Windows 7 finally overtakes Windows XP's marketshare in the US

Windows 7 is Microsoft's fastest selling operating system to date. It is now one and a half years old, yet it reached several key milestones quickly. Last August, its marketshare surpassed that of its older brother Windows Vista, and this past December its marketshare was sitting at 25%, while its decade-old elderly sibling Windows XP plummeted to 50%. Starting from this month, it finally managed to surpass Windows XP - it now sits at 31.8% while Windows XP is at 31.55%. The catch? This milestone is just for computers in the United States. However, the growth rates of Windows 7's marketshare and the decline of Microsoft's decade-old operating system remain constant globally and within the United States. Also, in other countries, this milestone has been reached already.

This month's statistics from Statcounter.com shows Windows 7 at 31.8%, Windows XP at 31.55%, Windows Vista at 19.12%, Mac OS X at 14.74%, and Linux at 0.7%. The three versions of Windows command a marketshare of 82.47% in the United States. Marketshare across all Windows versions was down by a hairline, where Windows was on 82.58% of all American computers in December 2010. Windows 7's marketshare appears to be gaining entirely at the expense of both Windows XP and Vista combined, rising by 5.47% since December while XP and Vista fell by 2.54% and 3.04% respectively, or 5.58% combined. 

Windows XP still holds the top spot globally, at 47.1% compared to Windows 7's 31.28%. However, Windows XP's marketshare is falling faster globally than in the United States, dropping by 3.49% while Windows 7 rose by 5.42%. Global Windows marketshare also fell a slight amount to 91.64%, a 0.3% drop from December 2010.

Windows 7 continues to ride with great momentum amongst the public, with Microsoft reporting 300 million Windows 7 licenses sold in January's second quarter earnings report, and the release of Service Pack 1 in mid February. Windows 7 also continues to have a presence in television commercials. Could Windows 7 take XP's strong majority spot by the time XP's extended support lifecycle ends in April 2014? Only time will tell.

Image credit: Statcounter.com

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Fake Chinese 500 GB external drive is one clever paperweight (literally)

Next Story

Coming to a store near you, Anonymous continues Sony attack

110 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

i got a win 7 install that i have been meaning to install but i can't seem to find a reason or a time to install it and the reason changes daily. i guess i'm not wanting to change over as all works fine.

Maybe businesses are switching.

Not giving up Windows XP here.

No logical reason to.

I have Windows 7 on the netbook, as an interesting toy.

But my main desktop will remain XP. : )

Your desktop must be really old then, otherwise that is ridiculous. Yeah I guess you could call Windows 7 a toy...a toy that supports modern hardware and software, is more secure, and works much more efficiently than the decade old relic that is XP ever did. Reminds me of the people who swore they were sticking with Windows 98 forever back when XP came out.

With apologies if someone already pointed this out & I missed it...
Per Statcounter's FAQ, they track site hits, & the stats quoted in the article mean they recorded more hits to sites they monitor where the PC/laptop was running 7 vs. XP. Take that for what you will. It could be argued that they monitor the wrong mix of sites, or it could be as easily argued that many systems running XP are used in biz where going on-line is not possible or permitted.

So, Windows droped (and continue dropping) 10% from high 90% to 82.5% in the last couple of years even after hysterical Win 7 sales ?

alexalex said,
So, Windows droped (and continue dropping) 10% from high 90% to 82.5% in the last couple of years even after hysterical Win 7 sales ?

Windows always had a ~90% global mark. The 82.5% is for the US only.

alexalex said,
So, Windows droped (and continue dropping) 10% from high 90% to 82.5% in the last couple of years even after hysterical Win 7 sales ?

And they're still considered a monopoly even though its been proven their market share can be chipped away at.

alexalex said,
So, Windows droped (and continue dropping) 10% from high 90% to 82.5% in the last couple of years even after hysterical Win 7 sales ?

Did you actually read the whole article or are you only referring to the U.S.A.?

Global Windows marketshare also fell a slight amount to 91.64%, a 0.3% drop from December 2010.

Both operating systems still work just fine, for a lot of people upgrading to 7 isn`t something they even consider unless they get a new computer! As long as they can surf, watch a few vids and send/receive e-mails all is hunky dory...

Riggers said,

Did you actually read the whole article or are you only referring to the U.S.A.?

The article is about USA and so is my remark.
Global Windows marketshare also fell a slight amount to 91.64%, a 0.3% drop from December 2010.

Both operating systems still work just fine, for a lot of people upgrading to 7 isn`t something they even consider unless they get a new computer! As long as they can surf, watch a few vids and send/receive e-mails all is hunky dory...

Flawed said,
And yet XP still dominates worldwide. XP is the new IE6. Microsoft will never get rid of it

That's a laugh. Windows 7 is about to pass XP in Europe and in Australia it has buried XP. The only places XP is still "dominating" are poor third world countries where most copies are pirated anyway. Even in those places XP is doomed; face it, your creaky old OS is on it's deathbed.

As for IE6 the only reason it stuck around so long because it was so many years before IE7 finally came along, and by then Firefox had taken the more technology knowledgeable users.

TRC said,

That's a laugh. Windows 7 is about to pass XP in Europe and in Australia it has buried XP. The only places XP is still "dominating" are poor third world countries where most copies are pirated anyway. Even in those places XP is doomed; face it, your creaky old OS is on it's deathbed.

As for IE6 the only reason it stuck around so long because it was so many years before IE7 finally came along, and by then Firefox had already taken the more tech-savvy users.

It's really hard to measure Linux's market share. It's free downloaded from several download locations, and p2p plays a big role in its distribution.

I think a lot of people are running it as a virtual machine. Does that count?
If you want higher numbers on Linux look on server statistics and smaller devices.

Tpiom said,
It's really hard to measure Linux's market share. It's free downloaded from several download locations, and p2p plays a big role in its distribution.

I think a lot of people are running it as a virtual machine. Does that count?
If you want higher numbers on Linux look on server statistics and smaller devices.

Windows 7 and XP are not server based OS's therefore they aren't compared to those systems...They aren't embedded systems, so again not compared.

This metric is off of site hits that record the OS type(if I remember), so your argument is as invalid as the comparisons you wish to see.

yowan said,
RIP XP. No one wants you anymore

But it still has the most market share, meaning people love it more than 7! Oh wait...

It's curious how the Mexican graphic is very similar, except for the fact that Mac OS X's market share is slowly improving from almost 0%

starman444 said,
Great news!! Lets hope it happens in Australia too..

It has happened in Australia already. Even larger gap than the US.

starman444 said,
Great news!! Lets hope it happens in Australia too..

It's already happened elsewhere in the world. I know in the UK, Win7 is ahead by a large margin.... The US has been lacking.

i da say it would rise to as much as 45% - 55% and start to stagant and decline because of Windows 8

that is if the media doesn't dogpile against the next release of windows

Isn't this a repeat, word for word, of this story from earlier in this week . I've already read it several days ago. Why the repeat?

wahoospa said,
Isn't this a repeat, word for word, of this story from earlier in this week . I've already read it several days ago. Why the repeat?

Which story? Couldn't locate it on Neowin.

wahoospa said,
Isn't this a repeat, word for word, of this story from earlier in this week . I've already read it several days ago. Why the repeat?

Can i borrow yor time machine please, would love to know next weeks lottery numbers, or maybe it was all just a dream /joking btw, maybe you read it elsewhere (not unknown )

Good, now maybe the XP defenders will stop crying "Waaah, XP is the most widely used OS so they need to release IE9 for it!".

TRC said,
Good, now maybe the XP defenders will stop crying "Waaah, XP is the most widely used OS so they need to release IE9 for it!".

XP is still the most widely used OS worldwide. It was by a very wide margin when IE9 was being developed. IE9 even includes a software-only rendering mode for Starter edition with which it runs just as fast. So they could have developed it for XP *if they wanted to* like all the other browser vendors and all the other software on the market.

xpclient said,

XP is still the most widely used OS worldwide.

Not for much longer fortunately. It's a shame Mozilla and others are still supporting XP but I can see why, they are all struggling to be the top browser. Microsoft doesn't need to do this though, and since they also want to get people to upgrade their OS it only makes sense not to release IE9 for an antiquated OS. Mainstream support for XP ended in 2009 after all.

xpclient said,

XP is still the most widely used OS worldwide. It was by a very wide margin when IE9 was being developed. IE9 even includes a software-only rendering mode for Starter edition with which it runs just as fast. So they could have developed it for XP *if they wanted to* like all the other browser vendors and all the other software on the market.

Why should they? Upgrade and get over it.

TRC said,

Not for much longer fortunately. It's a shame Mozilla and others are still supporting XP but I can see why, they are all struggling to be the top browser. Microsoft doesn't need to do this though, and since they also want to get people to upgrade their OS it only makes sense not to release IE9 for an antiquated OS. Mainstream support for XP ended in 2009 after all.

The whole industry is supporting XP with any app released today except Microsoft with IE9 and Windows Live. Kind of gives away the truth - that they want Windows 7 sales more than their other responsibilities towards web developers.

Anyone who cares about web developers should maybe stop using a decade old OS.

Windows XP mainstream support ended two years ago; that means it gets no new features ever again. No new computers are sold with XP and haven't been for quite some time, and it's market share is dropping rapidly. Cling to it all you want but it's done for, time to move on.

Edited by Rigby, Apr 10 2011, 6:41pm :

TRC said,
Anyone who cares about web developers should maybe stop using a decade old OS.

Windows XP mainstream support ended two years ago; that means it gets no new features ever again. No new computers are sold with XP and haven't been for quite some time, and it's market share is dropping rapidly. Cling to it all you want but it's done for, time to move on.

It's a decade old because MS didn't come out with an OS for 7 years and then the one did they come up with flopped completely. You were using that decade old OS as well for 6-7 years of that decade. Plus, Windows 7 doesn't do everything that the decade old OS manages to do. It's market share is dropping because it cannot be sold any more and all new computers come with Windows 7, few know how to put XP back. If only they sold XP today, it would be a fierce battle between XP and Windows 7. Time to move on because Microsoft wants their usual Windows tax? Certainly not. IE will eventually become irrelevant (around the era of Windows 9 or Windows 10) for ignoring Windows XP.

Scar said,
Loving how Mac and Linux are consistent.
So is Windows, they just have it split into separate versions.

Simon said,
So is Windows, they just have it split into separate versions.

Windows Vista is used even more than Mac OS X?! LOL

Scar said,
Loving how Mac and Linux are consistent.

hahaha, Windows market share will continue to go down because people will flock towards Mac and Linux; Windows 7 can't do anything either

astroX said,

Windows Vista is used even more than Mac OS X?! LOL


Vista + PC isn't as expensive as Mac I must admit I would like to own a Mac, but ($$$)...

Asesh said,

hahaha, Windows market share will continue to go down because people will flock towards Mac and Linux; Windows 7 can't do anything either

According to you? Awww .. that's cute :3 According to the chart above, Windows 7 isn't going down anytime soon ... keep waiting though!

robert_dll said,

Vista + PC isn't as expensive as Mac I must admit I would like to own a Mac, but ($$)...

I was actually trying to mean that even though Apple tried and tried to make Vista the worst OS .. Vista is being used more than Mac OS X x))

Asesh said,

hahaha, Windows market share will continue to go down because people will flock towards Mac and Linux; Windows 7 can't do anything either

Obvious troll.

Scar said,
Loving how Mac and Linux are consistent.

You do know that better competition brings you better Windows? Grow up, kid.

robert_dll said,

Vista + PC isn't as expensive as Mac I must admit I would like to own a Mac, but ($$)...

Don't worry, you're not missing anything.

go win 7 go! This will not happen for a while after this because it will probably be super easy to upgrade from 7 to 8

Lachlan said,
go win 7 go! This will not happen for a while after this because it will probably be super easy to upgrade from 7 to 8
LOL

firey said,
lol, linux is still lower than the others category.

Yeah look at the $300 paperweight OS you use. LOL. Pay so much for so little. At least I get so much more for free

ZekeComa said,

Yeah look at the $300 paperweight OS you use. LOL. Pay so much for so little. At least I get so much more for free

Quality of software sketchy? check
No Direct X support? Check
Over dependence on CLI? check
So fractured, choosing the right distro is like a lottery? check
Questionable performance on ATI graphics cards? check
Lack of commercial grade software? check

Think i'll stick with my "$300 paperweight" thanks

Subject Delta said,

Quality of software sketchy? check
No Direct X support? Check
Over dependence on CLI? check
So fractured, choosing the right distro is like a lottery? check
Questionable performance on ATI graphics cards? check
Lack of commercial grade software? check

Think i'll stick with my "$300 paperweight" thanks

The root cause of your complaints is that the software corporations, whom you are paying $300 bucks for a license to use an OS, are not supporting their technologies on Linux, because they will get $0 from it. It's a business decision, not the Linux devs's fault that they have to live with stupid intellectual property laws which corporations are using very well to block open innovation to keep themselves in demand all around the world. In essence, paying $300 to those corporations for software is making those open-innovation-blockers stronger and free/open source software weaker.

Jebadiah said,
The root cause of your complaints......

The root cause doesn't matter, it's the result. The reality is that Windows, for most is better for most users. Microsoft may not be contributing DirectX to Linux but there is a perfectly good project in OpenGL that the community can contribute to - but the fact is, they're lagging behind. Hell, even John Carmack has admitted DirectX is the better product these days.

Say what you want about paying $300 on a software license, if it does what people need better then it's well worth it. People can't live their lives based on what it COULD be, when it's unrealistic to expect it.

ZekeComa said,

Yeah look at the $300 paperweight OS you use. LOL. Pay so much for so little. At least I get so much more for free

Last time I checked, Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit sold for 110$, and it supported about 10000 times more software. I guess that's worth it for some.

Jebadiah said,
The root cause of your complaints is that the software corporations, whom you are paying $300 bucks for a license to use an OS, are not supporting their technologies on Linux, because blah blah blah blah long hippy rant about "the man" keeping the penguin down....

Yes, how dare a company want to make money on their products. Capitalist dogs!

Subject Delta said,

Quality of software sketchy? check
No Direct X support? Check
Over dependence on CLI? check
So fractured, choosing the right distro is like a lottery? check
Questionable performance on ATI graphics cards? check
Lack of commercial grade software? check

Think i'll stick with my "$300 paperweight" thanks

Linux:
No viruses (Has nothing to do with market share, UNIX)
Free and open source (Have you seen Windows' source code? NO)
Holes are patched ASAP, how long does Microsoft take to do that? it will take them ages
How often do you have to restart your computer after/to apply updates? I can go on for ages even after applying updates w/o restarting my computer

Proprietary crap is here to die. Windows users will continue to flock towards Mac and Linux because they are a much better platfom

Windows users will continue to flock towards Mac and Linux because they are a much better platfom

Do what?! Did you even look at the graph? Users aren't "flocking" to either of those platforms.

I used to say Mac and Windows were both pretty good OSes, but lets be honest... in the small amount of time I use my MBP vs my work Windows 7 machine, which has crashed more and caused me more headaches? The Mac. Only thing I like about it is the trackpad, everything else? A Windows laptop can do as good or better. I won't be recommending one to anyone anymore. And try finding apps that do things half as good as Windows... if you can, usually they cost 10 times as much.

Say what you want, but I'm sick of the Apple "we have money so were inherently better than you" bull. If you want a controlled life, go for it. But I love the freedom Windows gives.

Sorry... /rantrant

Asesh said,

Linux:
No viruses (Has nothing to do with market share, UNIX)
Free and open source (Have you seen Windows' source code? NO)
Holes are patched ASAP, how long does Microsoft take to do that? it will take them ages
How often do you have to restart your computer after/to apply updates? I can go on for ages even after applying updates w/o restarting my computer

Proprietary crap is here to die. Windows users will continue to flock towards Mac and Linux because they are a much better platfom


Enough the open source thing, most people don't care and don't know how to read a single line of the source code of the OS they are using.

On most Windows machines I restart like 1 time a month only, but anyway, most users don't leave/need to leave their computers open that much.

Enough the virus thing also, someone can always make a program which fools users who don't know where they are clicking, what does it have to do with UNIX if a I show the user a page that looks like a clone of paypal and get his PayPal and CC account through it ?!

The holes thing also is ridiculous, most people who get infected, in REAL cases, by Windows exploits, turns out those holes were either updated by microsoft a month or so before they got infected, or could have been prevented if they had a good firewall.

Windows people will continue going to Mac cause that's what they think will make them look cool or rich, and to Linux because that's what they think will make them look geeky.

Asesh said,
No viruses (Has nothing to do with market share, UNIX)

Sure...

Asesh said,
Free and open source (Have you seen Windows' source code? NO)

Nobody in my home cares about that...what they care about is having a working PC, that's all.

Asesh said,
Holes are patched ASAP, how long does Microsoft take to do that? it will take them ages

Do you think a month is much in order to get a proper patch? Do you realize there are out of band patch releases when they are really needed?

Asesh said,
How often do you have to restart your computer after/to apply updates? I can go on for ages even after applying updates w/o restarting my computer

I must agree with you here, but... people who really cares about not having to restart are those idiots wanting to have an "uptime record", which means power consumption, which means more pollution...and some other cases in which the PC really needs to stay turned on.

Asesh said,
Proprietary crap is here to die.

Sure it is, that's why Windows market share is nearing 0% and Linux is going up...

And yes, I would like to buy a Mac, but I would continue to use Windows, it would be impossible to do my work without it.

Jebadiah said,
The root cause of your complaints is that the software corporations, whom you are paying $300 bucks for a license to use an OS, are not supporting their technologies on Linux, because they will get $0 from it. It's a business decision, not the Linux devs's fault that they have to live with stupid intellectual property laws which corporations are using very well to block open innovation to keep themselves in demand all around the world. In essence, paying $300 to those corporations for software is making those open-innovation-blockers stronger and free/open source software weaker.

The root cause is of no consequence to me, pointing fingers at Microsoft, OEMs or consumer software developers won't make Linux any more attractive to me, because as an overall package it doesn't do what I need.

And to be frank, the fact that Linux is open source does not mean commercial grade software couldn't be developed for it. The only reason it isn't is that FOSS bolsheviks seem to have some mental block that they feel makes them morally superior if they don't use proprietary software, which is what really removes the business incentive to target Linux.

Asesh said,

Linux:
No viruses (Has nothing to do with market share, UNIX)
Free and open source (Have you seen Windows' source code? NO)
Holes are patched ASAP, how long does Microsoft take to do that? it will take them ages
How often do you have to restart your computer after/to apply updates? I can go on for ages even after applying updates w/o restarting my computer

Proprietary crap is here to die. Windows users will continue to flock towards Mac and Linux because they are a much better platfom

Ok, let me hit you with a few facts here:

Firstly: I haven't been infected by viruses for a long time... you know why? because I am careful. No OS can completely bypass user stupidity because the user is the weak link.

Secondly: Why should I care whether I see the source code or not? I am a consumer, not a developer so being able to access the source code is of no consequence to me whatsoever. So other people can edit the code? great. That doesn't guarantee quality, just seeing how many Linux distributions there are out there is proof that the divergence created is bad (I mean over 100MB of dependancies for Chrome... you don't see that on OSX or Windows)

Thirdly: Facts are against you on this one, Microsoft typically have the fastest industry turnaround on patches for critical flaws, the slowest (2010 stats) were actually Apple, Ubuntu was somewhere inbetween (and in that case they still averaged about 5 days more than Microsoft)

Forth: Restarting my computer takes about 90 seconds because I have decent hardware, and I only usually install patches when they're released on patch tuesday. Reboots are of no consequence to me. I don't leave my computer running all the time, I shut it down when I go to bed anyway.

And let me just hit you with another fact: The graph in this very article directly contradicts your assertion that people are flocking from Windows en masse, because they aren't. Linux's marketshare has been around 1-2% for about the last 15 years, and despite promises every year that it will be "the year of Linux" that never materialises. OSX is also hovering at around 10-12% and although it's gaining some share, it's not really an overly significant amount. Whether you like it or not, Windows and Proprietary software are here to stay.

Asesh said,

Proprietary crap is here to die. Windows users will continue to flock towards Mac and Linux because they are a much better platfom


I'm sorry. Where do you see Windows users flocking to Linux? That must be some bubble you live in. Desktop Linux is DOA.

Asesh said,

Proprietary crap is here to die. Windows users will continue to flock towards Mac and Linux because they are a much better platfom

Well... if they are flocking then why the hell is Linux's bright red line still... you know, constant?

andrew_f said,

The root cause doesn't matter, it's the result. The reality is that Windows, for most is better for most users. Microsoft may not be contributing DirectX to Linux but there is a perfectly good project in OpenGL that the community can contribute to - but the fact is, they're lagging behind. Hell, even John Carmack has admitted DirectX is the better product these days.

Say what you want about paying $300 on a software license, if it does what people need better then it's well worth it. People can't live their lives based on what it COULD be, when it's unrealistic to expect it.

so develop our own distro?

andrew_f said,

The root cause doesn't matter, it's the result. The reality is that Windows, for most is better for most users. Microsoft may not be contributing DirectX to Linux but there is a perfectly good project in OpenGL that the community can contribute to - but the fact is, they're lagging behind. Hell, even John Carmack has admitted DirectX is the better product these days.

Say what you want about paying $300 on a software license, if it does what people need better then it's well worth it. People can't live their lives based on what it COULD be, when it's unrealistic to expect it.

LOL Spoken like a CEO. You pay money because it is an investment and, I get it, you want the ROI to be good too, which is why things are not going to change since we are supporting the wrong people for the right things. And hence Idiocracy will not be far away either. It is the way it is since results are what matter. Right?

Subject Delta said,
The root cause is of no consequence to me, pointing fingers at Microsoft, OEMs or consumer software developers won't make Linux any more attractive to me, because as an overall package it doesn't do what I need.

And to be frank, the fact that Linux is open source does not mean commercial grade software couldn't be developed for it. The only reason it isn't is that FOSS bolsheviks seem to have some mental block that they feel makes them morally superior if they don't use proprietary software, which is what really removes the business incentive to target Linux.

The business incentive to target Linux with commercial grade software is negligible because the user base is so small. Also, Microsoft, Apple, etc. would be cannibalizing their own software by supporting free and open source software.

resol612 said,
Well... if they are flocking then why the hell is Linux's bright red line still... you know, constant?
I saw a couple of posts above which also show the lack of ability to read market share charts. You see, the population of people who use computers has increased, which means the computer user base has increased. So a constant line showing % means that the user base % has remained constant, which means that the user base has proportionately increased for all the OSes.

Edited by Jebadiah, Apr 10 2011, 10:13am :

Asesh said,

Linux:
No viruses (Has nothing to do with market share, UNIX)
Free and open source (Have you seen Windows' source code? NO)
Holes are patched ASAP, how long does Microsoft take to do that? it will take them ages
How often do you have to restart your computer after/to apply updates? I can go on for ages even after applying updates w/o restarting my computer

Proprietary crap is here to die. Windows users will continue to flock towards Mac and Linux because they are a much better platfom

There are lots of Linux viruses, how can you still believe this?
Linux is the primary server platform exploited by viruses and bots, as apparently there are a lot of admins like you that think the OS is bulletproof and don't properly maintain.

Linux is also a direct target of bots and viruses in the router world, as it is far more effective to compromise a router running a Linux kernel that is handling packets for thousands of machines instead of the few Linux systems in use by end users.

Additionally, saying (UNIX) is a) incorrect, as Linux is not UNIX, but it does use a UNIX based OS model b) UNIX means NOTHING when it comes to security, as it was being security compromised long before the NT object based OS mdoel even existed.

UNIX basically means it uses the a specific model for hanlding devices, I/O, and a textual/parameter based IPC structure.

Saying UNIX is as silly as when Mac users assume OS Xi secure because of the BSD kernel interface, which again has nothing to do with security. OpenBSD is considered a highly secure OS, which has nothing to do with OS X, as they have different kernels and are completely different code, using the BSD set of libraries and model means nothing. BSD itself is not inherently more secure.


Free and open source? (Have we seen Windows source code?)
Let me answer the second one first, YES. The different between closed source and open source simply means that one is viewable in an upper level language like C or C++, which is open source, and close source means that it is viewable in a LOWER level language, that is traditional machine code and assembly.

It is more a matter of education, as open source is easier to read for less educated technology profesionals and programmers. A person with a higher level of knowledge that can read machine code, can open up any aspect of Windows and read its machine code, as it is just code.

Additionally, Microsoft provides the higher level C/C++ source code of the majority of Windows NT to adademic professionals, so that they can teach OS model and OS technologies, specifically when constrasting kernels and the unique kernel NT uses and the more advanced and unique object based OS model that NT uses.

As for Linux being free and open, this is something you see as good, but many OS architects consider to be highly flawed. This goes from the quality of code, the fragmentation that this allows, up to the lincesing issues associated with Linux and other OSS projects that sadly restrict features and closed source technologies from ever being used.

Updates and patche? Really? Well you are correct that Linux has access to patches and updates sooner sometimes, but this also means a lock of testing of the patches, resulting in significant problems.

Microsoft at one time updated Windows when the patch was made available, it was the consumer base and large corporate customer base that couldn't pre-test every patch or have a plan of patching, so Microsoft moved Updates to a the first tuesday of the month, so that people and corporations can test the updates and allow or not allow them to install on their systems and networked computers. (Which is a mark against OSS OS technologies that flood patches and updates to companies where the company has no chance ro test them and authroize them This sends the IT costs of keeping a secure Linux installtion expensive and hard to schedule IT people for radomly timed updates.)


Restore the OS? Are you really being serious and don't know, or being silly? Technically, Windows NT, and Windows in general is far more able to update layers of the OS than Linux. The hot/live update mechanisms used on Linux are more of a trick than a feature of Linux or any type of reflection of how Linux is designed for updates.

The reason system restarts are required for 99.9% of any patch or update is the update affecting a shared library that could be in use by an Application, and rather than risking the chance of killing the application or process and losing user data, it is easier to just process the patch during hte next boot cycle before the common library is utilized.

Windows NT's layered model makes it quite easy to apply live/hot updates, including kernel changes to drivers to even upper layer subsyste.

Changing a video driver on Windows DOES NOT require a reboot, it is the driver MFR that adds in a reboot request, as it is easier for them to manage updates during the boot process. Some video card GPU makers have finally stopped requiring a reboot in Vista and Winodws7. Using the video driver as a common example, the reason a reboot is not needed is partially based in the WDDM and are the same reasons you can literally rip out a running Video card from a computer and replace it a different brand/model and Windows won't even lose a DirectX game running. This is also why Vista and Win7 could inherently handle GPu switching and driver swithcing for GPUs and hybrid GPU technology, that on OS X requires a GUI reboot, and on Linux cannot work properly without dumping XWindows and the GUI.

So update reboots are a 'method', not a limitation of the OS technology.

This can easily be seeni in higher tier WIndows NT clusters and realtime server environments that deal with realtime RAM and other hardware swapping and replacing, as they also implment policies to allow all patches and updates to happen hot/live.


And this doesn't even get into the specifics of the live/hot update issues iwth Linux and the tricks used to get past the failings in the Linux model. Even the way Linux deals with kernel level drivers and the dependencies that relegates Linux to using generic driver interfaces, as a properly optimized installation would require recompiled drivers for virtually everyything on Linux when any kernel level revision is made. (This is a foreign concept to Windows NT, as its kernel and driver model does not have these low level dependencies, and can easily change anything about the kerenl without having to rebuild drivers and other layers of the kernel and OS.)

As for Windows being propriety crap, this is your opinion, but technically there are based features and technoliges in Windows NT that are outside the fundamental capabilities of kernel and OS models like Linux. Show me the Object Based IPC in Linux that is highly exensible and doesn't break when adding in new features, as the old calling processes won't fail, as they interface with other processes as objects, not parameter passing concepts like the UNIX and Linux OS models use. Show me one real FS technology that can meet NTFS for features, let alone try to implement a subset of its features and even be close to the raw speed of NTFS.

And I could go on for hours with a list of thousands of items like this, especially when speaking directly of Vista or Win7. As I could then add features like OS level GPU RAM sharingvirtualization and OS level GPU thread handling that offers pre-emptive GPU threading instead of cooperative GPU threading.

----

When you are posting factually incorrect assumptions about Windows, and have no concept of the core level technological limits Linux has in comparisond to Windows NT, it makes your comment seem more fanboi and funny than informational.

Jebadiah said,
LOL Spoken like a CEO. You pay money because it is an investment and, I get it, you want the ROI to be good too, which is why things are not going to change since we are supporting the wrong people for the right things. And hence Idiocracy will not be far away either. It is the way it is since results are what matter. Right?

Spoken by someone impartial, partly a Mac user but also Ubuntu and Windows 7. Someone with common sense and foresight without the habbit of disregarding the real world in the name of technological politics and above all one that doesn't call the person he's debating, or those who oppose him, an idiot.

Calm down, then come back to make your point. Your incoherent ramblings don't help your cause.

andrew_f said,

Spoken by someone impartial, partly a Mac user but also Ubuntu and Windows 7. Someone with common sense and foresight without the habbit of disregarding the real world in the name of technological politics and above all one that doesn't call the person he's debating, or those who oppose him, an idiot.

Calm down, then come back to make your point. Your incoherent ramblings don't help your cause.

LOL Your words, not mine. Don't ****ing put words into my mouth.

I live for the long term, and, from your posts, you live for the short term sucking all the juice and ruining it for everyone. I don't give a damn about people like you.

Jebadiah said,
LOL Your words, not mine. Don't ****ing put words into my mouth.

I live for the long term, and, from your posts, you live for the short term sucking all the juice and ruining it for everyone. I don't give a damn about people like you.

'And hence Idiocracy will not be far away either'. I understand the reference to the movie, but to suggest such a thing is to suggest those who don't look at it your way are the idiots that lead to the 'Idiocracy'... presumably. But sorry if that's not what you meant.

And I'm sorry you don't give a damn about anybody who doesn't quite agree with your idealist outlook on life, that's a shame.. really.

Asesh said,

Linux:
Free and open source (Have you seen Windows' source code? NO)

99.9% of the people out there do not know what a source code is...and even if they did wouldn't know what to do with it.

Wow, look at how that line (Win7) just shot up!
It's pretty much constant by the looks of things, apart from Mar 2011 onwards.

Brian Miller said,
It's kind of easy when you stop selling XP.

Still have the ability to downgrade, i know i have downgraded a few 7 machines to XP

brent3000 said,
i know i have downgraded a few 7 machines to XP

"Oh hi, I'd like to buy a Ferrari, but could you please replace the motor with a cheap one? Thanks."

brent3000 said,

Still have the ability to downgrade, i know i have downgraded a few 7 machines to XP

Home editions don't have downgrade rights, retail editions don't have any downgrade rights. Leaves only Professional and Ultimate OEM. Most computers I see don't run Ultimate or Professional.

brent3000 said,

Still have the ability to downgrade, i know i have downgraded a few 7 machines to XP

I KNOW you're kidding right?

I can easily understanding down grading Vista, but Windows 7 is just flat out to sweet. The ONLY reason to down grade from W7 is because some one is to cheap to buy a better graphics card which would probably also mean upgrading the power supply. Even my cheap skate butt was willing to do that for all 8 of my W7 machines. Didn't even consider doing that for that crap that was called Vista.

xpclient said,
Most computers I see don't run Ultimate or Professional.

Most business PC do, and that's probably more than half the PC in the world.

cork1958 said,
The ONLY reason to down grade from W7 is because some one is to cheap to buy a better graphics card which would probably also mean upgrading the power supply.

Wrong. Many large business still use Win XP Pro because of compatibility issues. Mixing XP and 7 within a network work much better than with Vista, but there are still some issue. The second reason is compatibilty with some applications.

Aethec said,

"Oh hi, I'd like to buy a Ferrari, but could you please replace the motor with a cheap one? Thanks."

Also, can you remove the security system.

Took long enough.

I know I've upgraded almost all of the PC's at the office. That's about 40ish on Win 7. Just a handfull on Vista, and one or two remain on XP.