Windows 8.1 finally takes off -- shows staggering market share growth

Free upgrades from Microsoft? Lol

 

Absolutely. I'm still using Vista (32 bit) on one machine with 2GB RAM. When I start up the computer, booting time is 40 seconds to see the desktop, memory usage hits 1.2 GB for the first 30 seconds thereafter, settling to 650-700 MB with the computer idle (including Avira active). As soon as I start Chrome memory hits 950 MB - 1 GB depending on the website.

I can imagine Daveski with his 1GB of RAM would have an inoperable machine, multitasking would probably hang the system forever...

 

I'm sorry but I'll have to disagree with you. Vista has been the target for years of many disgruntled die-hard XP users which saw Vista as the XP killer, systematically spreading rumours of a flawed OS. Vista is still working fine for me, to the point that upgrading to Win 7 makes it a waste of money. Granted, Win 7 is overall slightly lighter than Vista, but we are talking basically about the same OS. On the same machine the difference in RAM usage between Vista and Win 7 was less than 100 MB using Win 7 with no perceivable speed improvement...

 

I know there's been talk of free upgrades, but who's offering them at this point?

 

Here in Seoul, most new computers offered over the counter come with Win 8 (8.1) pre-installed therefore given time Win 8 can only improve its market penetration at least until Win 10 is available. Most young people and not so young (myself not included) will favor a smartphone, tablet, or phablet as their main machine (my son is no longer interested in laptops let alone desktops). A lot of these people have an old desktop at home with XP which is occasionally used, but the very latest in terms of smartphone and similar devices. Because of these market patterns it is difficult to compile accurate statistics...

 

While I no longer use Vista personally, I have to say the my experience with Vista on various computers with both service packs installed was a positive one. Sure, Windows 7 was better, but Vista ran fine for me and was a big improvement over XP in my opninion.

 

I can understand the hate towards Win 8 but in all honesty, I remember the issues folks had with 95 when it came out with the start menu as well as a few other things. Likewise with XP when it came out as well. I do think, though, that the Start screen was way too much of a paradigm shift. I haven't played with the tech preview of 10 but from what I've seen, that's how Windows 8 should have been mostly regarding the swap between tablet and desktop mode. I'll have to play with the tech preview to see what it can do. That being said, I like Windows 8/8.1 for most of the stuff they did in the backend; I had quite a bit of issues with 7 on my now 8 year old gaming pc but when I upgraded to 8, a big bunch of those issues went away. It's mainly a case of "your mileage will vary", overall.

Sincerely,

Coresix

 

According to my brother, who is a software engineer, Microsoft used experimental kernel technology in Vista that was a big disappointment and which was later abandoned in Win 7. I don't buy the disgruntled XP users argument, it is disingenuous at best. Vista was a good idea badly realised. Its overall aesthetic and feel were light years ahead of XP IMO. Microsoft have always been a bit coy about discussing this experimental aspect of Vista. It was half baked and released before its time. The consumer shouldn't have to be a test pilot for M$ experiments. The fact that Windows 7 is the most popular OS of all time is a testament to its superiority over Vista. Trying to justify that Vista had to happen to pave the way for Win 7 is equally redundant as an argument. Vista shouldn't have seen the light of day until it worked properly.

 

I wouldn't say that I 'hated' Win 8, I just don't want to use it.

 

But, from my own experience, with both service packs installed Vista ran really well. Without the service packs installed, on some computers it ran just fine, while on others it had major issues.

 

So you keep saying. You must have been the lucky minority. I spent seven hours trying to fix a Vista laptop for a relative on Sunday. At one point I phoned my brother for help. He had a lot to say about Vista, none of it good. He reckons M$ knew full well that Vista was a turkey but they had invested so much in it that they had to release it. Making the consumer the guinea pigs. He wouldn't use it because of this and actually warned me at the time. I'll never buy another Microsoft operating system until at least 18 months to two years after release now. Vista was a six year long headache on two separate machines for me. If it was that good how come much software isn't even coded properly for it anymore? Avast! claim that they code for XP still but Vista is so unused it isn't worth their time these days. I'll keep upgrading the hardware on my desktop box and use Win 7. It is everything Vista should have been. Its record stands for itself.

 

I don't think so. With both service packs installed (which a lot of Vista users won't have due to programs with Windows Update in Vista meaning that either SP2 or even both service packs refuse to install until you run Microsoft's System Update Readiness Tool for Vista), I believe that many users would be happy with Vista - provided they have a fast enought CPU and enough RAM.

What software? You gave the example of Avast, but I just visited the websites of ten security vendors at random, and their latest products all support Vista.

Yes, Windows 7 is a lot better than Vista, and I'm not going to argue that. But, I don't think Vista is the terrible OS it is made out to be.

 

You can beleaguer this as much as you want, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, hardly anyone uses Vista and Win 7 is the most successful OS of all time. All the Vista machines that I personally witnessed bork regularly were completely up to date with service packs.

Every vendor claims to support Vista, but it isn't really true, and apps coded specifically for 7 aren't always Vista compatible in reality. Only the naive would believe so. I believe Panda specifically code for Vista.

Vista is the terrible OS I am making it out to be. M$ should come clean about its botched 'experiment' and admit it was an abject failure that was only released so punters would part with their cash so Microsoft wouldn't lose out financially.

The vast majority used Vista with all of its service packs, had repeated problems, and couldn't wait to ditch it for Win 7.

Win 7 isn't just a lot better than Vista, it is an OS that actually works properly. That's why it is the world's favourite.

You just can't argue with that.

 

While I heard tons of stories about terrible Vista I have been using it since its launch without a single issue. Maybe it's an exception or simply incredible luck, whatever it is, I for one cannot complain. Though my Vaio is getting old so I'm gonna to upgrade HW and SW soon and I will go with 8.1.

 

@Daveski17 we have different opinions, and I'm not going to continue this discussion after this post. I agree that Windows 7 is much better than Vista but from my experiences they are both excellent operating systens.

 

The usage share more or less says it all. I've had no problems with my Win 7 OS whatsoever in four years of using it on a custom-built desktop often rebuilt/hardware upgraded in the manner of the Ship of Theseus. Of course, I could just be paranoid about Vista.

These figures are probably slightly out of date now and I can't personally vouch for their veracity.

Windows 7: 53.05%

Windows XP: 17.18%

Windows 8/8.1: 16.80%

Vista at 2.82% is less used than Mac OS X and only double the amount of Linux.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Desktop_and_laptop_computers

If Vista wasn't problematical for most users, and Win 7 had no significant advantages over it, why isn't it used by a greater number of people?

 

We will have to agree to disagree.

 

I believe there are two good reasons for this.

Firstly, as I've already stated the original release of Vista has major issues on some computers. It's a really strange problem, as on some computers it ran just fine. Users with issues may have ditched Vista before installing the service packs which quite possibly would have fixed the issues they had. Or, as I mentioned previously maybe Windows Update was not able to install the service packs, so they were stuck with a problamatic Vista.

Secondly, I believe a lot of people avoided Vista due its bad reputation and never gave it a chance.

 

Firstly, as I've already stated, Microsoft tried some experimental kernel technology in Vista, which was later abandoned in 7. The service packs fixed most of the serious problems but the myriad of annoying bugs that dogged Vista throughout its life were never fixed. Until Win 7.

Secondly, most people who already had Vista and then upgraded to 7 discovered it was far more stable.

Microsoft should come clean with the truth about Vista. The statistics I posted speak volumes about its usability as a viable OS.

 

No offence but it's naive to think so. Did others (for instance Apple) admit problems with their SW or HW? Btw, what truth do you want to hear? That Vista irritates you? You do know this already.

 

The thing with Vista was that it was a major rearchitecture. There was bound to be problems because apart from UAC, it introduced quite an amount of background changes.

Let's take Superfetch for example. It is a good idea yet needed real world feedback (both positive and negative) from users running different hardware before MS was able to fine-tune and optimize it further.

In a way, Vista users were the early adopters and had to go through the initial "growing pains" to make way for a better OS - the one known as Win7.

Not to mention the psychological aspect...by the time Win7 was released, there had been "familiarity" with what was changed (compared to XP). Vista had shouldered most of the blame.

Coming back to Win8, once again, users running 8/8.1 are the early adopters and feedback from users make way for the next OS - Win10.

Trust me..when Win10 gets released, it would be seen in a better light too. It's the same pattern.

 

No offence, but I know full well Microsoft will never admit that Vista was a botched experiment. It was a rhetorical statement in essence. All the sophistry in the world cannot explain the sheer reality of the usage figures I posted.

 

Wrong approach. Vista meant an intermediate step between XP and 7 and from its nature it inevitably brought "transition" problems which were mostly resolved in SP1 and SP2 what finally enabled a relatively smooth launch of 7.

 

That's the sophistry I mentioned earlier. And that's all it is. It doesn't matter how 'transitional' it was, it was released too early purely for financial reasons. Microsoft wanted to recoup their money on an inherently flawed operating system and attempted to patch it a later date. With 7 they abandoned the experimental kernel and produced what Vista should have been in the first place.

You can beleaguer this as much as you like, over 50% of desktop users are using Win 7 and not Vista for a very good reason.

Win 7 works properly.