Lest we forget, Windows XP was released in the fall of 2001, not long after the first version of OS X arrived. Despite it’s age and great success, XP has become one of Microsoft’s worst nightmares, because tens and tens of millions of users simply won’t give it up. The tepid uptake of Windows 8 and Windows 8.1 hasn’t helped one bit.

According to a recent set of Web metrics from Net Market Share, the piece of the Windows XP pie actually grew from 28.98% last December to 29.23% in January.

Now before I go on, let me make it clear that stats of that sort are approximate, based on online access by computers running different OS versions. It doesn’t include computers that don’t go online, or don’t visit the sites used in the sampling. But that may only make things worse, as Windows XP is widely used in point-of-sale systems that will never go online, or go online to connect to a private network, such as a merchant processing system. So it may very well be that XP’s share is far higher than these estimates indicate, which only makes matters worse.

In contrast, the very same metrics show that Windows 8 and 8.1, collectively, have a mere 10.58%. OS X 10.9, Mavericks, has 3.2%. Windows 7 has the largest share, at 47.49%.

Now it’s not as if Microsoft isn’t doing everything it can to persuade Windows users to upgrade. Support for XP will finally be dropped on April 8, but security updates will still be offered until July 2015. So you’d think that customers would be rushing to ditch XP and at least move on to Windows 7.

But that is by no means certain, nor is it certain that Microsoft won’t delay those deadlines yet again.

As I’ve mentioned previously, lots of businesses still depend on XP, such as my chiropractor’s office. When I asked him when or if they will ever upgrade, he said he expects to eventually, but the software they use still runs just fine. So there’s no rush. The same can be said for a local dry cleaner that’s still using an impact printer from the 1980s. The possibilities for a Windows upgrade are even less for that business.

This doesn’t seem to be an issue of quality either. Most industry professionals agree that Windows 7 is a far better operating system from the standpoint of reliability and security. But upgrades in the Windows world aren’t always as seamless as on a Mac. So going to Windows 7 would invariably involve rebuilding the PC’s drive and reinstalling all apps, which is not a casual process by any means. A business may simply set up a drive image to deploy to the company’s PCs, but smaller businesses might put off such an upgrade as long as possible.

There are other considerations, such as drivers for graphic cards and peripherals that might also be as old as the OS. As you see, this is a decision that carries considerable costs to a business and isn’t going to be considered unless absolutely necessary. For a point-of-sale system, it may be less likely to happen.

Now Microsoft would surely prefer to sell customers on Windows 8.1, but there is that embarrassing decision from HP recently to offer PCs with Windows 7. That comes as the PC industry is almost collapsing for some makers. This week, Sony announced that the VAIO PC line would be, in part, sold off, and otherwise discontinued. So after all is said and done, and thousands of employees lose their paychecks, the line will only be offered in Japan.

This is typical of the way the PC industry is going, however. Sony tried to sell premium Windows PCs to a market that wanted cheap and cheaper. They did a pretty good job of it for a while, though; so good, in fact that Steve Jobs famously went to Sony in the early 2000s to discuss the possibility of having them build OS X clones. It never happened, of course, which is probably a good thing, but it is also clear Jobs very much admired Sony over the years.

Sony’s departure from the PC business merely confirms what has been obvious, which is that it’s no longer possible for any company, other than Apple, to earn large profits from selling traditional computers. That Microsoft continues to have problems persuading customers to upgrade to Windows 8/8.1 is only part of the problem.

But with a new CEO taking charge, will there be much, if any, change at all? After all Bill Gates will, for a while at least, be watching over the shoulder of Satya Nadella, and I can’t imagine what that’s going to be like. Sure, it may make sense in the sense of taking an engineering-oriented executive and schooling him in the finer points of dealing with the company’s various divisions, partners, the financial community, and putting forth a proper public face. The latter may be the most difficult task of all, if you consider some of those recordings of Nadella’s public speeches. Sure, Tim Cook hasn’t been so great either, but he’s learning. Perhaps Nadella will as well, but the real problem will be fixing what’s wrong at Microsoft.

And just persuading large numbers of users to upgrade from Windows XP may be the most difficult task of all.

As some tech and financial pundits exhort Apple to sell cheaper versions of the iPhone, it does appear that demand for the mobile handsets may be slipping around the world. Well, at least if you look at the latest financials for ARM Holdings, which licenses chips to most of the handset makers, including Apple and Samsung.

Based on quarterly financials that indicated slowing growth, ARM’s stock price fell by nearly 5% on Tuesday. So does this mean the glory days are gone? In passing, Apple’s stock price dipped by a similar percentage because iPhone sales weren’t quite as high as analysts expected. Amazon’s stock price also similarly dipped because of failing to meet analyst hopes and dreams.

It’s not that ARM was necessarily on the losing end when sales are considered. ARM, you see, licenses the technology. In addition to cell phones, you’ll also find chips containing ARM technology in cars, TVs, medical devices and loads of other products. But the company doesn’t build its own chips. Licensed chip makers handle the fabrication, and royalty revenue increased 7% in the last quarter of 2013 compared to the previous year. But analysts wanted more.

Lower than expected demand may indicate that handset makers are potentially building fewer products, and thus don’t need to use as many chips. I realize that slowdowns in other industries may be, in part, responsible, but I’ll focus on cell phones. At least some of this slow growth might reflect the fact that, at least in the developed portions of the world, an increasing percentage of customers have smartphones. So it would seem that saturation is inevitable, and perhaps ARM appears to be suffering as a result.

And Apple is a major ARM licensee.

But that doesn’t mean there should be a doom and gloom reaction to Apple’s sales, even though this quarter’s guidance calls for somewhat lower sales. Apple plays in the premium smartphone space, where it continues to dominate. Don’t forget that Samsung sold a mere nine million Galaxy S4s in the last quarter, compared to 51 million iPhones. Since Apple doesn’t do a model breakdown, it’s hard to guess how many sales went to the iPhone 5s, the iPhone 5c, and the iPhone 4s. But one estimate pegged iPhone 5s sales at over 30 million — with the rest divided between the iPhone 5c and the iPhone 4s. That’s quite a bit better than what Samsung managed.

Samsung, however, does better with cheap gear, which is where a lot of the industry’s growth is centered, particularly in poorer countries where high-priced stuff doesn’t sell quite as well. Indeed, there’s a published report that Apple has resumed production of the 2010 iPhone 4 in an effort to address this need without actually cheapening the product.

But does this mean that Apple will switch from a two-year to three-year cycle for smartphone sales? What I mean is that, with the arrival of the iPhone 6, or whatever it’s called, the iPhone 4s, the iPhone 5s, and perhaps the controversial iPhone 5c, will remain in the lineup. But Apple might restrict the older model to developing countries where there is a higher population that cannot afford more expensive gear. That, and cheap extended payment plans, might make a difference.

You see, selling older iPhones, where development costs have been amortized, and production is cheaper, will still mean decent profits. For many people saddled with the cheap junk from other handset makers, even an older iPhone may seem to be an aspirational product, a luxury. After all, the iPhone 4 can actually run iOS 7, even if performance isn’t exactly stellar and some features aren’t available. Compare that to a cheap Android smartphone, where only the fastest hardware can run the OS fluidly.

Now I suppose Apple could update the iPhone 4 series with plastic cases and minor hardware updates and keep the price low. That’s the tact taken with the iPhone 5c and, despite claims that it was an abject failure, the estimates I’ve seen argue against that conclusion. Indeed, it’s quite possible the plastic-cased model fared noticeably better than the iPhone 5 would have fared had it remained in the lineup.

So you’re seeing here the possible solution to the low-end iPhone problem in a way that doesn’t hurt profits. Sure, I suppose the critics will find reason to denigrate the policy of keeping older stuff, with older hardware, in the lineup. But that won’t matter to customers who can have a genuine iPhone, rather than some no-name brand or a cheap Samsung.

Don’t think it makes a difference? Consider the clear failure of the Galaxy S4. Samsung may do better than Apple in overall quantity, but surely not quality.

Now some of Apple’s critics will continue to ignore the company’s approach. What I propose here simply represents a policy that recognizes reality, which is to keep even older iPhones in the product lineup. The customers who buy that gear won’t care a whit about LTE, or perhaps don’t live in countries where the faster wireless standard exists or is fully deployed.

Besides, Apple has said time and time again over the years that they won’t build cheap gear. Even if Apple’s growth curve is slower than the companies that do, if profits remain high, and employees and customers are happy, why complain?

In recent days, speculation about the next CEO for Microsoft turned from possible outsiders to a long-time insider, Satya Nadella, the executive vice president of the company’s Cloud and Enterprise group. That news was confirmed Tuesday morning, as was the report that board chairman Bill Gates had stepped down and will become Technology Adviser; I hesitate to use the term “official nag.” This means, of course, that Microsoft’s co-founder will still remain a powerful force within the company.

But is that a good thing?

Remember that Nadella has worked at Microsoft for 22 years, during which time he has participated in the change from Windows dominating the computing world to the rise of smartphones and tablets, both of which found Microsoft wanting. And don’t forget the tepid rollout of Windows 8, which is regarded even by Microsoft fans as a failure.

Now it’s already clear that the culture may still change at Microsoft, witness the report that Nadella tends to be a low-key personality who likes to play well with others, as opposed to the bombastic Steve Ballmer, and Gates, the classic image of the computer nerd. He also wears hoodies, according to the publicity photo, which may signal some new fashion trend at Microsoft, or maybe it’s just a poor effort to make turn him into a hipper executive.

What’s more, Nadella’s experience in cloud and enterprise services wouldn’t seem to have much connection to selling Surface tablets and Nokia smartphones. I did watch some videos featuring interviews with him at various industry events, and Nadella came across as artificial in regurgitating the company line on the various services he was touting, such as the Bing search engine. Perhaps the corporate PR people tried just a little too hard to tutor him in public speaking or handling interviews.

In addition to being an engineer, though, Nadella also has an MBA, meaning he is schooled in business-related matters.

The real question, though, is whether this new personality will be able to pull the disparate parts of Microsoft together and make them focus on new strategies that will fix the problems facing the company. Although profitable at its core enterprise products and services, Microsoft has clearly had difficulty adapting to the mobile revolution. The Bing search engine, the only viable competitor to Google, continues to lose money.

So far, Nadella has said he approves of last year’s corporate reorganization, and the curious decision to acquire Nokia’s mobile handset division. His reign as CEO, therefore, appears to promise more of the same, with a different personality as the front person. But how does that solve Microsoft’s persistent problems? How does saying the course convince more people to ditch Windows XP, first released in 2001, and adopt Windows 8? Indeed, a recent survey of Web traffic showed XP gaining slightly, more so than Windows 8/8.1. That ought to be an embarrassing wake up call.

I suppose it’s possible, though, that Nadella will play it cool for the first few months, and gradually make changes that may or may not have a serious impact on the company’s future direction. But the increased presence of Gates as an advisor may argue against major changes. I wonder how Nadella can exert any semblance of independence with Gates watching over his shoulder.

The larger question, though, is just how much time Microsoft has to turn things around, and whether there’s enough time to do what’s necessary. I’ve read a number of commentaries suggesting future changes, such as focusing on the core businesses, and spinning off the entertainment division that includes the Xbox. It’s also possible Bing might be discarded, although that is one of the projects in which Nadella was involved.

Besides, if Bing goes away, or is sold off, that pretty much leaves Google without any potential competition in search. Hiring a person who is a cloud service specialist would argue against such a move.

Now when Steve Jobs returned to Apple and became iCEO, he moved quickly to shore up the company’s bottom line and shed underperforming products. Nadella is taking control of a company that is still hugely profitable, though declining in influence. There is less need to rush into anything, and any revisions in corporate vision and strategy would appear to be more gradual.

I would hope, however, that the newly-minted executive won’t just be a caretaker, but will make the right moves to make Microsoft more competitive in the 21st century, and not a relic of the last century. The continued success in the enterprise does mean that Microsoft might be able to rest on its laurels for a while, but the pressures to straighten things out will only grow.

Perhaps it’s corporate spin, but two sentences from Nadella, which seem to have been filtered through the PR machine, may leave room for hope: “Our industry does not respect tradition — it only respects innovation. This is a critical time for the industry and for Microsoft.”

Of course, time will tell whether Nadella is the sort of individual who can strike a different course and persuade those around him to accept his vision and rally behind him. One of Microsoft’s endemic problems has resulted from different divisions at seeming loggerheads to each other. One hopes the future won’t include more failed attempts to spread the Windows “everywhere” mantra, but I don’t expect any immediate change.

So, after it was announced that Motorola Mobility was being pawned off to Lenovo for $2.9 billion, the new owner boasted that they would soon beat Apple and Samsung when it comes to smartphone sales. As usual, that quote was repeated with no reality check whatsoever.

Consider that a company will not usually sell off a division unless there’s a problem. If Motorola Mobility was doing as well as it did in the 1990s, when Motorola handsets led the world, it would still be a part of the original company. Certainly if sales had increased under Google, and losses turned to profits, do you really believe the division would be sold off at a loss? What sense would that make?

Of course, Google isn’t exactly going to admit that they made this deal with Lenovo at a fire sale price because the division was failing. A corporation’s spin machine seldom recognizes reality. Whether Apple, Amazon, Google, Samsung or anyone, bad news is tempered with an excuse.

On the other hand, if anything Apple sells produces losses, the stock price would fall far more rapidly than it has in recent days (although it’s pretty flat as of the time I am writing this column). Even good news from Apple is frequently regarded as somehow bad. So Apple sells a record number of iPhones, claiming more could be sold if the product mix was right. That means they built too many copies of the iPhone 5c, and not enough of the iPhone 5s. What this means, regardless, is that the average transaction price no doubt skewed higher. Isn’t that a good thing? After all, it means higher profits.

Except that some Wall Street analysts pulled out higher estimates — from somewhere, but not necessarily from real sources.

But let’s return to Lenovo and their brazen boast. True, Lenovo does very well in the declining PC market. True, Lenovo seems to be growing smartphone sales in Asia, but how does that translate to a magical huge jump in sales soon as the Motorola brand name is affixed to those products? Even if the poor selling Motorola handsets are replaced with newly-designed gear, will it make any difference?

Why should a potential customer suddenly believe that Motorola is a competitive product to consider after years of falling sales? Can Lenovo’s influence somehow spark a new wave of innovation that hasn’t existed in recent years? Where’s Lenovo’s reputation for true innovation in the PC market? Why should that company’s executives be taken seriously?

Of course, this is nothing new. Whenever a rival to Apple comes out with a supposedly competing product, that claims will garner headlines by some segments of the media. The press release will be heavily quoted without critical comment, but few reporters will actually do their homework and check the company’s history to see how previous product introductions have fared. The goal is to somehow get Apple involved in the story–or at least the headline — even if there is no direct involvement, and no evidence whatever that potential Apple customers will prefer the rival product — now or ever.

You see some of this at the annual Consumer Electronics Show, where loads of new tech gear, both real and potential, are on display. In recent years, some companies have announced products that seem clearly aimed at what Apple might do. So in 2010, you saw new tablets being introduced, but most of them vanished in the haze when the iPad arrived.

Lenovo famously introduced a smart TV set some time back, though it appeared to be designed strictly for the Asian market. But it also came at a time when anticipation for a new Apple TV solution had reached a fever pitch. These days that anticipation is still there, but mostly simmering in the background as Apple TV quietly offers more streaming channels; the latest is a professional wrestling channel.

This year, in addition to revised connected TV sets with Ultra HD and less 3D, there were smartwatches. Pebble, Samsung — you name it. Yet it hasn’t been demonstrated yet just how well one of these gadgets will fare as mass market gear. Selling a few hundred thousand units here and there wouldn’t likely impress Apple.

But the headlines? It’s often about introducing something to head off Apple at the pass, compete with Apple, do something to Apple, do anything to Apple. Sure, if it’s a cheap smartphone or PC, it’s quite possible that Apple will be bested in total unit sales — as Samsung has done with mobile handsets — even though the profits from most of that gear will be lacking.

Fair competition, however, means going after Apple in its own markets. That means premium smartphones, premium tablets and premium personal computers. But when a company claims it can beat the competition, that’s little more than one wrestler saying they can wallop another wrestler. You take it with the same grain of salt until they actually produce.

Far too many members of the media, however, mistake the sales pitches for news.