Question; does total marketshare include used Macs too? I'm sure there are thousands out there who use Macs that were bought from a refurb store or a friend...
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's PC Marketshare up to 14 Percent for February 2008
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No. That's often referred to as installed base and that's a very hard number to ascertain.
No, you read it right the first time. 14% *FOR* *FEBRUARY*. They are nowhere near 14% market share overall. More like 5-6% as always. In fact, a quick search reveals that their total market share moved up from 5.14 to 5.58 over the entire year of 2007. It's NOWHERE NEAR 14% and won't be any time in the next few years. I think I read it MIGHT break 10% by 2012 and that assumes a LOT of things NOT happening in the mean time (e.g. like Microsoft getting Vista's issues worked out and/or hardware catching up to where people don't care if Vista sucks in performance compared to XP). Likewise Leopard runs like a DOG on my 1.8GHz 7448 G4 with 1.5GB of ram compared to Tiger in the User Interface department (I get a 100 rating in Tiger for User Interface and a 9 in Leopard on the same machine; I'm still waiting for my 9700 Pro to come back to see how it compares then, but it didn't make much difference when I did have it and was running dual 553 G4s so I doubt a miracle is going to happen. It'll probably still be considerably slower than Tiger). Given Apple's direction I would expect 10.6 to run much slower yet than 10.5. Apple seems more concerned about features now than performance or Leopard would have been faster and they would not have had to place an artificial cap on G4 installations.
I know several people who prefer Windows to OS X, for various reasons. Some of them are techies, some are regular users. So what exactly are we discussing here exactly? That because you don't know of any person who prefers Windows to OS X, that means that they do not exist at all? Well, I don't personally know any Eskimos, so they don't exist either.
And why should we limit the discussion to just "tech people"?
Vista is killing microsoft.
I had to use it in a commercial project, starting with the release candidate and finishing a few months ago. The number of serious bugs (eg. data loss, system failure, security) I hit was phenomenal - as it stands vista should *never* have been released in that state... I suspect it was pushed out of the door in a hurry to meet deadlines.
The experience was so bad that company policy is Vista is not allowed on the network any more.
SP1 actually does fix most (not all) of the issues, but it's too late. Everyone knows it's a buggy POS.. not just developers but in the mind of the general public they avoid it like the plague.
That perception - unless MS can pull off a miracle - will cripple vista sales.
So people are basically given a choice.. a vista laptop, which they believe to be crappy, and a mac laptop, which is the 'premium brand'. They're going mac, in droves - so much so that it's getting rare to actually see a non-mac in the local drinking esablishments.
Yeah I'd love to see the UK stats.
It *looks* a lot higher than 14% to me... but it's difficult to say without hard statistics.
They both have their annoyances. I'm more familiar with Windows so find it 'easier' but I don't know if prefer is the right word. I use OSX on a mac, XP on a PC, some brand of Unix on a Server, etc. It's just a matter of using the right tool for the job.
An OS is just there to help you get on with stuff, it's not supposed to be a religion.
I think part of the reason for marketshare growth is the increased compatibleness between Macs and PCs. I'll be honest in that I don't know the history of the computer, but I remember a time when it was extremely difficult for the average user to work with a file with both a Mac and a PC.
Now it's much easier so switching isn't difficult at all. However, I've noticed that the perception of incompatiblity is still out there. In the 4 months I've had my MacBook, I must have explained to at least a dozen people that they would have very few issues if they were to switch. Someone even asked me if I had to re-format CDs and DVDs they way floppy disks had to be reformatted.
With Apple making it possible to run Windows on their computers now, they've now given Windows users a security blanket. Add that to Apple's reputation for their computers' longevity, the halo effet from the iPod and iPhone and Apple's marketing, I would expect to see more and more marketshare.
Now it's much easier so switching isn't difficult at all. However, I've noticed that the perception of incompatiblity is still out there. In the 4 months I've had my MacBook, I must have explained to at least a dozen people that they would have very few issues if they were to switch. Someone even asked me if I had to re-format CDs and DVDs they way floppy disks had to be reformatted.
With Apple making it possible to run Windows on their computers now, they've now given Windows users a security blanket. Add that to Apple's reputation for their computers' longevity, the halo effet from the iPod and iPhone and Apple's marketing, I would expect to see more and more marketshare.
Hi. I prefer XP to OSX. It suits me better for business.
However, I am less than impressed with Vista at the moment - having had no crashed with XP for over two years I've had four with Vista in the last two weeks. Two of these were from an xpi add on in Firefox and two when I tried to load a save file on Civ IV: BTS.
Oh, and two of these were yesterday with SP1 installed.
I'm running Windows XP on my computer at work so when I tried Vista on my friend's computer, it really wasn't bad. His computer can handle vista though, I've heard horror stories about the upgrade to Vista. Some of the os features really reminded me of apple. Hm, like the little widgets panel, that loads on the side of your window. or how you can flip through your windows. Whatever, I still and always will prefer expose. Keep trying Vista!
I would point out that the machine in question has a a Q6600 CPU, 2GB of high quality RAM and a 8800GTS so it should be able to handle Vista pretty comfortably.
Lol, ok, sorry if I offended anyone. I just thought it was pretty well accepted around here and even in the tech world, that in general OS X is a superior operating system. I have read many people's comments on that here in the past, people who seem to have wide experience with operating systems. This is how I feel. If other people feel differently, which I obviously know there are those that do, then that's up to them.
When I upgrade to a MBP I will be installing either XP Pro (which I already own and tried to use with Virtual PC) or Vista (which I will have to buy). What do you recommend? Also what do you like about XP over OSX? What programs run better for you? Thank you in advance.
I use MS Access so OSX isn't really an option for me. I also use XP stripped down to Classic view - it's less fussy than Tiger which I find to be nice but a bit fiddly at times.
Personal preferences I suppose - apart from the Access thing.
Anyway, it depends what you're using Windows for. If it's simple office stuff then use XP, if you're gaming use Vista.
Personal preferences I suppose - apart from the Access thing.
Anyway, it depends what you're using Windows for. If it's simple office stuff then use XP, if you're gaming use Vista.
How about the Steve Ballmer death march? I'd settle for that instead. Well, that and a BillG one, oh and since we're dreaming at this point, how about 100 lbs. of 24K gold, too?
You sure you don't work for Microsoft? You sure sound like a Microsoft "fanboi". I'm sure you know they're busy telling their customers -- general public and corporate accounts alike -- "Wait until Windows 7!" I'm not kidding, that seems to be their latest strategy. Not exactly the mentality nor mindset of a responsible company.
Vista is Microsoft's latest excuse for more smoke-and-mirrors marketing, nothing more. Whatever architectural changes they've made have come out of desperation as more and more "civilians" as well as professional IT people are being shoe-horned and brick-baseball-batt'd into the realization that a Microsoft OS is a liability, not an asset. Even some heretofore drank-the-kool-aid-Microsoft-head school districts are beginning to see this. And no doubt "Windows 7" will be, too.
If Microsoft is indeed getting their so-called "act" together (which I seriously doubt, but let's go with it for a moment) then the only thing I can say is that it's taken them long enough. Besides, with monkey-boy Ballmer at the helm, Microsoft leadership has effectively been given a lobotomy.
Ah ha, but after SP1 and XP's SP3, Vista is kicking XP's butt 40% + slower. So, again, who cares? For the moment, Microsoft can still get away with shovelling whatever crap they want out the door to the general public. So frankly none of my comments -- or anyone elses' -- are going to make a difference in either Microsoft's strategy or the buying public's purchase decision-making processes.
Most people I know either passed out or gave up in about this much time.
Yeah, but again, we're talking about Microsoft trying to fix the barn door -- desperately -- after the horse has already escaped.
Uh, dude, you're waaaaaaaay out of line here, particularly since this is a Mac community message board. Everyone here, from Arn on down, comes here because this board has to do with Apple, their hardware and software products, none-the-least of which is -- surprise! -- Mac OS X.
Besides simply being rude and denigrating, you're also wrong on the point of trying to name-call. About as far as you can go with saying there are "UNIX fanboi" out there is insofar as you have people cheering on Apple for putting out a (partially? mostly? totally?) POSIX-compliant OS. But the true "fanboi" community out there, when it comes to these matters, are not UNIX fans, but rather Linux fans.
And I'll thank you to understand and acknowledge that, were it not for the CONSIDERABLE efforts of FSF/OSS developers out there, Mac OS X wouldn't be a 1/10th as good an OS as it is, proprietary BSD-licensed Mach microkernel (and not a monolithic kernel) and other OS bits notwithstanding.
Like, oh, for instance the last prior release of Microsoft Office? The then-current version of iTunes? C'mon, the list goes on and on, and we're only talking about recent apps. Clearly, architecturally-obsolesced platforms (8-bit DOS apps, 16-bit Win1-2-3.x apps, Win32-non-NT apps) should logically have their support deprecated and eventually dropped entirely. I'm not arguing that point. So please, quit painting the picture as one of only people with "anciently-old" apps breaking as being the primary source of complaints.
And do I need to even bring up the recent class-action suit vis-a-vis "Vista ready" PCs not truly being fully capable of running Vista?
Why? Because Microsoft is providing competition? And that's something "new" how, exactly? Of course Apple needs to keep developing and innovating. However, unlike a LOT of other companies out there, they wouldn't be Apple if they weren't doing those kinds of things. Such parsing and insulting language as this isn't going to win you many friends here, bub, and likely as not may make you a few enemies.
Simple question, simple answers:
- Putting all of your eggs in one basket (which is what you're doing with the concept of a "Registry") is a liability so basic it's taught in school.
- Individual configuration files can be corrupted, but their individual corruption or deletion is not a corruption or deletion of the rest.
It's gonna continue. Just take a look in the forums here and see how many newbies are getting their first MAC's!
Plus all the people that you may know talking about switching. It's amazing! I see these numbers getting much larger over the course of the next several years!
for instance, their spelling of the abbreviation, not the acronym for Macintosh?
(erm, it's Mac [singular] and Macs [plural])
sorry, I couldn't resist... all in good jest!
For large part of the population, it probably is. But that still does not mean that everyone prefers it over XP. And even in cases where person thinks OS X is the better system, he might still choose XP because
a) XP runs on the hardware he wants to use
b) XP runs the apps he wants to use
And in either case, the user would end up choosing XP over OS X. Even if OS X is better than XP, fact of the matter is that we don't really USE the operating-system, we use the apps. And if the app you need runs on Windows but not on OS X, then why should you choose OS X? Or if Apple does not provide you with suitable hardware, you would choose PC-hardware, and that would mean running Windows.
Every time you see someone say stuff like "I agree that OS X mops the floor with Windows, but I need to use Windows since the apps I use are Windows-apps", that means that that person is choosing XP over OS X.
Thank you. I also just realized that either XP or Vista is the only way to go (for now) to watch films on the Netflix site as they are not supporting OSX at this time.
I understand what you are saying and I think that is fine, but I wouldn't necessarily say they are CHOOSING XP, more like they HAVE to use XP even though they PREFER OS X. That is why there are programs like Parallels around
Anyway, not really worth arguing. We really aren't disagreeing.
Tech's answer to 'What is the best platform?'
I've been in the computer industry since 1990. I've worked at a lot of different places, with many different groups, and I've been in a very large number of different computer environments. While I haven't collected data scientifically, I feel confident I know what most techs out there feel is the best OS.
Most techs feel that the best OS is whatever OS they personally use - and most techs also feel that most techs agree with them.
I've been the liaison between groups that only used Windows, only used MacOS, and only used Unix (but generally only two out of the three at any one time), and it seemed that everyone in all of these groups thought that the other people were strange; that they were the normal ones.
I got into Linux around 1996. At that time, they were the exception: they realized that most techs preferred Windows, but generally felt that this was only because the Windows-favoring techs didn't know any better. However, that has started to gradually go away; I now work with a couple of groups of Linux techs who are apparently under the impression that most techs prefer Linux; it's only the result of clueless management that causes the company to still mostly run Windows.
This is a Mac forum, so most people here will probably prefer MacOS. For the record, I prefer MacOS to MS Windows, but I like Solaris better than MacOS, and Linux better still. Each of them have some elements in which they are better than all the others, and each of them have some elements in which they are worse than all of the others. Since people have different priorities on what's important to them, people have different opinions on what the best OS is, even with knowledge of what the alternatives are like. Add to that various levels of ignorance, and you have a very mixed bag.
My impression is actually that, right now, most techs actually only know MS Windows, and so obviously prefer that (if they were not the sort to prefer what they know, they'd know at least one other OS) - but that is a very slim 'most', and I expect it to drop below 50% before the year's out. This is not to say that all MS Windows techs only know MS Windows - there's a fairly large portion of them out there that know other systems. However, the vast majority of computer techs are MS Windows techs - the is fact that MS Windows has the clear market share advantage, and MacOS, Linux, and Unix require fewer administrators per system, on average.
I've been in the computer industry since 1990. I've worked at a lot of different places, with many different groups, and I've been in a very large number of different computer environments. While I haven't collected data scientifically, I feel confident I know what most techs out there feel is the best OS.
Most techs feel that the best OS is whatever OS they personally use - and most techs also feel that most techs agree with them.
I've been the liaison between groups that only used Windows, only used MacOS, and only used Unix (but generally only two out of the three at any one time), and it seemed that everyone in all of these groups thought that the other people were strange; that they were the normal ones.
I got into Linux around 1996. At that time, they were the exception: they realized that most techs preferred Windows, but generally felt that this was only because the Windows-favoring techs didn't know any better. However, that has started to gradually go away; I now work with a couple of groups of Linux techs who are apparently under the impression that most techs prefer Linux; it's only the result of clueless management that causes the company to still mostly run Windows.
This is a Mac forum, so most people here will probably prefer MacOS. For the record, I prefer MacOS to MS Windows, but I like Solaris better than MacOS, and Linux better still. Each of them have some elements in which they are better than all the others, and each of them have some elements in which they are worse than all of the others. Since people have different priorities on what's important to them, people have different opinions on what the best OS is, even with knowledge of what the alternatives are like. Add to that various levels of ignorance, and you have a very mixed bag.
My impression is actually that, right now, most techs actually only know MS Windows, and so obviously prefer that (if they were not the sort to prefer what they know, they'd know at least one other OS) - but that is a very slim 'most', and I expect it to drop below 50% before the year's out. This is not to say that all MS Windows techs only know MS Windows - there's a fairly large portion of them out there that know other systems. However, the vast majority of computer techs are MS Windows techs - the is fact that MS Windows has the clear market share advantage, and MacOS, Linux, and Unix require fewer administrators per system, on average.
1. single point of failure.
2. non-obvious file structure increases the chance that there will be a less than perfect implementation of accessing the file which will cause file corruption.
3. non-obvious file structure increases the chance that a malicious change will go undetected even through a security audit (note: not all security audits are performed with perfect competency, or with the best tools)
Those are the ones fundamental to the setup Microsoft has chosen, and which Microsoft might conceivably fix in a reimplementation.
4. Registry values are given too little validation before use in many Microsoft applications. Microsoft coding examples show little to no validation of registry data, so many non-Microsoft applications also fail to validate this data before use.
I'm sure there are others - but I don't really use Windows, so I don't keep that close of an eye on its security issues.
Also note that there are alternatives besides .ini files everywhere. For example, many of these issues could be resolved by having a .ini directory structure, similar to MacOS X's Preferences directory: the filesystem has been demonstrated to be many times more resilient to corruption than the registry, as have plain text files, and the API for accessing files in a directory is well-known and unavoidable. Additionally, one could go in with ones text editor of choice to make changes, rather than being limited to specially designed tools.
Edit: in previous paragraph, made mention of MacOS X's Preferences directory.