Windows 7 end 2010 with over 20% market share

Even though Windows 7 has been out for some time, it has only just tipped the 20% market share barrier, which is almost twice that of Vista... but still way behind Windows XP:

Read more here: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/364000/w...0-market-share

After all this time and the millions of complaints from Vista owners, I don't understand why Vista is still so popular!

Neither do I. I tried running Vista, both on my notebook, and my PC, it's just "too heavy" of an OS. Sort of like entering a horserace with a mule. It's just too much dead weight to carry around. And forget running it within a VM, unless you have an extra 4GB of RAM to lend to it.

I'm very surprised that Vista still holds slightly over half of Windows 7's market share.

Cat

Complicating matters is if one googles something *specifically* for Windows 7, 90% of the time you're taken to Vista responses. Makes it tough to troubleshoot anything. Wastes *so* much time! I wish people would join the 21st century.

MS tried with Vista, they just missed the uprights by about 10 feet though.

XP has an eight year head start on Windows 7 so I think that 7 will catch up in time.

I predict by the end of 2011 that Windows 7 will be on over 45% of new and existing machines. Remember that Windows 7 is selling at the rate of about 7-8 licenses per minute worldwide. (Maybe that's per second... hmmm.)

Vista was and is a dog, like Millennium Edition was. Some still have Win 95 and 98. have to admit., though, that 98SE was extremely stable.II'd be one thing if Win7 were very expensive, biut it's not at $100 or so for the OEM (Home Premium).

After the hassle of a fresh install are the upgrades for software and hardware that were incompatible. You are no longer talking about a $100 a machine. It is new software, new hardware, computer downtime which results in lost productivity, and man hour costs of the I.T. to test, develop roll-out plans and back-up plans, and go to class to learn new implementation, security features and support features, and retraining the end-users because it doesn't look or feel like XP, plus more loss of productivity during the learning curve. These things make up the real cost to businesses. So just $100 is naive and merely a drop in a very huge bucket.

I don't even recommend it for the average home user. I think the best time to upgrade to W7 is when you acquire new hardware; if your old stuff is working in XP then unless there is something you absolutely need from W7 (better security, Aero, etc) then don't upgrade. Even from Vista to W7 is a chore because as has been noted many times on this forum you should still do a fresh install, and if changing up from 32 to 64 or even switching versions, for example to get away from Microsoft's lies about the value of Vista Ultimate by switching to Home Premium or Professional, mandates that fresh install. And unlike the business environment where they often have test machines and a few spares, the home user is less prepared for issues of device incompatibility or having to upgrade their software. And unlike in the past when old interfaces continued to be supported, these users are immediately thrust into a start menu and a windows explorer GUI that may be totally unfamiliar to them. No, your basic user wants their computer to work right out of the box and installing W7 over XP is more involved than many users want to deal with.

Windows 7 is fine, it works, but it isn't a necessity. I could go on but my post is so boring I even stopped reading it myself during the middle of the last paragraph.

Your post wasn't boring at all, but I love your self-deprecating humor!

I had XP for years (XP Pro) and loathed upgrading, because as we all know, the word "upgrade" isn't always defined in the same way as software manufacturers define it. I "upgraded" because I was tired of fighting my computer and its errors, and figured if I had to reinstall Windows, I might as well make it Windows 7. My wife's computer had Vista - and I despised it, but the reviews for 7 were better, and so I made the plunge.

I was amazed that the installation simply moved all the old XP files to a "windows.old" file, so while it was anew installation, it wasn't, strictly speaking, a "fresh" one, and I didn't have to reinstall everything.

The only piece of hardware that didn't work was my old scanner, which I replaced for around $60. Every bit of software worked perfectly. At some point, people have to get out of their worn, comfy shoes, and get with the calendar, so I did (gritting my teeth as I did so, I must admit).

I wish they had simply upgraded XP some and made it XP-SE or something, but 7 is not just a re-worked Vista, in my opinion, and aside from its Vista looks (and it is still slow, but not as slow as Vista is), I'm happy.

About 4 years ago, I predicted Google's OS, and it is now on the horizon, but I was thinking it would be a universal OS; a replacement for Windows. Not. I tried Linux... wanted it it to work.. but couldn't figure out how to install Linux-compatible software, as gone were the convenient ".exe" and setup" files.

that said, I agree with you that as an IT pro, any new "upgrade" as 7 could create lots of expensive downtime and a new learning curve for a bunch of computers at once. I also agree that Microsoft lies through its teeth.... but so do most other manufacturers of software , all of which will "have up up and running in just a few minutes..." to the Tech Support phones,that is. I also love the software that is up and running "in just a few (hundred) clicks."

Thanks to the Internet. solutions abound for software issues, but Windows 7 apparently has so many variants, even posts from supposed Microsoft MVPs are often inaccurate, especially when they mention something that supposed to be in the Control Panel, which simply is not. And we all know that 80% of the "solutions" posted by everyone online are usually incorrect, and/or contain links for "free software to fix it" which in fact is not free, and/or is spyware, or worse.

Anyway, I'm getting OT for this wonderfully helpful site, so I'll log off. I love it that most people here seem to be intelligent, and understand how to spell, respect grammar, and try to communicate very clearly. Thanks, all!

Personally I never had a problem with Vista, I still have it on an Older Machine I have connected to my 42 inch LG LCD TV. I still have it on my 3 1/2 year old HP Laptop a 9000 series, Laptop has 2 gig of memory, old PC has 4 gig. My main machine is running 64 bit W7 Pro with 12 gig of Mushkin Redline's with 2 gig of that dedicated to Virtual XP when running

I was very fortunate in that I got into Win7 extremely cheaply and so far it's run all my hardware (have not tried scanner yet).
Still just in play mode in 7 with XP my main O/S and so far I'd agree entirely with T/M apart from 'eye candy' I've not as yet come across anything in 7 that's so much better then XP for me to bother to switch over.
If your starting afresh it's fine to have 7 but currently my feelings are that there's no value in leaving XP just to have 7.
As I get more and more into the tweaks and tunes of 7 I may re-assess my position but for the moment it's still in test mode as far as I'm concerned.