Re: Distribution of Windows versions

[xia zhao]

2012/3/29 Juergen Schmidt 

> On Wednesday, 28. March 2012 at 22:03, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> > To calibrate this a little better, what are
> >
> > 1. the absolute number that 100% is, and
> > 2. the range of calendar dates over which these statistics were derived?
> >
> It doesn't really matter if we can't answer the question:
>
> Is anybody interested to fix Win 2000 bugs?
>
> If nobody is interested to develop actively on this platform it is useless
> to test it or spent any time on this platform.
>
> Part agree to you, the better way to saying if one platform should be
supported or not depend on customer numbers. If users in good part are on
Windows 2000 platforms, testing is valueable to show the AOO 3.4 quality on
this platform, or at least can showing the special bugs related to Windows
2000 to see if AOO 3.4 is ready to say supporting this platform even no
developer plan to fix bugs.

we have much more important things to do...
>
> Just my 2 cents
>
> Juergen
>
>
> > - Dennis
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 12:10
> > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Distribution of Windows versions
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Kevin Sisco  >wrote:
> >
> > > Okay so all this data really tells us is that more people download on
> > > windows 7. Does this really mean we should stop supporting windows
> > > 2000 all together?
> > >
> >
> > If "support" means anything, it means that someone has volunteered to
> test
> > the platform and confirm that we work, and if there are gross errors with
> > installing or running on that platform, then we treat them as release
> > blockers.
> >
> > But if no one volunteers to do that work, then I think we should not say
> we
> > support Windows 2000.
> >
> > What the 0.14% figure means to me is that I feel less bad if we say that
> we
> > do not support Windows 2000.
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> >
> > > On 3/28/12, Rob Weir  wrote:
> > > > There was a question in an earlier thread on whether we should still
> > > > support Windows 2000. It was an open question whether we had many
> users
> > > >
> > >
> > > on
> > > > that platform.
> > > >
> > > > Here are the numbers we have, based on downloads. Note that we can
> only
> > > > figure out what platform a user was on when they downloaded
> OpenOffice.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It
> > > > is entirely possible for someone to download from a Windows 7
> machine and
> > > > then install it onto a Windows 2000 machine. We have no easy way to
> > > > measure that. However, that should be small compared to the number of
> > > > users who download onto the same machine they will be installing
> onto.
> > > >
> > > > Win7 57.32%
> > > > XP 31.37%
> > > > Vista 10.07%
> > > > NT 0.76%
> > > > 2003 Server 0.32%
> > > > 2000 0.14%
> > > > 98 0.02%
> > > > CE 0.00%
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Re: Distribution of Windows versions

[xia zhao]

2012/3/29 drew 

> On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 14:21 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:34 PM, drew jensen  >wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 13:25 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Fernand Vanrie 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >  Rob ,
> > > > >
> > > > > Interesting, do you have also figures about the differences in OS :
> > > > >  Windows versus Linux or Mac etc..
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > There were some numbers posted on that a few weeks ago.  These charts
> > > show
> > > > the MirrorBrain downloads of OpenOffice, from February:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/marketing_bouncer.html
> > > >
> > > > So, 90% Windows,  6% Mac, 3% Linux.
> > > >
> > > > But note this is not necessarily the same distribution as the overall
> > > user
> > > > base.  Some ports, like BSD and OS/2 are distributed on other web
> sites,
> > > so
> > > > they are not counted here.  And some derivatives of OOo are included
> in
> > > the
> > > > Linux distros directly, so are not reflected in these numbers.
> > >
> > > Please, and asking only for myself, if you know of a linux distro using
> > > a derivative of Apache OpenOffice do name it - if you mean LibreOffice,
> > > please stop calling it a derivative - it is not a valid reflection of
> > > the facts, if you are referring to the former package OpenOffice.org
> > > then please refer to it by its legal name.
> > >
> > >
> > I don't think LO makes sense in this context. We're talking about OOo
> > flavors.  The relevant version of OO o distributed by distros was Go-OO.
>
> > Their numbers would not be included in the MirrorBrain stats.
>
> Yes quite true - historically Go-OO, Novell OpenOffice.org, SUN
> StarOffice and Oracle OpenOffice were all available for Windows, none of
> those packages would be reflected in the mirrorbrain stats.
>
> Another derivative was IBM Lotus Symphony, any idea what the OS mix
> looks like for that package?
>
> For Symphony, the Windows platform mix are mostly like:
Windows 7 40%
Windows XP 50%
Window Vista 9%
Others: 1%

Very few customers reported defects on other Windows platform.

Best wishes,
>
> //drew
>
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > -Rob
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Greetz
> > > > >
> > > > > Fernand
> > > > >
> > > > >  There was a question in an earlier thread on whether we should
> still
> > > > >> support Windows 2000.  It was an open question whether we had many
> > > users
> > > > >> on
> > > > >> that platform.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Here are the numbers we have, based on downloads.  Note that we
> can
> > > only
> > > > >> figure out what platform a user was on when they downloaded
> > > OpenOffice.
> > > > >>  It
> > > > >> is entirely possible for someone to download from a Windows 7
> machine
> > > and
> > > > >> then install it onto a Windows 2000 machine.  We have no easy way
> to
> > > > >> measure that.  However, that should be small compared to the
> number of
> > > > >> users who download onto the same machine they will be installing
> onto.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Win7   57.32%
> > > > >> XP   31.37%
> > > > >> Vista   10.07%
> > > > >> NT0.76%
> > > > >> 2003 Server   0.32%
> > > > >> 2000 0.14%
> > > > >> 98  0.02%
> > > > >> CE  0.00%
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>

Re: Distribution of Windows versions

[Hennie Potgieter]

Please cancel all emails to me.
Tkanks

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Andrea Pescetti  >wrote:
>
> > On 28/03/2012 Rob Weir wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Fernand Vanrie  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Interesting, do you have also figures about the differences in OS :
> >>>
> >>>  Windows versus Linux or Mac etc..
> >>>
> >> There were some numbers posted on that a few weeks ago.  These charts
> show
> >> the MirrorBrain downloads of OpenOffice, from February:
> >> http://www.openoffice.org/**marketing/marketing_bouncer.**html<
> http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/marketing_bouncer.html>
> >> So, 90% Windows,  6% Mac, 3% Linux.
> >>
> >
> > These numbers, while probably still realistic, are from February 2011,
> not
> > from February 2012. As discussed in other threads, published download
> > figures have not been automatically updated since the move to Kenai (the
> > platform hosting openoffice.org websites from February 2011 until the
> > move to Apache).
> >
> > If the Windows versions breakdown uses data from February 2011 too, then
> > we probably have more Windows 7 downloads and fewer Windows XP download
> > with respect to the data sent by Rob.
> >
> >
> The Windows breakdown numbers were from March 2012.  So they are current.
>
> -Rob
>
>
> > Regards,
> >  Andrea.
> >
>

Re: Distribution of Windows versions

[Rob Weir]

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

> On 28/03/2012 Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Fernand Vanrie  wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting, do you have also figures about the differences in OS :
>>>
>>>  Windows versus Linux or Mac etc..
>>>
>> There were some numbers posted on that a few weeks ago.  These charts show
>> the MirrorBrain downloads of OpenOffice, from February:
>> http://www.openoffice.org/**marketing/marketing_bouncer.**html
>> So, 90% Windows,  6% Mac, 3% Linux.
>>
>
> These numbers, while probably still realistic, are from February 2011, not
> from February 2012. As discussed in other threads, published download
> figures have not been automatically updated since the move to Kenai (the
> platform hosting openoffice.org websites from February 2011 until the
> move to Apache).
>
> If the Windows versions breakdown uses data from February 2011 too, then
> we probably have more Windows 7 downloads and fewer Windows XP download
> with respect to the data sent by Rob.
>
>
The Windows breakdown numbers were from March 2012.  So they are current.

-Rob


> Regards,
>  Andrea.
>

Re: Distribution of Windows versions

[Andrea Pescetti]

On 28/03/2012 Rob Weir wrote:

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Fernand Vanrie  wrote:

Interesting, do you have also figures about the differences in OS :
  Windows versus Linux or Mac etc..

There were some numbers posted on that a few weeks ago.  These charts show
the MirrorBrain downloads of OpenOffice, from February:
http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/marketing_bouncer.html
So, 90% Windows,  6% Mac, 3% Linux.


These numbers, while probably still realistic, are from February 2011, 
not from February 2012. As discussed in other threads, published 
download figures have not been automatically updated since the move to 
Kenai (the platform hosting openoffice.org websites from February 2011 
until the move to Apache).


If the Windows versions breakdown uses data from February 2011 too, then 
we probably have more Windows 7 downloads and fewer Windows XP download 
with respect to the data sent by Rob.


Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: Distribution of Windows versions

[Juergen Schmidt]

On Wednesday, 28. March 2012 at 22:03, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> To calibrate this a little better, what are
> 
> 1. the absolute number that 100% is, and
> 2. the range of calendar dates over which these statistics were derived?
> 
It doesn't really matter if we can't answer the question:

Is anybody interested to fix Win 2000 bugs? 

If nobody is interested to develop actively on this platform it is useless to 
test it or spent any time on this platform.

we have much more important things to do...

Just my 2 cents

Juergen

 
> - Dennis 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 12:10
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Distribution of Windows versions
> 
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Kevin Sisco wrote:
> 
> > Okay so all this data really tells us is that more people download on
> > windows 7. Does this really mean we should stop supporting windows
> > 2000 all together?
> > 
> 
> If "support" means anything, it means that someone has volunteered to test
> the platform and confirm that we work, and if there are gross errors with
> installing or running on that platform, then we treat them as release
> blockers.
> 
> But if no one volunteers to do that work, then I think we should not say we
> support Windows 2000.
> 
> What the 0.14% figure means to me is that I feel less bad if we say that we
> do not support Windows 2000.
> 
> -Rob
> 
> 
> > On 3/28/12, Rob Weir  wrote:
> > > There was a question in an earlier thread on whether we should still
> > > support Windows 2000. It was an open question whether we had many users
> > > 
> > 
> > on
> > > that platform.
> > > 
> > > Here are the numbers we have, based on downloads. Note that we can only
> > > figure out what platform a user was on when they downloaded OpenOffice.
> > > 
> > 
> > It
> > > is entirely possible for someone to download from a Windows 7 machine and
> > > then install it onto a Windows 2000 machine. We have no easy way to
> > > measure that. However, that should be small compared to the number of
> > > users who download onto the same machine they will be installing onto.
> > > 
> > > Win7 57.32%
> > > XP 31.37%
> > > Vista 10.07%
> > > NT 0.76%
> > > 2003 Server 0.32%
> > > 2000 0.14%
> > > 98 0.02%
> > > CE 0.00%
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 

RE: Distribution of Windows versions

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

To calibrate this a little better, what are

 1. the absolute number that 100% is, and
 2. the range of calendar dates over which these statistics were derived?

 - Dennis 

-Original Message-
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 12:10
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Distribution of Windows versions

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Kevin Sisco wrote:

> Okay so all this data really tells us is that more people download on
> windows 7.  Does this really mean we should stop supporting windows
> 2000 all together?
>
>
If "support" means anything, it means that someone has volunteered to test
the platform and confirm that we work, and if there are gross errors with
installing or running on that platform, then we treat them as release
blockers.

But if no one volunteers to do that work, then I think we should not say we
support Windows 2000.

What the 0.14% figure means to me is that I feel less bad if we say that we
do not support Windows 2000.

-Rob


> On 3/28/12, Rob Weir  wrote:
> > There was a question in an earlier thread on whether we should still
> > support Windows 2000.  It was an open question whether we had many users
> on
> > that platform.
> >
> > Here are the numbers we have, based on downloads.  Note that we can only
> > figure out what platform a user was on when they downloaded OpenOffice.
>  It
> > is entirely possible for someone to download from a Windows 7 machine and
> > then install it onto a Windows 2000 machine.  We have no easy way to
> > measure that.  However, that should be small compared to the number of
> > users who download onto the same machine they will be installing onto.
> >
> > Win7   57.32%
> > XP   31.37%
> > Vista   10.07%
> > NT0.76%
> > 2003 Server   0.32%
> > 2000 0.14%
> > 98  0.02%
> > CE  0.00%
> >
>

Re: Distribution of Windows versions

[Rob Weir]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Kevin Sisco wrote:

> Okay so all this data really tells us is that more people download on
> windows 7.  Does this really mean we should stop supporting windows
> 2000 all together?
>
>
If "support" means anything, it means that someone has volunteered to test
the platform and confirm that we work, and if there are gross errors with
installing or running on that platform, then we treat them as release
blockers.

But if no one volunteers to do that work, then I think we should not say we
support Windows 2000.

What the 0.14% figure means to me is that I feel less bad if we say that we
do not support Windows 2000.

-Rob


> On 3/28/12, Rob Weir  wrote:
> > There was a question in an earlier thread on whether we should still
> > support Windows 2000.  It was an open question whether we had many users
> on
> > that platform.
> >
> > Here are the numbers we have, based on downloads.  Note that we can only
> > figure out what platform a user was on when they downloaded OpenOffice.
>  It
> > is entirely possible for someone to download from a Windows 7 machine and
> > then install it onto a Windows 2000 machine.  We have no easy way to
> > measure that.  However, that should be small compared to the number of
> > users who download onto the same machine they will be installing onto.
> >
> > Win7   57.32%
> > XP   31.37%
> > Vista   10.07%
> > NT0.76%
> > 2003 Server   0.32%
> > 2000 0.14%
> > 98  0.02%
> > CE  0.00%
> >
>

Re: Distribution of Windows versions

[drew]

On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 14:21 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:34 PM, drew jensen 
> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 13:25 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Fernand Vanrie  wrote:
> > >
> > > >  Rob ,
> > > >
> > > > Interesting, do you have also figures about the differences in OS :
> > > >  Windows versus Linux or Mac etc..
> > > >
> > > >
> > > There were some numbers posted on that a few weeks ago.  These charts
> > show
> > > the MirrorBrain downloads of OpenOffice, from February:
> > >
> > > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/marketing_bouncer.html
> > >
> > > So, 90% Windows,  6% Mac, 3% Linux.
> > >
> > > But note this is not necessarily the same distribution as the overall
> > user
> > > base.  Some ports, like BSD and OS/2 are distributed on other web sites,
> > so
> > > they are not counted here.  And some derivatives of OOo are included in
> > the
> > > Linux distros directly, so are not reflected in these numbers.
> >
> > Please, and asking only for myself, if you know of a linux distro using
> > a derivative of Apache OpenOffice do name it - if you mean LibreOffice,
> > please stop calling it a derivative - it is not a valid reflection of
> > the facts, if you are referring to the former package OpenOffice.org
> > then please refer to it by its legal name.
> >
> >
> I don't think LO makes sense in this context. We're talking about OOo
> flavors.  The relevant version of OO o distributed by distros was Go-OO.

> Their numbers would not be included in the MirrorBrain stats.

Yes quite true - historically Go-OO, Novell OpenOffice.org, SUN
StarOffice and Oracle OpenOffice were all available for Windows, none of
those packages would be reflected in the mirrorbrain stats.

Another derivative was IBM Lotus Symphony, any idea what the OS mix
looks like for that package?

Best wishes,

//drew

> 
> -Rob
> 
> 
> > >
> > > -Rob
> > >
> > >
> > > > Greetz
> > > >
> > > > Fernand
> > > >
> > > >  There was a question in an earlier thread on whether we should still
> > > >> support Windows 2000.  It was an open question whether we had many
> > users
> > > >> on
> > > >> that platform.
> > > >>
> > > >> Here are the numbers we have, based on downloads.  Note that we can
> > only
> > > >> figure out what platform a user was on when they downloaded
> > OpenOffice.
> > > >>  It
> > > >> is entirely possible for someone to download from a Windows 7 machine
> > and
> > > >> then install it onto a Windows 2000 machine.  We have no easy way to
> > > >> measure that.  However, that should be small compared to the number of
> > > >> users who download onto the same machine they will be installing onto.
> > > >>
> > > >> Win7   57.32%
> > > >> XP   31.37%
> > > >> Vista   10.07%
> > > >> NT0.76%
> > > >> 2003 Server   0.32%
> > > >> 2000 0.14%
> > > >> 98  0.02%
> > > >> CE  0.00%
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> >
> >
> >

Re: Distribution of Windows versions

[Rob Weir]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:34 PM, drew jensen wrote:

> On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 13:25 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Fernand Vanrie  wrote:
> >
> > >  Rob ,
> > >
> > > Interesting, do you have also figures about the differences in OS :
> > >  Windows versus Linux or Mac etc..
> > >
> > >
> > There were some numbers posted on that a few weeks ago.  These charts
> show
> > the MirrorBrain downloads of OpenOffice, from February:
> >
> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/marketing_bouncer.html
> >
> > So, 90% Windows,  6% Mac, 3% Linux.
> >
> > But note this is not necessarily the same distribution as the overall
> user
> > base.  Some ports, like BSD and OS/2 are distributed on other web sites,
> so
> > they are not counted here.  And some derivatives of OOo are included in
> the
> > Linux distros directly, so are not reflected in these numbers.
>
> Please, and asking only for myself, if you know of a linux distro using
> a derivative of Apache OpenOffice do name it - if you mean LibreOffice,
> please stop calling it a derivative - it is not a valid reflection of
> the facts, if you are referring to the former package OpenOffice.org
> then please refer to it by its legal name.
>
>
I don't think LO makes sense in this context. We're talking about OOo
flavors.  The relevant version of OO o distributed by distros was Go-OO.
Their numbers would not be included in the MirrorBrain stats.

-Rob


> >
> > -Rob
> >
> >
> > > Greetz
> > >
> > > Fernand
> > >
> > >  There was a question in an earlier thread on whether we should still
> > >> support Windows 2000.  It was an open question whether we had many
> users
> > >> on
> > >> that platform.
> > >>
> > >> Here are the numbers we have, based on downloads.  Note that we can
> only
> > >> figure out what platform a user was on when they downloaded
> OpenOffice.
> > >>  It
> > >> is entirely possible for someone to download from a Windows 7 machine
> and
> > >> then install it onto a Windows 2000 machine.  We have no easy way to
> > >> measure that.  However, that should be small compared to the number of
> > >> users who download onto the same machine they will be installing onto.
> > >>
> > >> Win7   57.32%
> > >> XP   31.37%
> > >> Vista   10.07%
> > >> NT0.76%
> > >> 2003 Server   0.32%
> > >> 2000 0.14%
> > >> 98  0.02%
> > >> CE  0.00%
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
>
>
>

Re: Distribution of Windows versions

[drew jensen]

On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 13:57 -0400, Kevin Sisco wrote:
> Okay so all this data really tells us is that more people download on
> windows 7.  Does this really mean we should stop supporting windows
> 2000 all together?

Hi Kevin,

Yes I would say it does just as, when it was appropriate, the old
OpenOffice.org project dropped official support for 98 and CE.

IMO it is that time for Win 2000.

//drew


> 
> 
> On 3/28/12, Rob Weir  wrote:
> > There was a question in an earlier thread on whether we should still
> > support Windows 2000.  It was an open question whether we had many users on
> > that platform.
> >
> > Here are the numbers we have, based on downloads.  Note that we can only
> > figure out what platform a user was on when they downloaded OpenOffice.  It
> > is entirely possible for someone to download from a Windows 7 machine and
> > then install it onto a Windows 2000 machine.  We have no easy way to
> > measure that.  However, that should be small compared to the number of
> > users who download onto the same machine they will be installing onto.
> >
> > Win7   57.32%
> > XP   31.37%
> > Vista   10.07%
> > NT0.76%
> > 2003 Server   0.32%
> > 2000 0.14%
> > 98  0.02%
> > CE  0.00%
> >

Re: Distribution of Windows versions

[Kevin Sisco]

Okay so all this data really tells us is that more people download on
windows 7.  Does this really mean we should stop supporting windows
2000 all together?


On 3/28/12, Rob Weir  wrote:
> There was a question in an earlier thread on whether we should still
> support Windows 2000.  It was an open question whether we had many users on
> that platform.
>
> Here are the numbers we have, based on downloads.  Note that we can only
> figure out what platform a user was on when they downloaded OpenOffice.  It
> is entirely possible for someone to download from a Windows 7 machine and
> then install it onto a Windows 2000 machine.  We have no easy way to
> measure that.  However, that should be small compared to the number of
> users who download onto the same machine they will be installing onto.
>
> Win7   57.32%
> XP   31.37%
> Vista   10.07%
> NT0.76%
> 2003 Server   0.32%
> 2000 0.14%
> 98  0.02%
> CE  0.00%
>

Re: Distribution of Windows versions

[drew jensen]

On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 13:25 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Fernand Vanrie  wrote:
> 
> >  Rob ,
> >
> > Interesting, do you have also figures about the differences in OS :
> >  Windows versus Linux or Mac etc..
> >
> >
> There were some numbers posted on that a few weeks ago.  These charts show
> the MirrorBrain downloads of OpenOffice, from February:
> 
> http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/marketing_bouncer.html
> 
> So, 90% Windows,  6% Mac, 3% Linux.
> 
> But note this is not necessarily the same distribution as the overall user
> base.  Some ports, like BSD and OS/2 are distributed on other web sites, so
> they are not counted here.  And some derivatives of OOo are included in the
> Linux distros directly, so are not reflected in these numbers.

Please, and asking only for myself, if you know of a linux distro using
a derivative of Apache OpenOffice do name it - if you mean LibreOffice,
please stop calling it a derivative - it is not a valid reflection of
the facts, if you are referring to the former package OpenOffice.org
then please refer to it by its legal name.

> 
> -Rob
> 
> 
> > Greetz
> >
> > Fernand
> >
> >  There was a question in an earlier thread on whether we should still
> >> support Windows 2000.  It was an open question whether we had many users
> >> on
> >> that platform.
> >>
> >> Here are the numbers we have, based on downloads.  Note that we can only
> >> figure out what platform a user was on when they downloaded OpenOffice.
> >>  It
> >> is entirely possible for someone to download from a Windows 7 machine and
> >> then install it onto a Windows 2000 machine.  We have no easy way to
> >> measure that.  However, that should be small compared to the number of
> >> users who download onto the same machine they will be installing onto.
> >>
> >> Win7   57.32%
> >> XP   31.37%
> >> Vista   10.07%
> >> NT0.76%
> >> 2003 Server   0.32%
> >> 2000 0.14%
> >> 98  0.02%
> >> CE  0.00%
> >>
> >>
> >

Re: Distribution of Windows versions

[Rob Weir]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Fernand Vanrie  wrote:

>  Rob ,
>
> Interesting, do you have also figures about the differences in OS :
>  Windows versus Linux or Mac etc..
>
>
There were some numbers posted on that a few weeks ago.  These charts show
the MirrorBrain downloads of OpenOffice, from February:

http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/marketing_bouncer.html

So, 90% Windows,  6% Mac, 3% Linux.

But note this is not necessarily the same distribution as the overall user
base.  Some ports, like BSD and OS/2 are distributed on other web sites, so
they are not counted here.  And some derivatives of OOo are included in the
Linux distros directly, so are not reflected in these numbers.

-Rob


> Greetz
>
> Fernand
>
>  There was a question in an earlier thread on whether we should still
>> support Windows 2000.  It was an open question whether we had many users
>> on
>> that platform.
>>
>> Here are the numbers we have, based on downloads.  Note that we can only
>> figure out what platform a user was on when they downloaded OpenOffice.
>>  It
>> is entirely possible for someone to download from a Windows 7 machine and
>> then install it onto a Windows 2000 machine.  We have no easy way to
>> measure that.  However, that should be small compared to the number of
>> users who download onto the same machine they will be installing onto.
>>
>> Win7   57.32%
>> XP   31.37%
>> Vista   10.07%
>> NT0.76%
>> 2003 Server   0.32%
>> 2000 0.14%
>> 98  0.02%
>> CE  0.00%
>>
>>
>

Re: Distribution of Windows versions

[Fernand Vanrie]

 Rob ,

Interesting, do you have also figures about the differences in OS :  
Windows versus Linux or Mac etc..


Greetz

Fernand

There was a question in an earlier thread on whether we should still
support Windows 2000.  It was an open question whether we had many users on
that platform.

Here are the numbers we have, based on downloads.  Note that we can only
figure out what platform a user was on when they downloaded OpenOffice.  It
is entirely possible for someone to download from a Windows 7 machine and
then install it onto a Windows 2000 machine.  We have no easy way to
measure that.  However, that should be small compared to the number of
users who download onto the same machine they will be installing onto.

Win7   57.32%
XP   31.37%
Vista   10.07%
NT0.76%
2003 Server   0.32%
2000 0.14%
98  0.02%
CE  0.00%