Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Windows XP Finally Falls Below 50% Market Share

By - Source: Net Applications | B 48 comments

It was going to happen and some point.

Net Applications now lists Windows XP with a market share of 49.84 percent, down from 51.13 percent in June.

Windows XP was launched almost 10 years ago, on August 24, 2001 and is still the world's most popular operating system. Windows Vista failed to become a replacement for XP, but Windows 7 is apparently eating away share from XP at an accelerating pace. However, Windows 7 cannot collect all those users that XP and Windows Vista are losing every month: XP and Vista lost a combined 1.57 points of OS market share in July, while Windows 7 gained just 0.74 points and now stands at 27.87 percent. Windows overall dropped to from 88.29 percent to 87.66 percent market share, while Mac OS X climbed from 5.37 percent to 5.59 percent and iOS is now estimated to hold 2.98 percent.

StatCounter, by the way, estimates Windows XP share at 43.89 percent and Windows 7 share at 36.06 percent.

A decrease in Windows XP market share and an increase in Windows 7 is critical for Microsoft to lay the foundation for greater IE9 and IE10 adoption to promote a new HTML5 app model that will arrive with Windows 8 in 2012.

Display 48 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 22 Hide
    aznguy0028 , August 2, 2011 10:49 AM
    Finally... XP had a good run, but it's way pass time to let it go. Not exactly too thrilled about DX9 still being used in games while we already have DX11 either. Also still waiting for the day where 32bit OS will be gone and x64 would be the new native.
  • 17 Hide
    huron , August 2, 2011 11:17 AM
    Completely agree...it was a good OS for a long time. Sometimes it is tough to go back to using it after using Windows 7.

    Completely agree aznguy...it'll be a good day when 64 bit is the norm.
  • 12 Hide
    back_by_demand , August 2, 2011 12:04 PM
    s997863MS forces people to buy a new unwanted product by artificially creating problems of their old OS. Is there really any technical limitation in XP that prevents it from using dx-10, dx-11 or new versions of IE or it's just a marketing decision? Also, is there any noticable benefit of new direct-x or IE over the last versions? I remember actually seeing new effects in games games for DX7, DX8 that starting surpassing glide & opengl. But these latest versions? Can you see notable difference in all the comparison videos or high-res screens trying to spot difference in Crysis running on DX9 vs DX10. Or how about the new Crysis-2 ultra comparisons which are now pushing for DX11?

    No one forces you to buy anything, but let's put it terms of brass tacks shall we?

    People invest in a PC which must cost a pretty penny because they are playing Crysis 2 in DX11, so at the very least they have lashed out hundreds on the graphics card alone and the CPU and RAM must be fairly beefy too.

    So to balk at $100 on an OS over a 10 year period takes a special kind of scrooge-minded, tight-fisted, penny-pinching, mean-spiritedness that beggars belief.

    If you are prepared to spend over $1000 on a PC you can at least get a new OS at least once a decade.
Other Comments
  • 22 Hide
    aznguy0028 , August 2, 2011 10:49 AM
    Finally... XP had a good run, but it's way pass time to let it go. Not exactly too thrilled about DX9 still being used in games while we already have DX11 either. Also still waiting for the day where 32bit OS will be gone and x64 would be the new native.
  • 5 Hide
    carlhenry , August 2, 2011 10:56 AM
    Hell, it's about time!
  • 17 Hide
    huron , August 2, 2011 11:17 AM
    Completely agree...it was a good OS for a long time. Sometimes it is tough to go back to using it after using Windows 7.

    Completely agree aznguy...it'll be a good day when 64 bit is the norm.
  • 7 Hide
    JackFrost860 , August 2, 2011 11:21 AM
    The transition from XP to Vista/7 (aka v5 to v6.0/6.1) was more significant than the previous upgrades because it included the change from 32bit to 64bit for the main stream. It should get easier from v6 to v7 or is that v6.2?
  • -8 Hide
    Anonymous , August 2, 2011 11:27 AM
    XP was a well designed OS indeed. I only bought Win7, cause when I bought my comp, there was no win7 yet, but upgrades were promised for Vista users. So I bought a Vista Business, so I could downgrade at anytime to WinXP, and when Win7 came out, they shipped me the Pro version for free. It was a really good deal. 3 "windowses" for the price of one.

    Otherwise I'd still be an XP user up to this day. Win8 looks like MS is aiming too much for the touchscreens and XBOX gaming, so I guess I'll give it a pass, and maybe give Ubuntu one more shot. Once popular games make their way on Linux, Windows is doomed.
  • 3 Hide
    hetneo , August 2, 2011 11:38 AM
    I don't think that this data reflects situation properly because it includes non-PC OS'. Just take a look at your own household OS' and devices. For example 5 years ago I had 2 PC's with XP and one smartphone and one dumb phone. Now I have 2 PC's with Win7, 3 smartphones and one tablet. Win7 does collect all users that XP and Vista lose, but there is also considerable number of new devices which are out of reach for Win7 that are included in this data. More telling would be comparation of only desktop OS', because from these data could be drawn conclusion that people are throwing PCs away because they don't want to switch to Win7.
  • -7 Hide
    DSpider , August 2, 2011 11:51 AM
    aznguy0028Finally... XP had a good run, but it's way pass time to let it go. Not exactly too thrilled about DX9 still being used in games while we already have DX11 either. Also still waiting for the day where 32bit OS will be gone and x64 would be the new native.

    Because current generation consoles (PS3 and 360) have outdated graphics and because they usually port them to PC. A lot of people still have older video cards that can still pack a punch (relative to these consoles), so why not develop the games, in such a way, as to reach the broadest population as possible? Especially if it could mean more sales. Think about it.

    hetneoWin7 does collect all users that XP and Vista lose, but there is also considerable number of new devices which are out of reach for Win7 that are included in this data. More telling would be comparation of only desktop OS', because from these data could be drawn conclusion that people are throwing PCs away because they don't want to switch to Win7.

    I didn't. I switched from XP to Arch Linux when I first saw how the Windows 7 interface looked (like straight up KDE). Motherboard says it was designed for Windows 7 but works very well on Linux. So I don't care about 7. For the very few Windows-only programs I use (including iTunes for syncing my iPod), I use VirtualBox with TinyXP installed inside a 2 GB .vdi file. Just right for what I need.
  • 12 Hide
    back_by_demand , August 2, 2011 12:04 PM
    s997863MS forces people to buy a new unwanted product by artificially creating problems of their old OS. Is there really any technical limitation in XP that prevents it from using dx-10, dx-11 or new versions of IE or it's just a marketing decision? Also, is there any noticable benefit of new direct-x or IE over the last versions? I remember actually seeing new effects in games games for DX7, DX8 that starting surpassing glide & opengl. But these latest versions? Can you see notable difference in all the comparison videos or high-res screens trying to spot difference in Crysis running on DX9 vs DX10. Or how about the new Crysis-2 ultra comparisons which are now pushing for DX11?

    No one forces you to buy anything, but let's put it terms of brass tacks shall we?

    People invest in a PC which must cost a pretty penny because they are playing Crysis 2 in DX11, so at the very least they have lashed out hundreds on the graphics card alone and the CPU and RAM must be fairly beefy too.

    So to balk at $100 on an OS over a 10 year period takes a special kind of scrooge-minded, tight-fisted, penny-pinching, mean-spiritedness that beggars belief.

    If you are prepared to spend over $1000 on a PC you can at least get a new OS at least once a decade.
  • 7 Hide
    belardo , August 2, 2011 12:42 PM
    With MacOS at 5.5%.. its amazing that Windows / MS are threatened by Macintoshes...
  • -5 Hide
    hangfirew8 , August 2, 2011 1:07 PM
    Windows XP was the most porous operating system in history, a cut down, primped up version of Windows 2000 with less security and more fragile drivers due to Ring 0 protection being eliminated.

    Good riddance.
  • 0 Hide
    rantoc , August 2, 2011 1:17 PM
    hetneoMore telling would be comparation of only desktop OS', because from these data could be drawn conclusion that people are throwing PCs away because they don't want to switch to Win7.


    It would be great since it would be a fair comparason but why not do it the regular Toms (Steve's?) Hardware way - See what car brand is dominant but also add cycles into it especially since people usually own both to skew the results!
  • 2 Hide
    cookoy , August 2, 2011 1:41 PM
    it's a natural course in a product''s lifecycle. eventually everything will be phased out, replaced by newer versions or just fade away. so xp market share decline is expected, not really news worthy.
  • 12 Hide
    JohnA , August 2, 2011 2:14 PM
    hangfirew8Windows XP was the most porous operating system in history, a cut down, primped up version of Windows 2000 with less security and more fragile drivers due to Ring 0 protection being eliminated. Good riddance.


    How quickly they forget Windows 98, or FAT. XP was a huge leap over the user unfriendly 2000, which was a pimped up NT.
  • 6 Hide
    christop , August 2, 2011 2:48 PM
    R.I.P xp..
  • 2 Hide
    Rab1d-BDGR , August 2, 2011 2:54 PM
    Finally - MS needs to pull the plug on support for this antique once and for all. It was an okay OS ten years ago, I hate being forced into using this POS on downgraded windows 7-licensed machines just because of incompetent IT purchasing decisions made years ago.
  • 7 Hide
    Soma42 , August 2, 2011 3:03 PM
    Good riddance. 7 is so much better than XP I don't understand why there is so much resistance to the transition. XP was great 10 years ago, but not so much anymore. Vista was better (mostly) and 7 is the clear winner.
  • -2 Hide
    11796pcs , August 2, 2011 3:07 PM
    There is absolutely no excuse for anyone to be running XP anymore. If you need XP, get Windows 7 Professional and download Windows XP Mode. Enough said.
  • -2 Hide
    Anonymous , August 2, 2011 3:56 PM
    ...besides a good bunch of still great games, that won't work under Windows 7 - even in XP Mode!
  • -4 Hide
    SteelCity1981 , August 2, 2011 5:52 PM
    Quote:
    No one forces you to buy anything


    Um ok... When your OS that you are running now no longer supports hardly anything you then are pretty much are forced to upgrade to a newer OS. XP is going the same way. Microsoft is slowly squeezing the life out of it, by cutting off support for it little by little. IE9. Windows Media player 12, Live Messenger 2011 Essentails are just a prime of example of software programs by Microsoft that be supported under XP, but Microsoft said nope if you want those new programs you have to upgrade either Vista or 7 to get those features. And if Vista was a huge sucess like 7 is Microsoft would have started cutting off support for XP a lot sooner.
Display more comments
Tom’s guide in the world
  • Germany
  • France
  • Italy
  • Ireland
  • UK
Follow Tom’s guide
Subscribe to our newsletter