incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From xia zhao <lilyzh...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Distribution of Windows versions
Date Sun, 01 Apr 2012 03:20:05 GMT
2012/3/29 drew <drew@baseanswers.com>

> On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 14:21 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:34 PM, drew jensen <drewjensen.inbox@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 13:25 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Fernand Vanrie <sos@pmgroup.be>
> 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%
> > > > >> NT        0.76%
> > > > >> 2003 Server   0.32%
> > > > >> 2000     0.14%
> > > > >> 98      0.02%
> > > > >> CE      0.00%
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message