Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Vista Taking a Nibble Out of Apple in OS Wars?

Posted by Zonk on Fri Apr 06, 2007 02:08 PM
from the chomp-chomp-chomp dept.
PetManimal writes "Despite all of the positive buzz about the Mac operating system and the 'halo effect' of iPod sales, Mac OS X market share actually dropped last month, reports Computerworld: 'The share of PowerPC-based Macs fell ... from 4.29% in February to 3.94% in March. That dip was not fully offset by an increase in Intel-based Mac hardware, leading to a overall net decline in Mac share of 0.3%, to 6.08% in March.' Meanwhile, Vista is rising, the article says, with just over 2% of computers connected to the Internet using the new Windows OS. The figures are from a company called Net Applications, which collects its data from the browsers of visitors to its network of 40,000+ Web sites."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Why Microsoft Should Fear Apple 576 comments
jcatcw writes "Computerworld's Scot Finnie says that Microsoft should be afraid because Apple has gotten smarter about how it competes. He says that it's the Parallels Desktop software that has been truly transformational for the Mac. Finnie did a simple three-month trial of the Mac last in the fall and realized four months later that he wasn't going back. Since then he's received hundreds of messages from readers who've also made the switch. 'In the end, this is about perception. It isn't about Apple's market share or even its quarterly sales numbers. (Apple's notebook computer sales for the fourth quarter were 4.1% of all portable computer sales, according to DisplaySearch.) What this is about is that Apple is reaching the right people with its product, winning new converts, Windows user by Windows user -- and creating buzz. How do you measure buzz? You don't. It's something that experienced people in this industry can just feel. And that's the condition Microsoft should fear. Because buzz can turn into something much harder to combat than sheer numbers.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • pfft (Score:5, Insightful)

    by djupedal (584558) on Friday April 06 2007, @02:11PM (#18638107)
    One word - 'LEOPARD'

    If there is a down blip, it's due to people waiting for Leopard, not because of vista, and ho boy...wait 'till you see her hit the track :)
    • Re:pfft (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Overly Critical Guy (663429) on Friday April 06 2007, @02:29PM (#18638357)
      Not to mention the unreliability of relying on web browser stats to determine OS market share. How about we go by, I don't know, actual sales figures to determine market share? Call me crazy.
      • Re:pfft (Score:5, Insightful)

        by HairyCanary (688865) on Friday April 06 2007, @02:49PM (#18638709)
        Sales figures don't tell you the whole story either, so keep looking. If Mac users keep their machines for five years on average, versus say two and a half years average for Windows PC users, then Macs could have half the sales rate of PC's and still be staying even with market share. What you want to reliably assess is installed base.
        • Re:pfft (Score:4, Funny)

          by Mike Buddha (10734) on Friday April 06 2007, @03:14PM (#18639125)

          Sales figures don't tell you the whole story either, so keep looking.
          Yeah, and most Mac users replace 3-4 PowerPC Macs with just one Intel Mac, so there's the explanation of why the numbers are changing. And you used to have to go to a page 2-3 times, whereas with an Intel Mac, you only have to go their once to get the same information. That would explain the drop in PowerPC Macs browser stats without a similar increase in Intel Macs.

          Also, people who use Intel Macs are just not getting on the web because they're so busy making movies and recording their bands and stuff. That would explain the difference as well. And they're probably playing World of Warcraft, or some of the other great two year old games instead of getting on the web.
        • Re:pfft (Score:5, Insightful)

          by diamondsw (685967) on Friday April 06 2007, @03:45PM (#18639575)
          And you really should be comparing market segments. After all, every Windows-based cash register, eTicket terminal, etc counts towards its market share. I'd rather see market share in segments - home, education, enterprise, utility, etc.
      • Re:pfft (Score:5, Insightful)

        by syphax (189065) on Friday April 06 2007, @03:16PM (#18639153) Journal

        The criticism about sales vs. avg. machine lifetime is valid.

        In the auto industry we look at UIOs- "units in operation" - that is available via state vehicle registration records. On the whole, the data is pretty good.

        Of course, we don't need to register our computers (yet), so we don't have that option.

        Assuming the data [hitslink.com] isn't crap, I noticed that Apple has been gaining market share at an average of 0.34% a month since last September, until the 0.3% dip this past month. They went from 4.3% to 6.4% pretty quick, and it's notable b/c that's switching vendors (unlike Vista, which is mostly same vendor, different product). What will be interesting is the next couple of months- was this just a blip? What happens when Leopard comes out?

        I'd put my money on 'blip'. I hereby forecast continued growth for Apple, though maybe averaging 0.1-0.2% per month unless they come out with some kickass hardware soon.

        And no, I'm not a fanboy.
        • Re:pfft (Score:5, Interesting)

          by syphax (189065) on Friday April 06 2007, @03:22PM (#18639251) Journal

          This chart [hitslink.com] on browser trend is interesting too. IE's market share is slipping like the Big-3 autos. Slow and steady.

          I can't wait until IE dips under 50%. That should drive off the last of the 'IE only' websites, which seem to be decreasing in number (of course, I support one at work, though for a limited corporate audience- gack! I am lobbying heavily with the vendor to support Firefox!!).

          But I hope Firefox doesn't get too dominant (fortunately, it won't). Competition and the adherence to open standards (at least for more mature technologies) are good things.
      • Yep... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by pb (1020) on Friday April 06 2007, @03:34PM (#18639445)
        Even if we do assume that their figures [hitslink.com] are incredibly accurate, this is how it shakes out:

        Windows: +0.20
        Linux: +0.15
        Mac: -0.30


        Not a huge deal, although I think the Linux uptick is a bit of an unreported story here. Also, what's with the share of Windows NT growing from 0.71% to 0.80% (the only other MicroSoft OS showing growth)? That's like a 12.7% increase for an ancient OS! So, yeah, given that anomaly, I'm somewhat disinclined to give their figures that much weight.
      • Re:pfft (Score:4, Interesting)

        by w3woody (44457) on Friday April 06 2007, @04:12PM (#18639951) Homepage

        Not to mention the unreliability of relying on web browser stats to determine OS market share.
        No kidding. Safari in debug mode has a feature where it advertises itself as a different browser than Safari, and I find that there are a few web sites which block me out the browser advertises "Safari WebKit", but works perfectly if it advertises itself as "Windows IE".

        Further, a variation of 0.3% seems within a margin of error for the ebb and flow of users visiting a block of web sites--even tens of thousands of web sites. For all we know the dip in MacOS X users visiting those web sites came from an "Apple TV" effect: MacOS X users may have been more likely watching their bright shiny new Apple TV boxes rather than surfing the web.

        (I'm not saying this is what happened; I'm saying that the statistics used here are hocus-pocus at best.)
      • Re:pfft (Score:5, Insightful)

        by BKX (5066) on Friday April 06 2007, @02:37PM (#18638497) Journal
        You're forgetting that the total number of computers is rising. If Apple sales were to stagnate, their overall market share (as a percentage) would drop even if no Apple users switched to something else. Under the GP's analysis, we would expect that the market share (again, as a percentage) would drop while people wait for Leopard.
        • Re:pfft (Score:5, Interesting)

          by beckerist (985855) on Friday April 06 2007, @03:26PM (#18639303) Homepage
          Meanwhile, Vista is rising, the article says, with just over 2% of computers connected to the Internet using the new Windows OS.
          I wonder how many of these are just virtual images... Realistically it's probably a negligible number, but of the more than 20 people in my department here at work that I just polled, 1 of them uses Vista as their production environment, and 8 of them said they've dabbled with it in a virtual image. Granted I work in the tech industry so my percentages are probably a bit skewed...
      • Re:pfft (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 06 2007, @02:38PM (#18638523)

        The stats come from website logs, which is basically snake oil as far as accurate numbers goes. The decline could be something as simple as Apple developers tweaking Safari's caching parameters. Since Intel Macs already have the latest version of Safari, if the latest version is more efficient at caching resources, that means that HTTP traffic from PPC Safari users will slowly decline as they upgrade to the latest version of Safari, while Intel users are already at that level.

        Or it could be something completely different - HTTP traffic analysis is useless for determining browser/os market share and the littlest thing can skew the numbers wildly.

      • Re:pfft (Score:5, Informative)

        by Aqua OS X (458522) on Friday April 06 2007, @03:12PM (#18639083) Homepage
        Dude, you need to take a statistics class or something. We're dealing with market percentages, not licenses sold. If I have a cup that has 50 green M&Ms and 50 red M&Ms, and I add 10 green M&Ms and 5 red M&Ms, green M&Ms are now less then 50%, but that doesn't mean I lost green M&Ms.

        You need to account for licenses sold in relationship to market growth, transitions to new OS, and consumers who have postponed purchases while waiting for new operating systems.

        That said, PPC OS X usage dropped, Intel OS X usage increased, people are timing hardware purchases to coincide with Leopard's release, and people are cashing-in on their wait for Vista. These are factors that may reduce the PPC Mac OS percentage for March, but that is not the same thing as a reduced install base, nor is it a sign that the growth of Apple's install base is entering an extended stagnation.
      • by Peter Cooper (660482) * on Friday April 06 2007, @03:29PM (#18639367) Journal
        Firefox is pretty good on OS X. There seem to be a lot of whiners about it, but I have it running almost constantly with varying numbers of tabs and it's always worked very well. I certainly prefer it to Safari or Opera. Who cares about native widgets? I'm looking at the Web, not a bunch of Apple themed Web pages.
        • by kinabrew (1053930) on Friday April 06 2007, @05:45PM (#18641039) Journal

          I use Firefox on OS X, and my main issue is that it doesn't feel like a "proper Mac application". Certain things don't work like every other program.

          For example, on single-line text input boxes, a Mac user should be able to hit the up arrow or down arrow to go to the beginning or end of the line. Firefox doesn't behave correctly.

          Widgets don't just look wrong; they look like they were pulled off of a Windows machine. And submit buttons are a different size than regular buttons. [abqpc.com]

          In the OS X version of Firefox, the menus aren't Mac-like at all.

          • The "Tools" menu [abqpc.com] is a hold-over from Windows. Mac applications have a "Window" menu [abqpc.com] where you can select from open windows and commonly-used windows. In Firefox, this menu is wasted. The "Tools" menu [abqpc.com] should be completely removed, and its contents should be moved. Items like "Downloads" and "Error Console" belong in the "Window" menu. Items like "Page Info" belong in the "File" menu(or in the "View" menu, next to "Page Source").
          • "Check for Updates" should be moved from the "Help" menu [abqpc.com] to the "Firefox" menu [abqpc.com].

          Don't get me wrong; I actually prefer Firefox to other browsers. But Firefox has been on the Mac platform since 2003. Within the last four years, the theme has changed several times. Heck, the toolbar icons have changed at least once under each incarnation(Phoenix, Firebird, and Firefox). Within those four years, I would have expected an attempt at making the browser act and look like a proper Mac application, rather than a port from Windows.

          • Re:ATTN: SWITCHEURS! (Score:4, Interesting)

            by rsborg (111459) on Friday April 06 2007, @11:09PM (#18643269) Homepage

            I use Firefox on OS X, and my main issue is that it doesn't feel like a "proper Mac application". Certain things don't work like every other program.
            Jeebus, so use Camino [caminobrowser.org]... same rendering engine, but fully Cocoa, and designed to match the UI standards of the mac.

            I use firefox, because I prefer the wider selection of extensions and I actually prefer XPCOM, but hey... to each his own.

  • Dualboot? (Score:5, Informative)

    by norminator (784674) on Friday April 06 2007, @02:12PM (#18638109)
    I guess Boot Camp has just barely started supporting Vista, but how much of this could be due to dual-booting OSX and Vista on the same machine? Or from people that beta tested Vista? I tried out the beta, then installed a release copy of Vista on my work laptop, but then I switched back after a couple of months.
  • 2%? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Stormx2 (1003260) on Friday April 06 2007, @02:13PM (#18638125)
    This strikes me as low for a brand new windows OS. I'm not familiar with previous statistics, but I would have thought that sales would increase quickly after the release then slowly decrease. If it is at 2% now, I don't expect we'll get much more after this.

    $20 says Microsoft will simply disable XP machines to boost sales.
    • Re:2%? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by casualsax3 (875131) on Friday April 06 2007, @02:21PM (#18638251)
      You're suggesting (seriously?) that you don't expect Vista to show up on more than 2% of desktops? I would like some of whatever it is you smoked this afternoon.
  • Vista TAKING a NIPPLE OUT of Apple in OS Wars?
  • by varmint jerky (810306) on Friday April 06 2007, @02:14PM (#18638137)
    I powered my Mac off yesterday and forgot to turn it back on. Try it again now...
  • by Sneakernets (1026296) on Friday April 06 2007, @02:14PM (#18638145) Journal
    *throws hands up in the air*

    Ok, Microsoft, you win.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 06 2007, @02:15PM (#18638151)
    My new operating system had 100% growth as I sold my 2nd copy and it still had far fewer reported bugs than either OSx or Vista....Only 2 users reported blank CDs but thats just a distribution problem...

    =)
  • New Hardware (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Snap E Tom (128447) on Friday April 06 2007, @02:15PM (#18638159)
    Maybe it's because a lot of people knew that the iMac, mini, and Mac Pros were due for a refresh.
      • I can't wait to see how much trouble Apple has keeping up with demand when they announce Core 2 Duo Mac Minis and new iMacs with OS X 10.5 and CS3. If they actually release any kind of ~$1000 xMac they'd have to increase security at Apple stores to keep riots from occurring.

        Security Log of Rent-A-Cop Sam MacSnappy

        9:54 a.m. The store is due to open in a few minutes, and already there's a vast, unruly mob outside. Look at those thugs. I saw one guy crunching on a celery stick in an obviously agressive manner, and another slurping a Zero Fat Smoothie with total hostility for authority. Go ahead, Zippy. Make my day.

        10:13 a.m. First arrest. Somebody named Merriam got a little too friendly with the new sub-$1000 unit. I told him, "You can do those kinds of things at home in your 1970's-decorated palace of sin," but in the end I still had to mace the sucker.

        10:28 a.m. Man down! Man down! They're got Security Associate Clyde Dawkins on his back, and they're tickling him with a long feather boa and singing the "Macarena"! It's just unspeakable!

        10:37 a.m. We've barricaded the storefront, but I don't know how long we can last. All these guys in thick, black retro eyeglass frames are throwing themselves against our makeshift barriers, then collapsing with long, attenuated sighs. It's like watching insane undernourished salmon trying to spawn--salmon in pencil-thin black jeans! The staffers are no help, standing around discussing their favorite yogurts and "the identify crisis of the Finder," whatever the hell that is.

        10:48 a.m. That's it. I quit. No money is worth watching a grown man kiss an iPod.

  • by smooth wombat (796938) on Friday April 06 2007, @02:17PM (#18638175) Homepage Journal
    What websites do they monitor so I can fire up my Windows 95 machine and make an entrance?
  • Not a shocker (Score:5, Informative)

    by SengirV (203400) on Friday April 06 2007, @02:17PM (#18638193)
    The macs haven't been rev'd in quite a while. I had hoped that revs would occur more frequently with the switch to intel, but it's simply not the case. And sorry, I don't count an additional option for 8-core on the Mac Pro a rev as much as it's another BTO option. Especially when they didn't change anything else on the machine.

    http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/ [macrumors.com]

    mini is still at CD, not C2D. iMacs haven't been updated in over 200 days. macbook and MBP in 150. Compare that with the ONLY way to upgrade on the PC side - buy a new machine, and you begin to see the appeal of Vista over OS X when it comes to hardware sales. Finally, Tiger is on it's way out as well. So people are holding off on new Macs until they come pre-installed with leopard.

    Would like to see the figures once leopard comes out ;)
  • Here I come (Score:5, Funny)

    by Spackler (223562) on Friday April 06 2007, @02:18PM (#18638195) Journal
    ' Meanwhile, Vista is rising, the article says, with just over 2% of computers connected to the Internet using the new Windows OS

    They won't be connected for long:
    net start BOTNET
  • Guilty as charged (Score:4, Interesting)

    by spineboy (22918) on Friday April 06 2007, @02:21PM (#18638231) Journal
    I bought an iPod and liked it sooo much got one for the wife. She then after liking the device so much, became tired of the "crazy damned computer" that I set up for her that ran Linux, and bought a Mac laptop.

    My wife still has some problems, but seems quite happy so far.

    So yes, in our case, buying an iPod led us to buy a Mac.
  • Very misleading (Score:5, Insightful)

    by apachetoolbox (456499) on Friday April 06 2007, @02:21PM (#18638237) Homepage
    The tone of this article is very misleading.

    I do a lot of consulting work and it's very hard to get a new PC for someone that doesn't come with Vista. They don't want Vista but they have no choice. Then we get to deal with figuring out what software they need works and what needs patches and what just plain doesn't work and never will.
  • by topham (32406) on Friday April 06 2007, @02:23PM (#18638269) Homepage
    The actual decline they have reported is 0.3%; which I'm sure is well within there margin of error.

    Which means, Apple's share hasn't changed. Despite the fact there are less PowerPC machines than before.
    • Poor statistics (Score:4, Informative)

      by wass (72082) on Friday April 06 2007, @02:44PM (#18638637)
      The article's credibility is actually worse than that, the 0.3% they quote is ONLY the decline in market share of the PPC brand Macs. TFA briefly mentioned that increases in Intel OS X market share didn't offset the PPC decrease, but they didn't give the Intel numbers. And then they quote the PPC market share decrease, subtely implying it's the overall OS X market decrease.

      So TFA was inaccurate, not sure whether it was on purpose or just due to incompetence.
  • 2%? Seems high. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Conception (212279) on Friday April 06 2007, @02:24PM (#18638283)
    According to this: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933606.html [infoplease.com] there are about a billion internet users worldwide. 2% would be 20 mil. MS claims to have shipped 20 million, or so, copies of vista. So that means that every copy they have shipped, even on new computers at stores, has been sold and brought up on the internet pretty much. This seems... fishy.
  • Oh please (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MBCook (132727) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Friday April 06 2007, @02:26PM (#18638315) Homepage

    Can we get real? Apple's market share dropped for one month? Let's see what could cause that:

    1. People waiting for Leopard
    2. People waiting for CS 3 to come out (this was February after all)
    3. Vista's sales jump (in both hardware and software) from heavy promotion and tons of news coverage

    There. That took about 3 seconds to think up. When Vista has displaced Apple for 3 months in a row, we can talk. Until then this is stupid hype designed to make Vista look like it isn't a dog sales wise (when from MS you would think it would have started selling like Windows 95 did). Plus, this is the PowerPC share that dropped. They are old and slow as hell (I'm using one). Now that CS3 is out (and was about to come out by the time they did this survey) you'd be an IDIOT to buy one. So the Intel side didn't jump up. People are probably waiting for CS3 (to put their requisitions in at work), or for Leopard (coming any time now, June 21st at the latest).

    Non-story.

    • Re:Oh please (Score:4, Insightful)

      by lostboy2 (194153) on Friday April 06 2007, @02:50PM (#18638729)
      Worse still, Hitslink (the app/service that generated these statistics) does not measure sales or even overall usage -- it only measures hits to websites that use Hitslink.

      From Net Applications' site [hitslink.com]:

      There is nothing to install. You simply paste a small piece of HTML code on each page you wish to track statistics on.
      Ok. What kind of code is it? JavaScript? What if I regularly browse with Java and JavaScript disabled?

      Or even simpler, what if I don't browse websites that use Hitslink? 40,000 websites is really not that much. Pandia [pandia.com] notes that one estimate of the number of active websites in 2006 was 47 million (using the low end). Assuming that's true, 40000 websites is only 0.08% (less than one-tenth of one percent). That's hardly enough data to accurately portray what's going on worldwide, in my opinion, especially if the sites used to generate the stats are Windows- or Microsoft-centric.
  • by mattgreen (701203) on Friday April 06 2007, @02:28PM (#18638341)
    Give the guys at Roughly Drafted a week or two to point out all the reasons this sort of assessment is downright wrong, while decorating the article with all sorts of nice pie charts, graphs, and equally questionable statistics. Then we will know what really happened. Because the mainstream media certainly has an anti-Apple agenda, we can't trust just ANY statistics.
  • by Jason1729 (561790) on Friday April 06 2007, @02:28PM (#18638345)
    I use both Macs and PCs and it seems like I buy and upgrade PCs a lot more often. My latest Mac is a Powerbook G4 from early 2004 and I'm just now starting to think about a replacement. Over those last 3 years I've bought 2 PCs and will probably buy a 3rd long before I replace the Mac. The PC's just feel dated after less than a year while the Macs take about 3 years to feel the same way. At least to me.

    If PCs have a much shorter useful life, their percentage of sales will be higher than their actual percentage of machines in use.
    • When you get your third new PC, put Ubuntu on the old one. See how snappy it feels, and how long it stays good. I know that my "old" P4 based desktop is kinda slow by modern standards, but damn if it's not fast as hell under Linux, especially since Linux doesn't become useless when you're running a heavy processing job, you can still surf the web or type up a document while something else is processing. The whole thing just feels snappier, even on older hardware.
  • Bogus data (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geekwithsoul (860466) <geekwithsoul&yahoo,com> on Friday April 06 2007, @02:44PM (#18638629)
    FTA:

    "Net Applications collects its data from the browsers of visitors to its network of more than 40,000 Web sites."

    Any statistics that purport to show "usage" based on browser hits is inherently suspect, especially if the stats are used to imply they have some larger meaning. If they can answer these questions, I'll believe them:

    - How are the servers of these "40,000 webs sites" identifying unique users? (server logs, scripts, or both? How long are the sessions they are looking at?)
    - Are they looking at number of hits, unique user views, or what?
    - How well can they ensure that machines are not being counted multiple times?
    - Which sites are included? Are both microsoft.com and apple.com sites included? What about msn.com or mac.com? How many tech-savy sites are included and how many might-as-well-be-AOL newbie sites?
    - Are the results from some sites weighted above or below other sites?

    I'm not saying they haven't taken all these things into account, but publishing them (or referencing them by a third-party) without including how the data was gathered makes this all just so much noise.
  • by edunbar93 (141167) on Friday April 06 2007, @02:55PM (#18638797)
    just over 2% of computers connected to the Internet using the new Windows OS.

    And 4% of the desktop computers connected to the Internet are using Linux! Woo! We're beating Windows!
  • by guidryp (702488) on Friday April 06 2007, @03:52PM (#18639679)
    I never contend that apple has to sell OSX for any old box, as that would be business mistake for them, but if they aren't going to sell OSX, then they need to offer more hardware choices.

    Mac market share is stable at about the 6% mark. These are the people who like integrated monitors or the toy mini. Pro just won't matter for market share as it is ultra high end.

    If Apple actually has the slightest interest in increasing market share beyond the current they have to offer what mainstream buyers want and are used to. A decent mid size tower at an affordable price.

    I actually want to buy a Mac. I use Linux/Solar/Windows at work and would like a decent Unix workstation at home, but don't find Linux polished enough (my desktop at work runs Redhat).

    What is stopping me is the lack of decent midrange hardware without integrated monitor. This gap has to be obvious to Apple execs, perhaps they are moving the company in the direction of devices and away from computer and don't care about computer market share.

    I will buy a new computer in the next 6 months. No midrange tower or equivalent and it will be another PC and that will be my computer for the next 4 or 5 years.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      > Aren't most Mac users waiting for leopard to come out

      What, waiting for Leopard before browsing the web again? I you are goin to make an argument at least make one that makes sence.

      Maybe like which web sites are the stats generated from, maybe those are somewhat windows biased?

      • Statistics 101 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Nasarius (593729) on Friday April 06 2007, @02:38PM (#18638533)
        A drop in overall percentage doesn't necessarily mean a drop in users. It could easily mean that Windows is growing, and the Mac market is stagnating before a new release.
    • Not the point (Score:4, Insightful)

      by feranick (858651) on Friday April 06 2007, @02:42PM (#18638591)
      Yes, but that is not the point. You expect the percentages of PowerPC-based Macs to fall, but percentage of new Intel-based should increase of at least the same amount, which does not seem to be the case, according to the article.
        • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Friday April 06 2007, @03:27PM (#18639323)

          And as far as any of us can tell, you just lie when you talk. If you were to post verifable numbers your post might rank above anecdotal, but you didn't and it doesn't. So, your post is no more factual than the GP, but has a load more arrogance. Thanks.

          I'd post numbers, but I don't have a lot of time to waste on arguing with people who are unlikely to be persuaded by facts anyway. Consumer Reports puts Apple hardware reliability as #1 overall. It put them #2 for laptops, right behind Sony. The study our IT guy bought access to only covers laptops but placed them #1 for laptop reliability for 2006 of all the major vendors. I'd post links if they were not both password protected, but buy an account at Consumer reports, it is well worth it.

          If you're a real cheapskate you can read an article by someone who did pay for access to consumer reports, like this Ars Technica article [arstechnica.com]. The most relevant excerpt might be, "As for reliability, Apple Computer crushes the competition, at least among desktops. Based on 77,700 responses, 11 percent of Macs bought between 2002 and 2006 went in for repair or had a serious problem. Sony was next best, at 15 percent, and Gateway was last at 19 percent. Among 50,100 respondents with laptops, Apple was at 18 percent, along with the majority of manufacturers. Sony was at 15 percent, but it should be noted that 3 points or less is not considered meaningful." That reference was in regard to their survey based study which suffers from self selection (but is still better than nothing) but their spot purchasing study concluded the same. In fact, pretty much every independent study I've seen comes up with similar results. Have you ever seen a real study (not an anecdote) that ranks Apple lower than #3 for hardware reliability?

        • by zentec (204030) * <lists&rudn,com> on Friday April 06 2007, @03:42PM (#18639549)
          Microsoft not having proprietary hardware lock-in is exactly my point; the need to cater to every conceivable chuck of hardware along with permitting copious permission between drivers and the kernel is not an advantage.  It's a major contributor to instability and only when it was no longer advantageous to gaining marketshare did Microsoft make any overtures to changing that.

          The attraction of OS X is that you have it before you, on a piece of hardware on which you know it will run.  You don't have a situation where Microsoft points to the OEM, the OEM points to some Taiwanese chip maker's web site for an "updated" driver, unsigned by Microsoft to fix what should have been working the second you pulled the computer from the box.

          God bless Linux, but I have to tell you, it has its moments.  Is it superior to Microsoft?  You bet your sweet bippy.  Am I going to run it on my primary notebook machine?  I have.  Why don't I now?  Because I deal with computers and electronics all day and the last thing I want to do when I'm on my own time is maintain a computer in typical PC fashion.

          Or, to put it another way; having the hardware and OS lock-in was an attraction to me because I was pretty certain that I wouldn't have to endure the torture of Microsoft in the workplace.  And I was right.

    • by MurrayTodd (92102) * on Friday April 06 2007, @04:00PM (#18639805) Homepage
      As you said, it's always slow before Macworld or WWDC, and this last MacWorld was totally lame for actual Mac owners since it was only about the damn phone and tv. No Leopard, no replacement for the long-absent iSights, no Blu-Ray DVD. The actual "Macintosh" is far more stagnant than I ever remember seeing it in the last five years.
      • by Divebus (860563) on Friday April 06 2007, @04:41PM (#18640325)

        Oh dear... 10 minutes on Google should fix most of that:

        I've never seen a Macintosh POS system.

        http://macpos.com/
        http://www.christianjames.ne t/
        http://www.posim.net/
        http://www.posoe.com/ee s/
        http://www.shopkeeper.com/
        http://www.sixthse nsepos.com/
        http://www.xpertmart.com/

        I've never seen a Macintosh timeclock

        http://www.conceptualize.com/

        I've never seen a Mac waste hauling program.

        I've never seen one period...

        I've never seen a major financial package that runs on Mac, or even has a Mac client (think SAP, Oracle, etc)

        http://www.oracle.com/technology/tech/macos/inde x.html
        http://mac.unimaas.nl/sap/

        I've never seen a medical billing package that runs on the Mac.

        http://www.databaseconstructs.com/mchilites.html

        On the other hand, I've never seen a virus that runs on the Mac. Heard rumors of them but have never seen it.