or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple's OS X passes Windows Vista in worldwide usage
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's OS X passes Windows Vista in worldwide usage - Page 2

post #41 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

 

It is down to 82% if you count mobile devices, if you count only desktop it is still 92%

 

But we're no longer in a purely PC or "desktop centric" world. It makes no sense to exclude mobile devices, and it can be fairly said that Windows is losing market share to mobile operating systems (I personally know a few people who now use an iPad exclusively, where they once used a Windows "Netbook")… So Mobile devices must be counted, considering they alter the usage numbers by a whopping 10% on their own...

 

Remember, this is a survey based on "web access by operating system", so mobile is even more relevant...

 

I would be interested to see "installed base" numbers as much as we could estimate them… include a version that would separate consumer and business usage, with and without mobile platforms... Those would be very interesting and much more relevant numbers for me indeed...

post #42 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

 

Linking to your own posts to validate your arguement? Are you DED's Sith apprentice? :)

 

It's a call to be a little more attentive before posting.


Edited by Quadra 610 - 9/3/12 at 9:10am
post #43 of 100
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post
Yeah, this is true. Windows 8 is extremely efficient; it runs well even on old hardware, like  Pentium M's and Pentium 4's with a a gig of RAM, which is quite the accomplishment as they continue to support legacy applications (as they always have, and always will, being the business world.)

 

Then why do businesses just buy new computers instead of upgrading their decade old ones?

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #44 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

 

XP came out feature-complete in 2001, 

 

Which is the scary part. 

post #45 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

 

...as they continue to support legacy applications (as they always have, and always will, being the business world.)

Well yes and no and maybe. Windows 98 was 16 bit and many legacy apps at the time were written in DOS environment. Those apps no longer run. I would imagine there were also 32 bit apps written that may not work so well either going forward as it becomes increasingly difficult to support anything less than 64 bit. For example 32 bit apps running on Windows XP will definitely stop working on January 1, 2038 as it will no longer be able to tell time. That is because the timestamp will be too long and require 64 bits.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #46 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

 

Yeah, this is true. Windows 8 is extremely efficient; it runs well even on old hardware, like  Pentium M's and Pentium 4's with a a gig of RAM, which is quite the accomplishment as they continue to support legacy applications (as they always have, and always will, being the business world.)

 

In my experience so far, every iteration of OSX has run more efficiently than the last on my 'existing hardware'. It actually helps to increase the life cycle of the products I use. I typically expect 2 years tops for a computer (laptop or desktop) before I start considering an upgrade… my last two buying cycles extended out to 3 and 4 years, almost entirely because of the OS updates making the machines perform so much better overall…  my desktop/laptop upgrades are staggered, so I also get to see the benefit of new processors & architecture in between. I have seen performance bumps just from the OS upgrade that almost rivaled a generational hardware bump...

 

I don't think OSX has given up much "eye candy" in the process to achieve those performance boosts… well, yes, less pure 'eye candy', but lots more UX+GUI additions. It's quite a nice looking AND intuitive OS, without going crazy on cpu overhead… just my opinion though...

post #47 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

 

In my experience so far, every iteration of OSX has run more efficiently than the last on my 'existing hardware'. It actually helps to increase the life cycle of the products I use. I typically expect 2 years tops for a computer (laptop or desktop) before I start considering an upgrade… my last two buying cycles extended out to 3 and 4 years, almost entirely because of the OS updates making the machines perform so much better overall…  my desktop/laptop upgrades are staggered, so I also get to see the benefit of new processors & architecture in between. I have seen performance bumps just from the OS upgrade that almost rivaled a generational hardware bump...

 

I don't think OSX has given up much "eye candy" in the process to achieve those performance boosts… well, yes, less pure 'eye candy', but lots more UX+GUI additions. It's quite a nice looking AND intuitive OS, without going crazy on cpu overhead… just my opinion though...

I could easily point out a few, even recent, less than seamless OS transitions from Apple, however, when discussing comparisons between OS X and Windows, it is pointless to use words like "Every", "Always" and "Never" since they are "Often" used to deflate whatever argument you were trying to make.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #48 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Then why do businesses just buy new computers instead of upgrading their decade old ones?

 

A variety of reasons. The point is that many businesses continue have older hardware around. Cost, rotating upgrades, etc. An OS that can run on older hardware is a boon to business in many facets--an example would be virtualization, where older hardware can run a "thin-client" type install of Windows that then runs a networked virtual machine that performs other duties, etc.

post #49 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

 

In my experience so far, every iteration of OSX has run more efficiently than the last on my 'existing hardware'. It actually helps to increase the life cycle of the products I use. I typically expect 2 years tops for a computer (laptop or desktop) before I start considering an upgrade… my last two buying cycles extended out to 3 and 4 years, almost entirely because of the OS updates making the machines perform so much better overall…  my desktop/laptop upgrades are staggered, so I also get to see the benefit of new processors & architecture in between. I have seen performance bumps just from the OS upgrade that almost rivaled a generational hardware bump...

 

I don't think OSX has given up much "eye candy" in the process to achieve those performance boosts… well, yes, less pure 'eye candy', but lots more UX+GUI additions. It's quite a nice looking AND intuitive OS, without going crazy on cpu overhead… just my opinion though...

 

Yep, I agree with you. OS X does (in general) seem to improve with each iteration. Some users complain about features and changes (like adding iOS-type launcher, etc.) but all that aside, it is improved.

 

The biggest caveat with OS X is that because Apple supports their hardware directly, they choose when to retire machines, and so at some point hardware is no longer supported. Microsoft casts a different net with Windows, trying to support the broadest hardware possible, because they know that's how the business world operates.

 

(For those of you with Intel Macs that are no longer supported by Apple, I'd seriously recommend trying Windows 8--if only via VM or Bootcamp. I think you may be suprised.)

post #50 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz View Post

Quite an accomplishment...

You can be free (linux) but still people stay with XP

You can be a successor (vista/7) but people stay with XP

You can be presumably better (OS-X) but people stay with XP.

Is it that good ? 1smile.gif

Vista/7/8 cost money. Except for 8, the upgrade cost is more than the market value of a lot of computers (possibly the majority now) running XP. XP is a sunk cost on an existing computer, so the price of with it is the same as switching to a free (beer or libre) OS, but there is a cost in time to switch a computer to something else, for most people, it's not worth the evening and risk of incompatible software and peripherals to upgrade. I think this is why most people just replace the computer instead of upgrading.

More power to those that use Linux, I've tried it off an on and not really been happy with it as a desktop OS, and the same goes with a lot of the apps. The OS makes an incredibly good router/network/server OS though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stniuk View Post

I would say that xp is still ahead, I'm sure there are a lot of xp computers still being used and not connected to the internet.

There's no way to account for those computers. I don't think there are a significant number of them like that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Even today computers with Windows 7 are sold from Dell with XP Mode, whatever that means. I wonder if those machines log themselves as XP or Win 7 when surfing the net.

I think that's a compatibility mode, not actually using XP OS. If you're on the web, you're likely using a more modern browser, because it is simpler to just use it as it is. There's little point in deliberately setting backward compatibility for web use, at least for the consumer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Well yes and no and maybe. Windows 98 was 16 bit and many legacy apps at the time were written in DOS environment. Those apps no longer run. I would imagine there were also 32 bit apps written that may not work so well either going forward as it becomes increasingly difficult to support anything less than 64 bit. For example 32 bit apps running on Windows XP will definitely stop working on January 1, 2038 as it will no longer be able to tell time. That is because the timestamp will be too long and require 64 bits.

There's always a limit to backward compatibility, but the timeline you give is pretty generous. W32 code goes back to 1995 and even earlier. Windows 8 still runs W32 code from back then. I'm sure it will be several more years before it's deprecated. By the time 2038 comes around, I don't think anyone would notice.

W16 and DOS code probably run pretty well on an emulator or virtual machine, I don't think MS needs to support them, they would just be baggage holding them back.
post #51 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Then why do businesses just buy new computers instead of upgrading their decade old ones?

 

OK, that's verging on foolish now… because, a "decade old" vs 3 ~ 5 year old computer will mean a HUGE difference in performance AND reliability. 

 

Look at our computers today, and then recall what we had in 2002. In 2002, we had JUST broken the 1Ghz barrier with the G4 chip, and moved to dual CPU I think… My iPad today has a CPU (and GPU) more powerful than that top of the line "1.25 Ghz Dual G4 Power Mac" tower had...

 

Do you think you could successfully run even the most efficient current version of FULL Windows on a 1 Ghz machine? 

 

But you go back FIVE years (what I would normally consider pretty much the "End Of Life" of even my personal systems), and you've got an 8-core Mac Pro sporting a QUAD core Xeon CPU (3.0 GHz Q. Core Xeon X5365 x2) that COULD probably run today's OSX without showing its age too badly...

 

So, no, I wouldn't try running the latest Windows on a 10 year old system, or even a 5 year old PC (is there really such a thing? Anyone here regularly USE a 5 year old Dell, for example?), but I could see using a 5-year old Mac Pro for Mountain Lion...

 

But that's not all of it. Performance, yes, but also COMPONENTS, which remain reliable for only so long… after 5 years, drives, sensors and other things start to fail… so you end up with an increased cost of ownership. lower reliability...

 

For a company, this would be untenable, and that's especially why they don't use those decade-old computers… 

 

 

 

post #52 of 100
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

Do you think you could successfully run even the most efficient current version of FULL Windows on a 1 Ghz machine? 

 

That's what is being said here: Windows 8 runs well on Pentium 4 chips. If this is because businesses keep around older hardware, my question is then why do businesses always seem to buy new computers instead of just upgrading? And then why does Microsoft bother supporting the old hardware at all?

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #53 of 100

XP still used by many companies as corporate world updates in relatively long and slow cycles. Vista was never widely used in the corporate world so Windows 7 bypassing Vista isn't hard to believe

post #54 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

Wow, Windows XP just won't die, will it?

39% of web traffic generated from a operating system that's over 10 years old.

Windows XP is not that bad of an OS. Far better than Vista. Most business are still running XP as of today. (But I prefer Mac OS X above all :P)
post #55 of 100
How useless is it to compare the usage of Mac OS X to the shittiest OS that of course no one used because of how poorly built it was...
post #56 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

 

 Anyone here regularly USE a 5 year old Dell, for example?), but I could see using a 5-year old Mac Pro for Mountain Lion...

 

Yes, we have several older than that running XP. And they do run quite well as they were top of the line machines at the time of purchase. Surprisingly none have required any service of any kind and have all of the service packs install. They mostly run applications of that time frame such as Office 2003 with compatibility pack so they are quite stable and productive. One even runs Adobe CS1 which is useful since it is the only machine in our department with a scanner attached. The scanner is really super high end 11 x17 with 16 bit color and has transparency capability so we keep it around. I'm pretty sure if we upgraded anything it would cause all kinds of incompatibilities which is a perfect example of why there are still so many XP machines still running. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #57 of 100
Originally Posted by MsQueen View Post
…the shittiest OS that of course no one used…

 

"Ma'am, Windows ME would like a word, and Windows 8 has an appointment for next month."

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #58 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

That's what is being said here: Windows 8 runs well on Pentium 4 chips. If this is because businesses keep around older hardware, my question is then why do businesses always seem to buy new computers instead of just upgrading? And then why does Microsoft bother supporting the old hardware at all?

Businesses do not often upgrade their OS more than one major revision. People who are installing Win 7 on machines that came with XP are not your typical corporate IT department. As others have said most Windows machines never get their OS upgraded. Even so those older machines remain quite serviceable for the tasks they are performing.

 

I do predict a massive Windows upgrade and hardware replacement cycle to begin very soon which will completely deprecate XP. The reason is HTML5. As more and more websites start to utilize HTML5, Windows users will not be able to access that web content without upgrading to IE 9. IE 9 will not be supported on XP as far as I have heard. Sure they could install Chrome plugin or Chrome itself, but many corporate IT departments are unwilling to do that as they have IE proprietary Windows applications on the network and they don't want service requests from users saying the application is broken.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #59 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsQueen View Post

How useless is it to compare the usage of Mac OS X to the shittiest OS that of course no one used because of how poorly built it was...

 

In a way I do understand the comparison, even for perspective's sake. Vista was a universally-licensed OS that was installed on a lot of systems. It's useful, I think, to see how an unlicensed OS that typically runs dedicatedly on machines costing over $1000 does against any universally-licensed OS - no matter how bad it is - that runs on everything. Out of the gate, even the worst version of Windows *will* get a running start thanks to sheer force of numbers. The market is flooded with bad, cheap PCs running Windows, and often some awful version of it. There's no getting around that, though times are changing (mostly the non-Windows world blowing past the old MS paradigm.) 

post #60 of 100

It'll be interesting to see how long it takes Windows 8 to become as popular as Vista.

If ever.  It might never happen.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #61 of 100
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post
It'll be interesting to see how long it takes Windows 8 to become as popular as Vista.

If ever.  It might never happen.

 

Oh, it will. It looks enough like 7 on the surface that people will trust it (unlike the XP to Vista switch) and install. Then they'll uninstall. 


The best thing about OS', however, and that which is ignored in phones is the marketshare of devices in use is FAR AND AWAY more important and more public. Microsoft can claim as many sales as they want, but they can't get away with sweeping usage stats under the rug like Samsung does.

 

I imagine that Windows 8 will sell pretty well. At first. Then we'll see a huge drop off and monthly marketshare reports that show less than half (maybe even a quarter) of amount of purchased copies are actually being used, meaning people just downgraded.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #62 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I imagine that Windows 8 will sell pretty well. At first. Then we'll see a huge drop off and monthly marketshare reports that show less than half (maybe even a quarter) of amount of purchased copies are actually being used, meaning people just downgraded.

I'd be surprised if one in ten Windows users even knows how to upgrade or downgrade. Downgrading is considerably more difficult as many people don't even know what a restore disk is or where it is, and then there is the multi-hour service pack, security updates, and application reinstall/registering fun. No, there is will be very few downgrades, just confusion and anger with the new UI, which, if memory serves, I think I read that it can be sort of turned off.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #63 of 100
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
No, there is will be very few downgrades, just confusion and anger with the new UI, which, if memory serves, I think I read that it can be sort of turned off.

 

The UI Formerly Known As Metro can't be disabled. And if they don't know how to downgrade, they'll just return the computer.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #64 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

You are nothing but a bitter, sick old man.

XP came out feature-complete in 2001, the initial version of OS X launched at the same time and was a mess--slow, bug-ridden, and threw the Mac community into a hurricane of shift from OS 9 to OS X. Try as you may to paint a different picture, this is reality.

XP was a pile of sh*t until Service Pack 2. That is also "reality".

Edit: I think you've got your timing wrong, too - wasn't XP 2003? It was Bill Gates' response to OS X, amusingly enough. Something about wanting an X in the name, always was just a copycat...
My Android phone is the worst phone I've ever owned.
Reply
My Android phone is the worst phone I've ever owned.
Reply
post #65 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I'd be surprised if one in ten Windows users even knows how to upgrade or downgrade.

Sure they do. It's called buy a new PC.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #66 of 100

Why isn't this a comparison of Windows vs Mac OS X? Or would that comparison be a little less favourable?

post #67 of 100
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
Sure they do. It's called buy a Mac instead.

 

Mhmm.

 

Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post
Why isn't this a comparison of Windows vs Mac OS X? Or would that comparison be a little less favourable?

 

How about comprehending the purpose of the post?

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #68 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

The UI Formerly Known As Metro can't be disabled. And if they don't know how to downgrade, they'll just return the computer.

Good to know about the UI. Seems like a mistake though. As far as returning the computer because they don't know how to downgrade, that statement seems to be in conflict with your original premise that they could downgrade. If it is a new computer, one, there is no restore to old version disk provided, and two, you said it will sell well at first, but do you seriously believe that people will run right out and buy a new computer because it has Windows 8 without knowing that Windows 8 is completely different? Most Windows users who will be buying Windows 8 on day one are tech nerds installing it on their current computer not regular users purchasing new computers.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #69 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Sure they do. It's called buy a new PC.

That isn't really an upgrade now is it? Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought an upgrade was something you added to an existing product.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #70 of 100
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
As far as returning the computer because they don't know how to downgrade, that statement seems to be in conflict with your original premise that they could downgrade.

 

Oh, I consider going out and buying Windows 7 standalone to be downgrading, not just the use of in-software utilities to restore to a previous OS on the machine. Sorry for the misinterpretation.


…you said it will sell well at first, but do you seriously believe that people will run right out and buy a new computer because it has Windows 8 without knowing that Windows 8 is completely different?

 

Yes. Because to them it doesn't LOOK completely different. They'll see screenshots of it and it'll look like Windows 7 and they'll think it's all on the level. Then they'll try to click Start or shut their computer down (because which of them even knows how to sleep? We've Mac users that shut down every TIME instead of sleeping, still…)… 

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #71 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

…you said it will sell well at first, but do you seriously believe that people will run right out and buy a new computer because it has Windows 8 without knowing that Windows 8 is completely different?

 

Yes. Because to them it doesn't LOOK completely different. They'll see screenshots of it and it'll look like Windows 7 and they'll think it's all on the level. Then they'll try to click Start or shut their computer down (because which of them even knows how to sleep? We've Mac users that shut down every TIME instead of sleeping, still…)… 

I'd be willing to bet Dell will strike a deal with Microsoft to allow them to continue selling Win 7 even if Microsoft EOLs it. That is what they did with XP when Vista came out. Even now they sell Win 7 with XP Mode.

 

It certainly won't take long for the media to be spreading the word cautioning people to be aware that Win 8 is a major change. The mainstream media doesn't really take much notice of betas. Once it is released it will be all over the news and people will know what they are getting into. There won't be many unsuspected surprises as in "Oh wow I thought Win 8 was going to be exactly XP or Win 7". No, I don't buy the premise that there will be some massive downgrade happening. Regular consumers tend to be cheap. They are not going to go out and try to find a discontinued Win 7 retail package. I suspect not so many people downgraded from Vista back to XP either. It was more like they heard the warning and just didn't upgrade.

 

I was an early adopter of Vista and it was a piece of crap. Instead of downgrading I upgraded to Linux.smoking.gif


Edited by mstone - 9/3/12 at 11:32am

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #72 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Also 2.29% + 2.23% + 1.34% + 0.65% + 0.15% = 6.66% overall Mac share.
The price of the first Mac was $666.66. That's as good a sign as you get.

So what you're saying is... Hail Satan? lol.gif

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #73 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

 

Yeah, this is true. Windows 8 is extremely efficient; it runs well even on old hardware, like  Pentium M's and Pentium 4's with a a gig of RAM, which is quite the accomplishment as they continue to support legacy applications (as they always have, and always will, being the business world.)

 

Yeah, I'd love to see Win 8 running 'well' on a Pentium 4. I somehow doubt it. 

post #74 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

 

OK, that's verging on foolish now… because, a "decade old" vs 3 ~ 5 year old computer will mean a HUGE difference in performance AND reliability. 

 

Look at our computers today, and then recall what we had in 2002. In 2002, we had JUST broken the 1Ghz barrier with the G4 chip, and moved to dual CPU I think… My iPad today has a CPU (and GPU) more powerful than that top of the line "1.25 Ghz Dual G4 Power Mac" tower had...

 

Do you think you could successfully run even the most efficient current version of FULL Windows on a 1 Ghz machine? 

 

But you go back FIVE years (what I would normally consider pretty much the "End Of Life" of even my personal systems), and you've got an 8-core Mac Pro sporting a QUAD core Xeon CPU (3.0 GHz Q. Core Xeon X5365 x2) that COULD probably run today's OSX without showing its age too badly...

 

So, no, I wouldn't try running the latest Windows on a 10 year old system, or even a 5 year old PC (is there really such a thing? Anyone here regularly USE a 5 year old Dell, for example?), but I could see using a 5-year old Mac Pro for Mountain Lion...

 

But that's not all of it. Performance, yes, but also COMPONENTS, which remain reliable for only so long… after 5 years, drives, sensors and other things start to fail… so you end up with an increased cost of ownership. lower reliability...

 

For a company, this would be untenable, and that's especially why they don't use those decade-old computers… 

 

 

 

I actually have a 5 year old Mac Pro running Mountain Lion.  A year ago I upgraded the boot drive to a flash drive.  With the flash drive It feels about the same speed as my 2011 Mac Book Air.  The only difference is that it weighs about 80 pounds instead of 2.

post #75 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by knightlie View Post


XP was a pile of sh*t until Service Pack 2. That is also "reality".
Edit: I think you've got your timing wrong, too - wasn't XP 2003? It was Bill Gates' response to OS X, amusingly enough. Something about wanting an X in the name, always was just a copycat...

 

Yes. It is amazing that some many have forgotten just how bad XP was. Soon after its release, XP quickly assumed the title of "Most virus-ridden OS in history." Not only did XP suffered more viruses than its DOS-based Windows siblings, the viruses that attacked it were more malicious than those that attacked its less sophisticated siblings. The customer base was not amused. This prompted Bill Gates to develop the now famous "security through obscurity" excuse. In response to complaints about the withering array of viruses against XP, Bill said that this was to be expected. Windows was the most popular operating system on Earth. Therefore, it was only natural that Windows would have the most viruses. Q.E.D.

 

Well, Q.E. not so D. There were several problems with Gates's excuse. No evidence was presented to show that there was any connection at all between popularity and virus-vulnerability. This was a classic post hoc ergo propter hoc argument. The other thing was the Windows XP as not the most popular OS at the time. The most popular OS was Windows 98 which, though vulnerable, suffered fewer and less malicious new viruses.

 

Facts aside, the popular press accepted Gates's excuse without question. So too did the Windows installed base. Rather than viewing Windows malware as the natural consequence of poor OS design, they now wore the withering array of Windows viruses as a badge of honor.

post #76 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me View Post

 

a classic post hoc ergo propter hoc argument. 

 

 

Please don't ruin my superstitions.  :(

 

I *always* have a great day when I put my pants on left-leg first.   ;)

post #77 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

 

Yeah, I'd love to see Win 8 running 'well' on a Pentium 4. I somehow doubt it. 

 

Ask and you shall receive:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta6QwWnnh_k


There are a plethora of videos and articles of Windows 8 running well on old hardware. Granted, old hardware may not have supported drivers--if you're using a GeForce 256, you're obviously not going to have the best experience. However, if you have a newer video chipset (or a chipset that still has supported drivers, like the Intel 950 series), it works very well.

post #78 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

 

Yeah, this is true. Windows 8 is extremely efficient; it runs well even on old hardware, like  Pentium M's and Pentium 4's with a a gig of RAM, which is quite the accomplishment as they continue to support legacy applications (as they always have, and always will, being the business world.)

 

So IE6 and 7 are not considered "legacy applications"?

 

They aren't supported by Windows 7 let alone 8, which explains why XP's share is still so high and is probably the main reason it is still available for business customers.

 

The fallout from the browser wars continues.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #79 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

...

 

I was an early adopter of Vista and it was a piece of crap. Instead of downgrading I upgraded to Linux.smoking.gif

I was an early adopter of Vista and I upgraded to OSX.  I was so pissed at Vista I swore I would never buy or use a MS product unless forced to do so.  I buy my own computers for work.  I have a MBA and thunderbolt display.  Works great. The HP computer provided by my corporate IT is sitting in the corner of my office collecting dust.  One of my co-workers decided to copy my setup last month with the 2012 MBA and a thunderbolt display.  The 2012 MBA handles the larger monitor a bit better (i.e., the fan is less likely to turn on).

post #80 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Businesses do not often upgrade their OS more than one major revision. People who are installing Win 7 on machines that came with XP are not your typical corporate IT department. As others have said most Windows machines never get their OS upgraded. Even so those older machines remain quite serviceable for the tasks they are performing.

 

I do predict a massive Windows upgrade and hardware replacement cycle to begin very soon which will completely deprecate XP. The reason is HTML5. As more and more websites start to utilize HTML5, Windows users will not be able to access that web content without upgrading to IE 9. IE 9 will not be supported on XP as far as I have heard. Sure they could install Chrome plugin or Chrome itself, but many corporate IT departments are unwilling to do that as they have IE proprietary Windows applications on the network and they don't want service requests from users saying the application is broken.

 

They installed Chrome and Firefox on ours, so we can use more advanced web content e.g. HTML 5.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple's OS X passes Windows Vista in worldwide usage