fyi- brief outage, but we're back

Sorry all, looks like some instability with our backups locked up the server. We are still looking into it.

Thanks,
Sean

Resistance is futile.

I feel better !!! Thanks for the update !

Hello Sean,

There is still a strange thing, english forum main page appears to me to be partially garbled (at least with my web browser (Firefox)). It affects everything below the "APUG.ORG" subforum (this one is displayed OK).

Regards,

Raphael

^ I had the same problem-I even reloaded Firefox. But it cleared up and is fine.^

Raphael said:

Hello Sean,

There is still a strange thing, english forum main page appears to me to be partially garbled (at least with my web browser (Firefox)). It affects everything below the "APUG.ORG" subforum (this one is displayed OK).

Regards,

Raphael

Click to expand...

Are you on an old version of the browser? or windows98?

Hello Sean,

Thanks for your answer.

Still same problem, like lxdude and Stephen Jeffery.

Sean said:

Are you on an old version of the browser? or windows98?

Click to expand...

Yes, it's an old version of the Firefox (1.5.0.1), and, sorry, I have not the choice to upgrade it right here. For Windows 98, I think you are teasing me a little (w2k3 in fact).

But it's of secondary importance Thanks for your wonderful work.

Regards,

Raphael

Ummm, you know that there umm, deleted thread? Well, on Chrome and Firefox for a couple of days now, the header is busted off the top and skewed left. I can scroll left to remind myself that this isn't just PUG and scroll back to the right.


I hope Sirius or I didn't break it. I can assure you Walrath did it.

Sean,

Does APUG still gets hits from people running Windows 98?

Tom

Tom Kershaw said:

Sean,

Does APUG still gets hits from people running Windows 98?

Tom

Click to expand...

here are the stats:

Windows 10454763 63.4 %
Windows XP 5285266 32 %
Windows Vista 11 0 %
Windows (unknown version) 22124 0.1 %
Windows NT 6025 0 %
Windows ME 20532 0.1 %
Windows Vista (LongHorn) 1830769 11.1 %
Windows Mobile 5259 0 %
Windows 98 29366 0.1 %
Windows 95 1820 0 %
Windows 2008 2991916 18.1 %
Windows 2003 179434 1 %
Windows 2000 81841 0.4 %
Windows 3.xx 400 0 %

Tom Kershaw said:

Sean,

Does APUG still gets hits from people running Windows 98?

Tom

Click to expand...

Sean said:

here are the stats:

Windows 10454763 63.4 %
Windows XP 5285266 32 %
Windows Vista 11 0 %
Windows (unknown version) 22124 0.1 %
Windows NT 6025 0 %
Windows ME 20532 0.1 %
Windows Vista (LongHorn) 1830769 11.1 %
Windows Mobile 5259 0 %
Windows 98 29366 0.1 %
Windows 95 1820 0 %
Windows 2008 2991916 18.1 %
Windows 2003 179434 1 %
Windows 2000 81841 0.4 %
Windows 3.xx 400 0 %

Click to expand...

Eh... > 100%? :confused: Oh, no, first line with 63.4% probably depicts the percentage of all Windows versions in the total amount of hits and OS used. So 2/3 is on Windows, and the rest most likely on Apple Macintosh, besides mobile.

Which is in line with the 3 month statistics of my own site (2 images for OS and Windows specifically):

Sean said:

here are the stats:

Windows 10454763 63.4 %
Windows XP 5285266 32 %
Windows Vista 11 0 %
Windows (unknown version) 22124 0.1 %
Windows NT 6025 0 %
Windows ME 20532 0.1 %
Windows Vista (LongHorn) 1830769 11.1 %
Windows Mobile 5259 0 %
Windows 98 29366 0.1 %
Windows 95 1820 0 %
Windows 2008 2991916 18.1 %
Windows 2003 179434 1 %
Windows 2000 81841 0.4 %
Windows 3.xx 400 0 %

Click to expand...

Now, I don't know much about these here computer thingies, so maybe somebody can help me out: Two versions of Vista, with plain ol' Vista being represented by only 11 users, and Longhorn being over a million? And whither Windows 7? What's Windows 2008?

I'm confoosed.:confused:

lxdude said:

Now, I don't know much about these here computer thingies, so maybe somebody can help me out: Two versions of Vista, with plain ol' Vista being represented by only 11 users, and Longhorn being over a million? And whither Windows 7? What's Windows 2008?

I'm confoosed.:confused:

Click to expand...

It seems Sean uses an outdated program for collecting statistics. Vista Longhorn, or Longhorn short, was the "development name" of what has now become Windows 7. So I guess the stats for Vista Longhorn, are Windows 7.

I can't explain the extreme low number for Vista itself. Of all Windows users on my site in the past 3 months, about 20% still used Vista, versus 28% Windows 7.

Maybe the data is actually even more garbled than I thought, because looking at the numbers, I am beginning to suspect that Windows 2008 (18% in Sean's APUG stats) is actually Windows 7. Maybe Vista Longhorn than represents a late Vista version, instead of Windows 7. With 11%, that wouldn't be too strange in the light of the statistics of my own site.

Windows 2003 is at least a server version of Windows. Used in big organizations / companies to run networks.

Windows ME is a version of Windows that came after Windows 98, but never grew to much popularity, as Microsoft released Windows XP just afterwards. In fact, I think most users switched from Windows 95 straight to XP, like most are now going from XP to 7 while skipping Vista.

I thought Longhorn was the development code name for Vista, and W7 had a different one. Maybe you're right about W2008, though I'm thinking it's an upgraded W2003.
I do find it funny about Vista having only 11 users. I know it was rather poorly regarded, given all the hype that preceded it, (I sure didn't switch!), but wow!

Marco B said:

... Windows ME is a version of Windows that came after Windows 98, but never grew to much popularity, as Microsoft released Windows XP just afterwards. In fact, I think most users switched from Windows 95 straight to XP, like most are now going from XP to 7 while skipping Vista.

Click to expand...

You forgot Windows 2000, which were released between ME and XP. They were much better than any previous version of Windows.

I did have the displeasure of using Windows Me at a job I had in 2000-01; it offered nothing substantial but did change some Excel commands. We demanded and got 98 back. Which only illustrates how worthless it was as an improvement (in a commercial environment, anyway). We asked for 2000 and were turned down flat.
2000 was an NT based version, and so was indeed much superior to any of the DOS based Windows.