Windows 8 on more PCs than Vista after 8 months, has 5 percent marketshare

vbimport
#1

We’ve just posted the following news Windows 8 on more PCs than Vista after 8 months, has 5 percent marketshare
[newsimage]http://static.myce.com//images_posts/2013/07/myce-windows_8.1_preview-95x75.png[/newsimage]

After eight months Windows 8 is finally installed on more computers than Windows Vista.

            Read the full article here:[http://www.myce.com/news/windows-8-on-more-pcs-than-vista-after-8-months-has-5-percent-marketshare-67725/](http://www.myce.com/news/windows-8-on-more-pcs-than-vista-after-8-months-has-5-percent-marketshare-67725/)

            Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.
#2

Ha! It’s taken this long for 8 to become more popular than a 5-year-old flop OS. That just shows that 8 is a major step back in the opinions of that many people. Of course, part of this is the lack of PC upgrades, since most computers manufactured in the last 6 years are fast enough to satisfy most. But if people cared about 8, they could buy the OS by itself.

#3

Plus, it doesn’t take into account all the people that bought a new computer, was forced into using W8 and hated it, then dumped it and installed W7 to replace it. Many PC makers offered a downgrade to W7 just to help boost sales.

#4

And that’s just sad, for both operating systems, although certainly more then they both deserved …

#5

[QUOTE=debro;2692053]And that’s just sad, for both operating systems, although certainly more then they both deserved …[/QUOTE]

How do you mean both O/S? I think it’s more related to W8 then W7 as that is more accepted now then W8 is over XP upgrades. W7 has alot more potential since very few industry has even gone to W7 or is migrating over to W7 to begin with. So to think W7 is doing as bad as W8 is some very good cherry picking…

#6

Vista was a “flop” due mostly to early adopters that put it on any “compatible machine” many of those machines ran XP as well as creeping death… so obviously
vista didn’t work well.

Most software that ran under XP also runs under Vista.

Windows8 will NEVER be widely accepted and I further predict that if you think XP had a long life wait until you can look back on Windows7 at “end of life”… in 2020
(if not “extended” further)

I could, if necessary go back to running Vista on a daily use computer…
of course the daily use computer would be some sort of [I]FAST[/] dual (or quad) core machine…

but as things stand now I either give away or scrap single core machines.

#7

I found that Vista ran much better with a minimum of 3GB of RAM. Even with a single core CPU as long as multitasking wasn’t a big requirement. I have an old Acer laptop with Vista installed that has 3GB of RAM and a 2ghz dual core CPU and it runs quite well compared to my wife’s i3 Toshiba laptop with 4GB of RAM running W7.

#8

[QUOTE=coolcolors;2692091]How do you mean both O/S? .[/QUOTE]
Windows 8 & Vista?

And for the fans of windows 8 …
I want to search my files today … bam, spam delivered directly to the desktop.

Malware is going to have a field day with this one.

#9

[QUOTE=debro;2692129]Windows 8 & Vista?

And for the fans of windows 8 …
I want to search my files today … bam, spam delivered directly to the desktop.

Malware is going to have a field day with this one.[/QUOTE]

I see…thought you meant 7 as well but aside Vista at least was something that works and people could navigate it take it with some time to do so and wasn’t such a clean break. Also it have I think Service Pack 2 to fix most problems or useability. That lead up to W7 being released that was a hybrid of XP and Vista on the side of real networking O/S program that I can use and work with. Search and get spam…now that just makes me want to go all out W8… :Z

#10

I much prefer Vista over the goofy stupid metro gui nonsense.

If I were to have a choice to stay with old hardware or be stuck with the metro, without second thought I would choose old hardware w/Vista.

Of course I don’t have to make a choice such as that…yes I have Vista but also use W7 Pro…or for that matter, I have XP in a multi-boot.

If and when I am forced to buy a W8 machine, the first thing will be to install one of those 3rd party start menus…so to make it look as much like Vista/W7 as I can get it…or format and install W7.

Anyhow, I question those poll numbers and have doubts about how accurate they are.

#11

Insane!
Like Me!

Screenshot_W8_Classicshell.jpg601x958 99.2 KB

#12

[QUOTE=debro;2692146]Insane!
Like Me![/QUOTE]

That’s over kill for me…lmao… :doh:

I like my start menu for those that I can find there…at least that won’t clutter my desktop other then those I like to have a clean desktop.

#13

It says a lot that Microsoft needs to celebrate Win8’s “popularity” by charting it against one of its worst OS events in the history of Microsoft. “Win8 isn’t the worst ever!! Yeee haawwww!!” Yeah. Just great.

I do remember that Vista’s ‘success’ was heralded by Microsoft chimes compared to WinME. Oh yeah. Another huge vault upwards!

#14

I use Vista on my main desktop & don’t plan on changing any time soon.
I’ve tweaked Vista until I’m fairly satisfied with it.
Quite a bit of time involved in doing that.
It is still slow to boot . Once up it seems fast as Windows 7.
I did a system wide Takeown & grant . That caused a need to call MS & reactivate.
Things like getting the “System Volume Information” to always remain empty .
Although it does keep a 0kb file in it. That always comes back.

One more mention of the one thing I can’t get Vista or Windows 7 to do.
It is now my understanding Windows 8 doesn’t either .
It is open a DVD recorded in -VR mode on my one standalone that is capable of recording in this mode. Open means view the files in Windows Explorer to me.
This was possible with a MS OS both XPpro & Windows98SE can open this type DVD recording. I can do this on my old backup computer that has those.
If you have one of those DVDs see if Windows 8 can do that Bill Gates.
On Vista & Windows 7 IsoBuster can see the files & extract them .
Even then this has to be done a certain way.

#15

I have Vista and W7 Pro in dual boot on my desktop.
I think I perceive W7 to be ever so slightly faster at responding but it isn’t enough for me to care one way or the other.
Granted my desktop…for its day…has enough power for it not to be any problem anyway.
With minimum cpu and memory, there would be more difference in response time.

What gave Vista bad press was because it has all those safeguards and backup file features…it causes it to bloat over time (without tweaks).
Also, networking is better in W7 yet that really has no effect with my uses.

That coming from an immensely popular XP is what caused a negative press toward
Vista.

What seems to be forgotten quickly by many is Vista was the stepping stone to W7. In fact, W7 is basically a tweaked version of Vista.
The 2 systems are very much alike, in fact many scripts, commands and such that work for Vista, works for W7.

Those that don’t know much about Vista are likely the ones that have a negative view about it.

W8 doesn’t need any comparison with Vista and IMO, is doing a disservice to Vista, seeing W8 is a grandchild of Vista…with a bit of stupid-smartphone gui mixed in.

MS knew when they put in those browser bookmarks tiles that it would generate a certain amount of sales that they could capitalize on.

#16

[QUOTE=Steve33;2692338]

What seems to be forgotten quickly by many is Vista was the stepping stone to W7. In fact, W7 is basically a tweaked version of Vista.
The 2 systems are very much alike, in fact many scripts, commands and such that work for Vista, works for W7.

Those that don’t know much about Vista are likely the ones that have a negative view about it.
[/QUOTE]

The point you seem to have missed is that Vista was not a finished, polished, general public user friendly product. And it changed the way things were done that wasn’t comfortable to many XP users. Microsoft failed to recognize that the average user was going to have problems getting used to and using Vista. W7 is what Vista should have been in the first place.

I’ve been dealing with Vista for the past 3.5 years. Networking is a pain in the butt. The UAC was a pain. Security pales in comparison to W7. The 32 bit version seems to run less efficiently and is more error prone than the W7 64 bit version running certain programs.

#17

[QUOTE=yojimbo197;2692342]The point you seem to have missed…[/QUOTE]

I didn’t miss anything since I have been using Vista since early 2009…I know enough about it and really haven’t had any trouble with it.

I don’t agree with your conclusions either, that should make it even.

Am using it in dual boot on my desktop with W7 right now, don’t see any deal breakers in using Vista, whether I am right or wrong…I have given my opinion on the matter and that settles it for me and many others that still use it.

BTW, I know something about W7 too, been using it since late 2009.

#18

[QUOTE=Steve33;2692381]I have given my opinion on the matter and that settles it for me and many others that still use it.[/QUOTE]

This is probably more related to price and upgrade cost of buying a new O/S more then choice. And supposly Vista Sp2 repaired most problems of releasing a O/S to early.

[QUOTE=Steve33;2692381]BTW, I know something about W7 too, been using it since late 2009.[/QUOTE]

Same here…been using Windows since BasicA and MS-DOS…even longer…

#19

I can’t use the argument that any of these OS’s are ‘finished products’. Every one has patches and updates that address central core issues, and I’ve never seen a Major Version that wasn’t treated like Successor’s Super-Patch.

I am frankly unsure of what true benefits any Successor OS offers that couldn’t have been incorporated in SP_ for the predecessor. WinXP 1.0 had that ridiculous 128Gb partition limit. Of course, so did most motherboards. But it wasn’t but a few months before 1.01 rolled out and that was fixed to the 2Gb file-size limit.

Changing the Partition Size and Storage-Address-Limits seems like a major deal. Incorporating a standard SATA driver set seems puny, by comparison, but XP never did that. Vista’s cutey-pie aero features made it terrific to look at but obviously was a massive albatross about its neck for those that had to use it. And it suffered from Day One for that. All of its later updates and fixes gave its fans a good OS, but after waiting years after XP was delivered, Microsoft’s obviously hurried neediness to shovel that out the door remains a curiousity.

“Why not wait another 9 months? What big bad wolf was huffing and puffing THEN?” There was some line drawn in some sand somewhere, though, and rather than put out a good product, Microsoft delivered a crippled XP 1.0 and a far worse Vista 1.0.

I think XP 1.0 escaped most criticism because it was dovetailing an incredibly slow Win2000, and offered superior upgrades to Win98-SE, a final tombstone over WinME and threw the doors wide open to any company still stuck on NT 4. But it was also an “entirely new” Windows - the registry system which was heralded as the Be All Fix All service of all time. Gag cough cough… yeah… right…

It was better, from Day 1, than all of those for quite a lot of existing equipment as well as all the New Stuff. Heck, even HP’s printer drivers worked, too! (Unlike Win2000’s first day, or NTs or Win98/95, etc.)

#20

One of Microsoft’s failings has always been a lack of original thinking. None of the major advances in computer software have originated at Microsoft. Microsoft has always been late to the party. They simply use their market clout to take over any truly original idea, once they (usually belatedly) realize the potential. When they try to “innovate”, usually with a radical cosmetic make-over of an existing product, they fail (Millennium, Vista, Windows 8).

The concept of the Graphical User Interface, what we now know as Windows, did not originate at Microsoft and became popular through Apple, Atari and Commodore computers.

The first popular web browser originated with Netscape and Microsoft’s answer to that was to “integrate” their own browser into Windows and when people complained they claimed it was such an integral part of the OS that it couldn’t be removed.

And now that Google has such a lead in search engines and web-based e-mail, Microsoft is pulling out all the stops to play catch-up, even to the point of launching a massive TV campaign to get people to try Bing. Taking the Outlook Express and Windows Mail e-mail client out of Windows 7 was simply a move to force their customers to use Microsoft’s own web-based e-mail service.