Windows 8 Will Surpass Vista’s Market Share in June

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
If all factors remain fairly constant, Windows 8 is poised to pass Vista in usage sometime in June. Windows 8 is on the rise (albeit slowly) and Vista is in steady decline, putting Windows 8 in the number three position in the Windows lineup of operating systems.

Put another way, around the middle of June, Windows 8 will surpass Windows Vista as the third most popular operating system variant in the world. It’s taken longer than expected, given soft sales of Windows 8 and a slowing PC market, but now around 7 months into its life, the new version of Windows is about to claim its first victim.
Click to expand...
 
At least Windows XP is slipping as well. It's about time Windows XP started to go the way of the dinosaur... I know there's still a 1 billion lines of colbalt, that requires XP but there's no real reason for consumers to be using it short of fear of new OSs.
 
Windows7 should have been sold as the reduced cost upgrade from WindowsVista because Vista sucks.
Windows8 should have been sold as a touch screen add-on for Windows7 advertizing the new GUI -just for touch screens.
Windows8.1 should now be the New Windows combining the elements of both Win7 and the new touch screen GUI add-on as an optional interface.
Hope MS dose not stumble this much with Xbox One.
 
Windows 8 is insignificant in the overall scheme of things.

It's a perfect of example of Microsoft giving the people what they want the people to want, instead of giving people what they actually want. Microsoft successfully marginalized itself, against itself.

2wrdber.jpg


Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57587215-75/windows-8-vies-with-vista-but-windows-7-gains/
 
I love Windows 8 minus the start screen bologna. I implemented the Win7 start menu as the shell for Windows 8 and it's damn good. I put an SSD and Windows 8 on an old netbook I had . It made the netbook use able. Win7 is slow as crap on it but Win8 screams. If Ms brings back the start menu it will be great else it isn't worth the bother on a high end machine.
 
I like how we get a more lean OS thanks to MS wanting to integrate it into touchscreen devices. With the start menu in 8.1 it might actually be a decent OS.
 
I havent tried it since the beta, but it certainly was not what most people that use windows PCs want.
 
im sticking to win7 for now.

the performance gain is negligible for me for the cost of the new OS + time needed to relearn...
 
Zareek said:
I love Windows 8 minus the start screen bologna. I implemented the Win7 start menu as the shell for Windows 8 and it's damn good. I put an SSD and Windows 8 on an old netbook I had . It made the netbook use able. Win7 is slow as crap on it but Win8 screams. If Ms brings back the start menu it will be great else it isn't worth the bother on a high end machine.
Click to expand...

Ok seriously, stop perpetuating bullshit. Apples to apples there is negligible performance difference between 7 and 8. Other than that I agree with you. Just sick and tired of people not doing a like comparison and claiming this huge performance increase that doesn't exist.
 
DrDoU said:
imo not that bad operating system.
Click to expand...

I have a friend, hm, well, not even a friend. Just a corpmate in Eve Online who took that $15 upgrade to W8 and now his mic in TS3 is, a problem.

Its not that bad, but its bad enough to be a problem which is more than sufficient reason to avoid it.
 
ktk_ace said:
im sticking to win7 for now.

the performance gain is negligible for me for the cost of the new OS + time needed to relearn...
Click to expand...

Indeed. There needs to a significant improvement in meaningful performance if I'm going to spend time learning a new interface and how to make all of my applications run properly in a new environment.
 
LastQuestion said:
I have a friend, hm, well, not even a friend. Just a corpmate in Eve Online who took that $15 upgrade to W8 and now his mic in TS3 is, a problem.

Its not that bad, but its bad enough to be a problem which is more than sufficient reason to avoid it.
Click to expand...

If he has a Realtek audio device it's their issue and he needs to stay up on their updates to see if they've finally fixed it. Minus a few fixes that was made for fixing distortion issues when converting sample rate the sound stack is largely unchanged. It's always taken Realtek months to get their drivers right for a new OS. 7 was similar 4 years ago.
 
LastQuestion said:
Indeed. There needs to a significant improvement in meaningful performance if I'm going to spend time learning a new interface and how to make all of my applications run properly in a new environment.
Click to expand...

That's one of the things I noticed about Windows 8. People talk about how it's tons faster or makes their computer "scream" or something, but it really doesn't do anything like that. Sure, it starts up faster from being powered off, but that's about the only major difference when it comes to actually performing differently. It's funny to see people talk about how much better it is because they base so much of how they feel about how soon they can click or poke stuff on the screen after the turn the device on.

The interface heartburn is sort of silly too. I guess I just don't care either way because all I see is another operating system that's only there to give my programs a framework in which to run. I'm also okay with Vista and still use it and XP on some stuff I own, but whatever. It's just a computer and pretty much unimportant in life.
 
LastQuestion said:
I have a friend, hm, well, not even a friend. Just a corpmate in Eve Online who took that $15 upgrade to W8 and now his mic in TS3 is, a problem.

Its not that bad, but its bad enough to be a problem which is more than sufficient reason to avoid it.
Click to expand...

LOL, people who play MMOs, EVE people in particular, tend to be total whiners about pretty much everything. They're the same ones that freaked out when they found during that leaked letter thing that the company making the game actually didn't care about them as human beings and just wanted to earn money from them -- like it was some huge surprise and that a company wanting money was some big shock.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Ok seriously, stop perpetuating bullshit. Apples to apples there is negligible performance difference between 7 and 8. Other than that I agree with you. Just sick and tired of people not doing a like comparison and claiming this huge performance increase that doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Wow, first part was pretty much what I was thinking about your post. :D Windows 8 is significantly faster on weaker hardware than 7 and definitely faster on the same hardware.
 
Lith1um said:
Windows 8 is insignificant in the overall scheme of things.

It's a perfect of example of Microsoft giving the people what they want the people to want, instead of giving people what they actually want. Microsoft successfully marginalized itself, against itself.
Click to expand...

With around 1.4 Windows devices out there, it's impossible to give all the users of those machines exactly what they want and many of them won't even know what that is. Developing software, especially as something as complex as Windows, involves a great deal more than just order taking. Of course there's plenty of things that need addressing in Windows 8 and Microsoft will make some progress on those issues in 8.1 but of course it's not going to make everyone happy because there still isn't a Metro off switch and classic Start Menu.

The fundamental issue here is that the conventional PCs are not a growth market and no one sees much growth in the market for years to come, indeed it's expected to continue to shrink for the next 18 months. Would the class UI spark growth in PC sales and uptake of Windows 8? Maybe a little bit but I don't see how a 20 UI would reverse the decline of the PC market when there's so many other factors related to the decline.
 
ManofGod said:
Wow, first part was pretty much what I was thinking about your post. :D Windows 8 is significantly faster on weaker hardware than 7 and definitely faster on the same hardware.
Click to expand...

No it isn't and that has been proven multiple times. Is it faster? Yes it is faster. But not by a noticeable margin. The only thing it is even noticeable is in boot speed and even that is splitting hairs of a few seconds over Win 7. Win 8 has never once showed being significantly faster than win 7 on identical hardware.
 
heatlesssun said:
With around 1.4 Windows devices out there, it's impossible to give all the users of those machines exactly what they want and many of them won't even know what that is. Developing software, especially as something as complex as Windows, involves a great deal more than just order taking. Of course there's plenty of things that need addressing in Windows 8 and Microsoft will make some progress on those issues in 8.1 but of course it's not going to make everyone happy because there still isn't a Metro off switch and classic Start Menu.

The fundamental issue here is that the conventional PCs are not a growth market and no one sees much growth in the market for years to come, indeed it's expected to continue to shrink for the next 18 months. Would the class UI spark growth in PC sales and uptake of Windows 8? Maybe a little bit but I don't see how a 20 UI would reverse the decline of the PC market when there's so many other factors related to the decline.
Click to expand...
If people at the helm of big PC companies think like that, it probably will decline. Developers/companies need to start playing to the PC's strengths AND market them. Microsoft is facing something it's never really had to deal with: competition from other companies, and it's very poor at dealing with it. Microsoft needs to develop Windows to be sleeker, faster, and more modern. Maybe Metro was their attempt at this, but all the signs were there that this isn't what people wanted. It needs to be done under the hood more so than on the surface :)rolleyes: ).
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
LOL, people who play MMOs, EVE people in particular, tend to be total whiners about pretty much everything. They're the same ones that freaked out when they found during that leaked letter thing that the company making the game actually didn't care about them as human beings and just wanted to earn money from them -- like it was some huge surprise and that a company wanting money was some big shock.
Click to expand...

I'm not too familiar with Eve politics nor the general community so I can't comment on the event you're speaking of. As to whiners, that's just a human behavior in response to a situation that commonly takes place in any game which relies upon balance and requires an investment of time.

I've heard such 'shock' time and again in just about every game I've played. It isn't from surprise that developers go after money. They're a business. Eve Players, more than anyone, understand what a business is about. They role play in a Corporation which has directors, managers, specialists, external contractors, contracts, budgets, expenses, strategic planning, market manipulation(every item in the game is manufactured and sold by players to other players), logistics, and just about everything you would imagine any real corporation would require to function. No, such outrage is the fear that a developer will engage in a misguided attempt at increasing profit at the expense of the gameplay which the players enjoy. They fear skill compression, pay-to-win, or on-disc DLC. They fear losing the thing which they value - the experience offered from the game. That's just human behavior.
 
Mr. K6 said:
If people at the helm of big PC companies think like that, it probably will decline. Developers/companies need to start playing to the PC's strengths AND market them. Microsoft is facing something it's never really had to deal with: competition from other companies, and it's very poor at dealing with it. Microsoft needs to develop Windows to be sleeker, faster, and more modern. Maybe Metro was their attempt at this, but all the signs were there that this isn't what people wanted. It needs to be done under the hood more so than on the surface :)rolleyes: ).
Click to expand...

I think Microsoft has made a lot of under the hood changes in Windows 8 to make it sleeker and faster, but with some many people satisfied with the performance of their current PCs, I don't think that just making Windows sleeker and faster with conventional form factors matters that much to a lot of people. As for more modern, Windows 8 does have much better touch and tablet support than prior versions. Touch and tablets are pretty modern.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
No it isn't and that has been proven multiple times. Is it faster? Yes it is faster. But not by a noticeable margin. The only thing it is even noticeable is in boot speed and even that is splitting hairs of a few seconds over Win 7. Win 8 has never once showed being significantly faster than win 7 on identical hardware.
Click to expand...

Probably is faster when you compare a 3 year old, stale install of Win 7 vs a clean install of Win 8... but I still have better ways of spending $100 (and the better part of my day seeing if my applications have win8 versions).
 
Vista was crap - why would anyone desire to compare... well anything against it?

That's like saying -- This car is about to overtake the pinto in terms of resistance to bursting into flames when it's hit. Pointless comparison.

I tried Win8 -- it was 'ok' but I went back to Win7 because it does everything I need/want to without having that hassle of compatibility.

Maybe in a year or so I'll run 8 as my main OS -- not right now though. I'd have stayed with it had they not (out of the box) forced users to use their stupid start tile setup. I don't have a Windows phone -- I don't want one, and I damn sure don't want my computer to look like one.
 
collegeboy69us said:
Vista was crap - why would anyone desire to compare... well anything against it?
Click to expand...

As crappy as one may think Vista is no single version of a non-Windows OS three and half years after 7 replaced Vista has ever been as widely used as Vista still is today. For all of Microsoft's problems in the mobile space Windows is still as dominant in the desktop space as ever and the perceived quality of any particular version of Windows has never really affected this dominance. Even with Windows 8 no other non-Windows desktop OS can touch it. People will either stick to 7 or get a an iPad or Android tablet.
 
Lith1um said:
Windows 8 is insignificant in the overall scheme of things.

It's a perfect of example of Microsoft giving the people what they want the people to want, instead of giving people what they actually want. Microsoft successfully marginalized itself, against itself.

2wrdber.jpg


Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57587215-75/windows-8-vies-with-vista-but-windows-7-gains/
Click to expand...

Yep, the "insignificant" windows 8 has 2/3 of the marketshare of all modern Mac OSX versions, while the overall market is almost fully Microsoft. Talk about marginalization.

----Signed, Windows 8 user: yes, it works fine if you press the start key and type.
 
GoldenTiger said:
----Signed, Windows 8 user: yes, it works fine if you press the start key and type.
Click to expand...

LOL! It's hard to figure out where some Windows 8 opponents are coming from at times. Windows 8 is insignificant but it's the second best selling and deployed desktop OS of all time, well ahead of XP and Vista in pure volume but somewhat behind 7 in its first 7 months and it currently the only desktop OS with any significant market share growth though I would expect 7 to tick up more as the XP support deadline nears. Yes, it's forced and comes on all new PCs, like every other version of Windows has before it. But that's Microsoft's business model and it has served them very well the last two decades plus. I do admit that it has come at the cost of some customer satisfaction but when you've posted a very strong last quarter in spite of declining PC sales and your stock is at five year highs everything obviously isn't as bad as some make it out to be.
 
mynamehere said:
Windows 3.11 4evar!!!!!!!!!1one
Sorry, but someone had to do it. :p
Click to expand...

I know someone who still loves it for audio work because he says it is the most stable. I don't know the details, but his work involves files that gets used on the radio.
 
Parmenides said:
I know someone who still loves it for audio work because he says it is the most stable. I don't know the details, but his work involves files that gets used on the radio.
Click to expand...
Cool to know that there are people still getting mileage out of an OS that so many people don't even know about these days (let alone its DOS underpinnings). 3.11 was my first OS, but I do remember it being quite stable. Seems like the hardware was often more of an issue than software back then.
 
I hope 8.1 gets it's own class which quickly dominates 8 and Vista.
 
You think Microsoft would have learned from their past mistakes but apparently they didn't. Its stupid moves like this will cost them their customers and yet the continue to ignore customer needs by either implementing or removing features people don't use, causes an uproar and tells customers to "deal with it", is pretty pathetic, and if they lose profit or market share because of it, serves them right.
 
ChefJoe said:
Probably is faster when you compare a 3 year old, stale install of Win 7 vs a clean install of Win 8... but I still have better ways of spending $100 (and the better part of my day seeing if my applications have win8 versions).
Click to expand...

Yeah, people always install a new OS (or new HDD for that matter) and compare it to the bloated crap they had on it before. Windows 7 is better than Windows XP for becoming old and stale and bloated, but it most certainly still does become bloated and stale over time. A fresh Win 7 install is going to be much snappier than a 2-3 yo Windows 7 install.
 
A fresh Windows 8 install is much snappier than a five year or so old Vista install. I'm amazed at how much speedier that dusty old hardware is when running Windows 8 than it was on Vista.
 
Eman D. Rahym said:
A fresh Windows 8 install is much snappier than a five year or so old Vista install. I'm amazed at how much speedier that dusty old hardware is when running Windows 8 than it was on Vista.
Click to expand...

Vista also gets really slow very soon after install. It seems like it does that a lot faster than 7 or XP did.
 
Just give me my jewel and my real Start menu instead of this Metro garbage and I will gladly adopt Win8.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top