PDA

View Full Version : Leopard drubs Vista in corporate satisfaction survey


MacBytes
Mar 27, 2008, 06:53 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Mac OS X
Link: Leopard drubs Vista in corporate satisfaction survey (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20080327195353)
Description:: March 26, 2008 (Computerworld) Corporate users of Apple Inc.'s Leopard operating system are more than five times more likely to say that they are "very satisfied" with the OS than business users of Microsoft Corp.'s Windows Vista, a research firm said Wednesday.

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

BongoBanger
Mar 27, 2008, 07:07 PM
53% of Leopard users with about 7% of the corporate market as opposed to 40% of XP users with about 75% of the corporate market. Vista isn't widely used just now.

I'm not convinced MS will be that worried here considering that Apple's corporate share isn't projected to change.

Eraserhead
Mar 27, 2008, 07:10 PM
Yeah, but this is comparing the current OS's. Although MS's XP share won't go away for a while, this shows its latest effort is taking a drubbing.

BongoBanger
Mar 27, 2008, 07:15 PM
Except no-one is migrating from XP yet because it works and they don't have to. Don't get me wrong, but the chance of a large portion of corporate users migrating to OSX is zero. What's far more likely is that they'll stick with XP until either Vista becomes more appealing or Windows 7 comes out.

Eraserhead
Mar 27, 2008, 07:22 PM
Except no-one is migrating from XP yet because it works and they don't have to.

True, but they'll move to Vista eventually. They might move to Windows 7, but it'll have to be amazingly better than Vista.

Personally I think MS's management is rotten, to an extent I hope they screw up Windows 7, as it'll mean they get some new blood at the top.

Sesshi
Mar 27, 2008, 07:25 PM
I'm wondering when Computerworld became an Apple Fanboy pub. Every single story about Apple it features, truth or not, seems to fawn over the company. What gives?

BongoBanger
Mar 27, 2008, 07:25 PM
Eraserhead:

I hope they don't screw it up but...

Oh well. Time will tell.

Watabou
Mar 27, 2008, 07:28 PM
True, but they'll move to Vista eventually. They might move to Windows 7, but it'll have to be amazingly better than Vista.

Personally I think MS's management is rotten, to an extent I hope they screw up Windows 7, as it'll mean they get some new blood at the top.

I hope they don't screw up. I don't want to see Microsoft die down. Not that I will switch to Windows 7 but if they keep up the copying and not innovating, yes then they are screwing themselves over.

Eraserhead
Mar 27, 2008, 07:28 PM
I'm wondering when Computerworld became an Apple Fanboy pub. Every single story about Apple it features, truth or not, seems to fawn over the company. What gives?

XP did do pretty well though, 40% isn't bad compared to OS X's 52%. They aren't completely fawning though, they wrote this (http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=312300) :p.

Personally I think the problem with peoples impression of Vista isn't that its worse than XP, its just MS changed a bunch of stuff like the control panel names for no reason.

I hope they don't screw up. I don't want to see Microsoft die down. Not that I will switch to Windows 7 but if they keep up the copying and not innovating, yes then they are screwing themselves over.

Well hmm, it depends whether the current slow and steady decline of the company is good or bad for everyone else.

Pippen Man
Mar 27, 2008, 07:59 PM
Comparing Mac OS X Leopard to Vista...business? Why would they choose that one? It's a known fact that corporations don't just jump on a new OS, especially a Microsoft one. But why Business? How about Home Premium? The most default of all of the versions.

Anderson3133
Mar 27, 2008, 08:27 PM
Don't get me wrong, but the chance of a large portion of corporate users migrating to OSX is zero. What's far more likely is that they'll stick with XP until either Vista becomes more appealing or Windows 7 comes out.

I'm going to have to disagree. If you have noticed Apple has been making large progress with students recently, and will continue to do so. I believe that as they begin to get jobs, and create jobs they will begin to bring OS X into the workplace. So, maybe OS X isn't being introduced into todays business or work environment (because people are scared of change, much like with the Vista and XP stuff going on right now) Microsoft changed a lot of their stuff, and people who are accustom to XP don't like a LOT of these new Vista features, which is why Vista keeps getting this bad publicity about it. So as time progresses and current students age, OS X will slowly slip it's way into that market.

Craigtimms
Mar 27, 2008, 08:34 PM
True, but they'll move to Vista eventually. They might move to Windows 7, but it'll have to be amazingly better than Vista.


that wont be hard

BongoBanger
Mar 27, 2008, 08:34 PM
I'm going to have to disagree. If you have noticed Apple has been making large progress with students recently, and will continue to do so. I believe that as they begin to get jobs, and create jobs they will begin to bring OS X into the workplace. So, maybe OS X isn't being introduced into todays business or work environment (because people are scared of change, much like with the Vista and XP stuff going on right now) Microsoft changed a lot of their stuff, and people who are accustom to XP don't like a LOT of these new Vista features, which is why Vista keeps getting this bad publicity about it. So as time progresses and current students age, OS X will slowly slip it's way into that market.

Sorry, no. There is a massive difference between students as individuals buying computers for their needs and those of corporations buying for their needs.

It's worth pointing out that Apple has been popular with students for a number of years whilst their corporate market share has remained small, mainly because they're different markets.

Apple Ink
Mar 27, 2008, 08:48 PM
Well, maybe that does change this WWDC
Have a look at this article from 9to5mac:


http://www.9to5mac.com/apples_secret_plan

Eraserhead
Mar 27, 2008, 09:00 PM
It's worth pointing out that Apple has been popular with students for a number of years whilst their corporate market share has remained small, mainly because they're different markets.

At Warwick Macs have only become really noticeable on campus in the last year. Also on the iPhone Apple *has* got a lot of stuff right (at least with version 2.0) for corporate customers.

impierced
Mar 27, 2008, 09:15 PM
Comparing Mac OS X Leopard to Vista...business? Why would they choose that one? It's a known fact that corporations don't just jump on a new OS, especially a Microsoft one. But why Business? How about Home Premium? The most default of all of the versions.

Don't know if I agree with you on that. Business was VERY quick to embrace XP, this just isn't the case with Vista. Perhaps many of us in IT understand why - it took XP a long time to get where it is now and it simply works rather well, I would rather wait until everyone else finds, reports, and ultimately has resolved the bugs that are in Vista.

Leopard will continue it's slow evolution into the business world, and when everyone realizes that Entourage is no Outlook things will go back to XP and by then perhaps Vista.

Apple doesn't have a prayer in the business world until there's a solid Outlook client for the Mac. Unless Apple creates a skunkworks project or a stealth company to create one, they just aren't going to penetrate very far into corporate america.

Eraserhead
Mar 27, 2008, 09:19 PM
Apple doesn't have a prayer in the business world until there's a solid Outlook client for the Mac. Unless Apple creates a skunkworks project or a stealth company to create one, they just aren't going to penetrate very far into corporate america.

Which is why Apple have just licensed exchange.

impierced
Mar 27, 2008, 09:28 PM
Which is why Apple have just licensed exchange.

No, they licensed Active Sync for the iPhone, which gives the iPhone a HUGE corporate push, but does nothing for the desktop application.

Eraserhead
Mar 27, 2008, 09:31 PM
No, they licensed Active Sync for the iPhone, which gives the iPhone a HUGE corporate push, but does nothing for the desktop application.

I bet they licensed it for the desktop too ;).

winmacguy
Mar 27, 2008, 09:55 PM
XP did do pretty well though, 40% isn't bad compared to OS X's 52%. They aren't completely fawning though, they wrote this (http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=312300) :p.
=

Very worth while reading in that article ... despite :rolleyes:the headline :p I use it for reference quite a lot.

nagromme
Mar 27, 2008, 10:55 PM
Except no-one is migrating from XP yet because it works and they don't have to. Don't get me wrong, but the chance of a large portion of corporate users migrating to OSX is zero. What's far more likely is that they'll stick with XP until either Vista becomes more appealing or Windows 7 comes out.

What has happened in the past is NOT a certain indication of what will happen in the future. Change truly does happen--slowly or quickly. And the Mac situation today is NOT the same as it has ever been before. Interest from young people was there before, but NOT as much as now. (Some recent commentary pointed out that Linux gained its enterprise foothold when its young developers left school and entered the workforce, bringing their platform preference and trust with them.) And PowerPC Macs vs. XP is a different story from Intel Macs vs. Vista, in a lot of ways.

So anyone who looks at the past and expects that Microsoft's near-total enterprise dominance and Apple's total absence won't change, is seeing trends by looking at outdated info. A large fraction of corporate users could be on Mac sooner than you think. It's no sure bet--but it's definitely not zero.

killerrobot
Mar 27, 2008, 11:49 PM
So, appearantly drubs IS a real word. Therefore Leopard "thrashes Vista with a stick"? Seriously, who says that, confused Leopard users wanting to switch to Vista?

I can't wait for the next poll of meaningless people and numbers to show that George W Bush will most likely be using a Mac at the White House because all the corporate people are using them now.:rolleyes:

Eric5h5
Mar 28, 2008, 01:29 AM
So, appearantly drubs IS a real word. Therefore Leopard "thrashes Vista with a stick"? Seriously, who says that, confused Leopard users wanting to switch to Vista?

"Drubs" is pretty common, especially in headlines ('cause it's nice and short), and means "to defeat thoroughly" in an informal context.

--Eric

x86isslow
Mar 28, 2008, 01:53 AM
I can't wait for the next poll of meaningless people and numbers to show that George W Bush will most likely be using a Mac at the White House because all the corporate people are using them now.:rolleyes:

Bush is a total  fanboi, has an iPod http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4435639.stm, and uses a Mac . Not sure what corporate users have to do with itů

BongoBanger
Mar 28, 2008, 03:37 AM
At Warwick Macs have only become really noticeable on campus in the last year. Also on the iPhone Apple *has* got a lot of stuff right (at least with version 2.0) for corporate customers.

True, but that's not the same as desktop based corporate systems. Apple may make some inroads but there are just to many blockers in the form of integration, partnership agreements, freedom of hardware selection, etc to see them go large scale.

Now if they were to release OSX to third parties...

BongoBanger
Mar 28, 2008, 03:39 AM
So anyone who looks at the past and expects that Microsoft's near-total enterprise dominance and Apple's total absence won't change, is seeing trends by looking at outdated info. A large fraction of corporate users could be on Mac sooner than you think. It's no sure bet--but it's definitely not zero.

For the reasons outlined above I doubt it - we're not comparing like with like. Can't see it going much above 10% if that.

AlmostThere
Mar 28, 2008, 07:53 AM
Don't know if I agree with you on that. Business was VERY quick to embrace XP, this just isn't the case with Vista.

Really? http://www.betanews.com/article/Windows_XP_Adoption_Rates_Slow/1118943913

Slow adoption has always been an issue for MS ... of course, this is the natural consequence of building a decent OS that meets your customers' needs, rather than Mac users who obviously need to rapidly upgrade from one incomplete OS to the next :p

Globetrotter
Mar 28, 2008, 08:10 AM
Really? http://www.betanews.com/article/Windows_XP_Adoption_Rates_Slow/1118943913

Slow adoption has always been an issue for MS ... of course, this is the natural consequence of building a decent OS that meets your customers' needs, rather than Mac users who obviously need to rapidly upgrade from one incomplete OS to the next :p

Or a sign of people migrating to what appeals to them, and leaving well alone that which does not :p

impierced
Mar 28, 2008, 09:22 AM
Really? http://www.betanews.com/article/Windows_XP_Adoption_Rates_Slow/1118943913

Slow adoption has always been an issue for MS ... of course, this is the natural consequence of building a decent OS that meets your customers' needs, rather than Mac users who obviously need to rapidly upgrade from one incomplete OS to the next :p

Indeed... all those service packs for XP really weren't to fix an incomplete OS or anything. Not to mention how secure XP was prior to SP2. :P

BongoBanger
Mar 28, 2008, 09:35 AM
SP1 and 2 - and 3 - are free though.

impierced
Mar 28, 2008, 10:13 AM
SP1 and 2 - and 3 - are free though.

And so was 10.4.1, .2, .3, .4, .5, .6, .7, .8, .9, .10, and .11.

BongoBanger
Mar 28, 2008, 10:59 AM
And so was 10.4.1, .2, .3, .4, .5, .6, .7, .8, .9, .10, and .11.

But not 10.1 to 10.2 to 10.3...

impierced
Mar 28, 2008, 11:10 AM
But not 10.1 to 10.2 to 10.3...

Yeah, I forgot how free 95, 98, Me, XP, and Vista all were. :eek:

Eraserhead
Mar 28, 2008, 12:21 PM
True, but that's not the same as desktop based corporate systems. Apple may make some inroads but there are just to many blockers in the form of integration, partnership agreements, freedom of hardware selection, etc to see them go large scale.

Now if they were to release OSX to third parties...

Macs do have a fundamental advantage over Windows PC's, they run Unix. So although you risk having to retrain staff any software designed for Unix will continue to run even if you switch OS, now Web applications help with that, but they aren't the be all and end all.

Of course having 2-3 manufacturers of hardware would help too, and maybe that will come, but if your business applications run on Unix you can fairly easily switch to Linux ;).

kamm
Mar 29, 2008, 01:39 AM
This whole story is pathetic - Apple's market share is barely out of error margin worldwide and it's even worse when you only look at corporate market... this is ridiculous. Corporate Leopard users? :)

Jesus, I barely know any company standardized on Apple, let alone its latest OS version.

Leopard STILL doesn't support such basic stuff like DFS or Active Directory (only partial support) etc which are the very core of MIcrosoft's very strong grip on the copr market. I really like OS X but as corporate OS choice it's downright pathetic.

kamm
Mar 29, 2008, 01:51 AM
Macs do have a fundamental advantage over Windows PC's, they run Unix. So although you risk having to retrain staff any software designed for Unix will continue to run even if you switch OS, now Web applications help with that, but they aren't the be all and end all.

Of course having 2-3 manufacturers of hardware would help too, and maybe that will come, but if your business applications run on Unix you can fairly easily switch to Linux ;).

1. OS X is axtually not Unix, it's Unix-like in best case AFAIK. Even its core, XNU means "X is Not Unix" or the BSD-derived Mach kernel, the NextStep-originated Cocoa, these are all but Unix. :) However it's Unix-like, that's true (it does not fulfill definition of Unix.)

2. IMO it's anything but advantage, let alone fundamental. Barely 1/100th of Windows softwares exist for OS X. Less than 1/10th market share which means scarce hardware availability around you if you don't happen to have one. My point is that while Leopard is most certainly way more modern than the most popular XP SP2, its incompatibility actually renders it less attractive, especially for everyone with sizable investment into existing Windows software library.

BongoBanger
Mar 29, 2008, 07:10 AM
Yeah, I forgot how free 95, 98, Me, XP, and Vista all were. :eek:

You also seem to forget Apple charged you five times for an upgrade in the same time MS charged once - well, that is if you were daft enough to upgrade to Vista. That's why I mentioned OSX 10 and not, say, OSX 9 to 10.

That's one thing that I don't understand about the whole OS issue - five retail releases in seven years? I mean, what the hell?

Eraserhead
Mar 29, 2008, 07:15 AM
1. OS X is axtually not Unix, it's Unix-like in best case AFAIK. Even its core, XNU means "X is Not Unix" or the BSD-derived Mach kernel, the NextStep-originated Cocoa, these are all but Unix. :) However it's Unix-like, that's true (it does not fulfill definition of Unix.)

Nope Mac OS X Leopard for Intel is Unix. (source (http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/unix.html))

Or if you're lazy:


Leopard is an Open Brand UNIX 03 Registered Product,



2. IMO it's anything but advantage, let alone fundamental. Barely 1/100th of Windows OS X softwares exist for OS X Windows.

This is probably also true ;).

That's one thing that I don't understand about the whole OS issue - five retail releases in seven years? I mean, what the hell?

Well that's because they've managed to improve it sufficiently to do so ;). And you aren't force to buy each one.

sushi
Mar 29, 2008, 07:17 AM
That's one thing that I don't understand about the whole OS issue - five retail releases in seven years? I mean, what the hell?
The updates contained significant changes and were relatively cheap compared to XP and Vista.

Plus, instead of having to figure which version of Windows you needed, Mac OS X came as one, and there was a family pack which even saved the user more money compared to Windows XP and Vista.

Eraserhead
Mar 29, 2008, 07:22 AM
The updates contained significant changes and were relatively cheap compared to XP and Vista.

To be fair to Microsoft Vista Home Premium OEM edition was less expensive than Leopard on Amazon.co.uk

BongoBanger
Mar 29, 2008, 09:37 AM
Plus, instead of having to figure which version of Windows you needed, Mac OS X came as one, and there was a family pack which even saved the user more money compared to Windows XP and Vista.

Not really since just about every home user used XP Home Premium.

Roadstar
Mar 29, 2008, 12:18 PM
To be fair to Microsoft Vista Home Premium OEM edition was less expensive than Leopard on Amazon.co.uk

But the difference here is that the Vista license you're talking about is an OEM version, i.e. you're not allowed to transfer the license to another computer and that basically limits also the hardware upgrades you're allowed to do (up to the point where the activation component decides you've changed hardware enough to consider it as a new computer). The Leopard license, on the other hand, is a full retail package without transfer limits so you can install it on as many Macs as you like if you make sure it's installed only on one Mac at a time. A similar full retail version of Vista Home Premium costs a bit more than two Leopard licenses.

Microsoft could also benefit from adopting the family pack scheme from Apple. For after all, with the current Windows prices any home user with multiple computers has the following choices with upgrade (assuming they decide to do so):

a) Pay a hefty fee for multiple licenses, stay legal
b) Get license for one computer and upgrade the rest with a cracked version
c) Think that if you're going to end up breaking the law anyway, skip also the single license purchase and upgrade all computers with illegal versions

I think options B and C end up being the most popular ones, but if there was a reasonably priced family pack available, option A could be more popular with the hefty fee part omitted.

BongoBanger
Mar 29, 2008, 04:15 PM
Microsoft could also benefit from adopting the family pack scheme from Apple. For after all, with the current Windows prices any home user with multiple computers has the following choices with upgrade (assuming they decide to do so):

a) Pay a hefty fee for multiple licenses, stay legal
b) Get license for one computer and upgrade the rest with a cracked version
c) Think that if you're going to end up breaking the law anyway, skip also the single license purchase and upgrade all computers with illegal versions

I think options B and C end up being the most popular ones, but if there was a reasonably priced family pack available, option A could be more popular with the hefty fee part omitted.

Well, no, since the PCs will invariably have Windows preinstalled anyway.

intoxicated662
Mar 29, 2008, 05:01 PM
I myself prefer leopard over vista or perhaps even xp. all the people who have used my macbook too loved it and are thinking of switching over too. so I say the survey is correct.

kamm
Mar 31, 2008, 10:29 PM
I myself prefer leopard over vista or perhaps even xp. all the people who have used my macbook too loved it and are thinking of switching over too. so I say the survey is correct.

It's pretty easy to beat Vista by general - I use it and indeed hate it - but the corporate market is almost literally nonexistent for Apple, let's not eat every clueless survey. :)
XP and 2k (yes) beats everything by large, next is probably some *nix. Apple doesn't exist in corporate space - I bet it doesn't even hit a full 1% in corporate market share.

kamm
Mar 31, 2008, 10:32 PM
But the difference here is that the Vista license you're talking about is an OEM version, i.e. you're not allowed to transfer the license to another computer and that basically limits also the hardware upgrades you're allowed to do (up to the point where the activation component decides you've changed hardware enough to consider it as a new computer). The Leopard license, on the other hand, is a full retail package without transfer limits so you can install it on as many Macs as you like if you make sure it's installed only on one Mac at a time. A similar full retail version of Vista Home Premium costs a bit more than two Leopard licenses.

Microsoft could also benefit from adopting the family pack scheme from Apple. For after all, with the current Windows prices any home user with multiple computers has the following choices with upgrade (assuming they decide to do so):

a) Pay a hefty fee for multiple licenses, stay legal
b) Get license for one computer and upgrade the rest with a cracked version
c) Think that if you're going to end up breaking the law anyway, skip also the single license purchase and upgrade all computers with illegal versions

I think options B and C end up being the most popular ones, but if there was a reasonably priced family pack available, option A could be more popular with the hefty fee part omitted.

Did you ever work for a company bigger than 10 people? :) It's not even a question, every machine has legal OS when they buy it. Not only that $99 - price of the OEM XP Pro - doesn't matter but it comes preinstalled anyway (no, companies usually don't 'build' machines.)