Windows 7 Increases Lead Over XP in October

[CaedenV]

[citation][nom]fuzzion[/nom]So let me use logic hereIf XP = Win 7 Vista = Win 8Then Win 9 must = Awesome[/citation]
*sigh* Is this the crap people still believe?

pre win3.1... there is a reason you never heard of it, they all sucked
3.1 acceptable at the time, but not an OS 'for the masses'
-Split into a pro/business line and a home user product line

Home user product line:
win95 relative failure due to new interface and dev tools, but it did bring computers from the workplace into the home, so it was transformitave no matter how bad it actuially was
win98 OK at launch, but win98SE was awesome
winME sucked so hard it ended the product line

Business product line:
Win NT4: better than win3.1, but not exactly a success. Many businesses moved to win95/98 because they were easier to use.
Win 2000 (win5): Huge success, first time the pro version useful at work and at home
WinXP: rough start, people hated the new 'cartooney' interface and steep hardware requirements for its day, but the security advantages and hardware support from SP2 made people migrate. People remember post SP2 fondly and forget the relatively rough beginnings it had. XP was not so popular because it was particularly good as much as that it was the first (and only) OS to be sold for a solid 7 years where other versions were sold for only 2-3 years.
winVista: yep... that was rough. OS itself was generally fine, issue was the transition to a new driver model, bloat of the new interface, and growing pains moving to 64bit architecture.
win7: huge success selling roughly as many copies as XP, but with 1/2 the time to do it. Literally the same as Vista but with proper drivers, passing the 64bit hurtles, hardware acceleration to get past some of the OS bloat, and hardware in general caught up to what the OS and programs required, specifically in ram usage.


So what does this tell you? Pre 2000, windows only had 1 success in win98/98SE, one 'acceptable' OS in win 3.1 that got the ball rolling, and a slew of products that were so-so or just bad. They only survived because there was nothing else available. After 2000 everything they made (on the OS front) has been OK or great with the single exception of Vista which was more of a 3rd party issue than an OS issue... but a failure none the less.

Win8 is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it is not the next 'Vista' either. It is more like win95. It is a re-education on how to interact more directly with your computing device... but without all the instability and security issues that win95 brought to the plate. Win8's changes had to happen to better support new interfaces (though they still have not gotten speech support right), and cloud services. It is not perfect, but I think people are missing just how transformative these 2 major changes will be to the tech industry.

At any rate: Thinking that only 'every other OS is good' only shows your own ignorance.

 

[dgingeri]

This is kind of a "duh" thing. Yeah, of course Windows XP is losing user market share. It's old. There are computers coming out that don't support it. Windows 7 was, up until very recently, the next step. Honestly, as a support tech, I'm kind of annoyed people haven't been migrating off it more rapidly.

As for Windows 8, I've been using it since it hit MSDN, and I really like it. It does take some getting used to, and I do miss some things about Windows 7, like the clock in the bottom right corner. Programming a mouse button to bring up the start screen was the smartest thing I did. Overall, though, it is a really good OS. It works as well as Windows 7 in most cases, and better in some. Once you try it out, you'll understand. It's kind of like some foods, it may smell bad and look bad, but once you try it out, you realize it's really good.

 

[bystander]

[citation][nom]JustPosting66[/nom]Wait, wait wait! Didn't Tom's just post an article last week that claimed that Windows XP was at some BS figure like 12% or something? Now Tom's is posting the correct ratios....?Man this site confuses the hell out of me sometimes.[/citation]
It's quite possible they used a Steam survey last time, which will include mostly home users who game at least some.

This one includes everyone, including the business world. They are far slower to move to new OS's than home users and gamers.

 

[bystander]

[citation][nom]clownbaby[/nom]why is this a surprise? Win XP support is about to drop and many many companies are upgrading to 7, which is the logical choice because it's an establishes OS. Besides, windows 8 offers little for the business world. Microsoft would be smart to create a separate OS for the professional world instead of this silly, "app" driven, mickey mouse interface, suburban, ignorant consumer oriented Windows 8 garbage.[/citation]
From my experience, office users should care less about UI changes. They tend to use 1-3 apps, which have shortcuts and that's it. Teach them how to open their program and then they can ignore any changes. The IT department are the ones who would care about change.

 

[Guest]

CaedenV:

" Win8's changes had to happen to better support new interfaces (though they still have not gotten speech support right), and cloud services. It is not perfect, but I think people are missing just how transformative these 2 major changes will be to the tech industry.

At any rate: Thinking that only 'every other OS is good' only shows your own ignorance."


Sounds to me like you're forgetting history a little bit. Win 3.0/3.1/3.11 was a great success for MS at the time. It found it's way into not just businesses, but homes everywhere as well.

Windows 95 was another great success once it was patched to Win 95B, but had a hard start when it was first released.

Windows 98 A, or OEM never was a great success. Windows 98SE was a huge success.

Windows 2000 never really made it into home use, it was relegated to some office use and was successful as an upgrade to NT 3.5 and 4 machines. NT 4 never made it out of server closets as it was far too unstable.

Windows XP had a lot of problems at launch, but it soon gained the user base that windows 7 has now in about the same amount of time. Beginning with SP2, the "masses" adopted XP for everything.

Vista never really got off the ground. It hit somewhere around 10% and then fell.

Windows 7 was released with meh fan fair. Especially after it was discovered that it was nothing more than a patched Vista and and not MinWin, which it was originally supposed to be. The Def. for MinWin was changed and no longer exists as it did btw. Windows 7 is only now being adopted into the business community after SP1 and because MS is killing support for it. If MS were to support XP longer, business would not switch. For the home user, they don't have much choice either. If they want DX 11 support, or to play some for the newer games, they need Windows 7 or Vista. This is why Window 7 is "only" at ~40% and just surpassed XP.

And yes, it does seem the MS releases a decent OS in the public opinion "every other OS"

Also claiming that Windows 8 "had" to happen is total BS. I for one, don't want a stupid tile interface that a three year old can use on a desktop workstation. Tried Winblows 8, hate it. It NEVER had to happen.

 

[kyee7k]

Just moved over to Vista SP2 from XP SP3 and it's not as bad as others have made it to be. I know it's not Windows 7 or 8, but at least it's not as unstable as XP and the home premium full retail version is around $60 on ebay, so I'm surprised and happy.

 

[bystander]

[citation][nom]Justposting67[/nom] And yes, it does seem the MS releases a decent OS in the public opinion "every other OS"[/citation]

There are two reasons for this, from what I can see:
1) Microsoft seems to want to release a new OS every 2-3 years. IMO, this is faster than I care to change, but they could be doing it because of...
2) Much of the time, a new OS has major internal changes, which are needed for security reasons, or in this case, uniformity reasons.

The problem is, people don't like change, and in the case of major changes in the past, the problem was the hardware manufacturers had to support the new OS on old hardware with new drivers systems they didn't fully understand or tested resulting in driver issues that people blamed on the OS. Vista also had a second problem, they predicted more RAM would be available at good prices than there was when it was released.

Win 8 had to happen for touch devices, and it will eventually have to happen with desktops too. These changes are part of their future plans and the direction that the future is heading. If you don't want to make that change now, because you don't have one of these new Win 8 tablets or phones, and are happy with Win 7, you don't have to buy Win 8 as Win 7 is still supported.

 

[bystander]

[citation][nom]kyee7k[/nom]Just moved over to Vista SP2 from XP SP3 and it's not as bad as others have made it to be. I know it's not Windows 7 or 8, but at least it's not as unstable as XP and the home premium full retail version is around $60 on ebay, so I'm surprised and happy.[/citation]
There was nothing wrong with Vista, once the hardware companies got their drivers in order, and if you had enough RAM. Neither are an issue today.

 

[JOSHSKORN]

Might be a while before anything after Windows 7 beats Windows 7.

 

[mas]

If one stops to think about it, this article illustrates one of the most absurd situations imaginable.

We are still talking about whether MS can provide an environment sufficient to allow folks to move their legacy apps to a new OS without experiencing undue difficulties????

And it will be a LONG time before I move to anything beyond Windows7 in addition to the systems I must still sadly keep on XP

Sorry, but I am too busy laughing to type any more...

 

[tomfreak]

[citation][nom]bystander[/nom]There are two reasons for this, from what I can see:1) Microsoft seems to want to release a new OS every 2-3 years. IMO, this is faster than I care to change, but they could be doing it because of...2) Much of the time, a new OS has major internal changes, which are needed for security reasons, or in this case, uniformity reasons. The problem is, people don't like change, and in the case of major changes in the past, the problem was the hardware manufacturers had to support the new OS on old hardware with new drivers systems they didn't fully understand or tested resulting in driver issues that people blamed on the OS. Vista also had a second problem, they predicted more RAM would be available at good prices than there was when it was released.Win 8 had to happen for touch devices, and it will eventually have to happen with desktops too. These changes are part of their future plans and the direction that the future is heading. If you don't want to make that change now, because you don't have one of these new Win 8 tablets or phones, and are happy with Win 7, you don't have to buy Win 8 as Win 7 is still supported.[/citation]exactly. I am not surprise that someday LCD company will release a desktop touch screen that lay horizontally replacing my keyboard.(may be mouse as well) .Startrek computer?

 

[jonjonjon]

haha good luck getting those windows xp & 7 users to update to windows 8 or any os with a metro touchscreen UI. 10 years after xp and they still cant convince people to upgrade from xp to windows 7 which IMO is better. i can see it now in 10 years windows 7 will have 50+% OS market as windows 8 fails.

 

[spare_flash]

You'd be a little mad not to seriously consider the upgrade offer. If you thin it's pants, you can always uninstall. But if you end up getting used to it, then you extend yourcomputer's life a little longert for $chea.

 

[spare_flash]

And i've upgraded one f my home PCs to 8 and having a bit of fun trying to locate everything. But I'm getting there. So I bought several copies Vista Business for $NZ30 each (about $US25) full retail on eBay,and now with the upgrade offer I've got a great multiscreen experience with Win8. Total $nz80 or about US$66. Sweet.