Originally Posted by coachmark2
1. It took Windows 8 less than a year to go from 0 to exceed EVERY Apple Mac in existence. No small achievement.
2. Mac OSX is dropping.
3. YEAH WINDOWS VISTA!!!
4. If Windows 8 is gaining and other versions are holding steady, something's losing. In this case it's Mac OS and Linux
I personally believe that Windows 8 is being adopted as quickly as it is because it is being forced onto unsuspecting and unwanting users by OEM manufacturers. The average computer user doesn't know anything about installing Windows, and wouldn't make an OS change even if they didn't like Windows 8. Recently, I was talking to a computer tech guy who knows several MicroCenter employees. He told me that while in experience they know that Windows 8 is no good and that many of their customers don't like it, that they were told by management that they couldn't say anything bad about Windows 8, and that they had to sell Windows 8 hard and strong or they would be fired.
Originally Posted by KSIMP88
Originally Posted by farmdve
A friend of mine who is very good with computers and electronics downgraded from 7 back to XP since he didn't like that it was dumbed down and several features were missing entirely.
No, he is not very good with computers. Obviously.
And you keep blaming other people for making biased, unsubstantiated statements.
Have you met the guy? Seriously, his preference for Windows XP does not
mean he's not good with computers. You know, I have to agree with him that compared to XP, Windows 7 does feel a tad “dumbed down”—and Windows 8 continues this tradition much further! Anyway, Windows XP was a terrific OS in its day. I seriously doubt that Microsoft will ever be able to get back an 80% market share for a single OS of theirs, like XP did for them. You may have seen my huge list of complaints about Windows 8. What you don't know is that I also have a notable list of complaints about Windows 7. The difference for me is that on modern equipment, the performance and stability improvements in Windows 7 (from XP) outweigh the additional annoyances that I have to put up with. However, I propose that Windows XP SP3 is still
the least annoying OS that Microsoft has written to date.
FWIW, I've got a couple of old (like Pentium 4 or slower) computers running XP performing remote audio and webcam services. My audio sharing program uses RAM to store Opus audio
for several hours of audio history. I would never
consider upgrading these computers even to Windows 7, because it uses so much more RAM (less RAM for my audio history) and it can't stay still. In these computers with XP, the system HDD is off most of the time and is waken by Windows for just a few minutes a couple of times a day. From Windows Vista and onward, Windows just can't stay still and do nothing when there's nothing to do. It's always pecking around and waking the HDD. All of these computers boot XP in under 30 seconds. I just looked, and one has only 12 system process running in the background, totaling only 130 MB of RAM! The other processes are all mine, and the rest of the RAM is either used by them, or is free.
Originally Posted by mott555
Let's see. Windows Vista gained 0.09% market share. I actually just deployed a new Vista system, and I think it's a safe assumption that I'm the only one who did so. So I'm that 0.09%. So if 1 user is 0.09 out of 5.3, then 5.3/0.09 gives the total number of Vista users. 5.3/0.09 = 58.9. So probably 58 PC's and a pair of old underpowered Atom netbooks for the 0.9.
And I've got two
of those “58” Vista PCs here.
You know where they get those statistics from? Web traffic. So if I spend too much time surfing the web and posting on OCN, that number goes up.
Originally Posted by ImmortalKenny
Well right, that's a given. OSX shouldn't support .NET.
It's like saying Windows isn't compatible with anything because it doesn't have Xcode and Objective-C support.
Windows shouldn't support .NET either. I believe that .NET is one of Microsoft's biggest mistakes. It is slow and is basically another OS (400+ MB full install) on top of Windows, for all those programmers who simply couldn't figure out how to write Windows applications. I'm glad that Steve Ballmer, the main proponent of .NET, is finally leaving Microsoft—because of this
. This may be a shocker to some of you, but I'm still writing VB6 applications. I haven't upgraded in ~14 years because we're stuck with .NET in VB now. Time and time again, I'll download some simple free .NET program, run it—and wait. After so long, up comes a simplistic UI. Well I can write a VB6 program that shows an identical UI and could get many of them on the screen in the same amount of time! And when I need additional functionality, I simply use native Windows APIs. Also, .NET programs frequently are very sluggish to respond to the user's input compared to what I can write in VB6.
Originally Posted by Schoat333
Anyone that knocks OSX without even trying it is just selling them self short. Its a really great experience and OS. That said, the fact that MAC are so expensive obviously drive people away.
My work pc was recently upgraded. It has a W8 sticker on it, but has been wiped and XP has been installed, since we are behind the times. I wonder if those sales count as W8?
Good for you! Someone who is actually willing to take the time and effort to get what they want, instead of taking what's forced on them.
To answer your question: Yes, it counts as a sale of Windows 8. No, it won't get counted in the market share data because you're no longer using it, and those statistics are collected by web browsing statistics. Every time your web browser connects to a webserver to download a page, script, or image, it tells the webserver who it is, what version it is, what OS you have, and what version your OS is (see httpuseragent.org
for more information).