AfterDawn: Tech news

Windows XP sees its share fall under 50 percent, finally

Written by Andre Yoskowitz (Google+) @ 03 Aug 2011 2:12 User comments (19)

Windows XP sees its share fall under 50 percent, finally It has taken awhile, but Windows XP's global market share has finally fallen under 50 percent, to 49.69 percent.
Despite the fall, the OS remains the most popular operating system in the world.

Windows 7 was the main reason for the decline of its older brother, with the new OS moving up to 27.92 percent.

Apple's Mac OS X continued its rise, as well, shooting to 5.56 percent share.

Microsoft's "failed" Vista OS controlled third with 9.27 percent share, followed by the iPhone, JavaME, the iPad and Android with much smaller percentages.

Full figures here: NetApplications OS version trend

Previous Next  

19 user comments

13.8.2011 8:18

It should probably also be noted that these stats are based on online browser use...not all computing devices in general.

25.8.2011 11:11

still d0n't see any advantage to 7 over vista...will stick with xpsp2.

35.8.2011 11:38

Ive personally rolled 3 of my households from Vista/7 to XP due to chip set difficulties with the operating system in playing video and games. Oldy enough though i moved a Dell Mini9 to Win7 and it works better then it did under XP.


Account Created Saturday 12 January 2008. After 7 years I consider myself a Sr. Member no matter WHAT my post count says.

45.8.2011 13:26

Windows XP ... share fall ... finally (???) What do you mean by "finally" Andre? And what's with that "It has taken a while, ..." comment dear, snide Andre ???

Do you own sluggishly rising stock in microsoft Andre? Do you have some other reason for wanting to see a stable platform decline and fail? Is XP's continued use stopping some other technology from making you or your friends more money? ... or is it that you've been at this too long and you are showing the symptoms of coming down with techno-snobbery?

The reason I have lashed out at you, Andre, is because it's supposed to be "News by Andre Yoskowitz" per the link below the title. Propaganda is slanted. Commentary is opinionated. But News is impartial Andre ... a basic principal of American journalism. Than "Finally" comment in the title is journalistically shabby old boy. If you claim that an article is a News story, ENTITLE it impartially and WRITE it as news! If you are going to write a Commentary, then LABEL IT AS COMMENTARY and write it any way you heart desires ... that is responsible freedom of expression.

Eric Furrer

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 05 Aug 2011 @ 13:43

RT #13

56.8.2011 12:47

Originally posted by Whisperer:
Windows XP ... share fall ... finally (???) What do you mean by "finally" Andre? And what's with that "It has taken a while, ..." comment dear, snide Andre ???

Do you own sluggishly rising stock in microsoft Andre? Do you have some other reason for wanting to see a stable platform decline and fail? Is XP's continued use stopping some other technology from making you or your friends more money? ... or is it that you've been at this too long and you are showing the symptoms of coming down with techno-snobbery?

The reason I have lashed out at you, Andre, is because it's supposed to be "News by Andre Yoskowitz" per the link below the title. Propaganda is slanted. Commentary is opinionated. But News is impartial Andre ... a basic principal of American journalism. Than "Finally" comment in the title is journalistically shabby old boy. If you claim that an article is a News story, ENTITLE it impartially and WRITE it as news! If you are going to write a Commentary, then LABEL IT AS COMMENTARY and write it any way you heart desires ... that is responsible freedom of expression.

Eric Furrer
LOL who are you? The use of the word "finally" is because the "stable" platform is now 10 years old. Microsoft has released TWO new operating systems since its release, and Apple has released Tiger, Snow Leopard and Lion since then. It is clear to me you have some sort of obsession with Windows XP, which is fine, if you like outdated operating systems meant to run on computers with P4 processors and 512MB of RAM. If you have a problem with the use of the word "finally" for a platform that is 10 years old, you have different issues.

66.8.2011 17:06

Laugh out loud, you say? Who am I, you ask? You elitist smuck! I am a free thinking constitutional American. My issue is with you pretending to be "news by andre" when you are really just a advertisement and poster boy for a bunch of technologies that people only think they need thanks to modern marketing. Who needs all that crap? Only marketing pipers like you and the sheep who believe that your article is actually "news". Who cares what microsoft released and is trying push on us. Who cares about apple's, ...what is it now(?) ..., tiger--leapord--lion ooooooooooooh I'm so not impressed.

I'm sure you've got a great income collecting all your promotional royalties but the common American lives in a world of near double digit recession and inflation. Your "10 years old" analogy is just the dismissive timeframe of an impatient youngster. Ten years is only the blink of an eye ... not exactly the last ice age. For most people's computer applications (by that I mean in the real world, not andre's ivory tower), there is nothing at all wrong with P4 processors and the XP OS. ... and keeping one's money in a cd account instead of giving it to the likes of you, ... poster boy. Also, stop exagerating: XP will run fine even on a PIII system so you can stop belittling P4 processors too. And computers that only had 512K of memory in them had 8088 processors and were released in the late 70's and sold until the mid-80's. So why are you trying to lead the susceptible amongst your readers into comparing XP to 1970's 16bit technology?

Because you are a salesman Andre ... a plaid coat salesman.

So, back to my original critique: Do you write news?, or is it commentary?, or is it advertising? or is it propaganda?

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 06 Aug 2011 @ 18:13

RT #13

76.8.2011 17:36

Still using Athlon 64 4000+ with DDR-400 2GB hyper-x ram here...i can still do alot with this computer setup. don't bash p4 plz.

86.8.2011 18:29

Whisperer, watch it & i don't care if you are american or not as this is on a finnish site so your american constitution does not apply here. i'm canadian just to let you know.

96.8.2011 18:35

Originally posted by ddp:
Whisperer, watch it & i don't care if you are american or not as this is on a finnish site so your american constitution does not apply here. i'm canadian just to let you know.
Understood. Thank you.

RT #13

106.8.2011 19:00

Originally posted by Whisperer:
Laugh out loud, you say? Who am I, you ask? You elitist smuck! I am a free thinking constitutional American. My issue is with you pretending to be "news by andre" when you are really just a advertisement and poster boy for a bunch of technologies that people only think they need thanks to modern marketing. Who needs all that crap? Only marketing pipers like you and the sheep who believe that your article is actually "news". Who cares what microsoft released and is trying push on us. Who cares about apple's, ...what is it now(?) ..., tiger--leapord--lion ooooooooooooh I'm so not impressed.

I'm sure you've got a great income collecting all your promotional royalties but the common American lives in a world of near double digit recession and inflation. Your "10 years old" analogy is just the dismissive timeframe of an impatient youngster. Ten years is only the blink of an eye ... not exactly the last ice age. For most people's computer applications (by that I mean in the real world, not andre's ivory tower), there is nothing at all wrong with P4 processors and the XP OS. ... and keeping one's money in a cd account instead of giving it to the likes of you, ... poster boy. Also, stop exagerating: XP will run fine even on a PIII system so you can stop belittling P4 processors too. And computers that only had 512K of memory in them had 8088 processors and were released in the late 70's and sold until the mid-80's. So why are you trying to lead the susceptible amongst your readers into comparing XP to 1970's 16bit technology?

Because you are a salesman Andre ... a plaid coat salesman.

So, back to my original critique: Do you write news?, or is it commentary?, or is it advertising? or is it propaganda?
If you want to run 10-year old computer with a 10-year old OS, that is your choice, but the world is progressive, and this site is a progressive technology site. Please keep your money in a CD collecting 1%, don't get too rich though.

I will also clear up your glaring error, in which you say 1970s computers had 512MB RAM. Wait...I don't need to, even the "most susceptible" know you are blatantly incorrect. 512MB is a 21st century standard for consumer PCs.

Despite you wasting time in my day, I will finish killing your ridiculous (and let's be frank, stupid) argument. Windows XP launched in 2001. The OS reached saturation at some point during the middle of the last decade (at least in the U.S., Europe, etc), finally getting all those who are afraid of change (looking at you Whisperer) away from Win98 and ME, and whatever else. Since then, it has seen a steady DOWNTREND from massive majority (85%+) to its current 49 percent, thanks to consumers moving ahead (as technology demands) to Windows Vista and Windows 7, alongside an increase in Mac buyers.

Please go back to shooing "those darn kids" off your lawn (since it is clear you dislike Generation Y) and quit posting nonsensical (yet comedic) rants. I will continue to sail on my yacht (paid for by Microsoft and Apple, of course) or perhaps my G6 with the giant "I use Intel i7" logo across the side.

116.8.2011 19:07

andre, reread his post as it says 512k not 512mb.

126.8.2011 19:10

Originally posted by ddp:
andre, reread his post as it says 512k not 512mb.
Yep, and my original post says 512MB, so he tried to create an argument from his inability to read correctly, which was my point.

136.8.2011 19:42

Originally posted by DVDBack23:
Originally posted by ddp:
andre, reread his post as it says 512k not 512mb.
Yep, and my original post says 512MB, so he tried to create an argument from his inability to read correctly, which was my point.
ddp says no flaming. So OK. DVDBack23 is correct. I misread. However, regardless of minimum system standards, when was the last time a build was sold with only 512MB installed?

My reason for challenging this article was to point out journalistic ethics as defined by the term "news". These ethics are universal amongst all free nations practicing freedom of the press. News is news. Commentary (editorial opinions) is not news and should not be represented as such.

My secondary reason was to point out that hype needs to be recognized and differentiated from news. There is nothing wrong with you if you are using XP, don't have a 2011 automobile or own a yacht.

I yeild the floor and give the final word to DVDBack23.

Regards,
Whisperer
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 06 Aug 2011 @ 20:31

RT #13

146.8.2011 19:47

i have a customer who bought a new dell laptop with vista just after vista came out with 512meg of ram. talk about slow. i have xp pro on 1 desktop, 1 tower & 1 laptop but have win7 ultimate when i need to install it.

157.8.2011 10:04

S'funny, I have a distinct feeling that we are set to see a distinct d ja vu on this with Windows 7 (the real successor to XP, not Vista) having just as drawn out a life-cycle as XP has had.

We'll be back saying much the same things when Microsoft get stuck with the issues a successful widespread take-up brings.
The fact is business just doesn't like the cost wholesale changes bring and once it goes for an OS (as they have done with XP & 7) it'll be along time before they will move.

Whether Microsoft can bring anything to the table to make Windows 8 attractive to domestic users is another matter but I suspect it will merely be a titivated Windows 7, not as badly received as Vista (I think they learned their lesson there) but not destined for a true mass take-up as XP & 7 have had.

I don't see that as a bad thing either.

168.8.2011 18:01

Whisperer,
I also use XP and I agree that business users are still sticking with it, for many reasons.

MS wisely adapted and promoted their virtual package to win over those reluctant to migrate to Windows 7, so with the advanced versions of Win7 one can have the best of both Win7 and XP.

oledawg

178.8.2011 20:16

Originally posted by oledawg:
Whisperer,
I also use XP and I agree that business users are still sticking with it, for many reasons.

MS wisely adapted and promoted their virtual package to win over those reluctant to migrate to Windows 7, so with the advanced versions of Win7 one can have the best of both Win7 and XP.

oledawg
oledawg,
Certainly a point scored by MS. One thing I wonder is how much money has to be re-invested in hardware and software upgrades (which tends to please the industry stockholders more than end users) when migrating to the advanced Win7. Perhaps your company migrated(?) and you know the answer. If I did find a need to migrate away from XP, I would completely leap-frog Vista ... that much is certain.

Regards.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 08 Aug 2011 @ 20:23

RT #13

188.8.2011 21:09

Originally posted by Whisperer:
Originally posted by oledawg:
Whisperer,
I also use XP and I agree that business users are still sticking with it, for many reasons.

MS wisely adapted and promoted their virtual package to win over those reluctant to migrate to Windows 7, so with the advanced versions of Win7 one can have the best of both Win7 and XP.

oledawg
oledawg,
Certainly a point scored by MS. One thing I wonder is how much money has to be re-invested in hardware and software upgrades (which tends to please the industry stockholders more than end users) when migrating to the advanced Win7. Perhaps your company migrated(?) and you know the answer. If I did find a need to migrate away from XP, I would completely leap-frog Vista ... that much is certain.

Regards.
Actualy, Win7 might not need anything, Vista uses more resources then XP or 7. Win7's usage is pretty darn close to XP ( i have it running fine on a dual core Atom and a gig of ram *Dell Mini 9*)and another machine runs it perfectly with an old 8600GS.

Account Created Saturday 12 January 2008. After 7 years I consider myself a Sr. Member no matter WHAT my post count says.

199.8.2011 3:42

Originally posted by Whisperer:
Originally posted by oledawg:
Whisperer,
I also use XP and I agree that business users are still sticking with it, for many reasons.

MS wisely adapted and promoted their virtual package to win over those reluctant to migrate to Windows 7, so with the advanced versions of Win7 one can have the best of both Win7 and XP.

oledawg
oledawg,
Certainly a point scored by MS. One thing I wonder is how much money has to be re-invested in hardware and software upgrades (which tends to please the industry stockholders more than end users) when migrating to the advanced Win7. Perhaps your company migrated(?) and you know the answer. If I did find a need to migrate away from XP, I would completely leap-frog Vista ... that much is certain.

Regards.

Whisperer,
I have only a few machines, Compaq, HP and clones, all running at least 2.4ghz P4s and maxed out on memory, 2GB on Compaq and HP, 4GB on my clone.
One should consider those specs as a minimum for a well-performing Win7 emulating the XP OS.
If it were me, I would download a trial version of Win7 Ultimate, Professional or Enterprise and the emulator, since those versions are configured to use the emulator that runs as an application similar to VMware.

The main advantage with MS's emulator is it is free.
Install the Win7 trial version, the emulator, and within the emulator, install XP.

You will be able to run applications on either OS simultaneously, since Win7, through the emulator, sees the XP as just another application.

Of course, you would need to load apps for both OSes in order to do this, but for starters, one could use XP apps exclusively and gradually migrate to Win7 as needed.

MS did a fine job integrating the emulator so it uses the same resources as Win7, in the same manner as VMware does.

There is plenty of information at MS for reference, since they are anxious to promote this bridge for those who have hesitated to take the leap from XP to Win7.
I never have considered Vista, so I am not at all familiar with it.

The only expense to see if your equipment will support Win7 with the XP emulator is your time to familiarize yourself with the steps to follow, download Win7 and the emulator, then install them and your XP with your apps.

I am a dedicated cheapskate and plan to use my P4s until prices for more current equipment is low enough, then make the switch.
I would mostly require a newer configuration to have more memory, at least 6GB, four for Win7 and two for XP.

Win7 runs fine with my 3.2 GHz P4 clone with 4GB, since I can allocate one GB for XP and the remainder for Win7.

If you have any questions, email me at edited by ddp.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 09 Aug 2011 @ 11:33

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive