Windows 8 Passes Vista, Hits 5.1% Market Share

An anonymous reader writes "With the first half of 2013 now over, Windows 8 continues to grow its share steadily but slowly, while Windows XP and Vista decline. In fact, Windows 8 has now passed the 5 percent mark, as well as surpassed the market share of its predecessor's predecessor, Windows Vista. The latest market share data from Net Applications shows that June 2013 was an impressive one for Windows 8, which gained 0.83 percentage points (from 4.27 percent to 5.10 percent) while Windows 7 fell 0.48 percentage points (from 44.85 percent to 44.37 percent)."

Comments

Surpassing Vista

[vikingpower]

Not that much of an achievement. If that is all they can announce... Sounds to me like the German Army bulletins toward the end of 2nd World War.

Re:Surpassing Vista

[dingen]

And mind you: it's not passing Vista's market share as it was in October 2007 (equally 10 months after launch as Windows 8 is now). It's just passed Vista's *current* market share.

No consumer-oriented version of Windows has ever seen such a slow adoption as Windows 8 is showing now.

Re:Surpassing Vista

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

How long do you suppose Microsoft can hold out until Windows 9?

More to the point, how long do you suppose WE the users can hold out until Windows 9?

I dread the day my Win 7 machines die because I'll have to replace them with those blasted Win 8 machines. I'd much rather stretch my existing machines' life until Microsoft gets its act together and I can safely skip the Win 8 experience. Exactly the same way I went straight from XP to Win 7 and avoided Vista.

Re:Surpassing Vista

[wvmarle]

What may be more notable, is the staying power of Win XP.

Win XP is with 37% market share not far behind the 44% of Win 7 (two major versions ahead of XP, and released almost four years ago by now). If all computers that had been replaced would have received Win 7, the market share of Win 7 compared to Win XP should be much higher: if the average lifetime of a PC is five years, some 80% of the computers that were in use back in summer 2009 have been replaced by now. Yet newer-than-XP versions of Windows are far behind that number.

And while it's market share is falling, it's falling only slowly, with a 0.5% loss over the past month. And I really can not imagine just 0.5% of computers are being replaced in a month - at an average lifespan of 5 years for a PC there should be nearly 1.7% replacement rate per month. So is it that XP computers are all just old ones that are not being replaced? Or is it that XP is being installed on new computers? Both are about as unbelievable, yet I can't think of another reason XP's market share is falling so much slower than the computer replacement rate.

Re:Surpassing Vista

[dingen]

Probably both. People are holding on to a machine that works because of the economic situation and a lot of people still prefer XP to anything else and install it on brand new systems. I guess it will be until 2014 when support is dropped that the numbers will show some real drops, although it will be mainly from businesses as they are the ones who care about support in the first place. I doubt home users will think a lack of updates is a bad thing.

Re: Surpassing Vista

[Pino Grigio]

Only corporations, small business, medium sized business, large business, government, home users (especially gamers). Apart from these people, it's dying, yes.

Re:Surpassing Vista

[dingen]

Yeah, that's why I'm still using my iMac from 2007. It's got a fairly fast Core 2 Duo chip and 6 GB RAM and basically the only thing I need is a browser and text editor. A newer/faster machine is simply not worth the investment.

Re:Surpassing Vista

[nanoflower]

I bet many of those same people in the industry said that PC sales were down before Windows 8 was released because people were waiting for Win8 to be released. People in the industry can be wrong just about as often as the average Slashdot reader when it comes to why sales are down. Everything from the economy, to having PCs that are good enough there's no need to upgrade. to not liking Win8 (or the comments people have made about it without having seen it/tried it) play a part. Which one is the most important is unknown. My own guess would be a combination of the economy and current PCs being good enough but it's just a guess. I've industry analysts say one thing about where things are heading and why. Then a few months later they completely change their story. Which just shows that without some clear indicator of why things are happening they have to guess. It may be an educated guess, but it's still a guess.

Re: Surpassing Vista

[AJH16]

Let me know how writing code or actual real letters goes on your smartphone or tablet. The desktop market isn't going away, it just won't move as many machines (since they last longer now).

Re:Surpassing Vista

[RogueyWon]

Thing is, while the driver situation back then may have been better for Linux than Win2k, the simple fact was that you couldn't actually play most games on Linux.

Thinking back to the games I was mostly playing back in my final days as a Win98 user, when I was weighing up a shift to Win2k, I can recall a good few (as a postgrad student at the time, I had a lot more time for gaming than I had now). I was heavily into the online scene for Counter-Strike (was the head admin of a major UK league) and also fairly heavily into online Warcraft 3. I was also a more casual online player of Battlefield 1942 and Tribes 2. Offline, I spent a lot of time with the Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale series. Playing that lot on Linux? Very, very unlikely.

So it was a case of sticking with Win98, tolerating the requirement for reboots pretty much daily if you wanted to preserve performance and stability, and waiting for reports that 2k was actually usable.

Re:Surpassing Vista

[LoRdTAW]

"That's when I started looking at Linux more seriously, especially after the clusterfuck of the 98-XP upgrade. It disabled my CD burning software saying it made the system unstable, despite the fact that I'd not had stability problems with 98, and would not ley me uninstall it.

This is why you never upgrade windows. You always do a fresh install. Yea its annoying to lose configurations and installed software but its not like it was difficult to get back up to speed, maybe a week at most. I learned after a 98-2k install that hard crashed (no bsod just locked up) after upgrade and wouldn't boot. From then on installing a new windows OS ment starting fresh which always worked flawlessly. And with windows we all know it better to start fresh.

Back in the days of 2k/XP changing a motherboard which had a different chipset ment endless headaches. You had to be sure you uninstalled all of your hardware drivers then shut down and installed the new mobo. Then boot up and pray the brain dead windows kernel would see the changes and try a default IDE/ATA driver instead of BSOD. Going from a single core/non-HT CPU to a dual CPU or HT CPU? Then you had to fuck around with the HAL to get a multiprocessor HAL working (back when moving from P3 -> p4/xeon). windows 7 was much better and could handle a hardware swap, so could Vista, amazingly.

Linux has always worked flawlessly and is always superior to windows when it comes to driver and hardware. You could yank a hard drive with Linux installed from an Intel PC and install it into an AMD PC with COMPLETELY different hardware and it would happily boot. Though, back in the days of ISA cards things weren't that easy. But it never was except for maybe DOS when you assigned memory ranges, IRQ's and DMA's by hand and you knew your limits.

Nowadays I only use Windows 7 on a PC for gaming and general use. Everything else is Linux, even my laptop. I don't hate windows, I just don't need it to do everything I want/need to do. And some things windows simply can't do without hacks or third party software which may or may not work (eg. SSHFS).

Re: Surpassing Vista

[AJH16]

That's testing rather than writing code and a Surface Pro isn't really a tablet, it's a laptop pretending to be a tablet. It has an actual full fledged OS on it and runs x86. You could also accomplish the same with a touch screen monitor on a much more powerful desktop that would build faster and give more area to work on your code in. Don't get me wrong, not saying tablets don't have their uses, but they are substandard for many, many activities.

Re:So it should

[gigaherz]

Well if you compare it with OSX, iOS and Ubuntu's Unity, metro is not THAT bad. It's when you compare it with a proper desktop environment like Xfce or Windows 7's Aero that Metro is terrible.

Regular users

[Loki_666]

I bet even non-techie users don't like Metro.... for a start, where will they store their documents now? The desktop and the recycle bin were the usual two favourite locations pre Win 8. :P

Re:XP - 37% with less than a year of support

[Teun]

12 y/o? Yes the name XP might be but over the years the various service packs changed it dramatically.

I would count the age of up to date XP installs from the issue date of SP3, early May 2008.

Re:So it should

[Bob the Super Hamste]

You are forgetting users like my step mother who can't figure out why her new laptop acts like someone's phone instead like her computer at work. If she wanted something that acted like a smart phone she would have bought a smart phone.