backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 114 comment(s) - last by DeepBlue1975.. on Feb 24 at 7:51 PM

The current OS market share state, as of January 2008. Note decent gains by Linux and OS X.  (Source: Net Applications)
Windows may be king, but Apple is trying to out-tortoise the hare

Apple’s OS X comes nowhere near Windows in market share, but the reality is, throughout the last couple years OS X has slowly been gaining traction.  It still has many more years to go at this rate before ever evening the OS race, but this does not detract from the fact that it is making progress, largely at Microsoft's expense.

According to Net Applications, a market research firm that profiles OS market share, between December and January OS X jumped from 7.31% market share, to a 7.57% market share, a large gain for one month.  Windows fell from 91.79 to 91.46, down -0.36%.  To put this in context if this pace was maintained, purely in terms of a numerical reduction or in terms of relative percent reduction the two OS's wouldn't break even until 2019.

Still Microsoft has to be a bit concerned about how it is slowly bleeding market share to OS X.  The total gain for OS X in 2007, according to the study was 21.7%. 

The makers of the study were impressed by Apple's gains, particularly during the holiday season, saying in the study, "Apple’s market share gains in December for the Mac and iPhone are impressive; however, for the last days of December, the numbers are nothing short of spectacular."

Linux also showed modest gains, up from 0.63% to 0.67% between December 2007 and January 2008.  Part of this may be due to the popularity of cheap Linux driven PCs, such as the Eee PC and the Everex CloudBook which is available online from Wal-Mart (although Eee PC will soon be available with a stripped-down version of Windows XP).

For the study, Net Applications used metrics collected from 40,000 partner websites to yield a large sample group and a relatively accurate picture of the current OS market.

Windows still remains a strong leader in the OS market, but Linux providers and Apple can both take a measure of pride in that they're slowly chipping away a bit at the foundation of Microsoft's success.  Of course that all could change with the next operating system, particularly if it's better received than Windows Vista.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
looks like the marketshare for US
By mforce on 2/5/2008 10:54:32 AM , Rating: 2
From what I know Apple and OS X are pretty popular in the US but not so much elsewhere. I my country for instance (Romania) I doubt OS X has even a 1% market share and Linux is probably more popular.
Still the fact that OS X is on the rise is a nice thing although personally I'm a Linux fan. What I would like to see is more cross platform programs which work on all the 3 major OS : Windows , OS X and Linux.
While OS X is cool and a good OS with strong Unix foundations let's not forget how limited it is , you can only run it on a Mac, officially at least. You might have trouble running Linux on some hardware but it does usually work ( some tinkering might be required ) and there's really not PC or MAC that won't run Windows. Also there are few apps that don't run on Windows.




RE: looks like the marketshare for US
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/5/2008 11:02:50 AM , Rating: 5
Yea, its not really clear how they arrive at this statistic or where they sampled from. I dug around their website and there isn't much. Given the lack of news regarding windows on that website though I would say they have an axe to grind. Given the ~8% number, I would definately say this is U.S. only though given the numbers. The general feel in the business world is that the Mac is a toy or used for "artists". It's not something you would find in widespread use in a major company.


RE: looks like the marketshare for US
By JoeBanana on 2/5/2008 11:20:42 AM , Rating: 2
I also think this distribution is US only. I know only one person that uses a mac amongst all my friends. Most have windows(I would say 90%), others have dual boot with linux. I know five people linux only(me including).

But I think this news is very good. If the percentage increases microsoft will have to obey some standards in the IT industry...


RE: looks like the marketshare for US
By 67STANG on 2/5/2008 11:21:29 AM , Rating: 2
I work very closely with the art director at my company, and of course he uses a Mac to design. His is the only Mac in over the over 900 computers our company posesses. (for the sake of doing print design). Nothing against Mac's, but my Dell Precision C2D laptop seems faster than his G5...

On top of that, I specifically ordered my laptop with XP instead of Vista. Why? Sure Vista is pretty (some say they copied OSX in gui), but I want to get work done...

I don't need a pretty interface.
I don't need fading screen transitions.
I don't need menu/program items buried under a single cool looking icon for the sake of the way the OS looks.

Same reason why I can't stand iPods. 1 F'ing button that does 10 different things and that you have to "slide accross" 12 times to get to where you want to go. Really? Can that actually be classified as a button anyway? Sounds more like a touch-sensitive dimmer control to me. No thanks I'll take something that has actual buttons

Come on now, that's one of the reasons XP is still more popular than Vista. Vista is too close to OSX in eyecandy, and too far away from XP in quickness and easy of use. Am I wrong here? I mean I've "downgraded" 6 Vista machines to XP for side clients in last 2 weeks...

Sorry for the rant, but I'm just tired of people sacrificing ease of use (somtimes drastically) for the sake of design.


RE: looks like the marketshare for US
By TomZ on 2/5/08, Rating: -1
RE: looks like the marketshare for US
By 67STANG on 2/5/2008 11:42:46 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Nobody "needs" these things, but most people "want" them. A more attractive OS/application/whatever is slightly more interesting and compelling to look at/work with. In addition, it is nice to have a change every now and then to keep things "fresh." That is why you see the current trend in GUI design and why those trends will continue.


I have no problem with progression, I have a problem with irrationality. Why slow down the entire OS to make it look better? Aero has to be disabled in order to come anywhere close to the performance of XP... Don't even get me started on the peformane of XP SP3 vs. Vista SP1... If you like Vista's interface so much, just run XP with the free Vista Transformation Pack-- it's free, and your system will be faster...

quote:
Incorrect, the reason that XP is more popular than XP is that it is well established in the market for 5 years. Vista has only been on the market for about a year. And when you look at OS usage trends, the only major trends really are that Vista is rising quickly while XP is falling quickly. It's pretty obvious what's going on there, right? Fast forward another year or two, and Vista popularity will surpass XP, and another year or two, and Vista will be at 80-90% with XP at sub-5%.


Of course XP is well established after 5 years. But remember the phenomenon when XP came out...? It was such a dramatic improvement over Windows 98 (I'm leaving Windows ME out as it was worse than 98). Vista isn't a dramatic improvement over XP, period. In fact, the company that I work for doesn't use the OS and doesn't plan to in the near future. The companies I consult for (programming, not IT) don't have any wants or needs to use Vista either...

Lets also not forget that Windows Vista is so unpopular, they brought back Windows XP to offer with a lot of new systems... they've never done that with another OS as far as I can remember... Not to mention a lot of people I know are installing XP after purchasing their Vista PC/Notebooks.

XP at <5% in 1-2 years? I think I'll take that bet.


RE: looks like the marketshare for US
By Denigrate on 2/5/2008 11:51:59 AM , Rating: 2
I remember people complaining that XP sucked, and that they would use 98SE forever because they couldn't game on XP. It was a while before everyone jumped on board with XP.


RE: looks like the marketshare for US
By 67STANG on 2/5/2008 12:01:37 PM , Rating: 2
That to some extent is true. However, consider this:

People stayed with 98SE and SKIPPED Windows ME (for a lot of good reasons), then upgraded to XP.

Many people are comparing Vista to Windows ME. Not good considering Windows ME is easily the worst Windows OS ever made. Windows ME only gained any kind of a market share because it was forced upon new computer buyers...

The question is, will history repeat itself? Will a lot of people skip Vista and wait for the next release?


RE: looks like the marketshare for US
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/5/2008 12:23:41 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
People stayed with 98SE and SKIPPED Windows ME (for a lot of good reasons), then upgraded to XP.

Win ME was only on the market for about a year before it was replaced on new PC's by XP. It's life span was very short, which prevented large scale adoption. You also have to remember that WinME marked the end of the 9X kernel and all of the problems that went with it. The move from 2000 to XP was much slower because the differences between 2000 and XP were minimal. Many companies didn't even begin XP deployment until 2003 or later. End users never had access to 2000, thus speeding up the adoption of XP as it was a vast change from the 9X kernel. XP was the first NT kernel version of windows for consumers.

quote:
Many people are comparing Vista to Windows ME.

Yes, because they want to emphasize how much they hate Vista, most of the hate is unfounded with no basis in fact. Thus comparing it to WinME is something people can relate to. Most knowledgeable people recognize how much of a PITA WinME was and this gets their point across. It's little more than a sales pitch for their argument.

quote:
Not good considering Windows ME is easily the worst Windows OS ever made.

True to a point, but I'm guessing you never used 95A or 98(Non-SE). They were equally as bad.

quote:
Windows ME only gained any kind of a market share because it was forced upon new computer buyers...

This has been true for all versions of Windows since 95. People do not go out and upgrade their OS, nor are they educated enough to know of any big benefits or problems. They get the "latest windows" with their new computer and go happily along.

quote:
The question is, will history repeat itself?

Not likely. Unless Vista is replaced by something else by the OEMs/Microsoft then Vista will continue to be loaded on new PC's and will continue to grow in market share. As Microsoft no longer has multiple progression lines in the OS field (NT Kernel has continued, 9X was halted with ME).

quote:
Will a lot of people skip Vista and wait for the next release?

Not likely. People replace their computers on average between 3-5 years. Anyone who has had their computer for more than 3 years is likely to buy a new one during the Vista window. Anyone who bought one in the last 2 years may or may not end up with Vista as the next OS release is set for 2010-2011 timeframe.


RE: looks like the marketshare for US
By 67STANG on 2/5/08, Rating: 0
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/5/2008 2:24:24 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I realize market share will grow for Vista. The problem is, I don't see XP fading away quite so quick. I think things are different this time. I think MS knows that. That's why XP is still around, it's still being distributed with new PC's a year after Vista's release.

Oh there is no doubt about that. XP's adoption was greatly fanned by the merging of the 9X line and the NT line into one operating system platform. Since then the Windows Server and Desktop OS have been built on the same framework. Server2003/XP, Server2008/Vista. Server2011/Vienna. The migration to Vista from previous OS will likely be similar to the migration from Vista to Vienna in 3 years.

Now, with some foresight in mind the migration from XP to Vienna will be painful in ways never thought possible. Vista is very much an "in between" operating system. Security and back end components were new, as was the permissions for many applications. This is likely to push software and hardware vendors to adopt the new Vista-style approach to running software and drivers. Vienna will further build on this and the migration from Vista to Vienna will likely be less painful than XP -> Vista. I do feel sorry for the people who try to skip over XP and go straight to Vienna in 2010-2011. They are in for a world of hurt and problems.


RE: looks like the marketshare for US
By omnicronx on 2/5/2008 4:01:11 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I realize market share will grow for Vista. The problem is, I don't see XP fading away quite so quick. I think things are different this time. I think MS knows that. That's why XP is still around, it's still being distributed with new PC's a year after Vista's release.
I found windows 2000 leaps and bound ahead of XP in stability and usability. Many people stayed with 2000 for a while, but after a no more than 3-4 years, 2000 even though many people found it superior, started to fade because everyone had XP preinstalled on their new PC.

I agree with Kenobi on this one, regardless if you like vista or not, the oem PC market will dictate the rate in which vista will be adopted.


RE: looks like the marketshare for US
By Screwballl on 2/5/08, Rating: 0
RE: looks like the marketshare for US
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/5/2008 10:48:12 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
From software and hardware incompatibilities, simply disliking the much higher system requirements, being forced to gobble down integrated DRM, or just not liking how it is all setup... each of us here have our own reasons why we do not like Vista in one way or another.

This was the same argument given when XP was released. You merely proved the point that people just don't like change.

quote:
Many others have taken the time and extra money to be sure that they stay away or purposely remove Vista to go back to XP.

A vocal minority. The XP sales statistic is largely being pushed by corporations. Corporations are always 2-3 years behind the OS curve.

quote:
To me, I believe that MS knows exactly the problems they have caused which is why they continue to allow new OEM computers to still be sold with XP and they still have a decent percentage that are still sold as such. XP is pretty much setup so that support and sales can continue until Windows 7 aka Vienna.

From a business perspective, why would Microsoft care? Your still buying an OS from them, eventually being forced to go to Vista when support dries up for XP. No telling if Vienna will be as nicely polished as XP is right now when it's released. In fact I will make a "duh" prediction here and say that by the time Vienna is released, Vista will be as polished and capable as XP is right now, and Vienna will have all sorts of little problems just like Vista is now (supposedly). Which means you will jump to Vista still paying Microsoft for a copy of Windows. Your simply what businesses call a "late adopter". This is quite common, nothing to see here.

quote:
Vienna/Windows 7 is trying to put more work into WinFS which essentially takes the NT kernel out of play (or at least allow backward compatibility via emulation mode). They may end up keeping the NT kernel but using WinFS instead of NTFS for the file system only. There is not enough public information to truly tell what the beta or public releases will use.

The NT Kernel and the NTFS file system are not dependent on each other. You are aware that both 2000 and XP can run on FAT32 right? Just checking.

quote:
I say this is very likely, still to this day more people are buying the new computer which equates to Vista sales but then going back to XP (essentially skewing many sales numbers) which means that even once Vienna/7 is out, there may be more people simply skipping over Vista.

The number of people switching back to XP on a new PC with Vista is extremely low. Nice try though.

quote:
One thing that is very difficult to find are true and current sales numbers for the XP OS. Microsoft isn't releasing any of this extra info, they want to sell everyone on Vista.

The number of average users running out and grabbing OEM or retail copies of XP and loading it on a Vista machine is so low it doesn't rate on a chart. The number that could even do an XP install properly is just as low. If you were talking about tech savy users you might have a case but you have to remember, those of us here on this board are NOT in the majority. We are a minority.

quote:
So they initially thought 15% but was then expecting numbers over 22% based on the strong XP sales.

So there is a 7% higher demand than extimated. That means 78% are Vista sales, looks like pretty good adoption rate to me since Vista is only 1 year old. By next year XP sales will be a distant memory.

quote:
So 39%, that means 8-10% were OSX and the other 50-52% were XP (with 1% for linux and alternative OS). Doesn't sound good when looking at the big picture for Vista...

That actually looks about on target. XP was not the majority OS until about 2003 which was 2+ years after the initial release. Which was also the time frame that most businesses were also starting the transition to XP. If we look at this in perspective we can assume based on the numbers you provided that Vista has achieved 40% of the OS marketshare in a single year, without a service pack, and with all the software and driver problems that are such show stoppers. Looks like your shooting yourself in the foot here. Unless your numbers are wrong.

quote:
There are plenty of news stories and bits from all over including Microsoft press releases that are made so sound like all is well on the MS side of things... yet when 1 in 4 of their OS sales are XP, they knew they had done something drastically wrong. We can hope that Vienna/Windows 7 does something right or we will see a a much higher transfer rate to linux and OSX users.

Let's go ahead and pick this apart. 1 in 4 OS sales are XP. So that's 75% adoption on Vista, looks about right. As for the Linux users. Until Linux unifies (if ever) you will never see widespread adoption of that platform. Linux in its current form is no threat to anyone. Now for the OSX argument there is one small flaw. People are cheap. Dell, HP, Acer are all cheap. Apple costs more. OSX is tied to Apple hardware and not available to anyone that doesn't buy from Apple. OSX in its current locked box format is also of no threat. Now if Apple wants to open up and release OSX to everyone, and go toe to toe with Microsoft I am all ears. If they did this OSX wouldn't run half as good as Windows though not to meantion all the bugs and security problems they would have to squash. Last I heard they were having problems with bugs in Leopard (and quite a few at that) on their already heavily controlled environment. I don't see Apple ready to make the jump into the universal OS market.


By Screwballl on 2/6/2008 1:04:59 PM , Rating: 2
Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Being a part of the sales force and tech based sales and repair, I see how things are in the real world, not behind some desk looking at various websites catered to pro-Vista users that spout off rehashed Microsoft PR saying "things are great"... In the real world, there is at least 35-40% of people still purchasing XP over Vista OR switching from Vista back to XP. There are a few holdouts, granted, but a majority of new computer buyers that choose to go back to XP from Vista is not simply a dislike for it, it is typically software or hardware problems only present in Vista. This is a very large share of people (35%+) but also as I stated previously, Vista was sold to them first, and THEN XP. Since MS has the trade down program for OEM buyers, it is very easy to tell that MS is not reporting the number of deactivated Vista keys due to going back to XP. They just add another +1 to the Vista sales and puff up their numbers. I would assume this discrepancy accounts for at least a good 15-20% difference in reported numbers.

Granted YOU and some others may not have had problems with Vista but with the several hundred Vista computers I have dealt with, very few have NOT had problems. This is the whole basis of people staying with XP: IT WORKS and it works well.

This is a completely different basis and reasoning compared to when XP was released. The reasons why people disliked XP was not so much the hardware or software incompatibilities, it was just the new look with the green start bar and so on. It was a major graphical change. People can't use the hardware or software incompatibility excuse for XP except for maybe some ISA cards or non-mainstream components that only sold 500 items. XP had the same NT based kernel that Win2000 had which ran all the same programs that 98/ME did.

Since Vista uses a completely different kernel and forces software based API for sound and DRM and so much more junk, that is causing the software and hardware incompatibilities.
and FYI... my main system has XP 32bit, Vista x64 and Fedora Core 8 x64. XP and Fedora run great, Vista (32 and 64 bit both) run like crap on this modern system: C2D E6600, 2GB DDR2-1066, 256MB X1950GT, GA-965P-DS3 Rev 3.3, X-Fi sound, 3 SATA HDs. I also have a 32-bit Vista install on my mother in laws computer which is a modest Dell B110 with a Celeron 2.53GHz, 1GB DDR and onboard 64MB video. It runs decent but no hardware incompatibilities. It is all software issues with her embroidery software that is only a few months old completely refusing to run after installed.

I am just trying to relay my POV here and the reason why after several hundred Vista installs, around 1/3 of them go back to XP. It is not because of "I don't like it", it is because it simply does not work or does not work well.


RE: looks like the marketshare for US
By TomZ on 2/5/2008 12:12:16 PM , Rating: 1
Your arugument might make some sense if Vista = XP+Aero, which is not the case. I think you might want to read up on what Vista is and what Microsoft put into it, for example, the security initiatives.


RE: looks like the marketshare for US
By 67STANG on 2/5/08, Rating: -1
RE: looks like the marketshare for US
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/5/2008 12:28:05 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, you need say more. Stop watching Mac commercials and base your statements in fact. Apple PR FUD doesn't count as fact.


RE: looks like the marketshare for US
By Flunk on 2/5/2008 12:37:59 PM , Rating: 3
Vista + Aero is faster than without Aero as long as the graphics systems is not incompetent (Intel Integrated = incompetent). It offloads drawing the interface to the graphics card and while this takes more RAM, the overall effect is higher responsiveness.

Vista trades a bit of shear performance numbers for faster program loads and better UI responsiveness.

I generally find that people who complain about Vista have either never used it, or used it on an old system or one with terribly incompetent graphics.

If you don't have a multi-core PC with at least 1GB of RAM and a decent DX9 accelerator Vista is really not a good choice.


By althaz on 2/6/2008 8:25:12 PM , Rating: 2
Word (nice paraphrase of my -1 post above, by the way).

The only thing you missed is that ReadyBoost means the programs you use all the time load a hell of a lot faster under Vista than previous OSes.


RE: looks like the marketshare for US
By Hare on 2/5/2008 12:29:56 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Aero has to be disabled in order to come anywhere close to the performance of XP...
Eh. Aero is GPU accelerated so it's actually faster than software rendering. Get your facts straight. Aero is pretty sweet and not just because it looks better. All modern operating systems use hardware accelerated graphics (Mac OS X, Vista, Gnome, Kde..).

With every OS release people complain that it's slow... Could it be that if you use an old computer you should stick to XP? Get a nice new computer with plenty of memory and Vista will fly. I wonder why no one complains about games. All that eye candy in Crysis makes it slower than Quake II. Booo. Requirements grow but you also GET more. It's the same thing with operating systems. If Vista would have Win 2.5 requirements it would also feel like Win 2.5.


By iSOBigD on 2/5/2008 5:33:56 PM , Rating: 2
"I wonder why no one complains about games. All that eye candy in Crysis makes it slower than Quake II."

I had to make an account here just to reply to this. MOST gamers complain about Vista just because of games. ALL 3D games are slower in Vista when using the same settings as in XP. Without using the bs "they use DX10" comment, games are slower when using the exact same settings. That's why gamers don't use Vista, including myself. On the same fairly fast computer (Q6600, 8800GT, 4GB of RAM at 800mhz) games are slower in Vista, so I can definitely complain. Also, Crysis runs MUCH faster in XP than in does in Vista, when using exactly the same settings...not-to-mention all "very high" settings can be enabled in XP, making it look about 99% as good as the DX10 version, but while running a good 20%+ faster. So yeah, please never use the Crysis argument again.


RE: looks like the marketshare for US
By Donkeyshins on 2/5/2008 3:44:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have no problem with progression, I have a problem with irrationality. Why slow down the entire OS to make it look better? Aero has to be disabled in order to come anywhere close to the performance of XP... Don't even get me started on the peformane of XP SP3 vs. Vista SP1... If you like Vista's interface so much, just run XP with the free Vista Transformation Pack-- it's free, and your system will be faster...


Actually, I'm running 32-bit Vista on my home machine with the following specs: T7200 Core2Duo, 2GB PC5300, 8800GT, 500GB SATA and it is as fast if not faster than XP SP2 installed on identical hardware , especially on games. At work I'm running a 64-bit copy of Vista on an AthlonX2 5200 with 4GB of RAM and it screams . Could Vista be slower than XP if installed upon less powerful hardware? Of course.

However, most people saw an identical drop in performance when they moved from 98SE to XP without upgrading their hardware. Progress is a PITA at times, but I wouldn't go back to XP if you paid me.


By iSOBigD on 2/5/2008 5:40:23 PM , Rating: 2
I honestly doubt that. While Vista runs fast (or "screams" as you put it) on a huge number of systems, it does Not run faster - especially in games - when compared to the same system running XP. All benchmarks and personal tests support my view...while I'm sure you've never actually compared performance for yourself in order to make those claims. Getting 60 fps in Vista in a game instead of 70 in XP doesn't make the game run slowly, but it does make it run slowER. When you talk about a game where you can barely get 30fps, getting 20-25 with the exact same image quality makes a Huge difference. I honestly have no problem with Vista except for the slower 3D game performance. The look and everything else I don't mind, and of course I expect it to run slower when looking better...but I don't want it to run slower when displaying exactly the same graphics as XP.


By theapparition on 2/6/2008 9:58:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lets also not forget that Windows Vista is so unpopular, they brought back Windows XP to offer with a lot of new systems... they've never done that with another OS as far as I can remember...

Microsoft has extended other OS's end-of-life dates and sales dates. But that's not the full story.
Microsoft was too quick to EOL XP. They've never EOL another product so fast after it's upgrade was available. That was a mistake, and they remidied it. Yet people put the spin on it like Microsoft had to bring it back because Vista sucks.


By wallijonn on 2/5/2008 1:51:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's pretty obvious what's going on there, right?


Yeah, you can only buy new machines with Vista, so of course the number of Vista licenses go up.


RE: looks like the marketshare for US
By maven81 on 2/5/2008 11:34:15 AM , Rating: 2
You do realize that the interface can be customized right? You could disable the animations, the fades and have something that doesn't look drastically different from XP.
So you really have no excuse there.
There's a lot to gain from the 64bit version of Vista, since one would have to be crazy to run XP-64...


RE: looks like the marketshare for US
By 67STANG on 2/5/2008 11:47:31 AM , Rating: 1
I hadn't realized you could customize the interface, thanks for that...

Problem is, even after you change it back to more of an XP style, it is still slow.

As far as Vista 64 is concerned, not gonna go there. 64 bit anything has poorer driver support vs. 32 bit anything, and while Vista 64 may be better than XP 64 was/is, Vista has problems with 32 bit driver compatibility (not their fault, hardware vendors are still quite content with XP so they haven't put Vista driver development as a priority), so I'm not sure I'd test the waters with the 64 bit version.


RE: looks like the marketshare for US
By Griswold on 2/5/2008 11:56:58 AM , Rating: 2
Who are you trying to kid? You didnt know aero can be customized much easier and much more than the GUI of any windows before it (not thanks to MS, but all it takes is VistaGlazz to patch a couple dll's and your imagination), yet you are telling us you knew "its still slower than XP" and "64bit driver support sucks regardless of what OS".

Seriously, get some first hand experience before touting facts that arent facts any longer.

My record is 12 months of vista of which the last 5 months have been vista64 and I never once looked back - and yes, I do work with my computer as well.


RE: looks like the marketshare for US
By 67STANG on 2/5/2008 12:09:54 PM , Rating: 2
I wasn't kidding anyone...

Did I say that I didn't know how to customize Aero? Please get your glasses on. I believe what I said was "Aero has to be disabled in order to come anywhere close to the performance of XP" Is that confusing in some way? Speaks wonders that you have to install a 3rd party patch doesn't it? And yes, even after all that, it's still slower. Surprise.
Please explain how "64 bit driver support sucks regarless of what OS" is incorrect? It's a fact that XP has less 32 bit driver issues than Vista. Why would you want to take more chances with 64 bit?

I probably should get some first hand knowledge. I mean, I've only had Vista on a dev Machine since RC1 and still have it for IIS7 testing... what do I know...


RE: looks like the marketshare for US
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/5/2008 12:40:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Did I say that I didn't know how to customize Aero? Please get your glasses on. I believe what I said was "Aero has to be disabled in order to come anywhere close to the performance of XP" Is that confusing in some way? Speaks wonders that you have to install a 3rd party patch doesn't it? And yes, even after all that, it's still slower. Surprise.

No it doesn't. This is only true if your running Vista on the XP minimum hardware spec. Which you would have to be insane to do that anyways. That would be akin to complaining that XP is slower than 98SE when its on a P133MHz with 128MB of ram.

quote:
Please explain how "64 bit driver support sucks regarless of what OS" is incorrect? It's a fact that XP has less 32 bit driver issues than Vista. Why would you want to take more chances with 64 bit?

Hmmmm incorrect. 64-bit Vista has less driver issues since your not allowed to install unsigned drivers. Thus largely preventing the leading cause of BSOD's under XP(Crappy Drivers).

quote:
I probably should get some first hand knowledge. I mean, I've only had Vista on a dev Machine since RC1 and still have it for IIS7 testing... what do I know...

Just because you have it loaded on a dev box (which are notoriously low spec to begin with as your "just testing") doesn't mean you know what your talking about. IIS7 has little to do with end user usabiliy of Vista and the features your complaining about. Software Developer <> Windows Expert.


RE: looks like the marketshare for US
By 67STANG on 2/5/2008 1:10:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No it doesn't. This is only true if your running Vista on the XP minimum hardware spec. Which you would have to be insane to do that anyways. That would be akin to complaining that XP is slower than 98SE when its on a P133MHz with 128MB of ram.


No actually its true under every machine I've experience Vista on. Sluggish performance. I mean NOTICEABLY slow. Not on old machines, on modern machines. Please think more of me than thinking I'd install this on a first generation Athlon...

quote:
Hmmmm incorrect. 64-bit Vista has less driver issues since your not allowed to install unsigned drivers. Thus largely preventing the leading cause of BSOD's under XP(Crappy Drivers).


Hmmmm, then couldn't you conclude the fact that the driver doesn't exist as being a "driver issue"? What good are signed drivers when no one is developing them?

quote:
Just because you have it loaded on a dev box (which are notoriously low spec to begin with as your "just testing") doesn't mean you know what your talking about. IIS7 has little to do with end user usabiliy of Vista and the features your complaining about. Software Developer <> Windows Expert.


My dev box is an Athlon X2 4000 w/2GB. True, no speed beater, but should be "up to the task". IIS7 does not have anything to do with end user usability? Do users have to go into the control panel? When they get there in Vista, what do they find (after they close the security prompts that is)? They find a lot of differnt things in different places than what they are used to, and for what reason? The same carries true for the entire OS, things put in places they should be, or otherwise buried. (off topic IIS7 is horribly unstable). Back on topic, I don't consider myself an expert.. more of a power user. I wouldn't consider anyone else here a windows expert either.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/5/2008 1:59:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No actually its true under every machine I've experience Vista on. Sluggish performance. I mean NOTICEABLY slow. Not on old machines, on modern machines. Please think more of me than thinking I'd install this on a first generation Athlon...

It wouldn't be the first time I caught a Vista naysayer using that type of PC though. The noticeable slowness I would argue then is due to the fact that your machine lacks the ability to properly utilize hardware accelerated graphics, which yes would slow it down as that would be handled by the IGP using main system memory (cutting into the 2gig you have) or one of those stupid "turbo" cards which cut into system memory as well. No argument from me that the old el-cheapo IGP's won't cut it with Vista Aero. Then again the IGP's that worked for XP don't cut it for OSX or Fedora either. Were on the crux of a change here, with newer systems containing discrete graphics cards or higher powered IGP's eventually on-die with the CPU.

quote:
Hmmmm, then couldn't you conclude the fact that the driver doesn't exist as being a "driver issue"? What good are signed drivers when no one is developing them?

I haven't seen this as a problem for most vendors. Most of the big name OEM's and major enthusiast part suppliers have x64 drivers for Vista. Some of the older obscure hardware or smalltime hardware makers might be less than willing to provide a set of x64 drivers for Vista, but the majority do.

quote:
My dev box is an Athlon X2 4000 w/2GB. True, no speed beater, but should be "up to the task".

About slowness, see my above on the Aero and IGP mess.

quote:
IIS7 does not have anything to do with end user usability? Do users have to go into the control panel? When they get there in Vista, what do they find (after they close the security prompts that is)?

There is no security prompt to open up the control panel. There is to open up specific items inside of the control panel.


RE: looks like the marketshare for US
By maven81 on 2/5/2008 2:05:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No actually its true under every machine I've experience Vista on. Sluggish performance. I mean NOTICEABLY slow. Not on old machines, on modern machines.


Are you sure you're not talking about OSX here? Now there's an OS that's noticeably slow... Instead of working I'm just watching cutesy animations... genie effects, bouncing application buttons, windows that seem to take seconds to open, spinning beachballs... you click on something and you wait... and you wait... and pray that something happens... (and I 've had to use it every day for years now!)
I haven't seen Vista do that even on 500 dollar machines at best buy.

quote:
Hmmmm, then couldn't you conclude the fact that the driver doesn't exist as being a "driver issue"? What good are signed drivers when no one is developing them?


What exactly are you having trouble finding exactly? I have Vista 64 running on a Mac Pro! Now that's a proprietary machine if there ever was one... and it STILL found drivers for pretty much everything. There's also a driver for my printer and scanner, and while I had to get the audio driver from the realtek site, I'm not missing drivers for anything. You make it sound like the days of XP-64 which sorry, it's not true.


RE: looks like the marketshare for US
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/5/2008 2:26:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You make it sound like the days of XP-64 which sorry, it's not true.

Thank god for that. XP-64 was a mess.


By Noliving on 2/6/2008 12:27:22 AM , Rating: 2
Also if I'm not mistaken in order for the drivers to get signed, microsoft requires that the company also supply 64bit version of the driver that it submits 90 days after the 32bit version of the driver is released.

I think I remember reading that somewhere.


By althaz on 2/6/2008 9:35:46 PM , Rating: 1
No offence, but are ou stoned? I just can't imagine any other reason to claim first hand knowledge of Vista and along with that supposed knowledge also claim a speed defecit. That's the part of your post I find confusing.

Vista is a lot faster than XP in terms of general use, loading of programs and system responsiveness. For 99 of users, that's the speed difference that matters.

Gaming and application speed see-saws between the two depending on the software and in the case of games, video driver versions.

As an example, with Vista I run exactly the same settings in games as under XP (I dual boot) and all games run identically, as far as I can tell (other than Football Manager which loads and saves much faster). Benchmarks may show a few frames here and there either way, but my experience doesn't change.

Everything else I use the computer for is a tremendous amount faster. Load times are tiny fractions of what they are under XP and simple things like say browsing for files on my PC is a lot quicker.

If Vista seems slower to you then there is one of two things you should do:

a) Upgrade. A 1Ghz Celeron and 512Mb of RAM with an appropriately ancient integrated Intel graphics chip is insufficient to run Vista. Deal with it.

b) Slow down a bit with the halucinogen intake. That shit ain't good for you.

Which one applies to you I couldn't rightly say. ;)


RE: looks like the marketshare for US
By Dologan on 2/5/2008 12:39:55 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, Vista is slower than XP, but wasn't XP much more so than 98 in its time? Every OS nowadays is slower than an older version of it on equal hardware (to various extents), and that includes MacOS and Linux (in its standard flavours, at least). It is a completely normal phenomenon in technology progression and I don't understand why you'd expect otherwise. In any case don't see why it's such a huge drawback unless you are still stuck with an obsolete machine. Heck, I would even venture to say that a high-end computer when Vista came out ran it better than a high-end machine ran XP back in the day when it was freshly out.

Anyway 64-bit support is nowhere near as crappy as it was when the first Athlon 64s came out. I am running Vista x64 and I really haven't encountered any driver problem that I couldn't solve with a bit of effort. Sure, it's not quite up there with 32-bit, but it has come a long way, at least with relatively common hardware.


RE: looks like the marketshare for US
By Xerio on 2/5/2008 12:57:51 PM , Rating: 2
THIS is what I have been telling people for the past year. Yeah, it sucks that Vista isn't as fast, but neither was XP compared to 98SE. Whoa! What a concept!

It is true that the feature increase you got with XP compared to 98SE was greater than the feature increase you get with Vista compared to XP. This does not make Vista suck. If you don't like it, don't use it and quit complaining.


RE: looks like the marketshare for US
By 67STANG on 2/5/2008 1:15:43 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, XP was slower than 98SE (when it first came out). Post SP2 and definately after SP3, I'd have to say it's on par.

You also have to realize that 98SE to XP was a desirable upgrade with real benefits. There really isn't much more to Vista except more eyecandy, oh and a handy Windows Experience Index score. Worth $200? No thanks, I'll just change my wallpaper...


By Nekrik on 2/5/2008 2:13:07 PM , Rating: 2
XPSP2 is faster than XP RTM with no service packs?

Not even close, it is slower, but SP2 is hugely more secure and anyone running XP without SP2 who also has an open ethernet connection will eventually contract something that will slow it down to being useless (I think Blaster was quite popular for this :)).

"There really isn't much more to Vista except more eyecandy"

BS, you're ignorant and just trying to spread FUD or trolling for some online attention.


By Donkeyshins on 2/5/2008 4:07:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You also have to realize that 98SE to XP was a desirable upgrade with real benefits. There really isn't much more to Vista except more eyecandy, oh and a handy Windows Experience Index score. Worth $200? No thanks, I'll just change my wallpaper...


Can you be any more ignorant here? Vista was a massive reworking of the kernel including a new TCP/IP stack, a new hardware abstraction layer, a new security model (least privileged as opposed to XP and prior-Windows-OSes most privileged), new CPU cycling (to better balance load on multi-proc/multi-core systems), new port management (to prevent ports from being opened and not closed by applications - big security fix here), Shadow Copy, Bitlocker, and many other features too numerous to list. The 'eye candy' is the least of the changes. If you are too biased to realize this, then please kindly STFU and stop spreading patently false information.


RE: looks like the marketshare for US
By BansheeX on 2/5/2008 1:08:26 PM , Rating: 2
Rather than accept slower interfaces as "progress," maybe you should ask yourself if there are certain concepts in an operating system that do not need to be improved upon any further. In XP, certain Windows concepts have become extraordinarily mature. Trying to make a circle more round only makes it worse. I honestly believe that MS with their very short (and profitable) product cycles overthinks things and changes things that don't need to be changed in order to point to change and market new features. They do the same damn thing with Office. Do you really need a new word processor every two years? Don't you think they could just patch the existing one? Of course they could. But they're thinking money first, and justifiable progress second. That isn't to say there isn't ANY progress in Vista, but when you're in a monopolistic position, you can force obsolescence by doing things like DX10 API exclusivity, etc. It's not a good correlation to say 98 to XP was the same way.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/5/2008 4:00:34 PM , Rating: 2
98/2000 to XP was the culmination of two different development lines. A more appropriate comparison for XP -> Vista would be 2000 -> XP. Which to be honest is very similar. 2000 -> XP migration didnt even hit 50% until late 2004. Overall adoption was higher because most 98SE/ME users added to the XP group. Skews the numbers a bit.

If you want to talk about short product cycles, look no further than Apple. Those guys are the masters of short product cycles.


By Screwballl on 2/5/2008 3:09:32 PM , Rating: 2
thats the thing... I ran XP x64 with little to no problems... I currently run Vista x64 with nothing but problems (software and drivers)...
This is why I keep a tri-boot setup: XP x86 (32bit) for games, Vista x64 for testing, and then my normal every day usage is with linux (currently Fedora Core 8 x64).
I see the next few years (around the release of Vienna aka "Windows 7") as Vista topping out around 20%, XP down to around 60%, OSX about 15% and linux hovering around 5%. Where it goes from there is determined on how good or bad Windows 7 really is. There is a large movement of people migrating fully to linux and it is a powerful train that once they make a few breakthroughs, both MS and Apple will need to watch out. It is only the timing of when this happens that will have the major impact.


RE: looks like the marketshare for US
By UNCjigga on 2/5/2008 11:40:02 AM , Rating: 2
So in your opinion Macs aren't easy to use? Sorry, but since you're an IT admin, your opinion (though valid for businesses) doesn't represent that of the majority of consumers. And why would you even bother to compare a Precision C2D with a G5? Would you compare a Porsche 911 to a Chevy Cobalt? Macs didn't really become popular for consumers until they switched to Intel anyway.

Going back to the article, I doubt Apple will ever take more than 10% of the US market unless they changed their product strategy. I don't think they're too concerned with PC market share at this point anyway. They have a loyal base of customers and they continue to build products around their base's needs. If they were serious about stealing share from MS, they would have launched a low-cost "budget" Apple PC line separate from the "Mac" brand already.

However, Apple should seriously consider the global market, especially India and China, for future growth. They should at least attempt to build a low-cost PC powered by OS X for that market, before ceding it altogether to MS and Linux.


RE: looks like the marketshare for US
By kelmon on 2/5/2008 12:02:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, Apple should seriously consider the global market, especially India and China, for future growth. They should at least attempt to build a low-cost PC powered by OS X for that market, before ceding it altogether to MS and Linux.


It depends on whether that market is expected to be profitable. Apple doesn't cater to the budget market but rather the premium market where the margins are much higher. At present these markets are cheap 'n' cheerful PCs so its not very interesting but I'd expect that to change as the disposable income of people increase.


RE: looks like the marketshare for US
By UNCjigga on 2/5/2008 2:11:14 PM , Rating: 2
These markets may not be profitable now, but they should be considered "virgin" territory for OS X to attract buyers who aren't already familiar with Windows. The same strategy Apple used in the 80s here (focus on education market) should be adopted for emerging markets as well--get them hooked while they're young and in school and hope they stick with you. However, Windows is already the de facto standard for business OS around the world, so it may be too late?


By kelmon on 2/5/2008 4:01:23 PM , Rating: 2
Honestly, I'm expecting those markets to go for Linux rather than Windows. Regardless, attempting to "seed" the market of that size in the hope of harvesting later would be one heck of an investment and probably a pretty risky one at that. Apple is doing OK gaining ground in markets already dominated by Windows so it's probably better to do the same in India and China. Apple doesn't do cheap and I don't expect that to change.


By wordsworm on 2/5/2008 12:28:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't need menu/program items buried under a single cool looking icon for the sake of the way the OS looks.


I haven't had an icon on my screen since I realized I could put everything I use on quicklaunch (20 buttons) and have the full moon dimly lighting my apartment. Icons are so ugly. I had to get rid of the sidebar because it somehow interfered with gaming. Overall, though, I find Vista faster than XP. Certainly it's more secure than I found XP to be. I think it would have been nice if they had something like what Linux has done - having the ability to switch between different desktops (without having to create multiple logs). I think that is a brilliant innovation. I hope one day I can turn to Linux, as I have to Firefox, as the superior alternative to MS - oh how I hate their guts... if only there was a "real" alternative. (I consider Apple to be worse)

However, I'm not sure what you meant by 'fading screen transitions.' I don't have that problem.


RE: looks like the marketshare for US
By psychobriggsy on 2/5/2008 12:37:36 PM , Rating: 3
Nothing against Mac's, but my Dell Precision C2D laptop seems faster than his G5...

Well the G5 was 2004/2005 era.

Sure Vista is pretty (some say they copied OSX in gui), but I want to get work done...

Mac's GUI prettiness usually tries to aid productivity (not all of them do, but things like Expose, and so on). Vista's somehow fail to do that (Be Productive [Allow] [Deny]). XP has a very poor user experience (in terms of attention to detail (e.g., "What program do you wish to open this with?" doesn't have a link to Program Files) unless you've used it a lot and subconsciously know your way around its foibles (and after 6 years most people do).


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/6/2008 8:33:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Vista's somehow fail to do that (Be Productive [Allow] [Deny]).

Short of installs or screwing with system files/registry this prompt almost never comes up. Nice try.


By PB PM on 2/6/2008 1:57:48 AM , Rating: 2
Kind of silly to compare the G5 to a Core 2 Duo, since the G5 is a four & half year old PPC architecture vs. the 2 year old x86 C2D architecture. The IBM 970 (G5) is an old chip, that is no longer in production, because it was stagnant for years speed wise, of course a C2D is faster! My Macbook Pro with a C2D is faster than any G5 system too, what's you point?

Personally, I use Windows XP and Mac OS on a daily basis, both have good and bad points. I wouldn't say either is any better, they both help me to do what I need to do, depending on the applications I need.


By winterspan on 2/8/2008 12:35:29 AM , Rating: 2
Axe to grind? I'd say you yourself has more bias than the author of the research. I can't believe you'd say the "business world thinks OSX is a toy"?
Are you kidding me? The reason the business world hasn't used OSX (other than momentum and vendor lock-in of windows software) is that they tend to buy bargain-basement PCs in bulk that have very basic requirements. It has absolutely nothing to do with looking at OSX as a toy. That's a charged and unbelievably ignorant statement.
In fact, organizations in the creative industry rely on OSX and Linux and associated powerful hardware. I'd love to see you tell an editor with an 8 core Xeon, RAID 0 Final Cut Pro
machine that its a "toy".
I'm assuming since you are a "writer" at this website, I don't need to give you a lesson into the *NIX foundations of NextStep/OSX...


By winterspan on 2/8/2008 12:39:54 AM , Rating: 2
"Yea, its not really clear how they arrive at this statistic"

As it says in the article and on their website, they collect web browser statistics 40,000 websites. They are just tracking client-header web browser reporting..


Record Market Share
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/5/2008 11:05:08 AM , Rating: 3
Jason, in all seriousness. Given historically how low Mac's have been on the market share scale it would be safe to assume that any gain even .01% would be a "new record" for them.




RE: Record Market Share
By gamefoo21 on 2/5/2008 11:16:53 AM , Rating: 5
Apple(Mac Clone included) used to have 60%+ marketshare, but Apple was failing, and Jobs came back, killed off the clones, and spiked the price for "designer" computers. Thats when you saw the massive marketshare crash to what it has been the last few years.

Oh and for the Vista haters out there, my father can break a computer in no time, and hates his system being changed. I got him a cheap laptop for Xmas(student so $400 gift is maxxing me out), and he enjoys Vista, my mother who carries more certs than me, enjoys Vista, and is saying she wants to switch up from XP on her desktop, and can't understand all the venom towards Vista now that she has used it.

The same goes for the people I sell computers too, I tell them if you hate Vista come back and we'll put XP on it for you. I haven't had one person come back, I've had them come back and say thank you for letting them know that Vista isn't a new ME.

Oh and I'm a middle of the road guy, for some people OSX is great and for others Windows/Linux is a better alternative. I was a Mac fanboy but I switched, and trust me if in my honest opinion thought Apple was worth it, I wouldn't be toting around a 14.1"ws T61 with me at university. :)


RE: Record Market Share
By UNCjigga on 2/5/2008 11:45:45 AM , Rating: 2
Your revisionist history is amusing. By the time Jobs came back, Apple had already lost the education market, which accounted for a large part of their share. They were *never* a serious player in the business market--hence why the clones failed (Apple killed them because they were already dead!) Jobs saved Apple by transforming it into a consumer electronics maker vs. a PC maker.


RE: Record Market Share
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/5/2008 12:10:13 PM , Rating: 2
I've used Mac's, I've had to support Mac's. I prefer to use and support Windows based PC's. You can't support a Mac, you have to trick it into doing what you want it to do. Windows if something doesn't work there are always the common ways of forcing it, DLL's, system files, registry mods. If the Mac doesn't work your ability to dig deep and mess with the guts is severely limited.


RE: Record Market Share
By pixelslave on 2/5/2008 1:23:56 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly when does Apple had 60%+ market share? I used to use Mac (switch to Windows after OS X came out -- IMO, MS has succeed cloning the classic Mac OS, which I like a lot, while Apple gave us a lot of their own principles when creating OS X) and as far as I can recall, Apple had never achieve anything near 60% of the market share. It used to have double digit market share, but I don't think it has ever gone above 20%.


RE: Record Market Share
By Xerio on 2/5/2008 12:09:13 PM , Rating: 2
My thoughts were along those same lines. The title makes it seem like Mac OSX is taking large chunks of market share from Microsoft Windows. I did a little digging around the "internets" and found this: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=...

I don't know how accurate it is, but even if Mac OS gained 5% marketshare, Microsoft would still have 85% marketshare - a huge lead. Apple would feel good, and Microsoft MIGHT notice, but Windows would still be the leader by a wide margin.

Sadly, even if (or even though, depending on how you feel) there is an operating system that is vastly better than Windows, Windows will still have a huge marketshare lead. Install-base is a huge asset that Microsoft is very aware of.

That being said, I use both XP and Vista. :)


RE: Record Market Share
By Xerio on 2/5/2008 12:10:46 PM , Rating: 2
OK. I'm a dope. I just realized that I used the same website that Mick did. :S


RE: Record Market Share
By iSOBigD on 2/5/2008 5:52:32 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I think the whole thing is just dumb because it's much easier to make "record growths" when you're dead last or when you control a tiny, tiny part of the market. When you have 95% of the market, it's impossible to double your percentage and there's nowhere to go but down. Mac OS, Linux, etc. are the only ones who can actually increase their numbers dramatically...but even then they'll have very little so why is it such a big deal?


RE: Record Market Share
By FITCamaro on 2/5/2008 12:51:47 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking the same thing. 7.57% is nothing to get excited about. When they hit maybe 20% market share, then they can get excited. Hell maybe even 10%. But when your little slice of the pie chart would leave an Ethiopian kid hungry, I wouldn't celebrate.


RE: Record Market Share
By dustbag on 2/19/2008 5:58:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When they hit maybe 20% market share, then they can get excited. Hell maybe even 10%.


So, if you assumed that Steve-o keeps working his reality distortion field for the next 5 years, and you assume that Apples market share growth is at least as good as last year, then Apple should get excited next year this time at having taken 11.5% market share, and then get ecstatic in 2012 when they break the 20% mark.

My guess - 25% in 2010


Interesting...
By retrospooty on 2/5/2008 11:06:27 AM , Rating: 2
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=...

I would have thought Vista would have jumped more in january after the Christmas season was over... Not a huge jump at all, just steady rise. XP still totally owns the market.




RE: Interesting...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/5/2008 11:28:24 AM , Rating: 2
We saw the same trend with XP adoption. 98SE/2000 was still dominant up until about 2003/2004 when companies started switching. Many companies prefer to upgrade the OS during normal hardware refreshes to corporate infrastructure. I don't expect Vista to surpass XP until about 2009-2010.


RE: Interesting...
By retrospooty on 2/5/2008 11:56:14 AM , Rating: 2
I dont remember it that way, I remember XP being very well received and 2000 dumped fairly quickly. I dealt with several fortune 500 companies in 2002 that had all switched, or at least began the transition. By 2003 Win2k was dust, for the most part.


RE: Interesting...
By Griswold on 2/5/2008 11:59:13 AM , Rating: 2
I dont buy that.


RE: Interesting...
By TomZ on 2/5/08, Rating: 0
RE: Interesting...
By retrospooty on 2/5/2008 12:37:14 PM , Rating: 2
It would be interesting to see some stats on XP's adoption rate from day 1, percentage-wise. We know Vista has sold 100 million copies, but there are alot more computer in use today.


RE: Interesting...
By ChronoReverse on 2/5/2008 2:24:19 PM , Rating: 2
Right, I bet you also remember XP being nice and secure as well (lol Blaster) and not having nearly as many problem as Vista with things like compatibility.


RE: Interesting...
By omnicronx on 2/5/2008 3:56:15 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you don't remember Windows XP very well then. Many places had just finished upgrading to 2000 at the time of the XP release. For the most part i agree that XP did not hit mass adoption until 03-04.

XP also had terrible compatibility, especially with video cards and sound cards. No soundblaster card worked for 6 months into the XP release, you had to use the legacy windows drivers. XP was a bigger jump than Vista, as it was essentially integrating the good of 9x, into NT.


RE: Interesting...
By althaz on 2/6/2008 10:00:55 PM , Rating: 2
That's just a ridiculous statement. Most companies I dealt with stayed with Win2k until they changed hardware as they would have anyway. I know of several (including this country's largest consumer electronics retailer) who still use Win2k (and why wouldn't you with the much lower hardware requirements).


OSx vs Windows
By pomaikai on 2/5/2008 11:15:55 AM , Rating: 5
Until apple opens up there market to existing PC users they will never be equal to Windows in market share. They are limiting there software sales by limiting there OS to apple PC's. They cant open up there software because they dont have the software team to design the flexibility required by windows to work with so much different hardware. It is also hard to get someone to dump windows and try OSx because they will have to shell out so much money just to see if they like it. It would be a different story i you could just pick up a copy of OSX and run it on your current PC.

Also Windows servers are leaps and bounds ahead of OSx for large businesses. The integration of Active Directory, exchange, etc cannot be matched. Even with all the bloat ware it is easier to manage a large userbase with windows. There is also no need for a nice GUI on the app/db/etc server side. It just takes up resources. Unix is not bloated like windows and can be setup to do a single task very efficiently. Yes apple is based off of unix, but it has the bloat of a GUI and locked down to apple hardware.

Because of there closed nature of hardware/software they are stuck in a niche market.




RE: OSx vs Windows
By kelmon on 2/5/2008 12:15:17 PM , Rating: 2
Let's be fair here - does this really matter? Apple's market share may be low compared to Windows but since they are selling the hardware as well they don't need much of a market share to make a lot of money. It will be interesting to see what happens later this year given the wobbles in the global economy but at present Apple's business strategy appears to be working very well so I see no reason to change it.

With respect to switching, you only dump Windows if you already don't like it and want to change. After that all you need to do is go to an Apple Store and play with one of their computers to see if you like it. Been there, done that, and given the increasing number of Macs sold per year it seems others are doing it as well. It's not really any different to buying a new computer anyway.


RE: OSx vs Windows
By Donkeyshins on 2/5/2008 4:11:18 PM , Rating: 2
Besides, if Apple opened up OS-X to any hardware, then they'd end up in the same situation that MS is in now - people complaining about driver issues, BSODs (which I've yet to see in over a year of running Vista), etc. Macs are certainly nice PCs, but they're not the be-all and end-all in computers. Sorry.


RE: OSx vs Windows
By ATC on 2/6/2008 10:00:49 AM , Rating: 2