Slashdot Mirror
Windows 7 Overtakes XP, OSX Struggles To Beat Vista
judgecorp writes "Latest market share figures show the difference between perception and reality. Windows 7 just nudged past Windows XP with both around the the 43 percent mark. OS X and Windows Vista divide the rest of the spoils, with all versions of OS X only just adding up to a little more than the failed Windows version, according to data from Netmarketshare."
"Not everyone has the money to buy them. Sad, for them."
That's the kind of dumb, elitist comment that shows what a tool you are. Perhaps people don't see the point in paying extortionist fees for an OS and hardware that doesn't do anything that their current OS does and is typically of lesser performance.
Is it just me, or are more and more blatant flamebait stories reaching the front page recently? What actual relevant, meaningful news is contained in this story?
Seriously, why not go full on flame and top it off with a comment on Linux's desktop share, so we can include them in the flamefest that's sure to follow? Or I guess maybe I just did that for you... you're welcome Slashdot editors.
Next year...
Meanwhile Porsche and BMW 'have' to split the rest of the vehicles.
Apple is rich. As in very, very, very rich. Something tells me they really don't care.
OSX isn't very used outside the western world. So, I guess it has a lower worldwide marketshare, whereas Linux might have a higher one.
Apple also has no "non over-priced" products. I'm so bored of the what OS is better. It's a pile of files. The software you need to use is the real reason you use a computer, not because you want to use an OS. All marketing "make a demographic" back when software was in its infancy bullshit. I've got windows7 and do very little windowing.
This is the first comment you've made on slashdot - very poor effort. It's not even good shilling.
Watch those corners
It's getting to the point with you brainwashed Apple fans where I HAVE the mod points, but your post isn't even inspiring me to mod you down as a blatant shill. It's not inspiring me to do anything more than just roll my eyes and make this snarky reply, in fact.
My office is no longer putting XP systems out there - any system running XP that is brought into the shop is now automatically replaced as a matter of policy (for our business clients.) Sometimes we have to twist their arms, but frankly, we've got a deadline in 2014 and we're going to make our clients meet it whether they want to or not. XP market share is likely to plummet rapidly in the next 2-3 years.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
Some of the history there looks a bit sus. And how much can you trust figures that give iOS 66% of the mobile OS market and Android only 21%?
I actually hope this. Not because I wish Apple well being or anything like that, but I realize the hop from OSX -> Linux is a much shorter one than the hop from getting developers targeting OSX from Windows. Valve actually reused a _bunch_ of their Mac code in order to start their Linux port.
Are there games requiring windows 7 yet?
I upgraded from 98 to 2000 because second life required 2000 ... 7? when I find a game I want requiring windows 7.... I have not run into one yet, but I'm sure it'll happen someday?
I upgraded from 2000 to XP but I don't remember which game wouldn't work on 2000 but did on XP
I'll upgrade from XP to
I only upgraded to the most recent service pack of XP when I recently got the couple years old GTA IV.
For all other activities I use my linux and mac machines, the windows PC is just for gaming.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
I have some questions about both the data and the summary.
In the July to August time frame the data has 1% of the users moving to "other". I'm assuming that 1% is some mixture of Windows 8 and OSX 10.8 betas because I can't think of any other big events that happened between July and August. Which means the math is likely off in the summary.
As an aside in the source data I have problems OSX being well above 8% (now at 12%) of sales and the figure for market share being around 6-7%. I'd love to see some breakdown that explicates the discrepancy between sales figures and usage figures when they show up, because they are rather common.
I think that the idea of an OS being able to be "beautiful" is sort or wonky. There is no reason such an interface couldn't run on winXP, win2k, or even somewhat in NT4, all you really need is the opengl support in the OS & drivers and you can do nifty things with alpha channel.
I'm also not convinced apple hardware is actually high quality, it's just that their os will only install on their hardware. apple is basically like a crossbreed between dell & microsoft, and this lets them charge premium prices on their run-of-the-mill hardware because their os won't install on other (less expensive, perhaps higher quality) intel hardware.
MacOS X is a taste, that's all -- neither better nor worse for everyone. Your preference.
My 18 year old daughter has had full exposure to both Windows and MacOS X; the Windows PC on her desktop, the MacBook Pro was a loaner for the last two years at High School, part of a Communications specialty program.
When it came time for a laptop for college, she wanted Windows. She's no computer expert, just a regular user, doing everyday stuff: games, word processing, photos, internet. And video... she liked video editing on the PC better. Largely because her Mac was just terrible at it. It didn't handle native video editing from her AVCHD camcorder, while her Windows PC did, easily. She did all her editing on the Mac in either DV (which worked dandy in any Windows editor back in the 90s) or in Apple's "iFrame" format, which is basically a chopped down qHD (960x540), I-Frame only. This is the format Apple actually "invented", since they couldn't deal with actual HD video, other than to transcode to ProRes, which they only support in Final Cut Pro (she ran Final Cut Express on the Mac).
Tragically, the school she just went off to (Montclair University) is still using Final Cut Pro in their Broadcasting department, so they strongly recommended a Mac PC. I had found a great 3rd generation i7-based laptop from Asus: metal casework, four USB 3.0, 8GB RAM, 750GB HDD, 1920x1080 display, separate graphics, etc. for $1100. Having to switch to a Mac, I manged to find a slower 2nd generation i7, only two USB 2.0 + Thunderbolt (good idea, but currently fairly useless), 4GB RAM, 1600x900 display, slower separate graphics, 750GB HDD, etc. for "only" $1800. That was a factory-refurbished model (this the "discount" price), and they screwed up and delivered an 8GB unit. But seriously -- you're paying twice as much just to get MacOS. Plus, add-in the $100 extra to put Windows on the system, and, well... have to wait on that new electric guitar.
Apple makes decent hardware. But so do many other companies -- after all, cool casework has been about the only innovation in personal computers for the last 10 years; everything else has been predictable, incremental growth. Apple's well known to be making 5x as much profit per PC shipped as just about anyone else. If you must have MacOS, it's the price you pay, but there's no basis for any technical belief Apple's making a superior product, HW or OS.
-Dave Haynie
Native software will always have significant advantages over web apps. That being the case there's no reason to assume we'll ever do everything via the browser.
Universal thin clients is as old and unfullfilled a prediction as "The year of Linux on the desktop". And you think Microsoft's vision of the future adds any weight? Ha ha.
The software you need to use is the real reason you use a computer, not because you want to use an OS.
I'm a kernel hacker, you insensitive clod.
probably the same as everyone else, that windows 7 will get the job done until someone in microsoft picks a single design and sticks with it for windows 9.
Some businesses will keep using Windows XP because there are always factory floor computers that simply are a pain in the ass to upgrade - for all practical purposes it's impossible to upgrade, and the OS will get updated only when the old hardware gets dumped and they get a new computer... and that might never happen because factory managers are not likely to invest in fixing something that's not broken.
And there are personal users who use their computer entirely for facebook/email - they really don't care if their OS supports the latest industry standard features or not. Expect those to be still using windows xp, and maybe eventually switch to an internet appliance device (like ipad) and get rid of the computer altogether. For a great majority of people out there, an ipad does everything they expect from a computer: browse facebook, write email, play farmville. Remember it was only 20 years ago that computers still were not a household item, computers were for geeks. The computer became mainstream only because it started appealing to the dumb masses, it's not because all of a sudden there's a surge in computer geek population. It will eventually go back to what it was - computers one day will return to being a geeky thing, and general population will move to using locked-down internet appliances instead of general purpose computing devices.
As for me, I would rather use a decade old general purpose computer rather than an iPad. I would rather use Linux than OS X. I used computers before they were cool, and I will use computers after they stop being cool. I am the minority, I am a geek. Internet used to be a place where we could find like-minded people, but now it's eternal September.
But seriously -- you're paying twice as much just to get MacOS.
This is something I have to explain over and over: OS X is nice, but I pay twice as much for the trackpad. I can't use a non-Mac laptop without plugging in a mouse.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Apple also has no "non over-priced" products. I'm so bored of the what OS is better. It's a pile of files. The software you need to use is the real reason you use a computer, not because you want to use an OS. All marketing "make a demographic" back when software was in its infancy bullshit. I've got windows7 and do very little windowing.
Whats funny is that 99% of people spend 99% of their time in an application, not sitting in the operating system. Although I'm fully prepared to argue that I've used every major operating system produced in the last 20 years...and they're all pretty much the freaking same once you spend 3 days on it and get used to it.
So sitting in safari on a mac vs chrome on windows. Office apps on a mac vs office apps on windows. Any difference at all? Really? I guess at that point you get reduced to claiming that only an apple trackpad suits you. It doesn't really, but its a fairly pathetic thing to cling to as a last ditch effort to justify the higher cost.
The median family in the US make around $50K or less a year, while the median house is more in the range of $200K. This means the median family cannot afford the median house.
Perhaps a quarter of homes do not have a computer, so is it elitist for those of who can own a computer to so do?
What one has depends on two variables: what one can earn and how one allocated the resources. When I was a kid i did not have a nice pair of jeans or a pair of Jordans but I did have an Apple computer. The only reason this sounds elitist is that so many people think these highly popular consumer products are an entitlement. It is like parents clamoring that a toy has been sold out for christmas. I know kids are very demanding but really. We should have some perspective here. There are all sorts of thing we cannot afford or cannot have. Life goes on.
What is elitist is thinking not being able to afford a Mac is the most critical problem one has.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
The problem with your analysis is that you've put the cart before the horse. Or, more accurately, the OS before the applications.
Your friend wants to run Adobe stuff. It runs on either OS X or Windows. She has the Windows versions. She is price sensitive. She has no major beef with her current application loader (er, OS).
Yep, the no brainer advice is to keep her on the Windows platform. Because of the apps. (As an aside, it's a moderate PITA to switch out operating systems for Adobe Creative Suite products. Totally amazing here in the 21st Century, but there you have it.)
But good luck finding a Dell that actually competes with an Air in terms of wieght, size and performance. Of course, if she's doing video, then she does not want an Air - she wants a fairly beefy high end laptop. A laptop that is sold by Apple, Dell, Asus, Lenovo, probably HP and bog knows who else. Your best technical advise to here would be 'you want something with a bit more horsepower than an Air - here are a bunch of choices.
The OS is a minor issue.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Yup. The apple trackpad is worth paying for. Even if you're going to run windows on it. Carrying a mouse and keyboard around with your portable computer because the built in gear is awful is fucking retarded.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
yea your paying 1000$ extra for a slower machine than the walmart box
not all of us are looking for the prettiest computer, the nicest tennis shoes and the blingiest bling
yea I just looked at walmarts website, for 600 bucks you get a 17 inch toshiba laptop with a 2.5ghz i5 750 gig hard diskand 6 gigs of ram, meanwhile you would pay 1,200 for a 2.5 ghz i5 with 4 gigs of ram, 500 gig hard drive, 13 inch screen and a OS that doesnt run half of what people want
enjoy your logo
launchpad? shit.
I tried pulling it off the Dock on my work Mac. It added it back for me. (I have a work project that involves writing an iPad app (for no reason, mind you, other than it's a buzzword), which means I have a Mac as my work machine. In case anyone wonders why I use a Mac.)
high dpi support? in osx it's a fucking joke, it's beyond shit
If anyone doesn't believe this, you should read the Mozilla bug on getting high DPI support on Mac OS X in Firefox. Basically, it's never going to happen because the API for doing it is so fucked up. ("But isn't it just rendering things at twice resolution?" Read the bug. It isn't. There are so many edge cases it isn't funny.)
ui menus detached from apps on a big screen?
I am convinced no one at Apple has ever tried running a Mac OS X on multiple monitors. It is beyond shit at that. It basically runs on the iPad model of "one app at a time." What, you want your test app in one monitor while the debugger is in the other? Fuck you! You get one menu bar, telling which app is focused is impossible, and whichever app isn't on the "dominant" screen has the menu bar on the wrong monitor.
what's more, it's not intuitive at all! there's dozens of things in osx you just have to know, half the users don't even know wtf launchpad is.
Remember how everyone hates that Gnome 3 app launcher thing? The thing that Ubuntu started forcing on everyone? Remember how everyone hates the Metro UI, to the point Microsoft has dropped the "metro" brand? That's the fucking Launchpad. Apparently it's been decided from on high that people like losing their entire screen to a display of giant icons they can slowly scroll through to find whatever they actually wanted. Bleh.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
True, but the patent abuse is more than enough to justify not buying anything from Apple. Or Microsoft, for that matter.
Dilbert RSS feed
"half of what people want"
A web browser? To *most* people a computer is just another appliance, like a toaster. It might have a few more features, but in the end they want it for a limited set of tasks. Browsing the web, editing photos, collecting/serving media, and a handful of other tools.
Windows, Linux, OSX all have these tools. It's merely a matter of preference now.