Slashdot Mirror
Windows XP Falls Below 25% Market Share, Windows 8 Drops Slightly
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.
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%
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.
A loss in percentage doesn't mean jack for loss of units.
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.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
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.
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).
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.
The real path to male liberation
How much has the market grown? For instance, is the drop in Safari percentage actually less users? That'd be news regarding iOS.
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.
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).
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.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
On Steam and for gamers, XP is dead. Under 5% share between x32 and x64. With Win8 gaining market share around 27%.
Om, nomnomnom...
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.
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.
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?
WINDOWS 8 PIECE OF SHIT!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?"
Linux's market share in desktop rose by 0.0000023%. This is the year of linux on desktop, folks!
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.
(rereading) Oh, my fault, I missed "Mac" in TechyImmigrant's comment.
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.
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 for the details.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
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.
Om, nomnomnom...
Why are the stats so different from different sources? StatCounter puts Chrome at 46% for desktop browser share and IE at 20%.
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.
Ooops, sorry, wrong OS.
Microsoft is dead, Netcraft confirms it!
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
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.
As a gamer, I appreciate the fact that XP is far more lightweight and consumes much less overhead than 7.
Not really. Windows 7 is essentially as lightweight as XP.
Windows 8 is not THAT bad. Well, of course it's bad: i mean, fonts in ModernUI pieces of interface (list of network connections, "Open with" dialog etc) do suck on traditional low-dpi screens. And really, it's not really even necessary to make that elements that big, the ones in W7 were perfectly fine.
But new explorer with customizable toolbar (almost like... in XP) and build-in ability to mount disk images is nice. Finally, Windows all by itself can correctly set wallpaper for external display and even show taskbar on it. Themes... well, built-in theme almost doesn't suck and with a few improvements it's quite good.
It's nice that they finally ended selling shitload of editions and ended with Home and Pro (like XP too).
The worst part of W8 is lack of the F8 menu during boot. Because this is the problem that usually surfaces too late.
I want a Windows that runs on my 0.6 GHz, single core, 32-bit, 1GB ram eee-pc 900 netbook, fits on the 5GB Windows partition (the other 170 GB is for Ubuntu), so I can run my (2005) CAD and other 3D software just as fast as as XP does. (and without ribbons that would take up half of the very limited screen height).
I don't have a desktop, this is my main workstation.
It's all well and good to end support for XP, but a viable replacement isn't even speculated about, let alone supported.
Everyone that wanted to upgrade from XP already did. If the hardware didn't support current windows versions, it certainly won't run any future Windows versions.
That 25% Windows XP will only be reduce very gradually, by failing hardware, which could take another 5 years.
I expect the last 32-bit firefox to be a few years away, and websites to support that last version for a few more years, so these machines remain perfectly usable for another 5 years. That 25% is perfectly happy running an outdated OS, and will continue to do so until the hardware dies.
If I'm in need of a job during the next few years, I'd know what to do:
Sell brand-new desktops and laptops with dual-boot XP / some-linux-or-another, loaded with the latest open source software (on both OS's), and help these 25% with copying there files and bookmarks.
I was in a Best Buy yesterday and while I saw a few interested people looking at laptops and even one or two considering a Mac and nobody looking at Chromebook's.
The feeling I got from associates was that some were still accepting Windows 8 reluctantly and the rest did not know what the heck Windows 8 even was.
I over heard one associate tell a customer that you can now boot directly into classic desktop mode and forget about the modern desktop. I guess that's what it has come down to, just telling people you can just use what you are familiar with. My other observation was at a Staples in which they were sold out of a Toshiba laptop
with Windows 7 running on it. The same model with Windows 8 was still in stock and yet the associate said they were trying to get more Windows 7 laptops.
My wife will not accept a Windows 8 laptop, she is insistent about it to a point where she would rather buy a older model or off lease laptop with Windows 7 then a newer Windows 8. Personally, I could accept Windows 8 on many levels, its more efficient, its faster to boot, it has more security, plus it is the latest Windows version. But the numbers tell me, that Windows 8 will die like Vista did and most are waiting and hoping Windows 9 will be another Windows 7 and if not. Windows 7
could easily become the next Windows XP everyone clings too.
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.
I bought a new laptop recently that was preloaded w/ Windows 8.1. Installed Classic Shell. Here's what the problems were
Following this, I decided to bite the bullet and install PC-BSD, a DVD of which I had gotten some days ago. I initially had some issues, since it wouldn't recognize either my mouse nor the wi-fi. So I had to get another mouse, and an ethernet cable, and then disable UEFI, and then install it. I had some rough edges w/ LXDE and KDE, but now am pretty happy working w/ Lumina. Of course, I'd be happier once FreeBSD/PC-BSD supports Wi-Fi on this laptop. Typing however is a charm, since PC-BSD doesn't recognize the trackpad, so it never comes in the way and I don't need touchfreeze or anything like it.
If you can't answer that, you are most likely a Chrome user, the new AOL user. Now would you, the product, be so kind to browse some websites and view ads? Yours, your privacy rights hating ad broker.
Been a windows user since 1998.
Left windows for Linux Mint 16 two days ago.
Gone for good, not coming back.
Not missing a thing.
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.
They could call it something like "Windows 7 with Windows Virtual PC".
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
...ever since they got rid of SideTabs
I refuse to use it again until they come back, or Google gets their heads out of their asses, and let's addon authors reproduce it.
Regardless of the whining over a start button.
This, from an embedded Linux dev.
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.
Skeumorphism - the use of design elements that mimic real life objects with similar functions, is actually the opposite phenomenon from the flat, light-on-pastel design trend. Though I fully agree with you - both of these UI philosophies have been severely overused.
A bit of googling will turn up plenty of articles analyzing the history of the skeuomorphism-versus-flat debate particularly at Apple, which I would argue has been one of the biggest influences in UI design over the last few years. Basically, the loss of skeuomorphism advocates such as Steve Jobs and Scott Forstall led to the pendulum swinging completely in the other direction, and many gimmicky and dated interface elements such as notes apps that look like real paper and a game center that looks like a cheap felt billiard table have been stripped away. But - what to replace it with? Well, everybody wants to stay on top of the latest design trend, and Microsoft and others seem to be migrating to flat designs, so flat it is.
Although you could argue over who copied who, essentially what you have is Microsoft and Apple in a race to see who can flatten their interfaces and strip out any traces of skeuomorphism the fastest. Sure, it looks trendy, but it's reached the point where we are sacrificing usability and accessibility in order to have the most "modern" design. Here's where I have a problem with the whole thing: computer interface elements have been pretty consistent over the last 20+ years or so. Everything behaved as expected and usually acted pretty consistent between operating systems. This is great for users, since they can focus on the task rather than the tools needed to accomplish them, and using the interface becomes second nature. To those who *design* computers rather than *use* them, this is a problem - you want the bling to be noticed. The old way of doing this was to show off your new hardware by making the UI flashy, bright, colorful, inviting - basically by ramping up the skeuomorphic elements to 11.
The problem is, the novelty of this wears off fast, and these interfaces quickly become dated. Now, flat is in, and anything that even remotely resembles skeuomorphism is stripped out. I have a number of problems with the current trend:
1) interface elements are hidden or played down, making them hard to find. Often it's hard to tell if I'm just not looking hard enough for that feature, or if it has been removed altogether.
2) It does away with conventions that have been standard for decades. This means that every time designers go wild designing a new interface, users have to spend time and effort learning a new way to accomplish a task.
3) It's less accessible. Razor thin text is hard for some people to see. Pastel on white and white on pastel text may look "hip" but can incredibly difficult to read. Interface elements that are marginalized can be hard to hunt down if the user doesn't know where to look.
4) It's inconsistent. Some programs hide buttons and scroll bars, some do not. Some use vastly different elements for simple actions such as "close window" so that the user is left guessing at the function of a UI element.
My prediction is that in a few years, "flat" will look as equally dated as skeuomorphism does now.
"Desktop market share" is interesting in a fashion. But what percentage of people actually /use/ a desktop for most of their work? Does reading email and a browser on your phone not count. Considering that's all most people actually do with a computer, I think it's disingenuous to present statistics for "desktops" without additional information about how people actually use their computing devices these days. What happens to these numbers when you factor in tablets and phones?
They'd be doing with Windows what Google is doing with Android. Get with the times. Offer it for free and people will fight for your updates. Then load it with all your bloatware like Internet Explorer and such, and use that bloatware to steal their info from end user license agreements. Honestly how the hell have they not figured this out by now?
If someone can't look cool inside of a Starbucks coffee shop with your product, they aren't going to pay for it.
XP is a 14 year old OS, that was first "replaced" 7 years ago.
Since then, MS has had four major "upgrades."
Yet, in spite of MS's greatest arm twisting efforts, 25% still hang on to XP.
These stats tell me that MS OSes have totally sucked for the last 7 years.
How? Are people switching to Mac OS X 10.9 or Linux? I am missing something.
Simple , I am in a real world where we have work to do in the company.
In August 2014 , my desk at work is win 7 pro with XP mode. Win7 is set to legacy mode ( XP look with no fla fla) I still need XP mode for legacy application that I can't run in 7.
In labs we are still 90% XP because we need to interface instrument and hardware that doesn't follow fashion (machine tooling and optical inspection instruments). I still have a critical win2000 machine working 24/7/365 in environment control. We are slowly moving old stuff (apps and hardware) to win7 on new hardware. All new machine we buy are set to corporate win7 with downgrade right. I haven't seen a single win8/8.1 machine yet and it is not surprising considering corporate IT troubles to assimilate that.
Also problem rising at work is not much the OS but the Office suite that continue to degrade since Office2003. Now we have Office365 (office2013) which is even worst and force your in your troat the cloud ( Nightmare for controlling ITAR and intellectual property documents...) . This was apparently a smart idea from the corporate headquarter !!! Now it is more and more difficult to work with that office suit with this constant loss of usability. This ribbon and cloud shit as even contaminated Matlab and other application where the usable menu user interface is destroyed and where the help files are on clouds and not local. Now try to work with a slow network...
At home I have win7 for few portable and for game computer. I have win8.1 in a VM that I boot one or two time a month to see updates & patches then I shutdown... I used to have linux in a VM ( yes that game OS where the objective of the game is to install it ! ) but I don't have the time to waste anymore. ... I know all of them and I know What I am talking about...
I have a Mac that stays at 10.6 (I will not free upgrade to the cloud shit) for browsing
Now I see that Win7 is almost gone if you want to buy a new portable and you are stuck with win8. Some Lenovo can be ordered with 7 but few. I don't know about Dell. I guess that Win8 will eventually win by lack of alternative for replacement of old hardware as they die...
I do not fear for Microsoft since they still suck huge money from company to OS volume licensing and Office. I just wish that they let us work...
Dann
Almost all modern games offer DX11 rendering path nowadays, often with massive graphical improvements. Quite a few AAA titles no longer offer DX9 rendering path, which means that you can't even run them on XP any more.
Latter is what forced me to upgrade - I wanted to play BF3.
Which is why essentially all games that run on both XP and 7 list system requirements in the following fashion:
XP: X gigs of RAM.
7: X+1 gigs of RAM.
Clearly, they're hating on 7. It's not like it has a massively larger system overhead. Honest!
Both XP and 7 grab about 500 megs of RAM on startup.
That's really not bad news for MS. Windows 9 will come out next year and as soon as it does, itwill be shoved onto all new manufactured machines and so while not that many people will have Windows 8, they'll still have Windows 9.
From a programmer to another - get over it. That's how Windows has always been. You can't expect a seamless transition from one version of software to another regardless of program unless we're talking calc or something else ridiculous like notepad. I know how you feel - I recently upgraded to Photoshop CS5 and although the interface is the same, the simplest of tasks like dragging a file from explorer onto PS no longer instantly creates it in its own new image file, and it's stupid, but i got over it.
I do not think that is even close to being accurate.
System requirements for XP are 64MB RAM minimum and 128MB RAM recommended.
System requirements for Win7 are 1GB RAM minimum and 2GB RAM recommended.
I have tried it myself.
Less overhead than 7? Give me a break. The driver model is so much more efficient for Windows 7/8 that using another 500MB of RAM is meaningless. Unless you're a impoverished third world child an extra 500MB of RAM won't break the bank at about $5.
Windows XP is not "Efficient" it's just obsolete. Most of the increased memory usage and "overhead" in 7/8 is just intelligent memory management and pre-caching. It's not wasteful, it's smart. What's really wasteful is having 16GB of RAM just sitting there unused sucking up electricity not giving you any benefit.
MS has a history of not giving users options when it comes to customizing the UI. Windows 7 no second taskbar option for dual monitor or panorama wallpaper setup. MS should have given the users the option to disable either metro or the old start menu(that runs apps with windows frame).
MS are being nervous idiots and they pretty much ruined windows 8.1 with the update 1 it looks and feels like a crappy linux UI now. There was nothing wrong with the bottom option slider thing when you right clicked on the metro tiles to modify them, but now we have the context menu and app title bar for the metro which feel out of place. And MS did not give the user the option to disable these new features. I have seen the new start menu with metro tiles integrated and it looks horrible.
Just give the user the option to switch between the old and the new start menu and that's it.
MS should dump W8 and offer a free upgrade to Windows 7 to all W8 users along with a public apology to humanity for inflicting the Charms Bar and Tile Screen upon us. How many man hours have been lost in people desperately trying to get back to doing their work following yet another spurious, sudden and randomly triggered interruption by the Charms Bar or Tile Screen and the hours of google searches such as "How to disable the charms bar" and "how to uninstall the tile screen" and "how to install the start button", all of which are basically "How do I switch back to Windows 7?".
Selling land on the moon is >>> that way.
When looking at an icon/button with a flat edge vs. one with a beveled edge, the beveled edge gives the impression that the clickable area itself is smaller. This wasn't an issue with a cursor, but for touch you want the biggest possible touch areas for items without looking goofy. While its true that the area itself isn't really smaller, making it appear smaller makes people more hesitant with their presses which subconciously makes the UI feel 'slower.' I beleive this is why companies have migrated to the flat look.
Clearly, you have not actually tried that. Even at launch, XP on 128MB was painful. Last time I tried it (about a year ago) XP (fully patched) on 512MB still required plenty of swapping.
For what it's worth, I've been running a media player (no AV, minimal overhead) on 1GB and 7 x64. It wasn't until last month's updates when it finally showed signs of insufficient RAM.
My guess is those numbers are for the x64 version, which does use more RAM.
It takes pants on the head kind of crazy to make up reasons like these just to justify one's convictions.