Windows 7 Marketshare Jumps Past 3 Percent

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

monicas

Distinguished
Sep 28, 2009
16
0
18,510
So far so good for MS! After the fiasco that was Vista I can honestly say that I really do like W7. I think if MS can convince the public that this is a much improved Windows then it can really increase sales. I work in IT and I've been pushing to upgrade ever since 7 came out.

Monica S
Los Angeles Computer Repair
http://www.sebecomputercare.com
 
[citation][nom]wildwell[/nom]I would really like to see how Google's OS is doing for online market share.[/citation]
Or Windows could be higher, maybe quite a bit higher, in terms of extant machine installs because so many PCs are business PCs and business PCs probably hit the internet a lot less than all those coffee shop Macs. That's all netapplications is doing, measuring web hits. Apple must be making all it's money on obscene margins.

To be fair net applications changed it's methods a month or two back to more accurately show worldwide market share and when they did Mac share fell from over 7% to less than 5% and now it's gone back up over 5.

I'd wager that in total sales Macs are still about 3% worldwide. Sales figures are measured to and Mac keeps showing up in the 'others' category way behind every major PC maker including even a single little player like Toshiba. Prople use Macs on the web a lot and they tend to hold onto them a bit longer because all Macs are in the 'premium' category. I think this accounts for the descrpancy between sales of new Macs and net share reported here.
 
[citation][nom]duckmanx88[/nom]you guys need to read thats its just net applications to determine the marketshare. linux could be larger, Macs could be larger and windows could be smaller[/citation]
Damn, I quoted wrong post above.

Or Windows could be higher, maybe quite a bit higher, in terms of extant machine installs because so many PCs are business PCs and business PCs probably hit the internet a lot less than all those coffee shop Macs. That's all netapplications is doing, measuring web hits. Apple must be making all it's money on obscene margins.

To be fair net applications changed it's methods a month or two back to more accurately show worldwide market share and when they did Mac share fell from over 7% to less than 5% and now it's gone back up over 5.

I'd wager that in total sales Macs are still about 3% worldwide. Sales figures are measured to and Mac keeps showing up in the 'others' category way behind every major PC maker including even a single little player like Toshiba. Prople use Macs on the web a lot and they tend to hold onto them a bit longer because all Macs are in the 'premium' category. I think this accounts for the descrpancy between sales of new Macs and net share reported here.
 

tlmck

Distinguished
[citation][nom]kami3k[/nom]What's so funny about that?[/citation]
It was $109.95-119.95 at launch. If it was doing so well, prices would not have dropped that fast.
 

r0x0r

Distinguished
May 9, 2006
1,005
0
19,280
[citation][nom]tlmck[/nom]It was $109.95-119.95 at launch. If it was doing so well, prices would not have dropped that fast.[/citation]

Unless there are stores willing to take a hit on their profit margins in order to sell more of a product while it's hot.
 

ravewulf

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2008
972
33
19,010
[citation][nom]doomtomb[/nom]People need to upgrade, NOW.[/citation]
Personally Vista is working perfectly for me and I plan to use it as my main OS for a good while still. I do dual boot on my laptop for when I want Win7's increased battery life/startup performance, but I don't have any good reason to upgrade my desktop. When add-in CableCard TV tuners become available next year (as opposed to current OEM built machines only), maybe then I'll switch.

I don't like a lot of the changes they made to Win7's Explorer (Libraries are default and not optional for a lot of things, getting rid of the "Name", "Size", "Type", etc headings in list and thumbnail views), but I do like a lot of the under-the-hood improvements they made.

So, yeah. I'm on the fence as to if I want to go to Win7 or stick with Vista (which, btw, I ditched Windows XP and switched to Vista as soon as I got my hands on the 1st Release Candidate and never turned back).
 

remingtonh

Distinguished
Oct 14, 2009
7
0
18,510
[citation][nom]dkz[/nom]Yeah even if vista wasn't entirely usefull for every one of us, lets not forget about how great XP was/is still now, even tho' Seven it's taking the market, i encourage all the vista users to give a try to 7, do the upgrade, it's a good OS. I've never tried Mac OS; well may be coz it's less likely to run it on an average PC without doing some other stuff, but well.. if they want to sell their HW, it's they mistake... err i mean problem ^^Ubuntu it's a wonderful OS i really mean it, it's performance it's outstanding if you are looking for a web browser/programming/workstation tool or else but gaming, if you have gamer's wood you are doomed. You could work around some games if you have some knowledge about Linux and with lots of help of forums and stuff, Linux community it's a very rich one into human resources.That's why i think it's not a fair market but what can we do, games move this World! face it the best solution for gamers it's MS.. and i don't see that changing any time soon....[/citation]

I'm still waiting for my upgrade disc from MS.
 

computerfarmer

Distinguished
Aug 6, 2008
20
0
18,510
I found the real answer to the windows 7 additional printer driver problem for network sharing. It is in the name windows 7 names the printer. The INF file has it listed as a different name, there for it does not see it as a driver for your printer. You can change this in the INF file to match the windows 7 name.

My printer is attached to the Windows 7(64) PC and I can now access it from my Laptop Vista x86.

Example: Windows 7 calls my printer "Canon Inkjet iP4300"
In the INF file the printer is called "Canon iP4300"
The difference is the word "Inkjet"

Open the INF file with notepad and edit it and save then go ahead and add additional drivers.

My original INF
;Windows2000
[Canon]
"Canon iP4300" = CNM_0294XP, LPTENUM\CanoniP4300F404, USBPRINT\CanoniP4300F404, CanoniP4300F404, CanoniP4300

;WindowsXP
[Canon.NTx86.5.1]
"Canon iP4300" = CNM_0294XP, LPTENUM\CanoniP4300F404, CanoniP4300
"Canon iP4300" = CNM_0294XP, USBPRINT\CanoniP4300F404, CanoniP4300

My Modified INF file
;Windows2000
[Canon]
"Canon Inkjet iP4300" = CNM_0294XP, LPTENUM\CanoniP4300F404, USBPRINT\CanoniP4300F404, CanoniP4300F404, CanoniP4300

;WindowsXP
[Canon.NTx86.5.1]
"Canon Inkjet iP4300" = CNM_0294XP, LPTENUM\CanoniP4300F404, CanoniP4300
"Canon Inkjet iP4300" = CNM_0294XP, USBPRINT\CanoniP4300F404, CanoniP4300
 

matt_b

Distinguished
Jan 8, 2009
653
0
19,010
[citation][nom]ravewulf[/nom]In other words this info is reported by what OS is being used to browse the net. How the OS was bought (or downloaded) is not a factor. Coupons that shipped with a machine are also not a factor, only what OS is currently installed and in use.[/citation]
I gathered that from reading the article. My point is in what I posted, that there were so many transition opportunities from Vista to 7 for free or next to nothing (including buying Vista for the sole intent of the free upgrade). So my question was aimed towards how much of this equates to Vista's drop in market share because of the numerous incentives. Microsoft has pushed really hard to get this new OS out the door in a big way, but at the cost of its own net profits. It's not like the 3+ percent of the Windows 7 market share is so far due solely to everyone having bought the upgrade edition, OEM, or new retail version much like the way we have in new versions past. If we were to add up all the computers purchased with Vista and the free upgrade, the $30 student incentive, and all the Vista licenses sold with a free upgrade coupon and so on, that's a lot of potential profit lost so far at market-share expense!
 

danny69t

Distinguished
Jun 18, 2009
141
0
18,680
[citation][nom]dkz[/nom]i encourage all the vista users to give a try to 7, do the upgrade, it's a good OS.[/citation]
Don't upgrade, do a fresh install ;)
 

eccentric909

Distinguished
Oct 4, 2006
388
0
18,780
[citation][nom]tlmck[/nom]It was $109.95-119.95 at launch. If it was doing so well, prices would not have dropped that fast.[/citation]

That's a load of garbage. For example, from Newegg OEM Win 7 Home is $106.99.

As someone else said:
[citation][nom]r0x0r[/nom]Unless there are stores willing to take a hit on their profit margins in order to sell more of a product while it's hot.[/citation]

Which is a lot more plausible than your dream of the price going down because Microsoft and Win 7 are failing. Try again.
 

Intel_Hydralisk

Distinguished
Mar 7, 2005
47
0
18,530
[citation][nom]fooldog01[/nom] What is more stunning to me is that Apple only has 5% compared to Linux's 1% and look at how ridiculously in your face Apple is with their advertising. I guess I thought MacOS was closer to 10% by now but it's probably just because I can't go 30 seconds watching TV without seeing one of those ridiculous Mac ads.[/citation]

This is just operating system, not hardware based. A lot of people with macs run windows. If they ever browsed the net with windows then it'll show up as a windows machine. In which case, how does this apply to dual booting machines? Those would be counted twice?
 

matt_b

Distinguished
Jan 8, 2009
653
0
19,010
[citation][nom]Intel_Hydralisk[/nom]In which case, how does this apply to dual booting machines? Those would be counted twice?[/citation]
A point I hadn't thought about, I boot between three OS myself. So how does that count?
 

tester24

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2009
415
0
18,780
I laugh at Apple now, hell Windows 7 has only been out for less than 2 weeks and already it's almost surpassed Mac OS. Maybe if Apple spent less money on their stupid ad compaigns and more on making their products more affordable and more open to other hardware ie making other systems able to run their OS, then they might have a little more marketshare.
 
G

Guest

Guest
If linux would have a 1% marketshare, it would have the 20 million users. But Ubuntu (8), Fedora (12), Debian (9), Mandriva (6) and OpenSUSE (11) distributions has millions of users. Together they are 47 million only with these few mainstream distros. Linux counter estimates 29 million users. It has stay about that level last 10 years as I have be there registered. Last 10 years, Linux adoption has grown and when using the estimate from mainstream distributions what I mentioned by the static what they have told, I would say we have about 80 million Linux users. Because there are so many different ways to calculate users. 1) unique IP (NAT problem, Offline computers) 2) downloaded medias (only from official FTP/HTTP server. Bittorrent falsefied and from unofficial sources. media-copying and multiple buring and sharing) 3) SMOLT installer feature (volunteer, disabled by default) 4) downloaded updates (same as 1) and 2) + changing IP address problems). The biggest numbers are those what I told. There can be more or less 40 million or more or less 200 million. We can not know by sure because not all distributions offer statics anyway or even collect them. WWW-statics are not a number what can be trusted.

MS can easily count sells because they just count licenses what get sold and they can count updates downloadings because every computer has unique ID. Every PC with Windows connects to MS if connected to Internet. One company to know all users. Linux OS is distributed by many distributors and because it is open source, we can share the OS and all the other F/OSS software with it how we like as we obey the licenses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.