Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Vista Share Drops for the First Time In Two Years

kdawson posted about 5 years ago | from the disturbance-in-the-force dept.

Windows 332

adeelarshad82 writes "Windows Vista lost market share last month for the first time in almost two years, a sign that users are already abandoning the oft-ridiculed operating system in favor of the new Windows 7. According to Web metrics firm Net Applications, Vista dropped 0.2 percentage points during September to end the month at an 18.6% slice of the operating system pie. Windows 7, meanwhile, gained 0.3 percentage points, its biggest one-month gain since Microsoft began handing out the new OS to the public in January 2009. Windows 7 powered an estimated 1.5% of all computers that connected to the Internet last month, also a record."

cancel ×

332 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Not even October 22 yet... (2, Insightful)

mlts (1038732) | about 5 years ago | (#29634005)

This shows something, that Windows 7 is good enough that people are running the trial of it en masse. The date that will confirm this trend is when W7 gets released to the street for both upgrades and bundled with new PCs, on October 22.

Re:Not even October 22 yet... (1)

Zumbs (1241138) | about 5 years ago | (#29634065)

Actually, the release version of Windows 7 has been available on MSDN since early August and MSDNAA since mid August, so it would seem many subscribers have been running to get Windows 7.

Re:Not even October 22 yet... (2, Informative)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | about 5 years ago | (#29634115)

unfortunately it was on msdnaa for a month and was then withdrawm

Re:Not even October 22 yet... (2, Informative)

Zumbs (1241138) | about 5 years ago | (#29634147)

Huh? I can still see it there (just checked) ...

Re:Not even October 22 yet... (2, Informative)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | about 5 years ago | (#29634357)

i have access to 2 msdnaa accounts
http://msdn04.e-academy.com/elms/Storefront/Storefront.aspx?campus=ieee_cs_r9&np1=112 [e-academy.com]

http://msdn70.e-academy.com/elms/Storefront/Storefront.aspx?campus=santbabasing_cs&np1=112 [e-academy.com]

win 7 was available for a month on the 1st link, but was then withdrawn

it never even appeared on the 2nd one

and yes, i have tried logging in

check this

http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=0&p=22981341 [slickdeals.net]
the 4th post on the page discusses why it was removed
also try searching for
windows 7 withdrawn from msdnaa
in google...

luckily i got it before it was removed

Re:Not even October 22 yet... (1)

jonbryce (703250) | about 5 years ago | (#29634831)

It is still on my technet account.

Re:Not even October 22 yet... (1)

EpsCylonB (307640) | about 5 years ago | (#29634123)

whats activation like on win7 ?, do they still do that thing where if you change too many hardware components it forces you to re-activate.

I am running the RC1 here, really like it, don't think I will move to the official release until it runs out next summer.

Re:Not even October 22 yet... (1)

Zumbs (1241138) | about 5 years ago | (#29634153)

You still have to activate it. Being on a labtop I did not try to change my hardware to see how it responded, but I would be surprised if they changed the need for re-activation.

Re:Not even October 22 yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29634237)

I know MS wants to discourage piracy and all, and I only run legitimate Windows licenses (XP and 2000), but I'm still adamantly opposed to their "solution". So, I guess the next logical question is whether the usual circumvention patches are available yet for those people who don't want the hassle of reactivation or the defect of having a system with a remote nag/kill switch that phones home to MS for authorization. Anyone know the status of Win 7 patches to fix this defect?

Re:Not even October 22 yet... (1)

thisisaccount2 (1647273) | about 5 years ago | (#29634533)

GIYF.

Re:Not even October 22 yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29634749)

Yeah, I know. But I'm only having limited success finding out what changes are in Win7's activation process [mydigitallife.info] , and less success finding tools to disable it that also offer some explanation of what they are doing. I'm looking for something as detailed as this [mydigitallife.info] , which lays out all the options for XP. No luck so far for Win 7, but it must be out there somewhere. It's a bit tricky to search for with all the XP WGA info and all the non-WGA Windows 7 info that is available. I'm also interested in anyone's direct experience with Win 7's activation -- not merely how much it nags, but whether MS has relaxed the degree of hardware modification that is possible before triggering it. That drove me nuts in XP until I disabled it.

Of course, no one will really know until the final release is out. There is no guarantee the RC has the same scheme.

Re:Not even October 22 yet... (1)

mhall119 (1035984) | about 5 years ago | (#29634637)

Why do you put up with that crap?

Re:Not even October 22 yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29634603)

What is a "labtop". Is it a computer specially designed to be used on the top of laboratories?

Re:Not even October 22 yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29634203)

whats activation like on win7 ?, do they still do that thing where if you change too many hardware components it forces you to re-activate.

Unless you're doing serious hardware changes (full mobo/cpu swaps) every few weeks or months, re-activation really isn't that bad. All it takes is a quick phone call to an automated system, punch in a few numbers, get a new code. And you have like 3 days from the time it starts bugging you to do it. If you can't find 2 or 3 minutes in a 3 day period, well, you need to prioritize your time better.

Re:Not even October 22 yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29634485)

I have to re-activate it every time I run it in VM, and then I have to activate it again every time I boot into it directly via Boot Camp. I would think those would require a single activation each.

I never ran Vista in a VM so I don't know if this is more restrictive or not.

Re:Not even October 22 yet... (1)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | about 5 years ago | (#29634081)

i dont know how, but the laptops given in my college came with windows 7 RTM installed by lenovo.
they were given out in 2nd week of september

Re:Not even October 22 yet... (1)

mlts (1038732) | about 5 years ago | (#29634103)

MSDN, Technet, enterprises with an SA agreement, and OEMs were given access to the RTM version of Windows 7 back in August. However, the boxed retail sets are not until October 22.

Re:Not even October 22 yet... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29634107)

This shows something, that Windows 7 is being intensely marketed, with massive astroturf campaigns and an unprecedented level of misleading hype, especially considering it is a bland and uninspiring OS which has barely changed in over a decade.

FTFY.

Re:Not even October 22 yet... (1)

Manip (656104) | about 5 years ago | (#29634119)

Really? I'm yet to see a single advert for it. In fact I was in PC World the other day and they still have Vista adverts up all over the place. Although some of the Laptops do have a "Free Windows 7 Upgrade!" sticker on them.

Where are you seeing Windows 7 advertised?

Re:Not even October 22 yet... (4, Funny)

Kratisto (1080113) | about 5 years ago | (#29634143)

Obviously, our AC friend here is actually a paid advertiser working for microsoft. Microsoft knows that if they troll Slashdot enough with reverse-astroturfers, they will induce other posters to reply in defense of the corporation and thus boost sales.

Re:Not even October 22 yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29634265)

Where are you seeing Windows 7 advertised?

Think about how many times you've heard the comment (or a variation of said comment) "Windows 7 is everything Vista should have been,"

That phrase was not chosen by accident.

where is OS 10.6? (4, Interesting)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | about 5 years ago | (#29634459)

Another thing to point out is What the article states way down the page:

Mac OS X climbed nearly the same amount that Windows fell -- 0.25 percentage points -- to finish above 5% for the first time under Net Applications revised its methodology.

So, XP fell 0.2%, win7 rose 0.3%, but OS X rose 0.25%. Considering that the source for their data, hitslink [hitslink.com] , doesn't even have OS 10.6 up on their survey yet, I'd say the interpretation that Windows 7 is the one eating Vista's market share is unfounded, it's much more likely that it's a combination of losses to apple and win7.

Moreover, if you look at other stats like statcounter [statcounter.com] , the monthly data shows no decrease in Windows Vista adoption rate (i.e., still increasing usage share), but still shows OS X increasing its market share.

Basically, there's just as much evidence that it's snow leopard that's eating Vista's lunch as it is win7. Win7 installs could easily be coming from people who skipped vista.

Re:Not even October 22 yet... (4, Insightful)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | about 5 years ago | (#29634221)

The new taskbar alone is a step forward. The old model with the labels just doesn't scale to more than a few windows. Now I just hope the *nix desktop environments follow suit. This was in NeXTSTEP in the 1988, for Pete's sake!

Re:Not even October 22 yet... (5, Insightful)

Fred_A (10934) | about 5 years ago | (#29634331)

The new taskbar alone is a step forward. The old model with the labels just doesn't scale to more than a few windows. Now I just hope the *nix desktop environments follow suit. This was in NeXTSTEP in the 1988, for Pete's sake!

Since we, users of Unix desktops, have been using virtual desktops for ages, we don't need to cram tens of windows on each desktop. So an un-crowded list works fine. If we want a full list, we can display all of our windows or all of our desktops via some of the newfangled desktop effects, or just a list of all of the opened windows sorted by desktop, as all the window managers have been able to do since pretty much forever.

Traditional Windows users don't like virtual desktops. I never understood why. Couldn't do without them myself.

Re:Not even October 22 yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29634389)

The new taskbar alone is a step forward. The old model with the labels just doesn't scale to more than a few windows. Now I just hope the *nix desktop environments follow suit. This was in NeXTSTEP in the 1988, for Pete's sake!

Exactly.

The Superbar is the only "new" feature of significance, and it's a blatant ripoff of the KDE panel. Win 7 is basically just a compatibility and performance update with one new feature. It should have been released as a service pack.

Re:Not even October 22 yet... (1)

trum4n (982031) | about 5 years ago | (#29634181)

Just wait for the release. The Vista RC1 was the best version, it was down hill from there....

Re:Not even October 22 yet... (1)

AndGodSed (968378) | about 5 years ago | (#29634699)

Well I can second this. I ran the RC and the full version, full version took me two days to install Office because of a "known issue" with my dvdrom.

Stupied Fucking Vista (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29634009)

and Stupid Fucking Dell for refusing to sell me XP when I bought this shitty laptop.

Stupid Fucking me for not buying a Mac.

Re:Stupied Fucking Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29634095)

You'd have been fucking stupid to buy a fucking mac as well.

Re:Stupied Fucking Vista (2, Insightful)

Manip (656104) | about 5 years ago | (#29634139)

Why is Vista "stupid?" Why do you think XP is better? Why didn't you buy a Mac if you wanted a Mac?

A lot of Vista's original criticisms revolved around drivers (since the entire driver architecture got re-invented). After a lot of the driver issues got resolved (*cough* Nvidia and Creative *cough*) the OS became no better but no worse than XP.

If I purchased a laptop today I'd rather have Vista than XP since I lose nothing but owning Vista but I lose a few things by owning XP (low privileged IE, UAC, et al).

A lot of people who continue to bash Vista are just sheep that have no real clue why exactly Vista was bad or why Windows 7 is better (hint: Vista paved the road for 7).

Re:Stupied Fucking Vista (1)

Starayo (989319) | about 5 years ago | (#29634201)

Because it's bloated as all hell and only runs decently on the 64-bit version. I'm writing this from a high performance gaming computer I built last week which has an OEM copy of Vista installed for the sole reason of getting the free upgrade to 7. It's bad enough without the crap that vendors pile onto their computers.

Vista has it's high points, for example I really like the volume mixer (a feature I've long wished for in XP), but the general bulk of it all outweighs the positives. Windows 7 on the other hand ran fantastically from the first build I had access to and I absolutely love it. It actually ran faster and smoother than my Ubuntu install!

I want to point out that I started using Vista without any preconceptions, and slowly grew to hate it from day to day use.

Re: since I lose nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29634205)

since I lose nothing
except ram and clock cycles

Re:Stupied Fucking Vista (1)

thomthom (832970) | about 5 years ago | (#29634215)

Why on earth was parent modded troll?

Re:Stupied Fucking Vista (5, Insightful)

gander666 (723553) | about 5 years ago | (#29634453)

I will probably be modded into obscurity for this, but hell, I have karma to burn.

I would venture that many of the Vista Haters have never really spent any time with the OS. A poster above commented that the initial release was flawed, primarily due to crappy driver support (and I was burned on the nVidia chips in my laptop), but by the time that the first SP came out, it was solid, reliable and, dare I say it, almost a pleasure to use.

My new job demanded that I go back to XP, and it reminded me of how much I prefer Vista over XP.

The true test will be how long will it take for major corporate IT uptake in Win7. Perhaps the learning curve of watching Vista and the polish that Win7 has added will begin migration plans. I sure hope so, 'cuz I can't stand XP.

Re:Stupied Fucking Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29634661)

Though I usually only lurk, I have to jump in and agree with you there.
There are all kinds of hype, and people just tend to convince themselves that vista sucks. A guy on a blog says so, the macheads say so, the media also says so, slashdotters also say so... And yes, why would people spend time using something that they believe sucks?
I can personally testify from having used various versions of win 7, that it offers no real reason for me to upgrade from vista. In fact I laugh at a lot of people who are praising win 7 (cool visuals, wth?) , but thought vista was the worst thing in the world. Hell, everything in win 7 seems to surprise them, while I just stare, disinterested.

Re:Stupied Fucking Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29634177)

Well at least you can use your computer. If you had bought a Mac it would be in for repairs all the time.

Re:Stupied Fucking Vista (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | about 5 years ago | (#29634243)

What - you can still get XP on a Mac?

just wait... (5, Interesting)

King-of-darkness (206887) | about 5 years ago | (#29634047)

you just wait for june next year when all the RC versions expire...

Re:just wait... (1)

Eirenarch (1099517) | about 5 years ago | (#29634109)

By that time 7 will have like 10% market share so nothing critical will happen to the graph.

Re:just wait... (1)

gabebear (251933) | about 5 years ago | (#29634145)

doubtful, maybe 3% by October 21st.

The drop won't register because the day after the RCs expire, the retail copies will be released.

Re:just wait... (1)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | about 5 years ago | (#29634291)

...What? The RC's expire next year, not October 21st.

Microsoft's done itself a lot of damage lately (1, Interesting)

syousef (465911) | about 5 years ago | (#29634051)

A lot of people realized from the start that Vista was rubbish. Unfortunately MS has been doing a lot of damage to itself of late. Most of their main stream products are a complete pain to use. Genuine advantage has run rife, and hinders legitimate users and pirates alike. The ribbon is an abomination and no amount of marketing or brainwashed hyperbole from idiots parroting the marketing is going to change my mind - yeah I can use it just fine but it eats up a lot of screen real estate and it isn't better - it's childish shit with no advantage. Not to mention dropping support for old formats. Some of us want to be able to read our old documents without resorting to Even in gaming they fucked up then shut down the Flight Simulator franchise, and Xbox 360 has its red ring.

The only things I've seen that aren't bad that have come out of Microsoft lately are some minor photo and file utilities from it's research labs.

Vista being a bloated slow buggy pain in the arse that permeates every part of the user experience just takes the cake though. Windows 7 is going to need to shine big time. So far it's looking better than Vista (but for that matter so is a turd sandwich). They can't afford to get it wrong.

They CAN afford to get it wrong (3, Interesting)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | about 5 years ago | (#29634113)

... They can't afford to get it wrong.

I'm afraid they can. They can force it on every new machine, like Vista. They can pre-install their office suite. With their influence on the resellers, they effectively have a monopoly.

They can force DRM down the customer's throat, Make every new version a pain to rediscover where all the existing features are, and have customers look out for the new version, because "everything will magically be better in the new version".

Re:They CAN afford to get it wrong (2, Insightful)

Stratoukos (1446161) | about 5 years ago | (#29634403)

... They can't afford to get it wrong.

I'm afraid they can. They can force it on every new machine, like Vista.

No they can't. Not if they want to maintain their status for a few more years. As you said they forced Vista on new machines and after 3 years it still has 19% marketshare, compared to XP which has 72%. But the biggest failure of Vista was that even regular users noticed it. It was the first time that non advanced users where really unhappy with Windows and sought alternatives, either downgrading or switching. If 7 proves to be another failure (I don't think so) people won't stick with XP for another 3 years.

Re:They CAN'T afford to get it wrong (3, Informative)

Bazar (778572) | about 5 years ago | (#29634447)

Everything has its limits
The reason microsoft and windows have been so successful has been because their software has been so friendly to use.
Its so easy it attracts developers, that make applications for the platform, which attracts end-users, some of which go on to become developers.

Its a self-feeding cycle, which is why microsoft has been so successful, and its also where linux is starting to show real growths.

Now your saying MS can give its customers anything it wants and they'll eat it. You might be right, but only in the short term. Longer term, a small amount, lets say that in frustration/annoyance 5% less developers drop windows vista, and start using using linux instead.
They go on to develop apps that DON"T work on windows but instead on linux, these apps appeal to other users who go on to get linux instead, and the linux cycle grows.

Those few developers, taht tiny market share, is all it can take to crush the windows monopoly. And without the monopoly, or ease of use, why would you pay money over a linux distribution which is free.

No microsoft can't afford to stuff up windows, its the cornerstone of all their software, everything is dependant on it, it just takes time (read: years) before screwups play out fully.

Heres a small post showing that MS's vista screwup has cost them dearly, the Mac's web presence nearly doubling from 4 to 8%.
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/business/appleaday/blog/2008/06/macs_web_footprint_growing_at.html [baltimoresun.com]

It'd be simlar with linux.
Just wait a few years, and the results will play themselves out.
Don't even get me started on the fact that the netbook market is cut-throat pricing wise, MS are already having a hard time jusifying the cost of windows (to the point where they cut prices on windows oem to stop being excluded from that market)

Re:They CAN afford to get it wrong (1)

thisisaccount2 (1647273) | about 5 years ago | (#29634577)

... They can't afford to get it wrong.

They can pre-install their office suite.

Trial version only, in the US. Antitrust laws.

Re:They CAN afford to get it wrong (2, Interesting)

jonbryce (703250) | about 5 years ago | (#29634869)

Dixons Store Group, the largest computer retailer in the UK has been struggling since Vista came out because nobody wanted to buy computers with Vista on it.

Re:Microsoft's done itself a lot of damage lately (4, Interesting)

Alomex (148003) | about 5 years ago | (#29634117)

yeah I can use it just fine but it eats up a lot of screen real estate and it isn't better

I've used every windows systems in one form or another since 1987 and have generally found the criticisms of /.er types way overstated. The "awful unstable new versions" of Windows were usually better, more stable, easier to use than the previous one.

The are a total of three exceptions to that: Windows 2.0, Windows Me and Windows Vista. Windows 2.0 was a first release (Windows 1.0 doesn't really count). Windows Me was the last iteration of a dead end branch put out by the marketing department. Windows Vista on the other hand was driven by the tech types and was supposed to be better. The only noticeable difference in the user experience are useless changes for change's sake, and idiotic Allow/deny dialogues.

Re:Microsoft's done itself a lot of damage lately (4, Informative)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | about 5 years ago | (#29634149)

Add to that list: Windows 200 and Windows XP.

Windows 200 had major problems with hardware drivers. Printing was a real pain, and running both AutoCAD and office on the same machine was almost impossible. Running Autodesk Inventor was near to impossible because it was so slow you could draw the screen by pencil faster.

Windows XP's "Genuine" disadvantage was the main reason I switched to Linux. I do value my privacy.

Re:Microsoft's done itself a lot of damage lately (1)

Alomex (148003) | about 5 years ago | (#29634217)

Add to that list: Windows 2000 and Windows XP. Windows 2000 had major problems with hardware drivers.

That wasn't my experience at all. Of course YMMV and all that, but I found every release of the NT branch better than the previous. Vista tried to substantially change the underlying NT kernel and that might be one of the reasons for its failure. To be sure Vista is not the horrible monster that people speak off. That is typical /. hyperbole. It's just that Vista is not good enough to justify it's high price, it's high resource consumption and the quirkiness of switching to a slightly different OS.

Re:Microsoft's done itself a lot of damage lately (1, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | about 5 years ago | (#29634223)

Add to that list: Windows 200 and Windows XP. (...) Windows 200 had major problems with hardware drivers.

Eh, 200? And you're repeating it twice? And what was probably the best Windows releases for business (2000) and home (XP) ever? I'd mark you troll, but I figure stupid is more on target...

Re:Microsoft's done itself a lot of damage lately (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | about 5 years ago | (#29634225)

Compared to what? I never had problems with Windows 2000 - perhaps there were still some problems getting support, but overall it was a vast step up from the disaster of the Windows 9x line. I was glad to be able to finally move to a stable OS.

If you're comparing to Linux, well true, it had the stability first (although only of the kernel - in practice back in 2000, I was having trouble with the window manager crashing, leaving me having to reboot; the fact that Linux itself might still be running was not much consolation...) but back then I didn't like it for other reasons (too much dependency on a command prompt - the very thing I hated DOS for). It also had far bigger problems with hardware/driver support than Windows 2000 (every distribution I tried had problems with my graphics card - Red Hat only ran in 320x200 (!), and the rest left me with flickering pixels).

I was never a fan of MS before then, but Windows 2000 was (and indeed, still is) a good OS.

Re:Microsoft's done itself a lot of damage lately (3, Interesting)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 5 years ago | (#29634893)

Windows 200 had major problems with hardware drivers. Printing was a real pain, and running both AutoCAD and office on the same machine was almost impossible...

My anecdotal evidence suggests the opposite of yours. I had 4 or 5 Windows 2000 Pro and Server boxes for several years, and found them to be generally reliable and efficient, even on older hardware. When I was writing, I'd typically be running MS Word/Access, Photoshop, a LAMP or WAMP stack, DreamWeaver, UltraEdit, and a few other goodies, on something like like an 800MHz P3 and 512 MB memory without any performance problems. Never had any issues with MS-certified drivers that I can recall.

I have no interest in making MS look better; two of the things that prompted my switch to Linux in 2004 were WinXP and Server 2003, each of which was a giant step backwards IMO. I could already see the direction in which Redmond was headed and knew that I didn't want to go there today. But Win2K generally rocked, and I even miss it a bit sometimes, especially when I have to deal with someone's XP or Vista machine.

Re:Microsoft's done itself a lot of damage lately (0, Flamebait)

Zumbs (1241138) | about 5 years ago | (#29634135)

Not to mention dropping support for old formats. Some of us want to be able to read our old documents without resorting to

The documents I wrote in Wordpad on Windows 95 & 98 could no longer be opened when I upgraded to XP. Neither by Word nor Wordpad. Only Windows product to open them were notepad. OpenOffice, however, had no problem opening them - it even showed the styles correctly.

Vista being a bloated slow buggy pain in the arse that permeates every part of the user experience just takes the cake though. Windows 7 is going to need to shine big time. So far it's looking better than Vista (but for that matter so is a turd sandwich). They can't afford to get it wrong.

I think they can afford it. MS still has a monopoly on providing OSes for home and buisness users, and even a fail like Vista did not make a dent into that monopoly. Another fail might, but I'm not so sure.

Re:Microsoft's done itself a lot of damage lately (2, Interesting)

NickFortune (613926) | about 5 years ago | (#29634279)

I think they can afford it. MS still has a monopoly on providing OSes for home and buisness users, and even a fail like Vista did not make a dent into that monopoly. Another fail might, but I'm not so sure.

Mmmm... I don't think they're quite as bulletproof as you suggest. The thing that's been preserving MS' monopoly, post-Vista, is the fact that XP users have been refusing to upgrade. As any MS apologist, and they'll tell you that Vista's biggest competitor is XP.

But they're not going to offer XP forever. And at that point in time, a bad release on the scale of Vista or WinME could prove catastrophic.

Also, I don't think it's quite true to say Vista didn't dent the MS monopoly. They've been losing market share lately. Not by a lot, and mainly to Apple, but they've been shedding users. With Macs currently enjoying the cool factor, and with some Linux distros getting increasingly accessible to the non-geek user, another big fail could accelerate that trend considerably.

Re:Microsoft's done itself a lot of damage lately (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29634189)

What do you mean with "unfortunately"? Let them keep shooting themselves in their feet, that's probably the only way we'll ever get rid of that particular bunch of scoundrels and criminals.

Re:Microsoft's done itself a lot of damage lately (1)

sxeraverx (962068) | about 5 years ago | (#29634233)

At this point, they can push just about anything, and people will say "at least it's better than Vista" and happily buy it. Especially if it has the "Oooh, shiny" factor. The average consumer's memory is that of the average goldfish, and until that changes, in the long run, MS's failure with Vista will have little to no effect on them.

Re:Microsoft's done itself a lot of damage lately (4, Insightful)

dave420 (699308) | about 5 years ago | (#29634319)

Vista's been decent for the last couple of years. They released some patches soon after its release that really sped it up. Trotting out FUD like that contained in your post doesn't help anyone.

Re:Microsoft's done itself a lot of damage lately (1)

Niten (201835) | about 5 years ago | (#29634329)

The ribbon is an abomination and no amount of marketing or brainwashed hyperbole from idiots parroting the marketing is going to change my mind - yeah I can use it just fine but it eats up a lot of screen real estate and it isn't better

If you had actually measured it, you'd know that the Office 2007 ribbon takes up less space than the default Office 2003 menus + toolbars. I guess that would make you the brainwashed idiot, huh?

Microsoft at it's finest, (3, Interesting)

Capsy (1644737) | about 5 years ago | (#29634121)

Now, while I've always maintained that Microsoft is an evil bloodsucking corporation, gaming would not be what it is today without Windows 98. Being that I run Vista, and it is forever crashing me out of classic games such as Warcraft III and Sacred Gold, not too mention the core compatibility issues for certain games and their online features, I've often times looked to switching to a Linux OS. But, the problem there is Linux, quite simply, is not up to snuff on gaming as of yet. Sure, Wine made it much easier to play games on Linux, but the fact is, most people simply won't swap because of the simple fact you have to find the correct drivers for the OS your on for your hardware, you have to install and configure Wine, and even learn to use commands. Since most people at this point in time are so established in Windows, the number of Windows gamers vs the number of Linux gamers is obviously in Microsoft's favor. This is why they aren't overly concerned with Vista's shitty performance, and this is also why they haven't been breaking their balls trying to fix it. Yes, I know, 7 is their "fix", but you have to realize, Microsoft doesn't particularly care about us anymore.

Re:Microsoft at it's finest, (3, Insightful)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | about 5 years ago | (#29634365)

What you're saying about wine not being up to snuff is true for most recent games, or ones that rely on fps. Older games like Warcraft III however, often run just great. I run linux as my primary OS and Warcraft III is one of those that runs very well using wine, I even run things like Myth II and other older stuff. I even get a little icon added to my application list when I install them. If I were you, I'd try install Ubuntu on a spare hard drive and see if you are happy with it.

Re:Microsoft at it's finest, (2, Interesting)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | about 5 years ago | (#29634619)

This is why they aren't overly concerned with Vista's shitty performance, and this is also why they haven't been breaking their balls trying to fix it.

I think they might not be overly concerned with Vista's shitty performance re: games because when there are other OS options to run the same game on the same hardware (take WoW on Vista, Wine, and OSX for example), Vista runs it the fastest.

Re:Microsoft at it's finest, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29634795)

I haven't tried Sacred Gold, in fact that's the first time I've heard of it. However, WarCraft III works just fine on Windows XP. Give it a shot. I just installed Windows XP SP3, overwriting a Windows 7 installation, and after getting all the updates, it's rock-solid.

Re:Microsoft at it's finest, (1)

Henk Poley (308046) | about 5 years ago | (#29634821)

Ida: get Sun Virtualbox, run your games on an abondonware OS like Windows 98 (Second Edition..) you mentioned.

Windows 7 released? (1, Insightful)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 5 years ago | (#29634125)

Sorry I didn't realise there was an actual release of Win7 already... it doesn't even have a fancy name. Not too bad for MS to have more market share than Linux for an OS that is not even officially released.

Re:Windows 7 released? (1)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | about 5 years ago | (#29634341)

The actual "release" of Windows 7 was around July 22nd to the various manufacturers, and August 6th to MSDN customers. It has been officially released, just not to general retail yet. Windows 7 is the final name (3.1, 95, 98, 2000 weren't exactly fancy either).

Re:Windows 7 released? (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 5 years ago | (#29634531)

A good number of people myself included got ours through Technet already. I'm running on both my work, and gaming machine. And with the large number of people in school, they're able to get the student edition for a low sum of $20. I'm able head over to another colleges store, in my town and pick up a preorder of it on my colleges card for $25.

Windows 7 (4, Informative)

BigBadBus (653823) | about 5 years ago | (#29634129)

From my own stats [paullee.com] , I'd have to agree with Win7's market share; I get about 1-1.5% too.

XP still going strong (4, Informative)

tick-tock-atona (1145909) | about 5 years ago | (#29634131)

What will be most interesting is whether people will be willing to make the jump from XP to Win7. XP has held pretty steady since November last year at ~70% market share [hitslink.com] . Vista never even got to 20% [hitslink.com] .

Re:XP still going strong (1)

gaspyy (514539) | about 5 years ago | (#29634227)

I installed Windows 7 RC on a three year old laptop (2Gb, single-core AMD Turion, ATI Xpress200 card -- overall a pretty slow system). The boot takes longer than XP, but after that is just as fast as XP SP3, even with all the fancy stuff turned on. My father, who doesn't care about eye-candy, only stability and responsiveness, says he likes it.

I don't think every XP owner will shell out $200 for the upgrade, but I'd say it's worth it, if only for the added security.

Re:XP still going strong (2, Interesting)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about 5 years ago | (#29634359)

trouble is, people said that about Vista when it first came out too.

Re:XP still going strong (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | about 5 years ago | (#29634401)

We'll have to, as new desktops and laptops are released with oddball chipsets for which the vendors only provide Windows 7 drivers. This has been one of the key forces behind corporate upgrades for years: the new hardware with new features is impossible or painful indeed to run on older operating systems.

Vista's share doesn't matter (5, Interesting)

Umangme (1337019) | about 5 years ago | (#29634141)

Considering that Vista's share is less than 1/3 of XP's share (72% vs 19%), Microsoft will be more worried about getting people to move from XP to Win7. The 19% who have Vista really won't (can't, to be more precise) stay with Vista for too long. They will definitely "upgrade" (let's hope it's really an upgrade, not a regression).

Microsoft surely doesn't want XP's ghost to haunt them like IE6's ghost has.

Re:Vista's share doesn't matter (2, Insightful)

BumpyCarrot (775949) | about 5 years ago | (#29634231)

I work in consumer electronics retail, and I'm still getting calls asking about downgrading to XP, or buying XP, or buying a machine with XP on it, even from users who actually know about W7.

Damn, I remember the days when XP was the abomination. I guess if you beat people up enough, they learn when to say "uncle".

Re:Vista's share doesn't matter (3, Insightful)

ACS Solver (1068112) | about 5 years ago | (#29634419)

XP users will have to abandon XP for hardware support if no other reason. MS can just stop releasing updates that prolong XP's life by adding support for new hardware. Gamers will have to upgrade because of DX10. We all know game tech advances rapidly, it won't be that long until games that require DX10. And despite some expectations to the contrary, nobody hacked together DX10 for XP. Then there's hardware like USB 3.0, no XP support for that has been promised and MS can decide not to implement any to accelerate XP's demise. Then there's the whole issue of RAM. The memory limit of 32-bit XP started to matter practically some time ago, and honestly switching to 64-bit XP wouldn't make much sense, it has serious driver and compatibility issues. XP really is old and if people weren't "persuaded" to abandon it purely for software reasons, they'll have to do so for hardware reasons.

Re:Vista's share doesn't matter (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29634599)

The 19% who have Vista really won't (can't, to be more precise) stay with Vista for too long.

Why the hell not? I have Vista, and I'm certainly staying with it. Windows 7 forces me to use the retarded new start menu and the retarded new task bar. Given that there's absolutely nothing wrong with Vista, and the only changes in Windows 7 are removals of functionality, I don't intend to upgrade at all.

Re:Vista's share doesn't matter (2, Insightful)

darien (180561) | about 5 years ago | (#29634873)

Windows 7 forces me to use the retarded new start menu and the retarded new task bar

No it doesn't: if you right-click on the Windows 7 start button / taskbar, you can select "properties" and revert to Vista-style behaviour.

There's a surprising number of Anonymous Cowards spreading falsehoods about Windows 7 in this thread...

what? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29634167)

What's with all the M$ stories lately...?? I though /. was about Linux! just saying whats everyone's thinking....

Re:what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29634297)

1. Linux users (and maybe OSS/FS in general) have to validate their belief system by pointing out Microsoft's failures; this usually takes the form of a circle jerk.
2. A (relatively) major Windows release is imminent; countermeasures must be deployed!
3. Page hits; people are interested.

In other words, "marketing". This has been the case for every other Windows release; why would Slashdot handle Windows 7 any differently?

Of course, this is only going to intensify once Windows 7 is actually released. We'll get a splattering of bug reports, etc. for a while before things finally taper off to a normal level. Then we'll only have to worry about the usual stupid shit: Idle, kdawson, etc. Granted Vista 1.0 was pretty shitty (SP1 improved things), but the Freetards would kill for 10% of that market presence. The sad truth of the matter is that Linux (and perhaps OSS/FS in general) still can't stand on their own merits. Instead of selling Linux as Linux, people sell Linux as Not Windows. Maybe it's just me, but if your major selling point is "We don't suck as much as them!" then I'm probably going to look elsewhere. As an aside, I find it somewhat humorous that one of the largest and oldest major Free Software projects is a Windows emulation layer.

How many Vista licences running as downgraded XP? (3, Interesting)

dan_barrett (259964) | about 5 years ago | (#29634173)

Having just gone through the corporate PC purchasing vendor circus once again, I find it interesting that you can currently purchase a PC with an OEM Vista licence, which Dell/Lenovo etc will happily factory-downgrade to XP for you. As an added bonus you can also upgrade to Windows 7, for free. Yay! 3 licences for the price of 1, sort of.
I assume this is still counted as a "Vista" licence in the statistics as that's waht it was sold as.

I predict a big jump in Windows 7 licences as all the corporate PC OEM and volume licencing moves to the "Windows 7" licence with downgrade rights, as that's the only way you'll be able to get XP. I'm guessing at least 80% of those will still be downgraded to XP for at least the next year. Makes the stats for Windows 7 look good, though.

Btw, I like Windows 7, I use it at home. All our work PC's are XP as our "enterprise-ready" software won't run on Vista. One vendor recently installed their latest document management system onto our Windows 2008 server, only to discover the indexing service had been replaced by "microsoft search". They hadn't tested it on anything beyond Windows 2003/XP as "that's what everyone else runs". Yay for corporate software!

Re:How many Vista licences running as downgraded X (1)

Spad (470073) | about 5 years ago | (#29634369)

One vendor recently installed their latest document management system onto our Windows 2008 server, only to discover the indexing service had been replaced by "microsoft search". They hadn't tested it on anything beyond Windows 2003/XP as "that's what everyone else runs". Yay for corporate software!

That's nothing, one of the clinical systems in use within the NHS at the moment (iSOFT's Premiere) only supports running on Windows 2000 (Which is now out of Microsoft extended support) on the server end; apparently the new version out later this year will add support for Server 2003 (Yes, 2003). They're actually still providing HP G4 servers to GP surgeries because they can't get supported Windows 2000 drivers for current hardware.

Re:How many Vista licences running as downgraded X (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | about 5 years ago | (#29634465)

I sympathize with you. And to avoid that hardware compatibility trap, you might consider simply using virtualization: a several year old hardware platform, such as the HP G4, should be reasonably equivalent to a virtual environment on newer hardware. And you can use the newer hardware's base OS or another client OS to provide read-only access to the client OS fileystem to run anti-virus scans, and provide a more clever network security toolkit with the virtualization server or another system as a proxy and file-service compatible firewall.

A corporate partner of mine just did this very effectively for some old Win98 tools they have to keep around for legacy data access reasons.

Vista got some really undeserved looks. (1, Flamebait)

MrCrassic (994046) | about 5 years ago | (#29634175)

When I used it, it really wasn't that bad. I'll grant that UAC was most definitely annoying and in its infancy, but other than that, it was pretty stable for the time I used it. The only services which affected stability were the Desktop Search and DWM, which is often impacted directly by the quality of the video drivers driving it.

Lots of people gave Vista a bad rep because -- get this -- they didn't know how to use their damned computers! Projector not working? No, it can't possibly be that you forgot to hit Fn+F8; IT MUST BE VISTA! Stuff running slow? It's certainly not that a GAZILLION processes are running at the same time, along with the spyware you've accumulated from using IE to surf for porn and free stuff; IT MUST BE VISTA! While a lot of the Mac vs PC commercials that Apple ran dealt a lot with the usability differences, in reality, a prime reason FOR those issues in usability is because lots of users don't know how to actually use them properly.

I've been running Windows 7 for quite some time now, and it has definitely eliminated the need for Windows Server 2008 or Windows XP running on any of my systems (except the legacy servers that I have, which both run Server 2003...but will be upgrading!) The killer features for me are the new tricks in Aero (the maximize and minimize features are solid) and the refinements done in wireless networking (which finally feel as integrated as wired has been since forever). Despite these, Vista was the pillar which helped set this up. Without it, we'd still be stuck in Longhorn-land (I'm talking about the Longhorn BEFORE the big codebase swap, which was more or less XP with some bells and whistles).

Re:Vista got some really undeserved looks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29634199)

Work for Microsoft much?

Re:Vista got some really undeserved looks. (1)

jabithew (1340853) | about 5 years ago | (#29634361)

Yeah, because only a M$ shill would suggest that some people out there aren't entirely au fait with computers...

Re:Vista got some really undeserved looks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29634289)

Projector not working? No, it can't possibly be that you forgot to hit Fn+F8; IT MUST BE VISTA! Stuff running slow? It's certainly not that a GAZILLION processes are running at the same time, along with the spyware you've accumulated from using IE to surf for porn and free stuff; IT MUST BE VISTA!

Considering that most users expect(ed) Projector to WORK without having to memorize some arcane meta key sequence and for their machines to not let processes get out of hand or spyware to run rampant through their systems... Well, you said it: IT MUST BE VISTA!

And for all those that excuse Vista's lackluster acceptance and performance... Um, quirks because it was busily greasing the ways for 7's triumphant arrival... It was supposed to float on it's own and was promised to be the very model of a major operating system all on it's lonesome; not some lubricant for Microsoft's future market penetration. Or have you forgotten all those boastful promises and the "Vista is the future!" hype already?

Re:Vista got some really undeserved looks. (4, Insightful)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | about 5 years ago | (#29634367)

a prime reason FOR those issues in usability is because lots of users don't know how to actually use them properly

Just a minor nitpick, but if the user can't figure out how to use it properly, that is a usability problem.

Re:Vista got some really undeserved looks. (4, Insightful)

NickFortune (613926) | about 5 years ago | (#29634385)

Lots of people gave Vista a bad rep because -- get this -- they didn't know how to use their damned computers!

Sorry dude. That never works as an excuse when some Linux interface baffles the average user, so I don't see why it should let Microsoft off the hook here.

Besides which, these same people knew how to use XP just fine by and large, so you're not talking about naive users baffled by computers in general. The complainers, on the whole tended to be seasoned Windows users who didn't get on with the new O/S. That's got to be a black mark, however you look at it.

It wouldn't be so bad, but (in technical terms, at least), user interfaces are what Microsoft do well. I don't have a good word to say about MS on the whole, but aside from two or three glaring exceptions, they do seem to have a knack for making things accessible to the less technical end of the user spectrum. So when someone tells me that if they couldn't even get that part right, I have to wonder what horrors lurk elsewhere.

Re:Vista got some really undeserved looks. (-1, Troll)

Risen888 (306092) | about 5 years ago | (#29634807)

Projector not working? No, it can't possibly be that you forgot to hit Fn+F8; IT MUST BE VISTA!

If users are not able to find the options to do the things they want to do, maybe your operating system is not ready for prime time.

Stuff running slow? It's certainly not that a GAZILLION processes are running at the same time, along with the spyware you've accumulated from using IE to surf for porn and free stuff; IT MUST BE VISTA!

You're damn right it must be Vista. That doesn't happen to me on Arch (and I'm running a fully blinged out KDE 4 install on a Pentium D, fer cryin' out loud). It doesn't happen to my girlfriend's Mac that she's had for seven years. Yet it happens to every fucking one of my Windows using friends, family, clients, and acquaintances.

Now why do you suppose that is?

The killer features for me are the new tricks in Aero (the maximize and minimize features are solid)

You're on a forum full of people who use Compiz, Kwin, and Aqua, and you're sitting here talking about... Aero? GTFO.

and the refinements done in wireless networking (which finally feel as integrated as wired has been since forever).

Oh yes, I saw the "refinements" in the networking interface.

Amazing (3, Interesting)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | about 5 years ago | (#29634185)

In other words, Windows Vista market share is falling before it ever hit 20%, and Linux has more market share than the latest version of Windows. ;-)

Browser stats were more interesting (3, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | about 5 years ago | (#29634191)

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=1 [hitslink.com]

IE: -1,26%
FF: +0.77%
Safari: +0.17%
Chrome: +0.33%
Opera: +0.15%

Everybody's taking a piece of Microsoft. The version graph is pretty interesting too:

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=3 [hitslink.com]

While IE is switching from versions 6/7/8 at a glacial pace, Firefox users are upgrading rapidly. Since May with 20.03% vs 0.44% for FF 3.0 vs FF 3.5, it's now 9.62% vs 12.65%. That means you can much more rapidly rely on Firefox being a recent version and not dealing with supporting ancient versions.

Why do I care about that? Because browser stats drives most the ways I have to interact with the world. Linux has 1% or whatever, but what matters is how well it works together wtih the other 99%. Therefore, death to IE :)

Re:Browser stats were more interesting (1)

Spad (470073) | about 5 years ago | (#29634375)

I suspect the IE upgrade pace is controlled almost exclusively by companies refusing to upgrade from IE6 because of shoddily written apps.

Re:Browser stats were more interesting (1)

arndawg (1468629) | about 5 years ago | (#29634631)

Or an infected computer where windows update is borked.

who's losing share? (1)

lseltzer (311306) | about 5 years ago | (#29634195)

These are percentages. If Win7 is growing quickly it could be coming at the expense of XP. Vista might still be growing, but dropping as an overall percentage.

Vista Beta (4, Insightful)

Danzigism (881294) | about 5 years ago | (#29634211)

Yes. Good job Microsoft. You have successfully beta tested a version of Windows and actually made money from it too by selling it to your customers. You got all the negative feedback that you need to improve it, so now you get to charge all them poor saps all over again with Windows 7! I despise this company, but I gotta admit. They are business geniuses.

I've avoided buying a computer because of Vista (1, Redundant)

alexschmidt (1026034) | about 5 years ago | (#29634245)

I've noticed some great deals on computers lately but, with all the grief surrounding Vista, I just could not be bothered to by a new PC or a laptop. I supposed I could have just blown away the OS and reloaded XP, but I honestly just can't be bothered to piss away a day trying to do this. And Linux is not an option because some of the apps I'm using are not available on Linux. I wonder how many people have felt the same way.

Vista has evolved into a usable and stable OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29634253)

But Windows 7 is the fucking shiznite.

It is truly awesome. My XP based machine performs BETTER after the upgrade .... There are more bells and whistles, the entire UI is rendered on my video card, the OS finally makes use of the hyperthreading, and the performance is BETTER! Unbelievable.

It outperforms Ubuntu on my netbook. The Linux community lost its 'personal computing' niche before it even recognized what it was!

spin (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | about 5 years ago | (#29634293)

"a sign that users are already abandoning the oft-ridiculed operating system in favor of the new Windows 7"

I'm amused that this is twisted to be a bad point, against Vista. When Vista's uptake was seen as slow, it was held up not as a sign that XP was just too good, but as a sign that Vista was bad. When Apple fans are queing up to get the latest OS X release, or the new Iphone, it's not taken as a sign that the old OS was bad, or that people were desperate after not having ancient features like 3G for so long, but as a sign that the new products are great. But now that 7's uptake is fast, it's held up as a sign that Vista is bad...

Still, at least it correctly notes that the share is going to 7, as opposed to the fallacy of "Vista is losing share, therefore it must be going to OS X/BSD/etc".

Is vista that bad or Win 7 that good? (2, Insightful)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about 5 years ago | (#29634417)

I'm sure MS will spin this in a positive way but let's face it. This just goes to show how shit Vista was.

Lost users or percentage of users? (1)

noidentity (188756) | about 5 years ago | (#29634481)

Did it lose users in an absolute sense, or relative to the number of computer users? If the latter, then the absolute number could have stayed the same or even increased, if the total number of users also increased. That is, (x-1)/y x/y but also x/(y+1) x/y.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?