«

"Allistar" <> wrote in message
news: ...
> victor wrote:
>
>> impossible wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure where you're going with this. Neither the Market Share or
>>> Net Applications sites use sales data to estimate the os market share
>>> stats that the subject of this thread. Outfits like Gartner use pc
>>> shipment data to estimate market share.
>>>
>>>
> http://www.macrumors.com/2009/04/16/...ps-in-1q-2009/
>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps that's what you're concerned about, but I've never seen evidence
>>> that Gartner or any other reputable market rersearch company counts
>>> shipments of ...what was that?... ATM machines and parking meters? ...to
>>> make Apple look bad. You sound a bit paranoid.
>>
>> Browser string statistics from a small sample of opt in sites is not
>> market share, and is not accurate to .01% as your original post implied.
>> Its easily skewed if the default search engine of Internet Explorer is
>> chosen or the do you want to report this crash to Microsoft, or
>> Microsoft Windows Update or Adobe Update etc is part of the survey.
>> The W3Counter data is equally valid pending any further detail that
>> excludes weighting factors.
>
> Assuming that the user agent string in browsers is reliable (which it is
> not), I'd say a more accurate way to get an approximate OS/browser usage
> figure would be from well used sites that aren't distorted to a particular
> demographic. Is there such a thing?
>
> Google would probably be the best, although not for countries that have
> their own search engines, like China.
>
> Youtube would be ok, but would be over represented by young people.
>
> Facebook? Same problem as youtube, even more so.
>
> Tech sites? Would probably be over represented by technical people, and
> hence over represesented by Linux users.
>
> Face it: There's no accurate way to determine how many people use a
> particular flavour of OS.
> --

Yeah, right. It wold be much too difficult to sample 24,768,449 unique
visits to 24,538 different websites and so make an informed estimate based
on capturing the usage of a random assortment of diverse users every month.

http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats...ate=2008-06-30

That method assingns Linux just a wee bit more market ahare than this
method:

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/

"About Our Market Share Statistics ...

"We use a unique methodology for collecting this data. We collect data from
the browsers of site visitors to our exclusive on-demand network of live
stats customers. The data is compiled from approximately 160 million
visitors per month. The information published is an aggregate of the data
from this network of hosted website statistics. The site unique visitor and
referral information is summarized on a monthly, weekly, daily and hourly
basis.

"In addition, we classify 430+ referral sources identified as search
engines. Aggregate traffic referrals from these engines are summarized and
reported on. The statistics for search engines include both organic and
sponsored referrals. The websites in our population represent almost all
countries on earth."

Exactly what kind of evidence do you have to dispute either of these
estimates? Wishful thinking?

"Allistar" <> wrote in message
news ...
> impossible wrote:
>
>>
>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
>> news: ...
>>> victor wrote:
>>>
>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure where you're going with this. Neither the Market Share or
>>>>> Net Applications sites use sales data to estimate the os market share
>>>>> stats that the subject of this thread. Outfits like Gartner use pc
>>>>> shipment data to estimate market share.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
> http://www.macrumors.com/2009/04/16/...ps-in-1q-2009/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps that's what you're concerned about, but I've never seen
>>>>> evidence that Gartner or any other reputable market rersearch company
>>>>> counts shipments of ...what was that?... ATM machines and parking
>>>>> meters? ...to make Apple look bad. You sound a bit paranoid.
>>>>
>>>> Browser string statistics from a small sample of opt in sites is not
>>>> market share, and is not accurate to .01% as your original post
>>>> implied.
>>>> Its easily skewed if the default search engine of Internet Explorer is
>>>> chosen or the do you want to report this crash to Microsoft, or
>>>> Microsoft Windows Update or Adobe Update etc is part of the survey.
>>>> The W3Counter data is equally valid pending any further detail that
>>>> excludes weighting factors.
>>>
>>> Assuming that the user agent string in browsers is reliable (which it is
>>> not), I'd say a more accurate way to get an approximate OS/browser usage
>>> figure would be from well used sites that aren't distorted to a
>>> particular demographic. Is there such a thing?
>>>
>>> Google would probably be the best, although not for countries that have
>>> their own search engines, like China.
>>>
>>> Youtube would be ok, but would be over represented by young people.
>>>
>>> Facebook? Same problem as youtube, even more so.
>>>
>>> Tech sites? Would probably be over represented by technical people, and
>>> hence over represesented by Linux users.
>>>
>>> Face it: There's no accurate way to determine how many people use a
>>> particular flavour of OS.
>>> --
>>
>> Yeah, right. It wold be much too difficult to sample 24,768,449 unique
>> visits to 24,538 different websites and so make an informed estimate
>> based
>> on capturing the usage of a random assortment of diverse users every
>> month.
>>
>> http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats...ate=2008-06-30
>>
>> That method assingns Linux just a wee bit more market ahare than this
>> method:
>>
>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/
>>
>> "About Our Market Share Statistics ...
>>
>> "We use a unique methodology for collecting this data. We collect data
>> from the browsers of site visitors to our exclusive on-demand network of
>> live
>> stats customers. The data is compiled from approximately 160 million
>> visitors per month. The information published is an aggregate of the
>> data
>> from this network of hosted website statistics. The site unique visitor
>> and referral information is summarized on a monthly, weekly, daily and
>> hourly basis.
>>
>> "In addition, we classify 430+ referral sources identified as search
>> engines. Aggregate traffic referrals from these engines are summarized
>> and
>> reported on. The statistics for search engines include both organic and
>> sponsored referrals. The websites in our population represent almost all
>> countries on earth."
>>
>> Exactly what kind of evidence do you have to dispute either of these
>> estimates? Wishful thinking?
>
> I'm not disputing either of those estimates. I'm saying that there is no
> accurate way of determing OS/browser usage.

Don't be daft! Accuracy is measured in terms of a margin of error and the
likelihood that the measure is repeatable. With 24 million users sampled in
one survey,160 million in another, and both measures showing a high level of
consistency through time (no wild swings for any os sampled), the margin of
error for either of these estimates would be veryvery small. Compare that to
the margin of error in your personal wild guess, which would be nearly
infinite. By your own admission, you have zero evidence to dispute either of
these estimates, yet you continue to **** on the data simply because it
doesn't happen to mesh with your own preconcepotions. So be it, but your
starting to sound like a true no-nothing bumpkiun.

> It seems from that first site
> that Linux OS usage is at 1.95%, which tends to contradict your original
> post in this thread.
>
> So which is it? Are the usage stats presented by w3counter.org accurate or
> not?
> --

As I've discussed, both estimates are accurate within a margin of error of
plus/minus 1 percentage point. That puts the likely range of Linux market
share at somewhere between 0 and 2%.

"Allistar" <> wrote in message
news:ed-...
> impossible wrote:
>
>>
>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
>> news ...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
>>>> news: ...
>>>>> victor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not sure where you're going with this. Neither the Market Share
>>>>>>> or Net Applications sites use sales data to estimate the os market
>>>>>>> share stats that the subject of this thread. Outfits like Gartner
>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>> pc shipment data to estimate market share.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
> http://www.macrumors.com/2009/04/16/...ps-in-1q-2009/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps that's what you're concerned about, but I've never seen
>>>>>>> evidence that Gartner or any other reputable market rersearch
>>>>>>> company
>>>>>>> counts shipments of ...what was that?... ATM machines and parking
>>>>>>> meters? ...to make Apple look bad. You sound a bit paranoid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Browser string statistics from a small sample of opt in sites is not
>>>>>> market share, and is not accurate to .01% as your original post
>>>>>> implied.
>>>>>> Its easily skewed if the default search engine of Internet Explorer
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> chosen or the do you want to report this crash to Microsoft, or
>>>>>> Microsoft Windows Update or Adobe Update etc is part of the survey.
>>>>>> The W3Counter data is equally valid pending any further detail that
>>>>>> excludes weighting factors.
>>>>>
>>>>> Assuming that the user agent string in browsers is reliable (which it
>>>>> is not), I'd say a more accurate way to get an approximate OS/browser
>>>>> usage figure would be from well used sites that aren't distorted to a
>>>>> particular demographic. Is there such a thing?
>>>>>
>>>>> Google would probably be the best, although not for countries that
>>>>> have
>>>>> their own search engines, like China.
>>>>>
>>>>> Youtube would be ok, but would be over represented by young people.
>>>>>
>>>>> Facebook? Same problem as youtube, even more so.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tech sites? Would probably be over represented by technical people,
>>>>> and
>>>>> hence over represesented by Linux users.
>>>>>
>>>>> Face it: There's no accurate way to determine how many people use a
>>>>> particular flavour of OS.
>>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, right. It wold be much too difficult to sample 24,768,449 unique
>>>> visits to 24,538 different websites and so make an informed estimate
>>>> based
>>>> on capturing the usage of a random assortment of diverse users every
>>>> month.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats...ate=2008-06-30
>>>>
>>>> That method assingns Linux just a wee bit more market ahare than this
>>>> method:
>>>>
>>>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/
>>>>
>>>> "About Our Market Share Statistics ...
>>>>
>>>> "We use a unique methodology for collecting this data. We collect data
>>>> from the browsers of site visitors to our exclusive on-demand network
>>>> of
>>>> live
>>>> stats customers. The data is compiled from approximately 160 million
>>>> visitors per month. The information published is an aggregate of the
>>>> data
>>>> from this network of hosted website statistics. The site unique
>>>> visitor
>>>> and referral information is summarized on a monthly, weekly, daily and
>>>> hourly basis.
>>>>
>>>> "In addition, we classify 430+ referral sources identified as search
>>>> engines. Aggregate traffic referrals from these engines are summarized
>>>> and
>>>> reported on. The statistics for search engines include both organic
>>>> and
>>>> sponsored referrals. The websites in our population represent almost
>>>> all countries on earth."
>>>>
>>>> Exactly what kind of evidence do you have to dispute either of these
>>>> estimates? Wishful thinking?
>>>
>>> I'm not disputing either of those estimates. I'm saying that there is no
>>> accurate way of determing OS/browser usage.
>>
>> Don't be daft! Accuracy is measured in terms of a margin of error and the
>> likelihood that the measure is repeatable. With 24 million users sampled
>> in one survey,160 million in another, and both measures showing a high
>> level of consistency through time (no wild swings for any os sampled),
>> the
>> margin of error for either of these estimates would be veryvery small.
>> Compare that to the margin of error in your personal wild guess, which
>> would be nearly infinite. By your own admission, you have zero evidence
>> to
>> dispute either of these estimates, yet you continue to **** on the data
>> simply because it doesn't happen to mesh with your own preconcepotions.
>> So
>> be it, but your starting to sound like a true no-nothing bumpkiun.
>
> Please show me any post in this thread I have made where I have "****ed on
> the data". Just one will do. This is only my forth post to this thread, so
> it shouldn't be difficult for you to find.
>

Don't be lazy. Scroll up.

>>> It seems from that first site
>>> that Linux OS usage is at 1.95%, which tends to contradict your original
>>> post in this thread.
>>>
>>> So which is it? Are the usage stats presented by w3counter.org accurate
>>> or not?
>>
>> As I've discussed, both estimates are accurate within a margin of error
>> of
>> plus/minus 1 percentage point. That puts the likely range of Linux market
>> share at somewhere between 0 and 2%.
>
> Yet because of your own agenda you choose to use the lower of the two
> estimates? One that is a half of the other?
>

1%, 2% -- hard to tell the difference when market share is so tiny. It's all
within the margin of error.

> I have no agenda on this matter other than to remove the obvious bias
> presented by some of your posts.
> --

Yeah, right. That's a good one.