Windows 8 May, 2013 Market share

Please do not turn this into a verbal fight. It seems though Windows 8 is still not gaining needed traction. Maybe Blue can help this but this has to have M$ at least worried by now, even if they will not admit it!

May 2013: Windows 8 Not Taking Over, Still Less Popular than Vista

 

Well, an obvious response (though not necessarily from me ) would be that the relevance of the particular sample (from StatCounter in this case) that the article is based on may be questionable.

 

This may be true, but it is the numbers we have to work with. My guess here is you have to remember a lot of business systems are firewalled even from accessing the web so they may not sow up as well. Interesting though if you look at the USA figures.

 

You know as popular as W7 was you'd think MS would expand on it until the market said otherwise.

And MS had the opportunity to build an OS from the ground up with possibly a new file system, no registry.

 

The Steam Survey has always interested me, as it reflects strictly gamers. According to them, Win8 x64 is the #3 OS in their rankings.

Windows 7 64 bit54.18%-0.76%
Windows 7 13.39% -0.15%
Windows 8 64 bit 10.86% +0.95%

Better yet, the 32-bit Win8 is used by far less than 1% of users, which makes me happy. Shoo 32-bit, shoo shoo

Steam Hardware & Software Survey

 

win 8 was a gambit by microsoft to leverage its desktop consumer market to 'bite into' its miniscule mobile market. the theory was that by ramming its mobile interface into the pc computer market, they could show us how beautiful and efficient the metro ui was, knowing full well it isnt an environement suited for desktop use. however if it did succeed, it would be automatic marketing for windows mobile phones and surface computers, and the added synergism would kickstart their mobile market.
alas it didnt work, but their timing to take this risk couldnt have been better, in a business sense. knowing that xp will be eol, ms' hundreds (?) of millions of enterprise customers will be upgrading to win7 this year.that in itself will keep microsoft's fiscal year on the positive (if not extreme positive). add to that the launching of the xbox one, which by al preliminary accounts, point to it being a success. take these two together and you understand why ms is not exactly worried about win8 sales (yet) and its also why its 1q revenues were very good despite.
so thats just it, win8 was always a marketing push for mobile. and as much negative reaction win8 has recieved pre launch, to them it was always a risk worth taking because other income streams would shore them up; and imho this was their last ditch effort to revive windows mobile. there has always been a plan b, to give the desktop users what they always wanted just in case shtf. and now that the gambit has failed, they will make that push by the end of this year or next year, when they will be needing fresh income streams.

 

As I would expect gamers only have a few icons/games to launch therefore do not care about start menu etc. So in a non productivity environment Win8 is absolutely fine. Also remember Gamers are the ones who are always after the latest and greatest consumer hardware and since it is available as windows 8 now that is where the highest saturation may be.

Funny thing is gamers are the least likely to want or use touch..............................

 

As a gamer, I avoid Windows 8 at all cost unless I add StartIsBack. One problem with Wi8 is that some recent games that go back 1-2 years won't install because it's incompatible with the W8 desktop so I have to install it on W7.

 

I can see that especially with DWM broken and god knows what else M$ may have broke in the mean time. Another issue may be the desktop is no longer part of the kernel and a shell of MinWin. I do not remember the RC though having issues, then again gamers may not have tried out the games for which you have issues.

 

The desktop (Windows Explorer, essentially) never was a part of the kernel. The status of the desktop in Windows 8, from a systems architecture point of view, is exactly the same as the one it was in previous versions of Windows. You may be confused by the appearance of the desktop on the Start Screen, which makes it look like an app. However, it is important to understand that this appearance has nothing to do with reality. The desktop is not an app.

 

I am probably over simplifying, so I'll apologize. Again this still may be over simplification but MinWin could have been the separation finally needed to create a new shell from the ground up. Breaking of DWM and possible other functions/libraries though may be to thwart, if not at least delay, this. If true M$ will never fix it....................

 

Is that DWM that important to you that much? Are we talking about tile Windows thing? I am just curious.

 

No, DWM for the most part effects Aero Glass and the title bars etc.. To me when using the desktop those plain bland title bars just bother me. I try to ignore them but can't. they keep gnawing at me and my eyes eventually get distracted by them. I am sure over time I could get used to it but this annoyance was my last straw. Now If I were a gamer and rarely in the desktop I would not care but I am always on the desktop...............

IMHO I could care less about the tiles. I use Rocket Dock on the desktop for just about everything I do daily. For the abstract access I would have just installed a simple menu to either right click from desktop or an added icon to access from RD. But I am at the point because they, M$, felt they could pull the rug out from us as far as they did, ignoring the beta groups (myself included), to redeem themselves they now have to give it ALL back. So to M$ push us and we will push back, I mean they did not even kiss me before telling me to bend over...............................

 

Win 7 is the true successor to Windows XP, and will likely have the longevity of XP unless Microsoft wises up and expands on what makes 7 and XP so appealing to the majority of PC users/owners. Win 7 is already 3.5 years old believe it or not (wow), and will be about 6 or 7 years old by the time Microsoft decides to roll out the next Windows that isn't a slight change from Windows 8.

 

I think, at least at the moment, Windows 9 is geared toward further developing the touch interface. The rumors are also geared toward a 3D gesture input as well. Now this would be different than just touch and might be of interest to desktop and even laptop usage. Talk is via expensive input to laptop dual camera 3D systems.

I think the plan was to get gesture into Windows 8. Now if this were done then M$ pushing the new interface and input methods of touch and gesture could be better understood. Since it was not though they need to get functionality back to desktop users.

As a side note though if gesture becomes the norm it could stir up sales. That of systems fast enough to use the system, the input devices, Capable OS and even development of software to utilize the system. Touch was not the revolutionary input method, 3D gesturing for a PC very well could be.................

 

3D gesturing? For real? If those rumors were true (which I doubt), then the guys at Microsoft would have to be even more out of it than even I thought. Why would I want to perform gymnastics in front of my desktop or laptop? Why in all the world?

 

not gymnastics but I could see this under the right circumstances working out. lift your hand from the keyboard to swipe or other functions. I doubt, or at least would not hope, the intent is to get you out of your comfy chair to do jumping jacks to perform a mouse click.....................

 

I'll tell you where this would be a good idea and could be put to good use. If I setup my PC and hooked it up to my HDTV and had a Kinect camera connected, then I just mimicked an XBOX 360 or XBOX One. :thumbsup:

And that's what my next build looks to be. A Steam PC hooked up to my HDTV. I'm waiting for the Alienware X51 announcement @ E3 before I buy pre-built or build it myself but that scenario I could put to good use.

 

Innovation always come from crazy idea my friend. I would never imagine that I have to learn PowerShell (command line) in MS products either. You might want to try it. It actually unleashes full potential of the OS.

 

I don't care if MS wants to try new things. But just leave the legacy stuff implemented until the new stuff is proven out.

 

When working with multiple machines command line and/or script files have a lot more power than that of running a single machine. For some processes even there is almost no substitute for the good old command line. This is from someone who was there for the old command line vs. GUI wars back in the day (I was a GUI proponent).

I agree with HT too as the legacy hardware and interface should be left alone or have an upgraded experience until new hardware becomes the proven standard. I can however truly see where the OS is gearing towards gestures with Windows 8 but the hardware is just not there yet. At this point it may not be for a while either, at least to the main stream. M$ easily could have kept the old stuff running as it was or better while saying "We are ready for your next step!". So many missed opportunities, it is a sad shame at the least.............

 

I thought Windows 8 has backward compatibility older hardware and software within last 5 years. What doesn't work in Windows 8? Can you be specific? Come to think of it. Only handful of us exclude me complain about this OS. This is weird.

 

A lot of older proprietary software doesn't work in W8. Not in the industry that provides my paycheck anyway. That's one of the reasons that OS in question isn't getting to my workplace. Ever.

ROTFL. Thank you for making my day.

 

Yes, this guy is funny...

 

I am not saying hardware incompatible but not optimized for the legacy hardware (read non-touch). Once the new hardware (read touch or 3d gesture) becomes standard then push the use of those new standards. Kind of a chicken before the egg deal here.

No one is trying to make fun of anyone here, no ROTFL bits. Merlin and others may not be able to see the flaws with Win8, apparently they are of the same mind as the people who made the decision to push the OS. All of us who see the issues and the need for them to be fixed need to find a way to convince those of the other mind set.............

 

Ahh, but you need to understand that hardware standards do not become standards in and of themselves, or because they are pushed by some manufacturers. They become standards when a majority of people sees value in them, and want to buy computers that are equipped with these devices. USB interfaces and peripherals became a standard because of the significant value they offered over the then-existing hardware. Firewire never went anywhere (except in a few isolated niches) because its benefit was limited vis-à-vis USB. Nobody even remembers the Windows companion devices that Microsoft offered interfaces for in Windows 7. At some point speech recognition seemed to be poised to play a big role, and it, likewise, never went anywhere. Who wants to constantly have to babble at their PC?

Now with touch, let alone 3d gesturing, the jury's still out. Sure, touch was a crucial enabling technology for tablets, but the idea that, therefore, touch will become standard for conventional PCs is nothing short of breathtakingly naïve. Just as, by the way, the idea that those conventional PCs will be going away. Yes, it is true that the tablet market has shown explosive growth, but that is because, indeed, lots and lots of consumers didn't ever use their PCs for anything more than some light web browsing, and a bit of email. In these scenarios, tablets make a lot of sense, and may indeed be all these consumers need.

What people forget is that there's also plenty of professionals, at all sorts of levels, from the secretary to the rocket scientist, that need a traditional PC. This market will not go away, and it cannot be served by dinky little tablets. An interesting example are design professionals, the kind of people who use high-end CAD and CAE packages: A number of manufacturers have been offering touchscreen-enhanced systems for these applications, but the interest has been limited to non-existent. Why? Because for those applications there are far, far more powerful devices (3D "mice" and such) available. One of the reasons why this example is interesting is that those touch capabilities that are currently being touted are in the same boat: At the end of the day, existing mouse/keyboard combinations are far more powerful, and more convenient, when you are in a stationary situation (desktop PC, or laptop on a desk). The consequence is that those people who really need such devices have little to no interest in touch capabilities. My prediction is therefore that the much-hyped touch revolution is a dud, for anything but tablets and hybrids. It simply makes no sense in the vast majority of cases.

 

It might be time for your organization to move forward and virtualize legacy software instead. Virtualization should decrease TCO in your company. Just a thought. I am glad that I make you smile.

Well, I am not going to say that the OS is perfect by any means, but it is an improvement over its predecessor as I said in another post. We do some extensive testing and the benefit is far out weight the interface problem that you have been complaining. In training, we just tell users to treat the whole tile as a start menu. I just tell them MS is supersize start menu for you guys. :thumbsup eople always resist to change, and it is my job to make a decision for them. I embrace change, so it isn't a problem for me. I virtualize all legacy software. That is my solution. I am not going to predict the market or read online article and let them make a decision for me. I know what I am doing, and I know what direction that I am going to take my organization to. Luckily, I haven't been wrong yet.

 

That's a shame, but it's not exactly a new thing. Some companies are still clinging to IE6 and XP and OS/2 or whatever because the developers of the day were not very far-sighted and were more worried about Y2K than whether their industrial milling machine would work in future Windows.

My clients are highly cloud-centric and don't run into these issues. If the OS has a web browser, they can work. One of my coworkers recently did a full day of productive work using OpenIndiana (Solaris open source project). I even manage to be productive with Windows 8. But hey, maybe we're just different.

(do you use Comic Sans on purpose?)

 

Great minds think alike.

 

I'm dead certain that in a Fortune 20 company with 200K employees someone already had that same idea proposed and it didn't get very far. Because it would not work. It's really that simple.

 

Not the case here. You'd have to understand how much sits on the aforementioned legacy software, and what's at stake not just at the company level to understand why things are the way they are. They did tweak the stuff to work in W7, couldn't get it to perform reliably in W8 and W8 got wiped off the map right then and there.

Yes.

 

I am sure that they haven't explored all the aspect of virtualization. Fortune 20 company means nothing to me. This is not about net worth. It is all about problem solving. Can you confirm that they try VDI approach? If those big companies rely on proprietary software for vital operations, they are doom to fail. To me, I am more like options guy. I always want more options or more ways to tackle problems.

 

You kind of have a back handed statement there. If they are a Fortune 20 company where do you see their imminent failure? If they have 200K employees then I am sure they are doing something right. Personally I wouldn't be the one to second guess them and their future based just on the OS of their computer systems..................

Edit; in large corps if you successfully resolve a problem you do not look for more ways to solve the problem you then take on the next issue. Be that another problem or eventually productivity enhancements and the like. While I understand your personal point when in a large company personal points usually count for very little...............

 

God almighty... This one really takes the cake for this year's most stunningly naïve statement. No further comment.

Somebody has just completely and utterly disqualified himself.

 

I wouldn't quite say that. If we were all disqualified for an open mouth and insert foot moment then we all would be truly disqualified! Don't know about you guys but I have to check my undergarments for streaks regularly, for those not getting the reference I really am dating myself................

 

Oh God!, this is why I love this forum since I thought Pirx and TANWare would not reply my post anymore. First of all, I have fun posting here. Now, let get back to the topic. We have to see that most of Fortune 20 companies are either in oil or financial sector. I did some consultant with some banks. They will hold on to their proprietaries' software until it they don't work anymore. They will pay more money for network security since they have to comply with regulations. You don't want your bank to get hacked easily right? Yeah, they will pay top dollars for their security equipment and data center. Some legacy software are in the back burner. Do you guy see my point? Yeah, my virtualization idea would fix those problems, but they would not want to spend money on those fancy serves, switches, routers, and OS license fee, and etc. If their teller can run thin client, so be it. That is the point of view of CFO not CIO. Everything has to be compromised. There are always 2 sides of the coin. I just offer my side.

It is not my personal decision that counts in the big corporate. I have seen big telecommunication company lets go few brilliant VoIP engineers because of financial reasons. I hope moderators don't delete my post. Yeah, it isn't all about OS, but OS in integral part of the network. Engineers want to build the best cars, plan, and network, but financial people always have the last word. It is how it is today, and it is going to be in the future. That is how we learn to compromised to make financial sense. I would not go buy 10Gbps switch for branch office right? Yeah, I would do for main office. I hope you guys see my point too.

Of course, those big companies do things right. They are in business to make money. IT is just parts of their operations. Those posts above are good, and I could not agree more. Am I still naïve Pirx?

 

Much better...

 

Don't want pick apart my statement anymore? It isn't fun when you don't do that.

 

My workplace belongs to neither of these industries.

Big banks were always ahead of the game. BOA was running tens of thousands of miles of their own fiber network long before Internet became vox populli...so when they rely on proprietary software, there's a good reason for it. The same holds true for major hospital chains, both big telcos and numerous other players.

One of the reasons these folks were let go is the fact that neither of the oversized, obese Baby Bells that still rule the roost has any real interest in VoIP. All they want is wireless, period.

Especially when deploying something on an enterprise level means training 50K+ people which translates into a ton of money...the decision-makers have to see a tangible benefit from such a course of action, otherwise their heads might end up being the next ones on the chopping block.

 

I wonder if you actually have real experience in IT or just heard about it? I am not going to correct everything I said one by one, but you probably never involved in project with ATT. Well, I don't know what to tell you about BOA. Fiber optics that are under the street are mostly belong to ATT. Fiber optic really doesn't have anything to do with proprietary software. It is more like network protocol.

You are talking about baby Bell. Let me take a wild guess that you aren't in my generation. Not everything is about wireless my friend if I may. You might want to talk about SIP Trunks. Oh, I forgot that you confused about PRI too. I am sure that between the branch. Most of the bank with use point-to-point or connect through full time VPN. Bank won't be able to lay the fiber on public street, but they will lease the line from Telco if you want to know.

Of course, deployment of that large scale would be in phase. I won't be done within one month. Hey, I do enjoy discuss this topic with you, but I would like you to engage in more technical stuff with me a little. What you said is partially facts mix with opinions. I would love to learn something from you too.

 

I haven't personally worked in my employer's IT department since 2005, if that satisfies your curiosity. I am, however, exposed to IT departments of various industries - large and small - on regular basis.

I've worked a lot with AT&T. Still do.

You're mixing up several different things here, so let me enlighten you: BOA has their own fiber, and had their own switches and pretty much an independent communications network as early as mid-1980s. That has absolutely nothing to do with AT&T, Verizon or any other LEC. My point was - in this respect - that a company that is able to look that far into the future must have a good reason to use a ton of proprietary software even nowadays. I never stated that the said software had anything to do with their physical network.

Most likely not. Your point being?

You may want to share that opinion with the two biggest LECs - aka "oversized Baby Bells" as I called them in my previous post - who also happen to be two largest wireless carriers. And who are, slowly but surely, pulling the plug on their FTTH operations..

No buddy, you're the one who is confused regarding the PRI.

What most newbies call a PRI is usually not a real PRI, but a voice T-1 which emulates a PRI.There are several major differences between the two. And off the topic we go again...

I was not talking about the banks in general, but specifically about BOA. And yes, they were able to lay fiber under the streets. As was IBM back then. I know I'm talking about the land before time. Sheesh.

I believe that our conversation in this thread has shown that there's absolutely nothing you can learn from me since it's rather obvious to even a most casual observer that you know everything already.

 

No, I don't know everything. I have to admit that I am not sure about your explanation on PRI. I have PRI on Cisco 6509 blade, so I asked you about that back then. You said PRI isn't voice over IP, but I am dealing with VoIP everyday from switch level. We have Cisco phone everywhere. How come it isn't VoIP? I even have to create voice VLAN to make it to work. I don't know what else to tell you. I don't know about BOA made they own switch either. I thought Cisco was a king back then, and they have their own protocol on EIGP, PoE, VTP, SCCP, and CatOS. I am either not old enough or you know something that I don't.

If you talk about time before time like IBM, I have to give it to you that you know more than me. The oldest server OS that I have seen is Window NT. I don't even know how it operates either. I am curious that BOA design their own routing protocol back then? I thought RIP is the grandfather of routing protocol. Fiber optic is just physical layer. Can you tell me how BOA comes up with the software or network protocol to overcome switch loop and routing? How do they do spanning tree back then? How do they keep the routing table on their network. Are they even use VLAN??I am really curious.

I doubt that the programmer of BOA can come up with network protocol. If it is about financial software, I can see that. I know that some organizations still run database on UNIX. I don't even know what to do with that server! I am looking forward to your reply.

 

Off topic, for the last time, I promise...

Cisco was in diapers if that old when this was taking place. I lived 5,000 miles away and was earning my living in a completely unrelated industry.

As for PRI, one simple question, and then we can take it to PM, seriously: how many dialtones (oh what a dreadful term) are you pulling off of a single PRI?

I can't tell you how BOA went about routing protocols since I had absolutely no involvement in that whole thing. I could ask the gentleman who was in charge of the aforementioned project back then, if he remembers. He's up there in age, though...seriously.

A very good friend of ours got crippled while laying fiber for IBM in one of NYC's boroughs in 1988. One heck of a horrible accident that was. Once again, that's the stuff for PM and other threads/forums...

 

I agree that we are a little off topic, but I am going to answer you anyway. 1 port of PRI can handle up to 24 phone calls, but I have 12, so you do the math. You also have to have DSP to go with it, so you can transcode voice packet. I will either use G711 or G729 in call plan depends on the bandwidth. Normally, LAN would use G711, and wireless network would have to be G729. Of course, we have to use QoS in our network as well. Internal call would not go through PRI. It will be handled through call manager. By the way, you are right about T1 and PRI. I just login and look closely at the port. It is T1. For some reasons, I never pay attention to it. We are in the process of getting rid of old PRI and use another vendor with SIP Trunks instead. Yeah, PRI is kind of old school. I am not good with old technology.

Let stay on Windows 8 topic then. Have you tried to actually use it?

 

You don't have a *real* PRI but a voice T-1. Of course, that IS VoIP, no questions asked.

Yes. I found that it offered absolutely no tangible benefits for my personal use over W7.

On the corporate level at my workplace, I'm nowhere near the top of the food chain and am not involved in decision-making on such a level by any stretch of imagination. With that said, those who do make those decisions have decided that they're not touching W8 (just like they didn't allow Vista on a single PC) with a thirty-foot pole and already have an alternate plan of action, just like they did in Vista days.

Look, here's where I stand: I've got eight more years to retirement, provided I make it that far. That's about a year after the support for W7 ends. If W9 (or W10 by that time) is a continuation of W8 practices that I dislike and the big boys decide to implement it at my workplace by some crazy chance, I've got enough time between vacation, disability and a couple of other options to burn that extra year without ever having to touch the new OS.

For my personal computers, Linux it will be, most likely.