ShintaiDK
Lifer
- Apr 22, 2012
- 20,378
- 145
- 106
On the Desktop only. I am not surprised.
It actually covers laptops too.
On the Desktop only. I am not surprised.
Never said Windows 7 wasnt more popular. That happend last summer. But when almost 40% of your user base still uses an 11 year old product. Then you did something terrible wrong. And the motivator to change is due to no more support, not because they wish to. Also explains why Windows 7 got a large increase lately.
http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=11&qpcustomb=0
Microsoft's situation exemplifies Intel's when we say "Intel competes with itself, not with AMD".
Microsoft is not competing with Linux, it is competing with the former shadow of itself that seeded the world with XP installs. If present-Microsoft can't outcompete past-Microsoft then future-Microsoft will suffer the consequences.
Win8 is competing with existing installations of XP, Vista and Win7. And the fact that MS is doing poorly in providing a compelling reason for folks to upgrade is their own fault.
Intel will face a similar issue if they slow-down their R&D and tick-tock cadence. Haswell was not designed to compete against Steamroller (there is no competing on that front), it is being designed to be a compelling upgrade product to displace existing Sandy Bridge chips that are already sitting in people's homes.
Steam suffers from pretty massive selection bias. You think all the corporate computers are running the steam client? Didn't think so.
With that said, I have no idea how people failing to ugrade from XP is Microsoft's fault. I can see hesitation to upgrade because of the failure that Vista was at launch; other than that, the only other thing I can think of is that they were a victim of their own success. It's not that they can't come up with anything new -- it's that there isn't anything new to come up with. Or at least not until Windows 8.
Keep in mind, these people that aren't upgrading their OS are also not upgrading their systems. Those systems will die eventually. XP just happened to be a cult classic, and a lot of ignorant consumers and management are holding onto it.
In nearly case that I've heard of, it's being phased out. Where it isn't being phased out, the IT department wants it to be, but can't because of bureaucracy.
You also didnt mention the x-box, which although it took away from pc gaming, I think it would have to be called a success.
I think a lot of people on these forums forget that for the majority of people computers are tools, nothing more.
The last time I purchased a hammer was a long time ago, because the hammer I have now still works (I swing it at stuff and it hits it... usually ). For many people, particularly businesses, the same applies. If the computer does what you need it to do, then no need to replace it. Windows Vista, 7, and 8 add a lot of features that I, as someone who uses the computer a lot (for productive use no less!) find very useful. But I've had jobs where the value-add of anything above Windows XP was zero.
As IDC points out above, both Microsoft and Intel face this issue. And how many of those machines running Windows XP do you think are running 3570Ks, etc? Chances are they are older Athlon/Pentium 4 D:/C2D-based machines that were never upgraded because there was no reason to.
If you work 8 hours a day with your hammer. And you can get a new hammer that offers you 5% higher efficiency. Is ti a good or bad decision not to buy a new hammer?
- Bad. You imply that you should invest in a new hammer everytime performance improves 5% .. by that rate you'll be buying a new hammer every week. Hammers be expensive you know, specially those top performing ones.
You can stick with your old hammer, while I have fun with exponential growth. I'll borrow money for new hammers, if need be. Maybe hire more hammer swingers.- Bad. You imply that you should invest in a new hammer everytime performance improves 5% .. by that rate you'll be buying a new hammer every week. Hammers be expensive you know, specially those top performing ones.
I dont have the figures or time to look them up whether the overall x-box and associated licensing, etc lost or made money over the entire life of the console. However, if you read further down the article, you can see that this was one bad quarter, and overall it was the best selling console for many months. However, it is getting old now, and they seem to have not been very efficient in getting the new model to market.
It actually covers laptops too.
http://www.edge-online.com/news/micr...s-229-million/ Sure about that?
I don't know what page you read but that obviously shows how good Xbox has been for them. They lost some revenue, so what? They got revenue. And the most of all consoles, in that time.
And how many of those machines running Windows XP do you think are running 3570Ks, etc? Chances are they are older Athlon/Pentium 4 D:/C2D-based machines that were never upgraded because there was no reason to.
Oh yes, -3B$ as direct loss in its lifespan is really great. /sarcasm
Companies take hits doing everything. If game consoles were really bad. We would not see a next gen Xbox or Playstation.
EDIT: How much has Intel lost because of Tablets, Smartphones and everything else? There's a reason why they getting on that market, right?
Xbox and Playstation only runs in the hope that the competition goes belly up so that they can gain there share and turn it into a profitable business.
Its been like that for awhile(since what? PS2?), no? Sell for a loss to get market share. Typical game console/handheld business.
Still, as a whole they are making money.