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!

Windows 7 Overtakes XP, OSX Struggles To Beat Vista

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the top-of-the-list dept.

Desktops (Apple) 540

judgecorp writes "Latest market share figures show the difference between perception and reality. Windows 7 just nudged past Windows XP with both around the the 43 percent mark. OS X and Windows Vista divide the rest of the spoils, with all versions of OS X only just adding up to a little more than the failed Windows version, according to data from Netmarketshare."

cancel ×

540 comments

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

OS X is THE superior OS (0, Offtopic)

Mr.Wka (2721647) | more than 2 years ago | (#41212901)

I've only used OS X during the current year but I have to say it is beautiful OS. You can see that it's light years better than Linux and even Windows.

Why OS X isn't more popular then? Because Apple has no low quality products, and OS X comes with Apple's quality hardware. Not everyone has the money to buy them. Sad, for them.

Re:OS X is THE superior OS (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41212935)

"Not everyone has the money to buy them. Sad, for them."

That's the kind of dumb, elitist comment that shows what a tool you are. Perhaps people don't see the point in paying extortionist fees for an OS and hardware that doesn't do anything that their current OS does and is typically of lesser performance.

Re:OS X is THE superior OS (0, Redundant)

nysus (162232) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213007)

I don't view their pricing as extortionist by any stretch. Sure there is probably a couple hundred dollar premium you pay on their lower end products and about a $1000 premium on their highest end products (fully loaded MacBook Pro retina).

But people expect to pay a premium for the best. Not everyone likes to shop at Wal-Mart looking for the lowest-priced piece of shit. Are Apple's prices higher? Certainly. But do they deliver a better product? In my opinion, absolutely.

Re:OS X is THE superior OS (5, Insightful)

hazydave (96747) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213135)

MacOS X is a taste, that's all -- neither better nor worse for everyone. Your preference.

My 18 year old daughter has had full exposure to both Windows and MacOS X; the Windows PC on her desktop, the MacBook Pro was a loaner for the last two years at High School, part of a Communications specialty program.

When it came time for a laptop for college, she wanted Windows. She's no computer expert, just a regular user, doing everyday stuff: games, word processing, photos, internet. And video... she liked video editing on the PC better. Largely because her Mac was just terrible at it. It didn't handle native video editing from her AVCHD camcorder, while her Windows PC did, easily. She did all her editing on the Mac in either DV (which worked dandy in any Windows editor back in the 90s) or in Apple's "iFrame" format, which is basically a chopped down qHD (960x540), I-Frame only. This is the format Apple actually "invented", since they couldn't deal with actual HD video, other than to transcode to ProRes, which they only support in Final Cut Pro (she ran Final Cut Express on the Mac).

Tragically, the school she just went off to (Montclair University) is still using Final Cut Pro in their Broadcasting department, so they strongly recommended a Mac PC. I had found a great 3rd generation i7-based laptop from Asus: metal casework, four USB 3.0, 8GB RAM, 750GB HDD, 1920x1080 display, separate graphics, etc. for $1100. Having to switch to a Mac, I manged to find a slower 2nd generation i7, only two USB 2.0 + Thunderbolt (good idea, but currently fairly useless), 4GB RAM, 1600x900 display, slower separate graphics, 750GB HDD, etc. for "only" $1800. That was a factory-refurbished model (this the "discount" price), and they screwed up and delivered an 8GB unit. But seriously -- you're paying twice as much just to get MacOS. Plus, add-in the $100 extra to put Windows on the system, and, well... have to wait on that new electric guitar.

Apple makes decent hardware. But so do many other companies -- after all, cool casework has been about the only innovation in personal computers for the last 10 years; everything else has been predictable, incremental growth. Apple's well known to be making 5x as much profit per PC shipped as just about anyone else. If you must have MacOS, it's the price you pay, but there's no basis for any technical belief Apple's making a superior product, HW or OS.

Re:OS X is THE superior OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41213225)

I would be interested to see what she thinks after Windows 8 comes out.

Re:OS X is THE superior OS (4, Insightful)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213287)

probably the same as everyone else, that windows 7 will get the job done until someone in microsoft picks a single design and sticks with it for windows 9.

Re:OS X is THE superior OS (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41213331)

Why does that matter?

It's a windows version that isn't going to succeed for desktop computing and everyone besides Microsoft knows that. I'd honestly be surprised if most of Microsoft didn't know that and just got a phone/tablet touch UI pushed on them by some high up idiot trying to compete with apple at the expense of their real business.

Re:OS X is THE superior OS (3, Insightful)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213295)

But seriously -- you're paying twice as much just to get MacOS.

This is something I have to explain over and over: OS X is nice, but I pay twice as much for the trackpad. I can't use a non-Mac laptop without plugging in a mouse.

Re:OS X is THE superior OS (5, Insightful)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 2 years ago | (#41212959)

Apple also has no "non over-priced" products. I'm so bored of the what OS is better. It's a pile of files. The software you need to use is the real reason you use a computer, not because you want to use an OS. All marketing "make a demographic" back when software was in its infancy bullshit. I've got windows7 and do very little windowing.

Re:OS X is THE superior OS (-1, Troll)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213083)

The macbook air is not overpriced. The ipad is not overpriced. the fact that they are killing the competitors in their market segments would indicate that to most people, the price is competitive for what you get.

Re:OS X is THE superior OS (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213171)

Then you must be making rather a lot of money. If you put an HP badge on it you'd not think that I bet.

Re:OS X is THE superior OS (1)

GeekWithAKnife (2717871) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213107)

Agreed. In fact as soon as we move to do everything via browser an OS will be as talked about as a BIOS...it's there, it allocated memory, the drivers load it runs a browser, win. The days of the desktop OS are numbered, even if it's still a few years off. Microsoft see it, this is why they are moving all the office package "to the cloud". OS independent. Innovate or die.

Re:OS X is THE superior OS (3, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213197)

Native software will always have significant advantages over web apps. That being the case there's no reason to assume we'll ever do everything via the browser.

Universal thin clients is as old and unfullfilled a prediction as "The year of Linux on the desktop". And you think Microsoft's vision of the future adds any weight? Ha ha.

Re:OS X is THE superior OS (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213253)

I'm no fan of web apps. like it all local. apart from office, the software I use is neither made by Windows or Mac and if I were to use word or excel on OS whatever I'd would not matter.

Re:OS X is THE superior OS (2)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213319)

The question isn't whether or not everything will move to a thin client, it's whether or not a significant chunk of users can do everything they need in a web browser.

Also, as per the article, MS still has 90% of the desktop market, their vision very much matters, especially as they creep into the mobile space, because they really could completely re-envision the desktop-laptop-mobile relationship. Not necessarily for the better of course, but they certainly can change things a lot.

Re:OS X is THE superior OS (4, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213247)

The software you need to use is the real reason you use a computer, not because you want to use an OS.

I'm a kernel hacker, you insensitive clod.

Re:OS X is THE superior OS (1)

notb666 (1863678) | more than 2 years ago | (#41212967)

You my friend truly know nothing about operating systems. Sad, for you!

Re:OS X is THE superior OS (4, Funny)

Dupple (1016592) | more than 2 years ago | (#41212973)

This is the first comment you've made on slashdot - very poor effort. It's not even good shilling.

Re:OS X is THE superior OS (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41212981)

It's getting to the point with you brainwashed Apple fans where I HAVE the mod points, but your post isn't even inspiring me to mod you down as a blatant shill. It's not inspiring me to do anything more than just roll my eyes and make this snarky reply, in fact.

Re:OS X is THE superior OS (1)

hydromike2 (1457879) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213179)

lazy

Sent from my iPhone

The interface is not the OS (5, Insightful)

Zimluura (2543412) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213063)

I think that the idea of an OS being able to be "beautiful" is sort or wonky. There is no reason such an interface couldn't run on winXP, win2k, or even somewhat in NT4, all you really need is the opengl support in the OS & drivers and you can do nifty things with alpha channel.

I'm also not convinced apple hardware is actually high quality, it's just that their os will only install on their hardware. apple is basically like a crossbreed between dell & microsoft, and this lets them charge premium prices on their run-of-the-mill hardware because their os won't install on other (less expensive, perhaps higher quality) intel hardware.

Re:The interface is not the OS (2, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213265)

There is no reason such an interface couldn't run on winXP, win2k, or even somewhat in NT4, all you really need is the opengl support in the OS & drivers and you can do nifty things with alpha channel.

It's not a matter of technicals, it's a matter of taste and UI design expertise. Microsoft doesn't have any taste, and the Linux community lacks UI design expertise.

Re:OS X is THE superior OS (2, Insightful)

wa2flq (313837) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213231)

"Not everyone has the money to buy them. Sad, for them."

Most of us on the other hand don't have the Time or Money to waste trying to use, fix and secure Redmond's pathetic products.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_economy [wikipedia.org]

Linux? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41212915)

In the back room, sucking a dick.

Flamebait (5, Insightful)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | more than 2 years ago | (#41212941)

Is it just me, or are more and more blatant flamebait stories reaching the front page recently? What actual relevant, meaningful news is contained in this story?

Seriously, why not go full on flame and top it off with a comment on Linux's desktop share, so we can include them in the flamefest that's sure to follow? Or I guess maybe I just did that for you... you're welcome Slashdot editors.

Re:Flamebait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41213031)

Yes... I have a 5-digit UID... and I've logged out of my account. Harder to track my comments, so I have less reason to visit (and I have been visiting less).

And I'm doing that specifically because /. has started posting damn near nothing except flamebait

I'm close to just blocking the site at the firewall, and forgetting it exists.

Re:Flamebait (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41213071)

I have your problem. I wish I could stop visiting /., but some kind of hardwired habit in me makes me keep visiting it.

I'm trying to use news.ycombinator.com, and reddit, for similar news now, but for some reason I keep returning to /. and being appalled by the content.

Does anyone know other /. replacements than the two I mentioned above?

Re:Flamebait (0, Flamebait)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213043)

Because in recent years, its cool to bash OS X / Apple here. Never mind taco is a mac / apple fan these days (yes I know he left). But linux must be cast in a good light at all costs.

Re:Flamebait (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213291)

linux must be cast in a good light at all costs

If that were true, why isn't Linux even mentioned in the summary? :p

Re:Flamebait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41213305)

because the story is about market share and there's no way to cast linux market share in a good light

Re:Flamebait (4, Informative)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213389)

>>>its cool to bash OS X / Apple here.

False. Every time I bash Apple (mainly because it costs 2x as much) my post gets modded down into invisibility. This forum is very protective of the Apple brand and punished anybody who says something negative about it.

As for the Article, "reality" is the same as "perception" for most people. We all know that XP is being replaced in offices/homes by Seven. That XP share is shrinking & Seven share rising is not news.

And we all know that Apple's Mac OS is less than 10% of the market. Also not news.

Re:Flamebait - Sure, whatever... (0, Flamebait)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213235)

Slashdot has a deserved reputation for being the territory of Hardcore 20-Something Linux Fanboys, and there's really nothing wrong with that.

But it skews the reception of any story for a system / product / idea that is not in line with the "group think", such stories are typically dismissed as "flamebait".

Such as the recent story about Steve Jobs. The general reaction was that Steve Jobs was nothing more than a "marketer" and Apple products may be only marginally better that competitors - even though many of Apples strongest detractors admit that Apple hardware quality is a cut above many competitors, and certainly Apple has a history of this âoeinnovationâ thingy.

Likewise, you can expect almost âoestream of thoughtâ vitriol and screed ANY time anything to to with Microsoft is mentioned, never mind an objective view of whatever the subject might be. I mean, the sheeple are still using stupid memes like âoeM$â and âoeMicroslothâ and what have you.

If itâ(TM)s a technology controlled by a Bug Company, you can expect the Slashdot Surfs to tow the Group Think with post after mindless post completely lacking with any objectivity, or often any actual coherent thought.

Re:Flamebait - Sure, whatever... (1)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213355)

Slashdot has a deserved reputation for being the territory of Hardcore 20-Something Linux Fanboys

Dude, you're so behind the times. Try 30-something.

sheeple are still using stupid memes

Like 'sheeple.' Good going, Nietzsche.

Year of the Linux Desktop (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41212951)

Next year...

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41212975)

Linux leads in market share in just about every other computing space from embedded to smart phones to servers to supercomputers so why not the desktop next year?

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop (0)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213053)

Because it doesn't work effectively in that environment for the majority of people, for a variety of reasons.

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop (1)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213115)

I'm pretty sure the "majority of people" haven't actually tried it to see.

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop (5, Informative)

Grave (8234) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213233)

Because they have no reason to. Seriously. Linux offers so little of value over Windows 7 to the average user that would justify dealing with a significant UI change and loss of support. The average user has had a hard enough time moving from XP to 7 (and these are honestly almost identical except for a couple of eye candy tweaks). The differences going over to any of the current Linux distros would be too much.

The argument that Linux could ever take off on the desktop is based on the idea that it's equally easy to use for a complete novice. Unless you regularly deal with people who are genuinely novices, you really don't understand just how much changing things scares them. The support infrastructure for Linux on the desktop is just plain awful compared to that of Windows--OEMs do not support it except under specific circumstances, and the average neighborhood computer geek is far less likely to know how to fix an issue with Linux than with Windows.

Converting to MacOS X happens because of marketing hype and chic factor, but at least there is a decent support infrastructure in place from Apple, and the platform is consistent and stable enough that most issues that arise can be fixed.

Windows "just works" on almost any hardware. MacOS X "just works" on Apple systems. Linux does not, unless you are willing to do some digging.

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41213347)

Because they have no reason to. Seriously.

You're reading way too much into the GP's comment and trying to start some nerd pissing contest when there isn't one. It is a fact that the majority of people haven't tried Linux. Who gives a shit why. It's just a fact.

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41213367)

Linux offers so little of value over Windows 7 to the average user that would justify dealing with a significant UI change and loss of support.

How do you know what value a particular user might find in Linux if they've never even tried it? Do you pick lottery numbers too?

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41213379)

The average user has had a hard enough time moving from XP to 7 (and these are honestly almost identical except for a couple of eye candy tweaks). The differences going over to any of the current Linux distros would be too much.

Do you have any actual data to back this up or is it just your "feeling"? My "feeling" is that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41213131)

Most of those reasons involve FUD and the "professional consults" that say it won't work.

It's about what gets talked about on tv and what they have at home. That's it.

2012 Camry over takes 2009 Camry. (5, Insightful)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 2 years ago | (#41212953)

Meanwhile Porsche and BMW 'have' to split the rest of the vehicles.

Apple is rich. As in very, very, very rich. Something tells me they really don't care.

Re:2012 Camry over takes 2009 Camry. (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41213009)

But they're struggling! They're struggling to beat Vista, see? They don't care about selling millions of iPhones and iPads and being the most valuable publicly traded company on the planet. They just want to beat Vista. It was Job's dream. Vista just is too popular, beloved, and has epic brand recognition value. Sorry Apple, Vista is like highly pure, addictive meth.

Worldwide? Probably not (5, Informative)

A Friendly Troll (1017492) | more than 2 years ago | (#41212955)

OSX isn't very used outside the western world. So, I guess it has a lower worldwide marketshare, whereas Linux might have a higher one.

Re:Worldwide? Probably not (0, Flamebait)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213061)

It's not difficult to guage desktop linux next to the other OSs on a global basis. Web stats do that. And the hypothesis that Linux might have a higher share than OSX isn't born out by the data.

Re:Worldwide? Probably not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41213169)

The West is a overused term. That said, I see a lot of Apple laptops here in Japan.

Re:Worldwide? Probably not (2)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213183)

For example, Poland:
* Android: 1.45%
* Linux: 0.82% (yeah, obviously with Android excluded)
* OS X:: 0.73%
* iOS: 0.69%

As a kid, I had access to one of first PC XTs in Poland, and after all those years, I have yet to see a live Mac (ssh / hackintosh excluded). So I find even that 0.73% value dubious.

Re:Worldwide? Probably not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41213243)

OSX isn't very used outside the western world. So, I guess it has a lower worldwide marketshare, whereas Linux might have a higher one.

False. I live in Egypt and people use OSX all the time.

It's all about the mojo (2, Funny)

nysus (162232) | more than 2 years ago | (#41212961)

OS X has it, Windows doesn't. And I think Win 8 will throw more mojo to OS X's direction.

Re:It's all about the mojo (5, Interesting)

Thantik (1207112) | more than 2 years ago | (#41212999)

I actually hope this. Not because I wish Apple well being or anything like that, but I realize the hop from OSX -> Linux is a much shorter one than the hop from getting developers targeting OSX from Windows. Valve actually reused a _bunch_ of their Mac code in order to start their Linux port.

Re:It's all about the mojo (-1, Offtopic)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213111)

Sure. After all OSX is Unix. And Linux is a copy of Unix.

Re:It's all about the mojo (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41213191)

And? That copy came in and ran Unix out of town in practically every niche it existed in. Being "Unix" doesn't mean shit. It isn't the standard anymore.

No Captain Sarcasm, OpenGL is key (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213393)

Sure. After all OSX is Unix. And Linux is a copy of Unix.

Ha Ha.

The key is that both OS X and Linux use OpenGL for graphics, which is why they'd reuse a lot of code from the Mac.

Re:It's all about the mojo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41213137)

New Apple ad copy:

"OS X: Better than the Steaming Pile of Crap that is Vista!
(and with EXTRA mojo!)"

Re:It's all about the mojo (2, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213209)

wtf is mojo? osx is horrible mishmash of ui elements tacked on one after another nowadays. launchpad? shit. widget screen? shit(and apple has widgets on it's library which just lockup the whole thing). high dpi support? in osx it's a fucking joke, it's beyond shit(it doesn't exist! it's a myth! that's why the retina macs have to resort to just doubling legacy apps without even asking the user in any way if he wants that)! ui menus detached from apps on a big screen? shit(having no idea which programs menu is there without looking there negates the advantage of it being always in the same place, and really on a 30" inch monitor do you really want the menu to be three light years away from the actual application it affects?`no.). the taskbar replacement-shitdock? it's shit too, the bubble effect is a nice ui demo but that's it(the indicator for if a program is on is a joke too). - what's more, it's not intuitive at all! there's dozens of things in osx you just have to know, half the users don't even know wtf launchpad is.

7 is where it's at, doesn't get in the way, menus don't get lost. and hey even gimp managed to now get with the program on it's windows port so it's subwindows don't get lost all over the place. it's just clean ui like a good afterstep installation.

The Others (1)

David89 (2022710) | more than 2 years ago | (#41212971)

Keep going "Other" team!!

Whitespace (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41212983)

If I'm apple right now, all I'm thinking is "look how much farther we have to grow!"

Re:Whitespace (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41213077)

And how much more money we can still make!

Especially if we convert most phone users (still majority is dumb phones) to iPhones!

Rich rich rich rich!

Suck it Dell, HP, Lenovo while taking your 5% margins and fail to innovate.

XP will continue to drop (4, Insightful)

sandytaru (1158959) | more than 2 years ago | (#41212987)

My office is no longer putting XP systems out there - any system running XP that is brought into the shop is now automatically replaced as a matter of policy (for our business clients.) Sometimes we have to twist their arms, but frankly, we've got a deadline in 2014 and we're going to make our clients meet it whether they want to or not. XP market share is likely to plummet rapidly in the next 2-3 years.

Re:XP will continue to drop (2)

Mspangler (770054) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213313)

True enough. My employer is trying to switch to Windows 7 again. The first attempt failed when some app in bean-counter land failed to function. So after a three month delay, they are trying again.

The prepare for migration instructions this time are much more alarming. Instead of instead of "expect a few hours of minor disruption," It's "Make multiple full back ups of all important data, and we will be wiping your photos and music directories, and if you have applications we did not install through the software management system, you had better have the install disks, and by the way make sure you have a back up of all critical data."

A definite change in tone :-)

 

Methodology? (4, Interesting)

Danious (202113) | more than 2 years ago | (#41212993)

Some of the history there looks a bit sus. And how much can you trust figures that give iOS 66% of the mobile OS market and Android only 21%?

Re:Methodology? (2, Informative)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213039)

iOS includes iPads and iPods, which vastly outsell Android equivalents.

Re:Methodology? (1)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213223)

Android ships on over a million devices a day and that doesn't even include the large numbers of non-Google sanctioned gear. Is Apple really moving that many iDevice?

Re:Methodology? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41213113)

Hahahah, fail on not knowing what devices contain what OSes.

Re:Methodology? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41213245)

Estimating OS usage by browser marketshare is useless. Every stats tracker out there [wikipedia.org] says different things and fanboys swing them around shouting "But THIS stat shows $MY_OS_OF_CHOICE is beating $YOUR_OS_OF_CHOICE". Gartner's sales reports are somewhat more useful in this respect.

My heart bleeds (-1, Flamebait)

SpaghettiPattern (609814) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213003)

OSX Struggles To Beat Vista

My heart bleeds. Poor, sad and dead Steve... OTOH, the stories surrounding his death didn't really instil any love for OSX.

And no, I'm not in the mood to be kind and forgive.

Re:My heart bleeds (0, Offtopic)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213129)

Of course you're not in the mood to be kind. You're a prick.

Games require windows 7? (5, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213019)

Are there games requiring windows 7 yet?

I upgraded from 98 to 2000 because second life required 2000
I upgraded from 2000 to XP but I don't remember which game wouldn't work on 2000 but did on XP
I'll upgrade from XP to ... 7? when I find a game I want requiring windows 7.... I have not run into one yet, but I'm sure it'll happen someday?

I only upgraded to the most recent service pack of XP when I recently got the couple years old GTA IV.

For all other activities I use my linux and mac machines, the windows PC is just for gaming.

Re:Games require windows 7? (2)

Kiraxa (1840002) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213093)

To use Direct X 10/11, which is superior both graphically and performance-wise, you need Vista or 7.

Re:Games require windows 7? (1)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213095)

I'm not sure if there are any games that absolutely require it but there is the DirectX 10 and above issue that doesn't run on XP. Also my friends that run multiple instances of MMORPGs at a time say that the scheduling improvements in 7 make things a lot smoother for the purpose.

Re:Games require windows 7? (1)

DeathFromSomewhere (940915) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213103)

Are there games requiring windows 7 yet?

There are a few [wikipedia.org] that require vista and up for DirectX support.

Re:Games require windows 7? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213381)

Must have extensive fallback support. On that list I've got bioshock, civ 5, ddo, sto, all of them work fine on XP. If the graphics would be visibly better, I'll have to look into what W7 requires.

Re:Games require windows 7? (1)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213105)

As far as I know, all games requiring DirectX11 are Vista+ only. Though, most are providing a fallback to DirectX 9.

Re:Games require windows 7? (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213123)

Nah not really. For what it's worth 7 isn't shit. Took 30 years to get here but it works just fine like XP sp3 did. More RAM wit the 64bit OS may make you want to move as games really start to fill out. TRIM support of SSD. but you can get by with an old box and XP for a while more - not much to play with all the DRM making it unwarrantable to go near.

Re:Games require windows 7? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41213187)

This is what is most likely driving the upgrade. XP_64 was garbage and there is difficulty with driver support.

Re:Games require windows 7? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41213167)

Yea every game that requires DirectX 11 up until recently most games that supported DirectX 11 features had it as an option but you could still play the game in xp minus the visual effects that require DirectX 11 but more and more games are requiring that you upgrade to windows 7.

Re:Games require windows 7? (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213217)

I played Batman Arc-City swapping between DirectX 9 to 11 and really didn't know which one I liked most. It ran smoother with 9; but my card is getting ready for upgrade. It's not worth spending money to upgrade to that's for sure.

Re:Games require windows 7? (1)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213283)

For me, the reason for upgrading is usually some technical limitation, often connected to getting a new PC.
  - I upgraded from 98 to 2000 because of stability problems. In hindsight, the main reason for the problems was a chipset bug, not 98 (fuck you, VIA!). But 2000 still was a nice improvement :)
  - I upgraded from 2000 to XP when I got a new PC in 2007. I never got it to run stable in 2000, in XP it worked fine. In hindsight, I suspect that the hardware vendors did not bother to test their drivers under 2000 anymore.
  - I upgraded from XP to 7(64bit) when I got a new PC in 2011. It has 4GB RAM, and under XP (32bit) a single process would be unable to use all of it. It is only a matter of time until some software actually needs that much.

   

Re:Games require windows 7? (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213339)

Just wait until the 360 is retired, you'll see a major shift to DX11, which cannot run on XP.

Or you could also upgrade to 7 because it's plain and simply a better, more modern OS?

Re:Games require windows 7? (4, Interesting)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213349)

Let's see... Battlefield 3 is Vista/7 only, the next Call of Duty is Vista/7 only, probably more than that on the way.

Main reason is that Microsoft isn't porting Direct3D 10 or 11 back to XP - you can only go up to D3D 9. As more games are tending to use D3D10/11, the burden of adding a D3D9 renderer just for XP support increases.

And while XP and 7 may have just reached equality among the general population, gamers have upgraded far quicker. Looking at the Steam Hardware Survey, about 70% run some version of Windows 7, 13% run XP, 10% run Vista, 5% run OS X, and the rest are either already on W8 (0.25%) or "Unknown". Main reason, I think, is the prevalence of systems with >4GB of memory. 64-bit XP may have existed, but it was very rare, and had poor driver support. Vista was the first to ship with real 64-bit support, and 7 tried to make 64-bit the "default", moving 32-bit to "legacy". So all those gamers with 8-32GB of memory are running either Vista or 7.

Consoles tie into this, but in a somewhat weird way. See, the Xbox 360 is sort of halfway between D3D9 and D3D10. So as long as the game has a port to that console (or *is* a port from that console), making it run in D3D9 isn't exceptionally difficult. But as soon as the next-gen consoles hit, D3D9 (and thus, XP gaming) are toast.

trolling (4, Insightful)

jbolden (176878) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213021)

I have some questions about both the data and the summary.

In the July to August time frame the data has 1% of the users moving to "other". I'm assuming that 1% is some mixture of Windows 8 and OSX 10.8 betas because I can't think of any other big events that happened between July and August. Which means the math is likely off in the summary.

As an aside in the source data I have problems OSX being well above 8% (now at 12%) of sales and the figure for market share being around 6-7%. I'd love to see some breakdown that explicates the discrepancy between sales figures and usage figures when they show up, because they are rather common.

Re:trolling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41213303)

As an aside in the source data I have problems OSX being well above 8% (now at 12%) of sales and the figure for market share being around 6-7%. I'd love to see some breakdown that explicates the discrepancy between sales figures and usage figures when they show up, because they are rather common.

Well, when sales figures now are 12%, that doesn't mean they were 12% a few months ago. If win7 has a head start it's easy to have more usage now, when the sales figures stay like this, then the usage figure will follow, later, maybe much later.

(If december sells 10000 computers and A has 90% share, it will take a long time for B to overtake A if the following months only sell 1000 computers.)

lol, typical slashdot headline (1)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213023)

Where does Linux figure in that list? :)

Re:lol, typical slashdot headline (1)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213109)

Where does Linux figure in that list? :)

"Other"

Re:lol, typical slashdot headline (1)

DeathFromSomewhere (940915) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213119)

It's rolled into the "other" column at 3.74%.

Re:lol, typical slashdot headline (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213157)

If you expand the survey to include tablets and other mobile devices (what increasing numbers of people are using as their primary computing device), Android looks pretty respectable. Its behind iOS on tablets, but still making a respectable showing. Its ahead of iOS on phones. Windows mobile variants are down in the noise.

Re:lol, typical slashdot headline (1)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213249)

Who cares? Last I heard it's doing pretty well everywhere other than the desktop. I've got three Linux based consumer devices within arms reach and only one of them counts as a traditional PC.

Does this matter? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41213045)

Since apple is the most profitable company in the computer world (in the entire world?), this statistic seems to be unimportant. They are doing pretty well despite it.

Yeah... (2)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213049)

Latest market share figures show the difference between perception and reality.

Yeah, let's just call statistics from netmarketshare "reality".

Not Complete (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41213059)

I'm Still Using W2K

So what? (2)

falcon_dark (1024221) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213091)

And OS X should be doing what? Competing with XP for market share? To use OS X you must buy and Apple machine! It's obvious it will have small numbers! Right now I'm using XP at work, because the company got this cheap Atom CPUs and have to put something to run it. But at home I got 2 Macbooks with Snow Leopard and Mountain Lion. What does it mean? That on those numbers I'm being counted twice... So what kind of credibility should we give to it?

WTF? People are buying Vista? (1)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213097)

Microsoft is not selling Vista any more. Apple is not selling OS X 10.6.

I believe what they are referring to with the words "market share" is what normal people call "installed base."

Re:WTF? People are buying Vista? (2)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213139)

I think you'll find that some companies are still buying vista. Chevron (for example) rolled out vista and are still using it as their SOE. Any new PC they buy will get an enterprise license of it.

Why market share matters (1)

Geeky (90998) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213143)

Market share is important if you use actual applications - in other words, do real work with your computer. It also matters if you rely on third party hardware. The effort will go in to making sure they work on the dominant platforms, and the smaller ones will be an afterthought. You're more likely to find advice online relating to running the software on the dominant platform and bugs will get fixed for it first.

That's why I use Windows.

Re:Why market share matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41213359)

OSX market share is still enough that support is there. It also helps that, A. OSX users have money and are willing to spend it, and B. OSX users tend to be a bit fanatical about their computers. Just like a nice car, you may not want to take it down to Jiffylube, but you can still find a garage that will be able to help you.

Options (3, Insightful)

amoeba1911 (978485) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213289)

Some businesses will keep using Windows XP because there are always factory floor computers that simply are a pain in the ass to upgrade - for all practical purposes it's impossible to upgrade, and the OS will get updated only when the old hardware gets dumped and they get a new computer... and that might never happen because factory managers are not likely to invest in fixing something that's not broken.

And there are personal users who use their computer entirely for facebook/email - they really don't care if their OS supports the latest industry standard features or not. Expect those to be still using windows xp, and maybe eventually switch to an internet appliance device (like ipad) and get rid of the computer altogether. For a great majority of people out there, an ipad does everything they expect from a computer: browse facebook, write email, play farmville. Remember it was only 20 years ago that computers still were not a household item, computers were for geeks. The computer became mainstream only because it started appealing to the dumb masses, it's not because all of a sudden there's a surge in computer geek population. It will eventually go back to what it was - computers one day will return to being a geeky thing, and general population will move to using locked-down internet appliances instead of general purpose computing devices.

As for me, I would rather use a decade old general purpose computer rather than an iPad. I would rather use Linux than OS X. I used computers before they were cool, and I will use computers after they stop being cool. I am the minority, I am a geek. Internet used to be a place where we could find like-minded people, but now it's eternal September [wikipedia.org] .

the problem is (1)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213299)

Apple likely made more on OS X than Vista (say 10.4->10.6 or so being the era in question) since people that wanted OS X had to buy hardware from Apple too which they make buckets of money on. Different business model entirely is it shocking that a mid to high end hardware manufacturer sells fewer units than the company that gets their software pre-bundled with everything from low end to top end systems?

Apple has a good model for a hardware company they get profit margin based on exclusivity, MS gets it because of the huge markups of software industry in general. Dell, HP and the like: "we'll make oddles of money buy selling 10's of B of stuff at 5-10% margins" yeah that sounds like a winner.

hmm (1)

buddyglass (925859) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213311)

Looking at a) global numbers and b) combined consumer/corporate is pretty much the worst possible scenario for Apple. If you limit the "market" being examined to "U.S. consumers" then supposedly Apple has around 21-22% share.

Nice (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 2 years ago | (#41213345)

> OS X and Windows Vista divide the rest of the spoils, with all versions
> of OSX only just adding up to a little more than the failed Windows version

It didn't help that OEMs (e.g. Toshiba) were selling Vista machines that, when you opened the box, there was a little sticker warning you that 512 MB they were happy to let you buy it with was not recommended as a configuration.

Basically, it wasn't enough to run without using virtual memory, so it took 10 minutes of constant HD chugging before it became vaguely usable.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?