XP Users Aren't Really Jumping on Windows 7

Eh, Windows 7 was just released a few weeks ago. One can hardly expect a massive upgrade in such a short time. Besides, unless users have upgraded their hardware and carried over their old XP, it's likely that they will want to upgrade their hardware first.

I happen to fall into that category. While my current machine can run Windows 7 without trouble, I want to wait until I have my new gaming rig before I go through all the trouble of a new OS installation.

I'll keep running XP until Win 7 makes it to SP1. That's only another year. By then, I will be able to upgrade my pc to better specs. Until then, XP runs just fine.

They will be refreshed with new PC's no reason for anyone to really upgrade consumer or corporate.

I'll keep running Xp until Win 7 SP1 comes out. My system runs just fine right now. Win 7 is a bunch of hype. I still don't like how much resources it takes up but by then, I can afford a newer system with 8 gigs of memory.

Well they will switch when their OS isn't supported then hackers take advantage of MS not patching their old operating system.

I agree that it is still too early to say about Win 7 give it 6 months, by that time you will see a lot more people switching over.

Never upgrade an OS until the first service pack comes out...

Are you serious 8 gigs of memory? If you have read any previous articles on the topic you really only need 3 gigs of memory heck 4 at the most. Win 7 has a lot better memory management over XP so programs don't just go hog wild on the memory and bleed the OS dry.

I'll stick to Windows XP until M$ release operating system without DRM which was designed AGAINST user not FOR user.

One of my friends just installed Win 7 x64 over XP 32bit. It's hard to see new hardware from 2009 on an old OS from 2001.

I have hard time justifying the cost to move to Win7 and the benefits I don't already have. I only use comp to browse, chat and play games (most people do those) and am already doing at comfortable speed/performance. If my WinXP croaks, I just reinstall. Problem solved. 90% of the time.

Waiting until I hear that the drivers are solid.

The Start Menu is terrible in 7.

Maybe 8 gigs is a bit much but who would of thought 4 gigs would be standard? XP ran happily with 1-2 gigs. Plus if you are getting 64 bit, you might as well get at least 6 gigs and take advantage of the added memory. Windows 8 is right around the corner and who knows what garbage will be running in the background by then.

In fact Windows 7 doesn't offer me any new fuctionality. Sure it has DirectX 11, but I got strong feeling, that this API will share the same fate as DX 10 (at least for some time)- which became a marketing slogan, nothing more. Directcomputing? That feature won't appear in mainstream programs for another year or two, until 7 gains significant share in the market. And there are always compatibility issues with hardware under 7.

Unless you're an enthusiast, the upgrade would have to solve a problem you have with the old system or provide new functionality. While I am in the first group and upgraded to "7" x64 2 days after release, there are many users that don't even use XP to its potential and sure wouldn't gain much from the upgrade, other than having to learn their way around. For them it's an unnecessary expense and a risk of running into upgrade trouble, not to mention the confusion the redesigned interface will cause to casual users. (Better or not, if it's not where it used to be, many users quickly get lost.)

Only reason I haven't upgraded is I'm saving up for the Ultimate 64bit version. I may get premium though... I can get it through school for $29.

The big "surge" will be when bussinesses start to pick it up. That probably wont be until sp1.

Hello Kevin, do you mind sharing with us when you would be willing to upgrade to 7? How about an article on this? I know it might be hard but I think it would be useful to know THG's experience with 7 given the variety of hardware you handle.

Why not try it for $29 and then seeing if Ultimate is worth it? If you don't like it at least you won't have lost that much more!

I agree that it is a little wierd that 4 gigs is standard nowadays but then again who would have thought that needing anything over 20GB of harddrive space would be standard. It's the old attage "Who could want any more than that!?" Personally I think 4GB (or 6GB if you have a i7) is plenty enough to run all your programs, I think what it is is that they want to give you at least some extra space for the future. Instead of what Vista had as running the bare minimum then when you throw a few programs on it the memory just gets eaten up.

Pretty much everyone is running blind because we are running into so much advancement in hardware that we still have no conception on what the requirements of tomorrow software will be.

I guess I have to retract my previous statement on 8 gigs of memory then, because heck if you only build a rig every 4 to 5 years 8GB of ram will definately get you there for the forseeable future.

Main reason I switched between XP and 7 was that I was sick of XP always locking up for a few minutes before it could figure out that the program I was running was dead and just hogging resources. Vista was good at seeing this as well but I do like the refinement of 7. That and I can pretty much get rid of any system or "feature" that I don't like.

I agree that until there is a need for a new OS that many people won't stray however I do think the economy does play a big role on how fast people will switch, especially because the majority of people who will switch will be buying new systems with Win 7 on it rather than buying the OS by itself.

+1

I wish win 7 ultimate had the extras like vista had.

I see a lot of businesses that I deal with starting to make the switch. They want the extra security but were not happy with all the bad publicity that Vista was recieving. That being said usually a few months after the first service pack comes out will most businesses switch over after proper testing has been done.

W7 is what Vista should of been but based on the comments, sounds like some of you are rehashing the problems Vista had at launch. M$ learned from their mistakes with Vista and W7 was beta tested for quite awhile. I've been running it since before the RC. W7 doesn't have the driver issues Vista had at launch. The only drivers you really have to install are for your video card if you game (if you don't wanna run M$ generic Nvidia/Ati drivers that is). Go ahead and ride the XP boat until M$ stops supporting it.

Stay behind the times with your mid 2000's computer and mentality where it's "safe". Heaven forbid if you have to learn something new that could possibly improve your work related life as well (in IT).

Vouch this article, XP FTW

I guess the 'slow grind' is only there because there are no new pc's on the market anymore with xp!
There, said it! lol!

I think 7 is great and all, but a lot of the OS is not necessary for the business man, and the desktop/notebook owner.
I think they should make a business version that's extreme light, a home owner's version that's like the premium, and an IT version that is like the ultimate.
The extreme light version would be good for me, if it takes all benefits of XP AND 7 together without any drawbacks.

At the moment 7 has too many drawbacks over XP for net and notebooks in the power requirements.
Any OS that has less than 30 minutes of battery compared with XP, is not really an improvement to me!

Just downloading Opensuse 11.2 for my dual boot PC and I also will keep WinXp at least until Win 7 reach sp1. Almost all friends and co-workers who jumped on Vista wagon when it hit the stores regretted it. It is true that Win7 RC looks and feels stable and all but safe is safe...

It is true that for most people XP fulfills all their needs. Win7, just as Vista will get bought mostly because you don't need that much to do your every-day tasks. Added to that, very few people actually upgrade their OS. Most, just get the new one when they buy a new computer.

But, for all the people who talk about slow adaptation of Vista, I would be very surprised if XP usage 2 years after its release was all that much higher than Vista (maybe say 40% 2 years after versus 30% for vista). If you add to the fact that XP was helped by the fact that it was replacing far inferior OS's than Vista and Win7 are, and all the new OS usage numbers start looking perfectly normal, and not a result of something horrid going on with Vista or Win7.

I just could not see myself running that old of a OS like XP. What is it 8 or 9 years old? WOW that's old in computer time. But I guess if you have older hardware and cannot afford to buy a new computer. I guess a person's better off sticking with XP. I put Windows 7 premium on my Lenovo S10 because I could not stand XP. So I guess I am the opposite I want the latest.

It is not ironic that Win7 sales are coming at the expense of Vista sales. 7 is not that big of a change from Vista. And, as quickly as M$ put out 7, since Vista, it seems likely that 7 is really Vista SP2. Also, people who own machines that can run Vista well are much more likely to get 7. If you have older machines, as I do, 7 is too slow. It is pretty, but slow. I think I have only a little bit more time before I have to REALLY learn Linux.

The _ONLY_ reason I got windows 7 is because I got Ultimate at the Microsoft store for $50!
I must say that I really like 7 so far. I haven't had any problems yet.