I just checked, we have 16,541 Windows servers and over 29,000 Linux servers, so I guess the statement might be, "Servers don't use Windows as often as they use some Linux based OS" - I didn't check the number of AIX, SUN or HP/UX servers..... if servers use any of those.
I just checked, we have 16,541 Windows servers and over 29,000 Linux servers, so I guess the statement might be, "Servers don't use Windows as often as they use some Linux based OS" - I didn't check the number of AIX, SUN or HP/UX servers..... if servers use any of those.
Thanks for some real numbers. It would be nice to be able to obtain more accurate world-wide (or U.S.) numbers
Supposedly there are around a billion PCs running Windows but who can truly verify that number?
Last I heard, we had about 219,000 Windows PC images (desktop, laptop and virtual), give or take a few.
About 9,000 SAN switches running derivitives of *nix, who knows how many thousands of general network swithes running *nix flavors, and then who knows the numbers when youmget out into the "real" networks.
The numbers of things running one OS or another add up pretty quickly.
The billion number wouldn't surprise me.
We aren't a normal cross section of the general population being highly evolved technical users.
I seem to recall that Windows 3.1 had a very brilliant feature. You could put your application as an icon onto the desk top. But that icon was actually a miniature window in which you app was still running. I don't remember how one did that but I did get my 3D renderer experiments to do it.
I have never seen an OS do that since.
I have seen that. And actually fiddled with it a bit too if I remember correctly. For a very short time. But I can't remember the where and whats, except that it was not Windows 3.1 (I have never used Windows 3.1). So the idea must have been used elsewhere too.
Instead of bashing MS for making sucky SW can we get back to the real issue there?
Making fun of them for suddenly deciding to change the name of the next OS version without a really good reason...
;-)
Well, the whole 'Windows 10" thing seems to indicate a certain lack of innovation in the MS boardroom.. it is a tiny timid brainwave for a big, big corporate entity. If MS had a real vision for their next step and the ability to confidently deploy such a jump, they would have created something much bolder.
Linux just tends to have more servers because they work better, even with Windows desktops. This has been acknowledge in the IT industry for ages.
One really has to face the fact that OS development has really matured.
The average user has no desire to maintain Terabytes of storage or need for super-computer driven accounting and word processing. And I think we are still a bit wary in trusting cloud computing -- either your privacy might be invaded or you get locked into a monthly service fee for something you can do at home for free (or both).
The big users that once pursued Sun or Oracle or HP or IBM are pretty much satisfied with their capacity.
We can recite Moore's Law all you want, but the industry is maturing and new applications are mostly diversions to amuse people that can afford the expensive toys. It isn't like the early days, where word-processing, desktop publishing, data base and spreadsheet suddenly empowered small businesses to expand into to new markets.
Most computing by the average user seems to be on dedicated devices now, e.g. mobile phones (which have been computers long before they became 'smart'), tablets of various types, even the TV (also without having to be 'smart'), mp3 players, and so on. I and many of you have the full set of desktop and laptop computers, maybe even terabytes of storage.. but we are programmers or otherwise interested in computers. We're not just device users, so we have different needs, interests, and expectations.
Seems the reason they don't want to use the "Windows 9" name is that a lot of horrid 'programmers' tested for windows version with 'BEGINS WITH' and 'Windows 9' once upon a time...
Good catch, Jeff, though in German, 9 isn't pronounced "nein." They'd hear it, though, in any English description. That said, the number 9 is considered an unlucky number in Japan, to the point that some buildings don't have a floor numbered 9. I imagine there are still a few people in Japan that use Windows.
Similarly there are few software publishers that release a version 13 of their programs. Corel is a classic example. They went from Version 12 to X3.
I read that they wanted to call it Windows One, but 1 had already been used.
Not only that, but One is the loneliest number. And from there where would they go for the next version? Two can be as bad as One, as it's the loneliest number since the number One.
PS: Anyone younger than about 35 or 40 needn't respond. It won't make any more sense than Microsoft's numbering schemes.
It doesn't really feel like 10. I watched a couple of previews and decided to install it in a VM and use it for a few hours. It feels more like a 9 to me haha.
The fresh install uses 600MB RAM and about 10GB of disk space by default. It makes my computer feel like a giant tablet. The multiple desktop feature works well. Seems to work well with 2008 domain schemas.
I don't like the giant tablet feel. I can't disable it because I have to show people how to use it lol. I only have one touch LCD and it's on my laptop so maybe 10 will end up on the laptop and I'll just stick to Win7 on my desktop.
... It makes my computer feel like a giant tablet...
Maybe that is the new MS strategy, get into the hardware business by having everybody give up the desktop and switch to a Surface Pro 3. Now, as soon as MS has a Surface Pro 3 with a 2.5GHz(turbo boost to 3.0) iCore 3, 4 threads, 8GB ram, and 500TB SSD for starters, for about the same price that they are selling the iCore 3 model now, I will be waiting in line to buy one right now. Yes, I know, I will be waiting a long time.
For me, I do not care what number they use, I would be happy if they just called it MS Windows, period.
It doesn't really feel like 10. I watched a couple of previews and decided to install it in a VM and use it for a few hours. It feels more like a 9 to me haha.
The fresh install uses 600MB RAM and about 10GB of disk space by default. It makes my computer feel like a giant tablet. The multiple desktop feature works well. Seems to work well with 2008 domain schemas.
Remember, 10 is the new 9.
I don't like the giant tablet feel. I can't disable it because I have to show people how to use it lol. I only have one touch LCD and it's on my laptop so maybe 10 will end up on the laptop and I'll just stick to Win7 on my desktop.
I don't get the fascination with having a touch screen on a laptop or a desktop - I really don't like having fingerprints all over my screen (used to really bug me when someone would come into your cube to show you something and point it out on your screen ....and leave a big fingerprint).
Secondly, having older eyes, my screens are farther away from me than my arms can reach. (I think it is even ergonomically correct to have the screen farther from your face than you can normally reach)
Using a phone or tablet is an intimate relationship which is conducive to a touch screen - maybe on a laptop - but on a desktop with the large monitors we have these days? No thanks!
One of my monitors is a TV. It's about 6 feet away, so I'd have to get out of my nice, comfy chair and walk just to touch it. I can almost see how the large tile interface might actually work well on a TV visually, but I really dislike the overall scheme - reminds me of a Fisher-Price kids toy for some reason.
I had a Ford Fusion hybrid for 10 days with a touch LCD for the main console. I think it was the Microsoft system actually. It was angled forward so the sun hit it. You'd have to clean it with screen cleaner just to see through the fingerprints during the day. It seemed more dangerous than texting and driving to me.
I don't like the UI changes in Windows because I remote desktop into workstations a lot. Each version lags more than the last. I can already see the Live Tiles in the start menu will need to be disabled.
I had a Ford Fusion hybrid for 10 days with a touch LCD for the main console. I think it was the Microsoft system actually. It was angled forward so the sun hit it. You'd have to clean it with screen cleaner just to see through the fingerprints during the day.
It may indeed have been Windows, though Ford has already announced they are moving to a Blackberry OS (QNX) popular in other car brands.
The screen sheen was probably due to the type of touch panel they use. The more rugged ones are thicker and somewhat reflective.
One of my monitors is a TV. It's about 6 feet away, so I'd have to get out of my nice, comfy chair and walk just to touch it..
I have an idea.. this problem is similar to the one we used to have when multiple TV channels were introduced (there was only one for many years in my home country so initially it was not a problem). Somebody came up with this "remote control" concept. But pressing buttons for everthing possible is not very convenient for computer usage.. you would need too many buttons and other keys (well, you could maybe have a keyboard like those they used for typewriters). So, what about connecting a pointing device which you could operate from your chair.. you could move it around on a surface and that would control where it was pointing on the screen. Add a couple of buttons to select items you're pointing at. Yes, that would be convenient.. if somebody had invented that I'm sure it would let MS ditch the need to have to touch (maybe even walking over to) the computer screen all the time..
What a great idea Tor. For my use though I would like to have a keyboard with a mouse pad so I don't need a table or other surface. That way I can sit in my comfy recliner and use the tv as my screen.
What a nice dream.....oh, wait, I'm already doing that with my Odroid and wireless keyboard/mouse pad ;-)
I don't get this big push for touch screens. Sure, they're great for small devices like phones and notepads, but for a lot of work we need a keyboard and mouse to be productive. There is a need for both.
I sometimes wonder if the large desktop touch screen for general office use is just a visual marketing gimmick. I'd hate to be the corporation that installs all those monitors, only to then have scores of worker's comp claims for repetitive stress syndrome. Reaching up (and out) all the time with the same arm just to touch the screen is a chiropractor's nightmare. As Dr. Smith would say in Lost in Space, "Oh, the pain, the pain!"
IOW, it defies logic that anyone is seriously touting touch screens for so-called "information workers."
On the other hand, I'd love a a large 22-24" hi-res touch screen with graphics pen input for Christmas. At about $2200, I'll have to be a really good boy for the rest of the year, to make up for the first half.
Having at one point in my life gotten up to typing 75 WPM, and having learned to use a 10-key adding machine by touch; I just can't see why anyone that is tasked with a serious bit of writing or calculation would desire to use a touch screen as their first choice of input.
So I am wondering why the attempt to evolve away from these input devices. I just have always presumed the personal computer was supposed to enhance productivity and reduce the burdens of storage via hard copy and a file cabinet.
So far, the touch screen has been a distraction to me. I find it easier to sit at a table with a notebook computer and to type. It just seems ergonomic. Touching the screen means having to sit differently and coping with smudges from all the fingers.
I do admit for small devices, it is an optimal input -- but I am still using a Palm Zire72 with stylus quite comfortably. Since that is paid for and upgrading to something else is very expensive both in initial outlay and the potential monthly fees, I just keep the PDA and a clam shell cellular phone (that costs me $8/month). I pay another $15/month for roaming wifi on my notebook.
++++++++++
It just seems to me that there should be support for Both the legacy hardware, and the new touch screen hardware as separate solutions. This all or nothing approach is very odd.
I agree with you 100%. A touch screen is better than a keyboard/mouse in a few cases, but definitely not a full time replacement. The operating system needs to support both, and this is what the hardware abstraction layer is for. A well designed modular OS should be able to load the drivers it needs to support the attached hardware and interface it to the rest of the system.
I agree that the constant smudges on a touchscreen are a pain but they are here to stay. There are some Windows games like taptiles, etc that work well on a touch enabled PC. I'm not giving up my mouse anytime soon though....
Last night I had time to install the tech preview version of Windows 10 (32-bit) on an older HP 6910p laptop. So far the installation went smooth and overall it seems to work ok. I'm using it to write this post. One of the biggest hurdles that I see if they want to get people off of older versions (like all the XP users) is to work on driver support. Many vendors are not going to go back and update drivers for anything except their recent hardware. I had to install Vista display drivers to get the video working. If the Microsoft Windows update (or other means) can help find drivers or they can work on a better way to leverage legacy drivers (USB scanners, USB scopes, Custom USB devices, etc) then more people would be able to move to new OS versions easier. I'm sure that many companies assume users will just buy all new hardware and devices but in many cases that isn't an option and there may be special devices with drivers that there isn't a replacement for.
Now, I need to load up the Propeller tool on Windows 10 to see how that works....
Microsoft has always had a tendency to partner with new hardware and tended to force people to upgrade while leaving legacy hardware behind. But it is had gotten so that much of the legacy hardware remains useful and very attractive to the end user. There were good reasons that much of it was developed first and it was durable and easy to use.
Just consider.. if you use a computer in an auto shop to monitor ECUs; wouldn't you prefer a cheap replaceable keyboard or mouse to a more expensive touchscreen? While there are a lot of settings that the touch screen might be best, there remains others where the keyboard and mouse will always be preferred.
I don't think that Microsoft has really thought through the need to service legacy markets with a familar user interface even though it seems to have a lot of corporate America that cannot do with one solution for everything.
Personally, I have no desire to retrain for a touch screen. It annoys me and makes my blood pressure rise.
Comments
Yeah servers do not use Windows - WRONG!
Only if if you choose to ignore
Internet Information Services (IIS) web server
SQL Server, Windows Sever 2012
and all of the embedded product solutions on this page or Windows embedded systems
Thanks for some real numbers. It would be nice to be able to obtain more accurate world-wide (or U.S.) numbers
A lot of point-of-sale terminals are still running XP and MS Update was extended to handle that. Could be very problematic in the near future.
See: How to upgrade windows XP to WINDOWS EMBEDDED POS Ready 2009
Supposedly there are around a billion PCs running Windows but who can truly verify that number?
Last I heard, we had about 219,000 Windows PC images (desktop, laptop and virtual), give or take a few.
About 9,000 SAN switches running derivitives of *nix, who knows how many thousands of general network swithes running *nix flavors, and then who knows the numbers when youmget out into the "real" networks.
The numbers of things running one OS or another add up pretty quickly.
The billion number wouldn't surprise me.
We aren't a normal cross section of the general population being highly evolved technical users.
-Tor
Well, the whole 'Windows 10" thing seems to indicate a certain lack of innovation in the MS boardroom.. it is a tiny timid brainwave for a big, big corporate entity. If MS had a real vision for their next step and the ability to confidently deploy such a jump, they would have created something much bolder.
Linux just tends to have more servers because they work better, even with Windows desktops. This has been acknowledge in the IT industry for ages.
One really has to face the fact that OS development has really matured.
The average user has no desire to maintain Terabytes of storage or need for super-computer driven accounting and word processing. And I think we are still a bit wary in trusting cloud computing -- either your privacy might be invaded or you get locked into a monthly service fee for something you can do at home for free (or both).
The big users that once pursued Sun or Oracle or HP or IBM are pretty much satisfied with their capacity.
We can recite Moore's Law all you want, but the industry is maturing and new applications are mostly diversions to amuse people that can afford the expensive toys. It isn't like the early days, where word-processing, desktop publishing, data base and spreadsheet suddenly empowered small businesses to expand into to new markets.
I downloaded the enterprise tech preview, I'll try to get in running on a VM this weekend.
C.W.
LOL. Why was 6 afraid of 7? ;-)
Yes, now you know why there was never a Windows named 6.
Thanks! This thread (and a few others around here lately) needed these jokes!
Could it be because 9 ("Nein") is "NO" in German?
Good catch, Jeff, though in German, 9 isn't pronounced "nein." They'd hear it, though, in any English description. That said, the number 9 is considered an unlucky number in Japan, to the point that some buildings don't have a floor numbered 9. I imagine there are still a few people in Japan that use Windows.
Similarly there are few software publishers that release a version 13 of their programs. Corel is a classic example. They went from Version 12 to X3.
I read that they wanted to call it Windows One, but 1 had already been used. So, instead of doing nothing, they went with 10.
edit: here is the link:
..... http://www.extremetech.com/computing/191279-why-is-it-called-windows-10-not-windows-9
Not only that, but One is the loneliest number. And from there where would they go for the next version? Two can be as bad as One, as it's the loneliest number since the number One.
PS: Anyone younger than about 35 or 40 needn't respond. It won't make any more sense than Microsoft's numbering schemes.
The fresh install uses 600MB RAM and about 10GB of disk space by default. It makes my computer feel like a giant tablet. The multiple desktop feature works well. Seems to work well with 2008 domain schemas.
I don't like the giant tablet feel. I can't disable it because I have to show people how to use it lol. I only have one touch LCD and it's on my laptop so maybe 10 will end up on the laptop and I'll just stick to Win7 on my desktop.
For me, I do not care what number they use, I would be happy if they just called it MS Windows, period.
Ray
I don't get the fascination with having a touch screen on a laptop or a desktop - I really don't like having fingerprints all over my screen (used to really bug me when someone would come into your cube to show you something and point it out on your screen ....and leave a big fingerprint).
Secondly, having older eyes, my screens are farther away from me than my arms can reach. (I think it is even ergonomically correct to have the screen farther from your face than you can normally reach)
Using a phone or tablet is an intimate relationship which is conducive to a touch screen - maybe on a laptop - but on a desktop with the large monitors we have these days? No thanks!
My 2 cents (or is that 2.2222 cents now?)
I don't like the UI changes in Windows because I remote desktop into workstations a lot. Each version lags more than the last. I can already see the Live Tiles in the start menu will need to be disabled.
It may indeed have been Windows, though Ford has already announced they are moving to a Blackberry OS (QNX) popular in other car brands.
The screen sheen was probably due to the type of touch panel they use. The more rugged ones are thicker and somewhat reflective.
What a nice dream.....oh, wait, I'm already doing that with my Odroid and wireless keyboard/mouse pad ;-)
I don't get this big push for touch screens. Sure, they're great for small devices like phones and notepads, but for a lot of work we need a keyboard and mouse to be productive. There is a need for both.
IOW, it defies logic that anyone is seriously touting touch screens for so-called "information workers."
On the other hand, I'd love a a large 22-24" hi-res touch screen with graphics pen input for Christmas. At about $2200, I'll have to be a really good boy for the rest of the year, to make up for the first half.
So I am wondering why the attempt to evolve away from these input devices. I just have always presumed the personal computer was supposed to enhance productivity and reduce the burdens of storage via hard copy and a file cabinet.
So far, the touch screen has been a distraction to me. I find it easier to sit at a table with a notebook computer and to type. It just seems ergonomic. Touching the screen means having to sit differently and coping with smudges from all the fingers.
I do admit for small devices, it is an optimal input -- but I am still using a Palm Zire72 with stylus quite comfortably. Since that is paid for and upgrading to something else is very expensive both in initial outlay and the potential monthly fees, I just keep the PDA and a clam shell cellular phone (that costs me $8/month). I pay another $15/month for roaming wifi on my notebook.
++++++++++
It just seems to me that there should be support for Both the legacy hardware, and the new touch screen hardware as separate solutions. This all or nothing approach is very odd.
I agree with you 100%. A touch screen is better than a keyboard/mouse in a few cases, but definitely not a full time replacement. The operating system needs to support both, and this is what the hardware abstraction layer is for. A well designed modular OS should be able to load the drivers it needs to support the attached hardware and interface it to the rest of the system.
Last night I had time to install the tech preview version of Windows 10 (32-bit) on an older HP 6910p laptop. So far the installation went smooth and overall it seems to work ok. I'm using it to write this post. One of the biggest hurdles that I see if they want to get people off of older versions (like all the XP users) is to work on driver support. Many vendors are not going to go back and update drivers for anything except their recent hardware. I had to install Vista display drivers to get the video working. If the Microsoft Windows update (or other means) can help find drivers or they can work on a better way to leverage legacy drivers (USB scanners, USB scopes, Custom USB devices, etc) then more people would be able to move to new OS versions easier. I'm sure that many companies assume users will just buy all new hardware and devices but in many cases that isn't an option and there may be special devices with drivers that there isn't a replacement for.
Now, I need to load up the Propeller tool on Windows 10 to see how that works....
Robert,
Just consider.. if you use a computer in an auto shop to monitor ECUs; wouldn't you prefer a cheap replaceable keyboard or mouse to a more expensive touchscreen? While there are a lot of settings that the touch screen might be best, there remains others where the keyboard and mouse will always be preferred.
I don't think that Microsoft has really thought through the need to service legacy markets with a familar user interface even though it seems to have a lot of corporate America that cannot do with one solution for everything.
Personally, I have no desire to retrain for a touch screen. It annoys me and makes my blood pressure rise.