Hardware 2.0

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Can you see yourself running Windows XP in 2014?

By Adrian Kingsley-Hughes | April 26, 2008, 3:11am PDT

Summary: Will you still be running XP in 2014?

Time for a quick poll …

From a support point of view, Windows XP still has a lot of life left in it. Mainstream Support will be available until April 14, 2009 and Extended Support until April 8, 2014.

So, here’s my question - Can you see yourself running XP in 2014?

Poll

Can you see yourself running XP in 2014?

Personally, I think I’ll still be running XP in a limited sense, but I’m fast migrating Windows boxes over to Vista now because the more I handle XP and Vista together, the more I’m liking Vista and the more I’m hating XP. Also, with Mac OS and Linux to think about, administrating one Windows version is a lot less hassle than two.

Thoughts?

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “Hardware 2.0”

Adventures with Ubuntu 8.04

XP SP3 vs. Vista SP1 - Which is fastest?

Topics

Microsoft Windows Vista, Microsoft Windows XP, Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Windows Vista (Longhorn), Operating Systems, Software, Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology.

Full Bio
Disclosure
Contact

Vendor HotSpot

The 360° Conversation around Cloud Computing

TECH VISUALIZER brings the social conversation to life... powered by Brocade

Learn More »

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?

Adobe Shadow helps web pros preview and test designs across devices

Ask a Question Start a Discussion

136

Comments

Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Follow via:: RSS; Email Alert

Just In

RE: Can you see yourself running Windows XP in 2014?

yamaholic 8th Oct 2009

you're absolutely right...what does Vista (or Windows 7)
do for a business (your average word processing
spreadsheet etc. business) that is so much better than XP
that warrants an expensive company-wide hardware upgrade?
I know my company will be on XP for a long time-I've even
installed 7 on an office PC and shown my boss-he asked
'what does it do for us that XP doesn't do already?
'...well, it looks pretty...of course on modern hardware
7 is the way to go but most businesses aren't running on
modern hardware-

View in thread

Please Select
Please Select

0 Votes

+ -

By then, "Windows 7" will be released.

CobraA1 26th Apr 2008

By then, Windows 7 will be released, and we'll all be saying how great Vista was and whine to Microsoft to keep supporting it, saying it's their best OS ever, and how Windows 7 is a total piece of junk.

In other words the XP vs Vista war will play itself out in Vista vs Windows 7. History will repeat itself, like it has in every other OS.

XP used to suck at one time: I remember people complaining especially about how much extra hardware was needed for the new fancy "Luna" theme. It's only because it's been out for years that it's considered so stable and supported by so much hardware.

I am currently using Vista (Business 64 bit), and my parents are currently using XP. I imagine they will stay with XP for at least another year or two. By 2014, however, I'm sure they'll have Vista, and I'll have Windows 7.

In fact, by 2014, I'm pretty sure there will be lots of news about the development of the next version of Windows after Windows 7, whatever that will be. XP will pretty much be long dead by 2014, and Vista will be the accepted OS of choice, with Windows 7 being the new kid on the block.

I'm confident that history will repeat itself again, like it has every time with new OSes.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Only on the consumer side......

linux for me 26th Apr 2008

Over 95% of business users will need nothing more than basic Office functions, word processing, spreadsheets, presentations, etc...

ALmost all businesses have a 4-5 year replacement cycle for PC's. WinXP does what these users need right now. The added costs of hardware upgrades for Vista, Vista's cost, the cost of upgrading systems to Vista, and re-training of users, are cost prohibitive and will force businesses to keep WinXP as long as possible, or force the move to linux. If I'm not imaging systems to WinXP, I'm installing linux and OpenOffice on those boxes.

Even now, almost every system that arrives at a business customer, is re-imaged to WinXP. Businesses have custom apps that don't work on Vista, and until recoded and tested, Vista will not get to the floor.

Microsoft's lastest numbers show that this is occuring. There simply is no reason for most business customers to move to Vista. OEM's, such as Dell, have announced that they will continue to supply XP.

No....WinXP is here to stay for a long time.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Businesses are staying with Windows XP...

ye 26th Apr 2008

...primarily because they have legacy software that may not be compatible with Vista.

All this talk about hardware upgrade costs, retraining costs, etc is all BS. I'm not aware of any business that upgrades their hardware solely in order to use a new operating system.

As for training why do Mac and Linux advocates ignore the retraining costs associated with switching to a completely different platform? While there will be some adjustment to Vista it's unlikely to be nearly as much as to completely different platform.

0 Votes

+ -

You just made my point

linux for me 26th Apr 2008

I'm not aware of any business that upgrades their hardware solely in order to use a new operating system. [-i]

Exactly! Hardware isn't bought or upgraded because Vista needs it, and new systems are imaged with XP. Those are the facts I stated above, and you just agreed to!

And training cost for OpenOffice are a lot less than Office 2007. My wife and step-son use OpenOffice on their linux systems and I didn't have to show them a thing. Changing to Vista and Office 2007 is much harder than linux and Openoffice.

I keep very buay updating Vista system to XP or more often converting them to linux. Where I stand, XP will be here a long time.

0 Votes

+ -

How did I make your point?

ye 26th Apr 2008

"Exactly! Hardware isn't bought or upgraded because Vista needs it, and new systems are imaged with XP. Those are the facts I stated above, and you just agreed to!"

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Can you please elaborate?

0 Votes

+ -

re: Businesses are staying

Badgered 29th Apr 2008

Businesses are staying with Windows XP...
...primarily because they have legacy software that may not be compatible with Vista.

Exactly. Though we should have our ERP system upgraded by year end to a version with a Vista compatible client and we will begin to migrate. I imagine other businesses are in a similar situation.

It's not really a big deal, we'll just hold off on PC purchases until then.

0 Votes

+ -

If it works...

pkrdk 30th Apr 2008

then don't fix it.

0 Votes

+ -

Might stay with punched cards for DP.

GRANDBRADY 30th Jun 2008

(Tongue in cheek)
In the "Good Ole' days" businesses processed data using machines that read cards that had holes punched in them.
There were no "Virus" problem. And heck! The operators only had to know how to feed the little critters ie, cards into the machines.

I often wonder if there are any businesses (besides the government) that still use this method.

0 Votes

+ -

Did you forget to read the title of the article?

CobraA1 26th Apr 2008

"Over 95% of business users will need nothing more than basic Office functions, word processing, spreadsheets, presentations, etc..."

Microsoft had software that could do all of that since the days of Windows 3. How many businesses do you know of still use Windows 3 or Word 2?

It may take a bit longer than the average consumer, but yes, eventually businesses will make the switch.

"ALmost all businesses have a 4-5 year replacement cycle for PC's."

2014-2008=6, which is longer than your replacement estimate.

I learned basic subtraction at a very young age. Did you even bother to read the title of Adrian's article??

"No....WinXP is here to stay for a long time."

A long time is not equivalent to forever. Adrian is talking about six years from now, not one or two.

0 Votes

+ -

Office 97

cammobus@... 28th Apr 2008

Had a customer paid us to upgrade Win 98 SE systems 2 yrs ago ... but they kept Office 97 SBE ....

something about tracking doc changes they liked better than O2k3

Go figure ....

0 Votes

+ -

Wait a minute ...

mwagner@... 29th Apr 2008

You said...

"Even now, almost every system that arrives at a business customer, is re-imaged to WinXP. Businesses have custom apps that don't work on Vista, and until recoded and tested, Vista will not get to the floor."

But this is only true in the enterprise. These folks started their Vista testing in early 2007. Yes, they started-out down-grading while they tested their applications but by the end of 2008, most in the enterprise are on a three-year lifecycle but even those on a five-year life-cycle will have replace 40% of their workstations and the other 60% will need no more than a RAM upgrade to run Vista. By the end of the year, most in the enterprise will have begun their upgrades to Vista and the rest will upgrade by then end of 2009. If they wait for Windows "7" -- the transition will be just as painful.

Now small business can wait longer but they will use whatever OS is on their systems because they don't have the expertise to downgrade.

0 Votes

+ -

Apps that don't work in Vista

Endoscopy 1st May 2008

"But this is only true in the enterprise."
My wife works at home doing Medical Transcription and she has software that will not migrate. I have downgraded some systems that people bought and then didn't support their software.
It affects more people than enterprise. The problem remains the same. Either downgrade of they maybe be able to put out more money to get updated software. In my wifes case there are some she cant upgrade.

0 Votes

+ -

By 2014, think Windows 8...

Wolfie2K3 29th Apr 2008

I am currently using Vista (Business 64 bit), and my parents are currently using XP. I imagine they will stay with XP for at least another year or two. By 2014, however, I'm sure they'll have Vista, and I'll have Windows 7.

If Microsoft manages to stay on track with major Windows releases, by 2014, we should be expecting Windows 8 (or whatever they're gonna call the successor to Windows 7) with a lot of talk on the beta of Windows 9.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

XP - Vista - Windows 7

Tuggerofhearts 30th Jun 2008

I'm not a computer expert, only a novice, but if I had my 'druthers, I'd still be using Windows 98si. I have barely been able to learn the changes in XP, and do not have a PC that can even handle Vista (which, after seeing it and attempting to use, would have to give up using a PC because Vista makes no sense to me). Even if I could understand it, I would have to replace EVERYTHING I use with my computer bercause none of my hardware is compatable with Vista, they are that old and working just fine. So yes, I will remain with XP for as long as I can keep it running (with the help of my computer expert son). Ater that, I may be forced to return to using the telephone and pen and paper.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Most likely, Windows7

Prognosticator 26th Apr 2008

I'm on XP now but I certainly understand that I'm using an OS that is the equivalent of a hairball bound by bailing wire and duct tape.

Having said that, it works for what I'm doing now. By 2012, I am most likely on Windows 7 - finally running a 64bit OS.

Anyone running WindowsXP then would most likely be in a virtual environment to maintain any 16bit or legacy apps much like there are Windows 3.1 users today.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

XP does everything very...

bjbrock 26th Apr 2008

efficiently. As long as there is hardware support, the business world won't need anything more.

MS can sell XP Pro for the same price as Vista Business. They are fools to not continue to offer XP.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

For several years now, Windows XP ...

mwagner@... 29th Apr 2008

... has suffered from not being able to run new hardware without special drivers. In short, installing XP on new hardware takes a lot of work -- and for what? I can install Vista on a new hardware in about 20 minutes and Vista will even go out and find the drivers for me!

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Yea, Right!

jbaviera@... 30th Jun 2008

Except where the driver like I've found that's actually needed is the network card! Good luck then...

0 Votes

+ -

What is the purpose of an OS?

arminw 1st Jul 2008

Is it not to enable a computer to do useful work? If
an existing operating system still does that, why
change it? If the tires on your car still have 10,000
miles left on them, would you replace them? To
the extent to which XP still allows a given
computer to do useful work, why should anyone
replace it? Even today, eight years later, Windows
2000 is still a rather useful for certain purposes.
The biggest problem with it is not modern
hardware and peripherals will no longer work with
it. So what, if Microsoft has chosen no longer to
support XP. As long as the independent software
vendors and hardware makers support it, it still
has a long and useful life.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Can you see yourself running Windows XP in 2014?

Kromaethius 26th Apr 2008

Adrian;

I think by the time outlined, I will be into MAC by then fully.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

It all depends

frgough 26th Apr 2008

on how many Vista-only must-have apps come out.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Only if I am FORCED to

LWEM 26th Apr 2008

I have computers for cad cam and running a cnc mill. Vista "ME" has been nothing but grief for the industrial community which could care less about eye candy. Change for the sake of change? Why bother to complicate your life with more issues when the functions you need for your business are allready there in XP. My mill is a 1995 model and will last me another 10 to 15 years and it is capable of doing 95% of all the work I may ever seek out. You know what, there are inherent limitations in functionality that dictate what is and is not usefull to the end user and as far as I am concerned there are no additional user benefits in Vista for someone who just needs a core set of abilities to work. And for sure I do not need to spend money complicating my life on something that does not benefit me just because Microsoft needs the cash. I will wait for the version that comes after "Vista ME" and consider it on it's own merits and that will be the earliest that I would consider giving more cash to microsoft.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

How does the version that replaces "Vista ME" apply...

ye 26th Apr 2008

...to your situation? You just got done saying:

"Change for the sake of change? Why bother to complicate your life with more issues when the functions you need for your business are allready there in XP."

Presumably you will never upgrade this system as Windows XP does everything you need. Why are you even thinking of upgrading to a new OS? Be it "Vista ME" or whatever follows?

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

What will I be running 2014?

MGP2 26th Apr 2008

Who's to say Windows 7 will be any better than Vista? If not, I'm sure there'll be one or more Linux distros that have cleared all the necessary hurdles to make them suitable for the home user to switch nearly seamlessly.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Can you see yourself running Windows XP in 2014?

Monkeypox 26th Apr 2008

I'll be running Mac OS X Ocelot.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

By 2014 ...

mwagner@... 29th Apr 2008

... Apple will have run out of cats. {8^)

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

One can only hope! (nt)

rtk 29th Apr 2008

0 Votes

+ -

How do you know...

arminw 1st Jul 2008

which cat Apple will unleash by then?

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Linux virtual machines much better and that is the best place for old crap

progon 26th Apr 2008

XP is nothing to write home about. Vista is superior on all fronts but Linux is reaching the point where it will do desktops much better than Vista, the Mac or any other competitor out there. But the Mac is a Linux front end so the move to Linux by all will probably happen over the next few years. The Linux desktops are prettier already and far more resource conservative so you can run more high performance applications with zero costs since the open source software base is free.

But the virtual world in Linux is way ahead of the PC virtual world and it makes sense to run older OS's like XP in virtual machines if you need them at all. Most people have never ever installed an operating system before and don't know how tedious it is until they install one. Linux installs, especially the Ubuntu installs, are one third the time from start to finish than an XP install.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Another cluess poster

ye 26th Apr 2008

"But the Mac is a Linux front end so the move to Linux by all will probably happen over the next few years."

Nope. OS X is BSD based and not Linux based. Why do clueless people feel the need to post?

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Yes, but the rest of his post was sound.

TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827 26th Apr 2008

OS X is a shiny UI on top of forked BSD code, he got that part wrong.

Anyway, I agree completely with the poster, dump full installs of legacy OSes, and run them virtualized. In 6 years, Virtualize XP, Vista (if needed), Hardy Heron and heck, even DOS if you really really need those old games. Notice how I didn't specify the host OS, to each their own. grin

TripleII

0 Votes

+ -

I didn't think it was. (nt)

ye 26th Apr 2008

"Yes, but the rest of his post was sound."

0 Votes

+ -

Of course not

hasta la Vista, bah-bie 29th Apr 2008

Without telling us why.

But you'll come up with something...

0 Votes

+ -

Desperate

storm14k 27th Apr 2008

Its easy to see that you know he is right when this is all you could come up with. There isn't just a ton of difference between the two from a user/admin standpoint.

0 Votes

+ -

Accuracy is now considered desperation?

ye 27th Apr 2008

"Its easy to see that you know he is right when this is all you could come up with."

Call it what you will but OS X is BSD based, not Linux based.

0 Votes

+ -

Not actually accurate....

LazLong 27th Apr 2008

Mac OSX is based upon the XNU kernel or Darwin.
Which is a hybrid kernel based on MACH (kernel) plus BSD System calls & structure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU
http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/arch_xnu.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)

So While maybe a little more correct, it is still equally inaccurate....

0 Votes

+ -

That depends on what level you want to go.

ye 27th Apr 2008

My statement is accurate depending on which layer of OS X you're examining. As OS X has BSD in various parts my statement is accurate. His statement, that the system is based on Linux, is not accurate at all. So please don't be such an idiot.

0 Votes

+ -

No need to be hostile?

LazLong 27th Apr 2008

I am not afraid of being incorrect or wrong, especially if it leads to better understanding.

I had always thought Considering OSX to be based (completely) on BSD to be inaccurate, almost as inaccurate as those who thought it is the same as Linux.

In the early days it had more components from commercial BSD (AT&T) Or even Net or OpenBSD.
Today, FreeBSD as it is the more popular or more developed flavor.

Still OSX is not BSD but Darwin/XNU

Not sure who is an idiot? or which level?

0 Votes

+ -

@LazLong: You need to grow thicker skin

ye 27th Apr 2008

If you're going to accuse me of being wrong then you damn well better be certain that I'm wrong. As it were I am right and therefore your response is inappropriate. If my correction to you is taken as hostile then perhaps you should grow some thicker skin.

0 Votes

+ -

@ye... Enough said...

LazLong 27th Apr 2008

Don't get out much... ay... ye...
I did not accuses you of being wrong.
I said you were inaccurate, almost as inaccurate as those who consider, OSX the same as Linux.

Yet I hazard a guess it is common amongst those who might only be familiar Windows......

Yes, I might be the idiot for even responding....either of these times....

0 Votes

+ -

Ye - no need to BE an idiot

nizuse 27th Apr 2008

Namecalling is stupid and useless.

0 Votes

+ -

@LazLong: The problem is my statement was accurate.

ye 28th Apr 2008

"I said you were inaccurate, almost as inaccurate as those who consider, OSX the same as Linux."

I stated OS X was BSD based and that's an accurate statement. It was not intended to say it was BSD 100% through and through. OS X is not Linux based. Therefore my statement is accurate and the OP's is inaccurate. So please, stop applying the 100% through and through criteria to my statement.

"Yet I hazard a guess it is common amongst those who might only be familiar Windows......"

LOL! I love it ever time one of you morons makes this statement:

[ye@gx620 ~]$ uname -a
Linux gx620 2.6.9-67.0.7.0.1.ELsmp #1 SMP Fri Mar 14 13:12:23 EDT 2008 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
[ye@gx620 ~]$ date
Mon Apr 28 06:05:29 MDT 2008

The majority of time I'm posting from a Linux system.

0 Votes

+ -

@nizuse: Just calling them like I see them.

ye 28th Apr 2008

I call a spade a spade.

0 Votes

+ -

BSD is not a Linux Fork?

Dr_Zinj 29th Apr 2008

Damn. I could have sworn a saw a chart in ZDNet/PC World within the past 2-2.5 years that listed all the Linux clones and branches known at the time; and that BSD as one of the off-shoots.

As much as I detest using Wikipedia as an end source, I did find the following:

"BSD/OS (originally called BSD/386 and sometimes known as BSDi) was a proprietary version of the BSD Unix operating system developed by Berkeley Software Design, Inc. (BSDi)."

and

"... a proprietary version of BSD Unix for PC compatible systems with Intel 386 (or later) processors."

Since Linux and BSD both belong to the Unix-like OS family that runs on x86 platforms (PCs); it would be accurate to say they are both derivitive of Unix. And it would be accurate to assume that a front end based on BSD should be as portable to a completely Linux system as a front end natively based on Linux.

So ye, of little tolerance, are just as off as the original poster.

0 Votes

+ -

BSD

whooliebacon 24th Jun 2008

Thought is was based on a very expensive Mackintosh apple.

Seriously been with Linux for years, currently PClinuxOS Minime.

Paying attention to user needs won't happen at Microsoft until they begin to loose money.

0 Votes

+ -

The choice of an Operating System...

arminw 1st Jul 2008

does not depend on how elegant it is, how easily
it installs, or how fast it runs. Computers are
usually designed to do useful work or waste time
with games. There still is a lot of useful work or a
lot of games that cannot be done on a Linux
machine. There are also a wide variety of
hardware add-ons, whose manufacturers have not
bothered to write the requisite drivers to work with
Linux. Anyone who has a nice scanner, printer or
camera will choose an operating system based on
whether these peripherals can still be used. If a
Linux driver is not already on the disc that came
with a device, most users will not bother to go
searching on the Internet, to find and install such
a driver if it even exists. Until this changes, Linux
will be a limited system, confined to those who
frequent forums like this one.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Bleh I hate windows...

unidentified221 26th Apr 2008

No if I wanted a Crap OS that was about as useful as taking sand to the beach, then ya mebe....Mac is where its at. Beside everyone knows that all MS does is copy Apple at every turn...Steve Jobs should really put a lock on that file cabnet.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Not XP but something as light.

kraterz 26th Apr 2008

Maybe not XP, but I surely won't be running vista. I value an OS which is light on resources and doesn't force me to buy huge racks of hardware just to get a snazzy UI and to open a spreadsheet.

So... maybe I will be using Linux (as I already do at home) or some light version of windows if it is there. Surely not vista or XP.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

The issue is dollars, not resources ...

mwagner@... 29th Apr 2008

A 2GB Vista Premium-Ready system can be had for $500. In 2001, a 128MB Windows XP-Ready system cost $1500.

If the average consumer can buy a Vista system for the same money as a Linux system, and for half the cost of a Macintosh, today they will choose Vista. Until the Linux vendors figure out how to sell a consumer-friendly product, it will stay that way.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Can you see yourself running Windows XP in 2014?

timiteh 26th Apr 2008

Certainly not.
Vista had its share of troubles, but besides some software which don't work on it, i find it often less bloated than XP once you have installed anything i need to work on both systems.
I think that unless M.S is very stupid and want Linux a