Windows 8's Market Share is Coming at the Expense of Windows Vista/XP

53

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

Faixman

Its Good to see People are now leaving the sleepy nerds system like XP and Vista. Win 7 though has a greater marketshare, yet it will likely be decreasing in forth coming months. Win 8 is going to take over soon!!

avatar

hypersonic

It wouldn't come as any surprise if Microsoft offers XP & Vista users a $15 or a $40 special price on a windows blue purchase. My understanding is they will try to accommodate the desktop users as well, but how far will they go ?

avatar

ftldelay

What I'd imagine the market share numbers aren't accounting for are those of us whose companies are purchasing new PCs that come with Windows 8, but are wiping them and installing Windows 7 instead (downgrading).

avatar

Exquisite_Dead_Guy

I actually really like Win8 (sans metro) but there really is no reason to upgrade unless you're being forced into it by buying a new machine.

If you run Win7 and are happy with it, Windows 8 isn't going to do that much more for you, and I think most people understand that. Other than the new metro UI there's really not enough difference to warrant dropping the cash they want you to spend on an upgrade (I only upgraded because I snagged 8 for like 30 bucks).

avatar

hypersonic

What percentage of users are updating their ancient laps or desktops with win8 ? And what I love about this is win8 makes win7 a more sensible choice.

avatar

beta212

Yup, the XPs are starting to break down. My computer bought in 2003 was a beast then, now it's DDR ram has MELTED 3 times and the modules are getting more and more expensive to replace. Heck, to keep it running I had to spend 170 bucks just to replace the mobo. But on my main comp Vista was decent but cheesy, win 7 is better than xp in every respect.
As for 8, I'm skipping it until they change the hard to use search "menu", make the sound button easier to access, make the metro screen more dense, and it gets real multi monitor support.

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

Melting your RAM has nothing to do with XP and XP doesn't ever break unless you are clueless and cause the breakdown

avatar

beta212

Let me rephrase that, "my old computers with XP are starting to break down". Never said it was due to XP, don't jump to conclusions.

avatar

everettehouse

Check the price on Windows 7 software. It is more expensive than Windows 8. I am sure that is intentional.

avatar

Fenthic

Where did you see that? The stores around me like Microcenter that carry both the prices are identical. Same with Newegg....

Windows 8 Pro OEM - 139.99
Windows 7 Pro OEM - 139.99

Windows 8 Upgrade - 119.99
Windows 7 Home Upgrade - 119.99

I am just curious as to where you are seeing the Windows 7 is more expensive.

avatar

Morete

Fry's.

avatar

Exquisite_Dead_Guy

Retail's for suckers.

In all seriousness though, going brick and mortar for something like software will almost certainly cost more.

avatar

PCLinuxguy

Newegg :-)

avatar

beta212

Never noticed that before, my windows always come free from the IT department. Since you mention it, it probably is intentional.

avatar

mark0820

Makes sense. People with XP or Vista machines are having those machines become obsolete or start to break down. For a good number of home users that were on XP or Vista they aren't going to spend $200+ to replace a failed hard drive(if they don't know how to do it themselves), run their recovery software, run all the updates, etc if you can buy a better desktop/laptop than what you had for $300-400.

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

Makes no sense at all

My software runs fine on XP but not Vista, 7 or 8

Even if the Windows 7 or 8 machine was free, it still won't run my XP software

My XP machines are new and newegg has XP compatible hard drives on sale this week for $49

Get a western digital and you can have acronis true image backup for free

If I needed to run spyware 7 or 8 for any reason, they run fine on my XP machines

But, will XP run fine on your Malware 8 machine?

flip a coin and see

now tell me how much more secure Windows 8 is than XP
I dare ya!

I double dare ya!

avatar

Exquisite_Dead_Guy

If I ever need to run XP software on my 7/8 machine (which I have had to do for some work software, Visual Studio 6 and SourceSafe *shudder*) I just use the free XP Virtual Machine. Haven't found a compatibility issue yet!

While still being a viable OS for underpowered machines, XP really shows its age on new machines. Especially with the 32-bit memory address limit.

So you can go ahead and dismiss every windows OS after XP as being malware machines while we actually make full use of hardware made after 2006.

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

Good point

I can make use of modern hardware as well by booting 64 bit Windows2Go from a USB drive, as well as XP virtual machines for compatability

Or,I can boot a modified read only ISO of 64 bit Linux to any bootable thumbdrive for Internet Security (Not just Windows 2 Go Drives) and then load a 64 bit Windows 7 or 8 Virtual machine to do the same thing you do with XP

64 bit Windows and zero Internet malware caused by Windows

BEAT THAT!

avatar

Renegade Knight

Meh. My Win95 machine is more secure than your XP machine. It doesn't do internet. ;P

PS. It even runs my software that doesn't run on XP...

avatar

Exquisite_Dead_Guy

My windows 3.11 machine is an impenetrable fortress. No network connection means no security holes.

You can keep your DirectX. I've got Chips Challenge!

avatar

vrmlbasic

Where is the support for your software? It seems to be sorely lacking if it hasn't been updated to run "natively" on an OS that is less than a decade old.

...why would you run spyware at all? ;)

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

Why would I need support?

I never get a bluescreen of death and never have dll conflicts or registry errors because I run most software as portable apps and I only keep the ones that work

They never get spyware since they all run from an ISO Image on the hard drive's 2nd partition and are never included in a backup of my boot drive

ISO's are read only and cannot be modified with virus's or spyware while the ISO is loaded in a virtual drive and they never get fragmented either

I keep full copies of ALL the setup files for anything I might want to install from the ISO Image as well. A freeware portable app called Folder2ISO makes ISO files up to about 60GB if I remember correctly

It's a great way to keep your hard drives defragged permanently

XP never gets a virus or spyware when driveshield is running either

Pretty freakin secure if you ask me

The only software I install are the ones that I update regularly like Steam or an Antivirus + a few Utilities like Acronis that I need to keep in my backups

avatar

hypersonic

If you decide to upgrade XP then stick to 32 instead of 64 bit as this will affect the compatibility of your drivers.

avatar

znod

I use Win8 a great deal. I installed it just to play with it. It is a viable OS, but much of its interface is a complete waste unless one wants a computer that acts like a tablet or a phone. The metro apps are atrocious--but they may get some help via SP1-Blue. Still, I wouldn't use them regardless. I have better ways to do the things I want via the desktop.

The features available via UEFI are good, but are not really all that significant. Indeed, they are completely insignificant if you have an older computer without UEFI. Ignoring metro, Win8 offers little new of any significance without UEFI. And, as mentioned metro is not important unless one wants a computer that acts like a tablet or a phone.

Personally, I will never buy an OEM preinstalled Windows machine (Win8 or otherwise) until MS/the OEM's provide reasonable, and costless $-wise, means of reinstalling the OS free of bloatware while maintaining the ability to go back to factory fresh. Also, not all OEM's have it together completely when it comes to restoring to factory fresh. It also seems to me that the OEM preinstalled machines are overpriced except for the "loss leaders."

A sign of an unpopular OS is the number of 3rd-party apps, tutorials, etc., needed/used to shore up the OS. I assure you the numbers, in this regard, are substantial.

I do not recommend Win8 in general if you are happy with what you are using. I also do not recommend buying an OEM preinstalled Win8 machine. Given the growing numbers that think as I do, I don't think Win8 is likely to be highly successful ultimately.

avatar

Exquisite_Dead_Guy

They REALLY need to make the new UI optional.
I've been completely happy with just about every aspect of win8. It's rock solid, boots faster than 7 ever did for me, and I actually prefer the new desktop window look to aero, but on a desktop machine the metro UI is just a waste of time.

While you can (and I do) use classicshell/start8 to boot past the new interface it really should be an option given to you by the OS rather than having to work around it via 3rd party software.

Very nice on something like the surface pro though.

avatar

znod

Here are my thoughts, posted elsewhere, on what MS needs to do in general WRT Win8/Blue or whatever.

1. add a new and improved start menu;
2. allow startup to both desktop and metro;
3. fix Windows 8 so that everything that can be done from metro can be done through the desktop--but in seriously improved ways;
4. following up on 3, allow metro to be completely turned off;
5. improve the metro area's functioning significantly (see Modern Mix);
6. stop pushing the cloud and the MS login;
7. offer retail Windows 8 full-install DVD set;
8. improve the functioning of the metro apps significantly;
9. allow eye-candy like Aero on desktop;
10. find a name for the "metro" part of the interface; and
11. require OEM's to provide clean-install (i.e., reinstall) software, with no bloatware, and to cover its use via warranty/support.

avatar

PCLinuxguy

I wish!! Many will agree that MS needs to do alot to improve W8 or it's successor, including the items on your list. Though some of those would only happen in fantasy land unfortunately :-( .

6. stop pushing the cloud and the MS login: To keep up with everyone else in social networking, they will keep using this "feature".

7. offer retail Windows 8 full-install DVD set: It seems full retail sets are going away, or if not are hard to find. On the upside an OEM disc works just fine and like a retail disc, has zero bloatware that comes with prebuilt computers. (more on that with issue 11)

10. find a name for the "metro" part of the interface: They did. it's just called "Modern UI" or perhaps "Live Tiles" rather than Metro, but many people or sites keep calling it Metro.

11. require OEM's to provide clean-install (i.e., reinstall) software, with no bloatware, and to cover its use via warranty/support: This will Never happen sadly. The OEMs put their bloatware onto the install of Windows in order to make extra money on the machines they sell to recoup some of what they pay out for the Windows licensing that they purchase to try and break even or make some profit from it and MS allows them to do that as part of their agreement.

In a perfect world, Windows would be similar to Linux in that it'd be very very inexpensive or even free, have no license limitations or no license at all so you could put it on as many machines as you want/own without worrying about the DRM aspect of it, and have zero security problems that get ignored (Windows is like swiss cheese and the patch bandaids don't really fix the problems) And you'd be able to mod the UI any way you wanted to without having to patch system files etc.

(Yes I like Linux but I'm not a fanboy. I realize all OSes have their pros and cons and I use a mix of Windows and Linux for what my needs are..)

avatar

wolfing

It's not that users are willing to skip to Windows 8, it's that they HAVE to skip. Try and buy a computer with Windows 7 at Best Buy or any other store, you can't. So even if someone would rather have 7 than 8, they have to get 8.

avatar

Paul_Lilly

That's not entirely true. The fact that Windows 8's market share has risen at virtually the same rate as XP's and Vista's combine share has fallen is telling. My hunch is that the upgrade promotions Microsoft was running got some people to ditch their legacy OS in favor of Windows 8.

avatar

beta212

Your assumption is partly true, if no computers were replaced and the gain in win 8 machines were purely from new shipments, the world would have had only 8.9*10^7 computers, this is based on partial shipping data from http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2194017 So yes, the gain in win 8 was due to both new shipments and replacements, with replacements playing a larger part. Really shows how reluctant people are to buy new win 8 computers.

avatar

AntiJohnny

I don't know Paul. What exactly is that telling us? What is the comparison of new PCs to activations of Windows 8? If people are just upgrading their PC, they probably don't know how to get windows 7 and are thus "forced" into Win 8. I don't see how taking the only available option translates into willingness.

avatar

Paul_Lilly

I find it suspect that, just five months into Windows 8's availability, scores of XP and Vista rigs in the wild are suddenly failing, forcing people to buy Win 8 machines. By that same logic, why weren't a similar number of rigs failing five months ago prompting a spike in Windows 7 sales, since that's what would have been available at the time?

There's no doubt that new PC purchases are playing a role, but so did Microsoft's promotional pricing, which undoubtedly prompted legacy users to upgrade their OS, especially those running pirated copies. Microsoft made it as cheap as $15 to go legit at one point.

avatar

Renegade Knight

It's not exactly droves of failing machines. The market shares haven't moved all that much. You could almost explain it with kids buying their first college laptops and advance graduation gifts.

avatar

Paul_Lilly

That would explain the rise in Win 8 market share, but not the drop in XP/Vista.

avatar

Leo Scott

I bought a new laptop recently and got stuck with Windows 8. Very quikly put Start8 and gadgets on it to make it more like Windows 7. Still miss the card games, which are terrible in Windows 8. Microsoft dropped their every other OS egg on this one. If I could have selected Windows 7 I certainly would have. It also forces a funky bios protected boot system. If you select "legacy boot" you can't boot into the Windows 8 hard drive, just usb, cd, network, etc.

avatar

DirtModeler

It's kind of funny when you think about it.

Vista users jumping from one bastard child of an Operating system to another with Windows 8.

I'll wait for 9 or 10.

7 is just too sweet of an OS to give up!

avatar

AFDozerman

There won't be a windows 9, at least not in the traditional sense. Google windows blue.

avatar

tom_m

I could be wrong, but it's my understanding that Blue is meant to be a combo service pack/content pack for Windows 8, while Windows 9 is still in the pipeline as a separate product later on.

avatar

AFDozerman

Could be the case...

avatar

hypersonic

I like how win Blue is being rewritten to be more compatible with lower resolution screens. I encourage Microsoft to widen this to older CPU's, motherboards etc. To get XP users to switch. But they have got to do something about that F'en metro interface !

avatar

Jeffredo

Windows XP still commands over ten times the market share of Win 8, yet Microsoft is going to quit supporting it in a year. That makes lots of sense (as I type this on an old, but still useful XP machine).

avatar

raymondcarver

Exactly. We're still using Windows XP Professional 32-bit here, and there's no incentive for time spent upgrading. ..... "If it ain't broke..."

avatar

Jeffredo

I have my modern Win 7 gaming PC, but I have this old Athlon XP 3200+/X850 XT AGP system in the living room and am constantly looking up things on it while I watch TV. It runs beautifully and I do have many older games loaded on it that I don't want on my new rig. Its a shame that in MS infinite wisdom they've decided its no longer worth supporting with security updates and bug fixes past April 2014. I bet that XP's market share will still be around 1/3 by that time and to leave hundreds of millions of PCs vulnerable and unsupported worldwide is a very bad move on their part. XP is NOT like Windows 98 a few years ago. Its still a very functional and capable operating system.

avatar

mjanzen

I have some games I have been meaning to play but it says it won't install on a Windows 7 machine (Civilization IV). Maybe I just need to emulate something but was thinking of putting old hardware together to build a Windows XP machine. Probably wouldn't connect it to the Internet so that should solve the virus and malware problems ...

avatar

lordfirefox

Funny I'm able to run Civ IV just fine on Windows 7 64-bit. The 1.61 patch for it lets it run on Windows 7 and 8 just fine. No need for any emulation or anything.

More patches can be found at http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=cat&id=12

avatar

hypersonic

Just on the topic of Civ, I play conquest and love it on my i3 win7 but ever since they made the characters very large it turns me right off. I mean why they hell did they do that ? This game has got nothing to do with harry potter ! Does anyone know how you can shrink the people back to their normal size as they are in civ conquests ?

avatar

spokenwordd

Regardless of the market share of Win 8 I don't see any reasonable explanation why MS would continue support for XP. It was a great run but 11 years is more than a generous support lifespan, I mean come on.... upgrade to something.

People that are running XP should definitely be looking to Win 7 or 8. If it is the age of the machine that is a barrier then I'd say in all fairness 11 years is more than enough time to budget for another PC. I frankly wouldn't expect anyone that is a regular to this site to be running XP on anything other than a junk box or internet portal for guests. Useful perhaps but not expedient.

avatar

Exquisite_Dead_Guy

It's mostly due to the business markets still running it. As long as a significant pool of their customer base (businesses) keep running XP, they will keep supporting it.

Many companies probably made the leap from 3.1/95 to XP which came at significant cost for new machines and all the licenses. As long as it still runs the software they need it to run, there's no incentive for them to get something else. XP will still kick around until business applications make the full leap to x64. When 32-bit is no longer a viable option, THEN you will see a large jump.

avatar

spokenwordd

I agree. I'm in IT security for a Fortune 500 and we made the leap from XP to Win 7 in 2011 after rigorous testing of our long list of legacy apps. We found very little that could not function on Win7 and with the dizzying list of said applications we had to vet I can't see this being a huge barrier for most companies, especially smaller ones.

I believe the business side management of most companies will want to see a "benefit" of an update in terms of the IT budgets they sign off on but the hold outs will have all the incentives they need when MS ceases support for XP. No one in an Enterprise environment wants to be running an OS that is functionally dead. When MS pulls the plug on XP, IT managers and Security Admins will make the choice to jump to Win7/8.

MS has assured that this will be Win7 because Metro in an Enterprise environment would be a headache.... OMG.

I do not believe 32 vs 64 bit factors into the equation due to the fact that Win7/8 can accomodate both needs. In the meetings at my company our deployment strategy was VERY much influenced by XP's impending "end of life". Installs of 32 vs 64 bit are determined by end user need and had little or nothing to do with our decision.

avatar

draconis123

"up half a percentage point."

I could have sworn that 3.17 - 2.26 is .91.
It's up nearly a whole percentage point.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.