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.
Leopard Overtakes Windows OS Sales In Japan For October
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Vista ? messiah
From what I can tell, even Home Basic costs as much as a Family Pack of Leopard. Whether people will "do fine" with these cheaper, crippled editions of Vista is a matter of defining what "fine" means to you.
That's laughable. Apple has certainly been through some tough times, but Windows has always been a joke, and (probably) always will be. Sure, the joke is old and stale and really more sad than funny now, but it is still a joke. Death knell for Apple? You sound like Mr. Dell.
Actually, a large number of Vista users would probably agree that it sucks. In fact, the sheer volume of requests for OEM Windows XP machines has forced Microsoft to extend their support for this legacy OS. If you have ever used Vista, and you compare it with Mac OS 10.4 or 10.5, it should be obvious that Vista has missed the boat. Sure, this article gives some figures that require intelligent interpretation - that doesn't make the figures untrue. The true comparison will only be possible after the fact, when the market share battle underway begins to shake out.
Sure, Windows is far from over. But to claim that Windows has 90% market share for "good reason" is to stretch the limits of credulity. What could the good reason possibly be? Because it is cheap? Because of monopoly business practices? Because it comes built-in with 90% of computers manufactured and sold in the retail market?
And claiming that Apple computers are overpriced, overhyped and underpowered PCs, well, that just completely demonstrates your ignorance of the concept of value (and reality). Apple computers are competitively priced, underappreciated and cutting-edge machines.
The evidence for competitive pricing is clear, in that the market share for these machines is going up at a significant rate, and compararable machines from other manufacturers are equally or more expensive. The evidence for underappreciated, is that many publications, corporations and other institutions fail to even consider Apple machines as an option, despite the fact that they are the most versatile computers on the market. And if you think Apple's machines are underpowered, just look at the pathetically slow machines that all the other PC manufacturers are trying to pawn off as "new" - Apple does not sell previous generation processors in their machines the way all the other manufacturers do.
Yes, myself and many others do not like Vista, because it is inferior and annoying to use. Apple bashes Vista because it's the only target Microsoft has provided - and it is a very suitable one at that. To claim that Time Machine was ripped off from Vista is just hilarious. Show me the Time Machine function in Vista, or any of a thousand other promised features that failed to materialize.
Vista is a poor substitute for Leopard - if you like it, that's your bag. But don't go spewing your own ignorance on the subject and act like you're a cut above.
From what I can tell, even Home Basic costs as much as a Family Pack of Leopard. Whether people will "do fine" with these cheaper, crippled editions of Vista is a matter of defining what "fine" means to you.
That's laughable. Apple has certainly been through some tough times, but Windows has always been a joke, and (probably) always will be. Sure, the joke is old and stale and really more sad than funny now, but it is still a joke. Death knell for Apple? You sound like Mr. Dell.
Actually, a large number of Vista users would probably agree that it sucks. In fact, the sheer volume of requests for OEM Windows XP machines has forced Microsoft to extend their support for this legacy OS. If you have ever used Vista, and you compare it with Mac OS 10.4 or 10.5, it should be obvious that Vista has missed the boat. Sure, this article gives some figures that require intelligent interpretation - that doesn't make the figures untrue. The true comparison will only be possible after the fact, when the market share battle underway begins to shake out.
Sure, Windows is far from over. But to claim that Windows has 90% market share for "good reason" is to stretch the limits of credulity. What could the good reason possibly be? Because it is cheap? Because of monopoly business practices? Because it comes built-in with 90% of computers manufactured and sold in the retail market?
And claiming that Apple computers are overpriced, overhyped and underpowered PCs, well, that just completely demonstrates your ignorance of the concept of value (and reality). Apple computers are competitively priced, underappreciated and cutting-edge machines.
The evidence for competitive pricing is clear, in that the market share for these machines is going up at a significant rate, and compararable machines from other manufacturers are equally or more expensive. The evidence for underappreciated, is that many publications, corporations and other institutions fail to even consider Apple machines as an option, despite the fact that they are the most versatile computers on the market. And if you think Apple's machines are underpowered, just look at the pathetically slow machines that all the other PC manufacturers are trying to pawn off as "new" - Apple does not sell previous generation processors in their machines the way all the other manufacturers do.
Yes, myself and many others do not like Vista, because it is inferior and annoying to use. Apple bashes Vista because it's the only target Microsoft has provided - and it is a very suitable one at that. To claim that Time Machine was ripped off from Vista is just hilarious. Show me the Time Machine function in Vista, or any of a thousand other promised features that failed to materialize.
Vista is a poor substitute for Leopard - if you like it, that's your bag. But don't go spewing your own ignorance on the subject and act like you're a cut above.
I don't even use Vista, by the way. But I'm tired of all these moronic blind Apple fanboys on message boards like this one. All I'm trying to do is keep these arguments as balanced as possible.
The bottom line is that each OS has its ups and downs, and they all copy from one another. It's competition, and it makes everything better in the end.
The bottom line is that each OS has its ups and downs, and they all copy from one another. It's competition, and it makes everything better in the end.
No argument here
Balance is what is needed. Personal attacks, from anyone, not so much.
You are 100% correct.
I would add that you should at least try Vista to see how awful it is - it will make you thankful for whatever OS you are using.
Balance is what is needed. Personal attacks, from anyone, not so much.
You are 100% correct.
I would add that you should at least try Vista to see how awful it is - it will make you thankful for whatever OS you are using.
There are some big differences between Volume Shadow Copy and Time Machine. One is backup and one is revision control. This is obvious because time machine backs up to an external disk, while volume shadow copy store previous versions on the current disk.
Try doing a system wide search of your system as it looked two weeks ago?
Whoops, Volume Shadow Copy comes up short.
Try restoring a particular version of a file you save multiple times seven ago?
Whoops, time machine comes up short.
I love the way you come on here and criticise other people and for their views in quite a personal and offensive manner, yet fail to get your facts right.
Be careful that "moronic blind Apple fanboys" isn't interpreted as an ad hominem attack on any particular Apple fanboi...the moderators don't like that.
I have used Vista and it's not horrible at all. Worked great for me, and I had no issues with it at all. Funnily enough, I've had more issues with Leopard than I ever did with Vista. But I have a MacBook so I don't use Windows all that much.Balance is what is needed. Personal attacks, from anyone, not so much.
You are 100% correct.
I would add that you should at least try Vista to see how awful it is - it will make you thankful for whatever OS you are using.
Nice to know I'm loved around here.
Dunno, wasn't really commenting on anyone specifically, I just hate the really extreme Microsoft/Apple/Linux fanboys.Be careful that "moronic blind Apple fanboys" isn't interpreted as an ad hominem attack on any particular Apple fanboi...the moderators don't like that.
This is great news, I agree that Leopard has a huge number of new features that make Leopard a great purchase and the purchase rate of Leopard shows that others agree as well. Hopefully Apple can keep this great quality up with future Mac OS releases as well.
I really fail to see the significance of these sales figures.
Leopard can only be installed on a Mac computer (strictly speaking).
So, all it means is that Apple users in Japan are upgrading their operating system software, rather than buying new computers. So you could argue that while OS sales are up, Mac sales will be down...
And since it's just existing Apple users buying the software, why get so excited my beloved Apple Evangelists? Preaching to the converted perhaps?
I'm kinda lost here. If Apple believed in supplying their OS software to an open market (ie, not just Mac computers), then these figures would have some real value. But alas, they don't.
I use both Vista and Leopard, and I have had problems with both of them. My PC is still set up dual booting with XP for compatibility and performance reasons (ever tried copying or deleting large files in Vista? - it's a joke), and I'm pretty close to removing Leopard and reinstalling Tiger on my iBook.
XP and Tiger are just so mature now - it's going to take a while for Vista and Leopard to get to this same level.
I'm not holding my breath.
Leopard can only be installed on a Mac computer (strictly speaking).
So, all it means is that Apple users in Japan are upgrading their operating system software, rather than buying new computers. So you could argue that while OS sales are up, Mac sales will be down...
And since it's just existing Apple users buying the software, why get so excited my beloved Apple Evangelists? Preaching to the converted perhaps?
I'm kinda lost here. If Apple believed in supplying their OS software to an open market (ie, not just Mac computers), then these figures would have some real value. But alas, they don't.
I use both Vista and Leopard, and I have had problems with both of them. My PC is still set up dual booting with XP for compatibility and performance reasons (ever tried copying or deleting large files in Vista? - it's a joke), and I'm pretty close to removing Leopard and reinstalling Tiger on my iBook.
XP and Tiger are just so mature now - it's going to take a while for Vista and Leopard to get to this same level.
I'm not holding my breath.
In fact, Apple has registered the Intel version of Mac OS X Leopard with the Open Group for UNIX 03 certification. That is the distinguishing point which makes it legal to use the trademarked term "Unix" in reference to Mac OS X. Other operating systems may have been certified as POSIX-compliant, but they have not taken the extra step of becoming officially registered as "real" Unices. And if memory serves, Microsoft has dropped the POSIX compatibility layer from the non-enterprise editions of Vista.
That is no longer totally true with Windows Vista. Of course, it's always been possible (but unpopular) to create non-administrator users in every NT-based version of Windows. And while FAT-based file systems do not support per-file ownership and security, NTFS always has.
But in Windows Vista, administrator accounts actually get two sets of credentials: one as a regular user, and one as an administrator. When an administrator logs in, only the "regular user" credentials are activated by default. When a program invoked by an administrator account attempts to do something which requires elevated privileges, that annoying pop-up which Apple decided to parody appears, requesting confirmation before the administrator credentials are temporarily activated, but only for that one program. Once the administrative action is finished, the "regular user" credentials are restored.
When a new account is created in Vista, it is a non-administrator by default. Non-administrator users must provide the username and password of an administrative user in order to perform any administrative task (and the offending program is then "run as" that administrative user).
This article is barely noteworthy and the flame wars that its caused are ridiculous. If we could get a comparison as to how many ppl bought tiger in the month of its inception it might be worth something. There seem to be a lot more ppl ready to buy 10.5.0 partly because Vista proved a disappointment which reimplemented Tiger's innovations poorly, and also because Leopard has a more impressive set of new features than any previous version of OS X.
At the end of the day, no one else brought out an OS that month, nor in the month of October previous.
Mac sales marketshare may be pushing 8% but it has yet to reach 5% in terms of computers in the wild, and I doubt that situation is any different in Japan. So the market pool for the 2 principal competing OS's were whatever proportion of that 5% that met the minimum spec for Leopard vs. whatever percentage of the other 95% could run Vista (a smaller proportion since Vista is so powerhungry) that HAD NOT BOUGHT IT IN THE BEST PART OF A YEAR THAT IT HAS BEEN AVAILABLE!!
The real surprise at the success of the Leopard launch is how many n00bs didn't have the patience to wait for 10.5.1...
At the end of the day, no one else brought out an OS that month, nor in the month of October previous.
Mac sales marketshare may be pushing 8% but it has yet to reach 5% in terms of computers in the wild, and I doubt that situation is any different in Japan. So the market pool for the 2 principal competing OS's were whatever proportion of that 5% that met the minimum spec for Leopard vs. whatever percentage of the other 95% could run Vista (a smaller proportion since Vista is so powerhungry) that HAD NOT BOUGHT IT IN THE BEST PART OF A YEAR THAT IT HAS BEEN AVAILABLE!!
The real surprise at the success of the Leopard launch is how many n00bs didn't have the patience to wait for 10.5.1...
The real stat I am waiting for is:
As a percentage of total Mac owners, how many bought 10.5 compared to the same stats for 10.4.
total numbers are somewhat meaningless: less people had macs back then.
reply to mdntcallr
the problem that apple has to deal with now are corporations, most of microsofts market share is only due to its corporate clients buying windows equipped machines in bulk, this been said however apple does have 15% of the consumer market share in the us which is a large improvement from its past shares..
the problem that apple has to deal with now are corporations, most of microsofts market share is only due to its corporate clients buying windows equipped machines in bulk, this been said however apple does have 15% of the consumer market share in the us which is a large improvement from its past shares..
Thanks, it was important to see the ultimate acknowledgement that you are, indeed, a PC zealot who never sees anything positive in what Apple does...this alone is enough to make me smile.
As for the other zealots calling me names, I really enjoy it...just don't take my "moronic" comments that seriously...it just feels good to see Windows failing, as much as Mr. Dell and his famous quote of the millennium about Apple and its shareholders. I was there using Apple products in those "dark years" when you weren't even aware that Macs existed...so it really feels good to see you reacting so strongly to Mac-fanboyism now.
I was living in Switzerland using a loaded Mac IIfx when you were probably still in diapers....
Well, I can start you off with an estimate of the percentage of eligible Macs for which Leopard was purchased. Based on Apple's historic sales figures, about 19 million Macs were sold in the past 4 years and are able to run Leopard. Add a smattering of previous machines that can run it, and you come up with an estimate of 20 million machines. If 90% (18 million Macs) are still operational, then in the first 3 days of sales, 11% of eligible Macs were upgraded. Apple's own estimates were that 9% of the total installed user base upgraded in that period, but these figures do not account for Macs that do not meet the minimum requirements of Leopard. In either case, it appears that the percentage of Mac owners upgrading to Leopard in 1 weekend rivals the percentage of PCs running Vista, 9 months after its release. Leopard's release also far outshone that of Tiger, which took 39 days to sell 2 million copies (although admittedly to a significantly smaller installed base - about half the current number of Macs).
For reference, here's a good link.
Off topic: when I was in university using my Mac II, I was SO jealous of people who had the IIfx...I was living in Switzerland using a loaded Mac IIfx when you were probably still in diapers....