back to article Windows 7 settles as Windows XP use finally starts to slip … a bit

Windows XP lost nearly one per cent of global market share during August, according to both Netmarketshare and StatCounter, but there's not been a corresponding bounce in the prevalence of other Microsoft operating systems. The Reg has been tracking the two OS-counters for 11 months now and during that time Netmarketshare has …

  1. Michael B.

    Why is Win 8 and Win 8.1 seperated?

    It seems bizarre that you would separate those two versions without separating the others into Service Packs which is essentially what Win8.1 is.

    If you combine them then under StatCounter's stats Win8 usage > WinXP

    1. J. R. Hartley Silver badge

      Re: Why is Win 8 and Win 8.1 seperated?

      Agree wholeheartedly. This separation has never made sense, but El Reg seems to always do it.

      1. proud2bgrumpy

        Re: Why is Win 8 and Win 8.1 seperated?

        Perhaps because Win8 is an OS that MS would rather brush under the carpet and pretend never happened - a bit like Vista

    2. Jordan Davenport

      Re: Why is Win 8 and Win 8.1 seperated?

      They really should be separated because Windows 8.0 is the one that receives only security updates while Windows 8.1 is the one that receives massive feature updates. 8.0's platform is relatively stable and won't change, while 8.1 is more of a moving target, an important factor to consider in an enterprise ecosystem. Of course, that last point is probably why you'll see Windows 7 in enterprise environments for years to come, Metro Windows 8 App Windows Store App "Modern" UI aside.

      1. localzuk

        Re: Why is Win 8 and Win 8.1 seperated?

        @Jordan Davenport - surely that same argument applies to Windows XP when Windows XP SP3 was out? Microsoft usually only supports the latest service pack for non-security updates.

        Them having switched from SP1 to .1 makes little difference.

        1. Jordan Davenport

          Re: Why is Win 8 and Win 8.1 seperated?

          @localzuk & @Ken Hagan:

          You're both right - I was under the (wrong) belief that Windows 8.0 was going to be supported with security patches until 2023. 8.1 is treated identically to Windows 8 Service Pack 1, Service Pack 2, etc. and will cause the official death of 8.0 in 2016. There went my justification for separating the two.

          And given that 8.1 is a moving target, it seems just about pointless to try to standardize an enterprise environment that requires stability on any version of Windows 8.

          1. Roland6 Silver badge

            Re: Why is Win 8 and Win 8.1 seperated?

            It actually makes sense to separate 8.0 from 8.1, as MS provided no service pack updated path via Windows Update; unlike XP. Remember to update from 8.0 the user has to visit the Store etc. etc. Once on 8.1 they will automatically be updated to 8.1u1 via Windows Update.

            So what the 8.0 figure represents is the early adopters who have for various reasons decided not to update to 8.1 and hence will fall off support in January 2016, unlike the users of 8.1.

            1. veti Silver badge

              Re: Why is Win 8 and Win 8.1 seperated?

              I currently have Windows Phone 8, and I can't upgrade to 8.1. It's not available, in the app store or anywhere else.

              So don't let anyone tell you it's users' decision not to upgrade. It's Microsoft and Nokia who are screwing this pooch, in collaboration with certain mobile phone networks whose names may or may not begin with 'Voda-'.

              1. Roland6 Silver badge

                Re: Why is Win 8 and Win 8.1 seperated?

                Veti, raises an interesting and important point.

                According to netmarketshare their desktop OS market share data (cited in the article) covers all versions of Windows, with no exceptions being given, which seem to indicate that it includes Windows 8 phone, unless there is a simple way of differentiating Windows 8 desktop from Windows 8 phone. So perhaps the Windows 8.n desktop market share is being over egged...

                1. Cryo

                  Re: Why is Win 8 and Win 8.1 seperated?

                  "According to netmarketshare their desktop OS market share data (cited in the article) covers all versions of Windows, with no exceptions being given, which seem to indicate that it includes Windows 8 phone..."

                  The key word is "Desktop". They have a separate list for mobile/tablet marketshare, in which the OS is specified as "Windows Phone OS 8.0" and "Windows Phone OS 8.1", so I can't imagine they would count them twice for both lists. The "Desktop" list might potentially include Windows tablets, but Windows isn't exactly a major player in that space, so it would only throw off the results by a very small amount. How the results are obtained would cause much more inaccuracy, which I touched on a couple posts up.

    3. Splodger

      Re: Why is Win 8 and Win 8.1 seperated?

      I'm on Win 8.0, and that's where it's staying.

      No app crap, or any other tiley charmey rubbish. Just security updates thankyouverymuch.

      The only reason that Win 8+ is creeping up at all is because it's almost impossible for your average punter to purchase a Win 7 box/laptop.

      1. GregC

        @Splodger

        The only reason that Win 8+ is creeping up at all is because it's almost impossible for your average punter to purchase a Win 7 box/laptop.

        Really? I've got a new laptop arriving this afternoon from a consumer oriented vendor, that offered me various flavours of Win 7 or 8 from a drop down list*. The prebuilt option of my machine even has 7 by default. Based on the various reviews I found prior to purchase they sell kit to many "average punters" - whatever one of those actually is.

        *I chose 7. Obviously.

        1. VinceH Silver badge

          Re: @Splodger

          "Really? I've got a new laptop arriving this afternoon from a consumer oriented vendor, that offered me various flavours of Win 7 or 8 from a drop down list*"

          I suspect that by "your average punter" he probably meant the type of person who will go to a shop and buy their computer off the shelf rather than confuse themselves with the options presented to them via drop down lists on a website.

          1. big_D Silver badge

            Re: @Splodger

            @VinceH

            And the sort that answer with "Internet Explorer", when you ask them which operating system they are using...

            1. illiad

              Re: @Splodger

              "Internet Explorer" ?? those are relatively intelligent.... LOL

              most just call it 'google' or whatever the home page was set!!!

            2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

              Re: @Splodger

              "And the sort that answer with "Internet Explorer", when you ask them which operating system they are using..."

              Really? IME they all use Google or Bing :-)

          2. wdmot

            Re: @Splodger

            Depends on the seller and model as well. For example, Lenovo doesn't offer Win 7 for their Y series gaming laptops, but do offer Win 7 Pro for their W series laptops.

    4. big_D Silver badge

      Re: Why is Win 8 and Win 8.1 seperated?

      They couldn't claim Window 8/8.1 was so bad, if it reported a double digit uptake...

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Why is Win 8 and Win 8.1 seperated?

      I guess they are separated because they are considered totally separate Operating Systems as far as patching goes. If you look at any MS patch, it is listed with different installers for 8 and 8.1

      1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

        Re: Why is Win 8 and Win 8.1 seperated?

        "because they are considered totally separate Operating Systems as far as patching goes"

        and yet MS also consider them to be the same OS for lifecycle purposes. (Win8 dies in a year or so.)

        It is odd, though, that all the growth in Win8.x is happenning for x=1. Win8.0 is basically flatlining, with a hard code who were happy to jump into Metroland but not willing to adopt the almost imperceptible changes that came in the latest service pack.

        1. sabroni Silver badge

          @ Ken Hagan Re: Why is Win 8 and Win 8.1 seperated?

          >>not willing to adopt the almost imperceptible changes that came in the latest service pack<<

          The search in 8.1 is shit compared to 8, that's a major pain to me as it was the way I launched everything that wasn't nailed to the start bar. Now I'm back to nosing around the program files folder to find things. With 8 you search Programs, settings or documents, in 8.1 it's keener on showing me links to websites than finding my programs.

          I wouldn't call that almost imperceptible. I'd recommend 8 over 8.1 for precisely this reason.

          1. kiwimuso

            Re: @ sabroni@ Ken Hagan Why is Win 8 and Win 8.1 seperated?

            "The search in 8.1 is shit compared to 8"

            I find the search in Win 7 is shit compared to the two alternative methods in XP.

            Either the search fror the Start menu which I rarely use, or, for me, preferably, the Search obtained from right-clicking on Start. Much more flexible, and it allows me to shorten the search time by starting in a specific level in the path.

            Win 7 doesn't distinguish between programs or files, so give me a pile of crap which may or may not include what I really want to search for.

            I reluctantly went to Win 7 as that was all that was available other than Win 8, but I still prefer using my XP machine. At least I can still find what I am after in the XP machine.

            Finding the program I want is also a hell of a lot simpler in XP, as far as I am concerned.

    6. No, I will not fix your computer

      Re: Why is Win 8 and Win 8.1 seperated?

      The difference between 8 and 8.1 is more semantic or at least cosmetic, the boot to desktop (unless you have touch) makes it feel different from the switch on, start button, new apps etc.

      But the same thing is true for Vista SP2 and Windows 7, Win 7 is basically Vista SP3, same code base (Vista is 6.0 Win 7 is 6.1), 7 just had some apps updated (IE), some of the admin pages moved (drivers) and some bits added for touch.

      It makes sense to separate 8.0 and 8.1 if it makes sense to separate Vista and 7

    7. roblightbody

      Re: Why is Win 8 and Win 8.1 seperated?

      Totally agree. Windows 8 (all versions) showing very good progress on both these data tables if you plot it correctly.

    8. Spoonsinger

      Re: Why is Win 8 and Win 8.1 seperated?

      Umm because Win 8.1 is to Win 8 as Windows 7 is to Vista. They removed stuff and added/improved stuff. Service patches generally only fix stuff which is there already - although you will probably point out many exceptions, (i.e. XP and a firewall - mind XP patches didn't remove stuff).

      1. veti Silver badge

        Re: Why is Win 8 and Win 8.1 seperated?

        No, Win 8.1 is not to 8 as 7 was to Vista. Important difference: support end dates.

        Vista runs out of "extended support" in 2017. Windows 7 support continues until 2020. Windows 8 and 8.1, both run to 2023.

        And that's why I won't be buying a Windows 7 machine: nowadays, I expect a computer to last me more than five years. The hardware may be a little creaky, but my XP machine (bought in 2006) still runs Steam, Skyrim and every other app I care about. So long as I don't have to connect it to the internet (that's what tablets are for), I don't feel any great urgency to upgrade.

    9. John Tserkezis

      Re: Why is Win 8 and Win 8.1 seperated?

      "It seems bizarre that you would separate those two versions"

      It tells a story you may be missing. Around half the users of 8.x, have no idea, no clue, and no inclination to upgrade anything, to learn that 8.1 is actually better. Even I know this, and I hate 8.x.

      And, it's only just *this last surveyed month* that 8.0 and 8.1 combined have overtaken XP. Which tells us, users would rather stick to XP, than risk what something higher would do to their productivity. I have a mechanic associate who uses an old XP laptop to program ECUs as part of his job, and when questioned, he said he'll have to upgrade sometime, but not right now. Because right now, he has work to do, and simply does not have the time to fuck around and learn something new.

      He would be a prime candidate for 7, but 8? Are you kidding me?

    10. Cryo

      Re: Why is Win 8 and Win 8.1 seperated?

      8.0 and 8.1 arguably should be counted together for the purposes of the graphs here. It's a free update, and aside from the update method, it's not really very different from some of the relatively large changes made in service packs for prior Windows OSes.

      HOWEVER, it should also be noted that it's extremely unlikely that both added together would reach anywhere remotely near the actual install base of active Windows XP systems. Remember that these numbers are derived from Internet stats based off trackers on certain public websites, so they're not going to include systems only accessible from internal networks, or those that see little to no web use. Additionally, the stats by Statcounter are based off total page views rather than unique visitors, so systems that see the most web browsing use, which tend to be consumer systems, will end up greatly overrepresented. Statcounter is also only used on around 2.5% of web sites, so it can't see the vast majority of the web. Meanwhile, Net Applications is installed on far fewer sites still, and it doesn't release much information on how it comes to its numbers, though they seem to be based more on estimates of unique systems rather than page views.

      Neither web-tracking service is likely to be a particularly accurate way to measure the relative install-base of various operating systems though. They undoubtedly overrepresent certain geographic regions and demographics of users, while underrepresenting others. The best you can say is that within the sample obtained, these are the results they came to, but without knowing exactly what that sample consists of or what those methods are, the results are of limited use.

      If you know the sampling method and demographic on the other hand, the results can be a lot more meaningful. For example, Steam's Hardware and Software Survey likely provides a reasonably good representation of systems in use by the core PC gaming market. In that case, approximately 60% are on Windows 7, 28% on Windows 8/8.1, 5% on Windows XP and 2.5% on Vista. Additionally there's around 3% on OSX and 1% on Linux. This is useful information for someone looking to develop a game or piece of gaming hardware. Of course, it's not at all representative of the wider operating system install base, since it's almost entirely based on data from relatively new consumer systems used for gaming. Web trackers like Statcounter and Net Applications target a more diverse audience, but you still need to remember that they undoubtedly misrepresent worldwide systems as a whole by a pretty wide margin, and it's extremely difficult to determine just what demographics they do cover.

  2. Roger Greenwood

    "hard core of folks"

    e.g.

    1. lazy

    2. cheap

    3. poor

    4. ignorant

    5. CBA

    any more?

    1. Grikath Silver badge

      Re: "hard core of folks"

      Sticking to XP may have various, sometimes even valid reasons...

      But what on earth must people be on to still use bloody Vista?!!

      1. Chris 244

        Re: Vista user

        I have a laptop with Vista. Why still Vista? It works, and having seen what Windows 8 is like, why pay for a downgrade?

        1. roblightbody

          Re: Vista user

          Windows Vista was fine, I had no problems with it. BUT Windows 8 (on the same PC) is *significantly* faster, speaking from experience.

      2. Sandtitz Silver badge

        Re: "hard core of folks"

        People use Vista because that's what came with the computer back in 2007 to 2009.

        Upgrading to Windows 7 requires money and effort both which the computer owners don't care to invest in, and in the end the difference between Vista and 7 (on that 6-year-old machine) is rather small. Sure Windows 7 is better in all fronts but Vista still receives security updates (until 2017) and most Windows software still works with it.

        And yes, the Windows 8 / 8.1 separation is rather ludicrous. People don't do the 8.1 update most likely because it isn't deployed through Windows Update automagically and many people* may never invoke the Store App where the free 8.1 update would be waiting.

        * People like my mom/pop who call me if the program icons on the desktop have moved...

        1. Piro

          Re: "hard core of folks"

          The difference between Vista and 7 can be rather large. 7 saves a LOT of RAM when running Aero, for one thing.

          1. Sandtitz Silver badge

            Re: "hard core of folks" @Piro

            Like I said, the average punters wouldn't see a difference in how their computer worked even if 7 did (and does) use less memory.

            Upgrading Vista to Windows 7 would still be rather pointless to all those people who know nothing of the inner workings of a computer and wouldn't pay for the license and labor to have an extra 200MB memory available if all they do with their computer is online banking, casual surfing, youtube, email, social networking and such - things that will work with Vista on a low-end computer just fine. You'd be surprised how many people play e.g. World of Tanks and are happy with slow 5 fps graphics...

      3. big_D Silver badge

        Re: "hard core of folks"

        @Grikath

        I'll give you an up vote for the first part of your post.

        After SP1, Vista wasn't bad and even pre-SP1 it was an improvement over XP in functionality, even if it required more horsepower.

      4. Dr. Mouse Silver badge

        Re: "hard core of folks"

        But what on earth must people be on to still use bloody Vista?!!

        In many ways it baffles me, too. However, from a normal user perspective which version of Windows they are on makes little difference to most users. All they want is a PC on which they can use the web, read emails, do a bit of office work etc.

        Take the (baffling to techies) case of my wife's grandfather. I upgraded his machine from Vista to 7. Shortly after, he insisted I put it back, because it was too different and he preferred the way Vista works. In the end, it is these users who will stick with Vista, just because it is what came with their machine. To them, a PC is an appliance. So long as it does what they need and is easy (for them) to use, they won't upgrade the OS. When they want a new computer, they will buy one, and use whatever OS comes with that one, too.

        1. Dave Bell

          Re: "hard core of folks"

          As I recall, there was an option when I upgraded to Win7 to choose an older-style UI. It was mostly the design of UI elements.

          I'm inclined to think XP has hung on because of the rather trivial changes of this sort. Touch-screens do at least give a reason for a change. But if you're still using a mouse it's fair to ask why the hell they make some of the UI changes they do. There were some huge changes to the underlying structure. They do need some changes to use them new features. But how often do you use them. Some buttons, some menu entries, we use every day. And one day they seem to vanish.

          It scares people.

          (An example of a significant improvement which needn't change the UI is the way the TCP/IP stack behaves under load. In WinXP that could seriously slow the whole computer. In Win 7, on the exact same hardware, stuff keeps working at a usable speed, But look at how some browsers have hidden the existence of the long-established Windows menu system. It slows me down, and I switch fairly easily between a Wondows box and a Linux box,)

        2. Yugguy

          Re: "hard core of folks"

          Exactly. My inlaws want a computer on which they can do simple office docs, emails and browsing.

          If it wasn't for the fact that websites need modern browsers that need modern OSes they'd still be on Windows 95. They really would not be bothered to upgrade by choice.

          And what makes their opinions, needs, and MONEY, any less worthy?

          Unfortunately in the warp-speed world of computers "new" does not always mean "better"

    2. MJI Silver badge

      Re: "hard core of folks"

      6. Some DOS apps

      7. PC built just before Win 7 and fast enough to still use

      8. Still need to fit another drive for a Linux boot

    3. Mark Simon

      Re: "hard core of folks"

      “ …any more?”

      6. People who have a choice.

    4. Extra spicey vindaloo

      Re: "hard core of folks"

      My fathers machine won't install all the patches to get him to 8.1. so he's stuck on 8. The xp machine that I downgraded to 8, and then patched to 8.1 works well enough though.

    5. illiad

      Re: "hard core of folks"

      But what on earth must people be on to still use bloody Vista?!!

      I put win7 on a friends laptop, she liked it..... until she tried a lot of her old apps - she has a large database of here LPs... didn't work so well...

      then her old canon scanner - not recognised!!

      her son put vista on, and then they all worked!!! stupid MS, removing all the drivers!!

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Long tail.....

    Ever hear of the "long tail" of users/buyers?

    Corporate types don't need the UI of 8/8.1 - it is quite besides the point (which in case you forget, is making a profit for the corporate involved, not Microsoft).

    CURRENTLY it is much cheaper to keep older kit in use than just buy new gear for the sake of it, which is what it appears is happening.

    "Oh, I MUST HAVE a touch based computer" ... 3 months on, "Take this trashy touch screen away... it's slower, harder to use and it cost HOW MUCH?"

    Hmmm.

    1. Shannon Jacobs
      Holmes

      Microsoft? Talk to users? ROFLMAO.

      You seem to be missing the entire point of Microsoft's business model. It consists of two major components:

      (1) Create and enforce a EULA that removes all liability.

      (2) Force computer makers to include THE OS of Microsoft.

      What do users want or need? Who cares? And absolutely NOT Microsoft.

      As far as the OS is concerned, I am not aware of ANY compelling feature that Microsoft has added in the last decade, or possibly two. In other words, not since TCP/IP was added to Windows 95.

      The closest thing to a compelling reason for OS upgrades since then is improved security. In other words, if Microsoft was talking to peasants like us, the pitch would be "You need to buy the newest OS to protect you from our OLD security mistakes, but our EULA absolutely guarantees that the new mistakes can't be held against us, either."

      Have a nice day enjoying your use of Microsoft products. Batteries and XP not included.

      1. king of foo

        Re: Microsoft? Talk to users? ROFLMAO.

        (3) Continue to roll out 'THE' number one office/productivity suite in the world, which remains so to this day, encouraging end users (businesses and Jo Public) and software companies/developers alike to buy into the OS dependency.

        I agree with a lot of what you said, however you have to give credit where it's due. Personally I'd like (3) not to exist, it's the #1 reason for going with windows over, say, apple or gnu/Linux/Unix, and I think it's an appalling heap of shite, but I'm not your average buyer, I'm just a user/victim.

        Things are changing, just a little slowly. MS have some very strong hooks in corporate IT. All that training/certification; why would you chuck it in the bin and start afresh with something new? Even if it is arguably "better"? MS will continue to dominate; I just wish they'd, well, regain my respect and learn from past mistakes.

        1. Michael Habel Silver badge

          Re: Microsoft? Talk to users? ROFLMAO.

          (3) Continue to roll out 'THE' number one office/productivity suite in the world, which remains so to this day, encouraging end users (businesses and Jo Public) and software companies/developers alike to buy into the OS dependency.

          And now that Office is largely to be a Cloudy (SaaS) App, that can, and SHOULD run virtually in any Browser, on any Device EVER!....

          Please remind my exactly why I need MicroSofts, latest, and greatest again?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Microsoft? Talk to users? ROFLMAO.

            "Please remind my exactly why I need MicroSofts, latest, and greatest again?"

            Because the cloudy Office version you mention is not even remotely comparable to its stand alone counterpart. In-browser office seems to be a bad joke when put side by side with Office running natively on Windows.

            And MS has no incentives to make cloudy Office any better, at least any better than just being above Google Docs. That allows them to continue to link the purchase of a Windows license with the ability to run the native version. Talk about master plans.

        2. Kristian Walsh Silver badge

          Re: Microsoft? Talk to users? ROFLMAO.

          I think Microsoft of today is not the Microsoft of ten years ago. Windows 8.0 was definitely the point where they pushed too far. Now, I think 8.0 was a groundbreaking design for user interfaces, and it's better suited to touch and the future than any of its competitors, but... most of the customers for Windows are businesses, deploying to desk-based workstations using mouse and keyboard.

          Can you imaging the horror of re-training a thousand or so staff on how to use their computers? Ditching the Start Menu on the desktop was a step too far (I think the Start menu has become a dumping ground for all sorts of crap, but that doesn't matter: it's still where most users begin their tasks).

          8.1 fixed the dizzying context-changes for users on touch devices, but didn't do as much for users with mouse and keyboard.

          Windows 9 looks to have reinstated the Start Menu, and provided a way to launch "Modern/Metro" applications into their own windows on the desktop (I'd like to see a way to show these at half-size too, as mouse targets can get away with being smaller than touch ones). If 8.0 had shipped with these features, its success would have been greater, I believe, but even with these advantages, there is also the lengthening Corporate IT cycle dragging sales down: these days, computers are powerful enough that there are very few jobs that need the latest hardware every three years, and most OS "upgrades" coincide with new hardware purchase.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Microsoft? Talk to users? ROFLMAO.

          "All that training/certification; why would you chuck it in the bin and start afresh with something new?"

          Because you know that nothing is forever, that the world is changing, and that if you don't keep a watching eye on those changes you risk missing the boat?

          As you rightly point out, there are lots of Certified Microsoft Dependent people around.

          Some will want to get into a growing market rather than stay in a dying one.

          Some of them (most?) will want to hang on to what they know for as long as they can, regardless of what's happening in the rest of the world.

          Take your pick.

        4. Pookietoo

          Re: 'THE' number one office/productivity suite

          Actually the number one proprietary file format lock-in, but things are changing and people (companies, governments) are increasingly requiring open document standards (and not that ODF mess that MSFT churned out a while back).

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Repent, repent, the end is nigh!

    It must be.

    There's data in this article which is best presented in tabular format.

    And there it is, presented as a table.

    No, an actual proper table, not a picture of a table.

    The end of the world is nigh!

    When did HTML get tables? They've now arrived at The Register too.

    Something's not right, I tell 'ee, not right. It's a sign.

    (I know this isn't the first time it's happened, I've seen a few of late, but nice to see anyway).

  5. Greg J Preece

    The opening article states there's no bounce in other operating systems, but Win 8.1 has gone from 0% to over 8% in a year, with Win8 only dipping by a single percent point. Wouldn't that indicate that the Windows 8 family is on the rise?

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The reason for so many XP users, not really needing to, not interested, fear, ignorance, money, not having a choice, tablet/phones taking up most of bling....you name it. Not bashing anyone, just saying.

  7. ilmari

    Win8 remains, as the update isn't automatic. It's hidden in the store, and kinda buggy. 8.0 to 8.1 upgrade is more troublesome than win7 to win8 upgrade kb some cases...

    1. Greg J Preece

      I gotta be honest, it was flawless for me. The one gotcha is getting it to show up in the first place, but that's just a case of making sure your Win8.0 OS is fully up to date on security patches and the like. Once I actually started the 8.1 upgrade it worked perfectly, and I gained back a ton of SSD space.

  8. Christian Berger Silver badge

    Does this include noscript/Adblock users?

    One would think that would heavily skew the results. People who care about their computers might have such addons installed just as they have certain operating systems. They would then not be counted.

    1. JC_

      Re: Does this include noscript/Adblock users?

      According to Mozilla, there are 2.3 million users of NoScript. While that's a lot, it's a small proportion of Firefox users, let alone all browsers.

      Anyway, the OS is shown in the user agent ID string. That can be faked of course, but not many bother.

  9. king of foo

    summer holidays/vacations

    Skewey skewey skewey skewey data.

  10. Glenturret Single Malt

    21 to 14 is a drop to 67% of the initial value, 31 to 24 is a drop to 77% of the initial value.

    I make the first one a faster decline.

  11. Arachnoid

    Seperate by Country?

    It would be interesting to see some separation of OS by country and thus highlight where its actually being retained and where the newer OS is making a marked difference.

  12. Rob Gr

    Inaccurate

    "Windows XP lost nearly one per cent of global market share during August, according to both Netmarketshare and StatCounter, but there's not been a corresponding bounce in the prevalence of other Microsoft operating systems."

    Basic arithmetic failing you?

  13. Andrew Denton 1

    Are people still banging on about Win 8?

    I have 8.1 Professional installed on my laptop with classic shell. I've configured it to boot straight to desktop and it's the best MS OS I've ever used. Fast, stable and doesn't get in the way of what I need to do.

    8.1 is available as a free upgrade for 8.0 users so I'd expect 8.0 installations to pretty much disappear over time.

    1. RPF

      Re: Are people still banging on about Win 8?

      I have to agree. I use Win7 on my 2011 MacBook Pro (seems fine) and bought Win 8 .1 for my new iMac's Bootcamp partition.

      The tile interface is a bit weird (I too turned it off) but otherwise 8.1 seems very zippy and stable and actually runs older programs (alright, games; why else would I use Bootcamp?) better than Win 7 does. Win 8.1 cost me just £40 from eBay, which really is not much.

  14. nuclearstar

    My old laptop still uses vista, no reason to upgrade it. the laptop is over 10 years old and I put vista basic on it years ago. I use it as a kind of mini server and IRC and it has an uptime of 45 weeks. No reason at all to upgrade it. Main PC is W7 though and I expect it will be this until W9 has proved itself when it comes out.

  15. alun phillips

    Sticking with XP

    As a business we have stuck with Xp, inspite of withdrawal of support, because an upgrade to win 7 would require replacement printers, and whilst 7 is supported by the main pharmacy software suppliers win 8.x isn't so there is no guarantee that any new printers would be supported going forward. So we'll stick until win 9 or 10 is adopted.

  16. RTNavy

    Win8/Win7

    Most business systems can be purchased with Win 8.1 licenses but have Win7 installed as a "downgrade". Of course there is no Win 7 ID Number on the device so you have to have a Volume License Win 7 key if you have to reimage the system (WIN 8 Key is held on board).

    There are still several industries (Health Care) that weren't/aren't even certified on Win 7 let alone Win 8 so hence the delay in shifts. Either waiting for the Win 8 Certification move or buying the Win8/Win7 Licensed products as needed in the mean time.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I'm still using XP

    Why? Because it still works, and I can't be bothered to shell out cash to upgrade. That PC's pretty much only used as a gaming machine, and most games on Steam that I want to play still support XP.

    I did update another PC to Win 7, because a game I wanted demanded Direct X 11. Defense Grid 2, in case you were wondering.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    8 / 8.1

    With the 'accidental' reveal and delete by Microsoft China on Weebo of a Windows 9 wallpaper and the irregular naming convention of Windows 8 / 8.1 I think it is clear Microsoft are now aiming for more frequent releases like Android and iOS to try and keep pace with Apple and Google...

    The problem is though you pay for iOS / OS X through hardware purchases and Android is free, so unless Microsoft start giving away their OS I can't see many people being willing to pay to upgrade and the disparity of versions and fragmentation will get worse as people just stick with whatever version it was bought with.

    Microsoft need the revenue streams from Windows so my guess is a monthly subscription and you'll see Windows 9.1 through to 9.12

    1. Cryo

      Re: 8 / 8.1

      Windows major releases aren't really getting any more frequent yet as far as I can tell. Vista was released in 2006, 7 was released in 2009, 8 was released in 2012, and it stands to reason that 9 will be released in 2015. Aside from the 5+ years of XP, which wasn't their initial plan, and the occasional half-cycle releases like ME, they've been on a roughly 3 year release cycle ever since the very first versions of Windows. The numbering of the "8.1" service pack was really just an attempt to get people to take a second look at Windows 8 after its poor initial reception.

      "The problem is though you pay for iOS / OS X through hardware purchases and Android is free, so unless Microsoft start giving away their OS I can't see many people being willing to pay to upgrade"

      People pay for Windows through hardware purchases just as they do for OSX. The cost of OSX isn't 'free' after all, but incorporated into the cost of the device, just as it is for end-users purchasing Windows systems. Only a small minority of end-users actually upgrade existing Windows computers to the latest version, but that's how it's always been. "Fragmentation" of the install-base isn't really a problem outside the corporate environment, since new releases of Windows generally have very good backward compatibility with software, as far as operating systems go. And Android might be "free", but that's because Google is an advertising company profiting off their ability to track you and feed you ads, which the OS helps them to accomplish. It's not particularly well suited to a desktop or notebook productivity environment at this point either.

      It is very possible that Windows may eventually move to a subscription model though, and might even offer such an option with their next major release. I would expect them to ease people into it though, like by offering the option to upgrade a computer to the latest version for $10 a year, with maybe some higher-priced tiers providing access to the latest versions of other software like Office as well. I can't see them forcing people into a subscription model right away though, as there will undoubtedly be many businesses and individuals who won't be interested in an operating system that's constantly changing. A subscription model could be a reasonable business plan for the future, as hardware takes longer to become obsolete for many users. That, or they could specify that all Windows computers require a non-serviceable battery pack with a five year life span. : P

  19. Miss Config
    Go

    David Cameron can’t help the No campaign – he’s less popular in Scotland than Windows 8

    W8 ( finally ? ) 'jumps the shark' to hatred by non-techies. The point about this title/headline in The Guardian is that it was written by Charlie Brooker, not a member of Tech staff. ( And if you want to get pedantic, it was ALSO written by the subeditor who actually put it in the headline. )

    btw, what s the technical term for a Windows 8 hater ? An 8er ( geddit ? )

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/08/scottish-independence-david-cameron-no-campaign-windows-8

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019