[OT] How many W2K and XP based systems are still in use?

Hi,

i am asking myself (couldnt find any useful statistical info on web, especially on the unreported numbers) how many Windows 2000 and Windows XP based systems are still in use and if it makes sense still to develop/support/maintain software (including drivers for sure!) for these systems. I personally think windows 2000 is absolutely not worth (unless you have something special running somewhere that cant be replaced somehow for whatever reason). But i am not sure on Windows XP, since i personally know many companies STILL running desktops on Windows XP. The same is for Windows Vista. In case of Windows 2000 i know still some servers running in the background somewhere and regarding Windows 2000 desktops i really still know some “blackboxes” running the OS inside for special purposes, but for me (and i guess most of us) W2K is mostly dead and burried, especially in commercial cases, exlcuding some currently stable running exceptions for sure.

I found this: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

And interesting to see is how many XP systems “seem” to be still running.

K.

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 12:46 PM, wrote:
> I found this: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

Also here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows

XP is the 2nd most popular after Windows 7. In quite some countries,
it is actually more popular than Windows 7.

> And interesting to see is how many XP systems “seem” to be still running.

A lot. I think XP will still be quite significant until 2014. After that its
market share will go down quite fast since Microsoft will end the
extended support for XP.
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/products/lifecycle

At work, we still use XP SP3 as the standard but I think Windows
7 is on the way soon. I work for a US based MNC with more than
21000 employees.

At home, we still have two old PCs running Windows XP,
three new PCs running Windows 7 x64, and then one
Mac Mini running Mac OS X.


Xiaofan

Given that Win7 has a standard feature of running an XP VM, probably more
than anyone suspects. I have a ton of 32-bit apps, and it was easier to
just copy my 32-bit drive to an XP VM than to try to find 40 or more sets
of install disks.
joe

Hi,

i am asking myself (couldnt find any useful statistical info on web,
especially on the unreported numbers) how many Windows 2000 and Windows XP
based systems are still in use and if it makes sense still to
develop/support/maintain software (including drivers for sure!) for these
systems. I personally think windows 2000 is absolutely not worth (unless
you have something special running somewhere that cant be replaced somehow
for whatever reason). But i am not sure on Windows XP, since i personally
know many companies STILL running desktops on Windows XP. The same is for
Windows Vista. In case of Windows 2000 i know still some servers running
in the background somewhere and regarding Windows 2000 desktops i really
still know some “blackboxes” running the OS inside for special purposes,
but for me (and i guess most of us) W2K is mostly dead and burried,
especially in commercial cases, exlcuding some currently stable running
exceptions for sure.

I found this: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

And interesting to see is how many XP systems “seem” to be still running.

K.


NTDEV is sponsored by OSR

For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
http://www.osr.com/seminars

To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

Did you miss the brouhaha here about the latest driver kit for Win8 not including support for XP?

Tim.

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of xxxxx@arcor.de
Sent: 07 June 2012 05:47
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: [ntdev] [OT] How many W2K and XP based systems are still in use?

Hi,

i am asking myself (couldnt find any useful statistical info on web, especially on the unreported numbers) how many Windows 2000 and Windows XP based systems are still in use and if it makes sense still to develop/support/maintain software (including drivers for sure!) for these systems. I personally think windows 2000 is absolutely not worth (unless you have something special running somewhere that cant be replaced somehow for whatever reason). But i am not sure on Windows XP, since i personally know many companies STILL running desktops on Windows XP. The same is for Windows Vista. In case of Windows 2000 i know still some servers running in the background somewhere and regarding Windows 2000 desktops i really still know some “blackboxes” running the OS inside for special purposes, but for me (and i guess most of us) W2K is mostly dead and burried, especially in commercial cases, exlcuding some currently stable running exceptions for sure.

I found this: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

And interesting to see is how many XP systems “seem” to be still running.

K.


NTDEV is sponsored by OSR

For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
http://www.osr.com/seminars

To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

>Did you miss the brouhaha here about the latest

driver kit for Win8 not including support for XP?

Yes, thats true, but this dosent mean that one will drop his ddk downloads from the past into the recycle bin folder and go for a empty menu.

There are two questions here:

  1. Is it valuable to maintain drivers and software for XP?

That one is likely yes, since there is a large installed base of
systems.

  1. Is it valuable to develop new software for XP?

I suspect that one is no. While the marketing types may think
they will penetrate the big XP market, bottom line is most of these
people probably have their systems working well as they are, and are not
interested in “improving” the system with new things. If they want
improvements they are probably willing to move to Win7.

Don Burn
Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr

xxxxx@arcor.de” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev:

> Hi,
>
> i am asking myself (couldnt find any useful statistical info on web, especially on the unreported numbers) how many Windows 2000 and Windows XP based systems are still in use and if it makes sense still to develop/support/maintain software (including drivers for sure!) for these systems. I personally think windows 2000 is absolutely not worth (unless you have something special running somewhere that cant be replaced somehow for whatever reason). But i am not sure on Windows XP, since i personally know many companies STILL running desktops on Windows XP. The same is for Windows Vista. In case of Windows 2000 i know still some servers running in the background somewhere and regarding Windows 2000 desktops i really still know some “blackboxes” running the OS inside for special purposes, but for me (and i guess most of us) W2K is mostly dead and burried, especially in commercial cases, exlcuding some currently stable running exceptions for sure.
>
> I found this: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
>
> And interesting to see is how many XP systems “seem” to be still running.
>
> K.

Instead of developing drivers for new hardware to keep legacy XP software running, it makes more sense to move the XP to VMs.

I’m a bit puzzled why you wouldn’t try to keep as wide compatibility as
possible.
User-mode APIs have not changed meaningfully since Win2K, so what
justification is there
to cut users off from your software? What extra work do you expect there
to be?

If you are thinking about .NET Framework-driven planned obsolescence, I
strongly encourage
you to try using Mono on Windows. It’s relocatable, you can make an
installer that doesn’t
require admin rights, can be shrunk down to about 4MB, and will work all
the way back to XP
(with no commercial incentive for that to change nor any licensing that
requires you to
distribute a newer version). This will disconnect you from Microsoft’s
treadmill of rewriting,
save you time and gain you money.

Looking at a web log, Windows 2000 sitting at 0.22% right now.
XP still very popular, and why shouldn’t it be?

James

On 6/7/2012 12:46 AM, xxxxx@arcor.de wrote:

Hi,

i am asking myself (couldnt find any useful statistical info on web, especially on the unreported numbers) how many Windows 2000 and Windows XP based systems are still in use and if it makes sense still to develop/support/maintain software (including drivers for sure!) for these systems. I personally think windows 2000 is absolutely not worth (unless you have something special running somewhere that cant be replaced somehow for whatever reason). But i am not sure on Windows XP, since i personally know many companies STILL running desktops on Windows XP. The same is for Windows Vista. In case of Windows 2000 i know still some servers running in the background somewhere and regarding Windows 2000 desktops i really still know some “blackboxes” running the OS inside for special purposes, but for me (and i guess most of us) W2K is mostly dead and burried, especially in commercial cases, exlcuding some currently stable running exceptions for sure.

I found this: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

And interesting to see is how many XP systems “seem” to be still running.

K.


NTDEV is sponsored by OSR

For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
http://www.osr.com/seminars

To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

On 6/7/2012 8:43 AM, Don Burn wrote:

  1. Is it valuable to develop new software for XP?

I suspect that one is no. While the marketing types may think
they will penetrate the big XP market, bottom line is most of these
people probably have their systems working well as they are, and are
not interested in “improving” the system with new things. If they
want improvements they are probably willing to move to Win7.

What evidence is there for the ‘bottom line’ you are asserting?
You assume folks consider Windows 7 to be an “improvement”. Being newer
is not a feature.

Do it as an economic calculation. Windows as a whole has about 75%
market share – 45% 7, 25% XP, 5% Vista, negligible the rest.
That’s 50% more possible sales by doing… what? What extra work is
there for XP support? Next to none. Why *wouldn’t* you?

James

xxxxx@arcor.de wrote:

i am asking myself (couldnt find any useful statistical info on web, especially on the unreported numbers) how many Windows 2000 and Windows XP based systems are still in use and if it makes sense still to develop/support/maintain software (including drivers for sure!) for these systems.

One half of our company does outsourced IT support for small businesses
in the Portland area. We have about 120 clients, with a total of
somewhere around 1,000 desktops.

Of that number, I’d guess 50% are still XP. None uses Windows 2000.
Personally, I am still running XP on my primary development machine
(where I’m typing this message right now). I also run XP on my laptop
and netbook at home.


Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.

On 07-Jun-2012 16:12, xxxxx@broadcom.com wrote:

Instead of developing drivers for new hardware to keep legacy XP software running, it makes more sense to move the XP to VMs.

Yep. and host these VMs on

– pa

Unless IT for Seagate has markedly changed since 2009, they are XP, as has been Hitachi and now at least where I work WD. The issue here is most likely IT departments, and dependency on applications that may or may not move to the next OS — at least according to the IT departments.

Gary Little
H (952) 223-1349
C (952) 454-4629
xxxxx@comcast.net

On Jun 7, 2012, at 1:13 PM, Tim Roberts wrote:

xxxxx@arcor.de wrote:
> i am asking myself (couldnt find any useful statistical info on web, especially on the unreported numbers) how many Windows 2000 and Windows XP based systems are still in use and if it makes sense still to develop/support/maintain software (including drivers for sure!) for these systems.

One half of our company does outsourced IT support for small businesses
in the Portland area. We have about 120 clients, with a total of
somewhere around 1,000 desktops.

Of that number, I’d guess 50% are still XP. None uses Windows 2000.
Personally, I am still running XP on my primary development machine
(where I’m typing this message right now). I also run XP on my laptop
and netbook at home.


Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.


NTDEV is sponsored by OSR

For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
http://www.osr.com/seminars

To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

We collect platform information in our product activation system, so we get direct data on what platforms our customers are running.

XP + 2k3 is at about 55% of customers for activations since 1 Jan 2012

XP at about 47%

So it’s still the most widely used Windows variant and therefore suicide to drop for most authors.

Sent from my iPad

On 8/06/2012, at 7:23, Gary Little wrote:

> Unless IT for Seagate has markedly changed since 2009, they are XP, as has been Hitachi and now at least where I work WD. The issue here is most likely IT departments, and dependency on applications that may or may not move to the next OS — at least according to the IT departments.
>
> Gary Little
> H (952) 223-1349
> C (952) 454-4629
> xxxxx@comcast.net
>
>
> On Jun 7, 2012, at 1:13 PM, Tim Roberts wrote:
>
>> xxxxx@arcor.de wrote:
>>> i am asking myself (couldnt find any useful statistical info on web, especially on the unreported numbers) how many Windows 2000 and Windows XP based systems are still in use and if it makes sense still to develop/support/maintain software (including drivers for sure!) for these systems.
>>
>> One half of our company does outsourced IT support for small businesses
>> in the Portland area. We have about 120 clients, with a total of
>> somewhere around 1,000 desktops.
>>
>> Of that number, I’d guess 50% are still XP. None uses Windows 2000.
>> Personally, I am still running XP on my primary development machine
>> (where I’m typing this message right now). I also run XP on my laptop
>> and netbook at home.
>>
>> –
>> Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
>> Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
>>
>>
>> —
>> NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
>>
>> For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
>> http://www.osr.com/seminars
>>
>> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
>
>
> —
> NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
>
> For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
> http://www.osr.com/seminars
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

“Adrien de Croy” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…

> So it’s still the most widely used Windows variant and therefore suicide
> to drop for most authors.

Tha’ts why the Microsoft’s own “Live” Mesh and the Skydrive app are not
going anyway,
while Dropbox, Logmein and others feast on their dinner. Hope MS knows
better what they’re doing…
– pa

Yes but the point isn’t that there aren’t lots of users of XP, but that the
users of XP will be less likely to buy new things. The fact that they
continue to use a ten year old operating system, that likely came
preinstalled on the computer that they bought, tells you about the
propensity of that market to upgrade. Corporate users are different, of
course, as it is the willingness of the IT department to upgrade and not the
end user’s propensities that is important.

And there are a surprising number of new useful APIs in Vista / 7. Just
look at the event log as an example. And it is a whole other platform that
one needs to test with too - and that can be more work than any other part
of development depending on what you are building.

I don’t know what you mean by planned obsolesce in .NET, but we have code
written for 1.1 that happily runs or compiles with the latest tools and OS
versions.

“James Bellinger” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…

On 6/7/2012 8:43 AM, Don Burn wrote:

  1. Is it valuable to develop new software for XP?

I suspect that one is no. While the marketing types may think they
will penetrate the big XP market, bottom line is most of these people
probably have their systems working well as they are, and are not
interested in “improving” the system with new things. If they want
improvements they are probably willing to move to Win7.

What evidence is there for the ‘bottom line’ you are asserting?
You assume folks consider Windows 7 to be an “improvement”. Being newer
is not a feature.

Do it as an economic calculation. Windows as a whole has about 75%
market share – 45% 7, 25% XP, 5% Vista, negligible the rest.
That’s 50% more possible sales by doing… what? What extra work is
there for XP support? Next to none. Why *wouldn’t* you?

James

m wrote:

Yes but the point isn’t that there aren’t lots of users of XP, but that the
users of XP will be less likely to buy new things.

That’s an excellent point.

I don’t know what you mean by planned obsolesce in .NET, but we have code
written for 1.1 that happily runs or compiles with the latest tools and OS
versions.

Not any more. According to the releases, Windows 8 will no longer
support the.NET 1.1 framework.


Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.

On 6/8/2012 5:48 PM, m wrote:

Yes but the point isn’t that there aren’t lots of users of XP, but
that the users of XP will be less likely to buy new things.
Yes but the point is this is an assertion backed up by absolutely nothing.
The fact that they continue to use a ten year old operating system,
that likely came preinstalled on the computer that they bought, tells
you about the propensity of that market to upgrade.
It tells you they made the choice not to update Windows. This is not
evidence for other products.
I don’t know what you mean by planned obsolesce in .NET, but we have
code written for 1.1 that happily runs or compiles with the latest
tools and OS versions.
As someone who had many, many lines in VB6 orphaned back when .NET was
the new fashion that everything must be rewritten for,
I have to say, have fun with that. You /will/ live to regret it.

James

“James Bellinger” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…

On 6/7/2012 8:43 AM, Don Burn wrote:
> 2. Is it valuable to develop new software for XP?
>
> I suspect that one is no. While the marketing types may think
> they will penetrate the big XP market, bottom line is most of these
> people probably have their systems working well as they are, and are
> not interested in “improving” the system with new things. If they
> want improvements they are probably willing to move to Win7.
>
What evidence is there for the ‘bottom line’ you are asserting?
You assume folks consider Windows 7 to be an “improvement”. Being newer
is not a feature.

Do it as an economic calculation. Windows as a whole has about 75%
market share – 45% 7, 25% XP, 5% Vista, negligible the rest.
That’s 50% more possible sales by doing… what? What extra work is
there for XP support? Next to none. Why *wouldn’t* you?

James


NTDEV is sponsored by OSR

For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
http://www.osr.com/seminars

To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

James Bellinger wrote:

As someone who had many, many lines in VB6 orphaned back when .NET was
the new fashion that everything must be rewritten for,
I have to say, have fun with that. You /will/ live to regret it.

VB6 has not been orphaned. In fact, Microsoft just announced that the
VB6 runtime will ship and be supported throughout the lifetime of
Windows 8. Based on their definitions, that probably means your VB6
code will have a supported lifetime into the 2020s.


Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.

“m” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> Yes but the point isn’t that there aren’t lots of users of XP, but that
> the users of XP will be less likely to buy new things. The fact that they
> continue to use a ten year old operating system, that likely came
> preinstalled on the computer that they bought, tells you about the
> propensity of that market to upgrade.

It also tells that XP is a pretty good and stable OS, from the users’ POV.
Vista was disruptive for two main reasons: bad hardware compatibility and
dreadful changes in GUI.
Win7 is a true heroic feat to fix the damage done by Vista - so it
is a natural upgrade path for Vista users.
But … XP users still don’t have a clear upgrade path, IMHO, nor private
users and neither corporate IT.

> And there are a surprising number of new useful APIs in Vista / 7. Just
> look at the event log as an example.

For private users: almost irrelevant. For corporate IT: disruptive. Same
about UAC, IPv6, NTFS improvements.

> I don’t know what you mean by planned obsolesce in .NET, but we have code
> written for 1.1 that happily runs or compiles with the latest tools and OS
> versions.

Just seen today, in an MSDN forum, a commercial product still based on
16-bit subsystem. The author complained about how x64 broke it :frowning:

– pa

> Windows 8. Based on their definitions, that probably means your VB6

code will have a supported lifetime into the 2020s.

Isn’t VB.NET compatible with VB6 source-wise?


Maxim S. Shatskih
Windows DDK MVP
xxxxx@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com