I've posted a few times showing the actual week to week chart positions of AB, "Zooropa" and "POP" (and of course, ATYCLB now) but I don't have the week to week numbers for any U2 album before that - nor do I want them.
I did what STING said he's going to do a few years back. I went to a library and looked at old copies of Billboard on microfiche going through week to week numbers. But the reason I didn't do this for JT or R&H is because those albums came out in the pre-SoundScan era. There was a lot of bias on the charts in the pre-SoundScan era. Back then, Billboard relied on a string of music stores to report their sales. Sometimes, if a music store owner fancied a particular album, he might report some heavily biased numbers. Record labels used to like seeing their albums rise on the charts (as opposed to debuting near the top as they do now), giving the illusion/impression of a "hot" album. Then they wanted the album to peak, linger at or near the top for a while and SLOWLY descend. In order to have this pattern, often labels would bribe record store owners to say that an album is selling better than it was. Now that we have actual sales figures for each week, clearly this nice, pleasant pattern has proven not to be true. All one needs to do is look at ATYCLB's week to week performance to see how an album can fluctuate on the charts.
These days, it's very rare for an album to spend 9 weeks at #1. In the pre-SoundScan era, most hot albums would spend tons of time at or near the top. In contrast, a hot album now may only spend a week or two there, even though it may sell millions. Look at N'Sync's latest or Backstreet Boys' latest. Even Limp Bizkit's latest only spent two weeks on top. There's simply too much competition for an album to stay #1 for any extended period (over 5 weeks at #1).
Therefore, comparing JT's chart run with anything U2 have released in the 90's or later is not an accurate comparison. These are two different eras on the charts.