Windows 7 continues to dominate market with month-over-month growth.
More consumers have adopted to Microsoft's Windows 7 as its market share once again overtakes XP's.
According to web tracker Net Applications, Windows 7 featured a market share of 44.7 percent in October, representing an increase from September's 44 percent. As for Windows XP, the operating system's share decreased from 41.2 percent to 40.7 percent last month.
Although the 11-year-old XP still boasts a considerable share of the OS market, Windows 7 is slowly starting to take over as the dominant operating system, with the latter having finally taken the top spot in August. A year ago, XP's share stood at 48 percent, with Windows 7 having a market share below 35 percent.
The just-released Windows 8, meanwhile, hasn't made a major impact on the market yet. Net Applications said its pre-launch versions delivered a share of 0.41 percent last month, which was 0.3 percent in September. That said, it should be noted that W8's market share was based before its official launch; three days after its release, the new OS sold over 4 million copies.
Ultimately, Windows dominated the OS market with a share of more than 91 percent. Apple's Mac OS holds a 7.1 percent share, while Linux trails behind with just over 1 percent.
My two cents though: Most metro apps can be useless on the desktop. Only a select few of them are a bit interesting/usefull, at least, up to this point, and the respective apps being free.
thats funny, I moved from win2K and absolutely hated XP when it came out. It was litterally 2K with a new interface... and that was it at the time. No added features until the service packs.
Um, no?
If XP = Win 7
Vista = Win 8
Then
Win 9 must = Awesome
I doubt it because they don't seem to be giving up the idea of a touchscreen desktop.
That is not logic, that is assumption...
Man this site confuses the hell out of me sometimes.
Some of my friends like having OSes like Ubuntu and other Linux based OS... But in the end they always have Windows 7 to go back to when they find obstacles on their linux. I tried ubuntu too and all I can say is that it is not bad... but just for a secondary OS if needed.
*sigh* Is this the crap people still believe?
pre win3.1... there is a reason you never heard of it, they all sucked
3.1 acceptable at the time, but not an OS 'for the masses'
-Split into a pro/business line and a home user product line
Home user product line:
win95 relative failure due to new interface and dev tools, but it did bring computers from the workplace into the home, so it was transformitave no matter how bad it actuially was
win98 OK at launch, but win98SE was awesome
winME sucked so hard it ended the product line
Business product line:
Win NT4: better than win3.1, but not exactly a success. Many businesses moved to win95/98 because they were easier to use.
Win 2000 (win5): Huge success, first time the pro version useful at work and at home
WinXP: rough start, people hated the new 'cartooney' interface and steep hardware requirements for its day, but the security advantages and hardware support from SP2 made people migrate. People remember post SP2 fondly and forget the relatively rough beginnings it had. XP was not so popular because it was particularly good as much as that it was the first (and only) OS to be sold for a solid 7 years where other versions were sold for only 2-3 years.
winVista: yep... that was rough. OS itself was generally fine, issue was the transition to a new driver model, bloat of the new interface, and growing pains moving to 64bit architecture.
win7: huge success selling roughly as many copies as XP, but with 1/2 the time to do it. Literally the same as Vista but with proper drivers, passing the 64bit hurtles, hardware acceleration to get past some of the OS bloat, and hardware in general caught up to what the OS and programs required, specifically in ram usage.
So what does this tell you? Pre 2000, windows only had 1 success in win98/98SE, one 'acceptable' OS in win 3.1 that got the ball rolling, and a slew of products that were so-so or just bad. They only survived because there was nothing else available. After 2000 everything they made (on the OS front) has been OK or great with the single exception of Vista which was more of a 3rd party issue than an OS issue... but a failure none the less.
Win8 is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it is not the next 'Vista' either. It is more like win95. It is a re-education on how to interact more directly with your computing device... but without all the instability and security issues that win95 brought to the plate. Win8's changes had to happen to better support new interfaces (though they still have not gotten speech support right), and cloud services. It is not perfect, but I think people are missing just how transformative these 2 major changes will be to the tech industry.
At any rate: Thinking that only 'every other OS is good' only shows your own ignorance.