Windows Loses Some Users Despite the Arrival of Windows8.1

Microsoft launched 2 operating system versions in the last 12 months, but this hasn’t stopped the overall market share of its platform from losing a few points every 30 days.

According to market researcher Net Applications, Windows now stands at 90.66 percent, while Mac OS X comes second with 7.73 percent. Linux is third with only 1.61 percent.

​

The difference between Windows and the other platforms is huge, but Microsoft’s operating system keeps losing points and this isn’t at all a good thing.

Only last month Windows declined from 90.81 percent to 90.66 percent, with the trend clearly showing a dropping market share for what it remains the number one operating system for desktop computers.

Windows started the year with a share of 91.71 percent, but gradually lost points as more users made the switch to other platforms.

Windows Loses Some Users Despite the Arrival of Windows 8.1

 

[jimbo45]

I don't mind that they took great steps to make the OS touch accessible. What I think most of us, and the tech world at large are upset about, is that these changes did not come in addition to the desktop friendly way of doing things, they replaced it all together..

Have to agree, they did a complete 180 and left many in the dust. I don't want my fixed desktop/laptop to act like a tablet or smart phone.

Hi there
the CONVERSE is true too - I DON'T want my tablet or phone to act as a desktop -- these devices have their uses -- more than I would have guessed even a short year ago but they are NOT desktops.

I don't have anything wrong with a Common OS - saves on development costs / maintenance but ALL parts of it must be fit for purpose.

Booting directly to the desktop was the main reason some of my original W8 "Haters" changed their minds with W8.1 - especially when I showed them about custom toolbars and how to create icon shortcuts on the desktop : go to file location ==>send to desktop(create shortcut).

In general though dedicated systems work best but if the OS can be made multi-function decently then it's fine.

I don't agree with sentiments saying Ms is forcing you to work in a particular way --it's not in THEIR interest either -- where they misjudged initially was in how much of the desktop market still (and will continue) to remain.

W8.1 seems a decently well conceived OS - especially given the mess it came from -- but it could still be improved a lot -- perhaps at install time you could select which GUI you want (or both if you want them) rather like the options you get with Windows 2012 server.

I still agree though having a "Store" is not a good idea - most of the apps are HORRIBLE - but I find most mobile phone apps pretty flakey too.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[SIW2]

The point of the phone stuff on everything is to monetise the consumers.

It is not much use MS relying solely on 2 or 3 million tablets they might have sold last year. They wanted to get hold of the 300+m who were expected to buy pc's.

That is what it is all about.

It went badly for them, so now they are trying to do the same thing more subtly.

 

[jimbo45]

Hi there.

Companies are NOT an extension of "Social Security" - I don't think people have a problem with the idea of them making money - it's HOW they make it that could be of concern.

However I'm sure that unless you hit it off with a mega winner most phone apps won't make any money at all for the developer -- the ONLY APP I've EVER paid for on a phone was the PRO version of Winamp -- I like playing music via Folders rather than playlists and it plays FLAC too which is the format I store all my music in. It also looks just like the windows version I've used for ages and was only around 4 USD anyway.

For everything else on my phone I've found a "Freebie" and usually the adverts if there are any are unobtrusive and easily ignored - if they become too riddled with commercials then just uninstall and find an alternative.

Don't forget also that if companies didn't make money there wouldn't be any investors - so no new products - and also our Pensions would be TINY if they existed at all.

State companies don't have a very good track record at innovation or even making particularly cheap products They certainly can't adapt to quickly changing markets etc. (I'm not getting involved as to whether the State should be the controller of "Natural Monopolies" like Water, Electricity etc. --That's another argument not relevant here).

Cheers
jimbo

 

[lehnerus2000]

The point of the phone stuff on everything is to monetise the consumers.

I think that the correct term is gouging.

Just like the Banks here in Australia.
If you aren't rich, you get charged if you:

• Have an account
• Take YOUR money out
• Visit a branch

The Government makes it worse by demanding that all people on benefits have a bank account.
I think that the same applies to most (if not all) Private Sector employers too.

 

[musiclover7]

I don't mind that they took great steps to make the OS touch accessible. What I think most of us, and the tech world at large are upset about, is that these changes did not come in addition to the desktop friendly way of doing things, they replaced it all together..

Have to agree, they did a complete 180 and left many in the dust. I don't want my fixed desktop/laptop to act like a tablet or smart phone.

Hi there
the CONVERSE is true too - I DON'T want my tablet or phone to act as a desktop -- these devices have their uses -- more than I would have guessed even a short year ago but they are NOT desktops.

I don't have anything wrong with a Common OS - saves on development costs / maintenance but ALL parts of it must be fit for purpose.

Booting directly to the desktop was the main reason some of my original W8 "Haters" changed their minds with W8.1 - especially when I showed them about custom toolbars and how to create icon shortcuts on the desktop : go to file location ==>send to desktop(create shortcut).

In general though dedicated systems work best but if the OS can be made multi-function decently then it's fine.

I don't agree with sentiments saying Ms is forcing you to work in a particular way --it's not in THEIR interest either -- where they misjudged initially was in how much of the desktop market still (and will continue) to remain.

W8.1 seems a decently well conceived OS - especially given the mess it came from -- but it could still be improved a lot -- perhaps at install time you could select which GUI you want (or both if you want them) rather like the options you get with Windows 2012 server.

I still agree though having a "Store" is not a good idea - most of the apps are HORRIBLE - but I find most mobile phone apps pretty flakey too.

Cheers
jimbo

You don't want desktop stuff interfering with your tablet, and I don't want tablet stuff interfering with my desktop. Tada! There is a simple solution. Include both = choice. Sorry, the vote is in. 1 year later, you folks are still in the minority.. Most people prefer the old way of doing things to the new, and as this original post indicated, they are voting with their dollars.

Keeping the start menu in the OS as a workflow choice would cause no overhead in development costs. Zilch. Nada.. None. It just would have made a lot of folks happy, and probably made windows 8 a lot more appealing to business users. Leaving it out did not have cut down on development costs.. It was already developed.

 

[XweAponX]

You don't want desktop stuff interfering with your tablet, and I don't want tablet stuff interfering with my desktop. Tada! There is a simple solution. Include both = choice. Sorry, the vote is in. 1 year later, you folks are still in the minority.. Most people prefer the old way of doing things to the new, and as this original post indicated, they are voting with their dollars.

Keeping the start menu in the OS as a workflow choice would cause no overhead in development costs. Zilch. Nada.. None. It just would have made a lot of folks happy, and probably made windows 8 a lot more appealing to business users. Leaving it out did not have cut down on development costs.. It was already developed.

Sounds a lot like "You got chocolate in my Peanut Butter"

The Program Menu is still there, it's just hidden in the ProgramData folder, allowing 3rd party apps to use it to make a Start Button. So they really only took it off of the taskbar, thinking users would be happy with this new Start Screen, but that hasn't been the case. The "Start Screen" is like the Springboard on iOS, it works best on a hand device or tablet. I don't see any use for a Desktop on a Tablet.

People who use Desktop Programs stay in the Desktop, not switch back and forth constantly. But on a tablet, it's easier to use the Springboard and the Apps that are pinned there, because it's not feasible to wear a jeweller's eyepiece to see the Desktop.

 

[musiclover7]

You don't want desktop stuff interfering with your tablet, and I don't want tablet stuff interfering with my desktop. Tada! There is a simple solution. Include both = choice. Sorry, the vote is in. 1 year later, you folks are still in the minority.. Most people prefer the old way of doing things to the new, and as this original post indicated, they are voting with their dollars.

Keeping the start menu in the OS as a workflow choice would cause no overhead in development costs. Zilch. Nada.. None. It just would have made a lot of folks happy, and probably made windows 8 a lot more appealing to business users. Leaving it out did not have cut down on development costs.. It was already developed.

Sounds a lot like "You got chocolate in my Peanut Butter"

The Program Menu is still there, it's just hidden in the ProgramData folder, allowing 3rd party apps to use it to make a Start Button. So they really only took it off of the taskbar, thinking users would be happy with this new Start Screen, but that hasn't been the case. The "Start Screen" is like the Springboard on iOS, it works best on a hand device or tablet. I don't see any use for a Desktop on a Tablet.

People who use Desktop Programs stay in the Desktop, not switch back and forth constantly. But on a tablet, it's easier to use the Springboard and the Apps that are pinned there, because it's not feasible to wear a jeweller's eyepiece to see the Desktop.

Again though.. there was an absolutely simple solution to these issues. Give a little choice to the end user.

 

[popeye]

All I've been saying is allow a choice during install. Tile or desktop (with real start taskbar) interface. I think MS is capable of doing it, duh. They just don't want to for whatever reason. The whole touch thing and block tiles just seems forced IMO. Not that my opinion means much to them.

People watching too many TV shows I guess with those huge transparent screens standing up and whipping around views.

PS: Also, like they are forcing into the setup a MS account instead of a local one. Not cool. Most folks don't realize it can be bypassed until too late.

 

[brotherboard]

As someone looking to build a new PC from scratch and who wanted to run more than 16gb ram [for video editing work] I had a choice of Windows 7 pro or Win 8.1.
Being a Win 7 home premium person I absolutely hated the thought of using Win 8 with its pre-school looking apps and touch orientated screens. However faced with paying upwards of £100 for Win 7 Pro or £68 for Win 8.1 I jumped in and chose the latter.
However, I have StartIsback running and a local account with all "metro and apps" nonsense disabled. I have to say I'm delighted with my choice. I have so far been unable to add a start-up and shutdown customised sound as in Win 7 and am unable to get a custom picture on my password screen, but I'm sure a workaround will be available soon. To all intents and purposes my system now looks pretty much like win 7 did.
I have no use for apps paid or otherwise, my system feels sleek and responsive and it's one happy MS Windows user.

 

[nguchiro]

Since MS was "allowed" to become a world monopoly then she should be forced to offer "choice" in her OS. A company cannot continue to force upon her users a compromise OS knowing full well that we have no choice other than Apple. We want the choice to choose: to have classic menus, to have start button, to NOT have Metro. Such basic choices will not affect the OS in the least and it will make everyone happy. MS has turned her OS from an UTILITY VEHICLE to a weekend warrior SUV VEHICLE OS that looks like it was designed by Fisher price.

Yes it does have improvements and if I may say is refreshingly fast. But...........!

 

[jimbo45]

Since MS was "allowed" to become a world monopoly then she should be forced to offer "choice" in her OS. A company cannot continue to force upon her users a compromise OS knowing full well that we have no choice other than Apple. We want the choice to choose: to have classic menus, to have start button, to NOT have Metro. Such basic choices will not affect the OS in the least and it will make everyone happy. MS has turned her OS from an UTILITY VEHICLE to a weekend warrior SUV VEHICLE OS that looks like it was designed by Fisher price.

Yes it does have improvements and if I may say is refreshingly fast. But...........!

Not quite sure what you mean here.

NOBODY is forcing you to run Windows on your computer.

While most laptops come pre-installed with Windows you aren't FORCED in any way to keep running Windows - and in any case if you buy a MOBO and build your own type of desktop you'll either have BUY an appropriate OS or use one of the various FREE LINUX distributions.

Ms only became a virtual monopoly for a while because there SIMPLY wasn't any decent competition -- IBM then (far far bigger than the fledgling upstart called Microsoft) had an EXCELLENT OS for PC's known as OS/2 - proper multi-tasking and multi-user - however it just wasn't interested in Home consumers but just wanted the "Corporate market" which actually didn't develop for years later - at that time corporates were using essentially MAINFRAMES and dumb terminals for their networks.

OS/2 would have blown Windows out of the entire universe had it developed properly -- but as we know --"The rest is History" -- big company IBM makes a bad business decision while the upstart Microsoft gets the space all to itself - and what an opportunity that was.

OS/2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's perfectly OK to go in for a spot of "Ms Bashing" where appropriate - and on the question of being forced to use the OS isn't one of them.

I don't see though why they couldn't have adopted the W 2012 server route where the "Desktop experience" (Tiles and all) is an install selectable feature. (can also be added afterwards too).

However W8.1 can get rid of most of the annoying W8 stuff.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[echrada]

Instead of jumping through all the hoops to make my Windows 8/8.1 act like Windows 7, I am just doing the simple thing and staying with Windows 7. Maybe Windows 9 will be the upgrade I am going to be happy with.

 

[HippsieGypsie]

Not quite sure what you mean here.

NOBODY is forcing you to run Windows on your computer.

I agree, Jim. No one is forcing anyone into anything. Where people come up with these ideas are beyond me. There are choices, especially with 8.1.

Excellent post and article on history. Although quite lengthy, I read most of the during my morning coffee. Excellent reading.

In a way IBM did take a look at the home PC market for they developed SCAMP, which was the first minicomputer developed in the United States, although not the first in the world. This lead to their development of the IBM 5100. However, at the time these were too expensive for a home owner/commoner to purchase.

Personal computer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think their mistake was that they didn't realize the potential of the home PC market. Basically they wanted to take the "Apple" approach bundling their software (OS/2) with their hardware in an attempt to corner most of the home PC market. In the meantime enterprise stuck with mainframes/terminals as you stated. The Microsoft boys on the other hand are thinking that is a limited market and approached other manufactures to bundle their product with PCs > PCs that were far less expensive than what IBM could put out. Bottom line is that the "commoner" wasn't going to nor could they pay "IBM enterprise" prices.

What was really interesting to me was the "divorce" and the issue over drivers. This to me is where MS with Windows had it over on IBM OS/2 > Same thing today > Driver library. What continues to be 80-90% of problems with computers/devices to this day? > Drivers, whether ill-written or lack of. This is why I think Linux or a native Chrome OS will never make it big time.

1990: Breakup

In addition, OS/2 lacked device drivers for many common devices such as printers, particularly non-IBM hardware. Windows, on the other hand, supported a much larger variety of hardware. The increasing popularity of Windows prompted Microsoft to shift its development focus from cooperating on OS/2 with IBM to building their own business based on Windows. Several technical and practical reasons contributed to this breakup:

Here we are some 20 plus years later. Here's the problem MS fights today > Windows became so popular, especially with enterprise, that most think it is an "enterprise only OS" when in fact it is the "best-over-all-fitting" OS both to enterprise and the commoner. I don't see where in MS history that they ever zeroed in solely on enterprise only. From what you stated it seems to me that Windows Server 2012 is the one targeted at enterprise, so who is really left out?

 

[HippsieGypsie]

Instead of jumping through all the hoops to make my Windows 8/8.1 act like Windows 7, I am just doing the simple thing and staying with Windows 7. Maybe Windows 9 will be the upgrade I am going to be happy with.

Surely a person with wisdom of acceptance! :thumb:

 

[SIW2]

Wow. No surprise these big corps are able to get away with so much.

They really must start teaching this stuff in schools.

 

[MrBill]

My desktop had Windows 8 on it. I tried 8.1, and did not like either. I installed Windows 7, Asus had the drivers for this model so it was all good. From a cost standpoint, every Windows 7 license at this point is cheaper for the Microsoft to sell anyway. The support cost for Microsoft are much lower on Windows 7 than Windows 8.x. Yes, they lose out on the R&D of 8, but in the end they get the money either way. There is a hint, based on the shakeups, that the desktop will have different in the future with their "optimized environment for different devices." That said, Windows Phone 8 and Windows tablets are not going anywhere, and to be honest I can't wait to buy one in another year when the apps have matured a little bit more.

 

[nguchiro]

Not quite sure what you mean here.

NOBODY is forcing you to run Windows on your computer.
............

Whether you agree or not MS is a global monopoly. No I do not have a choice as Apple is too expensive and Linux will not run most of my software. I am stuck with windows. Don't get me wrong; I have been using and happily so, windows since win 95. The issue here is that MS has removed our ability of choice. It started with win 7 when we no longer could choose classic menus. MS forced us to accept changes irrespective of whether it made life more difficult. An example being the Ribbon
interface. What will it cost MS to just give us the choice of choosing to have classic menus etc?

I also have a question regarding Metro. I live in Africa and we pay internet by kbs used and it is expensive. I noticed that my win 8 laptop is using a lot of kbs. Although I have bypassed Metro with classic shell. Does Metro continue to run in the background?

 

[mart44]

Does Metro continue to run in the background?

I don't know but you could go to the Metro interface and turn off any 'Live Tiles' to see if that makes a difference.

 

[justmetoday]

NOBODY is forcing you to run Windows on your computer.


Cheers
jimbo

The problem with this answer is, almost all new PC's have Windows 8 pre-installed, that you pay an extra $50 - $100 for the price of that PC (why they have as many sales of Win 8 as they do) , and to get to use a different OS you have to buy it. So yes, people are forced to have a certain OS on their systems.

Now, I wished manufactures would allow you to chose which OS you want on your system, that way it doesn't cost extra. I wished people would quit saying "your not forced to use it", when in reality they are.

 

[mdmd]

NOBODY is forcing you to run Windows on your computer.
Cheers
jimbo

... Now, I wish manufacturers would allow you to choose which OS you want on your system, that way it doesn't cost extra. I wish people would quit saying "you're not forced to use it", when in reality they are.

Hello justmetoday. Welcome to 8 Forums.

They do. If you want a pre built system you can go to a manufacturer that offers a configurator.