Jump to content

OS market share


Recommended Posts

@cluberti: *was* is the keyword here (and even then, that's rather arguable). By today's standards, it's absolute crap though.

Anyhow. Same stuff this month...

Win95 stopped being rounded up to 0.01%, so it's now below 0.005%, and bundled in "Unknown".

Win98 dropped much like usual (lost ~15% of its users last month). Ditto for WinME.

That makes combined Win9x market share about 1/3 of 1% (and still dropping quite fast).

Win2k down a bit too.

Win 7 just appeared on the map, and sits at 0.1% (not that bad for a 1 month old beta of a unreleased OS I guess)

Linux still stuck around the same 0.8% or so

Vista up a bit, XP down a bit... (both by 1.x % like usual)

Vista being pretty much 2 years old now day for day (gen avail was jan 30th 2007), and it gained 22% of the market share since then (close to a steady 1%/month). XP dropped by 22% since too.

Firefox gone up a bit, IE 8 is still climbing slowly (0.9%-ish, IE 7 also up a bit, IE6 dropping fast), Chrome around the same (1%-ish), and Opera way behind as always.

New pic as usual.


Edited by crahak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...


gooo iPhone :D

edit: i just saw how far down Opera was... 0.13% above Netscape.

i did not expect that lol

Why do you think they're so hard-up to get their browser included in Windows? It's obvious when you see it in black and white - they care less about Microsoft's practices than they do about trying to get their product out to the masses. If people won't choose it, they'll lean on the EU to try and get Microsoft to force it on them. Sounds surprisingly like the behavior of the company they accuse of doing the same 15 years ago, no??? :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you think they're so hard-up to get their browser included in Windows?

Because no one wants of it, and that's the only way it'll be installed on any computers.

Most people do know about other browsers (once upon a time, most people used Netscape). And seeing Firefox's current market share (not counting those who tried it, but didn't like it), obviously a large number of people know there is "something else" they can use. They've been trying to get people to use their app for over a dozen years, they're giving it away, and yet their market share is still well below 1% and pretty much flat lined/not showing any increase. People are overwhelmingly choosing spyware-infested browsers like Chrome over it even... Even Netscape 6 has faster growth! I think at this point we can safely say no one wants of it.

Even Linux on the desktop has more users, and that's saying a lot. Especially when we can already see Linux as failing quite badly in the adoption area. Macs grew an additional 2.17% of the market share in the last 6 months. Meanwhile, Linux went up by 0.01%. When the people abandoning Windows overwhelmingly chose another closed-source, proprietary, non Free platform that's just as expensive as Windows, even when it means you can only buy [pricey] hardware from a single vendor (hardware vendor lock-in -- with rather poor choices too) over the one you've been giving away for many years... By a ratio of 217 to 1, you know there's a real problem with your product.

If Microsoft didn't exist, I wonder who they'd be blaming for their failures. Meanwhile, other companies manage to do quite well regardless (e.g. Apple) and aren't complaining about MS funnily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Quick update. Not much new, same trends as before pretty much. New pic:


Edit: new pic with a scale of 100%, kind of paints the overall picture better IMO, even though you can't really see anything at the bottom:


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

3 months later...

Added Win7. Removed separate Win9x versions (only Win9x combined share now).



Bottom 5% (you can actually see Win7 on there):


Quick comments:

The general trends aren't changing much. Vista still climbing, XP and older all going down at similar rates as before.

Linux at ~1% (after 20 years of trying to give their OS away), giving it nearly 4x more users than Win9x combined, and getting quite close to the also quickly dying Win2k (should tie next month)

Win7 getting near a half percent, not bad for an OS in pre-RTM (beta/RC) stage

iphone + ipod combined gives them 0.75% (3x more than Win9x, and quickly getting close to overtaking Linux and win2k -- less than 6 months away)

At the current rates, XP and Vista's market shares should be pretty much equal in a year (Win7 release will likely change the results a little bit around the holidays)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Theres something inherently sad in upgrading from Win2K, which has a source directory ( C:\Win2K ) of only 1.49GB after a year and a half - including the fluff thrown there by DotNet 2.0, and not including the junk put there by HotFixes (that uninstall mess gets deleted).

Win2K has been sitting on a 3Gig partition for years - I used to install/reinstall much more often a few years back. The swap sits on another disk, and the Program Files and Users directories have been junctioned/mounted elsewheres.

The price of progress aparently is about 10 more gigs for Win7/Vista Ultimate ;-) Since this thread likes percentages ...

About 767% more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder where Mac would show in these charts.

I'll include that in the new charts next week.

About 767% more.

767% more space, if we go by your numbers. And going by that:

Price of hard drives circa 2001 (should have been even more expensive the year before when Win2k came out), WD 40GB being $250: $6.25/GB

Price of hard drives today, 1TB drives being commonly found at $80: $0.08/GB.

So storage space was 7812% more expensive back then (probably a little more, as I'm going by the price the year after)

767% of the space, at 1/7812% the price, means it effectively only costs 9.8% as much in disk space for your Win7 OS install now as your Win2k install did almost 10 years ago. Great deal if you ask me. No need to spend $250 up-front on a drive anymore either.

But if you just wanted to compare a cutting edge OS (which is not even released) to a really outdated one, with nearly 10 years (3535 days) separating them, sure, the increase is pretty dramatic. That's akin to comparing Win2k and something from June 1990 (also 3535 apart), which in this case would be Windows 3.0.

Win2k min requirements says: 133MHz+ CPU (recommended: P2), 32MB RAM (recommended 128MB), 650MB of HD space (recommended: 2GB), and also CD-ROM.

Win 3.0 min requirements says: a nice and shiny PC XT with 640KB RAM (1MB recommended), 6 to 7 MB of HD space, CGA or better.

That's 5120% more RAM minimum, or 12800% more RAM recommended, 10000% the min disk space, but more like 31500% recommended.

Win 3.0's requirements are also very high compared to a 10 year older OS.

Edit: a similar post of mine, in another topic that got out of hand:

Win2k totally is a bloated monstrosity compared to NT4 and Win98, so one could say you are into bloated OS'es (I would also bet you did in fact buy this machine you're running this bloated OS onto). Min reqs:

NT4: 486 33MHz, 12MB RAM, 110MB HD

Win98: 486 66 MHz, 16MB RAM, 500MB HD

Win2k: Pentium 133MHz, 32MB RAM, 650MB HD

Win2k uses 4x more CPU and nearly 3x the RAM and 5x the HD space than its predecessor! Wow! Such horrible, unbelievable monster bloat!!! 2x the CPU of Win98, 2x the RAM and more HD space too! Where will the bloat end???

That's EXACTLY how Win2k'ers sound when talking about XP (min specs are double of win2k's basically). Win9x fans are no better. Same exact scenario:

Win98 had horrible bloat beyond comprehension (BTW, it *did* run like molasses, extremely slow on my P133 at the time), and Win95 is no exception, what a pig!!!

Win98: 486 66 MHz, 16MB RAM, 500MB HD

Win95: 386DX, 4MB RAM, 50-55MB space

Win3.1: 286, 640K Conventional + 256K extended memory (under 1MB), 6MB free HD space

Wow. How ridiculously bad! Win98 needs like 4x the CPU, 4X the RAM and 10x the disk space of Win95! Win95 needs about 4x the CPU and 4x the RAM too, and neary 10x the disk space as well compared to Win 3.1! Nobody should have ever upgraded to that absolute extreme bloat nonsense! Win 3.1 had a GUI and could start apps -- what else does one need? </I-don't-need-or-use-any-of-this-new-stuff> BTW, who needs MS Office 2007? MS Office 4.3 (that runs on my Win 3.1) has bold/italic/fonts and can save and print stuff -- everything I need right there, new apps are useless </I-don't-need-new-software-either>

For the record, Win 3.1 was extreme bloat, compared to just using MS-DOS. and MS-DOS itself was extremely bloated compared to many OS'es of the time than ran straight from within the onboard EPROM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ CoffeeFiend

Twas comparing it tongue in cheek. Was partioning up my drive(s) for 2k/xp/win7 for development purposes.

The partition for Win7 is likely far too big, since program files et al wont reside there - but much easier to overestimate than under.

I realize a lot of space is driver support, and Aero. Even a modern linux install is multi-multi-gig.

I just caught this thread when I bounced in to mention about UnxUtils, and seen post after post of Win2K users dropping like flies! heh. Anyways. Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Twas comparing it tongue in cheek.

Wasn't obvious. There's a LOT of die-hard win2k users who talk exactly like that, but are dead serious about it all.

Even a modern linux install is multi-multi-gig.

Ditto for OS X ("At least 9 GB of disk space available.")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparing the entire spectrum of Linux to individual versions of Windows is not very scientific.

And what isn't scientific out of that? Care to explain?

The companies who do those stats group all Linux distros together, otherwise you'd have like 500 entries with 0.02% each. I don't see a reason not to either. That's what most people do when individual numbers get too low (that's also why win9x is grouped in my latest graphs, they're all small fractions of 1% now). The graphs would be pretty ugly too with a couple hundred lines all on top of each other at the very bottom.

It clearly shows there's more Linux users than of certain outdated versions of Windows, and less than recent versions. It just shows the biggest groups by themselves, and the little guys grouped in bunches that sort of make sense (e.g. Win9x or Linux distros), that's all.

BTW, It wasn't meant to be a highly scientific study either, it's just interesting to see the overall trends.

Edit: as hitslink's numbers recently went completely crazy, then they had no numbers available for a month, and now all the numbers are completely different (and weighted in odd ways), I won't be updating this topic anymore. You can't follow trends from their site anymore either (no back history). So that's the end of it.

Topic closed and unpinned!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what isn't scientific out of that? Care to explain?

Applying one set of rules to Data A and a different set of rules to Data B would never pass in a science lab. Breaking down only some or grouping only some just produces curiosities.

I think we agree then based on what I quote below.

BTW, It wasn't meant to be a highly scientific study either, it's just interesting to see the overall trends.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...