Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacBytes.com News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Dec 27, 2005.
Category: Mac OS X
Link: Mac OS usage tops 4%
Posted on MacBytes.com
Approved by Mudbug
Will the arrival of Vista dampen Apple's long-march return to relevance?
I tend to think these "surges" might turn into "tsunamis" when the Intel switch takes place.
It's cute that they call OS X the "fairer OS."
I am very curious about Vista. But I also have a feeling that Vista is going to have a ...speaking of tsunamis... a tsunami-scale version of the problems that WM5 is having as an upgrade over WM2003SE, and be much worse than the XP/SP2 transition. It's going to be a tough transition for everyone. I don't think it'll drive MS out of business, but I don't think it will be an easy transition either.
In the meantime, as long as Apple keeps cranking out painfully beautiful computers...have I mentioned how much I, who loathe desktops, want an iMac G5 recently...life is good for the fair folk.
I'd like to think that Vista will be better in some regard. The few pieces of video footage I've seen of it (or some version of it) looks very polished and strikingly similar to OS X Tiger. It certainly looks better than the Fisher Price XP Theme that is so prevalent today.
I'm curious as to what, if anything will affect the general consumer market with regard to Macs and Intel vs Vista. Windows has been so ingrained into people's brains that some don't even consider an alternative. Interesting times.
Then again, given a large number of Windows users have switched there is still hope for the others <insert Matrix analogy here>.
I have heard of all sorts of problems with Vista. Other then the GUI there is nothing to look forward too, other then more bugs.
That's the thing with new software. They fix some of the bugs of the old versions... and add new bugs with new features. That sometimes don't work. Luckily M$ had to take out a bunch of the new features of Vista, so it'll probably only suck a little bit.
Same with every major transition, to be fair+balanced. OSX 10.0 sometimes had a hard time launching applications, and when it did, it took for-friggin-ever.
The big question is what value is there for the corporate user to upgrade to Vista, especially considering compatibility issues. Overall, I think very little negative impact on OSX growth.
Without a doubt.. they always do. They BITCH about it, but they always follow the rest of the herd.
Well, my experience with XP has been that many corporations went to Win2k and stayed there, and are only now slowly going to WinXP. Between XP's launch and 2004, I worked at several different large companies and never had XP. Here at the hospital, some computers are slowly going to XP, but the majority of managed installs are still Win2k.
So if this pattern continues, these companies will begrudgingly go to XP SP/2+ or whatever when Win2k stops being supported, but they won't go to Vista anytime soon.
Just like we had the discussion with Tiger... no one is going to be converting a large managed installation to Vista on the weekend after it comes out. And from the recent track record, perhaps not for many years to come.
Unless MS takes Apple's tack and figures out a way to start shipping computers that won't run past OS versions. i still don't understand how Apple can do that and not get a lot of flack from IT departments.
There you go.. they always go, no matter what. They're forced into it eventually. But they always go. XP is becomming the defacto OS here at this hospital. My group pretty much insists upon it now. Win2k is nearing end of life and needs to go bye-bye.
Yes i am highly involved with IT at my school and we are windows 2000 the whole way. We only have about 3 XP computers.
Isn't it unfair to judge the bugginess of unreleased software?
Very true they could come around just because the beta releases are horrible does not mean the final will be bad. They may pull around. It will be usable, but I would not want to use it as my home OS.
I hope this 4.11% goes to a more 10% range. Soon.
Was that your, or Steve Jobs "Christmas wish."
Or maybe something for the new year.
No. Especially if it is true when concerning Windows Vista:
Security IS Simple
Windows Vista delayed to 2007 and here's why...
Symantec injunction against Windows Vista
How to force users to upgrade OSes
Those are all entries from my blog discussing why Vista will be wholly unstable and yet will be what corporations will "upgrade" to. A lot of the information is highly technical. Some of it is conjecture. Most of it is from real experience with how Microsoft does things internally. Keep in mind that my blog is a "blow off steam" area where I go when I'm relatively ticked off at something I've read or heard that is clearly ignoring larger problems.
I realize this post is several months "out of date", but I feel that it is important to spread these blog entries around whenever someone mentions Vista because it shows the huge task Microsoft has undertaken and that they now have more problems than they bargained for. Most articles on Vista are "fluffy" descriptions of what the user sees and says "ooh, pretty icons!" and "cool 3D effects!" - I reveal what they are doing under the hood to achieve those changes and WHY what Microsoft is doing is absolutely DANGEROUS. It annoys me to no end that no publication out there has revealed the true nature of Vista. They are ignorant or want to be ignorant, or they know the truth and refuse to publish it (for fear of a lawsuit - journalists and publishers these days have no guts).
For those who want verification of my claims about Vista, ask _ANY_ game developer to tell you how stable DirectX is and they will tell you it depends on the PC and what _software_ is installed on that PC. Then ask them what they think of the stability of Vista after you mention that the core graphics engine is running on DirectX. After getting over the initial shock, they'll tell you that simply installing a software package on Vista can cause the OS to become terminally unstable (i.e. force a reinstall of the OS).
The problem is that users won't switch OSes to Mac unless they know that they won't have to change their habits. The "big" software package that everyone asks about is Microsoft Office. "If I can't be 100% _certain_ that ALL of my documents will open and display properly under Mac, I won't switch. Can you guarantee me that?" is the question I hear constantly. The answer is usually 'no' followed by a 'but...' and a lot of hand waving, but I know I've already lost the audience at that point. People want guarantees. Paid guarantees in the event that the guarantee fails to achieve its promised results. Until Apple is willing to make _paid_ guarantees about Mac OS, the "tsunami" of new users Mac users dream of is just a pipe dream.
Yeah, I know, but I'm saying, "Look at your watch!" On this timescale, we'll see the migration to Vista happen in what... 2011? 2012?
It's 38% faster than Windows 98!
I can't wait!!