better hardware support Too costly to change out all the hardware (printers, scanners, etc) that does not have drivers for W7 (same issue was with Vista) Too costly to retrain for Office 2007 +, W7, etc that dramatically changes the user experience. Will also stay on Office 2003 also, whereas many are moving to open office since looks more like older office and people can navigate much better than office 2007/2010 People got use to the old menu system that was comparable for many applications, why change ? Was a big big mistake to think so big that can quite supporting so much stuff in order to upgrade to a bigger bloated slower piece of crap Do not need all the bells and whistles for business use as a gamer may want. However, if MS thinks can get better profits only selling to the gamers and multimedia home users then go for it, they have or are losing the majority of the business community.

kaninelupus
kaninelupus

At all those still insisting that XP is still 'stable'... are you really kidding me?? It was been Swiss-cheesed full of holes and flaws for years.... and that will only get worse as final support disappears... this time with MS having zero reason to back down this time around. I find it all so ironic considering XP was still being cursed (and still poorly supported) even two years after release! So many of the nagging issues I had with Windows simply disappeared after moving away - first to Vista then especially to Win7. I also find it ironic that most respondents here are those on the BACK-END, not those on the FRONT-END who continue to be forced to endure because either management is too short sighted, or is being lead up the garden path by an IT-Support group so typically ingrained in their habitual behavior and unwilling to move forward! Now I actually provide the IT-support as just part of my role in my current work-place, along with maintaining/modifying - even complete rebuilds/renovations - to our business' website.... I would not be confident syncing site files to the desktop via Dreamweaver on an XP-based machine.... would consider it madness. Now I had to really persist with the business owner to upgrade (not only our OS but also nearly 10yo PC's which were struggling in the day-to-day running of the business tasks). But as new peripherals needed to be purchased - for some of which I actually struggled to obtain XP drivers - as components were failing with no easy to obtain replacements... I finally won through.... all that and the fact that I made clear that in no uncertain terms was I willing to support a move on-line with us running XP... especially not with the IT proficiency of many of our staff! Now I can't say there have been zero hitches.... almost none, but our POS/ledger software hadn't seen a major upgrade since Win 95! It was glitchy enough under XP but is all the more flawed under Win7 x64.... it works but it has issues! Funnily enough - the dev is also the bosses accountant - a discussion whereby he was told he either rebuilt or we went elsewhere and what do you know - a new version is almost ready for release! To be honest, those IT-support staff holding off upgrades due to refusal to change/reskill; who are playing on the fears of the unskilled to avoid change; who are not standing up to ignorant penny-pinchers who are looking solely at short-term expenses; or simply too impotent to stand up to lazy-assed app developers (or in some cases look for replacements) so as to enable forward progress..... move on guys, you've lost that initiative and drive that saw you enter the industry! XP should have been put to pasture some time ago (it has LONG been broken)... those unwilling to see the facts and progress should go back their UNIX boxes, if only to rediscover their passion....

regcor
regcor

Why would I want to change from a system that is stable and I know how to use just for the hell of it? Not only would I have to buy more new hardware and software that I have used for years and much of it probably not available for Windows 7. I have a laptop running Windows 7 with Office 2007 and would rather use WindowsXP and Office 2003, thank you very much. And now, just when people are getting used to using Windows 7, Windows 8 is in the near future. No thank you Microsoft. Aquarius

Lazarus439
Lazarus439

Microsoft is pushing XP Mode as the way to get old software to run on PC with Windows 7 on them. So be it. But how can MS pull the plug on standalone XP without doing so on XP Mode as well? As much as MS might not like it, XP may have to be supported as long as XP Mode is supported. Is it going to be in Windows 8, too??

lucasm007
lucasm007

Many XP applications (3rd Party) do not run in Win7 unless you have XP Mode installed. So what is the point of going to Win7 if you must have XP Mode. Until 3rd Party apps can catch up to the new OS I do not see a mass rush to upgrade anytime soon even with XP at EOL support. My organization will break if we go to Win7 anytime soon. We are currently contact vendors to find when they will support a true Win7 platform.

pbohanna
pbohanna

Companies buying new PCs and downgrading to XP has been mentioned but not much on the older PCs running XP. At what point does a company decide to rollout Windows 7, when most of the older PCs need to be replaced or when the company needs an app that will not run on XP? I use XP on an older PC and its great, I use that PC all the time, but I cannot use it for development work so I use another PC with Windows 7 as well. To my surprise Windows 7 was quickly embraced by many businesses and colleges, maybe they were geared up to implement Vista but delayed for Windows 7. Are some businesses delaying for Windows 8, or for a cloud solution, or maybe a non-Windows OS. I think that because XP users are content and XP is stable and reliable, businesses will want to keep using it.

adornoe
adornoe

if there are any enterprising minds out there that have or will try to make IE9 usable on the XP machines? I know that for Firefox and for IE and other browsers, that there were other versions of those browsers designed by third parties, but using the original browser's nucleus with some minor but notable changes. Does anybody know of an effort for IE9 on XP? BTW, I already use IE9 on two Windows 7 PCs, but I'm trying to keep my XP box going for as long as I can.

jck
jck

Microsoft is going to discontinue XP support in 2014. I wonder if they are going to discontinue selling back-rev versions of their OS 1-2 years prior? I know that where I work now (as well as all but one of my last 3 employers), the IT hardware staff images most of the machines with Windows XP. There are application compatibility issues and other reasons. I know that one reason here is that the remote management suite here doesn't work with Windows 7. Oops. Microsoft is in no rush to discontinue selling a current Windows OS license with the option to use an older OS with it though. They'll bleed that "obsolete" OS that they say they want to get rid of so bad for every penny they can. As for me, I'm not worried. I'll move to Linux fully by 2014. No more $100+ per computer costs for upgrading to a new theme and extra fonts...and a bunch of apps I don't need or want.

wwgorman
wwgorman

Windows XP has evolved into perhaps the best operating system ever for a Windows_Intel based computer. The updates over its more than a decade of existence has made it a very workable system. Microsoft seems to want to write it off and close it down so they can sell newer operating systems that have many problems, e.g. Windows Vista. Even Windows 7, touted as being new, improved and better has not yet proven so. The few tablets that adopted Windows 7 have not succeeded in the marketplace due to being slow and the touch screen commands being unresponsive to finger or stylus action. Windows 7 unfortunately has more incompatibilities with older software that even Windows Vista but the good news is they put in a virtual Windows XP mode for the Professional and Ultimate issues of Windows 7. I was an early adopter of Windows 7 Home Premium to replace the hated Windows Vista only to find that Windows Vista Home Premium was better than Windows 7 Home Premium and I switched back to Windows Vista. Now, I am upgrading to Windows 7 Professional with the Virtual XP Mode and it appears to do the tasks I want it to do-----like run older software.

me
me

I have a feeling a lot of large businesses are buying Windows 7 and downgrading to Windows XP. Thus the continued large number of XP installations and the brisk sales of Windows 7 licenses. Most big businesses use more then Office and (insert off-the-shelf application name here) to run thier operations. Critical little applications that don't run well under Windows 7 or in XP mode, or don't play with well with programs like Dosbox but worked under XP and every version of Windows back to DOS will keep Windows XP arround until those applications can be upgraded or replaced. I think that will be a while.

Spitfire_Sysop
Spitfire_Sysop

I was expecting a bunch of programs to be 64-bit by now. The fact is that developers are still coding for Windows XP.

Mark W. Kaelin
Mark W. Kaelin

Are you surprised by the poll results showing so many Windows XP installations still in place?

Lazarus439
Lazarus439

Per MS http://support.microsoft.com/kb/306525, XP/SP2 is the minimum supported level for Windows Update. If you have an install disk that's lower than SP3, why would you not have an offline copy of the thing you could install directly? It's a lot faster than waiting for online updates, even if they were working perfectly. Even after installing SP3, there is a download or two necessary to get Windows Update itself up to speed, but I've never had a problem updating a machine "on demand"; I've never had to wait for Automatic Updates to boot strap the machine. BTW: One of these "preparatory" updates is the current version of Windows Installer. If you want to make your like a little simpler, download the current version of installer and load it on the machine right after SP3 and before you even try Windows Update.

kaninelupus
kaninelupus

is still a fool. You take that XP-based system and plug into the net.... see how long that swiss-cheese build holds out! As a geek myself, I get so frustrated with the habitual XP fanatics!

kaninelupus
kaninelupus

Since Oracle bough the farm, basically closing out the 'open' in Office, we are see far fewer numbers transition to OO.... but you keep telling yourself that if it makes you happy...

kaninelupus
kaninelupus

It is likely it is not even being actively supported under XP.... meaning you REALLY do not know how secure it is.... especially if it is a PC connected to the internet, or networked to PC's that are (or which even have unprotected USB ports). I do laugh at the ingrained habits (and complaints) of Windows users.... no other OS variant has even CLOSE to the support life-cycle. Any Linux variant offering Business Grade support cycles generally last 2 years per build. Apple sure as hell aint supporting an build of OS X for nearly half as long as XP has been. Quit your whining and move on..... or retire!

Rodo1
Rodo1

Chrome or FireFox gets the job done. Why would you want IE9?

Lazarus439
Lazarus439

Could be time to buy some stock in Ghost....

hal001
hal001

I agree with you. Our company buy new PCs and promptly downgrade them all to Windows XP. There are many old applications written for XP and even some for Window 98 and 95. Those old apps were wrtten by people who have left the company and the new people really are reluctant to touch these apps since they works.

cd003284
cd003284

Downgrades cost, and so does maintaining existing XP systems; but not as much as dealing with/replacing legacy hardware and software, training and retraining, and all the other costs resulting from/associated with going to 7. What I keep hearing from my clients, large and small, is "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" and that when the job market improves, the same financial factors will encourage upgrades to 7. Too many articles and discussions fail to acknowledge the economy, and to allow for the differences between recreational technologies and business/govt/academia. Rectech gets a LOT of coverage, and it certainly represents a LOT of money; but it has little do with the institutional markets.

DNSB
DNSB

Even Microsoft doesn't seem to be too enthused about 64 bit on the end user desktop. When you compare IE 9's 32 and 64 bit implementations, you have to wonder why only the 32 bit version got the updated JS engine. Not to mention the recommendation that even on 64 bit systems, you should be installing the 32 bit version of Office 2010 due to potential compatibility issues with add-ons both from Microsoft and 3rd parties that are available only in 32 bit versions.

Gisabun
Gisabun

There are plenty out there - depends on what you are using.... I think some developers don't want to take the time to port things over [or because of cost].

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

It's like you said. "Windows XP works and IT pros responsible for maintaining enterprise systems are in no big hurry to phase it out..." It runs all the apps we want to use. I'll roll out W7 on new machines and on redeployed systems less than three years old, but we have no reason to perform a mass migration.

tj243025
tj243025

I haven't had a problem until recently. They now state you have to have a minimum of SP3. I did download a local copy of SP3 and installed it. It it happens again I will check about windows installer. It did happen on more than one system. This is what Microsoft told me to do, but by the time they responded the auto update already updated the system: Step 1: Reinstall Windows Update Agent 3.0 ===================================== 1. Please download the file from the following link: http://download.windowsupdate.com/windowsupdate/redist/standalone/7.4.7600.226/windowsupdateagent30-x86.exe 2. Save the file to "C: drive". 3. Click "Start", "Run", type: "C:\WindowsUpdateAgent30-x86.exe /wuforce" (without quotations) and then press "Enter" to install the Windows Update engine. There is a space between "C:\WindowsUpdateAgent30-x86.exe" and "/wuforce". Now try Windows Update to see if the issue has been resolved. Please let us know if this step has resolved it. If not, please proceed to the next step. Step 2: Delete a Incorrect Registry Key ================================= 1. Click Start, click Run, type REGEDIT, and click OK. 2. Go to the following Registry batch by clicking the PLUS (+) sign HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings\5.0\User Agent 3. Right click on the Registry and delete it. 4. Go to the following Registry batch by clicking the PLUS (+) sign HKEY_CURRENT_USER\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows \CurrentVersion\Internet Settings\5.0\User Agent 5. Right click on the Registry and delete it. 6. Restart the computer. Now try Windows Update to see if the issue has been resolved. Please let us know if this step has resolved it. If not, please proceed to the next step. Step 3: Load Internet Explorer Default Settings ====================================== 1. Please close Internet Explorer. 2. Click "Start" and click "Run", input "INETCPL.CPL" (without quotation marks) and press Enter. 3. Switch to the "Advanced" tab, select "Reset Internet Explorer Settings" under "Restore advanced Settings" button. 2. Select "Delete Personal Settings" option and click the "Reset" button. Then click "Close" and "OK" to quit. Now try Windows Update to see if the issue has been resolved. If the above steps do not help, please provide me with the following information for further research. How to capture a Screenshot =================== 1. When the error appears, please press the "Print Screen" key (PrtScn) on your keyboard. 2. Click "Start", click "Run", type MSPAINT, and click "OK". 3. In Paint, click "Paste" under the "Edit" Menu, click "Save" under the "File" menu, type a file name for the screenshot, choose JPEG as "Save as type", click "Desktop" on the left pane, and click "Save". 4. Please find the screenshot on the Desktop and send it as an attachment to: v-30roxi@mssupport.microsoft.com. How to collect System Information ========================= 1. Click "Start", go to "Run", type in "MSINFO32" (without quotations) and press "Enter" to start System Information. 2. On the "System Information" window, on the menu bar, click "File", and click "Save as"; save it as an NFO file, such as "system.nfo" to your local Desktop. 3. Locate the file, right-click on it, click "Send To", and click "Compressed (zipped) Folder". 4. Please send it as an attachment to v-30roxi@mssupport.microsoft.com. How to collect the Windows Update log file =============================== Note: Since there are two Windows Update log files with similar names, please be aware that I am requesting the "WindowsUpdate.log" file without a space in the middle of the name. 1. Click "Start", "Run" and type "WindowsUpdate.log" (without quotations). 2. Click "OK". We will see a file named "WindowsUpdate.log". 3. Now click on the "File" menu and then click "Save As" and select "Desktop" in the "Save in" option on the top of the window. 4. Click "Save". The file will be saved to your Desktop. Please send it as an attachment to v-30roxi@mssupport.microsoft.com. However, if the file is unable to be collected by the above steps, we can also use the following method to collect it. 1. Click "Start", "Run", type: "%windir%" (without quotations) and then press "Enter". 2. In the open window, we will see a file named "WindowsUpdate.log". 3. Please send it as an attachment to: v-30roxi@mssupport.microsoft.com.

Lazarus439
Lazarus439

FireFox demonstrated it has little regard for the realities of IT in the enterprise, regardless of what sounds come out of their mouths. What's been lost in this arrogance is that large measure of FireFox's appeal comes from the add-ons and plug-ins that used to be able to work with it. Their insane 6-8 week rev cycle is also killing these things, too. The ones I have in my FireFox that are disabled due to incompatibility gets longer and longer. I know FF can look for updates, but, you what? They aren't out there to be found.

adornoe
adornoe

And IE9 has better malware protection, and from my experience, it's also faster than Firefox. Chrome might be fast, but, I consider anything Google to be spyware.

dave
dave

New Dells with Windows 7. The Windows 7 OS never sees the light of day and for the same reason - old apps.

plevin
plevin

I'm a tech writer and PC geek and have been so since CPM and Wordstar. I bought a Win 7 PC with Office 2010 and have been configuring it for work. Frankly, it's a joke. Not only will it never match the productivity of my XP/Office 2003 machine, but, it would be COMPLETELY useless without all the mods and tweaks I've found. It's like going back to Win 3.1 - a different tweak or add-on to simplify every routine task. This is "Windows for Idiots" - geared 100% to PC novices, and a complete abandonment of the professional Windows user.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

the real problem is there are issues with the changes the FF team HAVE to make to totally divorce FF from using core Windows components that MS have been using to create security issues within FF. That's taking some time as MS won't provide the code needed to do that, so they have to take time to do a lot of little changes and test them, check they work, and go on to the next one. They also have to adjust to all the changes MS are making FF not work on Windows.

MargaretBartley
MargaretBartley

I've been using Windows for 20 years, and rarely use their tech support, but that is what I was trained on, and expect. Firefox's support is so weird. But they do often reply to questions, which is better than google does. But I recently had to use MS' tech support, when one of my clients switched to Office 2010/Vista, and I have to say that MS support is no better now that Firefox and google - abyssmal, the whole lot!

Lazarus439
Lazarus439

I'm not a developer, so the intimacies of how this stuff happens aren't my concern. What is my concern is that things I like to use in FireFox get blocked by FireFox.

kaninelupus
kaninelupus

Firstly, it took me a little while to figure out what Mozilla was doing with this sped-up upgrade cycle (both from the point of view as a long-time user (since version 0.5) and a former community developer) and it actually makes a LOT MORE sense when you look at it. # In the tradition timeframe, major upgrades happened every 12-18 months... when new builds landed, many add-ons had often to under-go HUGE rebuilds to maintain compatibility.... not so anymore.... # Build compatibility (as far as Firefox determines it upon checks) is SOLELY dependent upon a single file contained within each and every add-on and theme pack called 'install.rdf'. This file - alone with add-on description and update links - also tell FF what versions it is compatible with... the smart developer - who often also keeps up with nightly's etc - often sets the version number a couple of steps ahead thus avoiding this issue... unfortunately, as with ANY community dev pool, they are not all that smart! # Google 'Nightly Tester Tools'... it has an option to disable the version check, and thus forces compatibility for all those apps which are disabled only on the basis of this slackness. # As an extra, I'm currently using the x64 nightly builds which are THREE builds ahead of the 'latest & stable' builds.... I can never remember a time when Nightly's were as stable and damn-near release-ready!

Regats
Regats

So? Just close the screen if it doesn't interest you. Helps keep the program free if it does. You won't see any more afterward. And you won't see any when you actually run the software.

adornoe
adornoe

which took up the whole screen. I can tolerate a small pop up, that allows the sites real contents to occupy the majority of the screen, but a popup that takes up the whole screen is a big turn off.

adornoe
adornoe

Microsoft did learn from its past bad history, and now, whatever the underlying code, it is said to be better and faster and safer than the competition. He who does not learn from the lessons of history is doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. Nobody that is fair, will be willing to declare IE9 to be the same as in the past. Grow out of the fanboism and stupid discussion tactics already. My question was about IE9 for XP, and I didn't ask to engage in a discussion about "my browser maker is better than your browser maker". That kind of discussion should be reserved for the children in the audience.

Rodo1
Rodo1

It's the same code with a new look! History has everything to do with it my friend!

adornoe
adornoe

implementation. IE9 has been reported to be a safer browser, and it is a lot faster than previous IE versions. You can keep Firefox or Chrome or whatever, my question pertains to IE9 for XP. I already use IE9 on Windows 7, and I also use Firefox, but not as much, and I also use Chrome, but for testing purposes to make sure that what I design works just as well on all browsers. But, I will stay away from Chroms as my regular browser. I don't like to see all kinds of apps firing up in the background just because I clicked on something that comes from Google.

Rodo1
Rodo1

I guess I don't trust IE, especially when the last couple of patch cycles have had major fixes for it. In the history of IE, it has never been noted for security, and what makes you think it isn't "spyware?"

kaninelupus
kaninelupus

If you take the time to learn how to use the navigation bar and sidebar, you have amazingly MORE control over how you move btwn directories no matter how deep you go...

MargaretBartley
MargaretBartley

In explorer, I frequently have directory five and six layers deep. It is absolutely astounding to me that a simple thing like being able to close up the folder navigation pane to only display the directory I'm in is missing. It's like the people who designed the new interface never used computers.! It's a constant irrititant to me that I have to keep my Explorer windows taking up so much of the screen real estate.

TheChas
TheChas

I know I am in the minority, but I find Windows 7 to be extremely cumbersome to learn and use. I personally prefer Vista to Windows 7. Just like Vista, Windows 7 has tools that used to be readily available buried 3 or 4 menu levels deep. Why do you need to dig 3 levels deep on the start menu to get to the run command? Then there is the "pin" feature that replaces the quick launch bar. What a waste of screen space. For that matter, why is there not an option to format a drive as an extended partition with logical drives? About the only reason I see to upgrade to Windows 7 is so that I can skip Windows 8. Chas

kaninelupus
kaninelupus

I see this a lot, but it still makes little sense! Although MS changed the GUI to make it more accessible to the non-geek (ei, the most common user), I really do not know of a power-tool that was included in XP that is NOT included in Win7 - often with MORE features. As well as that, there has never been a version of Windows that has included more tools than Win7... the difference comes down to location and method of finding them. With Win7, they vastly improved on intentions laid out in Vista... empowering the 'general user'... at the same time tucking the true 'power tools' out of sight so that the general user could do no real harm. All the tools are still there.... use the search box in the Start Menu to locate.

Editor's Picks