Microsoft's NEW OS now runs on HALF of ALL desktop PCs One of Microsoft’s newest operating systems now runs on half of desktops – but it’s not the one Redmond might have wished. Windows 7 accounted for 50.06 per cent of operating system market share in May according to Netmarketshare’s running monthly tally. The operating system expanded its share from 49.27 per cent in April. …
I built a Core I7 9xx PC for one of my "godchildren" a few years ago when he started his career by moving to the big city. There was an XP disk for transition from his existing system and games etc - and a Vista 64 disk for "the future". It has just come back for some maintenance. The Vista has hardly been used, if ever. It will now be replaced by W7 64 - with the XP as the fall back for any compatibility issues.
I'm not sure if the graphs they have are accurate as to their data. I see the same results when I filter for US or for China. I could see 48% iOS share in the US, but in China it would be down in the single digits.
Same thing if you look at browser data, it shows around 50% for IE even in the US. I could believe that's maybe the case worldwide, but clearly not in the US.
Either their web site is broken as far as presenting the results, or their methodology leaves a lot to be desired!
Then you're not actually using it. Go try copying a bunch of small files. That was atrocious and if something that basic was so totally broken no 'marketing' could help it.
This is from experience. Tried copying a bunch of OpenOffice clipart from the wife's laptop. I let it run even though it reported that it would take hours to copy and it did.
Using a Linux machine, mere minutes.
Perhaps the Vista user got updates and installed them and therefore perhaps the broken copy was repaired.
Ironically, I had a similar problem with Linux when I had to create supermassive files to fill disks and emulate video files etc.
On linux, redirecting /dev/zero or, worse /dev/random took, practically forever. Using memory/file-mapping was reasonably successful but also took ages and ages and ages.
On windows I could create multi-Gigabyte files in split seconds, filling a disc in no time.
Obviously, someone will dispute this and write something that says they can create files in no time. Perhaps it is so on your multi-core bad-ass desktop but no so much on a set top box.
PS. Obviously, this is because windows happens to create the files without ever writing data, it just links sectors and blocks etc. to make a file of the required size. If I had wanted specific data it would have just as long I am sure.
I'm sure Windows would take an age to create a new file if you did it by filling the file with the output of %RANDOM%.
MS Management bringing forward the Windows 7 retirement date to next year.
"we have to get these ***** onto our latest product NOW!" {chair flying....}
Oh sorry, Balmer has gone but frankly MS wants everyone onto a METRO system ASAP. Then they can implement the per day rental model. Don't pay? Sorry you have no access to your data.
Microsoft doing that would create an opening for "Business Linux" (possibly hidden behind a non-Linux name, just as Linux's conquest of the mobile world goes by the name "Android").
Microsoft has jettisoned its CEO just in time, now to see if it can also jettison the business plan made out of FAIL.
Android is not Linux just as Apple OSX is not *BSD or NextSTEP. The fact that they use a kernel used also by other operating systems, for example "GNU Linux" like the purists like to name it, doesn't mean they are the same OS. Android is a very different OS than GNU Linux, despite sharing a kernel. While OSX is not neither NextStep nor *BSD, despite borrowing heavily from both.ù
After all Android is more a Java OS than a Linux one. If one day the Linux Kernel team asked Google to remove it from Android, Google would have less issues than if Oracle won its suit, and Android has remove Java from Android...
> If one day the Linux Kernel team asked Google to remove it from Android, Google would have less issues than if Oracle won its suit, and Android has remove Java from Android...
Only by slightly. Neither would be something that could be done in a week or even probably a year (and assuming moving to something already existing, to write a modern OS kernel from the ground up definitely talking years).
>> Android is not Linux
> An OS is not the kernel alone.
You are confused, mainly about what 'Linus' is. Linux is the kernel that is used by all 'Linux' distros. Android has a Linux kernel, SUSE has a Linux kernel, Fedora has a Linux kernel, .. and they are all the same kernel. So Android _is_ a Linux distro (plus a lot of other stuff), exactly the same as Ubuntu is Linux plus a lot of other stuff.
Android happens to run a Dalvik VM but it is not the only way of running apps. For example there is C4droid which provdies C and C++ and a GNU environment.
The difference is much the same as, say, Windows 7 and Windows RT. If you think they are both 'Windows' then Android and Ubuntu and both 'Linux'.
You are confused about what an OS is. It's not the kernel alone. You got used to call "Linux" whatever use a Linux as a kernel, but that doesn't make an OS "Linux" - it could be just an OS using a Linux kernel. Is OSX a *BSD? No, it isn't, there are much more built atop whatever is borrowed from *BSD to make OSX a *BSD. And the same is true for Android, there is much more built atop the Linux kernel to make it a "Linux".
As I wrote, it would be easier for Google to replace say the Linux kernel with a *BSD one, that replacing the Java VM with something else - and most Android "services" needs you to call the Java API, not the kernel one.
Win32 API and WinRT API are enough different to make them two different operating systems - just sharing a name because the maker is the same.
>As I wrote, it would be easier for Google to replace say the Linux kernel with a *BSD one, that replacing the Java VM with something else - and most Android "services" needs you to call the Java API, not the kernel one.
I can buy that to some extent except more than just Google would have to deal with a kernel change. In addition to the apps using the native SDK instead of just Dalvik (which would require refactoring) the handset manufacturers would also have to rewrite drivers for old hardware if they wanted an upgrade path in addition to probably having to put in more time/money to support future hardware as out of the box BSD for example has a shit ton less hardware support than Linux.
> You got used to call "Linux" whatever use a Linux as a kernel,
Where did you get that from ? I call the kernel 'Linux' and if is is a complete OS (plus lots of other stuff) I call it a 'Linux distro'. Android is a 'Linux distro'.
> but that doesn't make an OS "Linux"
The kernel makes it a 'Linux OS' when other stuff is added. Android adds that other stuff, Fedora adds that other stuff.
> As I wrote, it would be easier for Google to replace say the Linux kernel with a *BSD one, that replacing the Java VM with something else - and most Android "services" needs you to call the Java API, not the kernel one.
You are confused even more. BSD has a different interface. While, say, KDE runs on both Linux distros and on various BSD distros that does not mean that the Linux KDE, or any other Linux program, will just run on BSD, a compatibility layer is required.
Android does not run a 'Java VM', it runs a completely different 'Dalvik VM'. It may happen that Java code can be compiled to run on the Dalvik VM. But then Scala code can also be compiled to run on the Dalvik VM. There is no reason that other languages can also run, eg Python, Lua, Javascript run on my Androids.
Contrary to your claim there _is_ a new VM developed by Google that can replace the current "Java VM" [sic] on Android 4. It is called ART (Android run Time).
> and most Android "services" needs you to call the Java API, not the kernel one.
Of course the services are not in the kernel. That is like using MS Office as a service is done by calling the Office API and not the Windows kernel. Similar Google services may also run on other OSes, such as Windows, and again they are not accessed by calling the Windows kernel.
On Android the Google services are optional and are not part of the OS. For example Amazon has Android (though with a different name) but no Google Services, though they could be added by the user.
> Win32 API and WinRT API are enough different to make them two different operating systems - just sharing a name because the maker is the same.
And yet both Win 8 and Win RT are said by MS to be built on the same kernel, just as Android and Fedora are built on the same Linux kernel.
All *nix are more or less POSIX compliant systems. Sure, there are some differences among them - but they want to be POSIX compliant. That's mean they have a lot of similar API. The same way Linux is not Unix but looks very much alike. And BSD is another Unix clone.
It's funny that you say Android is Linux, but Dalvik is not Java. Something is something only when you like it? Everything could be compiled into Java byte code. It was only the Java license forbidding it (unlike the .NET license, did you ever read a license?). That's why Google attempted to bypass the Java license using Dalvik and Harmony. If the court rules against it, it will be fun for Google.
Anyway, even the NDK needs JNI to be able to call in and out from the Java environment, and offers just a subset of what Android can do. The NDK is more aimed at implementing code that needs to be fast in C, than to call directly into the kernel (which would open a Pandora box from a security perspective).
When I wrote "services" I meant OS services. Not all OS services are implemented at the kernel level. It's funny, for example, that Linux fanboys still complain that Windows moved the GUI "services" from user mode to kernel mode. Not everything an OS offers is in the kernel, and an OS is far more than its kernel. But probably you never wrote an OS so you can't understand, especially if you've been brainwashed by Linux worshippers.
Windows RT and Win32 are both built on the same kernel, sure - but that doesn't mean they are the same OS. They are a good example of that. They are different OS built on the same kernel.
> It's funny that you say Android is Linux, but Dalvik is not Java. Something is something only when you like it?
Do try and read what I wrote instead of incompetently making up what you prefer to use as an argument.
Android is 'based on Linux', Android is a 'Linux OS', Android is a 'Linux distro'. It is you who wants to conflate 'Linux' (the kernel) with 'Android' (the OS) and then argue that it is not. I have not seen anyone claim that Android is _only_ Linux.
You may also note, if you care to read more closely, that I said that the 'Dalvik VM' is not a 'Java VM'. This is obviously a technical issue that is quite beyond you. That the Java language can be compiled to produce byte code for the Dalvik VM does not make Dalvik a 'Java VM'. Many languages can be used to create byte code for either.
> Everything could be compiled into Java byte code.
It could be, but then it could be compiled into Python byte code, or (as some Java language compilers do) directly into machine code. In fact the main difference between Dalvik and ART is that Dalvik runs the JIT compiler at run time as required and ART runs it at install time and thus the 'VM' actually only sees machine code.
> When I wrote "services" I meant OS services. Not all OS services are implemented at the kernel level. It's funny, for example, that Linux fanboys still complain that Windows moved the GUI "services" from user mode to kernel mode. Not everything an OS offers is in the kernel, and an OS is far more than its kernel. But probably you never wrote an OS so you can't understand, especially if you've been brainwashed by Linux worshippers.
I am not sure that it is "Linux fanboys" that 'complain' about the GUI services being moved into kernel mode, it is more likely that security experts did, or Windows users. It does make it more difficult to change the GUI to something that they might prefer.
> an OS is far more than its kernel
I am not sure what your point is, I certainly didn't say it wasn't. But an OS does not have to encompass a specific set of services. Many of the largest computers do not have a GUI. In fact even Windows Server can be installed without a GUI. It happens that the Linux kernel does not include GUI services so that the user can choose which they want, or none if just a text interface, or no UI, is required. That means that applications access the GUI services via libraries, such as GTK or Qt, or via the API provided by Android, or Mono, or .NET.
In fact with most languages services are almost always accessed via libraries that are layered on top of the kernel.
> Windows RT and Win32 are both built on the same kernel, sure - but that doesn't mean they are the same OS.
And that means they are both 'Windows OSes' that have different GUIs (and some other services), just as, say, Android and Ubuntu are both 'Linux OSes' that have different GUIs (and other services). Actually, in some cases, you can run a version of Ubuntu on an Android base, using just the one kernel, and have both GUIs.
"""Both Ubuntu and Android run at the same time on the mobile device, without emulation or virtualization, and without the need to reboot. This is possible because both Ubuntu and Android share the same kernel (Linux).[2]"""
> All *nix are more or less POSIX compliant systems. Sure, there are some differences among them - but they want to be POSIX compliant. That's mean they have a lot of similar API. The same way Linux is not Unix but looks very much alike. And BSD is another Unix clone.
You are confused. There are various 'BSDs' but they originate from the actual AT&T UNIX codebase and, in fact, much code developed by Berkeley was incorporated into AT&T Unix. It is not a 'clone'.
POSIX defines the _Application_Programming_Interface_ (plus other stuff), not the 'kernel interface'. In practice this means that a set of C libraries can provide the API for the system to be compliant and yet the OS kernels can be completely different. Even Windows NT/2000 could claim to be POSIX compliant.
This does not mean that it would be easy for Google to replace Linux with Windows, or even with one of the BSDs, especially as Android does not rely on or claim POSIX compliance and only implements a subset via the Bionic C library.
Your claim that Google could do something (that you have never done) easier than doing something else (which you have also not done) is completely spurious:
"""it would be easier for Google to replace say the Linux kernel with a *BSD one, that replacing the Java VM with something else"""
Especially as you rely, incompetently, on POSIX and that Google a) never used a 'Java VM' it used Dalvik and b) it _is_ replacing Dalvik with ART.
Odd isn't it that MS were chasing after Android and IOS with Windows 8, but the way they did it made no sense.
They dominate the desktop/laptop OS market so in order to leverage that dominance they decided to totally change the GUI and make the desktop GUI like their new phone GUI. How does that even begin to make sense?
How to make your loyal userbase move with you into a new market? Totally alienate them if you're Microsoft.
After all did Apple try to unify IOS and OSX?
> in order to leverage that dominance they decided to totally change the GUI and make the desktop GUI like their new phone GUI. How does that even begin to make sense?
Windows Phone was not selling and consultants told them that the reason was because the WP UI was 'unfamiliar'. They put Metro on Windows 8, without the option, in order to make Metro 'the most familiar UI'. Then, according to the consultants, users would be _demanding_ phones and tablets with that familiar UI. Once more they would be back on the path to world domination.
Microsoft have realised that the future is touch and gesture based computing. Unfortunately in moving ahead of the curve and pre-empting where everyone else will be going - Microsoft have indeed alienated some of their user base. At least in the short term anyway...
In the longer term, unifying their OSs and moving to single kernel with a fully touch based model was definitely the right thing to do. Mass adoption might take time, but it will come. And when it does, Microsoft will be in a stronger position than vendors that have to support multiple OS versions across the same range of hardware formats....
I was quite excited a few months back when el-reg showed the photo on Windows with the Start Menu back. But as it stands, I have 100+ people at my company who use Windows 7 everyday, all these people want and need is the tools to do their job. If I rolled out Windows 8 on our network it would
a) Cause panic because people will freak out as they can't find what they need
b) Cause a revolt when people demand Windows 7 back
c) Make my life incredibly difficult dealing with the above and having to train them on the changes
So, Windows 8+ will not see the light of day on our network until Microsoft delivers experience and usability that is consistent with Windows 7.
I was talking to a Microsoft rep a couple of days ago about upgrading, he tried convincing me that Microsoft make it painless by offering lots of onsite and online training. He did not comprehend that if staff have to go through this, it brings disruption to staff, the business and at the end of the day will hit the companies profits.
People like you like to conflate the so-called problem to validate your own opinion - employees will manage just fine when they aren't coddled and will take no more than thirty minutes to work it out - these are the same people who somehow managed to work a smart phone, drive a manual vehicle and do their tax return without your finger up their backside. I'm sure they will work out the big square icons all by themselves without your "help"
"Have you ever worked in IT support???"
Yes
"Half of them couldn't even find their backside. With both hands."
Half of the users that call maybe, most users just get on with it and only call when something is actually broken. No matter what minor change you make the retards will call, if we accommodated the tards willingness to accept change we'd still be using Windows for workgroups.
"Oh, and driving a manual vehicle is NOT a sign of increased intelligence. It's a basic skill most of the rest of world just performs."
I never said it was a sign of intelligence, it is however more of an intellectual challenge than clicking on big square icons instead of little square icons. And as you point out this is something large portions of the worlds population somehow manage to do on a daily basis.
How much training takes to drive a vehicle? And how much it costs? And how many people around actually drive a vehicle, but it would be better if they don't?
And why vehicles still use a very outdate UI like a wheel and pedals? Why don't we all drive cars with joysticks, or the like? Why the gear lever is always in the same position and each car doesn't put it wherever it likes? Why pedals are always the same? Because change them and most drivers will not be able to drive a vehicle any longer without proper training, while being very dangerous meanwhile.
>> "Oh, and driving a manual vehicle
> it is however more of an intellectual challenge than clicking on big square icons instead of little square icons.
In this country one can get a driving license for automatic gearbox cars or a different one that covers all cars (but the test must be sat in a manual car). The reason is that to drive a manual car requires _training_ that is different from automatics.
And that is the point, Windows 8 will require _training_, or time for self-training. Not only because it looks different but because all the automatic muscle reactions that have been learned now cause confusion and new ones must be relearned. This is time and cost.
"employees will manage just fine when they aren't coddled and will take no more than thirty minutes to work it out"
Whose budget are the man hours lost from as people work out whatever you thought it would take 30 minutes to work out? Since that might work out to a lot of money, it would pretty clearly be cheaper not to indulge Microsoft's fetish for Fisher-Price interfaces and stick with 7...
"People like you like to conflate the so-called problem to validate your own opinion"
Thats right - People like me, who are paid to deliver such decisions, more commonly known as professionals. I pitty which ever company hires you as a PFY wanna-be, now go un-jam that printer!!
(/me preps the cattle prod!)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
