Windows 7 usage growing quickly
Microsoft appears to be getting relatively strong early adoption of Windows 7 in the 10 days since its official launch.
According to Net Applications, more than 3 percent of PCs accessing the Web in the past two days have been doing so using the new operating system. Usage of the operating system has been growing strong in recent days, though Windows 7 already accounted for 2 percent of global Web traffic in the days ahead of its formal launch.
"The early adoption of Windows 7 looks very strong, and I don't believe Vista enjoyed the same early success," said Vince Vizzaccaro, an executive vice president at Net Applications. "Plus, we've seen surges the past two weekend days, and Windows has historically seen much higher usage market share on weekdays than on weekends."
However, weekends tend to see stronger usage by consumers. And consumers are more likely to move quickly to a new version of Windows than businesses, which tend to do extensive testing before adopting a new operating system.
The news is not all positive for Microsoft, though. As a whole, the Mac OS continues to gain on Windows. As of October, Windows had 92.5 percent of the worldwide operating system market, but Mac OS reached 5.27 percent, up from 5.12 percent in September. (Past numbers from Net Applications showed the Mac OS with significantly higher market share, though the market research firm says it has changed its methodology to better reflect the relative traffic of the countries from which it is getting data.)
Apple's recent anti-Windows 7 advertising has touted that if users are going to upgrade their Windows XP machines and have to transfer their data anyway, they might as well move to a Mac. Vizzaccaro said the early numbers suggest that the Mac might indeed be benefiting from such a trend but said it is too early to know for sure.
"We'll know much more in the months ahead," he said.
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 
this is going to be good =^.^=
If you're a die-hard, absolute Mac fan, nothing you can say is going to cause droves of PC users to switch. And if you're just as fervent about PC's/Windows, nothing you can say is going to stop those intent upon switching to or using Macs from doing so.
It is but an expense of spirit in a waste of shame.
It will be more interesting to see how the dynamics change 6 months from now, and which versions/OSes are getting cannibalizaed.
It would be nice to have something consistent to look at, but I just don't think we're going to get that sort of thing in these types of results.
Otherwise, saying Windows 7 has seen an increase of "X" is akin to the farmer saying "The sun is coming up - ayuh."
No kidding - when Net Applications decided to re-jigger their stats, it threw a monkey-wrench into anything that could be called accurate stats.
LoL...
On a finer note:
A similar article on ZDNet (sister concern of C|Net) touts comprehensive (total) Mac share at <5% . I see a disconnect in numbers in this article vs. numbers in ZDNet article.
Ouch !
I am not in any way flaming Mac users, you guys like them that fine, personally i prefer PC!
everyone has their individual likes and dislikes for or against the other OS. Its all good and brings about competition for the consumers, isnt that what really makes a difference?
McD
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=5897
"...they're managing to capture 3% of their own share of the market so far... not exactly gaining. "
Or it could be coming out of the *nix share just as well since you have no evidence or facts to back up your comment.
See how easy it is to spin things? You're not the only one that can do it, you know. Your statemnt has no more validity than a turnip's in this situation.
Follow the NetApplications link up there in the article - OSX grew, Linux grew... so where else did Windows 7 get its growth - Amiga?
Good point- the numbers could suggest that Win7 is replacing other WIndows products, but the numbers just don't add up when you use basic math on them. The company's recent changes in the way do their analytics is completely arbritrary of late.
Actually Ina, judging from those stats, Microsoft has nothing to worry about. Apple OS & Linux continue to lack the traction to make it up the hill and compete but I guess they help some individuals think they are being unique and special by adopting them. They are also incredibly defensive and seem to haunt tech boards about other OS', only to express their insecurities about their OS'
They suffer from TechTardation.
The growth on OSX' side is still there and getting bigger, in spite of the re-jiggering that NetApplications did that cut the number from ~10% back in August.
In the interim, it has still grown from the 4.7 to 5.2 (up .5%)since June, even under the revised numbers. Meanwhile, Windows has still shrank, from 93.3 to 92.5, with no sign of slowing down (this is why I asked earlier about seeing what happens six months from now).
This sort of destroys your theory about "lack the traction", since OSX and Linux are still growing while Windows is contracting, according to the NetApplications' own charts. While (as said numerous times before) I don't expect any radical changes, it is clear that Microsoft is in need of shoring up its losses, before the curve goes logarithmic on them (which does tend to happen with OSes...)
Also note that Windows XP is still 73% of the whole...
How long has OS X been out? Unix? Its variants? Do you really think it is going to suddenly take off as a desktop OS in the marketplace? Do you think either of those are ready for the mainstage when it comes to consumer products? Do either of them have the resources needed to support it in a consumer level marketplace?
Have you considered the reasons or factors that have kept these products held back for decades?
I'm curious to find out why in all this time they haven't exploded into the mainstream use as you are suggesting they will be doing now. What changed?
Now Microsoft could reverse that trend, but so far, it doesn't look good for them.
Meanwhile, the reason I mentioned the number of XP users has to do with the absolutely huge potential of folks that could likely go either way - get another Windows machine, or leave Windows altogether. This number is why Apple has focused on trying to sway XP users to go with a Mac in their recent commercials (whether they're successful or not remains to be seen, but it certainly makes perfect business sense to try).
"Do you think either of those are ready for the mainstage when it comes to consumer products?"
OSX has shown itself to be ready in the consumer realm. Linux has shown itself to be ready in the business realm. Set your FUD-machine aside for a moment and consider something -
Most folks have held back with XP for three reasons:
1) XP was still supported (and will be for another year or so)
2) it's the devil they know, so to speak, and they're cozy with it
3) most of them did not want to go anywhere near Vista.
Now, XP is nearing forced obsolescence. Windows 7 looks and smells like Vista, so folks will be driven out of their comfort zone anyway. Given these two conditions, they may decide that if they're going to have to re-learn an OS, they are now open to more than just Windows as an option.
Windows 7 has a slight advantage in that it can run (most) XP-based apps. OTOH, whether that will be enough of an edge remains to be seen.
I would suggest you head to your nearest Best Buy and look at the offerings between Apple and the plethora of other brands. Then look at the service levels available for the products. Then look at what is actually selling.
You can try to spin it however you want, but the plain truth is there to the consumers and they, not you, are the ones that decide what they will choose.
Apple could make inroads into this, but to do so, they will need to allow retailers to discount the products, open up the platform to other hardware OEM's and get more software titles and studios involved. To date they have done everything possible to prevent any of this expansion. That tells me that they don't want to expand and are happy to be a niche player.
Me, I'm in Linux, where I spend most of my time despite the fact that my new Win 7 is also on this computer. Linux keeps getting easier, better, funner, and way cheaper.
But let's say that's beside the point. Let's go ahead and say that the only option for XP users is to go out and buy and whole new computer and start over. Will they go with Windows 7 or Mac? Windows 7 is still Windows, thus is still infinitely more easy to adjust to than any version of Mac. And what was that other factor? Oh yes, price. Windows 7 on Dell, HP, or Acer ~$500 vs. Mac ~$1200. I don't care what kind of economy we're in. People are buying Windows.
Against... Minnesota? I dunno. Popcorn sounds good.
Apparently you missed the point when you pulled the trigger. :)
If you like an OS, you use it. Right?
I like Windows 7. It suits my needs perfectly, so I use it.
Some people like Linux. It suits their needs perfectly. They use that.
Some people like MacOS. It suits their needs perfectly. They use that.
Heck, there are still people out there who use AmigaOS, as well as any of a dozen different Unix variants. It suits their needs so they use it.
The OS a person choose to use says absolutely nothing regarding their level of intelligence, so what is there to fight over? Or is it another pointless 'guy thing'?
However, there're plenty of Apple folks who think they're super smart and PC users are stupid
Running 1080p MKVs on this $399 netbook connected to a 1080p lcd with HDMI.
System ram never peaks over 630mb and proc over 49%
My iMac is about to be a doorstop.
Life is good my Windows brethren (and brethrets), life is sweet.
The so called battle of the OSes is largely unaffected in my opinion. The geeks like us care and hardly anyone else does. I for one want Apple's OS to stay well below the 15% range because any higher than that and the number of idiots using it and the number of exploits will go up.
On another note, just shows how full of crap Steve Ballmer was with his whole "3% market share" numbers.
Do you have any idea how many Macs use bootcamp with a Windows XP or Windows 7. You will be surprised. Apple sales took off after they moved to x86 and had Boot Camp.
I would say almost everybody who can.... because you can't live without Windows
Aside from some minor irritations, that took a few days to fix, Win 7 is running fine. My start-up time is still slower than molasses, the UI isn't that much different than Vista, and my machine runs at about the same speed. All in all, if I had had to pay $129 for the upgrade, it wouldn't be worth it, but thanks to the free upgrade for a system purchase after June, I can't complain. I you had a computer that had the muscle to run Vista, then Win 7 isn't a big change. So I guess the only question is for those that could barely run Vista and XP users: Has Win 7 made a big difference on your hardware>
When I ran the best of 7 on an old Thinkpad X40, 7 did ok. Vista wouldn't have.
The old observation that there are more cockroaches than humans in the world comes to mind. Who is the more successful species? Who is the better or superior species? I guess it depends on what criteria one chooses to apply does it not?
Windows 7, OS X, Linux, My Aunt Minnie's OS 3.2, who knows.
Thanks for your help.
Sincerely,
MJ
MS has hit the nail on the head this time around. The resulting installation is snappy even though the machine only has 512MB of RAM, not the desired 1GB. It's video card is too old to support Aero but the UI is still quite an improvement over XP or Vista. I am nobodies fan-boy but I will say that Redmond is to be congratulated on this effort!
This is the kind of statement that leads to a lot of unhappy consumers. Different people have different expectations for performance. If you are running 1 browser window and doing a little email, this machine might be OK for you. But if you load up Office, an antivirus, use multiple browser sessions, etc. at the same time, XP would be barely tolerable with 512MB. Windows 7 will suck.
Folks, don't forget: The "recommended" configuration for Windows XP is 128MB of RAM and 300Mhz processor. (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314865) Any truthful person will tell you that XP would be painfully slow to run on that machine. So when MS recommends 1GB of RAM, they really mean 2GB and you'd be better off with more.
Remember folks, use common sense. It takes more to get more.
it's old machine dude! who would run Office, browser, and anti-virus at the same time?
load Chrome and shut down some unnecessary windows services will help this old computer
Let me tell you this though: I am doing this very begrudgingly!!!! I have had Vista from the beginning, I now have Win 7, and I HATE them both! Why? The answer is very simple and that is that the file management is totaly useless. I could move and manage files easily in XP and earlier, zip and unzip with ease, but not any more! I can nolonger do the MOST FUNDAMENTAL computer thing with ease any more. Really How can they call THIS an operating system, when it is really only a basis to run programs. What business can really this thing or want to. I wasted my money on it because I need to learn it. Let me tell you though, I also down loaded UBUNTU 9.10 and I am going to work on learning that also. MICROSOFT HAS REALLY LET ME DOWN!
With each of us, it is all a matter of choice. It is sad that we all have a poor one to make. Windows 7! Yup! The software for stupid and ignorant people who wouldn't now why it is important to file manage but would rather be shoved into the pen that Microsoft wants them in. What a sorry situation we are in today, it really looks like everything is failing all around us, and no one smart enough to fix it anymore.
- by sbmeirow November 2, 2009 11:55 AM PST
- Hey Apple, I can't legally install Mac O/S on my PC hardware, thus your flipping commercial are a joke at best. I hate Apple because they don't allow me to build my own computer in the manor I want to build it and in the shape and color that I want.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by cnetguard November 2, 2009 5:48 PM PST
- The commercial is not aimed at those who are upgrading their PC to Win 7, but to those who are buying a new PC with Win 7 to replace their aging Win XP PC (that's a sizeable chunk of people because many were waiting for Win 7 to upgrade since they were talked out of buying a new PC with Vista).
- Like this
-
- by Antic152 November 2, 2009 8:40 PM PST
- @cnetguard - did you go to "creative writing" school? Your "history" of PowerPC, 68K, x86, seems to suggest you were there, participated, and had inside information about all that went on. Did you? (I bet you are not old enough to have been there). If not, please spare us your rather amateur attempts at writing a history of processor architecture, with no contemporary references, etc, and be open about what you really are - an Apple fanboi.
- Like this
-
- by Random_Walk November 3, 2009 8:57 AM PST
- Dude, he's right - PPC (G4, G5) versus the Netburst-based Pentium 4's was no contest - PPC performance won that comparison _very_ handily.
- Like this
-
- by cnetguard November 8, 2009 9:56 PM PST
- @Antic152: Actually chances are that I'm older than you are. In fact, I graduated from college way before all these events took place. Now, nothing that I said here is a secret or insider knowledge. I read all those things back at the time in news websites such as CNET and, for a slightly more technical view, Ars Technica (specially Jon Stoke's most excellent articles on microprocessors).
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (129 Comments)Hey Apple, didn't you use to say that PowerPC and 68K were way better than x86 processors too. Looks like the PC's hardware kicked your ass so you had to join them.
PowerPC and, before that, Motorola 68K processor were, at their time, vastly superior to Intel's x86 processors (and let's not get into the Itanium fiasco). But around the beginning of the decade Intel pursued Motorola's engineers very aggressively, offering salaries way above what Moto was paying them. The reason for Intel's push was that the Moto engineers were the experts in designing high performance CPUs with very low power consumption (and thus heat production), something that Intel desperately needed for their notebook processors. The subsequent brain drain caused the Motorola (later, Freescale) side of the PowerPC alliance to stagnate.
That left Apple depending on IBM for the design of new PowerPC processors. But after the first wave of G5 (which by the way were way too hot, a consequence of Moto's old engineers not taking part on the design), IBM decided that that line of processors was not lucrative enough for them, so they started to drag their feet and concentrate on POWER processors on one end, and PowerPCs for embedded applications on the other end (low consuming but useless for Apple's purposes).
The consequence of these two facts is that Intel finally caught up with the PowerPC. And because they now had the best engineers in the industry, they managed to hammer the dinosaur x86 architecture into fast and cool processors (not the Pentium 4 which was an abomination, but the the Core and Core2 families which actually descend from the Pentium 3 core).
Apple saw the writing on the wall: without the active collaboration of IBM and Freescale (spin off of Motorola) there was no chance the PowerPC could regain the lead it once had. After Intel showed them the Core prototypes and Core2 plans switching away from the PowerPC was a no brainer.
But the fact remains: at one time, PowerPC (and before that 68K) was a much better architecture with a far superior design than x86. Intel has been dragging that architecture along almost miraculously (they were going to ditch it in favor of the x64: the Itanic, but that didn't work out), a fact that speaks volumes of their engineers.
You have to remember that when the first Pentium 4's came out, you were stuck with RAMBUS (remember that?), and that latency times on chip and RAM combined were somewhere up in low Earth orbit. You were better off with an overclocked Pentium 3.
Intel finally removed head from arse and went back to revamping the P3 arch, introducing the Core series at around the same time that Apple decided to go with Intel chips.
Now AMD had something good going with the Opterons, but the dirty little secret of those were two-fold:
1. Opterons put out a ton of heat, and...
2. AMD had no real roadmap beyond 'umm, bigger Opterons', which meant that Intel took them by surprise with the Core series.
The first Opterons which were cool enough to park in a laptop (and didn't cost a mint) didn't come around until Apple had already decided to go with Intel (late 2004, if lead times are guessed right).
At the time I was following the microprocessor industry even more closely than I do now, in part because I was considering returning to the Mac if OS X turned out to work as promised, (it did), and in part because the industry at the late 90's and early 00's was much more fascinating, with many more options than we have today. Too bad most of those chip families died.
You probably were already a Windows user back then, smug in the x86 world that was clearly leading the industry marketwise so you probably would not read those articles. And even if you did you would not recall them almost a decade later, so it is not surprising that what I said is new to you. But all these sites keep archives of their old articles, if you google around a little you probably will uncover the articles I read and verify everything I said.