Slashdot Mirror
Vista Share Drops for the First Time In Two Years
adeelarshad82 writes "Windows Vista lost market share last month for the first time in almost two years, a sign that users are already abandoning the oft-ridiculed operating system in favor of the new Windows 7. According to Web metrics firm Net Applications, Vista dropped 0.2 percentage points during September to end the month at an 18.6% slice of the operating system pie. Windows 7, meanwhile, gained 0.3 percentage points, its biggest one-month gain since Microsoft began handing out the new OS to the public in January 2009. Windows 7 powered an estimated 1.5% of all computers that connected to the Internet last month, also a record."
you just wait for june next year when all the RC versions expire...
... They can't afford to get it wrong.
I'm afraid they can. They can force it on every new machine, like Vista. They can pre-install their office suite. With their influence on the resellers, they effectively have a monopoly.
They can force DRM down the customer's throat, Make every new version a pain to rediscover where all the existing features are, and have customers look out for the new version, because "everything will magically be better in the new version".
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
yeah I can use it just fine but it eats up a lot of screen real estate and it isn't better
I've used every windows systems in one form or another since 1987 and have generally found the criticisms of /.er types way overstated. The "awful unstable new versions" of Windows were usually better, more stable, easier to use than the previous one.
The are a total of three exceptions to that: Windows 2.0, Windows Me and Windows Vista. Windows 2.0 was a first release (Windows 1.0 doesn't really count). Windows Me was the last iteration of a dead end branch put out by the marketing department. Windows Vista on the other hand was driven by the tech types and was supposed to be better. The only noticeable difference in the user experience are useless changes for change's sake, and idiotic Allow/deny dialogues.
Now, while I've always maintained that Microsoft is an evil bloodsucking corporation, gaming would not be what it is today without Windows 98. Being that I run Vista, and it is forever crashing me out of classic games such as Warcraft III and Sacred Gold, not too mention the core compatibility issues for certain games and their online features, I've often times looked to switching to a Linux OS. But, the problem there is Linux, quite simply, is not up to snuff on gaming as of yet. Sure, Wine made it much easier to play games on Linux, but the fact is, most people simply won't swap because of the simple fact you have to find the correct drivers for the OS your on for your hardware, you have to install and configure Wine, and even learn to use commands. Since most people at this point in time are so established in Windows, the number of Windows gamers vs the number of Linux gamers is obviously in Microsoft's favor. This is why they aren't overly concerned with Vista's shitty performance, and this is also why they haven't been breaking their balls trying to fix it. Yes, I know, 7 is their "fix", but you have to realize, Microsoft doesn't particularly care about us anymore.
"Chance favors only the prepared mind." -Archimedes
From my own stats, I'd have to agree with Win7's market share; I get about 1-1.5% too.
My web domain.
What will be most interesting is whether people will be willing to make the jump from XP to Win7. XP has held pretty steady since November last year at ~70% market share. Vista never even got to 20%.
Considering that Vista's share is less than 1/3 of XP's share (72% vs 19%), Microsoft will be more worried about getting people to move from XP to Win7. The 19% who have Vista really won't (can't, to be more precise) stay with Vista for too long. They will definitely "upgrade" (let's hope it's really an upgrade, not a regression).
Microsoft surely doesn't want XP's ghost to haunt them like IE6's ghost has.
Obviously, our AC friend here is actually a paid advertiser working for microsoft. Microsoft knows that if they troll Slashdot enough with reverse-astroturfers, they will induce other posters to reply in defense of the corporation and thus boost sales.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
Add to that list: Windows 200 and Windows XP.
Windows 200 had major problems with hardware drivers. Printing was a real pain, and running both AutoCAD and office on the same machine was almost impossible. Running Autodesk Inventor was near to impossible because it was so slow you could draw the screen by pencil faster.
Windows XP's "Genuine" disadvantage was the main reason I switched to Linux. I do value my privacy.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
Having just gone through the corporate PC purchasing vendor circus once again, I find it interesting that you can currently purchase a PC with an OEM Vista licence, which Dell/Lenovo etc will happily factory-downgrade to XP for you. As an added bonus you can also upgrade to Windows 7, for free. Yay! 3 licences for the price of 1, sort of.
I assume this is still counted as a "Vista" licence in the statistics as that's waht it was sold as.
I predict a big jump in Windows 7 licences as all the corporate PC OEM and volume licencing moves to the "Windows 7" licence with downgrade rights, as that's the only way you'll be able to get XP. I'm guessing at least 80% of those will still be downgraded to XP for at least the next year. Makes the stats for Windows 7 look good, though.
Btw, I like Windows 7, I use it at home. All our work PC's are XP as our "enterprise-ready" software won't run on Vista. One vendor recently installed their latest document management system onto our Windows 2008 server, only to discover the indexing service had been replaced by "microsoft search". They hadn't tested it on anything beyond Windows 2003/XP as "that's what everyone else runs". Yay for corporate software!
In other words, Windows Vista market share is falling before it ever hit 20%, and Linux has more market share than the latest version of Windows. ;-)
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=1
IE: -1,26%
FF: +0.77%
Safari: +0.17%
Chrome: +0.33%
Opera: +0.15%
Everybody's taking a piece of Microsoft. The version graph is pretty interesting too:
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=3
While IE is switching from versions 6/7/8 at a glacial pace, Firefox users are upgrading rapidly. Since May with 20.03% vs 0.44% for FF 3.0 vs FF 3.5, it's now 9.62% vs 12.65%. That means you can much more rapidly rely on Firefox being a recent version and not dealing with supporting ancient versions.
Why do I care about that? Because browser stats drives most the ways I have to interact with the world. Linux has 1% or whatever, but what matters is how well it works together wtih the other 99%. Therefore, death to IE :)
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Yes. Good job Microsoft. You have successfully beta tested a version of Windows and actually made money from it too by selling it to your customers. You got all the negative feedback that you need to improve it, so now you get to charge all them poor saps all over again with Windows 7! I despise this company, but I gotta admit. They are business geniuses.
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
The new taskbar alone is a step forward. The old model with the labels just doesn't scale to more than a few windows. Now I just hope the *nix desktop environments follow suit. This was in NeXTSTEP in the 1988, for Pete's sake!
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Vista's been decent for the last couple of years. They released some patches soon after its release that really sped it up. Trotting out FUD like that contained in your post doesn't help anyone.
The new taskbar alone is a step forward. The old model with the labels just doesn't scale to more than a few windows. Now I just hope the *nix desktop environments follow suit. This was in NeXTSTEP in the 1988, for Pete's sake!
Since we, users of Unix desktops, have been using virtual desktops for ages, we don't need to cram tens of windows on each desktop. So an un-crowded list works fine. If we want a full list, we can display all of our windows or all of our desktops via some of the newfangled desktop effects, or just a list of all of the opened windows sorted by desktop, as all the window managers have been able to do since pretty much forever.
Traditional Windows users don't like virtual desktops. I never understood why. Couldn't do without them myself.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
a prime reason FOR those issues in usability is because lots of users don't know how to actually use them properly
Just a minor nitpick, but if the user can't figure out how to use it properly, that is a usability problem.
Sorry dude. That never works as an excuse when some Linux interface baffles the average user, so I don't see why it should let Microsoft off the hook here.
Besides which, these same people knew how to use XP just fine by and large, so you're not talking about naive users baffled by computers in general. The complainers, on the whole tended to be seasoned Windows users who didn't get on with the new O/S. That's got to be a black mark, however you look at it.
It wouldn't be so bad, but (in technical terms, at least), user interfaces are what Microsoft do well. I don't have a good word to say about MS on the whole, but aside from two or three glaring exceptions, they do seem to have a knack for making things accessible to the less technical end of the user spectrum. So when someone tells me that if they couldn't even get that part right, I have to wonder what horrors lurk elsewhere.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Everything has its limits
The reason microsoft and windows have been so successful has been because their software has been so friendly to use.
Its so easy it attracts developers, that make applications for the platform, which attracts end-users, some of which go on to become developers.
Its a self-feeding cycle, which is why microsoft has been so successful, and its also where linux is starting to show real growths.
Now your saying MS can give its customers anything it wants and they'll eat it. You might be right, but only in the short term. Longer term, a small amount, lets say that in frustration/annoyance 5% less developers drop windows vista, and start using using linux instead.
They go on to develop apps that DON"T work on windows but instead on linux, these apps appeal to other users who go on to get linux instead, and the linux cycle grows.
Those few developers, taht tiny market share, is all it can take to crush the windows monopoly. And without the monopoly, or ease of use, why would you pay money over a linux distribution which is free.
No microsoft can't afford to stuff up windows, its the cornerstone of all their software, everything is dependant on it, it just takes time (read: years) before screwups play out fully.
Heres a small post showing that MS's vista screwup has cost them dearly, the Mac's web presence nearly doubling from 4 to 8%.
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/business/appleaday/blog/2008/06/macs_web_footprint_growing_at.html
It'd be simlar with linux.
Just wait a few years, and the results will play themselves out.
Don't even get me started on the fact that the netbook market is cut-throat pricing wise, MS are already having a hard time jusifying the cost of windows (to the point where they cut prices on windows oem to stop being excluded from that market)
To avoid criticism; Say nothing, Do nothing, Be nothing.
I will probably be modded into obscurity for this, but hell, I have karma to burn.
I would venture that many of the Vista Haters have never really spent any time with the OS. A poster above commented that the initial release was flawed, primarily due to crappy driver support (and I was burned on the nVidia chips in my laptop), but by the time that the first SP came out, it was solid, reliable and, dare I say it, almost a pleasure to use.
My new job demanded that I go back to XP, and it reminded me of how much I prefer Vista over XP.
The true test will be how long will it take for major corporate IT uptake in Win7. Perhaps the learning curve of watching Vista and the polish that Win7 has added will begin migration plans. I sure hope so, 'cuz I can't stand XP.
Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress
So, XP fell 0.2%, win7 rose 0.3%, but OS X rose 0.25%. Considering that the source for their data, hitslink, doesn't even have OS 10.6 up on their survey yet, I'd say the interpretation that Windows 7 is the one eating Vista's market share is unfounded, it's much more likely that it's a combination of losses to apple and win7.
Moreover, if you look at other stats like statcounter, the monthly data shows no decrease in Windows Vista adoption rate (i.e., still increasing usage share), but still shows OS X increasing its market share.
Basically, there's just as much evidence that it's snow leopard that's eating Vista's lunch as it is win7. Win7 installs could easily be coming from people who skipped vista.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
Windows 200 had major problems with hardware drivers. Printing was a real pain, and running both AutoCAD and office on the same machine was almost impossible...
My anecdotal evidence suggests the opposite of yours. I had 4 or 5 Windows 2000 Pro and Server boxes for several years, and found them to be generally reliable and efficient, even on older hardware. When I was writing, I'd typically be running MS Word/Access, Photoshop, a LAMP or WAMP stack, DreamWeaver, UltraEdit, and a few other goodies, on something like like an 800MHz P3 and 512 MB memory without any performance problems. Never had any issues with MS-certified drivers that I can recall.
I have no interest in making MS look better; two of the things that prompted my switch to Linux in 2004 were WinXP and Server 2003, each of which was a giant step backwards IMO. I could already see the direction in which Redmond was headed and knew that I didn't want to go there today. But Win2K generally rocked, and I even miss it a bit sometimes, especially when I have to deal with someone's XP or Vista machine.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Since we, users of Unix desktops, have been using virtual desktops for ages, we don't need to cram tens of windows on each desktop.
What's wrong with both? I'm a Windows user and use virtual desktops, and tend to end up with virtual desktops that have applications that fit into a certain category. For example, programming related fun on one virtual desktop, recreation on another, and so forth... That doesn't mean I don't have a lot of windows on a virtual desktop, quite the contrary at times. Swapping constantly between virtual desktops purely to try and ensure that no single virtual desktop has enough windows to cram the taskbar is in itself just as unproductive, if not more so; I'm sure I've read studies that scientifically prove this point.
Simply, the new taskbar is quite a nice step forward from what I've seen, and just because your current paradigm makes crammed taskbars (or alike) less likely, that doesn't mean that an improved taskbar should be shunned for no express reason than the fact that the problem it addresses is less likely to be personally encountered by you. Add in the progression of Linux moving into the mainstream of desktop computing with distributions like Ubuntu, and you'll find that many of your target audience will be _very_ confused by the notion of multiple desktops, and an improved taskbar such as that in Windows 7 is a far more intuitive solution (for most typical users that I've seen) while still being effective.
Traditional Windows users don't like virtual desktops. I never understood why. Couldn't do without them myself.
I think it's not so much the "traditional Windows user" but more just the "average user" irrespective of OS. As mentioned above, it's conceptually a bit hard for typical users to grasp, or at least, that's been my experience. It complicates the usage of the computer for them, and I can understand this perspective. Also, I'd argue you really need to be using hotkeys for the full benefit of multiple desktops to rapidly switch between them, or the actual time saving from moving the mouse to whatever control you need to use to swap the desktop (system tray in the bottom right usually) and then finding your target window on the new desktop is going to be barely faster than finding it with a single click in a cluttered taskbar. Average users rarely care to learn more than a very minimal set of keryboard shortcuts.
Honestly, Unix users probably use them more simply because the average Unix user is far more knowledgeable about computers and their usage than the average Windows user. It's (although slowly changing) a computer geeks/hackers OS; Windows has a much broader demographic. I'd be interested to know what the picture is with OS X with respect to the above?
PS: The snipe about Unix users using multiple desktops for ages is unwarranted. NT (and 9x?) has supported multiple desktops since the dawn of time via the Windows API, but the OS has never included a built-in tool to harness them for the usage of multiple desktops. Multiple 3rd-party utilities exist to address this, and I've been using them for probably over a decade now, as do most other Windows "power-users" I know.
I had a Microsoft refrigerator, top of the line. My neighbor couldn't figure out how to set the temperature with the foot pedal and built-in accelerometer, so all her food spoiled. The stupid woman took it back and got one of those Apple refrigerators that doesn't have a built-in accelerometer or foot pedal, choosing instead to have one that matched her decor. I painted my kitchen fuschia argyle to match and it looks AWESOME!!!11!!1!!eleventy. Why would you use a refrigerator that doesn't let you have that level of control?
yes, using the "Start" button to shut down was brilliant and I love the power button symbol on Vista and how when you click it, it doesn't power down but logs you out. It's also brilliant to place icons on the desktop or in the taskbar menu system so that they can't be removed like other icons around them. Brilliant UI designs they are not and new/naive users are confused by these kinds of inconsistencies. I've seen it first hand helping a few good friends with their screwed up Windows based computers.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Maybe this is nitpicking but both of his points are valid.
Windows 2000 had an awful process scheduler, which I'm guessing caused the problems GP referring to. By the way never attempt to run vmware-server on Windows 2000 box. Also Windows 2000 didn't have plug-and-play whereas Windows 98 did.
XP was okay until Microsoft silently added genuine advantage in it, incidentally that was one of the big reasons for me switching to Linux. Now it's been 3+ years using Debian. I'd rather live with flunky wireless card than a computer that holds me in contempt.
Lots of people gave Vista a bad rep because -- get this -- they didn't know how to use their damned computers!
I'm sure that must be it. I've only personally owned computers since 1982, taught myself assembler to write faster games on a C=64, hacked hardware on an Amiga, switched to Linux in '98 or so, got a Slashdot login some time the same week, picked up FreeBSD a few months later, snagged a degree in CompSci, built the home server sitting next to me from Newegg parts, and turned an HP Mini into a Hackintosh last month. That must be why my wife's dual-core laptop with 2GB of RAM and Vista ran like crap from the day we bought it, even after I stripped out the OEM junk and have almost nothing running at startup: because I'm a technophobic newbie who doesn't know how to use my damned computers.
Yeah.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Millions of people on every forum on the Internet are bashing a product they've never really spent any time with that's actually great.
That's plausible. Why didn't I think of that?
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Counter-opinion: the new taskbar is a HUGE step BACKWARDS. You can no longer have "quick launch" buttons, you can only "pin" items to the taskbar (and they're HUGE), and then they slide around like crazy depending on the order in which you launch things. You can drag them around after launching, but why is it a "feature" that I can drag something back into position that shouldn't have moved in the first place? After using 7 for a few days I was thanking God that I was only testing and didn't have to use this giant steaming pile of crap.
I started using both Windows and Mac OS heavily in 1995 and I preferred Windows for a long time because it was more responsive, multitasked better (than classic Mac OS), and ran on cheaper hardware. Windows 2000 was my favorite OS - it ran my few favorite games just fine, was totally stable, I could strip out the few effects I didn't want (fading menus, etc.) and it ran like a champ for YEARS on a 1 GHz Pentium III. I never liked XP (used it at work for years) as much as I like W2K and my experiences with Vista were very much like the stereotypical complaints. Windows 7 is slightly better than Vista in some ways but worse in others, like the taskbar and the fact that you can't use the 'classic' themes. Luckily for me, Mac OS X came out right around when Windows XP did, and it's been getting better and better and better (mostly) over the years while Windows has been getting worse and worse and worse. Mac OS X is the only OS I use for personal reasons and I'm lucky enough to be able to use it at work.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
The snipe about Unix users using multiple desktops for ages is unwarranted. NT (and 9x?) has supported multiple desktops since the dawn of time via the Windows API
I disagree with your claim of virtual desktops being supported in Windows. I am always trying to use virtual desktops on XP and Vista. All of the available solutions are poor and frustrating. Some apps work some of the time, some don't. It's better than nothing, but it's very very weak support.
If you have found a good 3rd party virtual desktop app, please share a link with us. VirtuaWin is what I have been using in Vista, after going through several even-worse virtual desktop apps. SQL Management Studio is one of the apps that never seemed to work quite right, for example.
There's no excuse for Windows to not have an officially supported virtual desktop system. Even Macs were pretty far behind, but did finally put in Spaces a year or two back. That's still a decade after I was using virtual desktops in unix (and litestep on Windows).
Saying Windows users are noobs is no excuse, even if it were true. The number of "power" users of Windows is several times large than the total population of Mac and Unix users. With money to burn and such a large user base, it's very hard to justify how poor the Windows desktop experience is.