| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Software's Gentler Giant? | |
|
||
| Time: 09:44 EST/14:44 GMT | News Source: Washington Post | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
For millions of consumers at home and at work, using a computer means using Microsoft. Its Windows operating system powers more than 90 percent of the world's personal computers. Its programs for Internet surfing, word processing and spreadsheet calculations barely have competition. It is aggressively pushing into online gaming, entertainment and corporate systems. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 260 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:37:53 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 7797 (63.76.44.252) at 9/30/2003 11:29:04 AM |
|
re: As for Apple having 7% market share ... try 2% or so.
Yep, believe parker. He is the ultimate source and final and exclusive authority on OS marketshare knowledge. |
| #2 By 7711 (12.107.81.66) at 9/30/2003 11:58:52 AM |
|
Maybe not an accurate measure, but...
"According to Google's Zeitgeist search analysis page, in July 2003, 92% of the computers that accessed Google were running a version of the Windows OS. Only 3% of the comptuers used to access Google were running a version of the Mac OS." |
| #3 By 7711 (12.107.81.66) at 9/30/2003 12:02:10 PM |
|
Or...
"Further underscoring Windows' dominance are findings from OneStat.com. The company reported in September 2002 that Windows accounts for 97.46 percent of the global operating system market. The second most popular operating system, Apple's Macintosh, trails dismally at 1.43 percent, followed by Linux with 0.26 percent." http://cyberatlas.internet.com/big_picture/applications/article/0,,1301_2205811,00.html |
| #4 By 16451 (63.227.226.13) at 9/30/2003 12:37:15 PM |
| Wow. Linux sure gets alot of attention for having only a 0.26% marketshare. Imagine if it were 2.6% ;-) |
| #5 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 9/30/2003 5:51:46 PM |
| Uh, Jesus, in the very least, for the last several quarters, Apple has had 2.1 to 2.9 % of new personal computer sales. Using web stats is simply retarded. The 7% number CooCooCaChoo is using refers to Apple's % of laptops in the U.S. for the last reported quarter. User base size? WHo knows, but probably around 4-7 %. |
| #6 By 7711 (68.45.61.39) at 9/30/2003 6:34:33 PM |
|
MS had better look out....
Sept 2002 Mac 1.43%, Linux 0.26% Sept 2003 Mac 1.49%, Linux 0.51% They're gaining fast!!! ;) Jerk, I do agree that web stats are not the most accurate measure, but it's tough to argue with 97%+ compared to 1.5%-. That is what is usually called a landslide (or the Presidential elections in Iraq)....sorry, off topic. |
| #7 By 7797 (63.76.44.252) at 9/30/2003 8:15:09 PM |
|
dkg_ctc:
"C'mon tgnb, come back and refute the numbers! After all, you obviously think that parker is wrong, which would mean that all the indicators (Google's Zeitgeist, OneStat, etc) are wrong as well." Those sites, nor any other sites are reliable or accurate indicators of global os market share. If you believe they are, please let me know the scientific method they use to measure an apropriately balanced sample size. This post was edited by tgnb on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 at 20:21. |
| #8 By 7797 (64.244.109.161) at 9/30/2003 11:55:39 PM |
|
parker:
"Google responds to more than 200 million search queries per day" Yeah? And? That doesn't make it an authority on os market share. What percentage of computer users worldwide use google? What percentage of physical computers are used to search google? Just because they handle a LOT of searches doesn't mean its a "balanced" sample, nor does it mean the sample size is big enough to come to an acceptable conclusion about OS market share. What percentage of Linux computers are used to search google compared to the same percentage of windows and mac computers? Google doesnt even themselves claim to be an indicator for os market share. Thats what you and others interpret; or is there a google.com site that claims that those statistics are a good indicator of os market share. Care to show me that site? "OneStat.com is the number one provider of real-time web site analytics in the world. Our superior technology powers more than 50,000 websites in 100 countries. " Thats a self proclaimed statement. Have their methods been independently evaluated? Have they even given ANY detail other than that sentence you quoted on how they get their data and how that proves to be a fair sample? What about beowulf clusters consisting of thousands of servers? Do they count as 1 computer? Do they even get counted by google or One-stat? Onestat claims 1.49% for Mac? Do you really believe they have a big enough sample size to calculate the os market share down to 1/100th of a percent? Why don't they give more details about how big exactly their sample size is? Why don't they give any details at all? No details but they have it down to 1/100th of a percent? Have you seen their technical specs? there is nothing technical about them. if onestat is a great indicator why isn't netcraft? server's don't have OS's? there aren't enough servers to matter? What about cellphones and pda's? does onestat count those OS's? dkg_ctc: "why don't you give us what you consider to be "fair and accurate" numbers" I can't give you what i dont think exists. No one is arguing that windows is dominant and linux and mac are small fractions in comparison. But to make google or onestat etc authoritative on os marketshare numbers down to a percentage point is silly. This post was edited by tgnb on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 at 00:02. |
| #9 By 7797 (64.244.109.161) at 10/1/2003 12:50:21 AM |
|
parker no one is doubting that ms has a huge share of the market here. i dont' know why you feel the need to point this out. Everyone here knows and agrees.
200 million searches a day does not equal to 200 million OS counts per day. 60,000 search queries a month? What is the average number of queries per user per day/month? I search google at least 20 times per day. does that mean my 600 queries per month make 600 OS counts? How many search queries does it take a mac geek to find what they are looking for on average? how many queries does it take joe blow windows user to find what they are looking for? And what about answering some of the other concerns I raised. Why does it seem you are conveniently ignoring them? Yeah overall I agree with the conclusion of the google number. Windows owns most market share and mac and linux are tiny. But to say those numbers are accurate down to 1/100th of a percentage point like onestat does is ridiculous IMO. This post was edited by tgnb on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 at 01:01. |
| #10 By 7797 (64.244.109.161) at 10/1/2003 1:09:39 AM |
|
"As is the whole premise of your argument. Yeah, everyone knows that 200 million requests per day to one of the most popular websites ever can't be used to accurately determine market shares...says tgnb."
Correct. That alone is not enough to accurately determine os market share down to 1/100th percentage point. |
| #11 By 7797 (64.244.109.161) at 10/1/2003 1:11:09 AM |
|
"Oh, so in other words, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Thanks for clearing that up..."
Yeah you got it. Wonder why it took you so long to figure out. Ugh! I made a sarcastic statement about parker because he likes to use Google Zeitgeist to show that Linux OS market share is 1% and to show that Linux market share hasn't increased. I simply don't agree that Google Zeitgeist can be soley used to make that determination. You on the other hand were drawing conclusions from my sarcastic remark that were never intended and started arguments based on your conclusions. "After all, you obviously think that parker is wrong" you said. No, i didnt think or say that. Thats only your incorrect interpretation of the reasons for my sarcastic remark. If you think i'm such a troll why don't you do the smart thing and ignore me. This post was edited by tgnb on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 at 01:24. |
| #12 By 7797 (63.76.44.252) at 10/1/2003 11:16:33 AM |
| Whats hard about Ignoring someone by just not commenting on what they say? No modifications needed. What you want is an additional feature to hide comments from users you don't like. There's a big difference. |
| #13 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 10/1/2003 11:43:50 AM |
| Quite obviously Linux and Macintosh have a tremendous marketshare. Even though the numbers don't support these claims, we must believe this because the zealots claim it to be true. |
| #14 By 7797 (63.76.44.252) at 10/1/2003 2:09:20 PM |
|
"Just because you're not commenting about someone's post doesn't mean that you're ignoring them. It just means that you aren't replying."
This is the most retarded statement i've ever read on this site hands down. Look up the word ignore in a dictionary. It doesn't mean that something is being hidden from you. It means you are simply not acknowledging its presence. In the context of a message board a "reply" is the acknowledgement of another post's presence. The ability to hide a reply from your view is a completely different ballgame. It would be impossible to ignore a post that you dont know exists because you have hidden it. |
| #15 By 7797 (63.76.44.252) at 10/2/2003 10:22:29 AM |
|
dkg_ctg:
"You spent six (or so) posts arguing that Google, Onestat, etc's numbers aren't fair, only to agree in the end that the numbers are probably pretty close to accurate." thats ridiculous. go back and check my posts. |
| Write A Comment [Anonymous] |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 260 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:37:53 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
