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 XP Falls Below 25% Market Share, Windows 8 Drops Slightly

Soulskill posted about 3 months ago | from the year-of-something-on-the-somethingtop dept.

Windows 336

An anonymous reader writes: Despite support for Windows XP finally ending three months ago, the ancient OS has only now fallen below the 25 percent market share mark. To add to the bad news for Microsoft, after only nine full months of availability, its latest operating system version, Windows 8.1, has lost share for the first time. For desktop browser share, Chrome is up, taking mostly from Internet Explorer and Firefox. For mobile browsers, Safari continues to fall while Chrome maintains strong growth.

cancel ×

336 comments

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

Who has the market share? (5, Informative)

MrLogic17 (233498) | about 3 months ago | (#47591729)

I read the very short article, so you don't have to.

Windows is the bulk, at 91.68%, of that Windows 7 is 51.22%

Mac is 6.64%

And overall, Linux is 1.68%

Re:Who has the market share? (5, Informative)

Travis Mansbridge (830557) | about 3 months ago | (#47591753)

To be fair, this data is generated via pageviews. Since there are many computers running linux out there whose sole purpose is to serve data rather than consume it, that portion may be underrepresented here.

Re:Who has the market share? (5, Informative)

Number42 (3443229) | about 3 months ago | (#47591785)

Since we're talking about desktop market shares here, Linux's number isn't that far off. It doubtlessly dominates the server market alongside BSD, though.

Re:Who has the market share? (2, Insightful)

lucm (889690) | about 3 months ago | (#47591881)

I would be curious to see how Azure is impacting Windows Server market share. They made it very easy to automatically deploy instances for those cloud services, and most people run multiple instance for load balancing.

I don't know the exact number but from what I've read Azure is gaining about 1,000 customers per day. That's a lot of Windows Servers.

AWS was first in that business but their console/dashboard is just too clunky, this scares a lot of people away. No wonder that Microsoft is making shitloads of money while Amazon is almost to the point where they will ask employees to sell their blood in order to finance the price war in the cloud.

Re:Who has the market share? (2)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 3 months ago | (#47591979)

I would be curious to see how Azure is impacting Windows Server market share. They made it very easy to automatically deploy instances for those cloud services, and most people run multiple instance for load balancing.

I don't know the exact number but from what I've read Azure is gaining about 1,000 customers per day. That's a lot of Windows Servers.

AWS was first in that business but their console/dashboard is just too clunky, this scares a lot of people away. No wonder that Microsoft is making shitloads of money while Amazon is almost to the point where they will ask employees to sell their blood in order to finance the price war in the cloud.

Azure also supports running Linux instances. I would be interested to see the numbers for Linux instances they run.

Re:Who has the market share? (4, Informative)

lucm (889690) | about 3 months ago | (#47592093)

No they support Linux virtual machines. It's not the same as cloud services.

On Azure one can deploy virtual machines (Windows or Linux) but also cloud services, which are basically dedicated on-the-fly instances of Windows Server on which one's web services are deployed. Cloud services are similar to managed VPS; you can remote desktop in the instance, but the patching and maintenance is built-in in the image. You don't rent a VM, you rent resources, and the instance is mostly stateless.

In addition to VM and cloud services, Azure also offers web sites, which are similar to traditional hosting. They support most web technologies (asp.net, php, python, node) and you can choose between shared or dedicated instances. What I found convenient is that you can use all those technologies within the same website, so if your app is mostly node but you need a specific web service that is written in PHP you can have both.

That's different from AWS, where only VM are available.

I have two Linux VM on my Azure account. There is a CentOS image available. It works ok but I know for a fact that they sometimes reboot without warning (I installed one and was lazy in configuring Apache, it was not registered in the startup services, and a few weeks later I noticed that Apache was not running). Never had that problem on AWS, but Azure is cheaper and easier to use. I pay about $15 per VM per month for the smallest instance.

Re:Who has the market share? (4, Funny)

dbIII (701233) | about 3 months ago | (#47592439)

I would be curious to see how Azure is impacting Windows Server market share

We'll find out next leap year when they all go down again :)

It's a joke - I don't really expect a third major leapyear fuckup from Microsoft, twice should have been enough of a wakeup call.

Re:Who has the market share? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47591887)

Since we're talking about desktop market shares here, Linux's number isn't that far off.

Possibly, but you wouldn't know by relying on any data here.

Net Applications methodology is deeply flawed and wouldn't pass muster in a first year statistics class. They use customer sites as their referral data source, so given that net Applications is heavily sponsored by Microsoft and Apple their results have consistently favoured those companies. They even admit that themselves.

These statistics are essentially corporate propaganda, presumably with the intent to discourage and/or demoralise competing systems.

Re:Who has the market share? (2)

Cyberdyne (104305) | about 3 months ago | (#47592387)

Since we're talking about desktop market shares here, Linux's number isn't that far off.

I wonder about that, actually: I'm quite sure Linux users are much more likely to be running the likes of NoScript and various ad-blockers than Windows users are - and anyone who blocks whatever analytics script this survey uses will be ignored completely, skewing figures away from their platform. Maybe it's not a large proportion, but I'm sure it will be a factor there.

The scary thing is that Vista actually gained users, and the interesting gap is how desktop versus mobile usage compares: how would IE/Chrome/Safari compare across all form factors look? (Bearing in mind that mobile users on the Chrome rendering engine are all on Linux kernels, probably dwarfing the Linux desktop users.)

Re:Who has the market share? (4, Insightful)

Dutch Gun (899105) | about 3 months ago | (#47591831)

From the article:

Microsoft will likely one day struggle to woo users off Windows 7, just like it is currently trying to do with the headache that is Windows XP.

I wonder if Microsoft is learning the wrong lessons from their "good" versions. They're having a hell of a time getting people to leave them. In the future, if people hate the version they're on, they'll be much more likely to buy a new version in the hopes that it's better. Brilliant!

That's the only think I can think of to fully explain Windows 8, and why even now they're refusing to admit that Metro apps are a steaming turd on top of an otherwise competent OS. The only idiots who like using those "apps" are the ones who would probably be better off with a tablet or smartphone instead of an actual desktop computer, for whom the actual power of a desktop is apparently wasted.

Ok, maybe I'm just a bitter throwback who's resentful that my desktop is being marginalized. Maybe it's also because I hate the new skeuomorphic design aesthetic. What's wrong with gloss, gradients, transparency, and attractive animations, or even a bevel or link here and there so we can actually tell something is clickable rather than playing mystery-meat navigation? I swear, everything is going flat-shaded, blocky, ugly, and indistinguishable, all because that's now the new "hip" look.

Re:Who has the market share? (4, Interesting)

vux984 (928602) | about 3 months ago | (#47591849)

The only idiots who like using those "apps" are the ones who would probably be better off with a tablet or smartphone instead of an actual desktop computer,

I like the netflix app, that's about it.

Ok, maybe I'm just a bitter throwback who's resentful that my desktop is being marginalized.

The pendulum looks to be swinging back towards sensibility from 8 to 8.1 to what we've seen of 9.

Maybe it's also because I hate the new skeuomorphic design aesthetic.

I don't think skeuomorphic means what you think it does.

But regardless, for those in marketing change is king, so these things are cyclical, and we'll just endlessly circle around a good UI without ever settling down and saying "nailed it". :)

Re:Who has the market share? (2)

Dutch Gun (899105) | about 3 months ago | (#47591875)

I don't think skeuomorphic means what you think it does.

Gah, you're right. I meant the move away from skeumorphic interfaces and toward... does the new flat, simple, textureless aesthetic have a name other than anti-skeumorphic? If it does, I can't think of it. Nothing like a lack of an edit function to make you look silly.

Re:Who has the market share? (1)

bondsbw (888959) | about 3 months ago | (#47591891)

The presence of or lack of functionality has nothing to do with skeuomorphism.

Re:Who has the market share? (2, Informative)

grep -v '.*' * (780312) | about 3 months ago | (#47591997)

The only idiots who like using those "apps" are the ones ... for whom the actual power of a desktop is apparently wasted.

No, wait: I like Window 8. and I really, really like the interface formally known as Metro (ie, Metro.)

I like to see the visuals of virtual blood as it splashes across the screen as all of the Metro apps scream in digital silence and die. (ie, you can ignore the errors.) And then I install a real start menu and I'm good to go! Steps:

1: REMOVE Metro. (not disable, not hide; DIE.)

1: See here. [winaero.com]

Run PowerShell as Administrator.

Show all
Get-AppxPackage -AllUsers

Kill currently-installed Metro apps for your ID.
Get-AppxPackage -AllUsers | Remove-AppxPackage

Kill Metro STAGED apps (Still gven to new users.)
Get-AppXProvisionedPackage -online | Remove-AppxProvisionedPackage -online

The only thing left is the Microsoft store itself, and all of the apps are online, so you can reinstall any Metro apps you miss having.

2: REMOVE SilverLight from the WSUS update list (Ditto.)

See here [superuser.com] Basically run:

reg delete HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Silverlight /f
reg delete HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\Installer\Products\D7314F9862C648A4DB8BE2A5B47BE100 /f
reg delete HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Classes\Installer\Products\D7314F9862C648A4DB8BE2A5B47BE100 /f
reg delete HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\TypeLib\{283C8576-0726-4DBC-9609-3F855162009A} /f
reg delete HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\App Paths\install.exe /f
reg delete HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\AgControl.AgControl /f
reg delete HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\AgControl.AgControl.5.1 /f
reg delete HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall\{89F4137D-6C26-4A84-BDB8-2E5A4BB71E00} /f
rmdir /s /q "%ProgramFiles%\Microsoft Silverlight"
rmdir /s /q "%ProgramFiles(x86)%\Microsoft Silverlight"

3: Add a replacement start menu.

I like this one [iobit.com] , but there are others that are free, and still others that are cheap.

4: And the final touch for those who just blindly follow along: Speed up your system by:

Starting a CMD as administrator and run:
rmdir /s /q %SystemDrive%\

...becuase if you're stupid enough to run random commands without knowing what they do, this will learn you better. ;-)

Re:Who has the market share? (3, Informative)

arglebargle_xiv (2212710) | about 3 months ago | (#47592045)

REMOVE Metro. (not disable, not hide; DIE.)

While I fully support the sentiment, completely removing components like this can cause Windows Updates to fail to install. For example if your Windows desktop PC or server doesn't have a "Tablet PC" folder in the start menu, some updates won't install [wordpress.com] . So you potentially need to keep gigabytes of Microsoft's crapware sitting on your PC on the off chance that some update checks for it and won't install if it's not present.

Re:Who has the market share? (1, Insightful)

jbolden (176878) | about 3 months ago | (#47592107)

How about the obvious.

Microsoft is being disrupted from below by Android. Overtime Android will get more capable. Right now they have established a lock on enterprise desktop so the likely move will be for Android to replace Home / Small business. For them to compete with Android's 2017 version they need to offer the functionality of Android at the very least and that means a good tablet / phone experience as well as a desktop experience. Which is ubiquitous computing. To get to ubiquitous computing they need applications that support multiple form factors. To get those they need both hardware and OSes that support ubiquitous computing. To get the hardware they need an OS. So they release the OS which allows OEMs to have a target platform to work against.

What isn't required is that end users appreciate the advantages yet. As a point of fact Windows 8 is pretty cool on the right hardware but most of the critics are shocked that Windows 8 runs poorly on Windows 7 hardware. Microsoft would have done better to make 8 touchscreen or digitizer mandatory and not allowed Windows 7 hardware at all. But regardless Windows 8 accomplishes their key objective of moving the platform forward.

Re:Who has the market share? (3, Insightful)

Dutch Gun (899105) | about 3 months ago | (#47592237)

Had they limited Windows 8 to touchscreens and digitizers only, it would have made things worse. Poor adoption rate is their big problem, and further limiting your user base with hardware restrictions would only exacerbate the situation. The platform doesn't move forward in practice if people don't actually upgrade. Here's the issue: Touch screens make sense for certain form factors, but not for desktops. Search the term "gorilla arm" to see why.

Even beyond that, the "metro" concept of full screen apps runs counter to what desktop users actually need for productivity. The desktop is not a "legacy" platform. It's a platform that's very specifically optimized for getting work done with a keyboard, mouse, and large form factor screen. That sort of work is not going away anytime soon, as the business world has demonstrated loud and clear by their absolute refusal to move to Windows 8. Naturally, the relevance of PCs is diminishing among home and casual users - people who didn't use the PC for production purposes, but mostly as a consumption, communications, and entertainment device. Smartphones and tablets are perfect for that. For actual production work, the desktop/laptop will remain king for the foreseeable future, albeit in much more of a specialized role than before.

Windows 8 would have been a fine OS had they discarded the idea of one-UI-fits-all devices, and instead focused on the coolness of Metro as a side-channel application experience. That would have meant allowing cross-platform tablet and phone apps to run on your desktop seamlessly with native or managed desktop applications, but without trying to make the whole OS touch-focused. Instead, the marketing hype overtook common sense and usability concerns, and they began touting it as the future replacement of the desktop, which is absurd. Not surprisingly, after the actual market kicked the marketing department's ass, they're starting to move in a sensible direction with Windows 9 by focusing on the benefits of cross-platform application development, and they're slowly backing off of the ridiculous notion that their desktop OS should behave like a tablet.

Re:Who has the market share? (4, Interesting)

the_Bionic_lemming (446569) | about 3 months ago | (#47591865)

That's a shame.

When i left Mac for windows in 1999 it was because windows had games - It wasn't hard for anyone who wanted computer games back then to make the decision - 3 aisles worth of windows games, or a shelf of mac games. I tell the mac (apple) lovers that the single biggest mistake apple did was to listen to the engineer that crapped on computer gaming.

If Open source would focus on Gaming - then the masses WILL flock over and get on board. Make a Distro that ports games automatically - make it stupidly easy to use, and the market share of Apple and Microsoft will tank.

Computer Gaming put Microsoft in the masses households. If it hadn't been for gamers, PCs would of still been a basement Nerd hobby today.

Games are underspecified (0)

tepples (727027) | about 3 months ago | (#47591911)

If Open source would focus on Gaming

That's unlikely. Free software has proven itself good at producing tools with well defined uses. This means there is a way to quantify the correctness of the program against its requirements. An original video game, on the other hand, had far fuzzier requirements. See my previous comment about games being underspecified [slashdot.org] .

Make a Distro that ports games automatically

Ordinarily that'd be called Wine. But a lot of games have digital restrictions management or anti-cheat means that block it from running unless a copy of genuine Microsoft Windows OS is present. These include Punkbuster, Games for Windows Live, and other things that verify hashes of system files. The best a distributor can do is make it easier for a developer to port games, and this is part of what Valve is doing with the Steam Runtime and Steam OS.

Re:Who has the market share? (4, Insightful)

armanox (826486) | about 3 months ago | (#47591923)

Trying to be Windows is what will be the death of Linux. Easy to use? KDE, GNOME, and Unity are all very easy for the average user to use. Local libraries near me have Linux (an Ubuntu variant IIRC) installed on all the PC's there. Users have no issue getting online, using the card catalog, watching Youtube, etc. It all works fine. We have a small collection of native games via Steam, and it's just a matter of time before a major publisher (Blizzard, would you please release your internal WoW client to the wild?) puts out a major title that runs on Linux.

Re:Who has the market share? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47592105)

Tux Racer runs real good!!!!!!111111

Re:Who has the market share? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47592337)

I wouldn't call the collection of native games small. Valve has ported almost all of their library to Linux.Fireaxis have released Civilization 5 and X-Com under Linux. We have games like Shadow Run, Planetary Annihilation, Serious Sam 3, Trine, etc. The next Unreal Tournament is coming to Linux as well. Out of the 170 games I own on Steam, 100 are now working under Linux and more of those games will be available under Linux in the coming months.

I'm assuming that Blizzard will wake up at some point and port their library to Linux, or at least the new games. However, EA and Ubisoft have Origins and U-Play standing in the way of a Linux port as I don't see them moving away from their own platform to use Steam exclusively.

Re:Who has the market share? (1, Informative)

jbolden (176878) | about 3 months ago | (#47592119)

Most games are coded against DirectX. OpenGL is considered by most game companies far worse. Linux drivers are often well behind commercial drivers. This isn't an easy to solve problem.

Then of course there is the problem that the whole theory is wrong. Most home / small business PCs are not primarily used for gaming but for home productivity and communications.

Re:Who has the market share? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47592251)

Every game with a Mac version has already an OpenGL renderer done. Like all Blizzard titles, for example.

Valve has also recently released a lot of tools and other help for DX->OpenGL porting in support of their SteamOS Linux distro.

Re:Who has the market share? (0, Flamebait)

Khyber (864651) | about 3 months ago | (#47592265)

"OpenGL is considered by most game companies far worse."

Only because they have incompetent programmers that can't understand code closer to hardware than four levels of abstraction away, and don't understand how to write their own graphical extensions, which OpenGL supports, and will always kick DirectX's ass on.

Aka 99.9999999% of programmers out there aren't up to snuff, chuck. You're probably one of them. I know I am.

When small-time sceners can pack the graphic capability/scripting tools/audio capabilities of UT2K4 in fucking 96kbytes versus a few gigs... you're doing something fucking wrong. Thanks .kkreiger for showing us that.

Re:Who has the market share? (4, Insightful)

kamapuaa (555446) | about 3 months ago | (#47592441)

Well if programming for OpenGL is more difficult and requires elite skills just to be passably decent, that's a huge knock against OpenGL.

You're approaching this like a college student rather than like an engineer.

Re:Who has the market share? (1, Interesting)

loufoque (1400831) | about 3 months ago | (#47592423)

I don't understand this focus on games.
Who cares about video games on their computers apart from kids?

People who use computers are looking for devices they can can use to do useful things.

Re:Who has the market share? (3, Insightful)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 3 months ago | (#47591927)

In other words, business as usual. Windows dominates the desktop, Mac remains the desktop fashion accessory for those who care about style over function and linux on desktop remains mainly a marginal toy for the techies like us.

This is also a pretty good reference point of where we're going with mobile I think. There linux is currently headed for that 90ish percentile of all phones (well, android, but you get the picture), with IOS sinking towards that 5-7% market share and others taking the rest.

And hilariously enough, "others" is formed mainly by windows phone, which sits pretty much where linux is on desktop. It certainly shows how market works for operating systems on consumer devices.

Re:Who has the market share? (3, Insightful)

Belial6 (794905) | about 3 months ago | (#47592211)

I always find it amazing how Apple users keep trying to convince everyone that 'everyone' is buying Macs 'now'. OSX only has ~5% more market share than Linux for the desktop. Certainly, if Linux on the desktop is a toy, then certainly so is OSX.

That being said, with ~2 billion computers in the world, that means there is somewhere in the ballpark of 33.6 million Desktop Linux users. That is nothing to sneeze at. And there is somewhere in the ballpark of 132.8 million OSX users.

Re:Who has the market share? (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 3 months ago | (#47592275)

Let's extend that "5% is toy" concept to mobile, where Windows Phone is not even that and declining.

Interesting they split desktop and mobile (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47591957)

Why split desktop from mobile? Many of the former desktop browsers are using mobile tablets now, so the distinction is very odd. You read a webpage in one device, not read-twice: one Desktop and one mobile device.

Because mobile use is qualitatively different (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 months ago | (#47591985)

One typically uses different sites on mobile. For example, mobile lacks an SWF player, lacks a precision pointing device (touch needs larger target areas than a mouse), often has a 5" or smaller screen, usually lacks a keyboard suitable for touch typing, and usually lacks a way to make multiple documents visible at once without buying and using multiple devices, one for each simultaneous document. And Safari for iOS intentionally lacks support for WebGL, WebRTC, and uploading any content type other than photos or videos.

Re:Because mobile use is qualitatively different (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47592191)

It makes no difference if the read is viewing the webpage with or without the SWF components, so I don't see how it makes any difference whether they view a page intended for mobile browsers or desktop browsers, they don't read the same article twice.

Tables have a "view desktop version" simply because their screens have more pixels than most PCs.
Likewise this classifies laptops as desktops when a laptop is just a tablet without touch support.

WebGL and WebRTC are a red herring.

These surfing data should be grouped together, there is no point in listing a Windows laptop in one, and an Android laptop in the other. (This comment is entered on a Asus Transformers Infinity).

Finally!! Year of Linux on Desktop (0)

stonedead (2571785) | about 3 months ago | (#47591983)

Linux's market share in desktop rose by 0.0000023%. This is the year of linux on desktop, folks!

Re:Who has the market share? (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 3 months ago | (#47592263)

Android Linux moved a quarter billion units in Q2. A billion units last year, probably 1.4 billion units this year. Chrome Linux is making huge inroads with logarithmic growth in the thin and light notebook category. Desktops are so last century.

Re: Who has the market share? (5, Funny)

loufoque (1400831) | about 3 months ago | (#47592343)

I feel good knowing I'm part of the 1%.

Re:Who has the market share? (1)

XB-70 (812342) | about 3 months ago | (#47592421)

Here's the upside: Linux users are the 1% ers!!

XP losing Market share is not bad news. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47591739)

If anything, it's good news for Microsoft, depending on what is taking its place.

In any case, Windows 9 will have Microsoft back to the same old same old, and it'll be another 10 years before they try a UI paradigm shift.

Re:XP losing Market share is not bad news. (0)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about 3 months ago | (#47591809)

it's good news for Microsoft

Not only. At least we'll have less and less outdated browsers and insecure machines.

Re:XP losing Market share is not bad news. (3, Insightful)

TWX (665546) | about 3 months ago | (#47591869)

A question, and please give this some thought before answering...

If something does what its user needs it to do, then how is it outdated?

I'm typing this on a nine-year-old Dell Latitude D410 running Windows XP. I've got a current version of Firefox, current versions of all of the plugins I use on a regular basis, and just about the only thing the laptop won't do well is full-screen flash video at high res, but that seems to be more a function of the poor implementation of flash than of the computer itself, and even with only 2GB RAM it's still faster than the four-years-newer Atom-based Ideapad S10-2 with Windows 7 that we got free with my wife's then-new computer. In some ways it's superior in that when my fancy Linux box's graphics broke I was able to use the serial port on the docking station to TTY in to the Linux box to work on it with just a null-modem cable, didn't need anything else.

For web surfing this old thing does just about everything that I need it to do, with the licensed OS that came with it, even with the original amount of RAM and the original hard disk drive. So, why should I change this? Because Microsoft wrote shitty code full of holes and now refuses to fix those holes?

This machine doesn't go out of the house, and at home it's behind a firewall. I've got noscript, flashblock, adblock, and https everywhere installed, so it'll be very difficult to infect it through the web browser. without a compelling reason to change it, why would I spend my hard-earned money on something that won't be used for more than I use this thing for now? It's for when I'm lounging on the couch being lazy.

Re:XP losing Market share is not bad news. (3, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 3 months ago | (#47591903)

If something does what its user needs it to do, then how is it outdated?

The user wants the operating system to work. In order for it to do that, it has to not be vulnerable to common threats, and it has to be compatible with common technologies. The former fades quickly, the latter typically a bit more slowly but it's still an issue. If you wanted filesystems over 2GB or USB support you had to "upgrade" to NT4. If you were otherwise happy with 3.51 you know how distressing that move was. Stability went way down in NT4. Not when using it as a desktop, but definitely when using it as a server.

Re:XP losing Market share is not bad news. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47592427)

NT4 was more or less NT kernel + all the problems of Win95 userland. It wasn't until W2K when you could actually use it, even on a desktop.

Re:XP losing Market share is not bad news. (2)

Snotnose (212196) | about 3 months ago | (#47591953)

This. Last year I finally bought a new laptop not because Microsoft EOL'd XP, but my hardware was dying. Went with 8.1, once I de-Metrod it I quite like it.

Win 8.1 is a solid OS. Metro is a steaming turd.

Re:XP losing Market share is not bad news. (1)

jbolden (176878) | about 3 months ago | (#47592085)

If something does what its user needs it to do, then how is it outdated?

Because does what it needs is not the antonym for outdated. Stovetop percolators make good coffee, I think better coffee than the drip coffee makers used today, that doesn't change the fact they are outdated. Windows XP doesn't fit current software and presents all sorts of problems that Windows 7/8 would not. Does it run the application you want / need? Sure. Does it run the current applications? No. QED.

Re:XP losing Market share is not bad news. (1)

dmbrun (907271) | about 3 months ago | (#47592355)

If the graphics break again and the network is up then try PuTTY.

http://www.chiark.greenend.org... [greenend.org.uk]

Re:XP losing Market share is not bad news. (1)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about 3 months ago | (#47592383)

I'm only using Windows to test web applications on older browsers. And it's Windows XP (in VirtualBox). I agree with you that newer does not always mean better. Windows 8 is an example. But I'm on a Mac (latest OS) and my feeling is that Apple is also ( since a couple of years ago ) on a slippery slope. Annoying bugs not fixed, lack of innovation...

Back to XP, the reason I'm glad it disappears - and that explains my parent post - is that I'm writing web applications, and supporting IE < 8 is and has always been a pain. At least from Windows 7, users smoothly upgrade to an earlier version.

Also, please see jbolden post above.

Re:XP losing Market share is not bad news. (4, Insightful)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 3 months ago | (#47591941)

Not really. 7 is supported until 2020, and from previews, it looks like 9 is going to be just like 8 in all the aspects that people hate. It's more of the "hey, phone's touch interface on on desktop can be made to work (and we want to use it to stop our phone strategy from being a trainwreck that it is)".

I suspect that 7 is the new XP in that it's currently the most functional desktop OS in windows family, matched only by XP in usability and functionality. So in a way, it is a good news for microsoft, as it means that it's desktop domination and income from "microsoft tax" isn't going anywhere.

It's bad news for microsoft because it continues to show that their design paradigms, with which they are sticking for 9 btw, are an abysmal failure. And while they have five more years to produce replacement for 7, it's not looking like they have the people who want to. Instead they are still focusing on leveraging desktop dominance to push for marketshare in mobile by destroying the desktop windows.

And as long as 7, the last actual version of windows designed for desktop exists, any such attempts will likely fail just like 8 did. Because there will always be a much better alternative to whatever "mobile OS interface on desktop" version of windows microsoft will continue to try to peddle. As we have seen with 8, even forcing OEMs not to offer 7 at all in favour of the newer OS doesn't fix the problem.

Re:XP losing Market share is not bad news. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47592153)

Ah, but there is a difference here. You can no longer buy a retail version of 7. For some people looking to upgrade or their old XP machines finally died, Microsoft has essentially cut them off in the hopes of forcing them to another flavor of windows, which, by the current marketshare numbers, isn't happening. Even the most cutting edge components still have XP drivers just due to market share, which is what forced the issue with win 2000 and XP.

Sure OEM copies are available, but it's hard to justify plunking down $100 for an OS that is tied to a single machine, when for near $300, you could have more flexibility an some assurance against having to pay the Microsoft tax over and over again.

People have options now, and several of them involve Microsoft never getting another dime. That's just bad business, and now they need a really compelling reason to get people off of both XP and windows 7 instead of easily transitioning XP users to win 7 and onward from there.

Re: XP losing Market share is not bad news. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47592261)

Considering windows design paradigms are a total failure, they still have 91% PC market share.

Re: XP losing Market share is not bad news. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47592281)

Considering windows design paradigms are a total failure, they still have 91% PC market share.

Nope. The "Windows" OS with the failed design paradigms (8.x) has less than 13% total share (per the article). Stop being pedantic.

Re:XP losing Market share is not bad news. (1)

GenieGenieGenie (942725) | about 3 months ago | (#47592307)

Google needs to step in and produce Android for Desktop. The market share is ripe for the picking.

Re:XP losing Market share is not bad news. (1)

GenieGenieGenie (942725) | about 3 months ago | (#47592309)

... Oh, wait! It's already happening!

Re:XP losing Market share is not bad news. (1)

Dutch Gun (899105) | about 3 months ago | (#47592385)

Yeah, I think you're correct. Windows 9 is just Windows 8.3 released as a new OS, since MS seems desperate to wash the taste of Windows 8 out of their mouths.

Unfortunately, it appears to be just Windows 8 with most of the glaring problems removed, but probably not compelling enough to make it anything of a must-buy, except for Windows 8 users. They're still too firmly focused their app store as a means to prop up their phone and tablet sales, rather than making actual improvements for their core users. It's sad that the features most anticipated are the return of the start screen, the ability to run Metro apps in a window, and generally not acting so much like a tablet OS. In other words, Windows 7, but with a flat, ugly UI. Whee.

I'm betting that Windows 10 will shift focus back to the desktop where it should have been all along, and we'll have finally broken Microsoft's "even=bad, odd=good" cycle, not with two successes in a row, but two failures. Apparently, they now have to release two OS failures in a row to have the lesson sink home. Probably the only way to avoid that will be if they give Windows 9 away as a free or very low-cost upgrade to Windows 7 and 8 users, in which case adoption rates might be boosted at the expense of sales revenue.

Statistics are fun (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47591763)

A loss in percentage doesn't mean jack for loss of units.

What it take? Stick in heart? (1)

Chas (5144) | about 3 months ago | (#47591767)

Windows XP is basically going to cling to the bitter end. I expect we'll see small amounts of XP attrition up until July 2015 (when MSE stops support).
After that we'll probably see a freefall.

Re:What it take? Stick in heart? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47591789)

I kinda expect winxp to fall to a certain percentage, say 15% and stay there til hardware failures take it out of action which could be a while. If you haven't moved by now, you're probably not going to willingly.

Re:What it take? Stick in heart? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47591795)

The only thing that can stop XP is by regressive new compiling tools and mandatory 'required' runtime libraries and new programming languages with large bloated overhead (requiring aforementioned runtimes).

Re:What it take? Stick in heart? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47591799)

Experience gaysex! Stick it up your ass!!

Re:What it take? Stick in heart? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47591829)

Microsoft just needs to make an OS that delivers what end-users actually want, with a solid XP emulator so people can continue to run their mission-critical stuff that still requires it.

8 and 8.1 were arrogant attempts at pushing on to end-users a GUI that Microsoft thought they should want, for reasons that did not benefit the end-users at all but did benefit Microsoft quite a lot (in theory, that is).

Microsoft can win by viewing end-users as its clients (heresy, I know), getting back in touch with what they want, and delivering. Until then, expect continued weirdness.

Re:What it take? Stick in heart? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47591841)

I'm using XP to post this. Why? My computer is old and may not even be able to run Windows 7. When will I update to a newer operating system? The next time that I buy/build a new computer.

Microsoft should get over itself. There may be good reasons to update from XP to 7 (e.g. new security model). I've seen no reasons to upgrade from 7 to 8. In fact, I see no reasons for a new OS at all. Microsoft would be better off cutting new development and sticking to incremental improvements in 7. OS upgrades are a relic of the old days, when there were significant features that could be added. The problem that they're having now is that they already added the obvious features. This leaves them looking for less obvious features to justify upgrades. Unfortunately, the reason why the features are less obvious is that most people don't want or need them.

Microsoft should give up on OS upgrades. If 7 has the good security model and people are happy with the UI, they should just stick to improving that. Yes, they'll lose the upgrade income that they get every 5-10 years, but they can cut development costs (and support costs -- they currently have to support three different OS versions). Windows is mature software now. They should concentrate on new unit sales, not on upgrades. Less development means less bugs means less support costs. They might manage to be more profitable over time (if they can cut costs more than revenues).

Try a lightweight Linux distribution (3, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | about 3 months ago | (#47591859)

If Windows XP runs better than Windows 7 on your legacy PC, consider trying Xubuntu or Lubuntu. The apps you currently use under Windows may have Linux equivalents or may work under Wine.

Re:Try a lightweight Linux distribution (2)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | about 3 months ago | (#47591871)

> consider trying Xubuntu or Lubuntu

On which none of the business critical, no longer available or extremely expensive to upgrade applications will run. I do a great deal with Linux, but old fiscal and CAD software is notorious for failing upgrades.

Re:Try a lightweight Linux distribution (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 months ago | (#47591921)

Could you link the "garbage" reviews on Wine AppDB of the applications to which you refer?

Re:Try a lightweight Linux distribution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47592405)

If Windows XP runs better than Windows 7 on your legacy PC, consider trying Xubuntu or Lubuntu.

Those would probably have higher hardware requirements - especially memory usage - than Windows XP, though, and driver problems are not unlikely either.

Re:What it take? Stick in heart? (2)

Mashiki (184564) | about 3 months ago | (#47591851)

On Steam and for gamers, XP is dead. Under 5% share between x32 and x64. [steampowered.com] With Win8 gaining market share around 27%.

Re:What it take? Stick in heart? (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 3 months ago | (#47591945)

That would be because of DX10 and 11 not being released for XP. It was the reason I upgraded my machine as well.

If DX11 was available for XP, my new machine would still be running XP. As a gamer, I appreciate the fact that XP is far more lightweight and consumes much less overhead than 7.

Re:What it take? Stick in heart? (2)

Mashiki (184564) | about 3 months ago | (#47592317)

Considering the number of titles that use DX11 are very few, that's kinda moot. And there are ways to get DX10 to run under XP. And really, if you haven't given 8 a try you should. It runs anywhere between 250-500mb lighter in memory overhead, and isn't nearly so bad as XP or 7 was in terms of game compatibility. Even older titles like Klingon Academy work under 8, where they wouldn't work for me under XP or 7.

Re:What it take? Stick in heart? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47592379)

That is still more than the share of OS X, and more than four times higher than that of Linux. So, XP is still slightly less dead on Steam than the non-Windows operating systems combined.

Mobile Browsers (1)

Richard Dick Head (803293) | about 3 months ago | (#47591805)

I don't see how Chrome is gaining share on mobile...constant freeze, lag, and crash on all phones I use it on. The default Android browser and Firefox are the same. Opera is the only thing that is remotely reasonable, even if it is a bit slow at times it is head and shoulders above anything else.

Re:Mobile Browsers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47591863)

Because it's bundled with many newer Droid devices in place of the older "Browser" app (and thank god for that). Personally I wish Firefox was bundled with more tablets, because the mobile browsing space is so damn stagnant and relatively poor engines are rampant because of vendor lock-in. Hopefully FirefoxOS can shake it up a bit.

Re:Mobile Browsers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47591885)

Stabillity and usabillity is not up for argument. however crappy you think something is, you are still offtopic. the marketshare shows marketshare and nothing else - no how or why, it does not care about your anectdotes or product-bashing. if you do not see chrome gaining share when the stats show something else, then you are just denying reality (no matter how cruel it might be).

Re:Mobile Browsers (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 3 months ago | (#47591991)

>if you do not see chrome gaining share when the stats show something else, then you are just denying reality (no matter how cruel it might be).

B.S.

The stats are B.S. Therefore so is your argument.

Re:Mobile Browsers (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 3 months ago | (#47591965)

I don't see how Chrome is gaining share on mobile...

chrome on the desktop, chrome on the phone, chrome OS.

One Ring to rule them all,
One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them

Re:Mobile Browsers (1)

gaiageek (1070870) | about 3 months ago | (#47592365)

So what you're saying is that using Chrome will make me invisible? Awesome!

Real numbers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47591815)

How much has the market grown? For instance, is the drop in Safari percentage actually less users? That'd be news regarding iOS.

Re:Real numbers. (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 3 months ago | (#47591993)

Safari percentage is a function of how many mac users switch to Chrome. I did.

Re:Real numbers. (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 months ago | (#47592001)

Like any other browser in the App Store, Chrome for iOS is a Safari wrapper that solves none of the missing HTML5 features that Apple deliberately omitted from Safari. I've listed them in another comment.

Correction (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 months ago | (#47592011)

(rereading) Oh, my fault, I missed "Mac" in TechyImmigrant's comment.

False count (5, Funny)

frovingslosh (582462) | about 3 months ago | (#47591845)

It looks like this count is coming from someone monitoring what OSs they see in use. That being the case, it must be greatly under-counting Windows 8 and Win 8.1, since while they may be on many more computers, they are unusable.

You want to count use in many cases (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 months ago | (#47591867)

In a lot of cases, you want to count actual use. Someone who uses a computer more is likely to spend more time on your web site, buy more from your online store, etc.

Re:You want to count use in many cases (1)

frovingslosh (582462) | about 3 months ago | (#47591935)

What a shame that in many cases people don't recognize sarcasm and irony.

People hear "Windows 8" and run away (3, Funny)

rebelwarlock (1319465) | about 3 months ago | (#47591873)

8.1 might be a huge step up, but it doesn't matter. People remember the UI disaster that was Windows 8, and figure 8.1 can't be that much different. It has such a bad reputation, they'll need to call it something else to sell it at this point. Would you even consider having a doctor give you Cancer.1, or would you hear the question and immediately get yourself a new doctor without even finding out what Cancer.1 was?

Re:People hear "Windows 8" and run away (3, Insightful)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 3 months ago | (#47591951)

Just because they put a slightly different shade of lipstick on the pig that was 8, doesn't make it any more suitable for being a human being.

Re:People hear "Windows 8" and run away (4, Insightful)

gfxguy (98788) | about 3 months ago | (#47592065)

I bought a laptop soon after 8 came out. Of course, I hated the tiles... and installed classic shell and told it to boot to the desktop. After that, I don't understand what all the complaining is about. When I finally, after over 10 years, rebuilt my desktop a couple of months ago, and XP was retired (I had XP Pro), I got 8.1 Pro... installed classic shell, and don't understand what all the complaining is about.

Sure, 95% of the time I'm using Linux anyway, but I installed 8.1, the software I use to do work when I have to write stuff for Windows, and I don't understand what all the complaining is about.

My experience... again, after installing classic shell, is much like 7, only smoother and a few different ways to access certain things (like control panel) that you rarely use anyway... and it's not worse, it's just different.

So the only complaint really is that you need to install something like classic shell, but since I need to spend time customizing out of the box linux distributions, too, I fail to see the problem.

I'm serious... I really want someone to explain to me why they think Windows 8/8.1 is so bad (once you get rid of the tiles/apps paradigm by using classic shell and going straight to desktop). I'm not a Windows fanboy, I'm writing this on Linux, and mainly use Linux out of choice... but it seems to me people are just jumping on the hate bandwagon for anything new. I get that desktop and tablet experiences are different, and companies (not just MS) should stop trying to force feed us a single UI paradigm for all platforms... it doesn't work, but like the last few versions of Ubuntu, if you don't like it, you can tweak it to where it works for you.

Please refrain from feigning pity for "Joe User" that can't figure these things out for themselves... that's not who any of us here are, and most of us have little sympathy for Joe User otherwise.

Re:People hear "Windows 8" and run away (5, Informative)

JMZero (449047) | about 3 months ago | (#47592155)

If you piss around with Windows 8 for a while, you can basically simulate Windows 7. But for a long time, you'll still bump into horrible garbage - like "you wanted a weird, functionless fullscreen app to view an image file, right"? Very few things are real showstoppers, but lots of stuff is just a little worse - like they abandoned all the little refinements they've made to progressive versions over the years. Little stuff, like the behavior of the "run" dialog. It used to autocomplete well, and seemed to usually know what you wanted. Now it doesn't.

My job has me doing development on a Windows 8 machine - and it's gotten down to very few times a day I say "oh God, really?", but it's taken a lot of tweaking and adapting to get there. And there's literally nothing I actually prefer about 8. Lots of it just evidences horrible testing/design. Like your default start screen has a tile for the "math input editor" or something. That's a very narrow niche app for a desktop, non-touchscreen computer, and it doesn't work the way anyone expects. Many times I've been asked "what the heck does this do?" - and it actually took me a while to figure out. Obviously that doesn't hurt anyone much to have a stupid, useless app - but the same lack of design pervades the whole product.

It's just a half-baked mess, and I think it's earned it's poor reputation very well.

Re:People hear "Windows 8" and run away (0)

jbolden (176878) | about 3 months ago | (#47592215)

That's a very narrow niche app for a desktop, non-touchscreen computer,

Systems without a touchscreen or a digitizer shouldn't exist. Of course Windows 8 works badly on Windows 7 hardware the same way that running Windows 7 on a Pentium with 16m of ram and a huge virtual ram disk will be a miserable experience.

Re:People hear "Windows 8" and run away (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47592393)

Right, but if you install classic shell like the post you're replying to is talking about, you don't see the default start screen.

And if you choose windows 7 over 8.1, you're missing out on a faster system, faster startup times, secure boot, vastly improved file copy, vastly improved system restore/refresh, improved multiple monitor support, and search (if you're inclined to use it).

Re:People hear "Windows 8" and run away (2)

ruir (2709173) | about 3 months ago | (#47592143)

You got it wrong, we hear Windows and run away

There is only one thing to say about Win 8/8.1 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47591877)

WINDOWS 8 PIECE OF SHIT!

New Improved XP 2.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47591981)

Wouldn't it be awesome if Sateya said "Look we heard you, and we're going to renew our commitment to bringing a version of XP back for the everyday customer."

Those who want to use Windows 8 can continue to do so, those who want to use Windows XP 2.0 will be welcomed with open arms.

We're not an exclusionary culture, we are in business to serve the needs of the customer.

Going forward, we will be there for whatever your needs take you.. "Where Shall We Go.. Today?"

Re:New Improved XP 2.0 (1)

gfxguy (98788) | about 3 months ago | (#47592071)

Because it makes no sense to support that many desktop versions for the OS when 8 and 8.1 aren't "worse" than XP after installing a few easy to download fixes (like classic shell). All "XP 2.0" would be is 8.1 with classic shell installed.

Re:New Improved XP 2.0 (1)

jbolden (176878) | about 3 months ago | (#47592129)

Of course it would be awesome for Microsoft's customers. So what? The customers who want XP buy and large want it because they are cheap and don't want to update their hardware and OSes. That is they don't want to pay Microsoft. Sure they would be thrilled if Microsoft assisted them in spending very little on Microsoft. The same way Exxon's customers would be happier if Exxon sold gas below their cost of oil.

Considering XP is required... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47592041)

for so many SharePoint users, we are not allowed to upgrade. Microsoft requires most of their enterprise customers to stay at XP, this upgrade nonsense is ridiculous. It is pure Microsoft-nonsense. We must keep using XP.

XP lives again for me! (1)

antdude (79039) | about 3 months ago | (#47592111)

My old home desktop computer's PSU blow up last night after getting home. I thought it killed my hardwares like HDDs. :/ They were fine today after the smelly dead PSU was replaced. See http://aqfl.net/node/11092 [aqfl.net] for the details.

Re:XP lives again for me! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47592417)

Windows XP is perfectly safe for use on a machine with no external connections.
By this I mean no internet, no removable media, no exposed USB ports, and most importantly: no power supply connection! :-D

IE at 60%? (1)

Air-conditioned cowh (552882) | about 3 months ago | (#47592347)

Why are the stats so different from different sources? StatCounter puts Chrome at 46% for desktop browser share and IE at 20%.

*BSD is dead, Netcraft confirms it! (1)

jd (1658) | about 3 months ago | (#47592381)

Ooops, sorry, wrong OS.

Microsoft is dead, Netcraft confirms it!

WARNING: LOW QUALITY STATS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47592409)

These are some shitty statistics.

They say Apple has way over 40% market share in mobile devices, which is utter bullshit:
http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustom=&qpsp=186&qpnp=2&qptimeframe=M&qpcustomd=1

They also do not show XBOX in Consoles at all:
http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustom=&qpsp=186&qpnp=2&qptimeframe=M&qpcustomd=2

I'm sending these exact links, because pressing F5 without giving all these parameters sends you to a page covering random period of time!

This site is low quality crap.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?