Jelly Bean market share now larger than Windows Phone

The reports are in from Google, and it appears as though the market share for Android 4.1 and 4.2, otherwise known as "Jelly Bean", has risen to over 10% of the total active devices. This can be broken down into 9% running Android 4.1 and 1.2% running the latest version (4.2); the former populated by updates to devices such as the One X and Galaxy S III, while the latter restricted to the Nexus line.

The interesting thing here is that if you take some readily available information about the overall market share of mobile devices, it looks like the share for just Jelly Bean has surpassed the entire market share of Windows Phone. There are around 125 million Android devices worldwide, meaning that Jelly Bean is loaded on roughly 12.5 million devices; in total, Windows Phone only has around 5-6 million devices in users' hands. Even though the data we're using here is a few months old, it still paints an interesting picture.

Google and their Android OEMS are notoriously slow at delivering updates to devices, which can be seen by the whopping 47% of devices still using Gingerbread (a version released in early 2011). However, they've still been able to push a relatively new version of the software into consumers' hands faster than Microsoft has been able to push out Windows Phone to the masses (in the form of sales) across the lifetime of the OS.

In the end though, it's simply an interesting, but meaningless statistic. Windows Phone still has a way to go before it's widely adopted, whereas Android continues to flourish in all corners of the globe.

Source: Google

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft acknowledges EPG Media Center outage for the UK

Next Story

Surface Pro rumored to be coming January 29th

72 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Windows 3.0 and 3.1 crashed all the times, we had to restart many times a day

Windows 95, 98, were more stable but had to be restarted all the time, Windows ME was a joke

Unix and Linux on the other side were rock solid, ultimate stability.

Windows succeeded, Unix and Linux did not, reason: the user love the user interface, and if it crashes once or twice, it is ok

Ballmer know that, but I guess no one ever escaped from alzheimer's

Android is popular, Windows Phone is not. That's all.

I love my Lumia, but that is the fact, Android may suck and stuff, but it sells anyway. Amiga was so much better than Windows 3.1 but Windows dominates today.

auziez said,
What a troll article.

Congrats on Android updating some of its phones however.


wut? I never knew Android updating Android phones... lol

@yowanvista

Surprised how you now seem to emphasize you use a single core device while I recall you slamming WP devices for being single core little over a year ago when the Lumia devices came out. Also there's no denying Android is a success, but so was VHS and it was the worst video format of all.

paulheu said,
@yowanvista

Surprised how you now seem to emphasize you use a single core device while I recall you slamming WP devices for being single core little over a year ago when the Lumia devices came out. Also there's no denying Android is a success, but so was VHS and it was the worst video format of all.


At that time WP wasn't optimized to run on multiple cores compared to Android/iOS devices, Elop even asserted that WP never needed such but somehow that changed with WP8. WP won't overtake Android, that's a fact. It may have more marketshare in few more years however it won't gain such popularity, not as much as Android.

Android isn't perfect but right now it's the best selling mobile OS and that won't change anytime soon.

actually, Nokia was on pace to sell 10 million lumia phones(all variants) q4. That's just nokia. So will you write a headline that there are more windows phones than jellybean when this data is announced?

you even said you're using old windows phone data,so how the hell can you make such an irresponsible claim?

JB is probably the best Android version so far, it took Android so long to mature end result is far better than that laggy Gingerbread.. Loving the smoothness of JB on my single core device.. I can't understand why some butt hurt WP trolls try so hard to denigrate it.. It seems that every single Android article here is filled with comments from haters, zealots and WP trolls in denial, the iSheep community which used to bash Android is fading away, being replaced by the new insane WP trolls.. Haters can't simply accept Android's success.. Jealousy.. that's their problem..

yowanvista said,
JB is probably the best Android version so far, it took Android so long to mature end result is far better than that laggy Gingerbread.. Loving the smoothness of JB on my single core device.. I can't understand why some butt hurt WP trolls try so hard to denigrate it.. It seems that every single Android article here is filled with comments from haters, zealots and WP trolls in denial, the iSheep community which used to bash Android is fading away, being replaced by the new insane WP trolls.. Haters can't simply accept Android's success.. Jealousy.. that's their problem..

I don't see many hater comments, in fact I count more anti-Windows Phone comments from Android users.

Projection - go look it up.

BMW's are expensive. Android and Windows Phone are priced relatively cheap on contract. Even the Full Price of the phones are priced in the same range.

Bad analogy.

DoomsDayMayan said,
BMW's are expensive. Android and Windows Phone are priced relatively cheap on contract. Even the Full Price of the phones are priced in the same range.

Bad analogy.

There are FORDs that are more expensive than BMWs. However, cars are a rather good analogy but for different reasons.

Take product consistency and apply that across a spectrum of price points and product classes.

Android has limits in the upper end, and performance problems in the lower end, and reliability problems across the entire line of products.

Windows Phones doesn't have these limitations, as you can get a generic 'cheap' WP7 or WP8 phone or spend more a get one of the few phone devices that won quality, performance, and technological feature awards over all other phones for the year 2012. (Nokia 920)

Car brands have consistency features and quality associated with them and they also have potential capabilities of the brand associated with them.

Androids are the cheap brand, even the high end quad core models still have reliability and performance issues not found in the Windows Phone ecosystem.

Beyond a few concise launch day bugs found in Windows Phone devices, most WP7 and WP8 users have NEVER seen an App crash and NEVER seen their phone crash or restart and NEVER had the camera or any other App not respond instantly and do what the user needed.

WP7/WP8 users have never had to watch the screen redraw painfully slow, or wait for the launcher to reload, or have Apps closed by the memory manager not saving information or lose a call or text messages because the memory manager terminated essential processes.

Sure there is cheap Windows Phone hardware, but the end user experience on the cheapest Windows Phone ALWAYS out rates the best experience of a high priced Android device.

(Go look at customer satisfaction and loyalty ratings and reviews. Be sure to notice they out rate iPhone most of the time and Android device. Especially read the user reviews that knew very little of Windows Phone or having come from Android or iOS and being surprised by their experience.)

Why would you compare the very slow upgrade path of Jellybean on android handsets to WP, neither has anything to do with the other. Only the fact that getting updates on android handsets in painfully slow.

You know what is painfully slow? Microsoft trying to gain market share with their smartphone OS. Sometimes Microsoft runs the race in reverse.

Toysoldier said,
Wow Tim, struggling for news aye....... Nothing but a troll article with inaccurate stats.

What parts are inaccurate? All looks right to me.

SharpGreen said,

What parts are inaccurate? All looks right to me.

JB works on everything from phones, tablets to tvs, where as WP is just on a phone, is there any breakdown on the devices? I dont doubt that JB outnumbers WP its just the stats are misleading.

Toysoldier said,

JB works on everything from phones, tablets to tvs, where as WP is just on a phone, is there any breakdown on the devices? I dont doubt that JB outnumbers WP its just the stats are misleading.

Android doesn't run on TVs though. Google TV is a set-top box.

SharpGreen said,

Android doesn't run on TVs though. Google TV is a set-top box.

Yes it does run on tvs, you would be amazed with the crap that comes out of asia these days, I just upgraded my media center at home with JB, its a home made set-top box not a android tv but its is still android, you can even get HDMI Smart Sticks with ICS or JB on them.

What I want to know is do these count towards the total figures, although I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

Toysoldier said,

Yes it does run on tvs, you would be amazed with the crap that comes out of asia these days, I just upgraded my media center at home with JB, its a home made set-top box not a android tv but its is still android, you can even get HDMI Smart Sticks with ICS or JB on them.

What I want to know is do these count towards the total figures, although I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

Well in that case I doubt it's anything official. These stats come from devices that are officially certified by Google, that run the full assortment of google apps.

SharpGreen said,

Well in that case I doubt it's anything official. These stats come from devices that are officially certified by Google, that run the full assortment of google apps.


May be web browser stats....I thought its anything official and you can run Google Apps on any device running Android.

Meanwhile, WinRT, you know, the OS that a number of people around here love to hate, has a 0.01% marketshare after two months of being on the market according to NetMarketShare. Google's ChromiumOS (ChromeBook) 3 years after introduction, is so low in sales and users, that it doesn't even register.

Can we get an article on that?

So you found a web site that claims it is a best seller, and the amazon top lists (which, when Windows Phone is ranked as the top, then those rankings don't count). But where are the real numbers? We are not seeing any impact on the trackings. And then there is that ever telling statistic - when anyone mentions any MS hardware device, people claim to have never seen one in the real world being used. I have never seen a chromebook being used, so it must be a failure.

DoomsDayMayan said,
Here you go.
http://bcchardware.com/index.p...ardware-news&Itemid=158

http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sel...08/ref=zg_bs_nav_e_2_541966

Oops my bad. Couldn't find what you were looking for. Anyway, can we get news on that?

Anecdotal evidence doesn't work in technology because of the niche limitations.

The main 'number' to look for is customer satisfaction and product loyalty. If you look at Verizon or ATT or Best Buy or any consumer based site that tracks this type of information WP7 devices are the only ones to ever outrank the iPhone consistently.

People love to hate what they know could hurt the product they like. It is one way money people trend products and can spot upcoming winners, even ones with a slow growth curve.

thenetavenger said,

Anecdotal evidence doesn't work in technology because of the niche limitations.

The main 'number' to look for is customer satisfaction and product loyalty. If you look at Verizon or ATT or Best Buy or any consumer based site that tracks this type of information WP7 devices are the only ones to ever outrank the iPhone consistently.

People love to hate what they know could hurt the product they like. It is one way money people trend products and can spot upcoming winners, even ones with a slow growth curve.


You always go off topic when responding to people?

nohone said,
Meanwhile, WinRT, you know, the OS that a number of people around here love to hate, has a 0.01% marketshare after two months of being on the market according to NetMarketShare. Google's ChromiumOS (ChromeBook) 3 years after introduction, is so low in sales and users, that it doesn't even register.
Can we get an article on that?

Chrome OS started very badly, full screen apps in Web Pages, Like Windows 8 which has Full Screen apps called Metro or Modern

Google learned its lesson, Chrome OS now has Windowed UI and Apps, and in a few months the App V2 framework will be ready and that will allow the developers to build Offline Apps.

Samsung Chrome OS is the best selling Laptop on Amazon.

Microsoft have to learn from Chrome OS, or from Windows 8, I guess they will need 3 years as well

What a waste of time this is. You an't compare the two. It's like the articles that compare iOS vs Android market share. Pointless.

and worldwide marketshare, ios simply blows android away. Android is big in a few markets like the us and a few others, does not make it an overall dominant mobile os in the grand scheme of things. Oh btw windows phone growth in 2012 compared to android and ios from the same period in 2011 simply blew both of them out of the water with over 280% growth in one year.

korupt_one said,
and worldwide marketshare, ios simply blows android away. Android is big in a few markets like the us and a few others, does not make it an overall dominant mobile os in the grand scheme of things. Oh btw windows phone growth in 2012 compared to android and ios from the same period in 2011 simply blew both of them out of the water with over 280% growth in one year.

How does it feel living in Opposite Land? Rain going up? Cats chasing dogs?

Kunal Nanda said,
Honestly?? iOS blows android away? Exactly which markets are we talking about?

No use talking sense. I don't know how many countless stories were posted that stated Android is the number 1 smartphone OS world-wide. People are comfortable with their stubbornness.

Isn't it a little dumb to even compare them? I mean the comparison is existing Android users upgrading their version compared to the entirety of another smartphone OS. Everyone is well aware Android is a more popular mobile OS but the comparison seems retarded.

Seems like you're just trying to make a comparison for extra hits and or to take a hit at WP.

Also it's the very latest Android data, compared to WP data thats a few months old so maybe dont even include any WP8 handsets? Yeah, thats a fair comparison.

ingramator said,
You really are scared that WP may actually surpass Android aren't you?

LOL, yeah sure thing buddy. You should do stand up.

I'm stating its inevitable because there are so many more Android phones so obviously its going to happen.

Yes, it is inevitable that WP will surpass Android. Android is an old-fashioned OS built on top of Java, an old-fashioned development system. It uses a variant of the old-fashioned Linux kernel. Their GUI is based on the old-fashioned icon row and column grid metaphor. To be honest they can make incremental adjustments until hell freezes over but they can't do very much more with it than they already have. After Android Kumquat or whatever they have virtually no place to go.

Compared to WP8, Android is extremely slooooooooooow. It needs expensive multicore hardware just to run at acceptable speeds. WP7 on a single core runs rings around Android on a quad core. WP8 is in a different class.

Meanwhile WP8 is an entirely new OS built by the people who know more about OS design than the rest of the world combined. It's fresh and extremely fast. It has a new UI paradigm that beats the crap out of an icon grid and all the world's top non-Apple manufacturers are moving towards it.

It's still early days. Android has had a great run. But I don't think they'll be able to squeeze much more than another two years out of that old, old software design.

Major Plonquer said,
.....

doesn't matter..Android still sells now..and not that Google doing nothing to improve the OS..so in few years time.. it may be not the same 'slow' OS that said now

francescob said,
What? WP may surpass Android? Oh my gosh, better alert the world leaders of the impending doom! Argh!

No, sorry people I meant its inevitable that JB would be higher then WP.

WP has no chance against Android at this point.

Major Plonquer said,
Yes, it is inevitable that WP will surpass Android. Android is an old-fashioned OS built on top of Java, an old-fashioned development system. It uses a variant of the old-fashioned Linux kernel. Their GUI is based on the old-fashioned icon row and column grid metaphor. To be honest they can make incremental adjustments until hell freezes over but they can't do very much more with it than they already have. After Android Kumquat or whatever they have virtually no place to go.

Compared to WP8, Android is extremely slooooooooooow. It needs expensive multicore hardware just to run at acceptable speeds. WP7 on a single core runs rings around Android on a quad core. WP8 is in a different class.

Meanwhile WP8 is an entirely new OS built by the people who know more about OS design than the rest of the world combined. It's fresh and extremely fast. It has a new UI paradigm that beats the crap out of an icon grid and all the world's top non-Apple manufacturers are moving towards it.

It's still early days. Android has had a great run. But I don't think they'll be able to squeeze much more than another two years out of that old, old software design.


If the Linux kernel is old fashion than so is the NT kernel that WP8 is based on, since they're around the same age.

WP8 isn't really all that new It's WP7 built to run on Windows NT instead of CE, so if anything Windows Phone is "old fashion" too.

Also I'm not going to even bother responding to your no longer relevent bash about Android speed. I wish you bashers would come up with something new/original instead parroting w/e the apple press tells you to.

SharpGreen said,

If the Linux kernel is old fashion than so is the NT kernel that WP8 is based on, since they're around the same age.

The age is irrelevant in both cases since both kernels are regularly updated, any statements as to the Linux kernel being old fashioned are most likely speaking in relation to it's status as a monolithic kernel, and/or Unix heritage. For example: the Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate regarding Minix vs Linux.

Athernar said,

The age is irrelevant in both cases since both kernels are regularly updated, any statements as to the Linux kernel being old fashioned are most likely speaking in relation to it's status as a monolithic kernel, and/or Unix heritage. For example: the Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate regarding Minix vs Linux.

If you really dig deep enough in to the history of NT, you will see that its original creators based it partly on concepts originating at DEC (since practically all of the original inventors of NT were from DEC), so the argument I made still stands. If Linux is old-fashion then so is NT since the concepts it's based on come from around the same as when UNIX was still popular.

SharpGreen said,

If you really dig deep enough in to the history of NT, you will see that its original creators based it partly on concepts originating at DEC (since practically all of the original inventors of NT were from DEC), so the argument I made still stands. If Linux is old-fashion then so is NT since the concepts it's based on come from around the same as when UNIX was still popular.

As I said, look up the Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate and you'll see why you're wrong. Where -some- of the original authors behind NT were from is irrelevant, accusations that Linux is outdated have existed before NT was even released.

digitheatre said,

doesn't matter..Android still sells now..and not that Google doing nothing to improve the OS..so in few years time.. it may be not the same 'slow' OS that said now

You are making the point of the OP. Android does sell now, but with little headroom tomorrow it will no longer be Android if it is to continue to use new hardware and take advantage of much needed speed increases.

In a few years running Android emulation on NT on a phone will potentially be faster than a native Android device. This is the problem.

In technology things can change really fast. How long ago was it said that Android didn't stand a chance against iOS? Or even in 1990 when people said Microsoft didn't stand a chance in the GUI market? Or when Wordperfect and Lotus had over 90% marketshares?

Google bought Android technologies. Google does not have an exceptional OS engineering team, or even a team with deep rooted OS understanding. Once this purchased technology hits walls, as it is already doing, Google will have to buy a new technology or look for help.

Expanding the fundamental model of the Android Linux kernel or the Android JVM is simply just not possible. Just the Unix model alone is a severe limitation that even desktop and servers are starting to hit walls with, let alone a fast growing market that needs power and speed in a device and where we will see a vast acceleration of technology that Linux/Android cannot adopt without adding even more duck tape, reducing the raw performance and restricting the overall functionality of the technology.

NT does not have these limitations, despite what the kiddies would like everyone to believe.

SharpGreen said,

If you really dig deep enough in to the history of NT, you will see that its original creators based it partly on concepts originating at DEC (since practically all of the original inventors of NT were from DEC), so the argument I made still stands. If Linux is old-fashion then so is NT since the concepts it's based on come from around the same as when UNIX was still popular.

This essentially is proof you have NO understanding of the fundamental differences and WHY there are differences. Microsoft could have progressed the Xenix project or drawn from it or other Unix foundations for NT.

They purposely choose NOT to do this. The DEC team members like Cutler that moved to Microsoft dropped their VMS work because of the UNIX limitations. This is why they took a chance at Microsoft for the opportunity to build from the ground up a truly new OS technology based on NEW Theories and designs that HAD NEVER been used before in a complete OS technology.

NT is NOT based on some Frankenstein variation of UNIX or VMS or any other OS model or OS kernel technology in existence.

To equate the 'age' of NT based on the time it was created is purely ignorant, when used in comparison to other OS technologies that have longer lineages.

Linux was new about the time NT was new. However Linux was a monolithic kernel variation of Minux, which is just another 'adaptation' of an OLD kernel design model that predates Linux by over a decade. The OS model Linux uses is a Unix model, which predates Linux by several decades.

Linux was not born of new technologies or a new kernel or a new OS model, or in fact anything of substance that was new when it was put together by Linus. It was a project to recreate existing OS technologies, not to create any new ones.

To this day there is virtually NO new technologies in Linux that did not come decades before Linux itself, Not matter if you dissect the low level scheduling, memory management, I/O, or even the way it deal with graphics, or how people adapt the XWindows protocol and various Window Managers on top of it.

It is just a solid version of the mix of technologies that it inherits from.

In contrast the majority of how NT was designed and how it functions is significantly different than ANY OS technology, including the kernel and OS model that until NT was created were mostly a series of OS THEORIES, not existing technologies.

When NT was born, these 'theories' like the object based nature of the kernel were 'questionable' at the time because they added overhead and it was a concern that NT was TOO ambitious to include too many 'NEW' technologies into the OS and that they would make it rather slow and unable to compete with less complex OS models like Unix or kernel technologies like the current microkernel and monolithic kernel designs of the time.

(NT was NEVER a Microkernel, despite it being confused as being a microkernel as there was not a classification to describe what NT was at the time, and even today, Hybrid or Client/Server still do not define NT's kernel very well, as OS X is a Hybrid kernel, but NOTHING like NT and more like it microkernel heritage of Mach.)

So yes Linux and NT were developed about the same timeframe. However, one is essentially all new OS theories and the other is a mix of existing OS technologies. This makes NT far NEWER in terms of OS designs than Linux or XNU/OS X or OpenBSD or FreeBSD, etc etc etc.


PS Anyone that wants to talk about OS technologies should for their own edification go find a copy of "Inside NT" First or Second edition, and also venture over to Channel9 at Microsoft and lookup videos on NT. Learn why they didn't use Unix or borrow from Unix and avoided Unix pitfalls (things they foresaw to be limiting that Linux and OS X are NOW having to deal with) and learn how the kernel is designed and why it is different and more elegant than the generic kernel models that Linux and OS X offer.

thenetavenger said,

NT does not have these limitations, despite what the kiddies would like everyone to believe.

That big old wall of text didn't mention any of these so called "limitations" you seem to think Linux has. Please enlighten us.

SharpGreen said,

If the Linux kernel is old fashion than so is the NT kernel that WP8 is based on, since they're around the same age.

WP8 isn't really all that new It's WP7 built to run on Windows NT instead of CE, so if anything Windows Phone is "old fashion" too.

Also I'm not going to even bother responding to your no longer relevent bash about Android speed. I wish you bashers would come up with something new/original instead parroting w/e the apple press tells you to.

The Linux kernel is over 30 years old, the Windows kernel is now over 29 years. But, since the first release of Linux, they haven't changed that much in comparision to NT. NT is rewriten in 2006 with version 6.0. So, 30 years (Linux) v. 6 years (NT) is a huge diffrence.

Major Plonquer said,
Yes, it is inevitable that WP will surpass Android. Android is an old-fashioned OS built on top of Java, an old-fashioned development system. It uses a variant of the old-fashioned Linux kernel. Their GUI is based on the old-fashioned icon row and column grid metaphor. To be honest they can make incremental adjustments until hell freezes over but they can't do very much more with it than they already have. After Android Kumquat or whatever they have virtually no place to go.

Compared to WP8, Android is extremely slooooooooooow. It needs expensive multicore hardware just to run at acceptable speeds. WP7 on a single core runs rings around Android on a quad core. WP8 is in a different class.

Meanwhile WP8 is an entirely new OS built by the people who know more about OS design than the rest of the world combined. It's fresh and extremely fast. It has a new UI paradigm that beats the crap out of an icon grid and all the world's top non-Apple manufacturers are moving towards it.

It's still early days. Android has had a great run. But I don't think they'll be able to squeeze much more than another two years out of that old, old software design.


The only **** that Android has is Java. The kernel is not a fork of the Linux kernel anymore (since 4.x.x). Please update with the times.

And you know why Android will still beat WPx and iOS?

OEM's pay for the WPx licence for their devices. Who pays that at the end? Consumers.
Apple thinks iOS is some kind of diamond. Who pays that at the end? Consumers.
Android is completely free and open source. I can get the kernel, write some drivers, make a new GUI, hell even make it run something else than Java and it can run on my toaster if I wish. Who pays for that? Noone except myself for time consuming.

Android will, irrelevant of having that piece of **** Java on it, still be on top for years to come.

pes2013 said,

Android is completely free and open source. I can get the kernel, write some drivers, make a new GUI, hell even make it run something else than Java and it can run on my toaster if I wish. Who pays for that? Noone except myself for time consuming.

So what you're saying is, Android is free, if your time is worthless.

Athernar said,

The age is irrelevant in both cases since both kernels are regularly updated, any statements as to the Linux kernel being old fashioned are most likely speaking in relation to it's status as a monolithic kernel, and/or Unix heritage. For example: the Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate regarding Minix vs Linux.


No its because a file based kernel like Linux has reached its limits ages ago already. Its the hardware increments that are keeping Linux afloat at this moment. The more power you give a Linux kernel, the more bloated it will be. But due to the increment in resources available is higher then the bloat, it isn't noticed.
Also the Kernel itself doesn't even to 1/100th of what the NT kernel does for the system.
That so called mini-kernel had an advantage many, many years ago when the hardware wasn't strong enough to carry something like NT (see ARM which only recently got into the power range NT requires nowadays). And its minimum required resources may be higher, but that is entirely irrelevant for its output.
The NT kernel goes far beyond the capabilities of the Linux kernel, and partially that is because of the monolithic kernel vs an object oriented one.

Look at the NVidia driver for Linux And how they solved Linux's limitations on GPU accelerations on modern hardware Its showing Linux's weaknesses which are slowly appearing.

thenetavenger said,

....

I'd like to add that NT is being updated with techniques developed in Singularity/Midori. An OS structure designed by modern day standards. And which has noticeable traces back into NT. (Just look at how Win8 handles userspace.)
NT is evolving slowly with current day OS designs. Whereas Linux is still improving 'the same old'.

Shadowzz said,

No its because a file based kernel like Linux has reached its limits ages ago already. Its the hardware increments that are keeping Linux afloat at this moment. The more power you give a Linux kernel, the more bloated it will be. But due to the increment in resources available is higher then the bloat, it isn't noticed.
Also the Kernel itself doesn't even to 1/100th of what the NT kernel does for the system.
That so called mini-kernel had an advantage many, many years ago when the hardware wasn't strong enough to carry something like NT (see ARM which only recently got into the power range NT requires nowadays). And its minimum required resources may be higher, but that is entirely irrelevant for its output.
The NT kernel goes far beyond the capabilities of the Linux kernel, and partially that is because of the monolithic kernel vs an object oriented one.

Look at the NVidia driver for Linux And how they solved Linux's limitations on GPU accelerations on modern hardware Its showing Linux's weaknesses which are slowly appearing.

As far as I'm concerned the only real limitation of Linux is its crappy license.

This is whole thing is just starting to sound like a Linux bash with the typical lack of substance. You keep blabbering on about limitations and have yet to actually mention any.

Shadowzz said,

No its because a file based kernel like Linux has reached its limits ages ago already...

Which is what I said, jeez. Monolithic kernel design is considered outdated in comparison to Micro/Hybrid kernels. With NT being the latter. (Hybrid is the correct terminology here, not object-oriented)

Major Plonquer said,
Yes, it is inevitable that WP will surpass Android. Android is an old-fashioned OS built on top of Java, an old-fashioned development system. It uses a variant of the old-fashioned Linux kernel. Their GUI is based on the old-fashioned icon row and column grid metaphor. To be honest they can make incremental adjustments until hell freezes over but they can't do very much more with it than they already have. After Android Kumquat or whatever they have virtually no place to go.

Compared to WP8, Android is extremely slooooooooooow. It needs expensive multicore hardware just to run at acceptable speeds. WP7 on a single core runs rings around Android on a quad core. WP8 is in a different class.

Meanwhile WP8 is an entirely new OS built by the people who know more about OS design than the rest of the world combined. It's fresh and extremely fast. It has a new UI paradigm that beats the crap out of an icon grid and all the world's top non-Apple manufacturers are moving towards it.

It's still early days. Android has had a great run. But I don't think they'll be able to squeeze much more than another two years out of that old, old software design.


You clearly haven't used jellybean. Android is quite fast now. And personally I find android's ui to be very nice. Wp8 can't even do proper multitasking...

Studio384 said,
The Linux kernel is over 30 years old, the Windows kernel is now over 29 years. But, since the first release of Linux, they haven't changed that much in comparision to NT. NT is rewriten in 2006 with version 6.0. So, 30 years (Linux) v. 6 years (NT) is a huge diffrence.

What is with this ridiculous notion that the Linux kernel has hardly changed in the last 30 years, it couldn't be further from the truth.

Shadowzz said,

No its because a file based kernel like Linux has reached its limits ages ago already. Its the hardware increments that are keeping Linux afloat at this moment. The more power you give a Linux kernel, the more bloated it will be. But due to the increment in resources available is higher then the bloat, it isn't noticed.
Also the Kernel itself doesn't even to 1/100th of what the NT kernel does for the system.
That so called mini-kernel had an advantage many, many years ago when the hardware wasn't strong enough to carry something like NT (see ARM which only recently got into the power range NT requires nowadays). And its minimum required resources may be higher, but that is entirely irrelevant for its output.
The NT kernel goes far beyond the capabilities of the Linux kernel, and partially that is because of the monolithic kernel vs an object oriented one.

Look at the NVidia driver for Linux And how they solved Linux's limitations on GPU accelerations on modern hardware Its showing Linux's weaknesses which are slowly appearing.


Please post more FUD and hyperbole

ViperAFK said,

Please post more FUD and hyperbole

Well I don't know. If anything that part about NVidia is probably true. NVidia has famously (at least within linux circles) had lots of trouble getting things working properly because a lot core Linux devs are being stubborn idiots and not letting them use what they need to use to get things working properly. Case in point: Opitmus. Proper support for Optimus requires use of GPL'ed symbols that for absolutely no valid reason at all NVidia can't use, because GPL.