Did A Google Earth Mistake Cause A Couple's Brutal Murder?
Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
Windows 7: The fastest selling operating system in history
It's not particularly surprising, considering Windows is PC sales, but it still would've been nice to get some raw figures. In the mean time we'll just have to rely on data gathered by outside sources like Net Applications. Did you notice that XP is losing users faster than Vista? I suppose that's the die-hard Windows XP user base finally jumping ship to an operating system worthy of their money.
Comments
24
Subscribe to commentsbdgbillJan 7th 2010 12:38PM
I don't think this is anything for Microsoft to crow about. I made sure to buy a new laptop just as the last XP units were being sold off. I waited for Vista to improve before buying another machine.
After the first year of Vista, I knew I never wanted to own this operating system and started waiting for W7.
I know many other people and businesses that did the same thing. This is just pent up demand from 2.5 years of people avoiding upgrading their hardware because they didn't want to deal with Vista.
JordanJan 7th 2010 1:05PM
Actually it is a bid deal. In an age where everything seems to be "Apple this" or "Apple that", to be the fastest selling OS in history is a huge acheivement. Especially considering Microsoft was coming in off the trail of Vista.
However fastest does not equate to most, so we'll have to wait for some hard numbers.
Sebastian AnthonyJan 7th 2010 1:17PM
I don't think 'most' will ever really mean much, with the number of devices-with-operating-systems increasing every day :)
And just look at that Windows XP bar on the graph...
JackieJan 7th 2010 1:06PM
I thought Windows XP was good especially after having ME (biggest piece of junk ever put out!). Then came Vista - not quite as terrible as ME but still birds of a feather so it would really take a disaster not to be better than ME and Vista. Amazing when there is a software program from Microsoft, they can always work to see if they can fail at the next release. I will keep a wait and see attitude towards this new release and continue with XP for now. Not that XP is great but at least it works (with updates) most of the time.
beadtmdcJan 7th 2010 1:07PM
I was an XP user since 2004 and I was very happy with that OS, I skipped Windows Vista, and now I'm using Windows 7 and to be honest, this is a huge improvement from Windows XP. For some Windows Vista users, Windows 7 is nothing new, or they don't see a huge improvement, but for XP users, Windows 7 is Great!
Plus, I'm happy to see what Apple took two years or even more, Windows 7 did it in weeks.
CharlesJan 7th 2010 10:31PM
That's because Windows 7 copied the ideas. They didn't innovate them.
Sebastian AnthonyJan 7th 2010 10:34PM
So did World of Warcraft...
Your point? :P
cxccxvcxvcxvJan 8th 2010 4:46AM
Now that I have Win7 (came with new notebook) I really don't understand what all the fuss was about. The explorer sucks just as much as in Vista, and that was the thing that most annoyed me about Vista.
If it weren't for 64-bit, hardware support, driver support etc. pp. I'd still be using XP. XP was just perfect UI-wise.
Of course, just as with any Windows, in Win7 you can configure a lot, add third party software etc. until it is a good user experience, but Win7 requires more of that than XP did; so in my opinion it's a step backward.
MusaJan 7th 2010 1:38PM
Seems a bit odd since 99.9% of Linux users do not need to pay for their OS.
emma.smith786Jan 8th 2010 1:56AM
People are always ready for good technology in computer field.
ZimmerJan 8th 2010 7:05AM
I laugh at the stubborn XP users who are so certain that XP is better that they don't even give W7 a chance. EVEN after they've made the transition.
Learn to change, learn to adapt. The fact remains that W7 is the greatest operating system that MS has ever released. Bar none. XP was good for MS, but that's not really saying much, as most of their operating systems sucked.
With W7, MS can finally say that they are on the same "wavelength" as Apple in terms of usability and accessibility when it comes to OSes. The design works, the UI overhaul is good and it's optimised, fast and stable. What more could you want?
Those idiots that are whining about it having a poor explorer and that you prefer the XP style... Quit moaning. XPs explorer was an absolute disgrace, so was the search and the UI wasn't exactly anything fantastic. The fact is, you dislike change, like most human beings do, but your complaints are null and void. Just admit you prefer XP but you don't actually have facts to back up that XP is better than W7. It isn't. Fact.
vcvcvbcvcvbJan 8th 2010 7:58AM
I am not sure if this is just a troll, but anyway:
>don't even give W7 a chance. EVEN after they've made the transition.
I am not sure how it is even possible NOT to give it a chance, when you use it everyday... doesn't that happen automatically?
>MS can finally say that they are on the same "wavelength" as Apple in terms of usability
True, and that's part of the problem, because Apple has never been great in terms of usability. I should know since I have to use them regularly at work.
>it's optimised, fast and stable.
Also true. But the same is true for XP. Especially when you run it on today's hardware XP's amazingly smooth.
>XPs explorer was an absolute disgrace, so was the search and the UI wasn't exactly anything fantastic.
The thing about the search is about the only real argument in your whole rant. Yes, search in XP sucked. But there's an app for that (e.g. the wonderful Everything, which, by the way, I am still using on W7).
>you dislike change,
On the contrary. I love change -- when it's an actual improvement. Change in itself is worthless.
>Just admit you prefer XP but you don't actually have facts to back up that XP is better than W7. It isn't. Fact.
You're not very forthcoming with facts to back up that W7 is better than XP, either.
ZimmerJan 8th 2010 8:33AM
I am not sure how it is even possible NOT to give it a chance, when you use it everyday... doesn't that happen automatically?
- What? I was merely implying that even after XP users have moved to W7, they still want to bash it and not accept it as a better operating system.
True, and that's part of the problem, because Apple has never been great in terms of usability. I should know since I have to use them regularly at work.
- Point taken, but you really hate the look, then you can attempt to theme it to XP. Yeah, you'll still have icons instead of text, but it's not that big a deal. The thing is, how has it been made any worse in terms of usability? Aero Snap is fantastic, Peek is great, the windows all work as they should do; Search works; Control panel is decent enough... What has been taken OUT from XP that makes this so bad? I honestly cannot see anything.
Also true. But the same is true for XP. Especially when you run it on today's hardware XP's amazingly smooth.
- Eh.... Not for 64 bit. The future is 64bit, and W7 64bit is a massive leap in that direction. XP has tons of issues. Also, driver installation on XP has always been a total pain, whereas with W7 it isn't. Some may want to argue that that isn't the case, but the fact remains, for any idiot getting a new PC, he will run into less problems with W7.
The thing about the search is about the only real argument in your whole rant. Yes, search in XP sucked. But there's an app for that (e.g. the wonderful Everything, which, by the way, I am still using on W7).
- Your point? We can download apps for nearly everything if you want to take over the OS and customise it to your liking. We're not talking about apps, we're talking about the core system.
On the contrary. I love change -- when it's an actual improvement. Change in itself is worthless.
- Since when is it NOT an improvement? See, you counter my arguments with absolutely nothing. Granted, I didn't give much evidence showing how W7 is better, but you aren't saying much about XP. The fact still remains this is the best OS they have released. Not saying much, I know, but I still think it's a step in the right direction.
cvbcvbcvbJan 8th 2010 9:16AM
As you may remember I only complained about the Explorer. Here are some points that suck about it:
- "explorer /n /e /root" does not work properly anymore
- right-clicking on the window icon does not give you a shell context menu anymore
- in fact there is no reasonable way at all to get a shell context menu for the currently open folder
- there is no "folder up" button anymore
- the status bar does not display file sizes anymore. Instead you have to use the details pane that takes up more screen space and is otherwise useless.
- the command bar contains totally useless buttons (like "burn"; WTF -- the age of optical media is over and NOW microsoft adds a "burn"-button?)
- the command bar cannot be hidden. In XP everything could be hidden.
- the command bar cannot be customized to MAKE it useful. Actually there are some registry hacks for it, but they are badly documented and terribly complicated. I still haven't figured out completely how to do it. Compare that to how easy it is to add custom context menu entries since win95. Why didn't MS make the commandbar like that? I don't get it.
i am sure there is more, this is from the top of my head.
ZimmerJan 8th 2010 9:56AM
You know, now that you point that out to me, you are indeed correct about all of it. You've pointed out things that actually DO annoy me about W7 - I could never really put my finger on them - and you are right about the explorer not being all that it should be. The biggest flaw is the status bar and the sort, I have to drag the little folder details at the bottom when I have mutliple files selected to actually check the size of the files I have selected.
The "up" feature has never really been a problem for me - This was technically replaced by the clickable browser bar where you can up one level by simply clicking on the folder.
Yeah, the command bar does contain totally useless buttons.
Yes, I do see that to a large extent, W7 has become LESS customisable in terms of UI and options - But when you look at the "overall" picture of W7 in comparison with XP, it is a better operating system to be on. Granted, we should all just switch to Linux and customisation would never be a problem anymore, but that's what you get when you buy an operating system from Apple or MS. You get something that already has predefined options that are going to piss you off.
As browsing files through folders isn't one of my main concerns (my computer is either for web browsing or web development, and when I need to browse through frameworks and applications, I'll do it instinctively from my Netbeans IDE) I just don't see why I should complain much about it. If you're the sort of guy that constantly uses the explorer window to do things, then fair enough, it's a bit of a poor. I guess the decent search system does make up for a bit of that, though.
DaneJan 8th 2010 10:17AM
Windows 3.1 sold 3 million copies in the first two months. I doubt 7's gotten that popular.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_3.1x#Promotion_and_reception
Sebastian AnthonyJan 8th 2010 10:21AM
Hm...
5% is a pretty big cut.
I think it's probably more than 3 million, but I'm sure you could check the Net Applications site to see what their sample size is.
qazwizJan 8th 2010 12:26PM
"fastest selling", maybe so, after they stopped selling XP
and of course, "fastest selling" still doesn't mean, most used.... not only are all those XP machines out there not included in "fastest selling" (M$ aint selling it anymore so M$ zombies have no choice) but my OS was not included in the definition of "Fastest Selling" since I just "Bought" my upgrade a couple hours ago at a price of download bandwidth alone
yes, when they call it "fastest SELLING" their accounting department can ignore all those free major upgrades to linux that M$ would charge $100 for if they owned linux patents
JayPJan 8th 2010 9:57PM
I bought 3 Macs and still have my 2 older XP Pro Pc's to run older software if necessary. Though I haven't really used them since the macs.
Snow Leopard was the fastest selling and most reasonably priced in my eyes.
Vista SP2, I mean Windows7 is not for me or our business.
TyrothJan 14th 2010 10:10PM
Well, seeing as how SP2's out...You can lay off the lame jokes. If you actually wanna be correct, Vista was written off of the original Windows 7 coding. Look up some Microsoft history there, bub. As for older software, Windows 7 can run 98 software that not even XP runs. Boo-yah