Windows 7 overtakes XP - finally

Most dominant desktop OS, says web traffic abacus
Source: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/12/windows_7_overtakes_xp/

 

I never thought I'd live to see the day LOL!

 

And that's him celebrating (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsboPUjrGc).

BTW, the bottom of the graph has Linux. You need to squint. Real hard.

 

It's OK, I've taken my medication now ...

Yeah, now if Linux was freeware maybe it would take off more ... hold on a minute ...

 

There are hidden costs.

 

Yeah, like your sanity LOL!

 

lmao @ other being higher than linux

what the hell

 

Mobile systems perhaps?

I'm risking a certain someone showing up, but I have to say that it's a sad looking outcome for Linux desktops if you only go by this graph. If Linux was a person, that long, stable line would mean it's time to unhook the machines and buy a hole in the ground.

 

IDK they obviously aren't including servers or linux would be way higher. Android is linux too so I doubt it.

 

You mean the resident "Linux Crusader"? LOL! ...won't mention any names of course

 

And the figures are not truly trustworthy imho

At least I don't think so.

 

Why would anyone browse the internet on a server? Not a great way to keep it secure.

These statistics are collected from page hits/trackers.

 

Keep in mind this graph is referring to desktop systems only. If it was a general overview of operating systems period, the numbers would of course be different.

Edit: I noticed they included mobile as a footnote at the bottom of the article. So, I'm not so sure "Other" is those...which makes me wonder what the heck it is, lol.

 

Reason being?

 

I have. Lots. When I'm doing some sort of research for example. And that is usually most days.

 

One is the server thing raised by Hungry Man which totally distorts the figures. The other being that I don't know the general system they have used to collect and corroborate their stats. If the figures are distorted therefore they are misleading. Don't trust people who appear to mislead the public.

Edit: Should add that I have worked for government and know how easy it is to manipulate figures to satisfy your target audience. I have done the manipulating myself so that the statistics fit the political objective of my reports and targets are 'proven'.

 

The problem with that argument is that it is made plainly clear they are referring to desktop systems only. No one is saying a thing about servers, no adding, no subtracting. I've already spoken of the fact that the numbers would change if servers were included, but, they are not and the findings were never an attempt to count servers.

It's not misleading, it's simply a different topic.

 

I don't agree. It may not be misleading to you or me. But it is produced in a format that would mislead a vast number of people. It is common knowledge that most people only skim through the headlines and scan-read the text causing the full meaning to be lost, taken out of context or misinterpreted. That is why articles like this are written in this format. A significant number of people will not even read down to the bottom but merely focus on the headline and introductory paragraph. The reviewers know this in my opinion and rely on the title to get the hits which satisfy the companies advertising on their website and maximises potential revenue. The average reader probably won't read the bit that says "It can’t be proved that the web visiting figures exactly correlate to the..." etc etc

I do accept, of course, that I may be a touch cynical

 

What company are you working for that sells these web servers you browse on? So I can know to avoid them like the plague.

Unless you're talking about browsing from a server on your home network, in which case you are definitely part of the minority "other".

 

It's work I do and have done for a number of charities who operate on limited budget and run Linux based servers. Some of the agencies are small and others are larger, operating in more than more than one country.

The IT systems are often designed by individuals who have some knowledge but would not necessarily be the same people employed by companies who normally install these type of systems. They basically only get paid for their time and do a brilliant job. Without them, a lot of good work done by these charities would not be possible.