Windows 7 settles as Windows XP use finally starts to slip … a bit Windows XP lost nearly one per cent of global market share during August, according to both Netmarketshare and StatCounter, but there's not been a corresponding bounce in the prevalence of other Microsoft operating systems. The Reg has been tracking the two OS-counters for 11 months now and during that time Netmarketshare has …
They really should be separated because Windows 8.0 is the one that receives only security updates while Windows 8.1 is the one that receives massive feature updates. 8.0's platform is relatively stable and won't change, while 8.1 is more of a moving target, an important factor to consider in an enterprise ecosystem. Of course, that last point is probably why you'll see Windows 7 in enterprise environments for years to come, Metro Windows 8 App Windows Store App "Modern" UI aside.
@localzuk & @Ken Hagan:
You're both right - I was under the (wrong) belief that Windows 8.0 was going to be supported with security patches until 2023. 8.1 is treated identically to Windows 8 Service Pack 1, Service Pack 2, etc. and will cause the official death of 8.0 in 2016. There went my justification for separating the two.
And given that 8.1 is a moving target, it seems just about pointless to try to standardize an enterprise environment that requires stability on any version of Windows 8.
It actually makes sense to separate 8.0 from 8.1, as MS provided no service pack updated path via Windows Update; unlike XP. Remember to update from 8.0 the user has to visit the Store etc. etc. Once on 8.1 they will automatically be updated to 8.1u1 via Windows Update.
So what the 8.0 figure represents is the early adopters who have for various reasons decided not to update to 8.1 and hence will fall off support in January 2016, unlike the users of 8.1.
I currently have Windows Phone 8, and I can't upgrade to 8.1. It's not available, in the app store or anywhere else.
So don't let anyone tell you it's users' decision not to upgrade. It's Microsoft and Nokia who are screwing this pooch, in collaboration with certain mobile phone networks whose names may or may not begin with 'Voda-'.
Veti, raises an interesting and important point.
According to netmarketshare their desktop OS market share data (cited in the article) covers all versions of Windows, with no exceptions being given, which seem to indicate that it includes Windows 8 phone, unless there is a simple way of differentiating Windows 8 desktop from Windows 8 phone. So perhaps the Windows 8.n desktop market share is being over egged...
"According to netmarketshare their desktop OS market share data (cited in the article) covers all versions of Windows, with no exceptions being given, which seem to indicate that it includes Windows 8 phone..."
The key word is "Desktop". They have a separate list for mobile/tablet marketshare, in which the OS is specified as "Windows Phone OS 8.0" and "Windows Phone OS 8.1", so I can't imagine they would count them twice for both lists. The "Desktop" list might potentially include Windows tablets, but Windows isn't exactly a major player in that space, so it would only throw off the results by a very small amount. How the results are obtained would cause much more inaccuracy, which I touched on a couple posts up.
I'm on Win 8.0, and that's where it's staying.
No app crap, or any other tiley charmey rubbish. Just security updates thankyouverymuch.
The only reason that Win 8+ is creeping up at all is because it's almost impossible for your average punter to purchase a Win 7 box/laptop.
The only reason that Win 8+ is creeping up at all is because it's almost impossible for your average punter to purchase a Win 7 box/laptop.
Really? I've got a new laptop arriving this afternoon from a consumer oriented vendor, that offered me various flavours of Win 7 or 8 from a drop down list*. The prebuilt option of my machine even has 7 by default. Based on the various reviews I found prior to purchase they sell kit to many "average punters" - whatever one of those actually is.
*I chose 7. Obviously.
"Really? I've got a new laptop arriving this afternoon from a consumer oriented vendor, that offered me various flavours of Win 7 or 8 from a drop down list*"
I suspect that by "your average punter" he probably meant the type of person who will go to a shop and buy their computer off the shelf rather than confuse themselves with the options presented to them via drop down lists on a website.
"because they are considered totally separate Operating Systems as far as patching goes"
and yet MS also consider them to be the same OS for lifecycle purposes. (Win8 dies in a year or so.)
It is odd, though, that all the growth in Win8.x is happenning for x=1. Win8.0 is basically flatlining, with a hard code who were happy to jump into Metroland but not willing to adopt the almost imperceptible changes that came in the latest service pack.
>>not willing to adopt the almost imperceptible changes that came in the latest service pack<<
The search in 8.1 is shit compared to 8, that's a major pain to me as it was the way I launched everything that wasn't nailed to the start bar. Now I'm back to nosing around the program files folder to find things. With 8 you search Programs, settings or documents, in 8.1 it's keener on showing me links to websites than finding my programs.
I wouldn't call that almost imperceptible. I'd recommend 8 over 8.1 for precisely this reason.
"The search in 8.1 is shit compared to 8"
I find the search in Win 7 is shit compared to the two alternative methods in XP.
Either the search fror the Start menu which I rarely use, or, for me, preferably, the Search obtained from right-clicking on Start. Much more flexible, and it allows me to shorten the search time by starting in a specific level in the path.
Win 7 doesn't distinguish between programs or files, so give me a pile of crap which may or may not include what I really want to search for.
I reluctantly went to Win 7 as that was all that was available other than Win 8, but I still prefer using my XP machine. At least I can still find what I am after in the XP machine.
Finding the program I want is also a hell of a lot simpler in XP, as far as I am concerned.
The difference between 8 and 8.1 is more semantic or at least cosmetic, the boot to desktop (unless you have touch) makes it feel different from the switch on, start button, new apps etc.
But the same thing is true for Vista SP2 and Windows 7, Win 7 is basically Vista SP3, same code base (Vista is 6.0 Win 7 is 6.1), 7 just had some apps updated (IE), some of the admin pages moved (drivers) and some bits added for touch.
It makes sense to separate 8.0 and 8.1 if it makes sense to separate Vista and 7
Umm because Win 8.1 is to Win 8 as Windows 7 is to Vista. They removed stuff and added/improved stuff. Service patches generally only fix stuff which is there already - although you will probably point out many exceptions, (i.e. XP and a firewall - mind XP patches didn't remove stuff).
No, Win 8.1 is not to 8 as 7 was to Vista. Important difference: support end dates.
Vista runs out of "extended support" in 2017. Windows 7 support continues until 2020. Windows 8 and 8.1, both run to 2023.
And that's why I won't be buying a Windows 7 machine: nowadays, I expect a computer to last me more than five years. The hardware may be a little creaky, but my XP machine (bought in 2006) still runs Steam, Skyrim and every other app I care about. So long as I don't have to connect it to the internet (that's what tablets are for), I don't feel any great urgency to upgrade.
"It seems bizarre that you would separate those two versions"
It tells a story you may be missing. Around half the users of 8.x, have no idea, no clue, and no inclination to upgrade anything, to learn that 8.1 is actually better. Even I know this, and I hate 8.x.
And, it's only just *this last surveyed month* that 8.0 and 8.1 combined have overtaken XP. Which tells us, users would rather stick to XP, than risk what something higher would do to their productivity. I have a mechanic associate who uses an old XP laptop to program ECUs as part of his job, and when questioned, he said he'll have to upgrade sometime, but not right now. Because right now, he has work to do, and simply does not have the time to fuck around and learn something new.
He would be a prime candidate for 7, but 8? Are you kidding me?
8.0 and 8.1 arguably should be counted together for the purposes of the graphs here. It's a free update, and aside from the update method, it's not really very different from some of the relatively large changes made in service packs for prior Windows OSes.
HOWEVER, it should also be noted that it's extremely unlikely that both added together would reach anywhere remotely near the actual install base of active Windows XP systems. Remember that these numbers are derived from Internet stats based off trackers on certain public websites, so they're not going to include systems only accessible from internal networks, or those that see little to no web use. Additionally, the stats by Statcounter are based off total page views rather than unique visitors, so systems that see the most web browsing use, which tend to be consumer systems, will end up greatly overrepresented. Statcounter is also only used on around 2.5% of web sites, so it can't see the vast majority of the web. Meanwhile, Net Applications is installed on far fewer sites still, and it doesn't release much information on how it comes to its numbers, though they seem to be based more on estimates of unique systems rather than page views.
Neither web-tracking service is likely to be a particularly accurate way to measure the relative install-base of various operating systems though. They undoubtedly overrepresent certain geographic regions and demographics of users, while underrepresenting others. The best you can say is that within the sample obtained, these are the results they came to, but without knowing exactly what that sample consists of or what those methods are, the results are of limited use.
If you know the sampling method and demographic on the other hand, the results can be a lot more meaningful. For example, Steam's Hardware and Software Survey likely provides a reasonably good representation of systems in use by the core PC gaming market. In that case, approximately 60% are on Windows 7, 28% on Windows 8/8.1, 5% on Windows XP and 2.5% on Vista. Additionally there's around 3% on OSX and 1% on Linux. This is useful information for someone looking to develop a game or piece of gaming hardware. Of course, it's not at all representative of the wider operating system install base, since it's almost entirely based on data from relatively new consumer systems used for gaming. Web trackers like Statcounter and Net Applications target a more diverse audience, but you still need to remember that they undoubtedly misrepresent worldwide systems as a whole by a pretty wide margin, and it's extremely difficult to determine just what demographics they do cover.
People use Vista because that's what came with the computer back in 2007 to 2009.
Upgrading to Windows 7 requires money and effort both which the computer owners don't care to invest in, and in the end the difference between Vista and 7 (on that 6-year-old machine) is rather small. Sure Windows 7 is better in all fronts but Vista still receives security updates (until 2017) and most Windows software still works with it.
And yes, the Windows 8 / 8.1 separation is rather ludicrous. People don't do the 8.1 update most likely because it isn't deployed through Windows Update automagically and many people* may never invoke the Store App where the free 8.1 update would be waiting.
* People like my mom/pop who call me if the program icons on the desktop have moved...
Like I said, the average punters wouldn't see a difference in how their computer worked even if 7 did (and does) use less memory.
Upgrading Vista to Windows 7 would still be rather pointless to all those people who know nothing of the inner workings of a computer and wouldn't pay for the license and labor to have an extra 200MB memory available if all they do with their computer is online banking, casual surfing, youtube, email, social networking and such - things that will work with Vista on a low-end computer just fine. You'd be surprised how many people play e.g. World of Tanks and are happy with slow 5 fps graphics...
But what on earth must people be on to still use bloody Vista?!!
In many ways it baffles me, too. However, from a normal user perspective which version of Windows they are on makes little difference to most users. All they want is a PC on which they can use the web, read emails, do a bit of office work etc.
Take the (baffling to techies) case of my wife's grandfather. I upgraded his machine from Vista to 7. Shortly after, he insisted I put it back, because it was too different and he preferred the way Vista works. In the end, it is these users who will stick with Vista, just because it is what came with their machine. To them, a PC is an appliance. So long as it does what they need and is easy (for them) to use, they won't upgrade the OS. When they want a new computer, they will buy one, and use whatever OS comes with that one, too.
As I recall, there was an option when I upgraded to Win7 to choose an older-style UI. It was mostly the design of UI elements.
I'm inclined to think XP has hung on because of the rather trivial changes of this sort. Touch-screens do at least give a reason for a change. But if you're still using a mouse it's fair to ask why the hell they make some of the UI changes they do. There were some huge changes to the underlying structure. They do need some changes to use them new features. But how often do you use them. Some buttons, some menu entries, we use every day. And one day they seem to vanish.
It scares people.
(An example of a significant improvement which needn't change the UI is the way the TCP/IP stack behaves under load. In WinXP that could seriously slow the whole computer. In Win 7, on the exact same hardware, stuff keeps working at a usable speed, But look at how some browsers have hidden the existence of the long-established Windows menu system. It slows me down, and I switch fairly easily between a Wondows box and a Linux box,)
Exactly. My inlaws want a computer on which they can do simple office docs, emails and browsing.
If it wasn't for the fact that websites need modern browsers that need modern OSes they'd still be on Windows 95. They really would not be bothered to upgrade by choice.
And what makes their opinions, needs, and MONEY, any less worthy?
Unfortunately in the warp-speed world of computers "new" does not always mean "better"
But what on earth must people be on to still use bloody Vista?!!
I put win7 on a friends laptop, she liked it..... until she tried a lot of her old apps - she has a large database of here LPs... didn't work so well...
then her old canon scanner - not recognised!!
her son put vista on, and then they all worked!!! stupid MS, removing all the drivers!!
Ever hear of the "long tail" of users/buyers?
Corporate types don't need the UI of 8/8.1 - it is quite besides the point (which in case you forget, is making a profit for the corporate involved, not Microsoft).
CURRENTLY it is much cheaper to keep older kit in use than just buy new gear for the sake of it, which is what it appears is happening.
"Oh, I MUST HAVE a touch based computer" ... 3 months on, "Take this trashy touch screen away... it's slower, harder to use and it cost HOW MUCH?"
Hmmm.
You seem to be missing the entire point of Microsoft's business model. It consists of two major components:
(1) Create and enforce a EULA that removes all liability.
(2) Force computer makers to include THE OS of Microsoft.
What do users want or need? Who cares? And absolutely NOT Microsoft.
As far as the OS is concerned, I am not aware of ANY compelling feature that Microsoft has added in the last decade, or possibly two. In other words, not since TCP/IP was added to Windows 95.
The closest thing to a compelling reason for OS upgrades since then is improved security. In other words, if Microsoft was talking to peasants like us, the pitch would be "You need to buy the newest OS to protect you from our OLD security mistakes, but our EULA absolutely guarantees that the new mistakes can't be held against us, either."
Have a nice day enjoying your use of Microsoft products. Batteries and XP not included.
(3) Continue to roll out 'THE' number one office/productivity suite in the world, which remains so to this day, encouraging end users (businesses and Jo Public) and software companies/developers alike to buy into the OS dependency.
I agree with a lot of what you said, however you have to give credit where it's due. Personally I'd like (3) not to exist, it's the #1 reason for going with windows over, say, apple or gnu/Linux/Unix, and I think it's an appalling heap of shite, but I'm not your average buyer, I'm just a user/victim.
Things are changing, just a little slowly. MS have some very strong hooks in corporate IT. All that training/certification; why would you chuck it in the bin and start afresh with something new? Even if it is arguably "better"? MS will continue to dominate; I just wish they'd, well, regain my respect and learn from past mistakes.
(3) Continue to roll out 'THE' number one office/productivity suite in the world, which remains so to this day, encouraging end users (businesses and Jo Public) and software companies/developers alike to buy into the OS dependency.
And now that Office is largely to be a Cloudy (SaaS) App, that can, and SHOULD run virtually in any Browser, on any Device EVER!....
Please remind my exactly why I need MicroSofts, latest, and greatest again?
"Please remind my exactly why I need MicroSofts, latest, and greatest again?"
Because the cloudy Office version you mention is not even remotely comparable to its stand alone counterpart. In-browser office seems to be a bad joke when put side by side with Office running natively on Windows.
And MS has no incentives to make cloudy Office any better, at least any better than just being above Google Docs. That allows them to continue to link the purchase of a Windows license with the ability to run the native version. Talk about master plans.
I think Microsoft of today is not the Microsoft of ten years ago. Windows 8.0 was definitely the point where they pushed too far. Now, I think 8.0 was a groundbreaking design for user interfaces, and it's better suited to touch and the future than any of its competitors, but... most of the customers for Windows are businesses, deploying to desk-based workstations using mouse and keyboard.
Can you imaging the horror of re-training a thousand or so staff on how to use their computers? Ditching the Start Menu on the desktop was a step too far (I think the Start menu has become a dumping ground for all sorts of crap, but that doesn't matter: it's still where most users begin their tasks).
8.1 fixed the dizzying context-changes for users on touch devices, but didn't do as much for users with mouse and keyboard.
Windows 9 looks to have reinstated the Start Menu, and provided a way to launch "Modern/Metro" applications into their own windows on the desktop (I'd like to see a way to show these at half-size too, as mouse targets can get away with being smaller than touch ones). If 8.0 had shipped with these features, its success would have been greater, I believe, but even with these advantages, there is also the lengthening Corporate IT cycle dragging sales down: these days, computers are powerful enough that there are very few jobs that need the latest hardware every three years, and most OS "upgrades" coincide with new hardware purchase.
"All that training/certification; why would you chuck it in the bin and start afresh with something new?"
Because you know that nothing is forever, that the world is changing, and that if you don't keep a watching eye on those changes you risk missing the boat?
As you rightly point out, there are lots of Certified Microsoft Dependent people around.
Some will want to get into a growing market rather than stay in a dying one.
Some of them (most?) will want to hang on to what they know for as long as they can, regardless of what's happening in the rest of the world.
Take your pick.
It must be.
There's data in this article which is best presented in tabular format.
And there it is, presented as a table.
No, an actual proper table, not a picture of a table.
The end of the world is nigh!
When did HTML get tables? They've now arrived at The Register too.
Something's not right, I tell 'ee, not right. It's a sign.
(I know this isn't the first time it's happened, I've seen a few of late, but nice to see anyway).
I gotta be honest, it was flawless for me. The one gotcha is getting it to show up in the first place, but that's just a case of making sure your Win8.0 OS is fully up to date on security patches and the like. Once I actually started the 8.1 upgrade it worked perfectly, and I gained back a ton of SSD space.
According to Mozilla, there are 2.3 million users of NoScript. While that's a lot, it's a small proportion of Firefox users, let alone all browsers.
Anyway, the OS is shown in the user agent ID string. That can be faked of course, but not many bother.
I have 8.1 Professional installed on my laptop with classic shell. I've configured it to boot straight to desktop and it's the best MS OS I've ever used. Fast, stable and doesn't get in the way of what I need to do.
8.1 is available as a free upgrade for 8.0 users so I'd expect 8.0 installations to pretty much disappear over time.
I have to agree. I use Win7 on my 2011 MacBook Pro (seems fine) and bought Win 8 .1 for my new iMac's Bootcamp partition.
The tile interface is a bit weird (I too turned it off) but otherwise 8.1 seems very zippy and stable and actually runs older programs (alright, games; why else would I use Bootcamp?) better than Win 7 does. Win 8.1 cost me just £40 from eBay, which really is not much.
My old laptop still uses vista, no reason to upgrade it. the laptop is over 10 years old and I put vista basic on it years ago. I use it as a kind of mini server and IRC and it has an uptime of 45 weeks. No reason at all to upgrade it. Main PC is W7 though and I expect it will be this until W9 has proved itself when it comes out.
As a business we have stuck with Xp, inspite of withdrawal of support, because an upgrade to win 7 would require replacement printers, and whilst 7 is supported by the main pharmacy software suppliers win 8.x isn't so there is no guarantee that any new printers would be supported going forward. So we'll stick until win 9 or 10 is adopted.
Most business systems can be purchased with Win 8.1 licenses but have Win7 installed as a "downgrade". Of course there is no Win 7 ID Number on the device so you have to have a Volume License Win 7 key if you have to reimage the system (WIN 8 Key is held on board).
There are still several industries (Health Care) that weren't/aren't even certified on Win 7 let alone Win 8 so hence the delay in shifts. Either waiting for the Win 8 Certification move or buying the Win8/Win7 Licensed products as needed in the mean time.
Why? Because it still works, and I can't be bothered to shell out cash to upgrade. That PC's pretty much only used as a gaming machine, and most games on Steam that I want to play still support XP.
I did update another PC to Win 7, because a game I wanted demanded Direct X 11. Defense Grid 2, in case you were wondering.
With the 'accidental' reveal and delete by Microsoft China on Weebo of a Windows 9 wallpaper and the irregular naming convention of Windows 8 / 8.1 I think it is clear Microsoft are now aiming for more frequent releases like Android and iOS to try and keep pace with Apple and Google...
The problem is though you pay for iOS / OS X through hardware purchases and Android is free, so unless Microsoft start giving away their OS I can't see many people being willing to pay to upgrade and the disparity of versions and fragmentation will get worse as people just stick with whatever version it was bought with.
Microsoft need the revenue streams from Windows so my guess is a monthly subscription and you'll see Windows 9.1 through to 9.12
Windows major releases aren't really getting any more frequent yet as far as I can tell. Vista was released in 2006, 7 was released in 2009, 8 was released in 2012, and it stands to reason that 9 will be released in 2015. Aside from the 5+ years of XP, which wasn't their initial plan, and the occasional half-cycle releases like ME, they've been on a roughly 3 year release cycle ever since the very first versions of Windows. The numbering of the "8.1" service pack was really just an attempt to get people to take a second look at Windows 8 after its poor initial reception.
"The problem is though you pay for iOS / OS X through hardware purchases and Android is free, so unless Microsoft start giving away their OS I can't see many people being willing to pay to upgrade"
People pay for Windows through hardware purchases just as they do for OSX. The cost of OSX isn't 'free' after all, but incorporated into the cost of the device, just as it is for end-users purchasing Windows systems. Only a small minority of end-users actually upgrade existing Windows computers to the latest version, but that's how it's always been. "Fragmentation" of the install-base isn't really a problem outside the corporate environment, since new releases of Windows generally have very good backward compatibility with software, as far as operating systems go. And Android might be "free", but that's because Google is an advertising company profiting off their ability to track you and feed you ads, which the OS helps them to accomplish. It's not particularly well suited to a desktop or notebook productivity environment at this point either.
It is very possible that Windows may eventually move to a subscription model though, and might even offer such an option with their next major release. I would expect them to ease people into it though, like by offering the option to upgrade a computer to the latest version for $10 a year, with maybe some higher-priced tiers providing access to the latest versions of other software like Office as well. I can't see them forcing people into a subscription model right away though, as there will undoubtedly be many businesses and individuals who won't be interested in an operating system that's constantly changing. A subscription model could be a reasonable business plan for the future, as hardware takes longer to become obsolete for many users. That, or they could specify that all Windows computers require a non-serviceable battery pack with a five year life span. : P
W8 ( finally ? ) 'jumps the shark' to hatred by non-techies. The point about this title/headline in The Guardian is that it was written by Charlie Brooker, not a member of Tech staff. ( And if you want to get pedantic, it was ALSO written by the subeditor who actually put it in the headline. )
btw, what s the technical term for a Windows 8 hater ? An 8er ( geddit ? )
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/08/scottish-independence-david-cameron-no-campaign-windows-8
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
