Print 128 comment(s) - last by XPguy.. on Jan 17 at 9:30 AM

  (Source: Apple Inc.)
Apple's new OS, Leopard, is no kitten when it comes to sales numbers

Some news stories make it sound like times must be tough for OS makers.  Microsoft's Windows Vista received a lukewarm reception and was recently named PC World's disappointment of 2007.  Among the issues cited for the dubious distinction were Vista's various bugs that are to be fixed by service packs, confusing multiple SKUs, one-computer-only licensing, and sometimes substandard gaming performance. 

Indeed, Microsoft saw some customers flee back to XP after it opened up the option to OEMs.  Certainly Microsoft is not gloom and doom at these developments, and has made a healthy amount off of Vista, but they are hardly having a parade, either.

However, Apple Inc. is by no means sharing in these troubles and certainly has cause for celebration.  Its new operating system, OS X 10.5 Leopard, quickly moved 2 million units.  In its first month, recently released figures now show that Leopard was the best selling Mac OS -- ever.

Microsoft's Vista operating system, often the butt of many Apple jokes, sold 20 million copies in the first month.

Leopard brought in some serious money for Apple, with profits up 32.8% in the first month from the previous OS, Tiger (OS X 10.4).  NPD, one of the most well-respected market research firms, investigated sales figures at Best Buy, Target and other online and store-based retailers and found that Leopard moved 20.5% more units than Tiger in its opening month.

Apple forecasts rapid growth in its PC and notebook sales, spurred partly by Leopard and its various i-Products.  Apple's computer sales for September made up 12.2% of the U.S. indirect sales market, or sales from online or offline stores.  This is almost double the January 2006 percentage, at 6.56%, according to NPD.

NPD indicates that Apple has the high end market cornered.  In the market for so called "premium" PCs -- computers over $1,000 -- Apple computers accounted for 57.53% of September sales, where in January 2006 it only accounted for 17.91% of sales.  This increase is over three fold and is even more staggering.  Apple's solid sales on the high end mean that despite not having the highest sales volumes, it is grabbing a substantial share of the market dollars.  According to NPD Apple earned 22.9% of the total money spent on PCs in September.

Why the sudden success?  Well, its not entirely clear, but the success of the iPhone across many different demographics, a refreshed iPod lineup, and friendly family license deals -- which offer five licenses of Leopard for the price of two -- may partly account for the great gains.  Windows Vista had a similar promotion, but it ended in June, and Microsoft declined to renew it. 

Many also enjoy Leopard's attractive interface.  Downsides include that OS X updates are more frequent than Windows, warranting more purchases, and many software programs are still not compatible with OS X, but much of the sting of the latter is remedied by the inclusion of Boot Camp, which allows you to run a copy of Windows for non Leopard compatible programs, on the same computer.

Apple has always been an aggressive corporation that has had its ups and downs.  It works very hard at times to keep its software and hardware proprietary and closed, something which at times has been a blessing and at others times a burden.  Still, its recent efforts have yielded torrid success, and Apple is now treading on unfamiliar territory.  Could an iteration of OS X ever be a legitimate contender for dominance over a Windows version? 

That hypothetical battle has yet to be realized, but for now Apple can be pleased that its setting records and making a whole lot of money.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Kudos to Apple
By amanojaku on 12/19/2007 6:52:26 PM , Rating: 3
OS X is pretty stunning. I just wish I didn't have to buy a Mac to run it. I already have five computers!

RE: Kudos to Apple
By Esquire on 12/19/2007 7:05:25 PM , Rating: 2
it is a fine os, Quicklook saves tons of time & time machine is so easy.. and quick

RE: Kudos to Apple
By James Holden on 12/19/2007 8:01:22 PM , Rating: 2
Or maybe its because of the Mac vs PC commercials every 5 seconds. Apple specifically attributes the success of Leopard to poor sales of Vista. To not mention it would be an omission of Apple's (dellusional) view of the world.

RE: Kudos to Apple
By James Holden on 12/19/2007 8:01:58 PM , Rating: 1
Whoops that was supposed to go to noirsoft

RE: Kudos to Apple
By gradoman on 12/19/2007 8:07:19 PM , Rating: 2
And you've seen a Windows Vista commercial recently?

RE: Kudos to Apple
By Samus on 12/20/2007 4:12:24 AM , Rating: 2
Why advertise when it comes on every retail PC on the planet? All people have to do is walk in a Best Buy and see Vista on banner's, evert desktop and laptop, stickers on boxes, hardware sold as Vista compatible, with the vista logo, same for software and videogames, don't forget the XBOX360 now advertising vista mediacenter connectivity, and the fact that Apple is advertising for them in their own commercials.

It's stupid for Microsoft to put any money into advertising after they've already got the right cash in marketing.

If Ford were the only company that made the only car people could purchase, do you think it would be neccessary to advertise it?

RE: Kudos to Apple
By therealnickdanger on 12/20/2007 8:18:40 AM , Rating: 2
I think that was his point...

RE: Kudos to Apple
By RW on 12/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: Kudos to Apple
By retrospooty on 12/20/2007 10:06:07 AM , Rating: 2
You make a compelling point. It has always been that way, thus Apple has a tiny percentage of the market. Apple is happy now to see that they broke away from their 4% market share they have had for the past 10 years and are now approaching 6%.

Wow. I am sure MS is shivering in their boots. LOL

RE: Kudos to Apple
By eman7613 on 12/20/07, Rating: -1
RE: Kudos to Apple
By SoCalBoomer on 12/20/2007 12:15:26 PM , Rating: 5
The problem with what you're saying is that it applies only to the Mac Pro - which is extremely expensive compared to a comparable (yeah, redundant, I know) PC, either homebuilt or even from Dell/HP/etc.

The graphics cards that Apple sells ARE obsolete and Mac drivers don't exist for the GOOD cards. . . They're selling the 7300GT, for cryin out loud. That wasn't even good when the Mac Pro came out! Oh, and Apple is selling them at $150 - they're available at NewEgg for $75.

Thus, even if you're running the "desktop" (and if you put it on the desktop, you've either got a monolithic piece of art - which it is - or you have a HUGE desk, or both. . . it's HUGE! MASSIVE! It's HARDLY a desktop. . .) you're stuck with last gen vid cards.

The RAM is more expensive and lower performing due to Apple's requirements. 667 MHz fully buffered DDR2. $299 for an additional gig? ouch.

And it's not even running a Core 2 - it's an older Xeon (I'm assuming so since the Apple Store isn't listing the 4 digit newer generation Intel procs. . .)

So - basically, you could get a more expensive and FRICKIN HUGE machine, with very expensive RAM and over-priced and under-powered graphics cards from Apple for $4145 - that's with two 20" monitors, 2 7300GTs, 2Gigs RAM and the rest standard. A Dell XPS tower with twice the RAM, 2 24" monitors, a single 8800GT (which is easily twice the capability of those two 7300GTs), etc. is just over half that price. . .

And I DO pick on the Mac Pro because of ALL the Macs, that is the ONE that should be kept up to date as it is completely component - unlike the iMac or laptops. . .

btw - the iMac is NOT amazing from an engineering standpoint - it's a LAPTOP on a stand. You can upgrade only the RAM, and you can't even plug in a second monitor without a stupid dongle!!! What engineering was needed for that?

So, you know, if you want to try and answer. . .be honest with it.

RE: Kudos to Apple
By SoCalBoomer on 12/20/2007 12:42:16 PM , Rating: 2
Should also mention - that Dell had BluRay as well! LOL

RE: Kudos to Apple
By cochy on 12/20/2007 3:08:09 PM , Rating: 2
Again. You don't game on a Mac so there's no reason for a DirectX card like an 8800GT. You can easily get a top of the line OpenGL card on a Mac. However over-priced those professional graphics cards may be.

Also the OP mentioned MAC and didn't make any differentiation between iMac or Mac Pro. So saying you can only get those on a Mac Pro shouldn't be part of the argument. Yes the Mac Pro is expensive, all Apple products are expensive.

RE: Kudos to Apple
By UppityMatt on 12/21/2007 8:09:16 AM , Rating: 2
And that is the reason that Apple will never have the market share of a Windows PC. Gaming Drives PC development and upgrades. The only reason for an 8800 video card, Quad Core Processors, and high speed Ram is for gaming. There are some applications you might argue against but by far PC Gaming drives the market and the development of the components. I actually really like the new Mac OS, but i cant justify buying one until i can run everything i want (and dont bring up bootcamp or other emulation software)

RE: Kudos to Apple
By DASQ on 1/8/2008 1:00:51 PM , Rating: 2
You honestly think quad cores are only meant for gaming? How many games these days can fully utilize four physical threads?

Never heard of "encoding" or "rendering" have you?

RE: Kudos to Apple
By eman7613 on 12/21/2007 12:57:05 PM , Rating: 2
Shut up and read what i said and what i replied to.

I was not arguing that Macs were cheap, inexpensive, well priced, or anything like that. I was arguing that they can be CUSTOMIZED! And no, you can go out and get newer cards for them and just download the appropriate drivers.

Second up, go out and loop at the Imac. You will notice, with the exception of the cd drive, its almost completely quite, performs at good speeds, and hardly even requires a fan for cooling. If you can find a laptop or one of those IMac imitators that can do the equivalent and don't cost 2grand for starting prices, let me know.

RE: Kudos to Apple
By SoCalBoomer on 12/21/2007 2:55:51 PM , Rating: 2
And you proved your argument - mine was that all the upgrading you can do on a Mac is either overly expensive, dumb (fully buffered DDR2? bleh), or outdated at time or implementation!

So, second. . . I have an iMac on my desk and will be replacing it (a 20") with a 24" over winter break. I've seen it, I use it, I know it.

but you asked for an iMac imitators (btw, iMac has a lower-case i. . .just fyi! :D ) less than 2 grand starting price. . . here you go:

Brand new Dell XPS One - all in one desktop.
Core 2 Duo e4500, 2 Gig RAM, wireless kbd/mouse, Photoshop Elements Suite (can't seem to remove it, but hey, it's nice), and so forth - $1399.

Brand new iMac 20", comparably equipped (it has a larger HDD and no Photoshop Elements) and added wireless kbd/mouse for comparison since they're standard with Dell - $1399.

Personally, I like the XPS better - better speakers, not the glossy screen (which is a personal preference, I know. . .) and I actually HATE the Mac's kbd and mouse. . . so I'd be using either a MS or Logitech kbd/mouse anyway . . .

In any case. . .you might actually want to CHECK before you give challenges that are SO EASY to fulfill! ROFL

RE: Kudos to Apple
By The Sword 88 on 1/16/2008 4:11:09 PM , Rating: 2
Customized on the online store, I cant crack open my Mac and put in a new processor of gpu or sound card or add anothe rharddrive, and that really sucks. When my Mac gets outdated I have to buy another crazy expensive one instead of upgrading a couple of parts now, a couple then, etc.

RE: Kudos to Apple
By XPguy on 1/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: Kudos to Apple
By retrospooty on 12/20/2007 3:33:00 PM , Rating: 3
Macs arnt obsolete hardware, what you may not understand is how the engineers over at apple mix laptop, desktop, and server components to make their machines (just look at the iMac, from an engineering standpoint its amazing).

It isn't amazing, it is cheap, wrong, and designed to make Apple more money via providing less performance and expandability for the consumers. It is cutting corners, and is a very VERY good argument you make against buying an Apple system, when you are trying to argue for buying one.

RE: Kudos to Apple
By BrownJohn on 12/20/2007 1:41:51 PM , Rating: 2
i logged in just to rate you down. I'm no mac user, windows and linux for me, but there are alot of nice things about OSX, and i'm sure there are some people here that would like to explain what those things are.

I hate fanboys...

RE: Kudos to Apple
By cochy on 12/20/2007 3:55:08 PM , Rating: 2
Well you can either rate a post or make a post. You can't do both :P

RE: Kudos to Apple
By eman7613 on 12/21/2007 1:01:32 PM , Rating: 2
then your a idiot and didnt even read what I said or replied to.

A) I dont even own a mac, they are to expensive.
B) I was replying to the stupid coments said before me, were did i say 'Macs are better'? I only argued they could do all the same things.

RE: Kudos to Apple
By cochy on 12/20/2007 3:01:50 PM , Rating: 2
Sadly you have no idea what you're talking about. The BSD foundation of OS X (Darwin) is quite far from obsolete. It's a very advanced operating system. As for your arguments about Crossfire and SLI and Intel Extreme Edition CPUs, that's more or less irrelevant at this time because you do not buy a Mac for gaming, so DirectX is not important at this time.

You're also wrong in that you can get 8GB, best HDs and best LCDs with Macs. It's called the Mac Pro, and it's a tower that easily upgradeable with those parts.

So besides your gaming argument everything else you're saying is ignorant dribble.

*I'd like to point out that I've never owned an Apple product*

RE: Kudos to Apple
By nitrous9200 on 12/20/2007 6:45:25 PM , Rating: 2
And the best LCD's certainly aren't Apple ones. They cost a lot more than they need to, the specs aren't astonishing, and they have their fair share of tech problems.

RE: Kudos to Apple
By daftrok on 12/19/2007 7:38:48 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. If they just open up their OS (legally) to PC users it will be some serious competition for Windows.

RE: Kudos to Apple
By SirLucius on 12/19/2007 7:59:14 PM , Rating: 5
Once they do that though they lose their biggest advantage - controlled hardware. Part of the reason OS X works so nice is that it only runs a limited set of hardware. If Apple had to provide support for the insane number of PC configurations that Microsoft has to deal with, I'm sure OS X would run into some of the same stability/performance issues Vista and XP have experienced.

If Vista/XP/any Microsoft OS would only work on certain configurations, I'm sure stability and performance would increase.

RE: Kudos to Apple
By Ralph The Magician on 12/19/2007 8:36:04 PM , Rating: 3
Hell, even with a small hardware set to support, there are still more problems than there should be. I can only imagine what things might look like on open hardware.

RE: Kudos to Apple
By Jack Ripoff on 12/19/07, Rating: 0
RE: Kudos to Apple
By goku on 12/19/2007 10:53:37 PM , Rating: 5
In order to work on more systems, they're less optimized per the hardware they work on. I'm not saying windows is as optimized as it should be but I don't think linux is very optimized for most hardware. (Heck just try out the video drivers for any ati card)

RE: Kudos to Apple
By Spoelie on 12/20/2007 7:29:11 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Kudos to Apple
By Jack Ripoff on 12/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: Kudos to Apple
By Targon on 12/20/2007 9:25:01 AM , Rating: 1
The problem isn't with drivers as much as it is the requirement that drivers need to do too much. The real issue is layering, and the layers being beaten together rather than keeping them neat and clean.

Look at the idea of the operating system. By itself, the OS really should just talk to the hardware. Then you have APIs like DirectX, which talk to the OS, which then goes to the hardware. Then you have the applications which talk to the APIs.

So, what is broken is that the drivers suddenly need to handle the work of the APIs. The API should work no matter what hardware you have in your machine. If the requested API function can be handled by hardware, it should be passed off directly. If the hardware can not handle it, the API should handle it. Nice, neat, clean, and even if the hardware is screwed up, the drivers should be telling the API to handle it.

Instead of this, the drivers are forced to handle all of this garbage that should be done by the API layer, and is why we have problems, because the drivers need to do more than talk to the hardware. In addition to this, Microsoft keeps trying to move more application-layer stuff into the OS layer, which bloats the OS and opens the door to stability issues. Why the hell would a web browser be integrated into the OS when the OS should ONLY be responsible for talking to the hardware(for the applications)?

In many ways, this is why MacOS is better, because it keeps things simple internally. The down side is that Apple refuses to open the door to letting MacOS run on regular computers. Not everyone is thrilled with the UI as well.

RE: Kudos to Apple
By Jack Ripoff on 12/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: Kudos to Apple
By mikefarinha on 12/20/2007 10:33:56 AM , Rating: 4
Why do you keep saying 'thou'?
Thou art making a mockery of our language, knave!

RE: Kudos to Apple
By Jack Ripoff on 12/20/2007 10:57:21 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend!

English is not my mother tongue, thus I frequently find myself making one or another mistake.

I meant to say "though".

RE: Kudos to Apple
By Jack Ripoff on 12/20/07, Rating: -1
RE: Kudos to Apple
By SoCalBoomer on 12/21/2007 4:13:38 PM , Rating: 1
Honestly, because you come off as a jackass and you aren't speaking facts - you're saying generalities that aren't backed up by actual facts.

That's very likely why. It's why I downrated you.

RE: Kudos to Apple
By Jack Ripoff on 12/21/2007 5:28:58 PM , Rating: 2
Would you mind to describe what exactly of what I said isn't backed up by actual facts? I would then be able to show you the facts that back up my assertions.

I've been working with IT and free software development for over 8 years, I think I know what I'm talking about.

RE: Kudos to Apple
By omnicronx on 12/20/2007 12:06:59 PM , Rating: 2
When you say 'docs' do you mean source code? Documentation only goes so far, and has been available for years without any great strides being made.

Ati just recently committed to releasing source code for their drivers, and I am pretty sure it has been released to a fair share of open source programmers to work on. Not only did they receive the code, but hey have also been working with AMD/ATI engineers.

The op is also right on the fact that linux drivers are really not optimized on a per card basis, but rather a generic ATI driver that can run on most ATI cards released within the past few years.(9*** series +)

RE: Kudos to Apple
By Jack Ripoff on 12/20/2007 2:33:54 PM , Rating: 1
When you say 'docs' do you mean source code?

No. When I say "docs" I mean documentation. Source code isn't documentation.

[Documentation] has been available for years without any great strides being made.

Err... what? What are you talking about? You should take a look at the links I posted, it should clarify things up a bit.

Ati just recently committed to releasing source code for their drivers, and I am pretty sure it has been released to a fair share of open source programmers to work on. Not only did they receive the code, but hey have also been working with AMD/ATI engineers.

ATI isn't releasing source code. We don't even want their source code.

The op is also right on the fact that linux drivers are really not optimized on a per card basis, but rather a generic ATI driver that can run on most ATI cards released within the past few years.(9*** series +)

The opensource driver really isn't because it's mostly based off some (really) old documentation and some reverse engineering. ATI don't provide us full documentation for all their chips (at least up to now) so we simply can't optimize it.

ATI/AMD's own proprietary driver, on the other hand, must be very optimized - although perhaps less optimized than its Windows counterpart, as AMD don't really care about the Unix driver as much as they care about the Windows driver.

RE: Kudos to Apple
By mcnabney on 12/19/2007 11:25:25 PM , Rating: 2
Are you serious?

Open Source is great, but it is far buggier than OS X, XP or even Vista. I never think of all the issues I have with Linux and others because everything is a task to setup the first time. My XP boxes pretty much install everything and do their thing. Vista does the same, only a little slower. Apple has the slick and simple OS down to an art. Linus is great, but simple and easy it ain't.

RE: Kudos to Apple
By Jack Ripoff on 12/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: Kudos to Apple
By rushfan2006 on 12/20/2007 12:42:08 PM , Rating: 2
Many open source operating systems run on way more hardware than Windows but don't face the same stability and performance issues that Windows does. That seems to be a bad-design problem.

I gotta see the answer to this one...

Ok WHAT open source operating systems run *WAY MORE* hardware than Windows but don't face the same stability and performance issues....

I sure hope you bring up commericial applications or OS - as that will make my point even more valid...

There is NO single OS (commercial / open source or otherwise) that supports such a large base of hardware combinations , is used by such userbase AND supports such a vast array of software --- and finally does this all well most of the time as Windows.

I can't think of a SINGLE variation of Linux that supports all the cards as Windows - hell HALF the cards of windows (ie. graphics/sound especially).

So PLEASE explain your blanket statement.

RE: Kudos to Apple
By Jack Ripoff on 12/20/2007 4:15:21 PM , Rating: 1
Most of them actually.

Let's take Linux as an example, since you've mentioned it. Linux officially runs on more than 20 CPU architectures (including PowerPC, SPARC, and many others). Windows only runs on three (i386, AMD64 and IA64). Linux runs on cellphones, helicopters, supercomputers, routers, embedded devices... I could go on for a while.

Moreover, Linux includes out-of-the-box support for much more devices than Windows does. Just compare the list of drivers of a fresh Vista install with Linux's.

Linux may not be supported by the same amount of software that supports Windows, but it runs plenty of software. Just pick any distribution and take a peek at its package repository and you'll see.

RE: Kudos to Apple
By Volrath06660 on 12/20/2007 10:42:38 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, you really need to check your facts.

Yeah Linux is unique in its ability to support a vast quantity of hardware configs......BUT THEY ARE ALL DIFFERENT ^%^)&)(*&*^*^$&% TYPES OF LINUX!!!!! Ubuntu, Red Hat, Slackware, Plamo, Debian, Etc. Etc. Etc........not counting the BILLIONS of custom ones done by programmers. You are comparing one OS that is released in seven or so configs based off one kernal to an open source OS that anyone and their mothers brother can alter and make a custom variant of. Billions of types, no official driver support. So while Linux MAY be a very populous OS, it has POS support for the devices that it supports.

You are comparing (I am sorry for even referencing this piece of garbage) an Ipod to every other mp3 player out is wel known and well supported, and the rest are so-so. So, we can say with ABSOLUTE certainty the Windows, due to its ONE general form IS UNDISPUTEDLY the most supportive OS.


So, while Linux is populous.......kinda like termites.......there, but not doing anything for anyone but themselves.

RE: Kudos to Apple
By Jack Ripoff on 12/21/2007 7:38:00 AM , Rating: 3
All the support I've mentioned is on the official kernel. Why don't you check your facts:

So, we can say with ABSOLUTE certainty the Windows, due to its ONE general form IS UNDISPUTEDLY the most supportive OS.

Windows is not more supportive. Windows is more supported.

Linux supports more hardware than Windows.
Windows is supported by more hardware than Linux.

You clearly didn't understand Linux's design. Linux is free software. The idea is that anyone must be able to hack it, so if something goes wrong you can just fix it, you don't become dependant on some multibillionaire company who don't care for their customers.

If Linux were made to be supported by hardware companies, that freedom would go away, since you can't hack their proprietary drivers. Linux would become as unstable as Windows. Much of Windows' stability issues are due to buggy drivers. Vendors discontinue hardware all the time, and then they stop supporting drivers for discontinued hardware (i.e. providing patches and bug fixes).

Therefore, the project itself makes its own hardware support - by coding our own quality opensource drivers. That's why we need programming documentation for the hardware. Unfortunately, some hardware vendors don't give us their hardware's documentation, and then we are forced to reverse engineer it. That's the only reason why Linux and other opensource OSes like FreeBSD and OpenBSD don't support all the hardware out there.


RE: Kudos to Apple
By Volrath06660 on 12/23/2007 8:33:32 PM , Rating: 2
You are the one that needs to read. My point was not about kernals or anything of the like. My point was that you are saying "Linux" is more reliable than Windows in terms of stability. My point was that terming "Linux" as an OS is improper, as there are untold billions of types of "Linux" out there. And with that many different versions of "Linux", each one is its own almost unique OS. So, by this logic line, "Linux" is not the most supported because there are only a few people each using some variant of one of the myriad OSes that fall under the "Linux" classification.

And as one of the other posters said, when you make an OS that has to support so many hardware configs as that, then a lot of the stability issues are suddenly a lot more explainable when you are running these vast amounts of apps for Windows over that vast a number of hardware specs. Because most of the people I know who use Linux use it for the "arduous" task of.....checking their email....and they use their Windows machines for everything else.

And no, while I may not be intimately familiar with the design of the kernals used to make "Linux", my point is that "Linux" is not an OS; its a classification of a vast number of OSes. And since the world is 96% Windows, I would say that any piece of hardware out there has a Windows driver, and that 98% of those pieces of hardware probably dont have "Linux" drivers. So unless you are counting generic plug and play as support......oh wait...Windows does that too!!!!!!

RE: Kudos to Apple
By Jack Ripoff on 12/23/2007 10:46:22 PM , Rating: 2
My point was that terming "Linux" as an OS is improper, as there are untold billions of types of "Linux" out there.

They are not all unique OSes because all of them use the same kernel: the Linux kernel! They are just different distributions of the same OS.

But if you think that's a problem, then nevermind Linux. Let's take FreeBSD instead. It supports about as much hardware as Linux does and runs on plenty of CPU architectures. It's also very stable (some would say even more stable than Linux) and secure.

Because most of the people I know who use Linux use it for the "arduous" task of.....checking their email....

Oh come on, do you really think Linux is only used to read e-mail?

And since the world is 96% Windows...

No it isn't. Much of the Internet runs on Linux. Most supercomputers do as well. As I said before, many cellphones, routers, etc, run Linux as well.

, I would say that any piece of hardware out there has a Windows driver, and that 98% of those pieces of hardware probably dont have "Linux" drivers. So unless you are counting generic plug and play as support......oh wait...Windows does that too!!!!!!

You don't know what you're talking about. You have never even used Linux before if you really think it only supports 2% of the hardware out there.

RE: Kudos to Apple
By txqzr4 on 12/29/2007 2:38:28 PM , Rating: 2
Please stop, its painful you watch you embarrass yourself so much.

RE: Kudos to Apple
By amanojaku on 12/19/2007 11:31:00 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't mind getting OS X with no support. It's not like I call MS when I have a problem with Windows. There are enough sites on the web that provide information on the pitfalls of X configuration vs. Y configuration. The beauty of tech is that some people love to be bleeding edge and don't mind being guinea pigs for the rest of us. lol

But you're right, support is a big factor in terms of marketing a product.

RE: Kudos to Apple
By Oroka on 12/20/2007 1:26:42 AM , Rating: 2
While it would be a pain in the butt to some extent, it would also be next to free money. They already have the OS built for x86 based CPUs, selling more copies would just pad thier purse.

I would never buy a Apple computer, just the same as I would never buy a Dell desktop, but I would buy OSX for my PC even just to play with it.

Actually, that would be a bonus for Apple. If more people buy OSX, then more software (and games) will be written/ported to OSX, the better chance of people buying a Mac.

I dont think I know anyone who has ever called M$ for support other than activation. I figure out the problem for myself (and others), or people bring thier computer to a repair shop. Selling OSX PC edition could come without offical Apple support as you need a genuine Apple computer for that.

RE: Kudos to Apple
By Wightout on 12/20/2007 3:20:05 AM , Rating: 2
One of the major problems with the idea of OSX becoming open is there not being iLife that can be tied down to the OS.

One of the greatest parts of Apples computers is that nearly everything is tied to everything else. This has helped the success of the iPod the whole system being smooth and easy. iLife on the OS is the heart and soul of their efficiency with their system.

If they were to open up the OS to all hardware, they would quickly run into similar problems that MS has right now in regards to tying things (like IE) to the OS.

Apple makes nice systems. Not anyone thing is particularly amazing, but their success does not lie within a single part of the whole, but rather in the easy of use, simplicity, and overall symmetry of the whole system. Don't get me wrong though, no system is without its flaws...

IMO you arrant just buying hardware when you buy a mac, you arrant just buying an OS when you buy a mac, and you arrant just buying software when you buy a mac, but rather what you are purchasing is a system that (in most cases) works smooth, simply, and as a whole.

You can say I am an Apple fan boy... w/e. Maybe what you need from a system is different then what I need, but don't knock it till you try it is what I say.

RE: Kudos to Apple
By afkrotch on 12/20/2007 8:19:12 AM , Rating: 2
My friend had a G4. I say had, cause I no longer work with him and I'm sure he's already upgraded to a G5. Ran everything he needed and worked perfectly fine.

I played with his machine a few times and it's great for normal day to day. The only problem I saw was when you had a hardware issue, which he ended up having. PCs are everywhere, so PC shops are everywhere. Few Apple certified service centers around. We ended up having to drive about 45 mins away to get service done on his G4.

It's not Apple's fault on that though. Small user base, small user support base.

RE: Kudos to Apple
By notfeelingit on 12/20/2007 1:00:22 PM , Rating: 2
Most CompUSAs are authorized service centers. Just take your Mac there, and...oh wait.

RE: Kudos to Apple
By afkrotch on 12/20/2007 7:45:08 AM , Rating: 2
Chicken and the egg scenario there. Why would more ppl buy the OS, if the programs aren't there? Why would ppl develop programs for the OS, if no one is buying it?

Look at Ageia. They are currently sitting in that position. I wouldn't buy OSX, simply cause it doesn't have everything I want.

RE: Kudos to Apple
By mlau on 12/20/07, Rating: -1
RE: Kudos to Apple
By omnicronx on 12/20/2007 11:19:41 AM , Rating: 2
I love how everyone always forgets that MAC OSX runs on a closed system. If you could install OSX on a pc you would have just as many (if not more) vulnerabilities bugs and problems.
Having the ability to run an OS on essentially any piece of hardware is a lot harder than designing an OS for certain pieces of hardware.

If you have ever tried running MACOSX on a core2duo PC, even with drivers you would know how badly it runs.

RE: Kudos to Apple
By BioRebel on 12/20/2007 2:29:00 AM , Rating: 5
YEA! Horray for apple! I wish MS charged $150 for a fucking service pack every 2 years instead of giving me a whole new OS every 6.

RE: Kudos to Apple
By ImSpartacus on 12/20/2007 7:21:29 AM , Rating: 1
I'm sorry, you enjoy using decade old operating systems? I'm sure you can find a budget copy of windows 98 then. I bet you'll have fun with that.

You can't expect microsoft to be able to maintain the huge variety of programs working on its operating system, and still make a good release every 2 years.

Apple has a very small hardware pool to eat out of, and testing and optimizing that pool is easy for them.

Whenever apple can get a gaming pc out the door that works with modern gpu's, sound cards, and other specilization hardware and still get that 2 year refresh, then we can talk.

RE: Kudos to Apple
By 306maxi on 12/20/2007 9:10:03 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly what I always say about OSX when people go on about how cheap it is compared to Vista.

By lukasbradley on 12/19/2007 7:03:29 PM , Rating: 4
Microsoft Windows did not need to be mentioned in this article. Why do so?

RE: Bashing?
By noirsoft on 12/19/2007 7:25:35 PM , Rating: 5
Because Jason Mick is the resident Apple fanboy at DT, and bashing Vista without any facts is a popular sport these days. Did you expect anything less from an Apple article?

RE: Bashing?
By MonkeyPaw on 12/19/2007 9:30:41 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah, do you ever notice how all of Apple's commercials attack PCs and/or MS? Companies like MS, Dell, HP, and Gateway don't bother with mudslinging--they simply advertise their products. If companies like Dell or MS wanted to, they could start attacking Apple back, but they likely see it as a waste of resources.

Apple pitches itself as the smarter choice, yet they are the only computer company out there that resorts to petty advertising attacks. Even Apple's new Christmas commercial is focused more on taking shots at MS as opposed to just wishing people a happy holiday. It's classless advertising, and it just goes to show what Apple is all about--getting people to buy their image to get that feeling of superiority.

RE: Bashing?
By BruceLeet on 12/19/2007 10:10:00 PM , Rating: 3
I couldn't have said it better myself

If Macs are so superior why aren't they dominating the market?

RE: Bashing?
By Wightout on 12/20/07, Rating: -1
RE: Bashing?
By zsdersw on 12/20/2007 7:28:10 AM , Rating: 2
If they don't want to get too big then they have little reason to advertise, don't they?

Apple could rest solely on the truly deity-level devotion of its fans and never really expand its user base, but that's not what they really want to do.

I actually want Apple to get bigger, so all those who genuflect to Steve Jobs and Apple can wake up and smell the updates, service packs, patches, and various attacks that come with increased popularity. On their way to getting bigger, they won't get any of *my* money, but P.T. Barnum said it best: there's a sucker born every minute. In that respect, anyway, the sky is the limit for Apple.

RE: Bashing?
By 306maxi on 12/20/2007 9:03:59 AM , Rating: 1
Perhaps because in coffee shops people are wanting to show off? If you look in the business sector the story is very much different and the ability to support and deploy something effectively and easily is more important and Windows machines kick arse at that.

P.S Is it so hard to spell "aren't" correctly?

RE: Bashing?
By Wightout on 12/20/2007 11:24:25 AM , Rating: 2
People showing off at coffee shops is your reason for seeing a large number of mac laptops? That is absurd. Have you looked at school campuses? The numbers there are up as well...

In the laptops section apple's computers is doing quite well.

RE: Bashing?
By XPguy on 1/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: Bashing?
By gradoman on 12/19/2007 11:24:17 PM , Rating: 2
On the topic of commercials, it's possible that, if, by chance, MS were to throw some money at its PR to do some commercials, they'd be more with the times. Could you tell me how many times you've seen a Vista or a Zune or 360 commercial? Their PR is virtually nonexistent.

They have, however, made some very nice Zune commercials for the launch of new generation and they've actually gotten me to take a look at what they're offering with the new lineup. Not that I'm gonna go buy one, as I've got myself a Cowon D2, but at least they've started to get themselves out there!

Look at the iPod, OS 10.5, Apple commercials, they're there to be seen. Jeezus, H. Christ. It's called Public Relations. And you have to admit, Apple is handing MS its ass in a bag in this respect.

I'm quite sure I'll get down rated for this post and others, but whatever.

RE: Bashing?
By SirLucius on 12/19/2007 11:34:37 PM , Rating: 2
I've always wondered what would happen if Microsoft did some commercials, not even to necessarily combat Apple's ads. They already dominate in the OS and console markets, but it seems like some more advertising couldn't hurt.

RE: Bashing?
By Wightout on 12/20/2007 2:51:09 AM , Rating: 2
Assuming they marketed toward the fear people have of the internet they could push vista pretty hard in the private sector I would think.

RE: Bashing?
By rushnrockt on 12/20/2007 12:18:24 AM , Rating: 2
Dell doesn't do mudslinging in commercials?! Where were you when Dell kicked Best Buy in the groin on the pages of a bunch of large publications? Talk about delusional...

RE: Bashing?
By Mach Omega on 12/20/07, Rating: -1
RE: Bashing?
By enlil242 on 12/20/2007 10:09:10 AM , Rating: 1
Apple isn't doing anything unethical

Wow, give me some of the Kool-Aid you are drinking... They may not be doing anything unethical in the Mac v PC ads, but damn, that company is no better than others when it comes to questionable business practices...

RE: Bashing?
By Pythias on 12/20/2007 9:19:27 AM , Rating: 5
Yeah, do you ever notice how all of Apple's commercials attack PCs and/or MS? Companies like MS, Dell, HP, and Gateway don't bother with mudslinging--they simply advertise their products.

Thats because it appeals to Apple's niche. Buy a Mac! Stick it to THA MAN! Now YOU can be different...just like everyone else.

RE: Bashing?
By mondo1234 on 12/20/2007 10:52:06 AM , Rating: 2
Because Jason Mick is the resident Apple fanboy at DT, and bashing Vista without any facts is a popular sport these days. Did you expect anything less from an Apple article?

Oh, like Brandon Hill isn't the M$ fanboy? He can put a positive spin on anything M$ no matter how bad it is. M$ killed Plays for Sure and no one DailyTech posted an article on it, no matter how M$ screwed the other MP# players (and consumers). I use XP, Linux and Mac. All are just fine, but sometimes I dont want a McDonalds hamburger just cuz they have sold 10 zillion, I want something different.

RE: Bashing?
By mmntech on 12/19/2007 11:46:48 PM , Rating: 5
I agree. The first three and a half paragraphs were unnecessary. Not to let the commentators off though. The whole "I don't like Apple's commercials" or "people are misinformed about Vista" debate is just beating a dead horse. You don't like (insert hated product here). We get it. Can't we just discuss a product civilly without having to deal with this fanboyism trash? I'm sure I'll get down rated for saying that but it's something that's really catching my ire.

I'll get the ball rolling with some legitimate discussion on Leopard. Lets talk about who has it and what they think. I was one of the early adopters. I installed it on my 2005 iBook G4 1.33ghz. I noticed it definitely runs a little slower than Tiger and my battery life dropped a bit. Some features such as Spaces tax the GPU a lot, which is noticeable in older systems. It also consumes more memory. Stacks and Quick Look are rally useful new features they've added. Networking has also been streamlined and is easier to use. I haven't uses Time Machine yet since I don't really have a lot of critical stuff to backup. It's been a couple months now and I've had no major issues on my older system. However, if you already have Tiger, there's no need to run out and get Leopard.

Despite my hatred for everything apple
By wordsworm on 12/19/2007 10:06:00 PM , Rating: 1
Somewhere I read that Leopard comes with a license that allows you to install this OS on up to 5 machines. I wish MS did the same, or even half... or slightly less than half - say *2* machines.

RE: Despite my hatred for everything apple
By Master Kenobi on 12/19/2007 10:27:33 PM , Rating: 4
Yes but Apple's Operating Systems work only on Apple's hardware (which has a fair margin on it), it also isn't a complete OS the way you think of it. It's more akin to paying for XP SP2.

RE: Despite my hatred for everything apple
By wordsworm on 12/20/2007 1:56:52 AM , Rating: 1
You couldn't give it away to me. So, don't think I'm even tempted. I'll be signing on to the Linux community before I just wish Vista could be purchased for all the computers at home with a single fee. That would be really great.

Anyways, are you saying that it isn't a stand alone OS? Do you have to buy Tiger before you get Leopard? Or do you mean it's like buying XP with SP2?

RE: Despite my hatred for everything apple
By Wightout on 12/20/2007 3:00:31 AM , Rating: 2
No you don't have to buy tiger before you can buy leopard.

What was meant to be said, I think, is that unlike XP to vista where there is a complete GUI overhaul as well as major changes to things under the hood. Leopard has some minor differences to the GUI, and minor to major changes under the hood. Just as a service pack for XP would provide, though quite a bit more then you average service pack IMO.

RE: Despite my hatred for everything apple
By Mach Omega on 12/20/2007 3:34:15 AM , Rating: 1
Most of the significant work was done under the hood. Leopard is a quantum LEAP for developers and has quite a bit of cool stuff for the user. It's WAY more than a service pack. Arstechnica had a great write up about it.

RE: Despite my hatred for everything apple
By StillPimpin on 12/20/2007 9:53:34 AM , Rating: 4
It's WAY more than a service pack. Arstechnica had a great write up about it.

Then why the hell don't they just call it Mac OS 11, 12, 13,... instead OS X.??? In the software world I live in, anything after a period suggests a slight upgrade to the original program and any number added before suggests a major overhaul.

Maybe Apple just likes having the cool "X" in their OS name but Mac OS 10.5 sounds like 6 years and 5 service packs to me.

RE: Despite my hatred for everything apple
By mikefarinha on 12/20/2007 10:45:13 AM , Rating: 2
Then why the hell don't they just call it Mac OS 11, 12, 13,... instead OS X.???

Quite simple.

The name OS X is much more fashionable than OS XIII. Its all marketing. People are accustomed to saying "Mac OS [ex] Lepord"

RE: Despite my hatred for everything apple
By Denigrate on 12/20/2007 5:03:36 PM , Rating: 2
It's about like Pentium, Pentium II, Pentium III, Pentium IV and Pentium Duo.

By Master Kenobi on 12/21/2007 8:25:36 AM , Rating: 2
I'll correct then. It's akin to having Windows XP, then going out and paying $150 for a copy of XP with SP2 Slipstreamed and loading it up.

A "record" only for Macintosh
By Scrith on 12/19/2007 7:59:42 PM , Rating: 5
Whoever wrote this fanboy piece about the much-hyped Leopard OS's record-breaking launch that sold 2 million copies in its first month failed to mention that Vista, despite all the negative publicity, sold TWENTY million copies in its first month.

It would be amusing to see Leopard running on a computer that didn't cost twice as much as it should (i.e. not made by Apple), but I wonder how it would sell...that would be a very interesting comparison, I think.

RE: A "record" only for Macintosh
By gradoman on 12/19/2007 11:14:21 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you didn't notice that Windows has the larger market share...just to point out the very obvious. Like um, 90% vs 2 or 3%?

RE: A "record" only for Macintosh
By Hare on 12/19/2007 11:58:35 PM , Rating: 2
About the price. Macs used to be expensive but if you look at the iMac and Macbook lines you can't really say that those are expensive compared to similar PCs. Even the macbook pro is ok. You have to pay quite a lot for a elegant pro-notebook with similar battery life and led-display.

Compared to a crappy Acer plastic toy Macs are expensive but compare to Sony, Lenovo or some other "better" manufacturer...

RE: A "record" only for Macintosh
By fixitguy on 12/20/2007 4:36:58 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, It appears the article fails to mention that OS X 10.5.0 Leopard sold 2-million copies in its launch weekend, not in the first month.


OS X is setting records in other areas, too!
By Goty on 12/19/2007 8:06:41 PM , Rating: 5
OS X is outpacing windows 10 to 1 in the area of critical vulnerabilities! Go Apple!,1000000189,3929...

By chick0n on 12/20/2007 12:45:12 AM , Rating: 3
SHHHH ! Be quiet !

Apple Fanboys/girls gonna hunt you down and throw an Apple in your face !

YOu cant Dis their Garbage-rip-off computers ... they are already dumb enough to buy one, Dont piss them off !

By DragonMaster0 on 12/19/2007 9:34:21 PM , Rating: 3
So it's a Windows bashing article, so let's talk about Windows.

Microsoft's Windows Vista received a lukewarm reception and was recently named PC World's disappointment of 2007.
Always the same story... Windows XP was the worst Windows OS on the planet 'till SP2, no one remembers that?

And, just like Vista vs. XP, machines bought on the release of Windows XP (Pentium IIIs with 128MB RAM) always ran at least twice as fast with Windows 98 SE on them. People kept bashing on WinXP and how much bloat it was + the security holes, while Windows 98 was the greatest thing in the world since XP SP2.

Now, run Windows 98 on a recent single-core system, I can tell you XP will run faster and smoother than Windows 98. It will probably be the same thing with Vista : Current CPUs are too slow, we don't have enough RAM and HDDs are too slow to get the OS to run smoothly. Vista will probably run better than XP when the hardware will allow it to, just like any new OS.

Windows 95 -> 98 was the same : Installing Windows 98 on your 100MHz 486 with 32MBs of RAM wasn't great, reviews kept telling how Windows 98 was inefficient compared to 95, etc. I could go on with Windows 3.1, blah blah blah. It's always been the SAME story. I told myself I'd never switch to XP back in 2004-5, I finally did, and it runs well now that hardware isn't too slow for it!

Now the problem is that CPU speed isn't going up much, there are more cores instead, and Vista isn't optimized for multi-core. However, just like XP, this will probably be done in a future service pack.

By TheMold on 12/19/2007 9:54:38 PM , Rating: 3
Yes Apple OS's are so great that they just introduce the BSOD.

By noirsoft on 12/20/2007 7:23:42 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, talk about a lot of baseless and false acusations.

Vista just some eye candy over XP? Did you see all the work they did to completely re-write the graphics driver model? To completely virtualize it so that it can be shared among multiple applications to an exponentially larger degree than with XP?

The same goes with just about any other system updated with Vista. From having used Vista for almost a year now (since launch day) I can tell you that it is a much bigger leap over XP than XP was over 2000, and I was one of those championing XP when it came out and everyone was crying how it was a "useless bloated upgrade"

Vista release vs XP release is miles apart

You are right here. Vista's release is demonstrably better than XP upon release. Running Vista Home Basic on a machine designed for XP Home is a much better experience than running XP Home on a machine designed for Windows 98/ME, which is what the bottom-end machines were designed for back in 2001. Running Vista on a reasonable machine (my desktop is an old 3.2 Ghz P4D w/ 2 gigs ram) and it is a much better experience than XP on the same machine.

By NullSubroutine on 12/20/2007 7:55:26 AM , Rating: 1
Baseless? Baseless?

Yes, I must have completely imagined a variety of benchmarks and people's complaints all over the internet about poor gaming and general speed and responsiveness.

It couldn't be possible that someone else disagree's with something you like!? Its MADNESSS!

Sure some people like and hate it. Sure some people feel it is slower and some people feel it is same or faster. The truth is look at gaming benchmarks, even if everything else about Vista/XP is completely subjective, it still shows XP leads in performance.

I have tried just about all MS operating systems (no Server versions) my favorite as of right now is XP-64 bit. Every benchmark I have tested on my own has shown it is equal to, and many times faster than normal XP.

But hey, argue about how great Vista, more power to you. You are still not going to convince the many people that have used Vista and hate it. However, please do not simply claim its 'baseless'.

By michal1980 on 12/20/2007 8:24:51 AM , Rating: 1
Null, your brain must be fried.

i've done it in the best, and wont do it again. Start googling.

when xp came out people Were COMPLAINING. OMG ITs too slow. Gaming is Better on 98, What a crappy OS.

It was just like vista. And in a way they were right, every new windows o.s. runs somewhat slower on the same hardware.

Back when win xp launched, pc's were finally getting to 1ghz, 128-256mb of ram was the norm, the athlon xp chip was just starting to launch, and most amd chips were still the old athlon core.

Geuss what, on that hardware xp ran slower then 98, fast forward a few years. xp is now runing on dual-quad core chips, with 1024-2048mb of ram (a 10x incearse!!!!), and while cpu clock speeds haven't increased 10x, the performace is at least 10x faster. not to mention what happened with video cards.

as for osx selling well.

Its easy to inceasre your sales when you go from no users to some.

Is this an ad or an article?
By Domicinator on 12/20/2007 8:31:20 AM , Rating: 3
I can't believe that this "article" dares to mention Vista's problems after all the complaints about Leopard. Did the author fail to hear about Leopard DELETING data when it moves it from one place to the other? When that happens in OSX it is not recoverable, so that's a big problem. Did the auther not hear about all the crashing and incompatibility problems with Leopard? Go on YouTube and you can watch all kinds of videos of Leopard crashing to a halt. All Leopard did for Apple was make some Mac users realize that OSX is actually capable of having all the same problems any other kind of computer can have. They DO crash, they DO break, and they NOT immune to security breaches. In fact, OSX is the most un-secure OS out there.

I'm getting so sick of Mac users feeling that they need to jab MS when they are talking about Mac OS. I don't remember the last time I heard a Windows user do that. I think the reason is that Mac users think they're in on some big secret that PC users don't know about. They think they're doing things on their MacBooks that I can't do on my PC laptop. I've met more than one Mac user who thinks that PCs can't burn CDs. No, I'm not making that up. I've met several users who think that it's easier to burn a CD on a Mac. As if drag and drop is difficult to do on a PC. This is all because of Apple's lame marketing.

Let me tell you something about Vista. I have been running it since launch and have had a flawless experience with it. Most people that hate it have either not tried it in a long time, never used it at all, or are just bashing it because they hate when anything changes. This happened with XP too. Everyone wanted to go back to 2000 or 98. Don't you guys see a pattern here. Vista is a very good OS if you give it a fair shot. After about a month in the wild, it was very stable, which is a lot more than I can say about my experiences with XP at launch, and the driver and compatibility issues have been largely worked out. I say bravo to MS for Vista. Maybe it's not the OS revolution that they originally promised, but it's certainly worth the upgrade.

RE: Is this an ad or an article?
By Domicinator on 12/20/2007 8:38:27 AM , Rating: 2
And BTW, Jason Mick. That Top 15 list that Vista is on? Guess what else is on the list. OSX Leopard AND the iPhone. You didn't read the rest of the article, did you?

RE: Is this an ad or an article?
By Crassus on 12/20/2007 10:10:25 AM , Rating: 2
I guess you can only really SEE that if you're old enough to actually remember the flame wars going on 5-6 years back. It was so much fun discussing whether Win2k or XP was better for gaming, or 98, or 98 SE. And some guys swearing that the Win95b core was the best evaaaa. Ah, that brings back fond memories of college and the pity we felt for the poor chaps who bought a computer with ME pre-installed.

But it's a good way to gauge the age of some of the flame-warriors here :)

Sounds like peni... erm... Apple envy
By Mach Omega on 12/20/07, Rating: 0
By rdeegvainl on 12/20/2007 6:49:24 AM , Rating: 1
"If MS is so much greater than Apple then why bother posting nonsensical rhetoric about Apple?"

"As for the PC vs. Mac ads, why doesn't Microsoft address them?"

Hypocrite much?

RE: Sounds like peni... erm... Apple envy
By aos007 on 12/20/2007 1:43:38 PM , Rating: 2
There ARE a lot of Microsoft employees on DT. The pattern of comment ratings in many articles over the years makes that one obvious.

RE: Sounds like peni... erm... Apple envy
By Denigrate on 12/20/2007 5:28:51 PM , Rating: 1
No, it merely points out the idiocy of Mac fanbois. Mac's are great for those who are professional artists or students working on becoming such, but for the rest of humanity, PC's 50% discount price with nearly exact components of a MAC is the way to go.

BTW, I've very disapointed that no one mentioned the hundreds of viruses that Apple invited to their OS by running commercials bragging about "No viruses" for the OS-X. It'll only continue to escalate.

By DragonMaster0 on 12/23/2007 11:34:05 AM , Rating: 2
great for those who are professional artists

'Cause the same software is available on Windows (except the Apple-branded three-buttons-do-everything software) and OS X is heavier on system usage than XP. Logical, no?

money money money
By Screwballl on 12/20/2007 12:45:18 PM , Rating: 2
With windows, you buy it at $200-400 (OS by itself) and all the security fixes and Service Packs are free.
With a Mac, if you want to do the equivalent of going from XP to SP1, they charge you for it, if you want to go to SP2, you pay for it again.
Apple just has a business model that charges its users for patches and security updates. They call it OS upgrades, Microsoft calls it Service packs.
You pay to upgrade from 10.0 to 10.1.. then pay to go to 10.2, then pay to go to 10.3 and so on... by the time to have an updated system, you spent over $1000 for some pacthes and minor upgrades. How many people had to pay to upgrade XP to Service Pack 2 which had the same amount of fixes and OS changes? None that I am aware of.

Will MS charge for Vista SP1 (which is the equivalent of going from OSX 10.4 to 10.5)? Nope, so why should Mac users suffer?

Also FYI, I still use XP for games and linux for everything else.

RE: money money money
By npoe1 on 12/20/2007 1:19:46 PM , Rating: 2
I was wondering the same thing, but as I haven't really used an apple PC more than 5 minutes I don't know if that upgrades are a new OS or just little improved version as SP is to Windows.

RE: money money money
By mrtopdog2000 on 12/22/2007 8:17:45 PM , Rating: 2
This is not completely accurate. OS X upgrades are more than just service packs. Think of it this way, Microsoft Windows 95 (4.00.950), 98 (4.10.1998), 98SE (4.10.2222A), and ME (4.90.3000) were all version 4.something. Microsoft certainly didn't give away all these for free, the versions of 4.x of Windows after Windows 95 were more than just service packs. This also how Apple does OS X. 10.1 (Puma), 10.2 (Jaguar), 10.3 (Panther), 10.4 (Tiger), and now 10.5 (Leopard) are all OS upgrades to 10.0 (Cheetah) just like 98, 98SE, and ME were to Windows 95.

By thebrown13 on 12/19/2007 7:07:41 PM , Rating: 5
"Could an iteration of OS X ever be a legitimate contender for dominance over a Windows version?"

As long as you have to buy an Apple computer to run OS X, it will ALWAYS remain niche.

stop distorting reality
By mankopi on 12/19/2007 8:13:31 PM , Rating: 5
why the hell do apple and their fans love to distort information, censor criticisms and present reality they way they wish it was? If they had nothing to hide, then let people judge for themselves. They keep touting the MASSIVE leopard sales but fail to mention that the much HATED Win VISTA is on track to have more than 10 percent computer shares by the end of the year. Remind me again, how much market share has the entire apple OS? something in the range of 6 - 7 percent or even less? Apple and fans, please grow up and quit being spoilt brats.

Apple IS sharing in these troubles
By Yawgm0th on 12/19/2007 10:00:41 PM , Rating: 5
Among the issues cited for the dubious distinction were Vista's various bugs that are to be fixed by service packs

Very few bugs are fixed in service packs; they're more like feature updates. The bugs fixes included in most Windows service packs are usually available and released prior to the service pack.

More importantly, Leopard is not bug-free. In fact, Mac OS X's bugs seem to actually cause serious hardware issues, rather than simple software crashes or annoyances.
confusing multiple SKUs

The differences between the SKUs are quite clear. In fact, each individual version's name very accurately targets those who should be using it, and the features differences between each make a lot of sense.

Besides, I've seen no sound logic or statistical information indicating that Vista's multiple SKUs are a problem. Now 64-bit is a problem occasionally when someone doesn't understand that they've purchased a 64-bit OS or a PC with a 64-bit OS, but this is no more confusing than all the Mac applications and drivers that require the use of Rosetta -- never mind the ones that don't even work on Leopard.
one-computer-only licensing

Multi-pack OEM purchases and VLKs are available for Vista. Most people don't need multiple licenses anyway. Besides, it would take about three to ten copies of Vista (depending on the version) to make up for the hardware cost of running OS X on a Mac. That's right, "proprietary" Apple hardware is expensive and usually worse than competing PC hardware. With this in mind, the more costly licensing of Windows is hardly something to take jabs at and is certainly not a problem for Microsoft's sales.
and sometimes substandard gaming performance.

Does this even need to be addressed? Vista is having very few sales problems due to gaming performance, minor performance issues to start with, and, most importantly, OS X has far, far worse gaming performance in the very few games it has.

Indeed, Microsoft saw some customers flee back to XP after it opened up the option to OEMs. Certainly Microsoft is not gloom and doom at these developments, and has made a healthy amount off of Vista, but they are hardly having a parade, either.
Plenty of Leopard buyers go back to Tiger. There aren't statistics showing this, though, since Apple will only sell what it sells. There are no OEMs.

That said, this is true. XP is better than Vista IMO, and consumer demand seems to agree largely. Vista adds tons of new features and enhancements, but it has hurt usability to such an extent that these are hardly relevant. However, the same can be said of OS X 10.5. Leopard has caused its fair share of serious issues and it changed certain interfaces drastically and unnecessarily (like Vista). Most importantly, Leopard has broken compatibility with plenty of third-party applications and drivers since, unlike with MS, Apple developers don't have months or years of betas and RCs to test on nor do they make enough money off of their small customer base to be able to afford to quickly fix their products for the next OS release. Vista broke plenty of third-party applications and drivers, but more were fixed or are going to be fixed than with Leopard, and they have been fixed faster.

Leopard is also very commercially successful, despite its numerous flaws.

It seems like it has quite a few parallels with Vista.

However, Apple Inc. is by no means sharing in these troubles and certainly has cause for celebration.

Clearly this is not the case. Apple does have cause for celebration, but little more cause than Microsoft. More importantly, Apple is sharing in many of the same troubles over Leopard that Microsoft is over Vista.

I have no strong feeling against Macs and Mac-lovers. I don't have any major problems with them. Macs do have legitimate uses, and for every problem with Mac OS I can find, I can usually find an equivalent problem on Windows. I do like Windows better overall, but I'm no fanboy.

However, the highly conspicuous rhetoric tossed into this article is beyond annoying. It's like trying to watch Fox News. An editorial piece in a news-like format is being presented as factual and authoritative. Clearly it's a clever use of convenient statistic as a means to spout fanboyism. I guess since this is technically listed under the "blogs", my complaint is only somewhat valid, though my disagreements are completely valid.

I guess what I'm saying is if you're going to gives props to something you like using some news, at least present it as such. Call it a blog and write it like one. Call it an editorial and write it like one. Go into the first-person if you have to. Don't give it a news-like layout and a news-like header and pretend it's news. It's using a piece of news to prove a point.

Send In The Clones!
By androticus on 12/19/2007 11:49:12 PM , Rating: 2
I think it is time for Steve Jobs to re-evaluate licensing of OS X to outside vendors. Maybe they could establish reference specs for compatible machines. The brilliance of the original IBM PC was its open architecture (both hardware and software -- hell, IBM even published the source code of the BIOS!) -- sure, it meant that the clone market arose, but better to sell 10% of a H U M O N G O U S market than 100% of a teeny market!

I think this would only result in an even faster-growing Mac OS universe, of which Apple Inc. could profit even further handsomely. And it would be great to move to a "buy the hardware then buy your OS" model, rather than this bundled-in model.

RE: Send In The Clones!
By mydogfarted on 12/20/2007 10:16:39 AM , Rating: 2
Apple did that many years ago and it was a horrid failure. Part of the reason for the switch to Intel chips was to do the reverse, give users the option to use Mac hardware to run other OSes. OS X is not a flawless OS, but name one that is - Windows, *NIX, OS/390, OS/400, HP UX, Solaris all have their share of issues. It's just the nature of the beast. If Apple truly wanted to keep things controlled, why have Boot Camp or VMs like VMWare's Fusion or Parallels Desktop for Mac?

I work with all of the OSes I listed about on a daily basis and converted to Macs with the initial release of the Mac Mini and then followed up with a MacBook Pro. Granted, I don't push my Macs that hard (Photoshop, Illstrator, Quake 4, Doom 3, Unreal Tournament/2003/2004, Halo - all OS X native apps), but my machines have be rock solid and are extremely pleasing to look at.

Sure, Apple hardware is more expensive, but I also bought my car because I liked the way it looked and the performance I get from it. In theory, the much cheaper Toyota Yaris could do the same things, but I'll be damned if I drive something that ugly.

Premium Computers
By mrp0379 on 12/19/2007 7:39:20 PM , Rating: 3
Does the percentage take into account those who build their own computers? I spent 2000+ on my system, but not from a system builder. Most of the people I know with high priced hardware also purchase individual components and put them together theirselves.

By npoe1 on 12/20/2007 12:42:00 PM , Rating: 3
I thought that was about a leopard setting a new land speed record, faster than a cheetah.

These sort of stats are silly
By ninjit on 12/19/2007 7:22:11 PM , Rating: 2
I think I remember reading somewhere that Vista was the "best selling windows ever!" as well, despite all the problems people have had with it.

Umm, duh!

Of course the latest version of any OS is going to do better numbers wise than the old version; with increasing computer penetration, there are more computers in the world today than there were yesterday.
Tomorrow I'm going to write an article about how there are even more computers than today!!! (next week I'll issue another f!&*ing press release about it too)

I think I remember reading these same claims a month after Tiger (10.4) was released too.
Don't get me wrong, I like Mac OS X a lot, but this sort of PR is utter codswallop!

misleading title
By xsilver on 12/19/2007 7:28:41 PM , Rating: 2
From the RSS title I was expecting a leopard to have eaten a shark or something,2204...


Mac who?
By thepinkpanther on 12/20/2007 5:05:08 AM , Rating: 2
Mac has something like 2 procent of the global market, and has even intel chips in them.

It posses no threat for MS or the general computer bussiness at all.

Why spend money on advertising when you got 90-95% of the OS market in the world. Its not sane at all. Every body knows windows is the real deal. Yes bla bla bla linux is good but it cant handle a lot of gamers cant use it. Furthermore its just not as easy to use as windows so the beginners wont use it.

MS has a very nice area and there is no serious threats at the moment.

By Vanilla Thunder on 12/20/2007 10:31:24 AM , Rating: 2
That PC World article was a piece of trash. I wish I had the time back that it took me to read that trite piece of psuedo journalism.


I love PC than MAC but...
By RAMDRPC on 12/20/2007 10:47:02 AM , Rating: 2
I am 100% PC fans..

Mac.. for this OS-X today is much better than the old.. it is looking better and like it for video editor ONLY.

For gamers... PC Rulez!

By tmouse on 12/20/2007 3:42:20 PM , Rating: 2
Well historically Apple sales are huge the first few months then they rapidly bottom out. This is no different. This is just the current owners updating. Apple's overall percentage is going up; but at a snails pace and its still way below their historical peak. I do not think any of us will be able to type anymore when Apple's share breaks 20%. They will NEVER open the OS for PC's, they have hinted over 3 times in the past and NEVER came through. The only time that may happen is after Jobs dies; then it not certain Apple can survive without him.

Premium PCs ???
By kalak on 12/21/2007 6:18:39 AM , Rating: 2
In the market for so called "premium" PCs -- computers over $1,000 -- Apple computers accounted for 57.53% of September sales,

So, if a PC cost more than $1,000 it's a premium PC ? Let me see.... because apple overpriced all, than apple stuff is best ????

Always the same history
By layerd on 12/26/2007 9:54:13 AM , Rating: 2
With every new OS from Microsoft it's been the same history, from the years of MSDOS 6.0 vs MSDOS 5.0, Windows 3.1 vs Mac OS 8/9, Windows 3.11 vs Windows 95, Windows 95 vs Windows 98, Windows 98 vs Windows 2000....etc, etc.
All the time the same bull$@#t, when a new OS is launched it is not only the features that the common users can see what it is important, more than that what is important are the underlying features that an OS have and can be accesed by the programers, for example, in the times of Windows 3.1 it was COM and OLE2 technology (the thing that allows you to copy an excel spreadsheet paste it on a word processor and edit it on word as if you will be on excel), now with Windows Vista there are a lot of APIs that are new with this OS, like WPF, WCF, DirectX 10, WWF, etc. It is hard to say if this new powers on the hands of the programmers will be sufficient to make the difference in what is a must for any OS, that is if it is enough to allow Vista to have much more quality applications than any other OS on the market, we must always remmember that we install an OS to run the applications that we use. Windows actually have the difference not only in the installed base, but more important on the applications that runs on it.
Also, we must consider that the market today is quite different, because the internet have changed that, today lot of applications runs on the web, not on a deffined desktop platform under some OS, so any OS today must have great access to the internet, and also must have the "things" that will make the difference with the competition, today Microsoft is unbeatable it have DirectX 10, lot of native applications, support, programmers knowleadge, the most capable composite engine (WPF) for new generation application graphics, a strong OS from security standpoint (Vista is more secure, really if you are a native system programmer you can't deny that its is much more secure than XP). In the other hand, Microsoft will have a hard competition with Google in the next years, Apple i think will be apple (OS 9 was the most stupid opertive system of its time, and some people acclaimed Macs on that time) but it is not going to be a serious competition for microsoft.
I think Microsoft will move fast in the next years, all this competition (Google, Microsoft, Apple) is good for us, the users, the next decade will be exciting. Also, software will be much higher level, so more independent from the OS, the time when a OS will be no more the "big think" is nearer than ever so microsoft and apple will have to change.
In the interim, we have the same nonsense discussion about Windows Vista vs Windows XP vs Macs.

"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki