Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 19th Sep 2010 21:18 UTC, submitted by gireesh
Permalink for comment 441796
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-02-05
re the 1% article, it was a great mix of common sense and downright stupidity.
He is right that the numbers don't add up. That's because that hitslink site is about what is actually being used, not what is sold or bought.
The over counting of windows is a new one to me, I would imagine windows dramatically under counted -- most corporate/governament networks are only visible to the outside world as a single IP addresses, and most corporate/governament networks are 100% MS.
Using sales numbers doesn't really mean anything. At my first job, I remember needing a few crappy machines for something. An IT guy brought me into a basement room filled with probably about 300 several years old NT4 machines. If you looked at sales stats, those all would have been considered windows machines. In this case, I have many friends who have netbooks, but they all installed either xp, windows 7, or osx on them. Hitslink would catch that, netbook sales numbers wont.
At the end of the day, the hitslink numbers should not be taken as gospel, but they are by far the most reliable actual usage numbers we can get.