Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 29th Jan 2010 16:26 UTC
Microsoft Microsoft presented the results for its second quarter of the 2010 fiscal year yesterday, which ended on December 29 2009. As it turns out, thanks to sales of Windows 7, Microsoft experienced a record quarter, which is especially welcome after the previous two lacklustre ones. It sold 60 million Windows 7 licenses during this record quarter.
Thread beginning with comment 406715
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
StaubSaugerNZ
Member since:
2007-07-13


Also, I wouldn't call XP a "lackluster release." It had problems, yes, but maintaining 90%+ market share for as long as it did is far from "lackluster," in my opinion.


I don't disagree with your statement but that "90%+" market share is on the desktop only. In the other markets (server, netbook, mobile, embedded) the penetration is not nearly as much. It is worth qualifying your statements to make them more accurate - otherwise you look like a fanboi that thinks all of computing is the desktop only.

Edited 2010-01-29 21:10 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

I don't disagree with your statement but that "90%+" market share is on the desktop only.


Well that should be pretty obvious since he was talking about XP which is a desktop OS.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

True, but anyone who runs windows xp as a server OS is crazy. Its a desktop OS, its pretty safe to assume when talking about a desktop os what anything we say about it is referring to its intended use as a desktop OS.

Reply Parent Score: 2

StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

True, but anyone who runs windows xp as a server OS is crazy. Its a desktop OS, its pretty safe to assume when talking about a desktop os what anything we say about it is referring to its intended use as a desktop OS.


Nope, people still try it. Qualifying your statement makes it explicit what you are talking about (yes, you do have to be accurate on a forum such as this).

Reply Parent Score: 2

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

True, but anyone who runs windows xp as a server OS is crazy. Its a desktop OS, its pretty safe to assume when talking about a desktop os what anything we say about it is referring to its intended use as a desktop OS.


Depends what your needs are. Would you really install Windows Server 2003 if all you need is a simple file server and to share a single printer (and you didn't know anything about configuring/using Samba/CUPS)? Or would you just install XP, share a folder, install the printer drivers, and share the printer?

If you need a simple box to run a single file share to house an Access database that will be used by multiple people, would you go to the effort of installing/configuring/managing a server version of Windows? Or just install XP, install Office, and share a folder? (Yes, we do this, for that one stupid Access database ... personally, I think Access should be nuked!)

Just because it's a "server" doesn't mean it needs a server-optimised OS.

Reply Parent Score: 2