Windows 7 Usage Passes All Versions of Mac OS X

[randomizer]

[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]There are more differences between vista and win7 than that!For instance Vista with some recent update stopped working properly with our meru based wireless network (with a radius server and authentication on web) because vista no longer asks the dns servers if the network awareness software finds 'local only' network.Thus our vista users have to access a homepage based on ip numbers to be redirected to the login page. Once logged in, they'll have to wait till vista notices it's got internet before they can use it. In windows 7 you get a notice that 'additional login might be required' instead of it just stopping to work. Also the UAC has more levels which is crucial from a business perspective. And the process scheduler is better in windows 7. With an amd phenom or phenom 2, or an i5 or i7 you get a lower power usage with win 7 (vista and xp are adapted for core2 and a64)[/citation]None of that is exactly ground-breaking or revolutionary though. The only real improvement I've noticed is TRIM support, but that's nothing unique to Win 7 as every current gen OS has it now. I can't speak for the other OSs, but even though this is an improvement Win 7 doesn't even implement TRIM correctly because MS decided that following standards is not necessary (does all their software follow the IE model?), and that's caused issues with some SSDs.

 

[ossie]

[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]Are you implying that everybody with knowledge is using osx or linux for desktop usage? osx might be valid if we remove the knowledge part, but linux desktop users are few - and what's more - those are generally less literate (albeit more nerdy about their chosen fancy) than the rest of us, and almost always so heavily biased that they can't even argue properly about their choice.Seeing how your statements are of the same nature as demonhorde665's (except for the spelling) I assume you're as daft as he. You're just a kid trying to cause trouble whereever [SIC] you are. Go away.[/citation]
Don't take it out of context, and get to stretched conclusions. BTW, you forgot other Unixes (except OS X), and the rest of the non-m$ world...
Let's reformulate, and detail it, for those mentally handicapped, and put it in a clearer way:
Those using non-m$ OSs have to use (and are knowledgeable of) browser header faking, to circumvent idiotic limitations and checks, imposed by IIS sites. Even some proxy caches use that workaround. This would obviously skew, in their disfavor, any attempt to accurately determine OS usage by analyzing/counting browser headers.
Other unaccounted for factors are internet browsing usage for each OS in part, respectively representativity of surveyed sites.
Wintarded micro$uxx fankiddies have, of course, not such use or knowledge, they just take part in windtard pride parades.
Your (and "the rest of us") literacy is also acknowledged by your logic and grammar prowess...

 

[baddad]

[citation][nom]sylvia648[/nom]One install, but more to come once I buy some spare buys after the new year. Might get that cheapo laptop from Best buy on black Friday though, and that has windows 7 on it.[/citation]
4 upgrades from Vista 64 to W7 64 and one clean install from W7 RC to W7 64, I even got my son to put W7 64 on his machine for games and he hates MS or so he says.

 

[neiroatopelcc]

[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom]None of that is exactly ground-breaking or revolutionary though. The only real improvement I've noticed is TRIM support, but that's nothing unique to Win 7 as every current gen OS has it now. I can't speak for the other OSs, but even though this is an improvement Win 7 doesn't even implement TRIM correctly because MS decided that following standards is not necessary (does all their software follow the IE model?), and that's caused issues with some SSDs.[/citation]
Well that win7 is usable in a corporate enviroment and vista isn't makes win7 revolutionary of sorts from my point of view. It's a bit like finally adding wheels to a car that didn't have any when it was made.

[citation][nom]ossie[/nom]Don't take it out of context, and get to stretched conclusions. BTW, you forgot other Unixes (except OS X), and the rest of the non-m$ world...Let's reformulate, and detail it, for those mentally handicapped, and put it in a clearer way:Those using non-m$ OSs have to use (and are knowledgeable of) browser header faking, to circumvent idiotic limitations and checks, imposed by IIS sites. Even some proxy caches use that workaround. This would obviously skew, in their disfavor, any attempt to accurately determine OS usage by analyzing/counting browser headers.Other unaccounted for factors are internet browsing usage for each OS in part, respectively representativity of surveyed sites.Wintarded micro$uxx fankiddies have, of course, not such use or knowledge, they just take part in windtard pride parades.Your (and "the rest of us") literacy is also acknowledged by your logic and grammar prowess...[/citation]
I'm really surprised you managed to write an almost stupidity free post. Well at least serveral sentences. It's true that some sites don't work properly with browsers that follow standards if these sites are built for IE compatibility. But IIS isn't in its standard configuration set up to not support other browsers. You have to make an effort to break compatibility. But that's hardly my point really. You're claiming that people who use windows aren't knowledgeable? By that measure the only people who know anything about computers are those who're still sitting in their basements at runlevel 3 and bitching that youtube doesn't work in lynx. Fine. Then those who don't want to evolve are the only smart people. Fair enough. I'd rather be less knowledgable in your book and evolve to a gui that always works the same way, and doesn't show smilies or joking messages every time a compile didn't work out as planned or a package failed to install due to one problem or another.
If choosing the complicated and less elaborate way is what knowledgable people choose, then I don't want to be knowledgable.
Those who use non windows desktops are nerds about it - not by choice, but because they have to in order to achieve the same level of functionality that a microsoft product delivers out of the box. I use windows because I'm too lazy to go fiddle with stuff for hours just to make something work. So I choose an os that on top of being stable can actually provide me with the functionality I need without having to know everything. That however doesn't mean I don't know how it works. It doesn't mean that all of us many million people are not knowledgeable. Hell even atm's are running windows. Smart people choose the easy solution. You're not smart.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]beillobab[/nom]What a ridiculous article. Of course it outnumbers Mac OS X users. With the number of different manufacturers shipping Windows 7 with no other choice. The number of users does equate to quality of either operating system. Microsoft is lucky Apple doesn't release OS X for use on any computer. If users had a choice, the numbers would be totally different.[/citation]
When people say that Windows is buggy and has flaws, dont forget that the hardware has to take some of the blame, you cannot compensate for incompatability for everything. They mitigate this by restricting the hardware it can be rolled out on. Apple will never allow OSX to be installed on any PC for this reason, their whiter-than-white image would vanish overnight, the prevelance of recent errors over the last couple of years is in almost direct relation to rolling out use of Intel CPUs instead of the rock-solid PowerPC chips.

Steve Jobs "reality distortion field" is at work again.

 

[blackmancer]

Just why wouldn't you want to Zoom in on that ugly head??

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]ossie[/nom]Don't take it out of context, and get to stretched conclusions. BTW, you forgot other Unixes (except OS X), and the rest of the non-m$ world...Let's reformulate, and detail it, for those mentally handicapped, and put it in a clearer way:Those using non-m$ OSs have to use (and are knowledgeable of) browser header faking, to circumvent idiotic limitations and checks, imposed by IIS sites. Even some proxy caches use that workaround. This would obviously skew, in their disfavor, any attempt to accurately determine OS usage by analyzing/counting browser headers.Other unaccounted for factors are internet browsing usage for each OS in part, respectively representativity of surveyed sites.Wintarded micro$uxx fankiddies have, of course, not such use or knowledge, they just take part in windtard pride parades.Your (and "the rest of us") literacy is also acknowledged by your logic and grammar prowess...[/citation]
I just can't help myself from jumping in on this one.
Ossie, you are a total fuckwit.
Using fake headers, even if someone knew how it was done, just isn't done my the VAST majority of people who can do it, as well as none of the people who don't. I work in the largest IT services company in the UK and without fail, every single engineer we have knows how to do this and when I asked a few of them if they WOULD do this they said???

"What's the point? Why would I want to hide what OS I was using?"

This is especially true of Mac users who are so fucking self righteous they are proud to display that they are using OSX wherever they go. So logically this tells me that these so called "much smarter" people who use Macs, know how to fake headers, are ashamed to let anyone know that they use OSX?

Tell the truth, your just a kid who sits in a dark room with metal playing, dressed all in black pretending to be some sort of cool hacker dude. Get a fucking life.

 

[sailfish]

[citation][nom]nicklasd87[/nom]...The only sad thing I can think of is my Dad just went out and bought a 13" MAC...I feel like I have failed as a son...oh well, his loss.[/citation]
To paraphrase a GMC Olds marketing message, "Win7, no longer your Dad's system" :_)

 

[sailfish]

[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]well i am the opposite i always liked the vista start menu and never went back to the classic version. i could care less about the removed quick launch bar as i find the programs in the taskbar as icons and the new aero peak features of going from window to windows better than what orher versions of windows have done.[/citation]
fwiw, the Quicklaunch bar can be re-established. I use both the QL bar because of its compactness along with the taskbar pinning for its document pinning feature. Best of both world, for me at least.

 

[sailfish]

[citation][nom]mrmez[/nom]Why is M$ so worried about OSX?Mac's make up ~10% of the market.Its like me beating someone 10 times smaller then saying "yeah, look at me, the big tough man"OSThat being said M$ should be worried. Its been losing market share to Mac.http://successfulsoftware.files.wo [...] 7_2008.png[/citation]
Your point would have more power if, ONE, it wasn't just some chart being linked that anyone could construct but rather was accompanied by a reputable article to champion it and, TWO, it wasn't nearly a year old.

 

[Regulas]

[citation][nom]beillobab[/nom]What a ridiculous article. Of course it outnumbers Mac OS X users. With the number of different manufacturers shipping Windows 7 with no other choice. The number of users does equate to quality of either operating system. Microsoft is lucky Apple doesn't release OS X for use on any computer. If users had a choice, the numbers would be totally different.[/citation]
Too bad the MS fanboys are at this site, probably 13 and 14 year old brats with crapbox 360s too. You are right.

 

[rajaton]

WIN! lol

 

[littlec]

[citation][nom]prakalejas[/nom]Well, WinXP x64 version is my OS and I can say it's simply what I need - very stable, supports more application than Win7, supports >4GB RAM and runs pretty well, lacks only DX10/11.Can't say that win7 is not the future, but it's a cheaper option for buisness.Win7 still lacks driver support as is doesn't support drivers written for XP and many vista drivers doesn't work too. Some applications doesn't run also on Win7. Benchmarks also doesn't show any real improvements over XP x64.The majority switching to Win7 are home users and small buisness with new or not old hardware.[/citation]

Man what an idoit, get off XPs dick man, its old and not being supported anymore and windows 7 runs GREAT especially on old hardware, it boots on my old amd 64 system faster than XP and it has PLENTY OF DRIVER SUPPORT! Most Vista drivers will work for 7 if its the same version (32 or 64 bit) and it is THE FUTURE and will be adapted soon in far greater numbers than XP ever was! Also how can you talk about driver support in the first place Xp 64 has the WORST driver support of any windows system in the past decade.

 

[lashton]

[citation][nom]hakesterman[/nom]People didn't want Vista because it got a unfair bad name early. I've had Vista for three years and it has done an outstanding job for me. It crashes far less than XP did, it was easier to use than Xp and it has more options than XP. Windows 7 is just a deluxe version of Vista, most of the Vista drivers work in Windows 7 because it is Vista deluxe. The media couldn't bad mouth Windows 7 enough this time to keep it down because everyone has worn tired of Xp. So when you fire up your new Windows 7 just think you could of had this two years ago if you didn't listen to all the negative crap and just tried it.[/citation]
vista crashed 3 times when i installed it, 3 crashes on setup, and would not run more than 20 mins stable, it took longer to boot up, and the drivers for certain hardware were crap, DONT EVER call windows 7 vista deluxe, under the bonnet there are SIGNIFICANT changes!

 

[tommysch]

[citation][nom]p05esto[/nom]Vista 64 is rock solid for me, just a powerhouse. I have no bugs or complaints at all with it (once I disabled UAC anyhow). I like Vista better than Win 7 at the moment...the start menu and lack of the classic interface is a biggie for me, I just like the simplicity better. Why did Win 7 remove that? I don't get it, couldn't have been that big of a deal to offer a choice in that regard.[/citation]


You can easily bring the same interface that you had in Vista on 7, I mean the normal quick launch, even MSN messenger back to the tray. But I like Vista64.

 

[ossie]

[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]It's true that some sites don't work properly with browsers that follow standards if these sites are built for IE compatibility. But IIS isn't in its standard configuration set up to not support other browsers. You have to make an effort to break compatibility.[/citation]
IIS, in it's "standard configuration" isn't used practically at all. It always comes with the rest of proprietary m$ junk, which works only with m$'s exploder (cut the crap with "exploder compatibility", it's plain monopolistic behavior, or, at best, incompetence to follow established standards - that's what should be considered compatible), or, if in luck, just cutting out other browsers - when the described workaround suffices.
[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]You're claiming that people who use windows aren't knowledgeable? By that measure the only people who know anything about computers are those who're still sitting in their basements at runlevel 3 and bitching that youtube doesn't work in lynx.[/citation]
Most windblow$ lu$ers are plainly ignorant, barely able to routinely click around, to get some work done. They're lost if something more complicated, even the usual "next/accept/ok/finish/cancel/whatever" boxes pop up. It's not necessary to work at RL3, to know something about computers, but if you want to do something, there isn't any button to click on in a shiny GUI window (with it's inherent limitations) you have to get "dirty", at console level. Even m$ had to acknowledge it, in their "server" flavor products.
"Youtube in lynx bitching", would only be the case with complete GUI idiots - wondering if they even know, what a console is. Get something more plausible...
[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]Fine. Then those who don't want to evolve are the only smart people. Fair enough. I'd rather be less knowledgable in your book and evolve to a gui that always works the same way,[/citation]
Just presented above the inherent limitations of a GUI. By your "logic" m$ offering console only installs is an "involution" - complain at m$, please.
Windblow$' "evolution" mostly involved radical GUI changes, hardly "works the same way"...
If you're happy to "evolve" to the GUI idiot level, be my guest.
[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]and doesn't show smilies or joking messages every time a compile didn't work out as planned or a package failed to install due to one problem or another.[/citation]
m$'s cryptic numeric error messages are way more intellectually challenging, and involving...
[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]If choosing the complicated and less elaborate way is what knowledgable people choose, then I don't want to be knowledgable.[/citation]
Knowledgeable people use the most efficient way to accomplish the given task. Even in GUIs KB shortcuts are frequently used to work faster, despite the possibility of extensive mouse acrobatics to get same effect, in most cases (sometimes it's even impossible to find a menu entry for the desired functionality). There isn't a "pure" GUI, maybe with the notable exception of a limited interface for some stupid gadget, which involves almost no brain usage - for the classic "push-button" idiot, with no clue about the consequences of his actions.
[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]Those who use non windows desktops are nerds about it - not by choice, but because they have to in order to achieve the same level of functionality that a microsoft product delivers out of the box.[/citation]
You're really deluded... m$ didn't invent, nor offers the most functional GUI. It just changes things around, and offers more "bling"...
[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]I use windows because I'm too lazy to go fiddle with stuff for hours just to make something work. So I choose an os that on top of being stable can actually provide me with the functionality I need without having to know everything.[/citation]
At least you're candid, and admit the real motives to use a GUI: laziness, complacency, and not at all knowledge. The "stability" part is highly disputable.
[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]That however doesn't mean I don't know how it works. It doesn't mean that all of us many million people are not knowledgeable. Hell even atm's are running windows. Smart people choose the easy solution. You're not smart.[/citation]
You just have the impression to "know how it works", and "us many million people" are even more ignorant, and less likely to make the slightest effort to widen their horizons. As said before, smart people choose efficiency. Lazy people just choose the path of least resistance.
Maybe I'm not smart enough, but you're definitely just lazy.

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]I work in the largest IT services company in the UK and without fail, every single engineer we have knows how to do this and when I asked a few of them if they WOULD do this they said???"What's the point? Why would I want to hide what OS I was using?"[/citation]
You're just plain stupid, and unable to read and comprehend the simplest statements. Just a recap:
"Those using non-m$ OSs have to use ... browser header faking, to circumvent idiotic limitations and checks, imposed by IIS sites."
If this is really the viewpoint of it's "engineers", I already pity the clients of that useless "largest IT services" company...

 

[rooket]

It is pretty simple for IT to learn Windows 7 especially if they had already been using Windows Vista all along.

Yeah why is M$ so worried about OSX I guess it is all competition and they gotta stay on the competative edge.

I liked how OSX groups things in their tray bar but I see that if I load a bunch of stuff in Win7 it stacks them on there too so I'm happy with that. Only feature I saw of use in OSX but Win7 has it lol. I like tinkering with different OS but Win7 is by far the most user friendly and XP was good too but I am soooo bored with using XP it is definitely time to move on and I am only going to use XP for legacy things which aren't of much use to the general public. New versions of software I used eventually will be released anyway or already work I'm not sure..I just heard that one program I have doesn't work in Win7, could just be all talk though.

 

[Silmarunya]

a) Happy for MS. Serves Apple just about right.
n) Runs of to the toilet for some serious vomiting. Balmer sticking out his tongue is one of the most horrid images I've seen in years, and that includes a bit of war images as well...

 

[caskachan]

developers developers developers developers

 

[marraco]

[citation][nom]mrmez[/nom]Why is M$ so worried about OSX?Mac's make up ~10% of the market.Its like me beating someone 10 times smaller then saying "yeah, look at me, the big tough man"OSThat being said M$ should be worried. Its been losing market share to Mac.http://successfulsoftware.files.wo [...] 7_2008.png[/citation]
False. All the macs (all the os versions) add to less than 5%. And that is not accounting other countries, and most OEM PCs.

 

[Guest]

The 'characters' and 'scene' wallpapers alone made me go for win 7 :-D

 

[randomizer]

[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]Well that win7 is usable in a corporate enviroment and vista isn't makes win7 revolutionary of sorts from my point of view.[/citation]
XP has been usable for years, so that means Win 7 is just on the same level, whereas Vista was a regression compared to both. Revolutionary means new and unlike anything prior. To be honest, I can't name any such operating systems that are actually in use today.

 

[hemelskonijn]

Really this is nothing special ... now if they stated more macs where running windows 7 then all os x versions combined that would be news.
Whith a market penetration of just about 5% world wide and making it possible to run windows 7 on that 5% means the numbers mentioned in the article mean jack shit.

The only valid conclusion would be that PC users finally had the option to dump vista for an OS that is actually running!
However even that might not be true since most computer users are not that tech savy and just run whatever came on there machine and whatever friends tell them to run.

 

[back_by_demand]

Those using non-m$ OSs have to use ... browser header faking, to circumvent idiotic limitations and checks, imposed by IIS sites

I read the post perfectly fine first time, just exactly what limitations are you saying exist on users of OSX? And the reason you posted this drivel in the first place was to state it was to hide what OS you were using. Stop trying to change the subject, fuckwit.

 

[neiroatopelcc]

[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom]XP has been usable for years, so that means Win 7 is just on the same level, whereas Vista was a regression compared to both. Revolutionary means new and unlike anything prior. To be honest, I can't name any such operating systems that are actually in use today.[/citation]
But it is unlike any prior! xp was the os of choice because it was the most user friendly os taht worked well. But it took two service packs just to make it work as intended. And today xp isn't a choice, but more like the baseline to default back to in case some legacy software doesn't work on win 7. Vista, like win9x/me wasn't suited for networked usage. So win 7 is revolutionary. It's the first time that microsoft made an os that works out of the box in a corporate enviroment. It's gotten to a stage where no ms os has been before (although win 2k was close), and no unix likely will. It's like Jägermeister without the hangover afterwards - which is revolutionary.

@ossie: I'm tired of reading kiddie speak, so translate your rant into english with standard latin based letters or go back to stalin where your opinions might seem valid.