On a brighter note, we'll likely see a significant gain in Mac share after the holidays, when all of the gifts have been given, received, unwrapped, and started up.
"Trol-la-la-la-la -- la-la--la--la!"
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Products Top U.S. Retail Desktop and Notebook Sales Lists
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
On a brighter note, we'll likely see a significant gain in Mac share after the holidays, when all of the gifts have been given, received, unwrapped, and started up.
"Trol-la-la-la-la -- la-la--la--la!"
Aiden does; after all, anything positive about Apple sounds like a horrible crime to him.
That's strange, I never feel the urge to jack-off after reading posts.
ROFL!
I had to look twice before realising it's the Picard facepalm too.
On topic:
More good news for Apple!
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
etc.
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
etc.
We're still going to need to wait until 2010 then to see how the year ended. I saw this marketshare info earlier as well.
glad to see this. it's to bad apple can't release a headless mac in between the mac mini and mac pro though
February 2010 (covering January) will be the first statistics to have a full month of holiday purchases online.
I doubt we'll see much change overall - just lots of XP/Vista conversions to Windows 7. Both Apple and Microsoft will announce huge profits for the Oct-Dec quarter.
Eric, Just exactly does one do with market share if you lose money on the deal. Lose money on each one but make it up in volume???????
Revenue is....... exactly what its all about.
Just a thought,
en
Perhaps not....
Tom's Hardware and Info World have this headline:
XP Users Aren't Really Jumping on Windows 7
"Here's no big surprise: Windows XP users aren't really jumping on the Windows 7 express. Why? Because they're comfortable. Because they're afraid of change thanks to the blunders with Windows Vista."
All in all, it seems to be a hard sell, when your newest OS fails to compete with its 9 year old predecessor.
While being vulnerable to eight out of ten viruses tested, lacking support for older printers and external devices, being stripped of a mail client, being a cumbersome upgrade, and being priced way too high, W7 is hardly an enticing upgrade for XP users.
In other words, progress by regression, means no need for Windows 7.
Tom's Hardware and Info World have this headline:
XP Users Aren't Really Jumping on Windows 7
"Here's no big surprise: Windows XP users aren't really jumping on the Windows 7 express. Why? Because they're comfortable. Because they're afraid of change thanks to the blunders with Windows Vista."
All in all, it seems to be a hard sell, when your newest OS fails to compete with its 9 year old predecessor.
While being vulnerable to eight out of ten viruses tested, lacking support for older printers and external devices, being stripped of a mail client, being a cumbersome upgrade, and being priced way too high, W7 is hardly an enticing upgrade for XP users.
In other words, progress by regression, means no need for Windows 7.
Windows 7 is a fine OS. The problem is, XP was just too good that many people can't see the need to change as it still does the job so well.
Oh look, so you were one of those how naively believed that article.
Oh well, I guess, if you disable every security measure there is in W7, and manually run the virus yourself, you shouldn't be using a computer in the first place.
Now show me a study that says that Windows Vista or Windows 7, with just the basics (UAC, Windows Firewall and maybe MSE), is vulnerable to 9 out of 10 remote exploit without any using interaction.
Hey guys, let's blame MS for the lack of third party support.
from XP, maybe. From Vista, not cumbersome at all.
Blame the anti-trust trolls for this one.
granted.
And anything positive about any other company in the world seems like a horrible crime to you.... your point was?
Since you think that explains the 69% market share for XP, I trust that you also believe that it explains why 73% of Apple OSX users have not upgraded to OSX 10.6?
Even at $29 fire sale pricing.
__________________
By the way, I specifically used the word "conversion" to Win7 instead of "upgrade" to Win7 - because many experts have the opinion that the majority of these will be system replacements rather than upgrades. Since Vista was the default OS nearly three years ago, a lot of those XP systems are long in the tooth.
It also is significant that I can buy a new 3 GiB Windows 7 laptop for $277, but the Newegg price for the Win7 upgrade is $110. I'm sure that Dell/HP/... are thrilled with Microsoft's list prices for the OS upgrade!
I look forward to the February marketshare results, and won't try to make any further prediction other than both Apple and Microsoft will post huge profits for the Oct-Dec quarter.
The mail client (and photo/movie/IM...) haven't been stripped from the offering, they're now cloud services downloadable from Windows Live. It's a clever way for Microsoft to avoid the anti-trust issues with bundling apps, while still making it easy for the enduser to get them all with a few clicks.
http://windowslive.com/Explore?ocid=TXT_HLIVE_COM_WL_Explore_042009
I'm still running 10.5 Leopard because Snow Leopard is a disaster on my systems.
The only reason I have to keep my Snow Leopard disc around is for a hackintosh.
You are conveniently disregarding the fact that the public beta for W7 had been made available for download for over eight months, preceding the release of W7.
Attempting to equate an eight plus month time span which Windows users spent to evaluate and decide, to the relatively, much shorter, two month time frame for SL, would be neither sensible, nor logical.
Snow Leopard was able to achieve a 27% market share among Leopard users within a little over two months. This percentage exceeds the total percentage of upgrades and conversions from XP to Vista during a whopping two year, eight month period.
As usual, your logic, as well as your lame attempts to make viable comparisons, never ceases to amaze.
Spin the lackluster percentages any way you will - this does not alter the fact that XP still outperforms W7 in certain areas.
Although 'conversions' may trickle in as machines are replaced, it seems that the majority of the XP sector feels little need, nor enticement, to 'convert' anytime soon:
Attachments
Not really, like you I'm picking statistics and trying to make a case whether or not the statistics actually support the case when you examine them closely.
Are you really serious about including the beta and RC periods in the "Windows 7 available" timeline?On the other hand, it does seem that lots of people are "comfortable" with 10.4 and 10.5, and haven't seen the need to upgrade. People still on 10.4 have had years to upgrade, and have not. You seem to be trying to position "comfortable" as a Windows flaw, when statistics show lots of "comfortable" Apple OSX users.
What are you hiding by not posting a link to the source of your table?
Yes, and the majority of 10.4 users have actually chosen to upgrade:
The only group, "comfortable" here, lagging on a fairly large scale, is the XP crowd. Notice the considerably smaller percentage still using 10.4, who, comparatively, have had less than half the "years" to upgrade as XP users have. (~4 years vs ~9 years)
10.5 users have hardly had enough time to be labeled "comfortable."
Quite consistently, you seem "comfortable" in equating extremes within your anemic attempts to defend your apparent lack of perception.
Links, for the doubting Aiden: Windows 7 vs XP Performance Shoot-Out
Wordwide OS usage by version, October 2009
You must have a Pentium with a bad FP unit
30 January 2007 to 8 December 2009 is "~4 years" or "~9 years" ??? XP users have had ~9 years to upgrade to an OS that was released just under 3 years ago? Nonsense.
Check to see that your honesty routine is engaged.
You insist on ignoring the fact that most people are "comfortable" and don't see the "compelling need" to upgrade. Doesn't matter which OS you look at. A small group stays up to date, the rest convert instead of upgrade. (E.g. "Steve Jobs stated at Macworld 2008 that over 20% of Macs use Leopard as their operating system"¹, so a fifth to a quarter upgrade in the first couple of months - yet even today 1 in 6 Apple users is still on 10.4.)
The claim that "the majority of 10.4 users have actually chosen to upgrade" is ludicrous. Can you differentiate between "conversions" and "upgrades" for 10.4? No, you can't. The first MacIntels came with 10.4.4, so much of 10.4's life was PowerPC only. It wasn't until 10.4.8 that Apple had transitioned to Intel ("10.4.7.5" for the first MacIntel Pros, 10.4.8 7 weeks later). Anyone who replaced a 10.4 PPC Apple with a 10.5 Intel Apple was a "conversion", not an "upgrade".
...and you complain that I have trouble forming coherent arguments.
¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Leopard
30 January 2007 to 8 December 2009 is "~4 years" or "~9 years" ???
XP users have had ~9 years to upgrade to an OS that was released just under 3 years ago? Nonsense.Check to see that your honesty routine is engaged.
You insist on ignoring the fact that most people are "comfortable" and don't see the "compelling need" to upgrade. Doesn't matter which OS you look at. A small group stays up to date, the rest convert instead of upgrade. (E.g. "Steve Jobs stated at Macworld 2008 that over 20% of Macs use Leopard as their operating system"¹, so a fifth to a quarter upgrade in the first couple of months - yet even today 1 in 6 Apple users is still on 10.4.)
The claim that "the majority of 10.4 users have actually chosen to upgrade" is ludicrous. Can you differentiate between "conversions" and "upgrades" for 10.4? No, you can't. The first MacIntels came with 10.4.4, so much of 10.4's life was PowerPC only. It wasn't until 10.4.8 that Apple had transitioned to Intel ("10.4.7.5" for the first MacIntel Pros, 10.4.8 7 weeks later). Anyone who replaced a 10.4 PPC Apple with a 10.5 Intel Apple was a "conversion", not an "upgrade".
...and you complain that I have trouble forming coherent arguments.
¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Leopard
30 January 2007 to 8 December 2009 is "~4 years" or "~9 years" ???
Twisting what I said, are you?
I never stated that "30 January 2007 to 8 December 2009 is "~4 years" or that "XP users had ~9 years to upgrade."
I did state that XP users have had sufficiently more time to consider upgrading than OS X users - the ~9 years refers to the time which elapsed from XP's release to the W7 release.
Not choosing to upgrade an OS after nine years is quite different from not choosing to upgrade an OS after four. (Tiger was released April, 2005)
You seem to believe that this considerable difference in elapsed time is comparable. Regardless, the percentages clearly point to a dramatically higher upgrade result for the OS X platform.
Regardless of whether 10.4 users chose to upgrade through the purchase of a DVD, or a new machine, they chose to do so - this is what choice is.
Furthermore, what you are classifying as 'conversion' hasn't made much of a dent in the XP sector, now has it?
Speaking of coherent arguments....
Backpedal, full speed.
You said "have had less than half the "years" to upgrade as XP users have". It looks to me like the same claim, in slightly different tense and word order.
XP users did not have a chance to upgrade before 30 January 2007, so the first 6 years of your "~9 years" is moot. Nonsense. Ludicrous.
Let's check the statistics in February, OK?