Windows 8 Passes Vista, Hits 5.1% Market Share

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Windows 8 Passes Vista, Hits 5.1% Market Share

Posted by timothy on Sunday June 30, 2013 @09:02PM from the we-can-finally-sleep-nights-again dept.

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)."

68 of 285 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Surpassing Vista by vikingpower · 2013-06-30 21:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
1. Re:Surpassing Vista by dingen · 2013-06-30 21:10 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
2. Re:Surpassing Vista by dingen · 2013-06-30 21:21 · Score: 2
  
  That completely depends on the release date of Windows 9. Windows 7 for example was released before Vista could surpass XP's market share.
  
  --
  Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
3. Re:Surpassing Vista by RogueyWon · 2013-06-30 21:23 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  How did the takeup of ME compare? That was billed as the "consumer oriented" OS at the time (while 2000 was billed as the "business product").
  If we're at the kind of point where comparisons to ME feel appropriate, then Win8 really is in trouble. At least with ME, there was always a strong sense that it was never intended as much more than a short-term stopgap. Win8, on the other hand, has been pushed very hard as "the future".
4. Re:Surpassing Vista by lxs · 2013-06-30 21:35 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Windows 9? You think MS can go three full Windows releases without changing the naming scheme? That hasn't happened since Windows 1,2 and 3.
5. Re:Surpassing Vista by Trepidity · 2013-06-30 21:37 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I'm waiting for them to put out a press release when they hit 5x Linux market share.
  
  --
  10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
6. Re:Surpassing Vista by dingen · 2013-06-30 21:44 · Score: 2
  
  Windows Me was in between. And of course "Windows 98 Second Edition", which might win the "silliest name of a Windows version ever" award.
  
  --
  Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
7. Re:Surpassing Vista by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2013-06-30 21:45 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
8. Re:Surpassing Vista by dingen · 2013-06-30 21:46 · Score: 2
  
  Yet Vista never managed to get more than a mere 26%, and that's the best number I could find. Some research indicates Vista's market share actually maxed at about 19%.
  
  --
  Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
9. Re:Surpassing Vista by gl4ss · 2013-06-30 21:54 · Score: 3
  
  How did the takeup of ME compare? That was billed as the "consumer oriented" OS at the time (while 2000 was billed as the "business product").
  If we're at the kind of point where comparisons to ME feel appropriate, then Win8 really is in trouble. At least with ME, there was always a strong sense that it was never intended as much more than a short-term stopgap. Win8, on the other hand, has been pushed very hard as "the future".
  me might have done comparatively well. pc sales were in a huge upswing back in those days.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
10. Re:Surpassing Vista by wvmarle · 2013-06-30 21:54 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
11. Re:Surpassing Vista by dingen · 2013-06-30 22:02 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
12. Re:Surpassing Vista by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-30 22:05 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  > 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.
  Both. Some corporate images are still based on XP, and XP compatibility is required when purchasing new hardware. I know this is unbelievable, but there was a similar situation with NT4.0, which was used way post the point where it was still indicated (especially given that Windows 2000 was actually quite good, but unfortunately incompatible in quite a few areas).
  And some companies got ride of automatic PC replacement. I know colleagues that work on a 5 or 6 year old PC. Actually for light office use that would not really be an issue, but for engineering it is a bit of a drag. Companies are pursuing all potential cost savings in the current economic climate.
13. Re: Surpassing Vista by Pino+Grigio · 2013-06-30 22:49 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Only corporations, small business, medium sized business, large business, government, home users (especially gamers). Apart from these people, it's dying, yes.
14. Re:Surpassing Vista by kthreadd · 2013-06-30 23:03 · Score: 2
  
  Exactly. The NT branch is what Windows is on now. They ceased development of the DOS branch with ME.
15. Re:Surpassing Vista by syntheticmemory · 2013-06-30 23:15 · Score: 2
  
  Windows Me was in between. And of course "Windows 98 Second Edition", which might win the "silliest name of a Windows version ever" award.
  You probably forgot about "Bob"
16. Re:Surpassing Vista by KingMotley · 2013-06-30 23:21 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Or it could be that the statistics are being pulled from sources that have unusually slow adoption rate. I typically check the statistics that I see come from netmarketshare and the like from a couple other sources, and I've always noticed that they lag considerably from both another source, and my own statistics from visitors from my client's web sites.
  For example, my statistics show 6.6% for Windows 8 , 7.88% for Vista, 30.28% for XP, and 54.69% for Windows 7.
  netmarketshare shows 5.1% for Windows 8, 4.62% for Vista, 37.17% for XP, and 44.37% for Windows 7.
  My other source shows 12.7% for Windows 8, 7.2% for Vista, 7.9% for XP, and 66% for Windows 7.
  There is quite a bit of difference between the three, but ntmarketshare typically seems to poll from placed that hang on to their systems longer than most, I'm guessing some very large businesses as their primary source, which skews their numbers.
17. Re: Surpassing Vista by roarkarchitect · 2013-06-30 23:55 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  We are an XP shop except for the engineering work stations which are windows 7 - I can't see us going to windows 8 every, our legacy CRM and MRP systems will not work. We still use a Windows 2000 domain- which we are virtualizing. and my workstationis Vista :(
18. Re:Surpassing Vista by Joce640k · 2013-06-30 23:57 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I've got lots of perfectly good hardware (scanners, printers...etc) that never received a Windows 7 driver. I have to keep at least one XP machine around just for that reason.
  
  --
  No sig today...
19. Re:Surpassing Vista by AmiMoJo · 2013-07-01 00:02 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  No consumer-oriented version of Windows has ever seen such a slow adoption as Windows 8 is showing now.
  That's a worthless measure of success for Windows. 99.9% of copies are sold on new PCs or as part of bulk licences in businesses. The former is no indication of Windows 8 acceptance, merely of new PC sales. The latter is no indication of Windows 8 acceptance, merely IT spending and the amount of lag between release and companies rolling out new operating systems.
  Conversely because almost 100% of Windows 7 users installed SP1 that doesn't mean SP1 was a huge success, merely that it was put forwards as a critical update and people had no reason to reject it.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
20. Re:Surpassing Vista by dingen · 2013-07-01 00:06 · Score: 2
  
  You say it like Microsoft is a victim of the circumstances. But some people in the industry are saying PC sales and IT spending is down because of Windows 8.
  
  --
  Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
21. Re:Surpassing Vista by Lumpy · 2013-07-01 00:06 · Score: 2
  
  "Unless you are a volume license customer, coming up with a copy of Win7 that passes activation is your problem"
  no it's not. In fact Windows 7 is easier to deal with in this regard compared to windows XP and Vista. just find an OEM disc, then use one of the windows loader variants to crack the OEM crud. after that you can automate a keychanger to use your legal key and get around all the garbage for activation.
  I have made several automatic install disks that do all of this for me from a DELL OEM windows 7 professional DVD
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
22. Re:Surpassing Vista by ArcherB · 2013-07-01 00:10 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I've got lots of perfectly good hardware (scanners, printers...etc) that never received a Windows 7 driver. I have to keep at least one XP machine around just for that reason.
  My nephew is staying at my place for the summer and brought an old Vista machine. Rather than run a network cable to his room, I gave him a USB wireless-N adapter. He tried for a couple of weeks to make it work while a cat-5 cable ran across my office floor into his room. The other day, he decided to install Linux on the system after using my machine every time his crashed. We downloaded Mint and installed it. Once it was up and running, I plugged in the USB adapter, unplugged the network cable, punched in my wifi password and BAM! He was on the network and reading reddit. (I guess reddit is what kids do these days).
  Anyway, the point is that all the drivers you may need are probably included in some of the latest Linux distro's out there. You might want to try booting off a live CD and try it out. If you're not a gamer, I see no reason to be stuck running XP or any other Windows based system.
  
  --
  There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
23. Re:Surpassing Vista by dingen · 2013-07-01 00:19 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
24. Re:Surpassing Vista by Sesostris+III · 2013-07-01 00:28 · Score: 2
  
  I've got XP installed under VirtualBox on my Mint LMDE XFCE desktop. I installed XP because I've got a retail license which I bought in 2001. For what I need Windows for (a few work-related websites that need IE and for a work-format CV that needs to be in Word format), it is good enough. I do not feel inclined to buy another copy of Windows that I only need to boot into once a month or so. I especially do not feel inclined to buy a version of windows that has been as comprehensively slated a Windows 8! (I've avoided Gnome 3 and Unity and use XFCE - yes, I'm that sort of guy!) Until XP becomes unusable, or those few sites need a later version of IE than can be installed with XP, I'll keep to XP.
  
  And if I change my main desktop (I'm thinking about either Arch or Xubuntu), I shall again install XP in a virtualised environment. It does the job. If (heaven forfend!) those work-related websites I need to visit cease to be IE only, and I can update my work-format CV using something other than Word, I can then ditch Windows completely.
  
  (Sudden though - Amazon's MP3 downloader only runs under Windows. OK there is an old Linux version but it seems it is no longer supported. I'll need to keep Windows for that as well!)
  
  --
  You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
25. Re:Surpassing Vista by nanoflower · 2013-07-01 00:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
26. Re:Surpassing Vista by nukenerd · 2013-07-01 00:35 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  How did the takeup of ME compare? That was billed as the "consumer oriented" OS at the time ...... At least with ME, there was always a strong sense that it was never intended as much more than a short-term stopgap.
  As I recall in those days, queues of people camped on PCWorld's doorstep for a few days before each new Windows release (like they do for Apple stuff today).
  
  I do not recall ME being regarded as a stopgap. The name "ME" even suggested it was forward looking. True, those who knew better recognised it as W95 on a Zimmerframe - one last fling by MS to extract money from the consumer market with a pointless upgrade. I never ran ME, but understand that it was actually worse than 98.
  
  Also, there was no gap to stop. Windows NT was already available and had been runnable on entry-level PCs' for some time (and did, in the form of XP just a year later). It was games compatibility that kept the crappy 95/98/ME bloodline going, but MS needed to tell the games writers to port their stuff to NT/XP sooner or later; and they should have done it sooner.
27. Re:Surpassing Vista by RogueyWon · 2013-07-01 00:52 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  From the gamer's point of view, the problem with NT was its complete lack of directx functionality. This was addressed by 2k. But games developers could hardly be blamed for focussing on Win98 when MS's own tools for gaming weren't there on NT. Uptake of 2k was slower than it could have been, primarily due to third party driver issues that caused stability and performance issues for many games. That one's perhaps slightly harder to pin on MS.
  I followed what is, I think, a very typical path for gamers at the time. I hung on to 98 until 2k service pack 2 was released, at which point most of the problems related to gaming under 2k had been addressed. I never made a conscious decision to move to XP, but a couple of years later, when I bought a new PC that came with it installed, there was no reason to move back to 2k.
28. Re: Surpassing Vista by AJH16 · 2013-07-01 01:16 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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).
  
  --
  AJ Henderson
29. Re:Surpassing Vista by arth1 · 2013-07-01 01:26 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I never ran ME, but understand that it was actually worse than 98.
  
  No, I don't think it was worse, I just think it was rushed.
  Me deprecated many of the VxD drivers used with Windows 98, and needed updated WDM drivers that didn't require real mode. Also, it came with generic USB drivers, and USB was just becoming widely popular, but with lots of "almost-compatible" devices on the market, requiring special drivers. The manufacturers weren't ready, and the result was highly unstable Me systems, especially when using USB or older hardware.
  But they felt they HAD to rush it - Windows 2000 was coming.
  Windows 2000 really was the solution, but Microsoft did the big mistake of not marketing it towards consumers. Then XP came, which basically was a dumbed down 2000 with updated graphics, and it took the world with storm. But boy, was it buggy before SP1. Anyone sane would run 2000 instead.
30. Re:Surpassing Vista by psergiu · 2013-07-01 01:55 · Score: 2
  
  Actually the first Windows versions were:
  1985 - Windows 1.0
  1987 - Windows 2.0
  1988 - Windows/286 2.10 & Windows/386 2.10
  1990 - Windows 3.0
  1992 - Windows 3.1
  1993 - Windows 3.11 for Workgroups & Windows 3.2 Simplified Chinese
  1995 - Windows 4.0 alpha (extremely short lived, renamed as Windows 95 after a alpha release was leaked to various FTP sites. It did not have the "Start Button")
  On the NT side:
  1993 - Windows NT 3.1
  1994 - Windows NT 3.5
  1995 - Windows NT 3.51
  
  --
  1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
31. Re:Surpassing Vista by pr0fessor · 2013-07-01 02:00 · Score: 2
  
  The laptop provided to me by work is an IBM runing xp sp3 and it is nearly indestructible {so long as you treat it well} I have been using it for 9 years. When we upgrade it will not be to win 8 because about 70% of the software we use is still not compatible with it. Right now we are migrating any remaining XP to win 7.
  We tried to adopt vista early {pre-service packs} and found that it was a huge hassle, scraping the migration; had we waited for SP 1 or 2 to be released then we may have been successful. All it managed to do was root us deeper into XP.
32. Re:Surpassing Vista by UnknowingFool · 2013-07-01 02:41 · Score: 2
  The way I see it, there are several reasons for the slow adoption rate and all of them are working against Windows.
  
  Older hardware is good enough for consumers
  Most consumers don't upgrade the OS on their existing hardware. Most of them get the next version of Windows when they get new hardware. For the most part, consumers are staying with existing hardware longer.
  Businesses don't try bleeding edge software
  Most businesses are now migrating to Win 7 to replace XP. They skipped Vista for many issues. Even if Win 8 didn't have issues, businesses may not have migrated to it anyways and chose every other Win version.
  Tablets/smartphones are starting to replace desktops/laptops for most consumers
  For consumers who decide to get new hardware, most are opting for tablets and smartphones as they provide the majority of functionality. They can never replace all the functionality but for what what consumers do, it's enough. Most consumers are buying Android or iOS tablets for now.
  Touchscreens are not standard for laptops/desktops
  OEMs are only now starting to offer touchscreen hardware for consumers. Part of it is that it adds cost and OEMs are reluctant to increase costs because their margins are thin. Metro/modern works better for touch but without the right hardware, it is a cost disadvantage for most OEMs/consumers.
  People hate Metro
  Most people hate change. Metro is a big change. In addition to that, I think there are major UI deficiencies of Metro like little self-discovery and lack of hints. I don't have Win 8 but my roommate does. Every time she asks me how to do something. I have to look it up on another computer. Metro simply provides little help to me about what to do next and I'm a power user that uses CLI.
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
33. Re:Surpassing Vista by RogueyWon · 2013-07-01 03:15 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
34. Re:Surpassing Vista by LoRdTAW · 2013-07-01 04:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "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).
35. Re: Surpassing Vista by AJH16 · 2013-07-01 04:54 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  AJ Henderson
36. Re: Surpassing Vista by hairyfeet · 2013-07-01 10:26 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Sorry I have to throw a flag, bullshit on the field. One of the reasons I advised my customers against Windows 8 is how many programs i found that run fine on 7, crap themselves on 8. some of it was hardware like drivers not playing nice, some of it was software, it ended up just a mess.
  That is why I hate posts that say "Oh its just 7 with Metro" because no, its really not. since i'm not on the dev team i can only guess and say that all that mobile and tweeting twits for shits changed too much of the background, all I know is that its less stable, has more stupid "senior moments", almost as bad as vista in that regard, and while the Win 7 units have been running since RTM I've had to do multiple "refresh my PC" jobs for customers which I still think that tech was added to cover for a corruption bug they couldn't nail down.
  I do have to say how much I find the irony moist and delicious on how many "keyboard commanders" try to cover for the OS...which was DESIGNED FOR TABLETS and therefor in its natural state doesn't HAVE a keyboard for the commanders to try to cover up for its failings! IMHO if your OS requires you to memorize commands like its fricking 1989? You have failed at OS design and should be ashamed. This guy says it better than I can but one thing I agree on, if you need a Win 7 PC to google how to use the Win 8 PC? Its a fail of epic proportions.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
37. Re: Surpassing Vista by AJH16 · 2013-07-01 11:11 · Score: 2
  
  Android isn't a desktop OS, nor is it intended to be. It is designed specifically for high levels of process isolation and low power consumption. These are the opposite of what you want on a desktop where you are looking for power and interoperability. Windows 8 is a huge misstep driven by trying to compete with the vertically integrated dominance than is making Apple so much money. Metro is simply a move to push Windows Market on the world that is failing. If it wasn't for Metro, Windows 8 is actually a very nice step up from Windows 7. If MS realises that Metro isn't the way to get the vertical integration they are looking for, there is still lots of hope for them. They do need to see the error of their ways though.
  
  --
  AJ Henderson
38. Re: Surpassing Vista by InsectOverlord · 2013-07-01 11:41 · Score: 2
  
  I assume it's still around in Windows 8, though I'm not sure if the "Pro" or whatever license of 8 gives you a free XP license.
  Unfortunately, no, the XP mode is gone in Windows 8 (even Pro). Instead they suggest you use Hyper-V (which is included in W8 Pro), but that is a poor replacement. It lacks app virtualization. no XP license is included, and VMware Player is a better product anyway.
39. Re: Surpassing Vista by hairyfeet · 2013-07-02 19:34 · Score: 2
  
  Cubase, Quicken, Quickbooks, those are just three off the top of my head, run great in 7, gotta buy the latest version (at several hundred dollars for some of them) to get them to work on 8.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
So it should by Ice+Tiger · 2013-06-30 21:08 · Score: 5, Funny

It's the best OS MS have produced in my opinion, runs well and like the UI and yes I'm running a desktop computer! I use OSX, iOS, Ubuntu and Windows so maybe am used to switching UIs so learning Metro was no big deal compared to someone who has only seen the Start button all their computer life.

--
"Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
1. Re:So it should by gigaherz · 2013-06-30 21:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
2. Re:So it should by somersault · 2013-06-30 21:29 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  If it was really a "new paradigm", ie the whole OS was built around it, it would actually be fine. The problem is that Metro feels more like a hacked on 3rd party replacement for the Start Menu, than something that works well with the Windows desktop.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
3. Re:So it should by JaredOfEuropa · 2013-06-30 21:34 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I have to agree: it runs well. Booting is exceptionally fast; in Windows 8 I'll be running on the desktop while my older (but more powerful) machine is still loading the Windows 7 login screen. I dislike Metro though; I suppose I could make it into something usable, if I spend the effort to nicely organize my favorite apps on the Metro canvas, but why should I? The old Windows start menu does that for me in a very usable way with zero effort (other than installing the tool to bring back that start menu). Besides that, I like to use the desktop like my real desktop, to organize and sort files I am working on. The Metro canvas is useless for that.
  
  A real problem with Metro is that so many basic actions are hidden or counter-intuitive. You're doing something wrong if people have to search for help on how to close an app or manage windows on your OS. And before they can even try and search for that info, they have to use another computer to search for help on getting the damn address bar to appear in IE! People's hatred for Metro doesn't just come from having to learn a new UI, a lot of it is due to (piss-)poor design.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
4. Re:So it should by Unkl_Shvelven · 2013-06-30 22:31 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The reason why Windows 8 boots so fast is that it doesn't actually boot. When you "Shut Down" from the charms bar, it actually just kills your user session and hibernates. You can turn off fastboot and see for yourself.
  
  --
  regular man whom love computer (Also, fuck beta).
5. Re:So it should by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-30 22:58 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  it actually just kills your user session and hibernates
  Yep. And if you copy files to a directory that is in memory in the hibernated system (say from a Mac or Linux dual boot partition) Windows 8 will eat your files with corruption! All because Microsoft lied so they could add another "feature".
6. Re:So it should by Yaotzin · 2013-06-30 23:34 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  It works just like the start menu, only bigger. You use just like you would the regular start menu, type whatever you want to run and press enter. Don't see how this can be such a huge gripe. I haven't switched to Win8 yet but from what little I've used it, I couldn't find much of a problem with it apart from poor network drivers.
  
  --
  Error: No error occurred
7. Re:So it should by Ice+Tiger · 2013-07-01 00:03 · Score: 2
  
  Reading through the comments there isn't too much disagreement about the underlying OS its with Metro.
  I first used a computer back in 1981 and seen and used a lot of UIs over the years as well as using different UIs over different systems at the same time, hence I don't tend to invest effort in learning the ins and outs. On a desktop machine without a touchscreen I flip between desktop and metro and am fine with search to find something as that's how I find things on the Internet. My typing speed isn't so bad having used all those CLIs over the years.
  Metro with a touchscreen works and in fact for my three year old she finds it awkward that my 2010 Mac Book Pro doesn't have a screen that responds to touch and what's this mouse thing on my Windows 8 desktop. Is Metro perfect, no, but at least its a start to move away from a desktop metaphor that was introduced way back when, in a world dominated by mobiles / browsers is the desktop metaphor still relavant?
  My intention was to start a debate as I know my opinion about Windows 8 isn't mainstream.
  
  --
  "Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
8. Re:So it should by JasterBobaMereel · 2013-07-01 00:09 · Score: 2
  
  I don't want to "Learn" Metro! I just want to use my computer!
  If the interface is not obvious then it is getting in the way, and Metro (or whatever it is called this week) just gets in the way
  The Start button was a faster than the program manager
  the Search in the start menu was often faster than using the Start menu
  Metro is in all cases slower ...
  I don't want to run windows, use windows etc ... I want to use the programs that run on it ....!
  
  --
  Puteulanus fenestra mortis
9. Re:So it should by Jerry+Atrick · 2013-07-01 00:49 · Score: 2
  
  Type 'readme', then wonder which result is the one I want... assuming it's even in the list because a lot of my apps are portable and sitting on another drive Win8 doesn't want to search.
10. Re:So it should by nukenerd · 2013-07-01 01:10 · Score: 2
  
  Reading through the comments there isn't too much disagreement about the underlying OS [the disagreement is] with Metro.
  Got it in one.
  
  I first used a computer back in 1981 and seen and used a lot of UIs over the years ... My typing speed isn't so bad having used all those CLIs over the years.
  Me too
  
  [I] am fine with search to find something as that's how I find things on the Internet.
  I don't just use the Internet. There is a polarisation here between (shall we say) people who are organised and people who are not. I know where my stuff is, in organised directories, but MS seems to assume that everyone is disorganised and needs to search. We organised people find that insulting and patronising.
  
  Metro with a touchscreen works and in fact for my three year old she finds it awkward that my 2010 Mac Book Pro doesn't have a [touch]screen
  Good Lord, take a look at your foot Lord Uxbridge, it seems to have been shot off! So Metro is OK for 3-year-olds. That is what many of us have been saying all along.
  
  Is Metro perfect, no, but at least its a start to move away from a desktop metaphor that was introduced way back when
  That is like saying Smartcars are a move away from pick-up trucks. Some of us need or just prefer pick-up trucks. Motor vehicles when they were invented were all pretty similar, then specialised types came out - vans, limos, sports, pick-ups, etc. Same is happening with PCs. Those of us who create stuff rather than just "consume" the internet, or who play full sized games, will continue to provide a market for full-sized PC with mice and keyboards.
11. Re:So it should by oobayly · 2013-07-01 01:15 · Score: 2
  
  Yay, I can check the get regular weather & social updates on the start screen. Funnily enough, that's not a priority for most business users. And I especially like trying to reorganise the tiles - it's like playing a Sliding Puzzle - how could anyone hate that?
12. Re:So it should by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2013-07-01 01:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
13. Re:So it should by gnasher719 · 2013-07-01 01:45 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  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.
  Years ago my daughter bought a laptop which came with the then brand new Windows Vista. She called me and asked if I could put Windows on it for her...
14. Re:So it should by gl4ss · 2013-07-01 02:41 · Score: 2
  
  Metro is a weird interface, being a long time xp and os x user it feels very counter intuitive, I seem to go into desktop mode as soon as I boot and get annoyed when metro pulls me out off it (eg when editing a photo).8.1 will be a welcome update.
  you're better off installing classic shell than waiting for 8.1. the start button just takes you to metro.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
15. Re:So it should by Tarlus · 2013-07-01 03:42 · Score: 2
  
  and get annoyed when metro pulls me out off it (eg when editing a photo)
  You can change your file associations to use non-Metro software. The image viewer that came with 7 is still there in 8, so you can set it to be your default for viewing images. (Or there are some great alternatives out there, I like Irfanview.) Same deal with Windows Media Player, you can tell it to use the desktop version rather than the Metro version. (Or in my case, Media Player Classic.)
  
  --
  /* No Comment */
16. Re:So it should by MrNemesis · 2013-07-01 04:25 · Score: 2
  
  The huge gripe is that not everyone uses the start menu in the same way as everyone else. Personally, I hate the "search to launch something" functionality; I only search for things when I don't know where they are. This is handy to have in the start menu when I know what something is called but don't know where it is... but my memory is primarily spatial and I have a terrible memory for names, so I remember things by placement and the shape of what the icons/words look like rather than by remembering the letters per se. For when I do know the name of the command, nine times out of ten it's already in $PATH (or %PATH% depending on your poison) and I can launch it from a command line with tab-completion anyway.
  Microsoft's problem here is that take people like you into account, for whom search is a perfectly good way of launching stuff, but remove, or at least impede, any alternative for people like me you find it clunky. Lots of people appreciate having both available but in my opinion MS appear to have gone headfirst down the "tyranny of choice" route.
  As an aside, it always infuriated me that the XP/7 start menu "learnt" the priority of your programs so that a) their relative position was always changing and b) the more frequently you used them, the further away they moved from the start button. This is mostly why I'm still hooked on quicklaunch and other folders full of shortcuts I can turn into a toolbar.
  
  --
  Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
Huh by Ignacio · 2013-06-30 21:18 · Score: 4, Funny

I guess cramming it down people's throats really *is* an effective way to gain marketshare...
XP - 37% with less than a year of support by blarkon · 2013-06-30 21:22 · Score: 5, Interesting

The real news here is that an OS that has less than a year of support left is at around 37% market share. XP is falling at about 1% per month - but will still be a substantial part of the market (probably at least 25%) when Microsoft stops releasing software updates.
1. Re:XP - 37% with less than a year of support by dingen · 2013-06-30 21:30 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  A lack of support might push a few businesses to adopt a newer version of Windows, but I doubt people at home will care. Actually, a lack of updates might be seen as a feature (no reboots!) by those who are still holding on to a 12+ year old operating system.
  
  --
  Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
2. Re:XP - 37% with less than a year of support by Teun · 2013-06-30 23:19 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Re:Still sucks by sosume · 2013-06-30 21:36 · Score: 5, Funny

You forgot to write Microsoft with a '$' .. you heretic.
Regular users by Loki_666 · 2013-06-30 22:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

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
1. Re:Regular users by Loki_666 · 2013-07-01 00:28 · Score: 2
  
  Until they say they can't find a file they want, and can't remember the name of it, and call their family member who knows computers to ask them to find it for them.
Hooray! by jasper160 · 2013-06-30 23:56 · Score: 2

Should be titled: Windows 8 sucks less than Vista.

--
No good deed goes unpunished.
8 == Vista by h8sg8s · 2013-07-01 02:09 · Score: 2

Windows 8 is about as functional as Vista as well. Pretty low bar. If folks had a choice Windows 8 would simply die.

--
Organization? You must be joking..
Because PC buyers have no choice by walterbyrd · 2013-07-01 02:30 · Score: 2

Most places that sell PCs only sell Win8. If you can get Win7 at all, you have to pay a premium for it.
Also, people figure "I might as well buy it now, since I am going to be forced to use it anyway."
People are *not* buying Win8 because they like it. If people had a choice, they would stay with win7, or XP.
Market share, but they hid the real story by hazydave · 2013-07-01 08:04 · Score: 2

Claiming this is market share, that implies this is for new sales only, not installed base. Sounds like they screwed up the terminology... otherwise, that doesn't say much at all good about Windows 8.... and also suggests some crazy people are still buying new Windows Vista systems.
If this really does mean installed base, then you have to ask how that's actually computed. If it's just based on sales figures, it's likely very skewed in Windows 8's favor. On the day that Windows 8 shipped, all of the enterprise licensees started buying Windows 8 licenses. These are the licenses that let the IT department clone their standard disc for all new PCs and just pay MS for each one. These licenses, of course, include full downgrade rights, and most of them are still being used for Windows 7 or Windows XP... but they come up as Windows 8 for the purpose of sales figures. The last study on this I saw showed that less than 60% of the actual sold Windows 8 licenses were actually being used for Windows 8. Some detail on which set of assumptions (lies, etc) this is used for would be interesting.
And the real news... earlier this year, late last year, etc. many different similar installed base reports put MacOS growing from 4.8% last year to just over 5% earlier this year -- this is internationally, Apple of course does much better domestically. It's probably just a difference in their calculations versus the various other industry numbers people.. but if MacOS really did jump 2% in one quarter, in installed base rather than just quarterly sales, that would be big news. Of course, that growth might come as much from a failing PC market as some rally of Apple products.

--
-Dave Haynie