New Steam survey results

Its pretty simple really. Assuming they are selling at a loss ((I dont know that they are)). Its better to sell at a loss than to not sell at all in most cases. Especially if your clearing inventory for an eventual launch.
 
September results are up.

No appreciable change in bitness. Windows 6.x steals a percentage point.

steam_os_0909.png
 
There's something wrong with the numbers, since I'm quite sure I checked enough times that I didn't make mistakes with my numbers on the last months graph
Last monts reported numbers and this months reported numbers for 4800 and 8800 series (too lazy to do all since I'm drinking and about to go to a gig):
Code: 
	April	May	June	July	August	September
HD4800	9,46 %	9,54 %	10,40 %	11,33 %	11,56 %	
HD4800		9,33 %	10,13 %	10,96 %	11,08 %	11,46 %
GF8800	19,13 %	17,88 %	17,53 %	16,96 %	15,94 %	
GF8800		17,47 %	17,06 %	16,40 %	15,28 %	14,37 %

Something doesn't add up.
 
It could be that each new month, all numbers are re-adjusted to the current total number of reported GPU's although I can't imagine why they would that.

Regards,
SB
 
Well it seems that they both went down by about the same relative amount, I guess something changed in how they tally up the numbers, possibly counting SLI/CF systems differently now?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
willardjuice said:
Sooner XP dies the better for all of us! :D
Click to expand...

You'll have to pry it from my cold dead hands. ;)

7 still feels slow to me even though it's a huge improvement over Vista and XP is so much more customizable. I'm dual booting but XP will still be my primary os, at least for the foreseeable future.
 
You'll have to pry it from my cold dead hands.
Click to expand...

That's unfortunate to hear. While I respect personal preference, you're hurting progress quite a bit. Hopefully you will become the very small minority.
 
Oh please stop with the progress nonsense, it's just directx. I don't give a crap if 10/11 adds a couple more minor effects, hell I barely play games anymore and being a minority is fine with me.

Blame Microsoft for ignoring XP so they can sell more windows licenses.
 
Hell, while I'm going to be one happy cat once 32 bit OS's die...

The more important reason to ditch XP is that it's going to become a bigger and bigger security hole as time goes on.

Both Vista and Win7 (same basic kernel) are vastly improved over XP with regards to security.

Regards,
SB
 
Silent_Buddha said:
Hell, while I'm going to be one happy cat once 32 bit OS's die...

The more important reason to ditch XP is that it's going to become a bigger and bigger security hole as time goes on.

Both Vista and Win7 (same basic kernel) are vastly improved over XP with regards to security.

Regards,
SB
Click to expand...

Bull. That is the talking point, but both are minor tweaks at best, and given the number of remotely exploitable holes that continue to come out week after week, they didn't do squat. MS had a chance to fix things, but the cost of compatibility was too high, so they ignored security for increased sales.

A great example of this is the UAC, they backpedaled on it for 7. WTF? It was the great white hope for security, was it not? So now it is less secure by default, with an easier way to disable it? And you say MS _IMPROVED_ security? Ha!

MS is simply not willing to secure the OS, it would cost them money, and they will not, not can not, do that. It is a choice that they make, and we pay for. Since that is not their problem, they won't fix it.

That said, I do agree with you. The sooner people get off of XP, the better. You just forgot to add in Me II and Me II SP7 to that list.

-Charlie

Note 1: There has never been a single reported remote exploit for MS-DOS 2.1.
Note 2: Note 1 was sarcastic humor.
 
Charlie, MS said themselves that the biggest point of Vistas strict UAC was to annoy developers to make them actually follow guidelines on programming so they don't assume and request adminstrator priviledges when they don't need realy need them (it's just easier to use admin priviledges), and that from end-user perspective it was too strict.

Also, MS fixed plenty of things, and one of the reasons they couldn't do really closed access kernel for NT6.x was certain big security software companies crying how they can't do AV/AMW for NT6 when it has closed kernel (ironicly, some other companies had working antiviruses before that too)

Here's some info about it: http://www.informationweek.com/news/windows/microsoft_news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=193105199
 
Silent_Buddha said:
Hell, while I'm going to be one happy cat once 32 bit OS's die...

The more important reason to ditch XP is that it's going to become a bigger and bigger security hole as time goes on.

Both Vista and Win7 (same basic kernel) are vastly improved over XP with regards to security.

Regards,
SB
Click to expand...

They are a little better but not by much. UAC is pretty easy to spoof, especially in 7 and it's also possible to disable it. All software can be hacked and cracked, that's the nature of software.

I disable UAC because I find it a total nuisance and would rather be in control of my own computer than have Microsoft tell me what I can and can't do to it. Besides, I know how to secure it myself, years on XP with no AV or Firewall software and no infections is my proof.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top