Apple mocks Windows 8, says OS X Mavericks is fastest adopted OS ever

Apple has never been shy about tossing a bit of mud towards Microsoft and the WWDC 2014 keynote was no different with Tim Cook talking down about Windows 8. What was the reason for the smearing this year? The target of his ridicule was the operating system's adoption rate.

Specifically, Mavericks is now on 51% of machines while Windows 8 is only on 14% of Windows machines. While the comparison looks good from a marketing perspective, the facts behind the figures don't really paint as pretty of a picture.

For starters, Apple says that there are 80 million Mac users and 40 million have update to Mavericks, but Microsoft said a few years' back that there are 1.25 billion Windows users, which means that there are more users on Windows 8 alone than the entire user base of OS X.

Based on the adoption rate of Mavericks, Apple claims that this is the fastest adopted rate for any OS, ever. That assessment is clearly based solely as a percentage of updates versus the installed user base, not the actual number of users who have downloaded the OS. Based on a user view, not a percentage view, Microsoft would still hold the crown for user adoption rates for new platforms.

Apple loves to skew the facts with statistics but that is nothing new, they have been using this trick for years and they show no signs of stopping in the face of reality. 

Of course, the enterprise is a big portion of Microsoft's Windows install base and those users are extremely slow at adopting new platforms such as Windows 8. Seeing that OS X is primarily a consumer platform, the rate at which users choose to update should not surprise anyone.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Apple unveils OS X 10.10 'Yosemite' with flatter design, new features and more

Next Story

Apple announces iOS 8, new features across all of iOS

130 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Most of you are missing the point. This has nothing to do with sales! This is a developers conference and Apple are illustrating how many users are using the latest version. This trend will only increase so it makes it easier for developers to support users.

Look at Windows, a developer has to support users running OS's like XP which is over 14 years old! With Apple, it won't be too long until around 75% of OS X users are all running the same OS. This is a developers dream.

Comparing Mav to Win8 is f*ing retarded. Win8 was a complete and very risky redesign of the basic components of Windows.

That's it. I may mainly use Linux, but I propose an alliance to contain the evil fruity empire. They have trolled Android and now Windows, and they have hurt open source projects before. To arms I say! Smash the iFascists!

acido00 said,
I'm .NET developer and I'm glad of that. Windows runs better on a mac.

Agree. I'm also primarily a .NET developer (web apps) and the thought of running Windows 8.1 as my primary OS makes my skin itch. I'm just not a fan of having to link up my OS to a Microsoft Live account or be forced to use the hideous start screen, which to me is obstructing productivity.

Next he'll be telling us his ######'s bigger than Bill Gates' too. Just out of curiosity, how many apps are there for Mac and how many for Windows?

if apple said the grass is blue and the sky is green the fan boys would lap it up.

just a note-'am no fan of apple or microsoft I have devices from both firms.'

Jobs was definitely a rare breed. I don't wish for Apple to disappear, that won't do anyone any good. But Jobs was something else and I don't see the same swagger from Apple as when he was still with us.

wasn't todays keynote so underwhelming, getting worst year after year. at least last year they showed brand new iOS 7. but now bunch of apps and a new language? really?

I wonder where are the people that always detest Microsoft "talking smack" about the competition are. I haven't really seen it in the comments section regarding such behavior with Apple. In fact, I see some of the usual detesters of MS's smack talk actually defending Apple's smack talk...

To be honest I welcome this comparison. Why? Because when Windows Phone 8.1 is released I will be able to trout out my charts that show it has the fastest adoption rate of any phone OS. Right? Of course, what does it matter that iOS has exponentially more installed user base it is that percentage of users that have upgraded that matters right? With a fairly significant amount of users still not updating to iOS7.

No complaining Apple iPhone fanboys when we all use the same logic you use for the desktop OS upgrade rate to my mobile OS.

How about a chart showing the percentage of Macs that are incapable of running Mavericks.

My 8 year old laptop not only runs Windows 8.1, but it actually saw a significant performance increase.

I think that this problem of upgrading to 8.1 comes with the way they make it available thru the windows store, let's face it; Windows 8.0 store has a lot of problems and apps use to not work the way as expected so, my point is that this version has so much issues and people don't know how to get into the store because of all those icon in the start screen even the system icons and people go crazy because of this

They must release the update using windows update in order to people have all those new functionalities and fixes for God sake!!

Tim Cook isn't really that good at it. Steve Jobs could at least stand in front of those goofy charts and keep a straight face. You can see Tim Cook knows he's lying through his teeth.

Enron said,
Tim Cook isn't really that good at it. Steve Jobs could at least stand in front of those goofy charts and keep a straight face. You can see Tim Cook knows he's lying through his teeth.
and where do you see that? If you want to see a CEO lie through his teeth I can plant a big picture of Steve Balmer on here for ya!

"and where do you see that?"?

The RDF is so thick over your face that you would actually embarrass yourself by saying that and then go for a dig at Balmer.

How pathetic!

JHBrown said,
and where do you see that? If you want to see a CEO lie through his teeth I can plant a big picture of Steve Balmer on here for ya!

Ballmer wasn't very good at it either, but at least he perspired and clapped a lot.

Ozood said,
"and where do you see that?"?

The RDF is so thick over your face that you would actually embarrass yourself by saying that and then go for a dig at Balmer.

How pathetic!

You really need counseling for your anger issues. See unlike you, words don't phase me.

Enron said,

Ballmer wasn't very good at it either, but at least he perspired and clapped a lot.

LOL. I'm a new fan of his now since he owns a team in my beloved city. Hope he brings that same enthusiasm with him in his new line of work.

So an operating system they give away for free had a higher adoption percentage for a much smaller group of users?

Impressive.

They have a point. The adoption rate of Windows 8 has been low, and that of Mavericks has been good. I don't see how these percentages could be misleading, clearly the notion of percentage implies a ratio, i.e. a denominator, and clearly the denominator is the existing install base of each platform, so I don't see how the fact that these values are different could be misleading. Of course it's easier to push an update to fewer users but that's irrelevant; it's up to Microsoft to step to the challenge of updating its larger userbase.

Andre S. said,
......

Well Apple did learn from Microsoft to make their service packs free.

With Windows 8 being a full version # ahead, it's a chargeable upgrade.

Where the hell is OSXI?

A lot of the things they claim are new are stuff that Windows already has or stuff that Android already has. Still waiting on the innovation.

I do love Apple's marketing people. They're some of the best in the business at throwing this kind of stuff around.

A better comparison would be Windows 8 vs. 8.1 adoption rates as that's more on par with the free OSX upgrades of the past few years. I believe the figures are around the same, right?

It's a shame they still feel the need to be as infantile as Steve Jobs was about it all. Surely there's enough fanboys out there to do this for them without lowering themselves to such a level as to actively encourage and reinforce this nonsense.

They should hold themselves to higher standards.

They have announced some great stuff today too, some really great integration between OSX and iOS of the like I was expecting with Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8, and then expecting with W8.1 and WP8.1 and am now *still* waiting for in what I guess will be Windows 9. Nice to see the OS get opened up more too, in the vane of Windows Phone rather than Android naturally but that works for iOS.

So sad they have to lie just to keep their isheep followers. Comparing 8.0 to mavericks when they should have done 8.1 to mavericks. If anything they owe 8.1 to mavericks success. Had Microsoft not made 8.1 free, they would have charged for Mavericks and it would have had no where the amount of users to switch over.

I find this interesting, my whole uni has a load of mac machines, probably about 200, none of them are running mavericks. I've got a macbook, not running mavericks either. I know people with hackintoshes - again, not using mavericks...
I highly doubt 50% of mac users are using mavericks, I've even more doubtful that 50% of macs in the world are even able to run mavericks

my sister's mac is stuck on Snow Leopard (lots of people are) because everything after Lion is really slow on those machines. Windows would run really well on those machines, though.

FalseAgent said,
my sister's mac is stuck on Snow Leopard (lots of people are) because everything after Lion is really slow on those machines. Windows would run really well on those machines, though.

Not just that, with mountain lion, support for a huge amount of intel graphics chipsets was dropped because they couldn't be bothered to create 64-bit versions of the drivers.

I know as someone who reports for Neowin, in a way I should be less opinionated (yeah right, lol), but for a while, at least before Jobs died, Apple were less about bashing their biggest rival (just maybe not Android/Google) and more about moving the market forward. If anything, as much as I said at the time that Tim Cook should be given the chance to step out of Job's shadow, Apple have actually regressed as an innovator under his stewardship.

Smooth move Apple. Crunchy peanut butter smooth. Although you'd probably argue it's still smooth without the crunchy bits!

Not to mention, you require a 2007 or newer mac to run Mavericks. Windows 8.1 minimum system requirements, the hardest requirement is the DX9 graphics card, which DX9 came out in 2002. That's 5 additional years worth of computers to upgrade too.

NXTwoThou said,
Not to mention, you require a 2007 or newer mac to run Mavericks. Windows 8.1 minimum system requirements, the hardest requirement is the DX9 graphics card, which DX9 came out in 2002. That's 5 additional years worth of computers to upgrade too.

Yet apparently most Windows users aren't upgrading. Hmmm...

Here at work, I've got 4 computers using Windows 8.1, 5 using Windows 7, 2 using Server 2012, 4 using Vista, 1 using Server 2008, 3 using Server 2003, 9 using XP. Once a machine is up and running and doing what it's supposed to, as long as you have proper security practices in place, there's zero incentive to purchase an upgraded OS. We get the latest OS when the hardware dies, that's pretty much the long and the short of it.

NXTwoThou said,
Not to mention, you require a 2007 or newer mac to run Mavericks. Windows 8.1 minimum system requirements, the hardest requirement is the DX9 graphics card, which DX9 came out in 2002. That's 5 additional years worth of computers to upgrade too.
A 2007 or newer Mac to run Mavericks? Weird I thought my sister's 2009 Macbook don't even have Mountain Lion...

Usually they said that numbers doesn't lie, but when providing some bullshiiiiiiitake mushroom numbers, Tim Cook is the best there is.

The guy just continues in the proud tradition of Apple playing hard and fast with numbers, knowing how few tech blogs will call them out on it.

Thankfully you guys have some integrity.

With a little popup that comes up on everyone's Mac saying to upgrade now for free. At least Microsoft is using Windows Update again instead of forcing people to use the Store.

A more accurate comparison is win 8.1 with win 8.0 ... what's the % of those users that 'upgraded'. Whatever Apple go innovate with a 5" phone

The usual spinning of numbers.. Care to inform us how many windows installations those 14% are compare to half the mac ones? right, thought so.

Thing is Apple has nothing to present, no real news or innovations so they need to fill the time and do so by misrepresenting number spun to appear to be in their favor. Did the same when they bragged about how high the iOS update adoption was and how fragmented Android was.. Forgot to mention that the percentage of devices which did update to the latest Android OS version at the time outnumbered the total of iOS devices multiple times over.

He also smacks Android over massive fragmentation. Only 9% are on the newest version. Windows 8 is actually has better traction.

Melfster said,
He also smacks Android over massive fragmentation. Only 9% are on the newest version. Windows 8 is actually has better traction.

The big problem with the Android comparison is they break Android down by their minor point releases but lump all the iterations of iOS7 together? Typical b.s. of being really loose with their numbers for any comparison.

It's a lot easier to get to 50% of your installed base, when your installed base is just 5% of the entire market and you give it away for free.

Windows 8 may only be at 14%, give or take, but it's a relatively expensive upgrade, and even that small percentage is more than EVERY SINGLE VERSION OF OS X COMBINED.

So, you know. Perspective.

Not mentioned: The fact that the small sliver of Windows 8 users on the right chart consists of three-times as many users as the entire chart on the left.

Lord Method Man said,
Not mentioned: The fact that the small sliver of Windows 8 users on the right chart consists of three-times as many users as the entire chart on the left.
Pretty easy to do when just about every manufacturer builds for that operating system.

JHBrown said,
Pretty easy to do when just about every manufacturer builds for that operating system.

That's an argument that's only used when it fits a particular agenda. Several manufacturers are building for that operating system because it is a successful operating system in the first place.

I have nothing against Mavericks - if I did, Mavericks wouldn't be one of the THREE operating systems I run today. However, I'm not going to let Apple try and blow smoke up my posterior any more than I would let Microsoft (or any other OS vendor) do so.

Enron said,

That's an argument that's only used when it fits a particular agenda. Several manufacturers are building for that operating system because it is a successful operating system in the first place.

Wrong, if Apple opened the flood gates, several manufacturers would also build for OSX. Apple wants full control of the hardware that their OS gets loaded on. I am happy that they don't allow dozens of manufactures to sell their OS with junk hardware. I am not arguing that Windows isn't successful but you always seem to leave out important facts.

JHBrown said,
Wrong, if Apple opened the flood gates, several manufacturers would also build for OSX. Apple wants full control of the hardware that their OS gets loaded on. I am happy that they don't allow dozens of manufactures to sell their OS with junk hardware.

So does Apple have a big problem with manufacturing enough Macs to meet the demand? No. They just reap all the profit being the sole distributor of computers running OS X. If 90% of the market wanted to buy Macs, they would, and Apple would be happy to sell to them. But instead they choose Windows.

Enron said,

So does Apple have a big problem with manufacturing enough Macs to meet the demand? No. They just reap all the profit being the sole distributor of computers running OS X. If 90% of the market wanted to buy Macs, they would, and Apple would be happy to sell to them. But instead they choose Windows.

Actually they choose Windows because honestly, Macs are freakin expensive. A MacBook Pro selling for $500 would sell just as well as $500 Windows laptop.

JHBrown said,
A MacBook Pro selling for $500 would sell just as well as $500 Windows laptop.

If that were true then Chromebooks would be outselling them all.. some of us choose our systems based on what it does and what it runs, not by the price tag.

Max Norris said,

If that were true then Chromebooks would be outselling them all.. some of us choose our systems based on what it does and what it runs, not by the price tag.
A Chromebook is not comparable to a MacBook nor a Windows laptop. I'm not sure why you brought a Chromebook into the equation. I have a neighbor who's been a programmer for 21 years. He has no problem being productive and running programs on his Macs. Don't see your point on that one.

JHBrown said,
A Chromebook is not comparable to a MacBook nor a Windows laptop.

That kind of depends on what people are doing now doesn't it? Hear it quite often in the Chromebook threads that it's more than enough for "most people." (Not including myself mind you, I'm not one of them.) But the point still stands.. it's not just the price tag that motivates some people. If you want another example, fine, look at Linux on the desktops. Free, yet still almost nobody cares.

That said, I've been a programmer for 35 years, I have no problem being productive on Windows. So what?

Max, you stated, "Some of us choose our systems based on what it does and what it runs, not by the price tag."

I stated, "I have a neighbor who's been a programmer for 21 years. He has no problem being productive and running programs on his Macs."

You are the one who stated that you buy systems based on what it does and I merely replied to that. I never mentioned Windows not being a productive OS.

JHBrown said,
You are the one who stated that you buy systems based on what it does and I merely replied to that. I never mentioned Windows not being a productive OS.

Yes.. and I originally replied to your comment that implied that given the choice of the two at the exact same price, the OSX units would sell a lot more than they do now, which wouldn't be 100% true as I've pointed out twice above. Do better, sure, I won't argue that, there are some who just look at sticker price.

Max Norris said,

Yes.. and I originally replied to your comment that implied that given the choice of the two at the exact same price, the OSX units would sell a lot more than they do now, which wouldn't be 100% true as I've pointed out twice above. Do better, sure, I won't argue that, there are some who just look at sticker price.
You pointed out the Chromebook and Linux Systems. Still not a good comparison.

JHBrown said,
You pointed out the Chromebook and Linux Systems. Still not a good comparison.

... ok, I'll bite. Windows laptop. OSX laptop. Linux laptop. Why is it not a good comparison?

Max Norris said,

... ok, I'll bite. Windows laptop. OSX laptop. Linux laptop. Why is it not a good comparison?
You forgot the Chromebook. However, both the Windows laptop and the MacBook have Microsoft's Office for the shopper in our scenario. The customer support is better on the Windows laptop and the MacBook, I'd even go as far as saying Apple has better customer service. I can run any Windows program through Bootcamp or Parrallels if I really needed to. You see, the Chromebook and Linux laptop do not have the same type of hardware or software support so you cannot compare them. So in the end, if we had a $500 MacBook and a $500 laptop side by side, the MacBook would get just as many sales, if not more because of its build quality.

JHBrown said,
You forgot the Chromebook. However, both the Windows laptop and the MacBook have Microsoft's Office for the shopper in our scenario. The customer support is better on the Windows laptop and the MacBook, I'd even go as far as saying Apple has better customer service. I can run any Windows program through Bootcamp or Parrallels if I really needed to. You see, the Chromebook and Linux laptop do not have the same type of hardware or software support so you cannot compare them. So in the end, if we had a $500 MacBook and a $500 laptop side by side, the MacBook would get just as many sales, if not more because of its build quality.

I didn't forget it, just left it out as you're going to ignore the "cost vs feature" thing anyway. That said, oh my you're going to cheese off some of the *Nix zealots here. Customer service is going to vary depending on who built what, so going to leave that out.. way too many companies to generalize in one statement. As far as the hardware support goes, *Nix runs on the exact same hardware, and if you care to cherry pick, you can say in some cases better than Windows. (Of course in some cases worse too.) They can also run Windows programs on Wine, a virtual machine, or dual-boot setup, just like OSX. So it's totally fair to compare the three. The only thing left is build quality, and sure, I'll give you that they make quality hardware, but they're also not the only game in town either... just the only ones who are permitted to put OSX on it.

Max Norris said,

I didn't forget it, just left it out as you're going to ignore the "cost vs feature" thing anyway. That said, oh my you're going to cheese off some of the *Nix zealots here. Customer service is going to vary depending on who built what, so going to leave that out.. way too many companies to generalize in one statement. As far as the hardware support goes, *Nix runs on the exact same hardware, and if you care to cherry pick, you can say in some cases better than Windows. (Of course in some cases worse too.) They can also run Windows programs on Wine, a virtual machine, or dual-boot setup, just like OSX. So it's totally fair to compare the three. The only thing left is build quality, and sure, I'll give you that they make quality hardware, but they're also not the only game in town either... just the only ones who are permitted to put OSX on it.
So shall we call this debate a draw?

JHBrown said,
So in the end, if we had a $500 MacBook and a $500 laptop side by side, the MacBook would get just as many sales, if not more because of its build quality.

Because of its build quality? If you want to sell a $1000+ laptop for $500, of course it is going to get a lot of sales.

Now if you make a $500 Apple laptop out of cheap plastic (remember the iBook?), compare that to the average Windows laptop instead of a high end MacBook Pro.

There are a lot of consumers that equate Apple products with "high quality" and "better than a PC". These people coming to that conclusion are going from a crappy $300 Walmart PC to a $1000+ Apple machine. If you spend $1000+ on a PC from a reputable manufacturer or build your own, you will love your computer too.

Enron said,

Because of its build quality? If you want to sell a $1000+ laptop for $500, of course it is going to get a lot of sales.

Now if you make a $500 Apple laptop out of cheap plastic (remember the iBook?), compare that to the average Windows laptop instead of a high end MacBook Pro.

There are a lot of consumers that equate Apple products with "high quality" and "better than a PC". These people coming to that conclusion are going from a crappy $300 Walmart PC to a $1000+ Apple machine. If you spend $1000+ on a PC from a reputable manufacturer or build your own, you will love your computer too.

You are correct. I wasn't clear in my post. I should have said a $1300 Ultrabook for $500 and a comparable MacBook for $500 and let them duke it out.

JHBrown said,
Actually they choose Windows because honestly, Macs are freakin expensive. A MacBook Pro selling for $500 would sell just as well as $500 Windows laptop.

Honestly, they aren't as overpriced as people make them out to be. Its just that they don't do 'budget' models. I've found macbooks to be reasonably priced compared to the equivalent quality ultrabooks for example (and I'm not just talking about raw hardware performance specs either, battery life, quality of the touchpad/keyboard/screen/chassis count too. Sure you can find a cheap ultrabook with a decent processor and ram, but often it will fall very short in some other area, poor battery life or build quality was the most common thing that I saw on the cheaper models)

Macbooks are premium products, and should be compared to other premium products (high end ultrabooks).

Macs have their niche, and do well in that niche, apple doesn't really need to worry about introducing budget models, that market is already very saturated and it wouldn't benefit them much to try and push into that market imo.

Edited by ViperAFK, Jun 2 2014, 11:02pm :

ViperAFK said,

.....
Macbooks are premium products, and should be compared to other premium products (high end ultrabooks).
.....

Yup, this is probably my most frustrating thing with tech, computers really are more then just the processor/ram/etc.... and both sides seem to love comparing products that really have no comparison, recently it's all the comments about the surface that have driven me nuts.

JHBrown said,
Windows 7 > OSX > Windows 8

OS X > Windows 7 > Windows XP > Windows 8.1 Update 1 > Windows 8.1 > Windows 8.0 > Windows Vista > Windows RT

glen8 said,

OS X > Windows 7 > Windows XP > Windows 8.1 Update 1 > Windows 8.1 > Windows 8.0 > Windows Vista > Windows RT

I can go with that one.

JHBrown said,
Wow. Okay, I do love my Mint though.
I don't think that's a valid opinion unless you can say you enjoy your Mint after running "sudo service mdm stop" or whatever deskop manager you're using.

zeke009 said,
WinME > all!
I'll never upgrade from WinME! Does anyone have some hacked drivers for a GTX Titan Z on WinME?

/s

I love the startup sound from WinMe.

trojan_market said,

Windows 8.1.1 > Windows 7 >Windows 8 > Windows XP > Linux > OSX

be honest, how long have you used OS X for?

took me 2-3 weeks of hard use before I fell in love with it

glen8 said,

be honest, how long have you used OS X for?

took me 2-3 weeks of hard use before I fell in love with it

Glen, give these guys some time. I to was a stubborn 20 something year old and then reality smacked me in the face.

glen8 said,

be honest, how long have you used OS X for?

6 years. 2005-2011. Really enjoyed using it from Panther to Snow Leopard. Didn't really like the versions that came after. Then I experienced something called Windows 7 and was very pleased. Didn't like Windows 8, but 8.1 is good.

For starters, Apple says that there are 80 million Mac users and 40 million have update to Mavericks, but Microsoft said a few years' back that there are 1.25 billion Windows users, which means that there are more users on Windows 8 alone than the entire user base of OS X.

'Nuff said.

PsYcHoKiLLa said,
Would they be adding the actual number of users of each OS to that? Course not, would spoil the pretense.

it's been more of a World Wide Douche Conference for quite a while now.

LOL... that chart is so embarrassing. I can't believe they are using that as their comparison point. Adoption rate amongst their current users vs. total number of customers is a huge difference and that's where Windows wins. Plus, Windows 8 has more than 3x the amount of users than OSX Mavericks alone.

j2006 said,
LOL... that chart is so embarrassing. I can't believe they are using that as their comparison point. Adoption rate amongst their current users vs. total number of customers is a huge difference and that's where Windows wins. Plus, Windows 8 has more than 3x the amount of users than OSX Mavericks alone.

It took windows 8 an entire year just to catch up to the adoption rate of vista.

Quite embarrassing really.

Order_66 said,

It took windows 8 an entire year just to catch up to the adoption rate of vista.

Quite embarrassing really.

Back then people would buy computers very often. Now people will commonly use a 4 year old PC and it's still fast enough. Most users only get a new OS when they get a new computer so naturally not as much on 8.

Order_66 said,

It took windows 8 an entire year just to catch up to the adoption rate of vista.

Quite embarrassing really.

What's embarrassing is you still trotting out these thoroughly debunked claims. When are you going to give it a rest?

Also, there is the reality that Windows 8.1 update 1 will run on greater than fifty percent of the Vista-capable hardware base - it will actually run on Apple hardware that can't run OS X Mavericks, let alone the forthcoming OS X Yosemite.

Chew on THAT "crabApple pie", Mister Cook.

We don't have touch on ANY of our computers (laptop or desktop) and we love it. We blasted Windows 8 over all five of our Windows 7 machines. Never regretted it.

What's embarrassing, Order_66, is that Microsoft keeps releasing software for Apple, and Apple still can't help but degrade them. It makes sense really, when you figure their most popular commercials didn't focus on any features of their software or hardware, but just spent time making fun of Microsoft and its operating systems.

"It took windows 8 an entire year just to catch up to the adoption rate of vista.

Quite embarrassing really."

That's not true as Windows 8 maintained pace with the adoption rate of Windows 7 and hit the milestones almost exactly the same as reported by Microsoft during their 100M and 200M milestones. Windows 8/8.1 is somewhere over 220M for install-base as of May this year (according to some reports I found online and according to the 14% of all Windows licenses sold mathematics).

SchroederRock said,

That's not true as Windows 8 maintained pace with the adoption rate of Windows 7


A pure 100% verifiable lie, a quick look at marketshare statistics will tell you.

My god, do you zealots even think before typing?

Order_66 said,


A pure 100% verifiable lie, a quick look at marketshare statistics will tell you.

My god, do you zealots even think before typing?

Just wondering, could you both be right? The rate could be lower while the numbers could actually be about the same as the market size increases.

Corey C said,

Just wondering, could you both be right? The rate could be lower while the numbers could actually be about the same as the market size increases.

SchroederRock and that other humiliated liar ModernMech:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7

"According to Net Applications, Windows 7 reached a 4% market share in less than three weeks."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_8

"Windows 8 surpassed Windows Vista in market share with a 5.1% usage rate according to numbers posted in July 2013 by Net Applications, with usage on a steady upward trajectory.[164] However, intake of Windows 8 still lags behind that of Windows Vista and Windows 7 at the same point in their release cycles"

Notice it took almost an entire year for windows 8 to pass vista at 5.1% and doesn't even come anywhere close to 7.

Corey C.
The actual market size doesn't matter since it is the rate of adoption that is in question.