Submitted by Break out the salt, boys and girls, it’s time for some statistics again. “According to Net Applications, in June Windows Vista accounted for 4.52% of all systems that browsed the Web, up from January’s 0.18%. Vista has grown its usage share each month since its release to consumers Jan. 30, hitting 0.93% in February, 2.04% in March, 3.02% in April and 3.74% in May. Apple Inc.’s Mac OS X, meanwhile, accounted for 6.22% in January and hit its high point of 6.46% in May, but it slipped back to 6% in June. If Vista’s uptake trend continues, it should pass Mac OS X in Web usage share by the end of August.” Do with it as you please.
how many xp’s versus vista.
how many xp’s versus linux.
how many vista’s versus amiga.
Don’t give much for this, as it presumes that there are only OsX and vista out there..
It’s all on the site.
Here’s the Linux share over the last 12 months:
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=5&qpcustom=Linux
Here’s the XP share over the last 12 months:
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=5&qpcustom=Window…
There’s no listing for Amiga, but there is “Unknown”:
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=5&qpcustom=Unknow…
IF these stats are to be believed, then Linux isn’t in the top 5 and it’s growth is pretty much stagnant.
Something about these stats regarding Linux strike me as a bit odd. I would have thought it would have been higher.
That’s because web stats are never a good indicator of market share. There are many reasons why Linux usage would be misreported (user agents, sample bias, over-representation of certain Windows clients, over-representation of narrow-band users with dynamic IPs, etc.).
This subject has been endlessly debated here in the past, btw.
One percent? I don’t know, I could see it. Mac is at ~4%.
Umm doesn’t this just show migration from XP to Vista? The % divide between Windows/Vista probably hasn’t changed.
Yeahh..
It’s like someone trying to be serious, and it’s not..
Yet again an example of some “facts”, and it turns out to be some point of view in cammo’ or something.
Do U follow me??
So, the OS that is being bundled in 90% (I’m guessing here) of all new PCs sold is about to surpass another OS that is bundled in 5% of PCs, “only” six months after its launch?
Amazing! [/sarcasm]
What would be more interesting to know is, what percentage of Windows users upgraded to Vista vs Mac users upgraded to Tiger, in a similar period?
That percentage would be much higher for Vista, if people actually knew how to use it.
It’s very unclear, is this the US market only? Or worldwide usage?
I suspect it’s the US market only.
Well judging from the 6% figure for OS X, I’d say this a very US centric report. No one really uses Apple’s products outside of the US/West EU/Japan.
That’s what I was thinking as well.
I’d like to see a worldwide study done to see where linux stands. Last time such a thing was done was by google.
Don’t forget all other os’ses….
They might not be that important, still i would prefer a complete list…
Vista.
Xp.
OsX.
Amiga (from os 3.0 to 4.0)
C64 (yes, u can run a server on a c64)
Sun (whatever os that is)
Unix (in genneral, not just OsX)
Linux.
And all other Os U can think of.
Sun Solaris
So that’s why I see people with MacBooks all the time here in Sweden? I doubt that Apple has a 6% market share here, but it’s growing fast, I can see that without the statistics.
Also I’ve seen a lot more linux laptops on trains and cafés the past year. Those used to be a rare sight.
Good to know that more people are moving away from Windows. We need more competition.
According to the article, the stats are based on these web usage statistics:
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=5
So it’s neither the “US” nor “World” markets, per se.
And brostenen, here are the stats for the other OSes:
(another chart from the same site that shows the web usage stats for June 2007):
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2
Windows XP 81.94%
Windows Vista 4.52%
Windows 2000 4.00%
Mac OS 3.52%
MacIntel 2.48%
Windows 98 1.14%
Linux 0.71%
Windows NT 0.66%
Windows ME 0.59%
Nintendo Wii 0.17%
Unknown 0.07%
Windows CE 0.06%
Series60 0.02%
Windows 95 0.02%
Hiptop 0.02%
Edited 2007-07-24 17:14
Someone correct me if I am wrong……
It appears to me there is a serious problem in using web usage statistics to calculate the OS being used.
Some non-windows browsers emulate Internet Explorer, indicating the use of Windows even when it’s not the case.
I can’t prove these statistics are flawed, but I’m sceptical of the accuracy of such numbers.
“Some non-windows browsers emulate Internet Explorer, indicating the use of Windows even when it’s not the case.
I can’t prove these statistics are flawed, but I’m sceptical of the accuracy of such numbers.”
You make a valid point regarding inherent flaw of using web usage stats as indicated by a browser’s UserAgent string as being indicative of usershare of an OS.
But there are three things that argue against your scepticism.
First, the chart shows Vista’s share increasing and XP’s decreasing. So in order for your scepticism to hold water, non-windows browsers that were misidentifying themselves as XP are now misidentifying themselves as Vista. I’d guess that the percentage of browsers doing that is virtually zero (what would be the point?).
Second, the chart shows the monthly trends, rather than just the stats for one month. Meaning, that you could subract 5% of Vista’s totals each month to account for “lying browsers” and the trend would still be upward (I picked 5% out of the air; I’d say the real percentage of browsers claiming to be Vista that aren’t is virtually zero).
Third, the non-Windows OS with the largest userbase is Mac OSX by far (one order of magnitude larger than Linux, according to these same stats). There’s no way that Safari is identifying itself as Windows, and I’m sure that Mac Firefox doens’t either. So since Mac browsers aren’t identifying themselves as Windows, that leaves only the non-Windows browsers of *nix, which have a small market share, and of those, how many are really set to identify as Windows browsers? We’re talking about a very small percentage of browser share at this point.
Edited 2007-07-24 18:09
Actually, no. Because Linux browsers represent such a small part compared to Windows’ market share, you could have an increase of Vista share and a decrease of XP share even if all the Linux browsers continued being identified as XP. As in all statistics, one should expect smaller numbers to be *less* precise than bigger ones. So one could still see big trends (i.e. XP towards Vista) while smaller trends (Linux’ market share increasing, for example) would be almost certainly swamped in statistical noise.
Some Linux browsers don’t identify themselves as Linux by default, by the way – Konqueror is one example, IIRC, which would mean that a large proportion of KDE desktops would fall into the “others” category.
The fact that Mac browsers don’t identifiy themselves as Windows would mean that the Mac numbers are more accurate, however they could in fact be a couple of points higher, because the proportion of broadband users is probably higher among Mac users (since they are in general more affluent). Broadband users tend to keep the same IP address for longer, which would fool these kind of studies. Also, some Windows client (such as AOL) increase the number of referents when visiting a page, which can also skew things.
The conclusion? Web stats are pretty much useless when it comes to giving any kind of precise numbers. It’s all right when it comes to large percentages, or for Windows OSes (which don’t represent themselves as other OSes when surfing), but for small numbers the margin of error is too big to be of any use.
I didn’t even realise that. IMHO it is a special kind of stupid, as any halfway decent web developer uses a more practical approach then user agents for browser sniffing (i.e. if (document.all) { for js, and the star hack for css)
Web browser stats only show the desktop linux market share, which is quite minuscule (I could easily buy the stats given on the site). Linux has a much bigger slice of the server market then < 1%. Notice how Win2003 wasnt even on the list.
My point was that for numbers in the 0-3% range I don’t see these statistics as having *any* validity. There are just too many elements that can skew the results.
Web usage stats (based on browsers) aren’t that important nor accurate. Really I wouldn’t judge market share from website access.
However, these stats seems very close to actual data as gathered from other sources, for US market. Apple totals is about 6% which is not their worldwide share by far but it’s very close to reported US market share (between 5 and 6%). But that’s why website access stats aren’t significative at all. I’m sure a chinese website would show percentage like Linux 70%, Windows 15% and Mac 0%.
I can’t believe Thom even posted this one.
good news.
This story is a no-brainer and trivial.
Come on, obviously sales would reflect that now because Windows dominate the desktop and most people just buy what comes bundled with their new pc.
The Linux faithful and/or converts generally staying put on their older boxes.The Mac faithful/users/zealots ,take your pick,staying put and rightly so till their new Os comes out because Macs are expensive and more than likely they will use some kind of virtualization program to use Windows anyways.
I assure whoever wrote this article,when the new Mac Os comes out its usage wont be flat.This is premature.They are lucky Mac hardware is expensive or Vista sales would be taking a serious kick in the shins then.
And no I am not a Mac Zealot.Never owned or used one, just a realist.
The market share of one computer company (Apple) stays the same, while the OS that is now preinstalled on most new computers gains marketshare.
Wow, who would have thought…
“The market share of one computer company (Apple) stays the same, while the OS that is now preinstalled on most new computers gains marketshare.
Wow, who would have thought…”
What stats *would* be impressive to you? You and the others are saying, “well this is just people buying new computers installed with Vista.” But the fact is that we don’t know how many Vista users are using computers preinstalled with Vista versus those that upgraded from XP. And of those that are using computers preinstalled with Vista, we don’t know how many bought new computers specifically for Vista. According to the stats, Vista rose, OSX remaind “flat”, and XP went down. From which you’d conclude that people are switching from XP to Vista. Whether that’s by upgrading old machines or buying new ones isn’t particularly relevant from what I can see (I note that the other Vista story of today, with the Acer guy whining about Vista not driving PC sales would indicate that at least some Vista users upgraded old machines rather than buying new ones).
Given the above, is it not the case that you’d be able to argue that Vista’s increasing its userbase should be dismissed, for nearly any set of stats you were shown? Let’s say the stats showed that after 6 months, Vista’s userbase doubled that of Mac. Would you not still dismiss the stats as new computers being bought? It seems that it’s impossible for Microsoft to “win” here, because the goal posts keep getting moved.
We were told by Mac and Linux advocates that Vista would actually drive up Mac and Linux usershare. These stats show otherwise. So now the goalposts are moved, but to where? Must Vista obliterate both Mac and XP share within 12 months? Where exactly are the goalposts now?
Edited 2007-07-24 17:34
“Let’s say the stats showed that after 6 months, Vista’s userbase doubled that of Mac. Would you not still dismiss the stats as new computers being bought?”
*If* the XP usage had by that time had decreased proportionally to the Vista increase it would be appropriate to conclude that Vista had not actually gotten many new users but mainly users switching from XP/upgrading their XP PC’s.
Microsoft’s market share would in effect have stayed flat.
I think thats nothing new…
of these stats. Why should I care? “Ooh, all these people ‘upgraded’ to Vista….I’ll be a sheep too and upgrade”.
Do people actually base their purchases on how many units are sold of the product in question?
At the end of the day, it’s pointless, IMO.
Those are people resigning to their fate that they will have to switch to Vista sooner or later as an upgrade path that sticks with windows…
Meanwhile OS X users are holding their breath, waiting for OS X 10.5.
So the only thing surprising here is how incredibly bad an OS can be with people still buying it (though most will buy it as a curse from the PC manufacturer). I look forward to Dell offering Ubuntu based PCs in germany. Then there will finally be a choice… buy a PC with a decent OS or buy a Mac with… well… an acceptable os
of course vista usage will grow. New computers are almost always sold with Vista and after all people do by new computers all the time. As far as Mac OS loosing grounds those are just percentages. I am pretty sure that the number of Mac users has grown but not as fast as Vista users. After all there is a lot larger Windows user base than Mac OS one and then you go back to the same problem of Vista being shoved down everyone’s throat. So this statistics is complete BS and it says absolutely nothing. If you really care about the bigger picture compare Windows to Mac OS computers. Not a version of one with a version of the other.
If OSX ever were released to general x86 hardware, how much Windows would retain the lead.
Like being able to go to Dell’s site, and check:
x for Windows Vista
x for Apple OSX
x for Ubuntu
All on the same hardware.
Alas, that will probably never happen.
Do with it as you please.
Heh. These numbers are going to be interpreted so many ways, it’s not even funny.
As Mark Twain said, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
I always thought Disraeli said that. Mark Twain thought that as well (The remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics”. -Twain’s autobiography) but apparently the situation isn’t so clear – http://www1c.btwebworld.com/quote-unquote/p0000149.htm
Fitting for a quote about how people interpret statistics in many different ways, leading to uncertainty regarding their merit.
Edited 2007-07-24 20:20 UTC
If OSX ever were released to general x86 hardware, how much Windows would retain the lead
Actually Windows would still retain the lead. The business world (in the U.S) is dominated by Windows use and switching over to another OS is like trying to move a mountain. The financial investment in Windows software for these businesses is a huge factor preventing OS change. The exception here is in IT and development where many businesses have stitched to Linux to lower development costs.
Just opening OSX to x86 hardware would probably not get you what you think would happen. A lot of the stability of OSX results from running on a much smaller hardware profile and boutique devices. Windows on the other hand, must work with an array of old/new systems with a wide assortment of video cards, etc. So, even though OSX looks really nice, you would start to run into many of the hardware compatibility issues that Windows has with PC hardware – ugly driver issues would start to appear. Just look at how many motherboards you can use to build a Windows or Linux PC. Apple would have to start a whole new QA team to test the most common options. This would be a huge undertaking.
Edited 2007-07-24 18:43
Cookie for you. Mac myths are tiring, but tradition. Hearing fantasies of OS X on white boxes is just tiring, full stop. Marketshare matters only a little to Apple. They are profitable, highly profitable.
They are not doing anything really majorly wrong with their computer business – and if anything, everybody else should be looking at them and copying – Apple have the most successful retail stores of any computer manufacturer.
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
It seems for ever article saying Vista is gaining market share (etc) there is an equal number of articles announcing that Vista is bombing. The PR machines are on overdrive and I really don’t have the patience for it all any more.
The two are not mutually exclusive. You have some disappointing movies breaking box office records all the time (Spiderman 3 anyone?).
The fact that Vista comes preinstalled on 90%+ of new PCs means that its marketshare will *inevitably* go up. That has nothing to do with the question of whether it’s a good OS or not.
I’m well aware of all that but my point is these statistics are spun to give conflicting summaries from different PR machines rather than people discussing the real crux of the matter – Vista OS. I know every company puts spin on the success (or not) of their product – it’s masic marketing – but when more people discuss the finites of the PR rather more than the product itself you start to wonder why such articles are being reported on news sites in the first place.
To summarise: Some days I think Vista is more of a PR tool than an OS.
That’s an interesting take on it. It’s more of a marketable product than an OS, that’s for sure.
To me, OSes are like basic infrastructure. Marketing them is a bit absurd, just like marketing asphalt or copper wire. But we live in an era where everything is a product, it seems.
That is actually one of the reasons I prefer Linux. By not belonging to any single corporate interest, it eschews most of that BS.
<excuse the heading – accidentle double post edited as a reply so not to waste a comment>
I know a number of mac firefox users that change the user-agent on firefox to window for greater website compatability (not that browsers should have to fake it to comply with lazy webdevelopers).
Agreed that it’s a small percentage though
Edited 2007-07-24 19:46
I’d like a show of hands from anybody who reads statistical news and thinks it shows some real world information?
Here’s some “facts” I think we can all get behind.
1). Microsoft’s Desktop OS is the most dominate desktop OS.
2). Vista will someday be on more PC’s than Linux or the Mac OS. (We have to be realistic here. The majority of people out there aren’t going to jump ship to Linux or the Mac just because of Vista. It’d be nice, but it isn’t going to happen.)
3). Vista is way over priced. (Ok, that’s just my opinion, but I bet a few people agree with me.)
Although statistics are fun to look at, in my opinion, they are mostly worthless. To many variables to consider. The only thing this shows is stuff we all already knew. Vista will, most likely, dominate the desktop OS market. Just in time for Microsoft to try and force another upgrade to the Next version of Windows.
The only thing this shows is stuff we all already knew. Vista will, most likely, dominate the desktop OS market.
And also that Microsoft remain a monopoly.
And also that monopolies create lazy products and stagnation of ideas.
As you say, it’s no surprise we’re seeing this nothing version of Windows jump to the top of the pile by default, just like the mediocre IE6 has benefited from monopoly status.
For all my optimism about Linux, the reality is that I’d take Microsoft straight back to the DoJ today if I could.
No, good statistics are useful. The trick is to determine what is an good statistic. As a hint, a good statistic comes default with following data:
– who was asked
– who was asking
– how many where asked
– how was asked
– where were they asked
A good statistic can tell you lots of interesting things… obviously, marketing statistics almost never qualify as good statistics.
Edited 2007-07-25 06:16
“Although statistics are fun to look at, in my opinion, they are mostly worthless. ”
Statistics can be useful but it’s entirely worthless when you don’t know how it was created, what methodology was used, how big the sample(s) were, how the samples were chosen etc etc etc. You know, just like Net Applications statistics.
Is linux, I can bet you that alot of people are using Linux and Vista. Fact is you’ll never see the figures of people switching to Linux because they dont factor into it. I think If proper figures were made you’ll find people using Ubuntu with Windows are high indeed, if you put that into a percentage people would be shocked I bet.
Vista was always going to grow no matter how bad it maybe, people want the latest and greatest and if OEM’s only ship Vista when it dont take many braincells to figure out why Vista is growing.
In what way differs Vista from Windows XP?
When Windows XP was released there was a cracked corporate Version without activation for it available.
Windows XP didnt needed much more Resource then 2k
Windows XP was (mainly) compatible with old Software
Windows XP allowed you to play mp3s
—
What I’m trying to say is, that this statistic means nothing! Every Kiddy who installs Daddie’s, the Neighbour’s and Friend’s PC had a copy of Windows XP because it was cool and offered some new functionality.
Windows Vista makes sense (or not, if you don’t like it at all) if you have a fast PC and bought it legally, as you buy your music legally. So be sure, most people won’t install it on their old PC’s until they will get it bundled with their new ones.
The only thing we can gather from this statistic is, that piracy is good marketing 😉
Regards
Patrick
Typos: Drunk ….
I guess if you were drunk when you wrote this, you have a good excuse, but…
There are a plethora of cracked activation-less versions of Vista out there
XP needed roughly double the resources of 2k (a friend of mine downgraded just last week on a very old pc)
XP was incompatible with the vast majority of 9x only drivers and software
And there are no restrictions on playing MP3s on Vista. (The DRM everyone complains about is what is on anything that runs HD-DVDs)
There are a plethora of cracked activation-less versions of Vista out there
Which is illegal and probably comes with questionable stability.
XP needed roughly double the resources of 2k (a friend of mine downgraded just last week on a very old pc)
Just curious; what machine spec was this? I ask because I’ve got it running just fine on a 933Mhz w/ 512MB of RAM, and went with XP because 2000 Pro didn’t run any faster and didn’t have some of the features I enjoy with XP Pro.
XP was incompatible with the vast majority of 9x only drivers and software
That’s because it’s an entirely different OS. Not surprising that drivers are incompatible. It’s not like the 2000 –> XP migration.
Bill claimed that the first few months of vista sales rivaled the install base of any other OS. I guess these stats show his numbers were based on unsold OEM liscences, as these stats show only about half that.
Gee, maybe if Apple released their OS to be run on white boxes, then this would be more of a comparison. This is like comparing DVD sales worldwide with VHS sales in Belgium. What in the hell do either have to do with one another?
There is no OS war since Apple refuses to fight one. When will people start realizing that?
Apple have to change mind sets first, so does Linux, it’s a very long uphill battle.
Having the hardware restricted has it’s advantage for the OS and the user, PC’s are not as good as they are made out to be.
I totally agree with you on all points. If Apple’s “fighting” anything, it’s a completely different business plan than what MS is doing.
If MS would add hardware capabilities, or Apple would open OS X, then you could realistically argue the metrics written about in the article.
“There is no OS war since Apple refuses to fight one. When will people start realizing that?”
Apple understands supporting all the nasty hardware and all the sucky drivers on the planet isn’t so damn simple.
A good chunk of Apple’s OS success over the years is due to them supporting a controlled hardware list.
That is, if we follow that Acer fellow’s logic then OSX must be a mega dud given how long it’s been out compared to Vista.
And worse, Linux is a dud. Blah. Such nonsense.
Or to answer the pose at the end of the article posting :- There isn’t anything to make of this. Move along, nothing to see.
Hmmm… I guess that is why I am seeing more and more
Macbooks around when I commute (and no, they’re not running XP/Vista on Boot Camp; not actively anyway), and why IE7 share increased very slowly once the Windows Update (a.k.a Magic Market Share Maker) handed out IE7 to the last to cave in.
And why I am seeing soooooo many Vista machines. I saw one, to be excact, new laptop. But then again I saw one with Kubuntu too…
lol
Microsoft’s worst competitor is itself when it comes to Vista.
My belief here is that Microsoft lives not in a reality distortion field but in a proverbial gravity well.
They assumed their new `WoW` would, in Apple style, dazzle its market base and its user base showed them up.
Friends don’t let friends use windows 9x. Those users should all be Linux users at this point. windows 95 is buggy and easily infected it doesn’t belong on the net. Windows 98 is only a few steps better. Windows ME is 9x too I always suspect that but have to look it up but the point is nobody should have to suffer that crap.
If we can get those users to something xfce thats another 1% for Linux.
Where are these people running 9x. Where are the Linux users who should save these people.
Edited 2007-07-26 09:29