Windows 8 now running on around one percent of all PCs

We have already reported on the numbers from StatCounter which claim that Windows 8 is currently running on 1.44 percent of all PCs worldwide, a month after its launch. Now Net Applications has just released its own PC operating systems stats for the month of November, and they are pretty much in line with what StatCounter has recorded.

Net Applications' graph shows Windows 8 is now being run on a total of 1.09 percent of all PCs worldwide. There's also a line item on the list called "Windows 8 Touch", which the firm says has a 0.02 percent market share. It's possible that this listing is actually Windows RT, rather than Windows 8. We have emailed Net Applications for a clarification on this matter. Net Applications previously recorded Windows 8 was in use by 0.41 percent of PC users in October, and by 0.33 percent in September.

Not surprisingly, Windows 7 is the number one PC OS on Net Applications' list in November. The actual percentage of its market share is 44.71 percent, up slightly from the 44.69 percent share Windows 7 had in October. Windows XP continues its pretty steep downward spiral on the list. It is still at number two but Net Applications shows it has a 39.82 percent market share, compared to 40.66 percent in October. Windows Vista is still a distant third with 5.70 percent, compared to 5.80 percent in October.

Mac OS 10.6, 10.7 and 10.8 were next on the list at 2.19, 2.18 and 2.14 percent, respectively. Linux is just ahead of Windows 8 at 1.25 percent. It's likely that Windows 8 will jump ahead of Linux on Net Applications' PC OS list later in December.

Source: Net Applications | Image via Net Applications

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Facebook misinterprets picture of woman in bath as explicit

Next Story

IE and Chrome still duking it out; IE10 makes a small impression

33 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

great idea to keep the graph's labels almost unreadable. we sure don't want windows fanboys to lose face because of the dismal win egg figures behind linux and os x. lol.

The 1% figure is pretty meaningless. What is the percentage for consumer tablets and the percentage for business laptops/desktops? I'm sure there is a huge difference--maybe 1.9% for the former and 0.1% for the latter.

TsarNikky said,
The 1% figure is pretty meaningless. What is the percentage for consumer tablets and the percentage for business laptops/desktops? I'm sure there is a huge difference--maybe 1.9% for the former and 0.1% for the latter.

For business laptops/desktops? Now that would be a meaningless number. Business aren't going to jump on anything immediately.

laserfloyd said,
So much XP on that graph. Come on enterprise at least move to 7 eh?

They may, when XP is no longer support. What so many people forget are the thousands of applications being used on millions of PCs that are DOS or XP based. Look at the banking and medical arenas to verify this.

"glaring problems and annoyances"
My version of windows 8 works just fine, no problems to be reported. As far as annoyances, I understand that not everything works the same as it did, but I don't think Microsoft really wanted it to, so while you may find it annoying, Microsoft knew you would. Something can be better, like searching for program or organizing the start screen, or search not showing relevant results always. Maybe those are the annoyances you mean?

The argument that people don't know how to use windows 8 really makes no sense to me. I think people just like windows 7 and no matter how good windows 8 is or is not, people are not going to be likely to go for windows 8 because they don't feel a need to change. What does windows 8 do that 7 doesn't? So why should people spend ANY money, no matter if it's just $40 or $70 depending on preference to upgrade? I don't blame the usability of windows 8 for any negatives people want to throw at it. It's an aging hardheaded tech world in which we live in that says if it's not like it was then it's not good.

Here is my question. Assuming windows 7 is the perfect world you all claim it to be, how would you design windows 8?

Invizibleyez said,
The argument that people don't know how to use windows 8 really makes no sense to me. I think people just like windows 7 and no matter how good windows 8 is or is not, people are not going to be likely to go for windows 8 because they don't feel a need to change. What does windows 8 do that 7 doesn't? So why should people spend ANY money, no matter if it's just $40 or $70 depending on preference to upgrade? I don't blame the usability of windows 8 for any negatives people want to throw at it. It's an aging hardheaded tech world in which we live in that says if it's not like it was then it's not good.

Here is my question. Assuming windows 7 is the perfect world you all claim it to be, how would you design windows 8?

you couldnt

When, and they will, M$ fixes some of the glaring problems and annoyances with the OS, it may actually prove to be a worthwhile improvement, of course, they've squandered another opportunity and are reliving Vista all over. It they had more meaningful competition it would be more apparent, graphs and all.

Hahaiah said,
When, and they will, M$ fixes some of the glaring problems and annoyances with the OS, it may actually prove to be a worthwhile improvement, of course, they've squandered another opportunity and are reliving Vista all over. It they had more meaningful competition it would be more apparent, graphs and all.

I think you are wrong about the lac of competition. Apple has been eating little by little from the PC market share - less PCs less Windows licenses (yeah I know you can install Windows on a Mac, but that is really a moot point). Tablets are slowly replacing PCs for casual PC users - tablets are simple and comfortable tools you can use from anywhere in your house. These are all competing against Windows and Microsoft: apple/android hardware + the ecosystems surrounding them.

Lastly, they are not re-living Vista. The faults in Vista came about due to shoddy hardware and drivers. NVidia and ATI provided **** support for the first couple of months AFTER Vista's release. PCs branded as Vista compatible but could barely run it properly (remember the Intel chipset fiasco ?). Windows 8 is doing pretty damn good compared to Vista - driver support is good, stable and I didn't have to update any of my Win7 hardware to run it.

georgevella said,

I think you are wrong about the lac of competition. Apple has been eating little by little from the PC market share - less PCs less Windows licenses (yeah I know you can install Windows on a Mac, but that is really a moot point). Tablets are slowly replacing PCs for casual PC users - tablets are simple and comfortable tools you can use from anywhere in your house. These are all competing against Windows and Microsoft: apple/android hardware + the ecosystems surrounding them.

Lastly, they are not re-living Vista. The faults in Vista came about due to shoddy hardware and drivers. NVidia and ATI provided **** support for the first couple of months AFTER Vista's release. PCs branded as Vista compatible but could barely run it properly (remember the Intel chipset fiasco ?). Windows 8 is doing pretty damn good compared to Vista - driver support is good, stable and I didn't have to update any of my Win7 hardware to run it.

Drivers had next to nothing to do with the failure of Vista, the problem was microsoft at least 99% of it.

Order_66 said,

Drivers had next to nothing to do with the failure of Vista, the problem was microsoft at least 99% of it.

I remember this thing correctly. Driver support was part of the problem. Nvidia and ATi releasing drivers that had 30% (or more) reduction in performance compared to Win XP. Yeah MS had updated their driver platform but Vista had been in beta for a few months before it's release and during that time neither nvidia nor ati released a single decent driver set. I am not saying MS had no fault either, but one has to look at the whole picture before pointing fingers in regards to Vista.

Win8 doesn't even come close to the state of Vista post-release. Surely the user base is divided among various groups - lovers, haters, whatever users - but there wasn't the crap going on during Vista. It's not flawless - Metro is good but has so much room for improvement, desktop still has the same feel - different, but not so much as to not allow you to do your work, stability is pretty much top-notch, performance is good (I didn't really see any difference because I had about 8gb of ram and a decent i7 while running win7, but I did notice the faster boot times and a snappier explorer).

Order_66 said,

Drivers had next to nothing to do with the failure of Vista, the problem was microsoft at least 99% of it.

nvidia alone were responsible for something like 2/3 of all BSOD on it - the drivers from that particular company took about a year and a half to completely stabilise. Vista had other problems sure (poor performance on laptops being a great example) but a complete lack of stability is far more significant (and something that neither 7 or 8 suffer from because they share the same basic driver model) to end users.

georgevella said,
I remember this thing correctly. Driver support was part of the problem. Nvidia and ATi releasing drivers that had 30% (or more) reduction in performance compared to Win XP. Yeah MS had updated their driver platform but Vista had been in beta for a few months before it's release and during that time neither nvidia nor ati released a single decent driver set. I am not saying MS had no fault either, but one has to look at the whole picture before pointing fingers in regards to Vista.

I'm not pointing the finger at Vista, I'm pointing it at microsoft, if a person uses a beta driver and something malfunctions then neither microsoft or Vista are to blame.
However, if someone uses a WHQL driver and it malfunctions then microsoft is the only one to blame since they certified the driver to work with Vista, neither Vista or the user is at fault, only microsoft.

dangel said,

nvidia alone were responsible for something like 2/3 of all BSOD on it - the drivers from that particular company took about a year and a half to completely stabilise. Vista had other problems sure (poor performance on laptops being a great example) but a complete lack of stability is far more significant (and something that neither 7 or 8 suffer from because they share the same basic driver model) to end users.

Yes there were tons of problems regarding both nvidia and ati drivers however if the drivers were WHQL signed then the blame lies squarely on microsoft, not nvidia or ati.

SiLeNtDeAtH said,
Anyone have numbers in Windows 7 adoption % one month after release? That would be an interesting comparison.

Well, I do remember that in 2 weeks, Windows 7 surpassed Snow Leopard's (I think it was that OS in that time) Market Share.

I had a woman come over on Friday, she got a new laptop with windows 8 and couldn't figure out how to install her software from CD. Mostly because she couldn't find "Computer". I know you can find it by clicking on the explore icon, but I still think they should have a designated "Computer" button.

warwagon said,
I had a woman come over on Friday, she got a new laptop with windows 8 and couldn't figure out how to install her software from CD. Mostly because she couldn't find "Computer". I know you can find it by clicking on the explore icon, but I still think they should have a designated "Computer" button.

Talk to her again in a month after using it, I bet she will be good at it.

warwagon said,
I had a woman come over on Friday, she got a new laptop with windows 8 and couldn't figure out how to install her software from CD. Mostly because she couldn't find "Computer". I know you can find it by clicking on the explore icon, but I still think they should have a designated "Computer" button.

I don't think that's Windows 8 there, I know people who don't know how to install software from a CD regardless of the OS.

warwagon said,
I had a woman come over on Friday, she got a new laptop with windows 8 and couldn't figure out how to install her software from CD. Mostly because she couldn't find "Computer". I know you can find it by clicking on the explore icon, but I still think they should have a designated "Computer" button.

Isn't "My Computer" one of the default desktop icons?

Omen1393 said,

I don't think that's Windows 8 there, I know people who don't know how to install software from a CD regardless of the OS.

To be fair, In every OS before Windows 8 it was "Start / My computer / computer"

warwagon said,
I had a woman come over on Friday, she got a new laptop with windows 8 and couldn't figure out how to install her software from CD. Mostly because she couldn't find "Computer". I know you can find it by clicking on the explore icon, but I still think they should have a designated "Computer" button.

When you insert a CD, Windows asks you what to do with it...

Aethec said,

When you insert a CD, Windows asks you what to do with it...

True but that was just one of the dozen ways how you could run/access an application in pre-8 versions of Windows, with each version adding a new way to do the same thing.

People from the Win 95 generation (which make up most Windows users today) are used to the start button as their way to do things. My mother is one of those as well, she compleetly ignores pop ups. My mentor on the other hand does everything via the Windows explorer, he doesn't even touch the start button.

Until Windows 8, each version added a new way without removing the old ways. Honestly, if we didnt all grow up with it, an OS like Windows 7 would be very confusing to the average user. I think Microsoft mad ethe right choice by 'rebooting' Windows, once people get used to it it will be a much more straight forward experience then every version before it (besides the original).

warwagon said,
I had a woman come over on Friday, she got a new laptop with windows 8 and couldn't figure out how to install her software from CD. Mostly because she couldn't find "Computer". I know you can find it by clicking on the explore icon, but I still think they should have a designated "Computer" button.

Did she not try searching for it?

ccoltmanm said,

Talk to her again in a month after using it, I bet she will be good at it.


everyone will get good at it after using it for a while. but that not how a computer OS should be designed. it should be easier to use from the first.

still1 said,

everyone will get good at it after using it for a while. but that not how a computer OS should be designed. it should be easier to use from the first.

The question is... is the old way easier because it is more intuitive, or easier and seemingly intuitive because of our familiarity with the old way? Too many people mistake intuitiveness with familiarity.

Graph has an awful design.

In any case this is pretty good news. I know it is a dramatic change, but most people I talk to like it. I do know a couple of people who just want to stay with 7 because it works, and there is nothing wrong with that.

ObiWanToby said,
Graph has an awful design.

In any case this is pretty good news. I know it is a dramatic change, but most people I talk to like it. I do know a couple of people who just want to stay with 7 because it works, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Interesting, I think the graph as a simple and straight forward working design. Maybe it's not colorful enough for you.

ccoltmanm said,

Interesting, I think the graph as a simple and straight forward working design. Maybe it's not colorful enough for you.

I use black and white and really prefer it (no one at work complains, we're all engineers). They should have used a different scale. Looks worse inline with the article than on the page itself.

ObiWanToby said,
Graph has an awful design.

Obviously, it's created to-scale and has a single colour. Who in their right mind would do such a thing?

Let's just throw on some nonlinear axes and rainbow colours for all the bars. That'll really make it a more credible graph...