Blue Heelers season 8

I put in a list of reasons why the use of browser statistics is unreliable in estimating the proportions of PCs using different operating systems and followed with an example comparing results from surveys, and hits from a particular web site, w3schools.com. I thought the single reason, unreliable reporting, was incomplete. Having viewed server logs, I know it is often impossible to get it right. It would be better to have survey data. Pogson 00:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If we are going to use web stats from unknown pages out there, I wonder whether it would be feasible/desirable to include the stats from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is widely used by everyone so would be a neutral, high-volume site to collect statistics. That might be a better sample than the unknown sites in the three collections in the article. Pogson 01:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think methodology is a really big problem. When I look at the visitors of two sites that I help hosting (both small, but not too small, 1500 unique visits monthly) I see big differences that are a result of the different public, but also a real problem with more and more spambots and harvester bots that are undistinguishable from windows/msie users. On the one site (which has more forms and not yet ip blocking) bots are at least 40%, perhaps even more.

If I visit for example the XiTi Monitor and look for its methodology, it simply states:

Methodology:
This survey of operating systems was conducted on French-speaking websites.

That's not very insightful. --Kornelis (talk) 07:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Other methodologies

Please include some information from sources beside web browsers for comparison purposes. — Omegatron 21:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

What other sources are there? --Harumphy 12:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Surveys? Sales records? The numbers will vary, but it would be good to have for comparison purposes. — Omegatron 16:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If you think any such info has been published, please point us to it. --Harumphy 16:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Are these statistics worldwide or U.S.? It appears the stats from w3counter are but I do not know about the rest.DrRisk13 15:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Net Applications and W3 Counter both say they're global, XiTi says it monitors "francophone websites", W3 Schools stats are just for its own site. --Harumphy 14:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Usage share of server operating systems

Should this article not also exist to juxtapose the 'desktop operating systems' comparison? Altonbr (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that apart from web servers, most servers aren't connected to the internet; so how do you collect reliable data? You can't go by licenses sold, since FOSS software typically isn't sold by license. The only reason this article exists is that web browser user agent strings give us a way of estimating desktop share; no such equivalent exists for (non-web-)servers . -- simxp (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The OS Share Data

The article divides Windows into its major reviesions, but groups both MACOS and OSX into one heading; OSX. This is inaccurate. Either the column should reflect only actual OSX data, or it should be labelled something other than "OSX" but "Apple" or somesuch.

Wageslave (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• The sources are themselves a bit vague about which versions of Mac OS they're talking about. I suggest that in the individual tables we just cite what the sources themselves say, and just conflate everything into "Mac OS" in the summary table. --Harumphy (talk) 07:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That may work better.

Wageslave (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Mean

Someone calculated the median and I replaced it with a mean to give a much better average, and someone removed or never added W3 Schools into the summary table for some reason so I added that in. My question is does anyone know if there's a way to have spreadsheet-like calculations in tables? That would be neat, so that each time the figures change, you don't need to recalculate the mean value. Just a thought. :) Yfrwlf (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Had it occurred to you that the table was that way for a reason?

W3 Schools only collects stats for its own site, and is thus not anything resembling a valid sample. That's why it was removed from the summary table.

A mean figure is subject to undue influence from 'wild' figures that aren't supported by other sources. The whole point of a median is that it has a bias toward figures that are in the centre of the range and discounts idiosyncratic highs and lows.

Please don't change the table again without consensus here first.--Harumphy (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, I couldn't see the reason for it. A summary table is supposed to be just that, a summary of the details which follow. If W3 Schools isn't considered to be a valid source for this Wikipedia entry, then why is it included in the sections below? Clearly there seems to be some disagreement as to what qualifies as a valid source here. If the qualifications here are that a site has to keep tabs on "multiple websites" or whatnot, then W3 Schools should be removed, or it should be clarified that the summary should only include the sites which meet this criteria. Understandable that a median is a bit less bias than a mean though as it's influenced a little less, agreed. :) Yfrwlf (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There are relatively few sources of published stats, and this article makes the most of those few. The W3 Schools table is included because, despite the caveat about it recording visits to its own site only, it may be of interest even though it is not statistically significant. Because it is not statistically significant, it isn't included in the summary table. Maybe we should call the summary table something else.--Harumphy (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I still think of it as indecision as to whether or not W3 Schools is a valid source, I mean any single website could monitor it's own web traffic hits and most do, they just don't display it publicly, but if this is a place for any and all statistics except for the summary table, so be it. I was under the assumption that W3 Schools was a big site with a random audience, and that's why anyone gave a care about it. The site is for web development, so you could make claims like "more web developers use Linux, so the site is biased", but that's still a bit extreme to say since the site is a general web development learning site and is of interest to anyone, it's just industry-specific. It begs the question of what types of sites do the other monitors monitor though, are they specific to certain industries or operating systems, or do they seem to take a more random slice of web traffic? Of course as the number of sites goes up, the probability of being biased goes down, even though it's still entirely possible if they cater to specific things. You can nitpick anything to death, so perhaps any criticism like that can go under each section if any is found like how it's stated in W3 Schools that it's only monitoring one site, and for now perhaps we can call the summary table something like "Summary of multi-site traffic monitors" or "Summary of multi-domain traffic monitors" perhaps? If no one objects and can think of a better name, I'll change it to the latter which I assume is the better of the two. Yfrwlf (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not indecision. It may be valid to cite W3 Schools for one purpose (e.g. passing interest) but not for another (e.g. something from which the median is derived). Your proposed title is clumsy and it makes an arcane point at the expense of simplicity, clarity and brevity. IMHO. --Harumphy (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Then under "Summary table", it should be stated that it only includes those websites that monitor multiple domains, so that someone else doesn't edit it and make the same changes I did. Yfrwlf (talk) 00:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've tried a slightly different approach - by explaining the inconsistency under the W3 Schools entry rather than under the summary table. --Harumphy (talk) 08:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Graph Data

Representing the data as graphs would much easier to visualize as apposed to numbers. I guess this is one of those things someone has to care enough about to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devon Fyson (talk • contribs) 03:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be difficult to do well and it would need keeping up-to-date at least once a month.--Harumphy (talk) 09:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Summary table

Jdm64's edits are not good ones, because (a) W3 Counter and OneStat only publish data for some versions of Windows, and not for Windows as a whole, and (b) the medians are incorrect. (The correct way to calculate the median of four values is to discard the highest and lowest and take the mean of the middle two.) The version of the table before his edits accurately summarised what the sources say and had correct medians. Therefore I intend to revert unless there is a consensus here in favour of Jmd64's edits.--Harumphy (talk) 11:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do so, as you point out the current table simply isn't correct. Having a summary of the separate Windows 98/2000/XP/Vista percentages is actually quite useful. Thanks. Hexene (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

24 hours have passed (approx), so I've reverted to page to the 'status quo' version in the absence of support for Jdm64's version.--Harumphy (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not seeing this reply sooner. (1) I'll agree with how you calculate the average. (2) Someone that is looking for a Summary of the different operating system's market share would want the summary to include larger categories: ie windows, mac, linux. Then, the detailed statistics can be seen in the other sections of the page. With your format one would have to calculate the total market share for windows every time the numbers changed, instead of the more elegant format of the summary actually Being a Summary. Also all four sites give stats for windows vista, xp, 2000, me and 98. Henceforth the total can easily be summed (what I did). If the broken out stats for windows is really needed, then at the very least another column can be added for the total windows market share. (both sides pleased). Also some of the sites list window 2003, nt and 95 which are not in the summary, why are those excluded? Because it's suppose to be a summary. Jdm64 (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I edited the table, but this time giving more stats, not removing any. I added a total windows and also a median. This new table should now give a better summary with all information that was requested. Jdm64 (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Also added an "other" field by 100% - sum(windows, mac, linux). I feel this is necessary if we are going to exclude windows nt, 95, me, 2003, mac intel and mac ppc from the summary but have them in the detailed stats for the different sources. Jdm64 (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. First you 'improve' the table by removing half the data. Now you 'improve' it by putting in twice as much. In both cases you've added data about the 'total Windows' and 'Other' share which are not logically deducible from the cited sources. (W3 Counter only lists the top ten OSs, OneStat even fewer. In neither case is it possible to deduce how to allocate the unlisted share between Windows and Other.) Please stop messing with the table and please don't make any changes until it is agreed here first.--Harumphy (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you said "don't revert" and I didn't, only added info (wasn't clear). My conserns are as follows:

1. All the sites list at least (windows vista/xp/2000/me/98, mac and linux) but the table doesn't show windows me. So, why not include it? On what grounds do we select what os is listed. Because windows me is on all the sites.
2. The percent's don't add up to 100%, so why not add other/error to show some form of accuracy rating, or even the market share for the total of the others that includes windows 2003/95/nt/ce, *bsd, unix (which are on at least some of the sites). This could be calc by just 100%-(all other fields). There shouldn't be worry of error because all the sites list all the top OSs, and the largest OS not listed was <0.20%, and the stats on the sites are even known to be inaccurate because of how they're calculated (browsers). This will improve the summary because one can easily see how accurate or precise the site is and where the bias is for the pool the stats come from.
3. From the view of a reader (not the view of an editor) one would want the summary to include summed up totals for windows/mac/linux. Windows 98 is on the table but has little relevance because of its small market share, outdated version of windows, and the fact that a summary should only include specific os versions. Then the reader would scroll down and look at the detailed summaries for the different sites.
4. All version of windows are still windows. Dividing it up and not showing a total breaks the flow of the summary. Why not break up mac into ppc/intel? Or linux into ubuntu/fedora/suse. The table shows a total for linux, but different versions of linux can be as different as the versions of windows. So for consistency windows should have a total just like mac/linux. There should be little uncertainty of the total for windows because all the sites list the top versions of windows. The largest non-listed version ~<0.20%, and guessing about "other" would stand on similar reasoning.
5. Mean is used to show an "average", but given how the stats are created in the first place (browser) the smaller the market share the greater the error in the data. Maybe median wouldn't work either and a more statistically accurate formula would give more accuracy (ie. using standard deviation and such). This is also important because some of the sites are updated less frequently and the "age" of the data would have an effect when calculating the "average", especially for small market shares.
6. The order of the OSs should go from largest to smallest. So the rankings of the different OSs can be comprehended at a glance. Starting with win98 is illogical because its relevance is less than that of others like xp or vista. Reading from left to right with high to low priority is more logical and consistent with how lists and rankings are created. Other orderings could be by date of release. The current format is inconsistent.
7. Maybe two tables would better convey the summary. One for the top 3 OSs the readers would be interested in, then another including versions of windows with mac and linux. The first table compiled from the second.

I'm not trying to vandalize the page, but I reason the current version is inefficient/inconsistent. It seams like your format is the only "correct" way. I'm not saying my way is better, but the current format should be improved. Jdm64 (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Jmd64 - many thanks for your detailed post here, which deserves an equally detailed response. Taking each of your points in order:

1. The lack of Me is a historical accident. At one time we included W3 Schools in the summary table, and they don't have stats for Me. We dropped W3 Schools because it samples only one site - its own - and it seemed wrong to treat this as being on a par with the sources that sample many sites. I agree that you have identified an anomaly which needs to be sorted out.
2. It is obvious from the weak correlation between the figures from the different sources that must be a great deal of error in at least some of them. The table makes this quite clear - there's no need to labour the point. I wouldn't object strongly to an 'other' column (100% minus the other columns) but I think it's unnecessary.
3. You speak 'from the point of view of a reader' but in reality are merely expressing an opinion. I agree that 98 is outdated and small in share. The same is true of Me. We need to consider how to treat 98 and Me consistently.
4. We split up Windows by the major versions, but not MacOS/Linux because (a) the source data is available like that, (b) because Windows has around 90% share and has two versions which have bigger share that MacOS and Linux put together, and (c) people want it. We haven't got an 'All Windows' column because that data is only available from two of the four sources cited.
5. Median has an advantage over mean in that it prevents a single high or low source figure skewing the derived figure. It's not worth doing standard deviations because (a) it would mean little to most readers and (b) the raw data isn't up to it.
6. The sort order of the data is first from highest to lowest (Windows/Mac/Linux) and then from oldest to newest (Windows versions). If we don't do this then the Mac and Linux columns will end up interspersed among the various Windows columns, which will look awful.
7. I disagree. I think the 'inconsistency' between multiple columns for Windows and single columns for MacOS/Linux is reasonable in view of Windows' 90% share and the fact that the sources we're citing tend to do it that way. Using two tables would solve a problem that doesn't really exist.--Harumphy (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

So, I currently see the following alterations that you might approve:

1. The inclusion/exclusion of windows 98/ME needs to be sorted out. (I would lean towards excluding both to make the table more concise; and because of how outdated and low the market share is for both)
2. An "other" column could be included.
3. The sort order could be as follows (Windows XP | Windows Vista | Windows 2000 | Windows 98 | Mac OS | Linux) which would not break the "windows group" and would flow from high to low; new to old. Which would maintain consistent high to low priority.

Please give a yes/no reply for each alteration (#1 might need further consideration) that you approve me changing. Jdm64 (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It isn't for me to "approve" anything. Please see WP:OWN. WP works by consensus. It's a pity that there's only two of us in this discussion. Is anyone else listening? In response to your three numbered points:

1. The preamble to the article says that OSs are included if their share ever exceeded 0.1%. On this yardstick both 98 and Me should be included. If we want to exclude them then logically we ought to reconsider that yardstick first. (It currently applies to all the tables including the summary.)
2. An 'other' column is in my view unnecessary clutter, so I would prefer that it is not included.
3. The beauty of the present column order is that Windows versions are grouped on the left, and the 'current' OSs (XP, Vista, MacOS, Linux) are grouped together on the right. With your proposed sort order the obsolete versions of Windows would be in the middle, which would detract from the overall utility of the table IMHO.--Harumphy (talk) 08:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I know that nobody owns/controls an article, but since you've been the only one to object to my edits and you have significant portion of the edits, it seems like anything you object to would be reverted by you. And yeah, I wish there were other people in this discussion to have a more balanced discussion. But to reply:

1. If 0.01% is the marker then there are a few inconsistencies. The Net Applications might soon need a SunOS column as it's almost over 0.01% (not an inconsistency but a warning of potential future clutter). XiTi definably needs Windows 2003, and maybe "Other windows versions" as it's both listed and well over 0.01%, and maybe soon Windows 95. My point is, if 0.01% is the lower bound then we might soon be adding way to many columns to the page, making the page cluttered (ie. an increase in market share for *BSDs/Solaris). But even if that doesn't happen is the Summary suppose to list all OSs > 0.01%? Or is that to be relegated to the detailed summaries? In which case ME should be added; and maybe 95/2003 and put a --- or N/A in the location were the site doesn't list that OS.
2. As you stated the inclusion/exclusion of "other" is an opinion. So, I suggest that it be added, and then afterward if any objections we can discuss the issue further at that time. Because how it is now it's my opinion against yours, as nobody else seems to care/notice. The change might help conjure up more opinionated people to further the discussion.
3. I guess I mostly agree with you. But still, the first column being 98 frustrates seems backwards to me. We could have your sort order, but in reverse: (Linux | Mac OS | Windows Vista | Windows XP | Windows 2000 | Windows 98 | Windows ME | Other) Which would put the most "interesting" columns first and not break the flow since it's just the current version in reverse; and might even improve it by moving 98/ME more out of sight, and bringing focus to Linux/Mac/Vista. My reasoning is that one reads from left to right.

So since nobody "owns" a page, I'll (1) Include windows ME (2) Add an 'other' column (3) reverse the current sort; If there are no objections in 24hrs. Jdm64 (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will chime in with my 2 cents into this discussion:

1. . I find it valuable to have column for combined market share of all versions of Windows. If only to be able to track Windows market share over time. With market share moving from, say, Windows XP to Windows Vista - it is difficult to tell today looking at the tables, whether Windows gaining or losing overall market share.
2. . I don't think 'Others' column is valuable at all - it doesn't tell much. If there will be a new uprising OS, it will get its own column.
3. . I prefer not to include obscure OS's such as 98 or ME. The market share of Web browsers page solved it by having separate tables for separate time periods, when some browsers were more/less prominent.
4. . No opinion on other issues (I didn't fully understand median vs. mean discussion, but I don't care either way - I don't think either of them is important).

Wikiolap (talk) 05:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to Jmd64's points:

1. The threshold is currently 0.1% not 0.01%.
2. Since you posted, Wikiolap has agreed with my view that an 'other' column is not useful.
3. If we get rid of 98 and Me from the summary table, that will solve the problem.

Reasoning-wise, one reads from left to right, and time flows from past to future. It seems to me logical to correlate the two by having the oldest stuff on the left. Whether we reverse the order or not, we need to ensure that the column order in all the tables is consistent.

In response to Wikiolap's first point:

1. We only have two sources of 'All Windows' data: Net Applications and XiTi. If we introduce an All Windows column, I suggest there should be data from just these two sources with the other two rows containing empty cells. With just two sources the median would equal the mean.

Putting all this together, I suggest we:

1. Drop 98 from the summary table.
2. Add an All Windows column to the table, between the existing Windows columns and MacOS/Linux, using data from Net Applications and XiTi only.--Harumphy (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

My mistake about the percent, but that still makes XiTi needing both Windows 2003 and "Other windows versions" for consistency. And it seems like my original request for an "all windows" is gaining support. Just a side note: If we're going from left to right, old to new, that would put the order as following with initial release (Linux 1991, Windows2000 2000, MacOS X 2001, Windows XP 2001, Windows Vista 2007). I'm ok with your suggested ordering, but that would not really correlate to time ordering. But I'm also fine with ordering it by time, which with keeping windows together, would be: (Linux, MacOSX, Total Windows, 2000, XP, Vista). Other than that I'm fine with dropping 98 and adding total windows. Jdm64 (talk) 09:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement now. By 'oldest to newest' I was thinking 'time since last supported' rather than 'time since first released', but it doesn't matter. This discussion has forced us all to think this through carefully, and we'll have a much better article as a result of it. So much better than edit warring.--Harumphy (talk) 09:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

My preference for the ordering would be not 'from oldest to newest', but 'from Windows to everything else', which is essentially order by popularity/market share - I think readers are more interested in seeing first the most widely used OS, and only then more obscure ones. Wikiolap (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

So from the current discussion I see the following possible versions. Note: (%) will represent that the data is not stated explicitly, but calculated implicitly, or however else we want to note this fact. I would vote for #1, unless someone comes up with another version: Jdm64 (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

1

Source	Date	Windows XP	Windows Vista	Windows 2000	Total Windows	Mac OS	Linux	Source
Net Applications	September 2008	68.67%	18.33%	1.89%	(90.23%)	8.23%	0.91%	[1]
W3 Counter	September 2008	73.04%	12.30%	2.24%	(89.10%)	5.62%	1.99%	[2]
XiTi Monitor	August 2008	71.22%	18.99%	1.56%	93.61%	4.10%	1.16%	[3]
OneStat	April 2008	78.93%	13.24%	2.82%	95.94%	3.36%	0.42%	[4]
Median	September 2008	72.13%	15.79%	2.07%	91.92%	4.86%	1.04%	---

2

Source	Date	Total Windows	Windows XP	Windows Vista	Windows 2000	Mac OS	Linux	Source
Net Applications	September 2008	(90.23%)	68.67%	18.33%	1.89%	8.23%	0.91%	[5]
W3 Counter	September 2008	(89.10%)	73.04%	12.30%	2.24%	5.62%	1.99%	[6]
XiTi Monitor	August 2008	93.61%	71.22%	18.99%	1.56%	4.10%	1.16%	[7]
OneStat	April 2008	95.94%	78.93%	13.24%	2.82%	3.36%	0.42%	[8]
Median	September 2008	91.92%	72.13%	15.79%	2.07%	4.86%	1.04%	---

I prefer 1, modified as follows to improve the headings and the Total Windows figures to produce 3 below:--Harumphy (talk) 07:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

3

Source	Date	Microsoft Windows				Mac OS	Linux	Sources
		XP	Vista	2000	Total
Net Applications	September 2008	68.67%	18.33%	1.89%	90.29%	8.23%	0.91%	[9][10]
W3 Counter	September 2008	73.04%	12.30%	2.24%	---	5.62%	1.99%	[11]
XiTi Monitor	August 2008	71.22%	18.99%	1.56%	93.61%	4.10%	1.16%	[12]
OneStat	April 2008	78.93%	13.24%	2.82%	95.94%	3.36%	0.42%	[13]
Median	September 2008	72.13%	15.79%	2.07%	93.61%	4.86%	1.04%	---