10 Overtake 7

Using Linear regression on '16 monthly performances, considering
Jan'16=1, Feg=2, etc, has it at 12.622 or Jan '17
http://gs.statcounter.com/#all-os-ww...-201601-201608

On 26/08/2016 13:14, SteveGG wrote:
Using Linear regression on '16 monthly performances, considering
Jan'16=1, Feg=2, etc, has it at 12.622 or Jan '17
http://gs.statcounter.com/#all-os-ww...-201601-201608

Probably invalid since free upgrades have finished, so the growth of 10
will more or less be limited to new computers.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

SteveGG wrote:

Using Linear regression on '16 monthly performances, considering
Jan'16=1, Feg=2, etc, has it at 12.622 or Jan '17
http://gs.statcounter.com/#all-os-ww...-201601-201608

Change the time period for the graph. Stop looking at such a short term
and thinking it can be extrapolated at the same growth. Win10 got
released back in July 2015, so change the graph to go from July 2015 to
now. You'll there there was a big jump by all the boobs well trained in
the "newer is better" sales mantra, early adopters (that are willing to
sacrifice stability and usability - along with privacy - to see what is
new), and those that get anything newer whether good or bad with no
research just because it's free (that's the folks at grocery stores
tasting every free sample because, gee, it's free - like the free cookie
jar that has had every snot-nosed kid and cold/flu-ridden consumer
sticking their hands into the jar).

So there was a big jump when it got released. Then look at how much it
changed over the course of the next several months until June 2016. It
was linear. Then look after that and you can see it is already starting
to flatten out.

You can guess all you want without sufficient evidence regarding market
penetration AFTER the free offer period expired. The lure of free
software has elapsed and the freeloading boobs will not have to pay for
the product - and they won't. It's the consumers buying new computers
(often replacements) that are getting stuck with Win10.

Meanwhile Android just keeps leaping ahead despite Google apparently
adding a few nice features but removing some very handy features in each
major version.

It'll take several more months to see how the loss of a freebie copy of
Win10 impact its adoption rate to see if it manages to outpace new
computer sales (where most consumers go along with whatever OS got put
onto the computer rather than separately buy what they want). Twould be
interesting to have stats of jobbers (those that build their own
computers) to see how fast - or slow - those more educated users decide
to adopt or drop Win10.

On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 20:59:48 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

SteveGG wrote:

Using Linear regression on '16 monthly performances, considering
Jan'16=1, Feg=2, etc, has it at 12.622 or Jan '17
http://gs.statcounter.com/#all-os-ww...-201601-201608

Change the time period for the graph. Stop looking at such a short term
and thinking it can be extrapolated at the same growth. Win10 got
released back in July 2015, so change the graph to go from July 2015 to
now.

It's only very linear considering this year. I don't know what
regression model to use over the long term

You'll there there was a big jump by all the boobs well trained in
the "newer is better" sales mantra, early adopters (that are willing to
sacrifice stability and usability - along with privacy - to see what is
new), and those that get anything newer whether good or bad with no
research just because it's free (that's the folks at grocery stores
tasting every free sample because, gee, it's free - like the free cookie
jar that has had every snot-nosed kid and cold/flu-ridden consumer
sticking their hands into the jar).

All very true

So there was a big jump when it got released. Then look at how much it
changed over the course of the next several months until June 2016. It
was linear. Then look after that and you can see it is already starting
to flatten out.

You can guess all you want without sufficient evidence regarding market
penetration AFTER the free offer period expired. The lure of free
software has elapsed and the freeloading boobs will not have to pay for
the product - and they won't. It's the consumers buying new computers
(often replacements) that are getting stuck with Win10.

"stuck" is right !

Meanwhile Android just keeps leaping ahead despite Google apparently
adding a few nice features but removing some very handy features in each
major version.

It'll take several more months to see how the loss of a freebie copy of
Win10 impact its adoption rate to see if it manages to outpace new
computer sales (where most consumers go along with whatever OS got put
onto the computer rather than separately buy what they want).

I thought there was still an easy way to get a free copy ( if you're
dumb enough ! )

Twould be
interesting to have stats of jobbers (those that build their own
computers) to see how fast - or slow - those more educated users decide
to adopt or drop Win10.

SteveGG wrote:

I thought there was still an easy way to get a free copy ( if you're
dumb enough ! )

Are blind people dumb?
Are people that got bad with severe glucoma considered dumb?
Is someone that got their hand[s]/arm[s] blown off considered dumb?
Are people afflicted with Parkinson's considered dumb?
Folks that suffered a brain stroke that paralyzed them are dumb?

You better hope nothing bad happens to you since, per your own logic,
you will be considered dumb. To you, disabled = dumb. Uh huh. I'm
damn lucky, so far, to not have lost my vision or my hands or speach.
Not everyone is as lucky as me or you but, of course, we shouldn't be
letting "those dummies" use computers, sure, right.

https://www.microsoft.com/enable/
https://www.microsoft.com/enable/at/
https://www.microsoft.com/enable/at/matvplist.aspx
https://www.microsoft.com/enable/bus...ntifytech.aspx

My recollection / understanding, was that if you declared something
about "assistive technology" ( which would NOT be checked ), then you
got it for free.

I only meant that it was dumb to go with 10 ( or 8.x ) in the first
place, at any cost including, $0.00. I certainly didn't.

SteveGG wrote:

My recollection / understanding, was that if you declared something
about "assistive technology" ( which would NOT be checked ), then you
got it for free.

I only meant that it was dumb to go with 10 ( or 8.x ) in the first
place, at any cost including, $0.00. I certainly didn't.

Okay, I thought you were talking about those that could still get Win10
for free, not that Win10 is a dumb choice (on which I agree - unless
Microsoft makes some BIG changes later). While a lot of the nastiness
of Win10 can be configured out, blocked, or otherwise managed, users
should not be expected to be sysadmins (although they do relegate that
role and expertise to themselves because, gee, then can install it).