Apple's OS X passes Windows Vista in worldwide usage

124

Comments

  • Reply 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.

  • Reply 62 of 100
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    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.

  • Reply 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.

  • Reply 64 of 100
    shidell wrote: »
    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...
  • Reply 65 of 100
    mstone wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 66 of 100
    kotatsukotatsu Posts: 1,010member


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

  • Reply 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?

  • Reply 68 of 100
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    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.

  • Reply 69 of 100
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    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.

  • Reply 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…)… 

  • Reply 71 of 100
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    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.image

  • Reply 72 of 100
    Marvin wrote: »
    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:
  • Reply 73 of 100
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,352member

    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. 

  • Reply 74 of 100
    ash471ash471 Posts: 705member

    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.

  • Reply 75 of 100
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,221member

    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.

  • Reply 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.   ;)

  • Reply 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.

  • Reply 78 of 100
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    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.

  • Reply 79 of 100
    ash471ash471 Posts: 705member

    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.image



    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).

  • Reply 80 of 100
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    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.

Sign In or Register to comment.