Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Windows 8 Passes Vista, Hits 5.1% Market Share

timothy posted 1 year,30 days | from the we-can-finally-sleep-nights-again dept.

Windows 285

An anonymous reader writes "With the first half of 2013 now over, Windows 8 continues to grow its share steadily but slowly, while Windows XP and Vista decline. In fact, Windows 8 has now passed the 5 percent mark, as well as surpassed the market share of its predecessor's predecessor, Windows Vista. The latest market share data from Net Applications shows that June 2013 was an impressive one for Windows 8, which gained 0.83 percentage points (from 4.27 percent to 5.10 percent) while Windows 7 fell 0.48 percentage points (from 44.85 percent to 44.37 percent)."

cancel ×

285 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Surpassing Vista (5, Insightful)

vikingpower (768921) | 1 year,30 days | (#44151859)

Not that much of an achievement. If that is all they can announce... Sounds to me like the German Army bulletins toward the end of 2nd World War.

Re: Surpassing Vista (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,30 days | (#44151875)

it does sound like damage control

Re: Surpassing Vista (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44151983)

Who cares?

It's only the Corps keeping Windows alive now. Let it die in peace.

Re: Surpassing Vista (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44152123)

Hell no, let it rot and die in pain. Microsoft more than earned it.

Re: Surpassing Vista (5, Insightful)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152181)

Only corporations, small business, medium sized business, large business, government, home users (especially gamers). Apart from these people, it's dying, yes.

Re: Surpassing Vista (3, Informative)

roarkarchitect (2540406) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152387)

We are an XP shop except for the engineering work stations which are windows 7 - I can't see us going to windows 8 every, our legacy CRM and MRP systems will not work. We still use a Windows 2000 domain- which we are virtualizing. and my workstationis Vista :(

Re:Surpassing Vista (5, Insightful)

dingen (958134) | 1 year,30 days | (#44151883)

And mind you: it's not passing Vista's market share as it was in October 2007 (equally 10 months after launch as Windows 8 is now). It's just passed Vista's *current* market share.

No consumer-oriented version of Windows has ever seen such a slow adoption as Windows 8 is showing now.

Re:Surpassing Vista (5, Interesting)

RogueyWon (735973) | 1 year,30 days | (#44151927)

How did the takeup of ME compare? That was billed as the "consumer oriented" OS at the time (while 2000 was billed as the "business product").

If we're at the kind of point where comparisons to ME feel appropriate, then Win8 really is in trouble. At least with ME, there was always a strong sense that it was never intended as much more than a short-term stopgap. Win8, on the other hand, has been pushed very hard as "the future".

Re:Surpassing Vista (3)

gl4ss (559668) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152015)

How did the takeup of ME compare? That was billed as the "consumer oriented" OS at the time (while 2000 was billed as the "business product").

If we're at the kind of point where comparisons to ME feel appropriate, then Win8 really is in trouble. At least with ME, there was always a strong sense that it was never intended as much more than a short-term stopgap. Win8, on the other hand, has been pushed very hard as "the future".

me might have done comparatively well. pc sales were in a huge upswing back in those days.

Re:Surpassing Vista (5, Insightful)

wvmarle (1070040) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152021)

What may be more notable, is the staying power of Win XP.

Win XP is with 37% market share not far behind the 44% of Win 7 (two major versions ahead of XP, and released almost four years ago by now). If all computers that had been replaced would have received Win 7, the market share of Win 7 compared to Win XP should be much higher: if the average lifetime of a PC is five years, some 80% of the computers that were in use back in summer 2009 have been replaced by now. Yet newer-than-XP versions of Windows are far behind that number.

And while it's market share is falling, it's falling only slowly, with a 0.5% loss over the past month. And I really can not imagine just 0.5% of computers are being replaced in a month - at an average lifespan of 5 years for a PC there should be nearly 1.7% replacement rate per month. So is it that XP computers are all just old ones that are not being replaced? Or is it that XP is being installed on new computers? Both are about as unbelievable, yet I can't think of another reason XP's market share is falling so much slower than the computer replacement rate.

Re:Surpassing Vista (3, Insightful)

dingen (958134) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152049)

Probably both. People are holding on to a machine that works because of the economic situation and a lot of people still prefer XP to anything else and install it on brand new systems. I guess it will be until 2014 when support is dropped that the numbers will show some real drops, although it will be mainly from businesses as they are the ones who care about support in the first place. I doubt home users will think a lack of updates is a bad thing.

Re:Surpassing Vista (4, Informative)

Joce640k (829181) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152403)

I've got lots of perfectly good hardware (scanners, printers...etc) that never received a Windows 7 driver. I have to keep at least one XP machine around just for that reason.

Re:Surpassing Vista (4, Interesting)

ArcherB (796902) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152487)

I've got lots of perfectly good hardware (scanners, printers...etc) that never received a Windows 7 driver. I have to keep at least one XP machine around just for that reason.

My nephew is staying at my place for the summer and brought an old Vista machine. Rather than run a network cable to his room, I gave him a USB wireless-N adapter. He tried for a couple of weeks to make it work while a cat-5 cable ran across my office floor into his room. The other day, he decided to install Linux on the system after using my machine every time his crashed. We downloaded Mint and installed it. Once it was up and running, I plugged in the USB adapter, unplugged the network cable, punched in my wifi password and BAM! He was on the network and reading reddit. (I guess reddit is what kids do these days).

Anyway, the point is that all the drivers you may need are probably included in some of the latest Linux distro's out there. You might want to try booting off a live CD and try it out. If you're not a gamer, I see no reason to be stuck running XP or any other Windows based system.

Re:Surpassing Vista (1)

wbr1 (2538558) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152485)

It's not just the economic situation. I have an old P4 box running XP that is fine for most browsing and email. If you have the most common needs, there is no need for new hardware.

Re:Surpassing Vista (3, Insightful)

dingen (958134) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152517)

Yeah, that's why I'm still using my iMac from 2007. It's got a fairly fast Core 2 Duo chip and 6 GB RAM and basically the only thing I need is a browser and text editor. A newer/faster machine is simply not worth the investment.

Re:Surpassing Vista (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44152061)

> So is it that XP computers are all just old ones that are not being replaced? Or is it that XP is being installed on new computers? Both are about as unbelievable, yet I can't think of another reason XP's market share is falling so much slower than the computer replacement rate.

Both. Some corporate images are still based on XP, and XP compatibility is required when purchasing new hardware. I know this is unbelievable, but there was a similar situation with NT4.0, which was used way post the point where it was still indicated (especially given that Windows 2000 was actually quite good, but unfortunately incompatible in quite a few areas).

And some companies got ride of automatic PC replacement. I know colleagues that work on a 5 or 6 year old PC. Actually for light office use that would not really be an issue, but for engineering it is a bit of a drag. Companies are pursuing all potential cost savings in the current economic climate.

Re:Surpassing Vista (4, Informative)

KingMotley (944240) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152265)

Or it could be that the statistics are being pulled from sources that have unusually slow adoption rate. I typically check the statistics that I see come from netmarketshare and the like from a couple other sources, and I've always noticed that they lag considerably from both another source, and my own statistics from visitors from my client's web sites.

For example, my statistics show 6.6% for Windows 8 , 7.88% for Vista, 30.28% for XP, and 54.69% for Windows 7.
netmarketshare shows 5.1% for Windows 8, 4.62% for Vista, 37.17% for XP, and 44.37% for Windows 7.
My other source shows 12.7% for Windows 8, 7.2% for Vista, 7.9% for XP, and 66% for Windows 7.

There is quite a bit of difference between the three, but ntmarketshare typically seems to poll from placed that hang on to their systems longer than most, I'm guessing some very large businesses as their primary source, which skews their numbers.

Re:Surpassing Vista (1)

KingMotley (944240) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152283)

I should note that my other source is taken from mainly home PC's, so adoption rate is typically quicker than the average.
netmarketshare seems to favor large businesses, so their adoption rate is abysmal.
And my own client's statistics is a blend of the two.

Re:Surpassing Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44152329)

Windows 8 has been commercially available for 8 months not 10.Launched October 27.

Re:Surpassing Vista (5, Informative)

AmiMoJo (196126) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152417)

No consumer-oriented version of Windows has ever seen such a slow adoption as Windows 8 is showing now.

That's a worthless measure of success for Windows. 99.9% of copies are sold on new PCs or as part of bulk licences in businesses. The former is no indication of Windows 8 acceptance, merely of new PC sales. The latter is no indication of Windows 8 acceptance, merely IT spending and the amount of lag between release and companies rolling out new operating systems.

Conversely because almost 100% of Windows 7 users installed SP1 that doesn't mean SP1 was a huge success, merely that it was put forwards as a critical update and people had no reason to reject it.

Re:Surpassing Vista (2)

dingen (958134) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152449)

You say it like Microsoft is a victim of the circumstances. But some people in the industry are saying PC sales and IT spending is down because of Windows 8.

Re:Surpassing Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44152441)

Now consumer oriented version of Windows has ever launched in as large of a market, either. There are now over a billion more desktop computers than there were in 2007.

Re:Surpassing Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,30 days | (#44151897)

Windows 8 will surpass every OS there is, given enough time. All modern laptops will have it by default.

Re:Surpassing Vista (1)

Kkloe (2751395) | 1 year,30 days | (#44151909)

*All modern laptops have it by default.

Re:Surpassing Vista (1)

Ignacio (1465) | 1 year,30 days | (#44151911)

How long do you suppose Microsoft can hold out until Windows 9?

Re:Surpassing Vista (4, Funny)

lxs (131946) | 1 year,29 days | (#44151965)

Windows 9? You think MS can go three full Windows releases without changing the naming scheme? That hasn't happened since Windows 1,2 and 3.

Re:Surpassing Vista (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | 1 year,29 days | (#44151985)

It has: Win '95, Win '98, Win 2000.

Re:Surpassing Vista (2)

dingen (958134) | 1 year,29 days | (#44151993)

Windows Me was in between. And of course "Windows 98 Second Edition", which might win the "silliest name of a Windows version ever" award.

Re:Surpassing Vista (2)

syntheticmemory (1232092) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152249)

Windows Me was in between. And of course "Windows 98 Second Edition", which might win the "silliest name of a Windows version ever" award.

You probably forgot about "Bob"

Re:Surpassing Vista (1)

KingMotley (944240) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152291)

Only as silly as Windows Server 2008R2, and Windows Server 2010R2.

Re:Surpassing Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44151997)

It has: Win '95, Win '98, Win 2000.

1,2,3
95,98,2000
ME,XP,Vista
7,8,[9]

the next cycle will be a naming scheme change.

Re:Surpassing Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44152045)

Sorry, but what happened to Windows NT? MS-DOS based versus NT-based?

1,2,3,
95,98,ME
NT,2000,XP,Vista,
7,8,[9]

Their versioning is, like their software, inconsistent and confusing:

Re:Surpassing Vista (2)

kthreadd (1558445) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152231)

Exactly. The NT branch is what Windows is on now. They ceased development of the DOS branch with ME.

Re:Surpassing Vista (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44152023)

They were sort of different product lines though.

NT3, NT4, 2000,

95, 98, ME

Re:Surpassing Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44151989)

Windows 9 market share is totally irrelevant. Microsoft could as well continue selling Windows 8. The best option for them would be to sell Windows 8 first and upgrade it later. The operating system can be Windows 1/2/3/16/204, whatever the name. People will use any pre-installed OS they get by default.

Re:Surpassing Vista (2)

dingen (958134) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152001)

Yet Vista never managed to get more than a mere 26%, and that's the best number I could find. Some research indicates Vista's market share actually maxed at about 19%.

Re:Surpassing Vista (4, Insightful)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | 1 year,29 days | (#44151999)

How long do you suppose Microsoft can hold out until Windows 9?

More to the point, how long do you suppose WE the users can hold out until Windows 9?

I dread the day my Win 7 machines die because I'll have to replace them with those blasted Win 8 machines. I'd much rather stretch my existing machines' life until Microsoft gets its act together and I can safely skip the Win 8 experience. Exactly the same way I went straight from XP to Win 7 and avoided Vista.

Re:Surpassing Vista (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152225)

Unless some OEM decides, against all good sense, to either give the corporate market the shaft or to multiply their driver-support headaches by using substantially different hardware, rather than just different plastics kits and other minor differentiation, between 'corporate' and 'home/small business', we'll probably still be seeing Win7 compatible machines for years to come. Unless you are a volume license customer, coming up with a copy of Win7 that passes activation is your problem(so you might want to buy a non-OEM copy, or get some practice at wheedling MS phone support to reactivate you on new motherboards); but hardware shouldn't be a significant issue(outside of specific Wintablets, where 8 may actually be a better choice).

To this day, with something like a year left on the clock, we can still get boring business desktops and laptops with XP support(and not just old stock, though there is plenty of good condition off-lease gear to be had, for crazy cheap, these are fresh-off-the-line new models).

Microsoft has considerable leverage over people who aren't volume customers(a group whose willingness to pay for software MS loves; but which is very inflexible about its upgrade timelines and shitty in-house software), or who don't own 'floating', non-hardware-locked licenses for their OS of choice; but they don't have all that much ability to force silicon vendors to drop support(especially for 7, which is architecturally much closer to 8 than XP is, and actually popular, unlike Vista).

Re:Surpassing Vista (2)

Lumpy (12016) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152451)

"Unless you are a volume license customer, coming up with a copy of Win7 that passes activation is your problem"

no it's not. In fact Windows 7 is easier to deal with in this regard compared to windows XP and Vista. just find an OEM disc, then use one of the windows loader variants to crack the OEM crud. after that you can automate a keychanger to use your legal key and get around all the garbage for activation.

I have made several automatic install disks that do all of this for me from a DELL OEM windows 7 professional DVD

Re:Surpassing Vista (1)

Lumpy (12016) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152431)

"More to the point, how long do you suppose WE the users can hold out until Windows 9?"

Scumbag hardware makers are your problem. if you cant get Win7 drivers it is because the hardware maker was a scumbag and set the minimum OS id at Win8. the underlying kernel and driver substructure is 100% identical for Vista, Win7,Win8.

That would be the only reason to switch. to prolong your windows 7 bliss, research any hardware you buy for the next 4 years to make sure that windows 7 drivers exist.

Re: Surpassing Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44152543)

Get a back of your computer. Or buy Win7 online.

Re:Surpassing Vista (2)

dingen (958134) | 1 year,30 days | (#44151921)

That completely depends on the release date of Windows 9. Windows 7 for example was released before Vista could surpass XP's market share.

Re:Surpassing Vista (5, Funny)

Trepidity (597) | 1 year,29 days | (#44151979)

I'm waiting for them to put out a press release when they hit 5x Linux market share.

Re:Surpassing Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44152041)

Not that much of an achievement. If that is all they can announce... Sounds to me like the German Army bulletins toward the end of 2nd World War.

True, but don't worry. Next week they'll be comparing their market share to Windows ME sales circa 2001...

Re:Surpassing Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44152137)

Wow, Win8 may even surpass Linux on the desktop eventually.

Re:Surpassing Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44152457)

Not much of an achievement, yet it took OSX 7 years to do what Windows 8 did in 7 months.

So it should (5, Funny)

Ice Tiger (10883) | 1 year,30 days | (#44151877)

It's the best OS MS have produced in my opinion, runs well and like the UI and yes I'm running a desktop computer! I use OSX, iOS, Ubuntu and Windows so maybe am used to switching UIs so learning Metro was no big deal compared to someone who has only seen the Start button all their computer life.

Re:So it should (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,30 days | (#44151891)

Yeah, if you stay in desktop mode. Classic Shell would help. Metro is terrible.

Re:So it should (4, Insightful)

gigaherz (2653757) | 1 year,30 days | (#44151901)

Well if you compare it with OSX, iOS and Ubuntu's Unity, metro is not THAT bad. It's when you compare it with a proper desktop environment like Xfce or Windows 7's Aero that Metro is terrible.

Re:So it should (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,30 days | (#44151923)

Metro is a weird interface, being a long time xp and os x user it feels very counter intuitive, I seem to go into desktop mode as soon as I boot and get annoyed when metro pulls me out off it (eg when editing a photo).8.1 will be a welcome update.

Re:So it should (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,30 days | (#44151893)

Anyone who knows anything about the market knows this is actually ridiculously slow adoption rates. Even slower than when Vista came out, and WAY slower than Windows 7. This is announcement is trying to put a positive spin on really bad news.

Re:So it should (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44152025)

from that statement I gather you don't actually know much about adoption rates or the market? It is actually faster adoption in raw numbers than vista and similar to 7 though it has fallen a little behind it. incidentally the announcement isn't about positive spin as it wasn't announced, it is just an article from a 3rd party. To have such a dodgy OS already getting to level pegging with OS.X and way past desktop Linux in under a year can hardly be considered bad unless you take OS.X and Linux as complete and utter failures.

Re:So it should (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44152443)

You fail mentioning OSX and Linux does not come preinstalled and have not the existing contracts leverage power of wintel, that is failing despising its strong commercial advantage. And btw Apple is already doing mode revenue than MS, and Linux already surpassed windows as number of machines as Android is linux kernel!
So, you argument is invalid on so many points you should be facepalmed by Ballmer himself.

Re:So it should (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,30 days | (#44151899)

It feels like MS changed-for-the-sake-of-change with the Start Menu than anything else. Yeah, some people might adopt to the new style quickly and some may like it more however they seemingly came up with this new paradigm and forced changed to it all within one version of the OS.

Re:So it should (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | 1 year,29 days | (#44151947)

To be fair, Metro seems to work fine if all you do is browse the internet, play some games and perhaps even occasionally edit a Word document.
The only people that don't like Metro are the professional users, developers and power-users. Though there are a lot of us, we're still the minority.
I think Metro will do just fine for the home market and the serious market will just have to wait for 9 (or whatever it'll be called).

Re:So it should (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44152153)

I think Metro will do just fine for the home market and the serious market will just have to wait for 9 (or whatever it'll be called).

Except that it is confusing as hell to most people who just want to "browse the internet, play some games and perhaps even occasionally edit a Word document". At leas that is my experience with it in everyday use. Face it - metro is an annoying interface that was created by Microsoft to imitate the walled environment that has made Apple so much money. I understand fully why they would want to do that, but that doesn't make me like it.

Re:So it should (4, Interesting)

Yaotzin (827566) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152313)

It works just like the start menu, only bigger. You use just like you would the regular start menu, type whatever you want to run and press enter. Don't see how this can be such a huge gripe. I haven't switched to Win8 yet but from what little I've used it, I couldn't find much of a problem with it apart from poor network drivers.

Re:So it should (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44152425)

It works just like the start menu, only bigger. You use just like you would the regular start menu, type whatever you want to run and press enter. Don't see how this can be such a huge gripe. I haven't switched to Win8 yet but from what little I've used it, I couldn't find much of a problem with it apart from poor network drivers.

Here's why it's such a huge gripe: I use more than 6 or 12 applications on my computer and, since I only need some of the more esoteric debugging apps once a month or so, I can't memorize all the damn vendor-assigned names (or icons, which is why the Win 8 screen doesn't help)!

Consider an alternate scenario if it might help you understand why users are so upset that the catalog of installed programs was replaced with a search function. Imagine if Microsoft removed the Folder pane and the Inbox pane from Outlook 2015 leaving only the Reading pane and a search box. No big deal since you can just type whatever you want to read and press enter, right? In fact you should ask them to do this because those other panes take up huge amounts of display space when all your real information is in the Reading pane.

Re:So it should (1)

HJED (1304957) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152251)

To be fair, Metro seems to work fine if all you do is browse the internet, play some games and perhaps even occasionally edit a Word document. The only people that don't like Metro are the professional users, developers and power-users. Though there are a lot of us, we're still the minority. I think Metro will do just fine for the home market and the serious market will just have to wait for 9 (or whatever it'll be called).

Talking to many non-power users, especially less tech-literate people they all seem to find win 8 confusing and hard to use. Specifically I have had people complaining to me about it defaulting to using windows live accounts for login and not being able to find anything.
In my personal experience with it I've encountered bugs, such as file sharing seeming to be completely broken in terms of login-in to win 8 shares with samba, etc.

Re:So it should (4, Interesting)

somersault (912633) | 1 year,29 days | (#44151949)

If it was really a "new paradigm", ie the whole OS was built around it, it would actually be fine. The problem is that Metro feels more like a hacked on 3rd party replacement for the Start Menu, than something that works well with the Windows desktop.

Re:So it should (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,30 days | (#44151903)

Someone who loves Windows 8? Blasphemy! Where did we put the pitchforks, ropes, and torches? We need to run this guy out of town!

Re:So it should (4, Interesting)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | 1 year,29 days | (#44151963)

I have to agree: it runs well. Booting is exceptionally fast; in Windows 8 I'll be running on the desktop while my older (but more powerful) machine is still loading the Windows 7 login screen. I dislike Metro though; I suppose I could make it into something usable, if I spend the effort to nicely organize my favorite apps on the Metro canvas, but why should I? The old Windows start menu does that for me in a very usable way with zero effort (other than installing the tool to bring back that start menu). Besides that, I like to use the desktop like my real desktop, to organize and sort files I am working on. The Metro canvas is useless for that.

A real problem with Metro is that so many basic actions are hidden or counter-intuitive. You're doing something wrong if people have to search for help on how to close an app or manage windows on your OS. And before they can even try and search for that info, they have to use another computer to search for help on getting the damn address bar to appear in IE! People's hatred for Metro doesn't just come from having to learn a new UI, a lot of it is due to (piss-)poor design.

Re:So it should (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44152077)

"And before they can even try and search for that info, they have to use another computer to search for help on getting the damn address bar to appear in IE!" You nailed it with that one yes - I already forgot about it. It is right up there with the Amazon Kindle's spelling correction feature that fucks up every URL you try to enter, until you used another machine to find help on turning the bloody thing off.

Re:So it should (5, Informative)

Unkl_Shvelven (1002053) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152135)

The reason why Windows 8 boots so fast is that it doesn't actually boot. When you "Shut Down" from the charms bar, it actually just kills your user session and hibernates. You can turn off fastboot [eightforums.com] and see for yourself.

Re:So it should (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44152217)

it actually just kills your user session and hibernates

Yep. And if you copy files to a directory that is in memory in the hibernated system (say from a Mac or Linux dual boot partition) Windows 8 will eat your files with corruption! All because Microsoft lied so they could add another "feature".

Re:So it should (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44152239)

That is actually false. The bootup in windows 8 is actually faster due to driver load tuning. even with fastboot off it still boots significantly faster as less important drivers (i.e. stuff you are never going to use till after login) are now excluded from the boot process and are instead loaded once the login screen has already been presented to the user.

Re:So it should (1)

Bert64 (520050) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152381)

Which is just an extension of the old kludges they've been implementing since XP...
Displaying the login screen quickly isn't terribly useful if its continuing to boot in the background such that your login and initial use of the machine is significantly slower.

The real boot time, is the time it takes to be ready for you to use it properly.

Re:So it should (1)

KingMotley (944240) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152333)

That would not be true. Shut down and restarts aren't the hybrid hibernate that you talk about. That's only if you tell it to sleep, or it goes into hibernation. Or you tell it to shutdown and you have your system set to allow hibernation. Most desktops won't be configured that way. Even if you do have hibernation enabled, and you tell it to restart, then it isn't one of those "hybrid boots".

And in any case, for most users in the cases it actually does a hybrid boot, they wouldn't care that it's not doing a "full boot" anyhow. The effect is nearly the same, but only faster.

Re:So it should (0)

OldKingCole (2672649) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152053)

I guess it was moderated Funny because no one thinks someone can read this comment without laughing... Not sure that's what the writer intended though

Re:So it should (2)

Ice Tiger (10883) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152433)

Reading through the comments there isn't too much disagreement about the underlying OS its with Metro.

I first used a computer back in 1981 and seen and used a lot of UIs over the years as well as using different UIs over different systems at the same time, hence I don't tend to invest effort in learning the ins and outs. On a desktop machine without a touchscreen I flip between desktop and metro and am fine with search to find something as that's how I find things on the Internet. My typing speed isn't so bad having used all those CLIs over the years.

Metro with a touchscreen works and in fact for my three year old she finds it awkward that my 2010 Mac Book Pro doesn't have a screen that responds to touch and what's this mouse thing on my Windows 8 desktop. Is Metro perfect, no, but at least its a start to move away from a desktop metaphor that was introduced way back when, in a world dominated by mobiles / browsers is the desktop metaphor still relavant?

My intention was to start a debate as I know my opinion about Windows 8 isn't mainstream.

Re:So it should (1)

Joce640k (829181) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152205)

learning Metro was no big deal compared to someone who has only seen the Start button all their computer life.

Um, the problem isn't learning it, the problem is liking it.

Re:So it should (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44152379)

Well you are a severe minority. Or a microsoft fanboy/shill.

Windows 8 is hated by regular people. Home users, business users, business management.

Your actidotal evidence wont change that. No matter how hard you keep telling people.

Re:So it should (2)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152481)

I don't want to "Learn" Metro! I just want to use my computer!

If the interface is not obvious then it is getting in the way, and Metro (or whatever it is called this week) just gets in the way

The Start button was a faster than the program manager
the Search in the start menu was often faster than using the Start menu
Metro is in all cases slower ...

I don't want to run windows, use windows etc ... I want to use the programs that run on it ....!

Still sucks (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,30 days | (#44151889)

MS Windoze still sucks whether it's at 5% or 50% or 98.3%. And I for one refuse to allow that filth to touch my machines. Any sensible person is already running almost anything else (e.g. Linux or BSD based systems). The fact that the majority of the computing population are not sensible (at least computer-wise) indicates that the education systems of the world have failed.

Fuck Microsoft and let's burn their filth and cleanse the world.

Re:Still sucks (5, Funny)

sosume (680416) | 1 year,29 days | (#44151971)

You forgot to write Microsoft with a '$' .. you heretic.

Re:Still sucks (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44152273)

Maybe he's just too young to have used Microsoft products, back when Microsoft products were what the geeks among us loved.

10 READ M$

Huh (4, Funny)

Ignacio (1465) | 1 year,30 days | (#44151907)

I guess cramming it down people's throats really *is* an effective way to gain marketshare...

Re:Huh (1)

Mike Frett (2811077) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152203)

Exactly, it's not like they have a choice. I do wonder how these statistics are gathered, and how many of those people use it for a day or so and then install Linux; does it account for that?. It's like TV Ratings, send a few hundred surveys to people and based on those, simply assume that's what everybody is watching.

What gets me is all the news about the NSA and Microsoft. I simply can't understand why people would use Windows after all that, it's insane and no logical at all.

XP - 37% with less than a year of support (5, Interesting)

blarkon (1712194) | 1 year,30 days | (#44151925)

The real news here is that an OS that has less than a year of support left is at around 37% market share. XP is falling at about 1% per month - but will still be a substantial part of the market (probably at least 25%) when Microsoft stops releasing software updates.

Re:XP - 37% with less than a year of support (4, Funny)

dingen (958134) | 1 year,29 days | (#44151951)

A lack of support might push a few businesses to adopt a newer version of Windows, but I doubt people at home will care. Actually, a lack of updates might be seen as a feature (no reboots!) by those who are still holding on to a 12+ year old operating system.

Re:XP - 37% with less than a year of support (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44152013)

Why does everyone keep bringing up the 12+ years like it is a valid argument ? The only valid argument to determine whether it is reasonable to stop providing updates is the last sale date. And that is October 22th, 2010 for Windows XP
Measured by that metric ending the support by April 2014 seems a bit soon.

Re:XP - 37% with less than a year of support (1)

peragrin (659227) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152117)

actually businesses won't care either in the short term.

As when th updates start businesses will no longer worry that an update might break their tools, so they can keep on working without fear. Also a lot of businesses are going virtual.

I took a new job last august, the machine I was initially given was win 2K. Now they updated it almost immediately for me, but other than the crappy keyboard, mouse and monitor,all it ran was remote desktop to the server.

Re:XP - 37% with less than a year of support (4, Insightful)

Teun (17872) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152257)

12 y/o? Yes the name XP might be but over the years the various service packs changed it dramatically.

I would count the age of up to date XP installs from the issue date of SP3, early May 2008.

Re:XP - 37% with less than a year of support (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152479)

Yes the name XP might be but over the years the various service packs changed it dramatically.

In what ways have the Service Packs changed XP such that average (or even "power") user would notice?

I don't care about the OS - I'm old and want 3:4 (0)

ciderbrew (1860166) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152005)

I want a decent laptop £:$ screen. If it has a 2560 x 1700 screen .. it's a sale. I wish the Goggle pixel was a little more laptop than cloud device.
I really don't care about Windows 7 or 8. No version of windows looks good on 1366 x 768 and 1920x1080 just upsets me even of a desktop.
Maybe I should put an old CRT on wheels and enjoy 1600 x 1200 again.
>

Re:I don't care about the OS - I'm old and want 3: (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44152027)

fullhd windows needs you to adjust dpi scaling. just do it, nobody expects you to read text that's the size of ant legs.

Keep up the grat work! (0)

elabs (2539572) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152011)

Windows 8.1 is on its way!

Regular users (4, Insightful)

Loki_666 (824073) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152089)

I bet even non-techie users don't like Metro.... for a start, where will they store their documents now? The desktop and the recycle bin were the usual two favourite locations pre Win 8. :P

Re:Regular users (1)

KingMotley (944240) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152337)

On the desktop.

Re:Regular users (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44152375)

Many non-techie users don't know where their files are stored at all.

They may use recent documents, but if you are truly not that tech-savvy and only have to keep a lot of word documents with no need for any folder structure, you may just think "I need word", open up word and look for their work there.

Of course simplifying things hurts power users, but for users that didn't grasp the abstract concept of "folders" anyway, it's no loss. (but no gain either)

Win7 as an alternative (1)

ubersoldat2k7 (1557119) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152145)

I remember when MS launched Win95 people were very attached to how Win3.11 worked, so many were pissed back then, but you didn't have any feasible alternative at the moment. Today things have changed and you've got plenty of alternatives: Win7, WinXP, MacOS, Linux, etc. You've also got smartphones and tablets which for many are more than enough for them.

OTOH, last month I've got a Lenovo laptop which came with Win7 preinstalled and Win8 disks to install it. If it was the other way around maybe Win8 adoption rate would be higher.

Re:Win7 as an alternative (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44152169)

There really is no alternative. People will use the OS the laptop has. Only a minority will pay more just to downgrade. And only a smaller minority will experiment with Linux. And Mac people will use Mac hardware, not WinTel ones.

Re:Win7 as an alternative (1)

Teun (17872) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152267)

Indeed, especially the non-consumer versions of brands like Lenovo, HP and Toshiba still come with Win7 and Win8 as an option.

Re:Win7 as an alternative (1)

Bert64 (520050) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152405)

With 95 you were given the choice of using the new explorer interface or the old task man interface that 3.11 used... Many users chose to stick with the old ui.

fucking lost my post POS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44152183)

fucking lost my comments i just spent the last 20 minutes typing fuck you

Try and NOT buy Win8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44152193)

Computers without Win8 preinstalled are extremely hard to find (ok, modulo the Apple Store). How does it surprise anybody?

Off-topic link (1)

trifish (826353) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152277)

The link that ought to have been in the summary:
http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=11&qpcustomb=0 [netmarketshare.com]

Re:Off-topic link (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44152455)

The "other" category speaks for itself (declining). Sad, really.

When it beats Windows XP market share (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,29 days | (#44152301)

I'll actually care

Hooray! (2)

jasper160 (2642717) | 1 year,29 days | (#44152399)

Should be titled: Windows 8 sucks less than Vista.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>