Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Desktops (Apple) Microsoft Operating Systems Windows Apple

Windows 7 Overtakes XP, OSX Struggles To Beat Vista 540

Posted by samzenpus
from the top-of-the-list dept.
judgecorp writes "Latest market share figures show the difference between perception and reality. Windows 7 just nudged past Windows XP with both around the the 43 percent mark. OS X and Windows Vista divide the rest of the spoils, with all versions of OS X only just adding up to a little more than the failed Windows version, according to data from Netmarketshare."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows 7 Overtakes XP, OSX Struggles To Beat Vista

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 03, 2012 @09:33AM (#41212935)

    "Not everyone has the money to buy them. Sad, for them."

    That's the kind of dumb, elitist comment that shows what a tool you are. Perhaps people don't see the point in paying extortionist fees for an OS and hardware that doesn't do anything that their current OS does and is typically of lesser performance.

  • Flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Missing.Matter (1845576) on Monday September 03, 2012 @09:34AM (#41212941)
    Is it just me, or are more and more blatant flamebait stories reaching the front page recently? What actual relevant, meaningful news is contained in this story?

    Seriously, why not go full on flame and top it off with a comment on Linux's desktop share, so we can include them in the flamefest that's sure to follow? Or I guess maybe I just did that for you... you're welcome Slashdot editors.
  • by 0100010001010011 (652467) on Monday September 03, 2012 @09:36AM (#41212953)

    Meanwhile Porsche and BMW 'have' to split the rest of the vehicles.

    Apple is rich. As in very, very, very rich. Something tells me they really don't care.

  • by ciderbrew (1860166) on Monday September 03, 2012 @09:37AM (#41212959)
    Apple also has no "non over-priced" products. I'm so bored of the what OS is better. It's a pile of files. The software you need to use is the real reason you use a computer, not because you want to use an OS. All marketing "make a demographic" back when software was in its infancy bullshit. I've got windows7 and do very little windowing.
  • by sandytaru (1158959) on Monday September 03, 2012 @09:41AM (#41212987) Journal
    My office is no longer putting XP systems out there - any system running XP that is brought into the shop is now automatically replaced as a matter of policy (for our business clients.) Sometimes we have to twist their arms, but frankly, we've got a deadline in 2014 and we're going to make our clients meet it whether they want to or not. XP market share is likely to plummet rapidly in the next 2-3 years.
  • by vlm (69642) on Monday September 03, 2012 @09:44AM (#41213019)

    Are there games requiring windows 7 yet?

    I upgraded from 98 to 2000 because second life required 2000
    I upgraded from 2000 to XP but I don't remember which game wouldn't work on 2000 but did on XP
    I'll upgrade from XP to ... 7? when I find a game I want requiring windows 7.... I have not run into one yet, but I'm sure it'll happen someday?

    I only upgraded to the most recent service pack of XP when I recently got the couple years old GTA IV.

    For all other activities I use my linux and mac machines, the windows PC is just for gaming.

  • trolling (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jbolden (176878) on Monday September 03, 2012 @09:44AM (#41213021) Homepage

    I have some questions about both the data and the summary.

    In the July to August time frame the data has 1% of the users moving to "other". I'm assuming that 1% is some mixture of Windows 8 and OSX 10.8 betas because I can't think of any other big events that happened between July and August. Which means the math is likely off in the summary.

    As an aside in the source data I have problems OSX being well above 8% (now at 12%) of sales and the figure for market share being around 6-7%. I'd love to see some breakdown that explicates the discrepancy between sales figures and usage figures when they show up, because they are rather common.

  • by Zimluura (2543412) on Monday September 03, 2012 @09:49AM (#41213063)

    I think that the idea of an OS being able to be "beautiful" is sort or wonky. There is no reason such an interface couldn't run on winXP, win2k, or even somewhat in NT4, all you really need is the opengl support in the OS & drivers and you can do nifty things with alpha channel.

    I'm also not convinced apple hardware is actually high quality, it's just that their os will only install on their hardware. apple is basically like a crossbreed between dell & microsoft, and this lets them charge premium prices on their run-of-the-mill hardware because their os won't install on other (less expensive, perhaps higher quality) intel hardware.

  • by hazydave (96747) on Monday September 03, 2012 @09:56AM (#41213135)

    MacOS X is a taste, that's all -- neither better nor worse for everyone. Your preference.

    My 18 year old daughter has had full exposure to both Windows and MacOS X; the Windows PC on her desktop, the MacBook Pro was a loaner for the last two years at High School, part of a Communications specialty program.

    When it came time for a laptop for college, she wanted Windows. She's no computer expert, just a regular user, doing everyday stuff: games, word processing, photos, internet. And video... she liked video editing on the PC better. Largely because her Mac was just terrible at it. It didn't handle native video editing from her AVCHD camcorder, while her Windows PC did, easily. She did all her editing on the Mac in either DV (which worked dandy in any Windows editor back in the 90s) or in Apple's "iFrame" format, which is basically a chopped down qHD (960x540), I-Frame only. This is the format Apple actually "invented", since they couldn't deal with actual HD video, other than to transcode to ProRes, which they only support in Final Cut Pro (she ran Final Cut Express on the Mac).

    Tragically, the school she just went off to (Montclair University) is still using Final Cut Pro in their Broadcasting department, so they strongly recommended a Mac PC. I had found a great 3rd generation i7-based laptop from Asus: metal casework, four USB 3.0, 8GB RAM, 750GB HDD, 1920x1080 display, separate graphics, etc. for $1100. Having to switch to a Mac, I manged to find a slower 2nd generation i7, only two USB 2.0 + Thunderbolt (good idea, but currently fairly useless), 4GB RAM, 1600x900 display, slower separate graphics, 750GB HDD, etc. for "only" $1800. That was a factory-refurbished model (this the "discount" price), and they screwed up and delivered an 8GB unit. But seriously -- you're paying twice as much just to get MacOS. Plus, add-in the $100 extra to put Windows on the system, and, well... have to wait on that new electric guitar.

    Apple makes decent hardware. But so do many other companies -- after all, cool casework has been about the only innovation in personal computers for the last 10 years; everything else has been predictable, incremental growth. Apple's well known to be making 5x as much profit per PC shipped as just about anyone else. If you must have MacOS, it's the price you pay, but there's no basis for any technical belief Apple's making a superior product, HW or OS.

  • by BasilBrush (643681) on Monday September 03, 2012 @10:04AM (#41213197)

    Native software will always have significant advantages over web apps. That being the case there's no reason to assume we'll ever do everything via the browser.

    Universal thin clients is as old and unfullfilled a prediction as "The year of Linux on the desktop". And you think Microsoft's vision of the future adds any weight? Ha ha.

  • by gl4ss (559668) on Monday September 03, 2012 @10:05AM (#41213209) Homepage Journal

    wtf is mojo? osx is horrible mishmash of ui elements tacked on one after another nowadays. launchpad? shit. widget screen? shit(and apple has widgets on it's library which just lockup the whole thing). high dpi support? in osx it's a fucking joke, it's beyond shit(it doesn't exist! it's a myth! that's why the retina macs have to resort to just doubling legacy apps without even asking the user in any way if he wants that)! ui menus detached from apps on a big screen? shit(having no idea which programs menu is there without looking there negates the advantage of it being always in the same place, and really on a 30" inch monitor do you really want the menu to be three light years away from the actual application it affects?`no.). the taskbar replacement-shitdock? it's shit too, the bubble effect is a nice ui demo but that's it(the indicator for if a program is on is a joke too). - what's more, it's not intuitive at all! there's dozens of things in osx you just have to know, half the users don't even know wtf launchpad is.

    7 is where it's at, doesn't get in the way, menus don't get lost. and hey even gimp managed to now get with the program on it's windows port so it's subwindows don't get lost all over the place. it's just clean ui like a good afterstep installation.

  • by wa2flq (313837) on Monday September 03, 2012 @10:08AM (#41213231)

    "Not everyone has the money to buy them. Sad, for them."

    Most of us on the other hand don't have the Time or Money to waste trying to use, fix and secure Redmond's pathetic products.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_economy [wikipedia.org]

  • by BasilBrush (643681) on Monday September 03, 2012 @10:13AM (#41213265)

    There is no reason such an interface couldn't run on winXP, win2k, or even somewhat in NT4, all you really need is the opengl support in the OS & drivers and you can do nifty things with alpha channel.

    It's not a matter of technicals, it's a matter of taste and UI design expertise. Microsoft doesn't have any taste, and the Linux community lacks UI design expertise.

  • by Sir_Sri (199544) on Monday September 03, 2012 @10:16AM (#41213287)

    probably the same as everyone else, that windows 7 will get the job done until someone in microsoft picks a single design and sticks with it for windows 9.

  • Options (Score:4, Insightful)

    by amoeba1911 (978485) on Monday September 03, 2012 @10:17AM (#41213289) Homepage

    Some businesses will keep using Windows XP because there are always factory floor computers that simply are a pain in the ass to upgrade - for all practical purposes it's impossible to upgrade, and the OS will get updated only when the old hardware gets dumped and they get a new computer... and that might never happen because factory managers are not likely to invest in fixing something that's not broken.

    And there are personal users who use their computer entirely for facebook/email - they really don't care if their OS supports the latest industry standard features or not. Expect those to be still using windows xp, and maybe eventually switch to an internet appliance device (like ipad) and get rid of the computer altogether. For a great majority of people out there, an ipad does everything they expect from a computer: browse facebook, write email, play farmville. Remember it was only 20 years ago that computers still were not a household item, computers were for geeks. The computer became mainstream only because it started appealing to the dumb masses, it's not because all of a sudden there's a surge in computer geek population. It will eventually go back to what it was - computers one day will return to being a geeky thing, and general population will move to using locked-down internet appliances instead of general purpose computing devices.

    As for me, I would rather use a decade old general purpose computer rather than an iPad. I would rather use Linux than OS X. I used computers before they were cool, and I will use computers after they stop being cool. I am the minority, I am a geek. Internet used to be a place where we could find like-minded people, but now it's eternal September [wikipedia.org].

  • by RazorSharp (1418697) on Monday September 03, 2012 @10:18AM (#41213295)

    But seriously -- you're paying twice as much just to get MacOS.

    This is something I have to explain over and over: OS X is nice, but I pay twice as much for the trackpad. I can't use a non-Mac laptop without plugging in a mouse.

  • by Cute Fuzzy Bunny (2234232) on Monday September 03, 2012 @10:40AM (#41213497)

    Apple also has no "non over-priced" products. I'm so bored of the what OS is better. It's a pile of files. The software you need to use is the real reason you use a computer, not because you want to use an OS. All marketing "make a demographic" back when software was in its infancy bullshit. I've got windows7 and do very little windowing.

    Whats funny is that 99% of people spend 99% of their time in an application, not sitting in the operating system. Although I'm fully prepared to argue that I've used every major operating system produced in the last 20 years...and they're all pretty much the freaking same once you spend 3 days on it and get used to it.

    So sitting in safari on a mac vs chrome on windows. Office apps on a mac vs office apps on windows. Any difference at all? Really? I guess at that point you get reduced to claiming that only an apple trackpad suits you. It doesn't really, but its a fairly pathetic thing to cling to as a last ditch effort to justify the higher cost.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 03, 2012 @10:45AM (#41213549)

    Hardware-wise, Macs are 2 generations behind. Apple's not even trying in the desktop market.

  • by fermion (181285) on Monday September 03, 2012 @10:50AM (#41213607) Homepage Journal
    Not everyone can afford a 52" LCD TV. Not everyone can afford a Mercedes GLK. Not everyone can afford a french door stainless steel refrigerator.

    The median family in the US make around $50K or less a year, while the median house is more in the range of $200K. This means the median family cannot afford the median house.

    Perhaps a quarter of homes do not have a computer, so is it elitist for those of who can own a computer to so do?

    What one has depends on two variables: what one can earn and how one allocated the resources. When I was a kid i did not have a nice pair of jeans or a pair of Jordans but I did have an Apple computer. The only reason this sounds elitist is that so many people think these highly popular consumer products are an entitlement. It is like parents clamoring that a toy has been sold out for christmas. I know kids are very demanding but really. We should have some perspective here. There are all sorts of thing we cannot afford or cannot have. Life goes on.

    What is elitist is thinking not being able to afford a Mac is the most critical problem one has.

  • by atriusofbricia (686672) on Monday September 03, 2012 @10:54AM (#41213637) Journal

    Slashdot community, how is an anti-Apple post rated 5 Insightful, and an Apple defence post rated 0 Troll?

    While not being sure as to which posts you're referring to, it might have something to do with Apple acting like a bunch of egotistical asses for the last few years (more so than usual).

  • by ColdWetDog (752185) on Monday September 03, 2012 @11:02AM (#41213711) Homepage

    The problem with your analysis is that you've put the cart before the horse. Or, more accurately, the OS before the applications.

    Your friend wants to run Adobe stuff. It runs on either OS X or Windows. She has the Windows versions. She is price sensitive. She has no major beef with her current application loader (er, OS).

    Yep, the no brainer advice is to keep her on the Windows platform. Because of the apps. (As an aside, it's a moderate PITA to switch out operating systems for Adobe Creative Suite products. Totally amazing here in the 21st Century, but there you have it.)

    But good luck finding a Dell that actually competes with an Air in terms of wieght, size and performance. Of course, if she's doing video, then she does not want an Air - she wants a fairly beefy high end laptop. A laptop that is sold by Apple, Dell, Asus, Lenovo, probably HP and bog knows who else. Your best technical advise to here would be 'you want something with a bit more horsepower than an Air - here are a bunch of choices.

    The OS is a minor issue.

  • by Osgeld (1900440) on Monday September 03, 2012 @12:07PM (#41214335)

    yea your paying 1000$ extra for a slower machine than the walmart box

    not all of us are looking for the prettiest computer, the nicest tennis shoes and the blingiest bling

  • Re:Flamebait (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jedidiah (1196) on Monday September 03, 2012 @01:03PM (#41214839) Homepage

    I dunno. Apple and it's users seem entirely full of themselves. It's nice to put things into perspective and point out how Apple is occassionally a failure. It's not infallible. It has some rather spectacular failures to it's name and it yet may lose the current platform war. There's precedent for it.

  • by icebraining (1313345) on Monday September 03, 2012 @04:33PM (#41216445) Homepage

    True, but the patent abuse is more than enough to justify not buying anything from Apple. Or Microsoft, for that matter.

  • by Cruciform (42896) on Monday September 03, 2012 @05:13PM (#41216819) Homepage

    "half of what people want"

    A web browser? To *most* people a computer is just another appliance, like a toaster. It might have a few more features, but in the end they want it for a limited set of tasks. Browsing the web, editing photos, collecting/serving media, and a handful of other tools.

    Windows, Linux, OSX all have these tools. It's merely a matter of preference now.

Physician: One upon whom we set our hopes when ill and our dogs when well. -- Ambrose Bierce

Working...