Who’s Going to Stop Windows 7? Not Windows 8.1, ...

These days, the most Microsoft news are about either Windows 8/8.1 or Windows XP, as the first still struggles to become successful, while the latter will soon get the axe.

Of course, with these two in mind, most people forget about Windows 7, which continues to be the number one operating system in the world and, indirectly, could even become a real Windows 8 killer.

How come, you might ask. Pretty simple, actually.

Windows 7 continues to improve its market share on a monthly basis, even though Microsoft has launched not only the new Windows 8, but also its first major update dubbed Windows 8.1.

Statistics provided by market researcher Net Applications do nothing more than to confirm that nobody can stop Windows 7 right now, especially because most Windows XP users prefer to switch to this OS version rather than to Windows 8 or 8.1.

Windows 7 posted a market share of 47.52 percent in December 2013, up from 46.64 percent the month before and from 44.55 percent in February 2013.

While this growth is quite impressive given the fact that Windows 8 was on the market for the whole year, it’s also another sign that Windows 8 isn’t quite the top choice for users looking to switch to a newer OS version.

Who?s Going to Stop Windows 7? Not Windows 8.1, That?s for Sure

 

[HerrKaLeun]

misapplication[/I] of a touch-screen UI.
.......
If with 8.2, let's say, Microsoft can fix the Win8 GUI so that it's attractive and useful for desktop users again, as was Win7, then business might be picking up Win8 far more rapidly than has been the case so far. Microsoft surely doesn't need to remove "Modern" or whatever it is--the company simply needs to make the touchscreen UI an *option* at installation that is left up to the installing customer.

I meant it is new GUI for the desktop and as you point out it will take till 8.2 or even later to get it right for desktops. My work SurfacePro is on order and I look forward to use it as i beleive W8-x86 is way superior to any other mobile OS. the operating term here is mobile and my desktop is stationary with 2 large screens.

It is a shame since by all what I read W8 is really good under the hood (unlike Vista). Whne W8 cameout I really wanted to buy it... but then i learned how "useful"it is for desktops I kept W7. Now with 8.2 bringing in some improvements, I may as well wait for W9. If W9 "looks" good for desktops, all the W8 licenses will be worth as much as Vista licenses

 

[Coke Robot]

I think it is pretty obvious that businesses (and most private users) implement every other OS. Who still remembers Vista (which came before W7)? Exactly....

It also seems for every other OS MS implements something new that takes an entire OS generation to get right. Vista had all new kernel and other revolutionary things, but before W7 they didn't really get the resource hunger under control and people didn't want it.
With W8 they introduced a really new GUI and it probably will take them to the release of W9 to get that right.

It is like with all new technolgies, you have to wait for at least the 2nd generation to get a mature product. Like the first hybrid drivetrain was pathertic comapred to todays, the first EV were pathertic compared to a Leaf. the first smartphone (Blackberry) now look like bricks.

Unfortuantely IT departments don't want that "1st generation" technology. And how would an IT department implement W8? Would they use W 8.0, 8.1, or 8.2? all of which seem to be different beyond just service packs.

Edit: Whoever switched to W7 when it came out made the best investment. One time implementation cost, and 10 years service life. Businesses that switch today to W7 still have the same implementation cost, but only have 6 years of useful life left.

That's actually pretty true with adoption. Every release of Windows, it took OEMs a good solid year AT LEAST to start pumping out the appropriate PCs. With Xp, it took quite a while for 64 bit systems to be released even until with vista. Windows vista was abhorrent as OEMs took old Xp era models the first year and plopped vista on them even though it ran poorly. 7 was interesting as it relieved the 64 bit issue as almost EVERYTHING was 64 bit by 2009ish, but still took OEMs a while to start building really nice PCs with 7, such as touch pads, higher resolutions, ultrabooks, and even tablets. Windows 7 introduced and improved touch support, but then 8 did that, but yet again OEMs dropped the ball and blamed Microsoft for throwing the ball too hard. Most likely Windows 9 will address issues 8 raised...

Adoption takes forever....

 

[Coke Robot]

Chances are however, maybe in five years 7 will be replaced by whatever version is out. The Win32 coding environment is just inherently flawed security wise while WinRT is rather solid as of now, although WinRT needs further expanding on. Just one of several reasons why any company should move from Xp to 7 is obviously UTTERLY better security. In the future, Windows 7 won't cut it for security and with the way Windows is being released/updated every year or so now, third party developers might be less inclined to support elder systems.

Nah, there is nothing "wrong" with win32 "security." Indeed, because of Microsoft's efforts, Win7/8 are the most "secure" mass-market OSes it's possible to buy. Your assessment of WinRT is way off, sorry to say: the only "security advantage" RT has at the moment is that almost no one is running it and therefore almost no one is actively trying to hack it... I mean, why should they? What's in it it for the RT hacker?

OS X is much the same. Apple continuously rolls out security patches in every OS update the company releases, exactly after Microsoft's example, but so many fewer people and companies use OS X than use Windows that it scarcely generates the same degree of publicity and interest that Microsoft's monthly updates generate.

The huge, practically insurmountable advantage Microsoft has presently with Windows is that it dwarfs the third-party hardware and software support of every other OS shipping on the planet; every Linux distro, every Apple OS that ever shipped, OS/2 (r.i.p.), Solaris, etc, ad infinitum. That's what makes Windows so much more compelling a choice by such a wide majority of customers, in case you were wondering. But it's those very same advantages that also incite the interest of the great majority of hackers, who don't waste their time hacking OS X when hacking Windows automatically provides them with 20x the potential target base--and WinRT is such small potatoes that it doesn't even register on the hacker's "wanna'be" scale...

So far, at least in my opinion, Microsoft is equal to the task. If you keep your Windows 7/8 box patched up to date (once a month), and you run Microsoft Security Essentials in 7 (a more robust version of MSE is built into Win8), you should never be troubled by "security" woes. I know that's been true for me for years--can't remember the last "nasty" that got me, it's been so long ago.

Actually, the Win32 security thing has been an issue for a LONG time. Just look at the rate of security updates Microsoft releases for Windows xp, vista, 7, 8, and 8.1. Literally every Patch Tuesday is a security update. That's just Windows, that isn't even covering the third party programs out there.

HP Discover: Startling security statistics - Neowin

As of some research recently found, 84% of security issues are at the application layer, meaning Windows is pretty tight but the third party, Win32 developed applications, have all sorts of potential flaws.

Windows 8.1 RT and WinRT are two different things.
WinRT: An Object Orientated Replacement for Win32

Windows RT is simply Windows 8.1 running on ARM processors with the RISC instruction set as opposed to the x86 instruction set at the processor die level. WinRT is basically a pretty and decently secured off layer on top of Win32. All applications done in WinRT cannot intermingle with other WinRT apps as they run in their own little bubble, the system contracts (Charms) are how they communicate, mostly the Share contract than anything.

Windows Defender on the other hand is just a base level line of protection, Microsoft has said so themselves. It's not meant to be the best, but it's meant to protect the system and user from MOST of the yuck out there.

 

[Soundlover]

Windows 7 is great and I installed Windows 8.1 on my main computer reluctantly although I have been using Windows 8 on my media pc for some months.
What I can say is that I don't even dream of going back to Windows 7. Windows 8.1 is better in everything and got used to it in a few minutes.

 

[Nathanr411]

Would it have made sense if Windows dedicated 8 strictly to tablets and promptly named it "windows Tablet" (or something of the sort) and Somehow focus making win7 better? Even though in my opinion it's perfection as is. But I will admit now that I am getting very used to win8 there are some great features that I like.

 

[Coke Robot]

Windows 7 is great and I installed Windows 8.1 on my main computer reluctantly although I have been using Windows 8 on my media pc for some months.
What I can say is that I don't even dream of going back to Windows 7. Windows 8.1 is better in everything and got used to it in a few minutes.

I've used Windows 8 for over 2 years now. Going back and using Windows 7 is like using Xp once you've used 7 for a while. :thumb:

Oh, and welcome to Eight Forums!

 

[turbofish]

Unfortuantely IT departments don't want that "1st generation" technology. And how would an IT department implement W8? Would they use W 8.0, 8.1, or 8.2? all of which seem to be different beyond just service packs.

There are reasons for that. Every time I move to the newest OS, I find that something won't work correctly with the newest version. One example would be when I built up a new computer for my wife to use at work. Quick books is something she uses all the time and it worked perfectly with windows 7 and Office 2007, I had to do a bunch of hacks to get it to function at least semi well with windows 8 and Office 2013. Yeah, I'm still in the dog house over that one. And here at work, we had plenty of software that broke moving from XP to 7 and then would break for 8 again. It requires a lot of testing and a lot of work to move to the latest versions