Windows 7 Overtakes XP, OSX Struggles To Beat Vista 540
judgecorp writes "Latest market share figures show the difference between perception and reality. Windows 7 just nudged past Windows XP with both around the the 43 percent mark. OS X and Windows Vista divide the rest of the spoils, with all versions of OS X only just adding up to a little more than the failed Windows version, according to data from Netmarketshare."
Flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, why not go full on flame and top it off with a comment on Linux's desktop share, so we can include them in the flamefest that's sure to follow? Or I guess maybe I just did that for you... you're welcome Slashdot editors.
Re: (Score:3)
Not just you, more flamebait and troll articles, the more pageviews for the advertisers. I thought it was getting blatant when UID's hit arround 900,000. Not necessarily a bad thing, the demo coming here has changed considerably over the years, slashdot has changed with them, now Windows on the other hand seems to change for change's sake. Recently our network at work, because the client workstations were all XP machines allows the clients to map drives to two different directories on the Win2000 server on
Re: (Score:2)
"What actual relevant, meaningful news is contained in this story? "
None. The idea that new sales/installs somehow "compete" with existing installs is bullshit and anyone propagating it should be treated to a kerbie..
New PC sales reflect both "new vs new" competition and "fleet replacement" where it only makes sense to replace an OS such as XP with a succcessor because of the APPS.
Re:Flamebait (Score:4, Insightful)
I dunno. Apple and it's users seem entirely full of themselves. It's nice to put things into perspective and point out how Apple is occassionally a failure. It's not infallible. It has some rather spectacular failures to it's name and it yet may lose the current platform war. There's precedent for it.
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing new. Slashdot has for a long time tempered interesting articles with red flag bullshit. I consider these articles to be a honey pot for people wanting to vent and the nutters who feel its useful to respond.
You're the anomaly here. You go find a useful story to comment on. I'll distract the idiots.
Hey guyz! The operating system you prefer is crap because it's menus are different, and I believe it's cost to be way different to the OS that has become my religion.
Re:Flamebait (Score:5, Funny)
Is it just me, or are more and more blatant flamebait stories reaching the front page recently?
Yeah, it's really gotten bad the last 13 years.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
linux must be cast in a good light at all costs
If that were true, why isn't Linux even mentioned in the summary? :p
Re: (Score:2)
There is if you consider the smartphone and tablet market.
Re:Flamebait (Score:4, Informative)
>>>its cool to bash OS X / Apple here.
False. Every time I bash Apple (mainly because it costs 2x as much) my post gets modded down into invisibility. This forum is very protective of the Apple brand and punished anybody who says something negative about it.
As for the Article, "reality" is the same as "perception" for most people. We all know that XP is being replaced in offices/homes by Seven. That XP share is shrinking & Seven share rising is not news.
And we all know that Apple's Mac OS is less than 10% of the market. Also not news.
Re:Flamebait (Score:5, Funny)
False. Every time I bash Apple (mainly because it costs 2x as much) my post gets modded down into invisibility. This forum is very protective of the Apple brand and punished anybody who says something negative about it.
You should go to one of the Apple vs. Samsung threads then. You will enjoy it.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot has a deserved reputation for being the territory of Hardcore 20-Something Linux Fanboys
Dude, you're so behind the times. Try 30-something.
sheeple are still using stupid memes
Like 'sheeple.' Good going, Nietzsche.
Re: (Score:3)
The first step to recovery is to admit to yourself that you really come to Slashdot for the flamefest in comments, and not for the stories themselves.
Year of the Linux Desktop (Score:5, Funny)
Next year...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Year of the Linux Desktop (Score:5, Informative)
Because they have no reason to. Seriously. Linux offers so little of value over Windows 7 to the average user that would justify dealing with a significant UI change and loss of support. The average user has had a hard enough time moving from XP to 7 (and these are honestly almost identical except for a couple of eye candy tweaks). The differences going over to any of the current Linux distros would be too much.
The argument that Linux could ever take off on the desktop is based on the idea that it's equally easy to use for a complete novice. Unless you regularly deal with people who are genuinely novices, you really don't understand just how much changing things scares them. The support infrastructure for Linux on the desktop is just plain awful compared to that of Windows--OEMs do not support it except under specific circumstances, and the average neighborhood computer geek is far less likely to know how to fix an issue with Linux than with Windows.
Converting to MacOS X happens because of marketing hype and chic factor, but at least there is a decent support infrastructure in place from Apple, and the platform is consistent and stable enough that most issues that arise can be fixed.
Windows "just works" on almost any hardware. MacOS X "just works" on Apple systems. Linux does not, unless you are willing to do some digging.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
2012 Camry over takes 2009 Camry. (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile Porsche and BMW 'have' to split the rest of the vehicles.
Apple is rich. As in very, very, very rich. Something tells me they really don't care.
Worldwide? Probably not (Score:5, Informative)
OSX isn't very used outside the western world. So, I guess it has a lower worldwide marketshare, whereas Linux might have a higher one.
Re: (Score:3)
For example, Poland:
* Android: 1.45%
* Linux: 0.82% (yeah, obviously with Android excluded)
* OS X:: 0.73%
* iOS: 0.69%
As a kid, I had access to one of first PC XTs in Poland, and after all those years, I have yet to see a live Mac (ssh / hackintosh excluded). So I find even that 0.73% value dubious.
Re:Worldwide? Probably not (Score:5, Informative)
I can relate. I lived in Latvia until a year ago, and while that's a Western country by now, it's also one with much lower income levels than the "proper" Western countries, besides, the whole free market thing is kinda new there.
Thinking about the previous 10 years or so, I think I had seen people with Macs something like 3 or 4 times total. Most people I talked to didn't even know Macs existed, although starting in 2005-2006 I met a fair amount of people who had heard of Linux as an alternative option. After moving to Sweden, I literally saw more Macs being used on my first day than I had seen in Latvia, ever.
Also puts me in an interesting position where I'm a knowledgable computer geek and have used many OSes, but not OS X. The last time I used a Mac was with Mac OS 8, and even that was brief. I think I should just install a Hackintosh at home one weekend because I am curious to play with OS X, to see how it works and whether I'll find it as easy as it's supposed to be.
Oh, and if anyone is curious to the reason why Macs are essentially non-existent in Latvia, it's simple - prices. Macs there cost as much as anywhere else, which in terms of Latvian incomes places them firmly in the luxury item category (especially until a few years ago). Together with the essentially ubiquitous piracy among privately owned computers, it makes the idea of buying a Mac very strange. Case in point, with iPads. Having just checked the prices, an iPad 3 with 16 GB Wi-Fi only in Latvia costs 339 lats, the same with 4G costs 425 lats (not including data plan). MacBooks start at 895 lats. The average monthly income in 2011 after taxes for those employed in Latvia was 330 lats (about 600 USD at today's rate). Puts things into perspective.
Re: (Score:3)
StatCounter has a nice selection where you can drill down to continents or even single countries, they put OS X at 14% market share in the US, 7% worldwide. Vista is at 12% and 8% respectively, so not a bad comparison in either case. Not really surprising though, since they're expensive computers you'd probably find in the rich parts of the world. Unfortunately you can't get figures for Linux since it gets lumped into the "other" category, it barely registers in Germany which is typically extremely open sou
Re:Worldwide? Probably not (Score:5, Funny)
The West is a overused term. That said, I see a lot of Apple laptops here in Japan.
Hell, you're way West from me, and I'm in Alaska. You're so West that you could be considered East.
Now I'm all dizzy.
It's all about the mojo (Score:3, Funny)
OS X has it, Windows doesn't. And I think Win 8 will throw more mojo to OS X's direction.
Re:It's all about the mojo (Score:5, Interesting)
I actually hope this. Not because I wish Apple well being or anything like that, but I realize the hop from OSX -> Linux is a much shorter one than the hop from getting developers targeting OSX from Windows. Valve actually reused a _bunch_ of their Mac code in order to start their Linux port.
Re: (Score:2)
No Captain Sarcasm, OpenGL is key (Score:2)
Sure. After all OSX is Unix. And Linux is a copy of Unix.
Ha Ha.
The key is that both OS X and Linux use OpenGL for graphics, which is why they'd reuse a lot of code from the Mac.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
wtf is mojo? osx is horrible mishmash of ui elements tacked on one after another nowadays. launchpad? shit. widget screen? shit(and apple has widgets on it's library which just lockup the whole thing). high dpi support? in osx it's a fucking joke, it's beyond shit(it doesn't exist! it's a myth! that's why the retina macs have to resort to just doubling legacy apps without even asking the user in any way if he wants that)! ui menus detached from apps on a big screen? shit(having no idea which programs menu i
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Having Apple rearrange your desktop is a "feature" for those artistic types that barely understand technology. They like that Apple comes along every +0.1 iteration and cleans-up the mess the artist or musician left behind. (Just like they enjoy a maid to come visit their house once in awhile, even if things end-up rearranged.)
+1 (Score:3)
Not only that, but now by default (I know it can be changed), it doesn't allow programs (called apps now) to be installed unless it comes from th
Re:It's all about the mojo (Score:5, Interesting)
launchpad? shit.
I tried pulling it off the Dock on my work Mac. It added it back for me. (I have a work project that involves writing an iPad app (for no reason, mind you, other than it's a buzzword), which means I have a Mac as my work machine. In case anyone wonders why I use a Mac.)
high dpi support? in osx it's a fucking joke, it's beyond shit
If anyone doesn't believe this, you should read the Mozilla bug on getting high DPI support on Mac OS X in Firefox. Basically, it's never going to happen because the API for doing it is so fucked up. ("But isn't it just rendering things at twice resolution?" Read the bug. It isn't. There are so many edge cases it isn't funny.)
ui menus detached from apps on a big screen?
I am convinced no one at Apple has ever tried running a Mac OS X on multiple monitors. It is beyond shit at that. It basically runs on the iPad model of "one app at a time." What, you want your test app in one monitor while the debugger is in the other? Fuck you! You get one menu bar, telling which app is focused is impossible, and whichever app isn't on the "dominant" screen has the menu bar on the wrong monitor.
what's more, it's not intuitive at all! there's dozens of things in osx you just have to know, half the users don't even know wtf launchpad is.
Remember how everyone hates that Gnome 3 app launcher thing? The thing that Ubuntu started forcing on everyone? Remember how everyone hates the Metro UI, to the point Microsoft has dropped the "metro" brand? That's the fucking Launchpad. Apparently it's been decided from on high that people like losing their entire screen to a display of giant icons they can slowly scroll through to find whatever they actually wanted. Bleh.
XP will continue to drop (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
True enough. My employer is trying to switch to Windows 7 again. The first attempt failed when some app in bean-counter land failed to function. So after a three month delay, they are trying again.
The prepare for migration instructions this time are much more alarming. Instead of instead of "expect a few hours of minor disruption," It's "Make multiple full back ups of all important data, and we will be wiping your photos and music directories, and if you have applications we did not install through the soft
Re: (Score:3)
A definite change in tone :-)
Sounds like a good change in tone. Backup, cleanup, get real about doing business at work.
Love it!
Methodology? (Score:5, Interesting)
Some of the history there looks a bit sus. And how much can you trust figures that give iOS 66% of the mobile OS market and Android only 21%?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Android ships on over a million devices a day and that doesn't even include the large numbers of non-Google sanctioned gear. Is Apple really moving that many iDevice?
A quick look at my price check shows you get an Android phone with crappy screen and practically useless for surfing from 800 NOK, the iPhone 4 is 4000 NOK. So Android might be selling many phones, but they probably also sell to many more people that never or only occasionally use it to browse the web, while if you're spending 5x that you probably do that for a reason (or you're just an Apple fanboi) and is going to use it actively. So I have no real problem believing these figures.
Re: (Score:3)
It has nothing to do with device sales - it's about usage. It's widely accepted that iOS users surf the web more than Android users. While high end Android devices my get to comparable numbers, you must remember that there is a HUGE range of Android devices from extremely high end devices on the bleeding edge of technology to cheap pieces of crap that nobody in their right mind would want to use to access the internet. iOS devices, on the other hand, are all in the upper range of technology and all are idea
Games require windows 7? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are there games requiring windows 7 yet?
I upgraded from 98 to 2000 because second life required 2000 ... 7? when I find a game I want requiring windows 7.... I have not run into one yet, but I'm sure it'll happen someday?
I upgraded from 2000 to XP but I don't remember which game wouldn't work on 2000 but did on XP
I'll upgrade from XP to
I only upgraded to the most recent service pack of XP when I recently got the couple years old GTA IV.
For all other activities I use my linux and mac machines, the windows PC is just for gaming.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are there games requiring windows 7 yet?
There are a few [wikipedia.org] that require vista and up for DirectX support.
Re: (Score:2)
Must have extensive fallback support. On that list I've got bioshock, civ 5, ddo, sto, all of them work fine on XP. If the graphics would be visibly better, I'll have to look into what W7 requires.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just wait until the 360 is retired, you'll see a major shift to DX11, which cannot run on XP.
Or you could also upgrade to 7 because it's plain and simply a better, more modern OS?
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could also upgrade to 7 because it's plain and simply a better, more modern OS?
LOL for me its a video game bootloader not a OS. "better" is defined as boots faster or somehow magically makes the game better, apparently I better start looking into what I'll need for DX11 etc.
Re:Games require windows 7? (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's see... Battlefield 3 is Vista/7 only, the next Call of Duty is Vista/7 only, probably more than that on the way.
Main reason is that Microsoft isn't porting Direct3D 10 or 11 back to XP - you can only go up to D3D 9. As more games are tending to use D3D10/11, the burden of adding a D3D9 renderer just for XP support increases.
And while XP and 7 may have just reached equality among the general population, gamers have upgraded far quicker. Looking at the Steam Hardware Survey, about 70% run some version of Windows 7, 13% run XP, 10% run Vista, 5% run OS X, and the rest are either already on W8 (0.25%) or "Unknown". Main reason, I think, is the prevalence of systems with >4GB of memory. 64-bit XP may have existed, but it was very rare, and had poor driver support. Vista was the first to ship with real 64-bit support, and 7 tried to make 64-bit the "default", moving 32-bit to "legacy". So all those gamers with 8-32GB of memory are running either Vista or 7.
Consoles tie into this, but in a somewhat weird way. See, the Xbox 360 is sort of halfway between D3D9 and D3D10. So as long as the game has a port to that console (or *is* a port from that console), making it run in D3D9 isn't exceptionally difficult. But as soon as the next-gen consoles hit, D3D9 (and thus, XP gaming) are toast.
Re: (Score:2)
There have been minor ones that require Vista or 7. Rather laughably, I seem to remember that the PC version of Halo 2 (which is ancient) "required" Vista in an early (and unsuccessful) attempt to get people to upgrade.
It's only started to get more serious for XP gamers over the last year or so. The news that the next Call of Duty will require Vista or 7 on PC may be the last straw for some.
Not many but yes (Score:3)
Battlefield 3 would be a major one. It requires Vista or 7 as it is DirectX 10 and above only, it has no DX9 support.
This is likely to accelerate as time goes on. There are serious design advantages to the DX10+ rendering model, and it is a pain to both implement it and then an old DX9 model. As more people have Windows 7 or newer systems, it is more profitable to have games require it.
Re: (Score:3)
Are there games requiring windows 7 yet?
Yes. Are there many? No. But if you look at STEAM's HW survey [steampowered.com] for PC's you'll see that about 57% of the market is Windows7 these days. Now there's at peak about 4-5m users on, there's 30-35m accounts. Probably be a lot more since they're getting into selling retail applications through steam too. Which should give an even broader picture.
The only thing holding back DX11 in gaming is...can you guess it? Consoles.
Re: (Score:2)
trolling (Score:5, Insightful)
I have some questions about both the data and the summary.
In the July to August time frame the data has 1% of the users moving to "other". I'm assuming that 1% is some mixture of Windows 8 and OSX 10.8 betas because I can't think of any other big events that happened between July and August. Which means the math is likely off in the summary.
As an aside in the source data I have problems OSX being well above 8% (now at 12%) of sales and the figure for market share being around 6-7%. I'd love to see some breakdown that explicates the discrepancy between sales figures and usage figures when they show up, because they are rather common.
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of people where I work run mac laptops because it is one of three or so options on the IT buy list. Almost all of them run Win7 on them. That type of thing may explain some of it.
Re: (Score:3)
As an aside in the source data I have problems OSX being well above 8% (now at 12%) of sales and the figure for market share being around 6-7%. I'd love to see some breakdown that explicates the discrepancy between sales figures and usage figures when they show up, because they are rather common.
I imagine (and it's just a guess) that it has to do with people still using very old PCs. While sales percentages have shifted, legacy equipment still in use results in a discrepancy in usage percentages.
Just a guess though. It could also be the people running these surveys don't know their ass from their elbow.
lol, typical slashdot headline (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where does Linux figure in that list? :)
"Other"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you expand the survey to include tablets and other mobile devices (what increasing numbers of people are using as their primary computing device), Android looks pretty respectable. Its behind iOS on tablets, but still making a respectable showing. Its ahead of iOS on phones. Windows mobile variants are down in the noise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
likewise. people are really ignoring the fact that android wouldn't haven been possible without linux and it really is the unsung hero.
Yeah... (Score:3)
Latest market share figures show the difference between perception and reality.
Yeah, let's just call statistics from netmarketshare "reality".
So what? (Score:2)
WTF? People are buying Vista? (Score:2)
Microsoft is not selling Vista any more. Apple is not selling OS X 10.6.
I believe what they are referring to with the words "market share" is what normal people call "installed base."
Re: (Score:3)
Why market share matters (Score:2)
Market share is important if you use actual applications - in other words, do real work with your computer. It also matters if you rely on third party hardware. The effort will go in to making sure they work on the dominant platforms, and the smaller ones will be an afterthought. You're more likely to find advice online relating to running the software on the dominant platform and bugs will get fixed for it first.
That's why I use Windows.
Re: (Score:3)
Simple example: wifi printers. I know a Mac user who gave up in frustration and uses her wifi enabled printer via USB. Turned out, as far as I could tell, that her router didn't support the Bonjour protocol. On Windows it just worked. Things like that will be tested on Windows because the majority of purchasers use Windows.
Options (Score:4, Insightful)
Some businesses will keep using Windows XP because there are always factory floor computers that simply are a pain in the ass to upgrade - for all practical purposes it's impossible to upgrade, and the OS will get updated only when the old hardware gets dumped and they get a new computer... and that might never happen because factory managers are not likely to invest in fixing something that's not broken.
And there are personal users who use their computer entirely for facebook/email - they really don't care if their OS supports the latest industry standard features or not. Expect those to be still using windows xp, and maybe eventually switch to an internet appliance device (like ipad) and get rid of the computer altogether. For a great majority of people out there, an ipad does everything they expect from a computer: browse facebook, write email, play farmville. Remember it was only 20 years ago that computers still were not a household item, computers were for geeks. The computer became mainstream only because it started appealing to the dumb masses, it's not because all of a sudden there's a surge in computer geek population. It will eventually go back to what it was - computers one day will return to being a geeky thing, and general population will move to using locked-down internet appliances instead of general purpose computing devices.
As for me, I would rather use a decade old general purpose computer rather than an iPad. I would rather use Linux than OS X. I used computers before they were cool, and I will use computers after they stop being cool. I am the minority, I am a geek. Internet used to be a place where we could find like-minded people, but now it's eternal September [wikipedia.org].
the problem is (Score:2)
Apple likely made more on OS X than Vista (say 10.4->10.6 or so being the era in question) since people that wanted OS X had to buy hardware from Apple too which they make buckets of money on. Different business model entirely is it shocking that a mid to high end hardware manufacturer sells fewer units than the company that gets their software pre-bundled with everything from low end to top end systems?
Apple has a good model for a hardware company they get profit margin based on exclusivity, MS gets it
hmm (Score:2)
Re:OS X is THE superior OS (Score:4, Insightful)
"Not everyone has the money to buy them. Sad, for them."
That's the kind of dumb, elitist comment that shows what a tool you are. Perhaps people don't see the point in paying extortionist fees for an OS and hardware that doesn't do anything that their current OS does and is typically of lesser performance.
Re:OS X is THE superior OS (Score:5, Insightful)
MacOS X is a taste, that's all -- neither better nor worse for everyone. Your preference.
My 18 year old daughter has had full exposure to both Windows and MacOS X; the Windows PC on her desktop, the MacBook Pro was a loaner for the last two years at High School, part of a Communications specialty program.
When it came time for a laptop for college, she wanted Windows. She's no computer expert, just a regular user, doing everyday stuff: games, word processing, photos, internet. And video... she liked video editing on the PC better. Largely because her Mac was just terrible at it. It didn't handle native video editing from her AVCHD camcorder, while her Windows PC did, easily. She did all her editing on the Mac in either DV (which worked dandy in any Windows editor back in the 90s) or in Apple's "iFrame" format, which is basically a chopped down qHD (960x540), I-Frame only. This is the format Apple actually "invented", since they couldn't deal with actual HD video, other than to transcode to ProRes, which they only support in Final Cut Pro (she ran Final Cut Express on the Mac).
Tragically, the school she just went off to (Montclair University) is still using Final Cut Pro in their Broadcasting department, so they strongly recommended a Mac PC. I had found a great 3rd generation i7-based laptop from Asus: metal casework, four USB 3.0, 8GB RAM, 750GB HDD, 1920x1080 display, separate graphics, etc. for $1100. Having to switch to a Mac, I manged to find a slower 2nd generation i7, only two USB 2.0 + Thunderbolt (good idea, but currently fairly useless), 4GB RAM, 1600x900 display, slower separate graphics, 750GB HDD, etc. for "only" $1800. That was a factory-refurbished model (this the "discount" price), and they screwed up and delivered an 8GB unit. But seriously -- you're paying twice as much just to get MacOS. Plus, add-in the $100 extra to put Windows on the system, and, well... have to wait on that new electric guitar.
Apple makes decent hardware. But so do many other companies -- after all, cool casework has been about the only innovation in personal computers for the last 10 years; everything else has been predictable, incremental growth. Apple's well known to be making 5x as much profit per PC shipped as just about anyone else. If you must have MacOS, it's the price you pay, but there's no basis for any technical belief Apple's making a superior product, HW or OS.
Re:OS X is THE superior OS (Score:4, Insightful)
But seriously -- you're paying twice as much just to get MacOS.
This is something I have to explain over and over: OS X is nice, but I pay twice as much for the trackpad. I can't use a non-Mac laptop without plugging in a mouse.
Re:OS X is THE superior OS (Score:5, Informative)
Re:OS X is THE superior OS (Score:5, Insightful)
probably the same as everyone else, that windows 7 will get the job done until someone in microsoft picks a single design and sticks with it for windows 9.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:OS X is THE superior OS (Score:4, Insightful)
The median family in the US make around $50K or less a year, while the median house is more in the range of $200K. This means the median family cannot afford the median house.
Perhaps a quarter of homes do not have a computer, so is it elitist for those of who can own a computer to so do?
What one has depends on two variables: what one can earn and how one allocated the resources. When I was a kid i did not have a nice pair of jeans or a pair of Jordans but I did have an Apple computer. The only reason this sounds elitist is that so many people think these highly popular consumer products are an entitlement. It is like parents clamoring that a toy has been sold out for christmas. I know kids are very demanding but really. We should have some perspective here. There are all sorts of thing we cannot afford or cannot have. Life goes on.
What is elitist is thinking not being able to afford a Mac is the most critical problem one has.
Re:OS X is THE superior OS (Score:5, Insightful)
yea your paying 1000$ extra for a slower machine than the walmart box
not all of us are looking for the prettiest computer, the nicest tennis shoes and the blingiest bling
Re:OS X is THE superior OS (Score:5, Interesting)
yea I just looked at walmarts website, for 600 bucks you get a 17 inch toshiba laptop with a 2.5ghz i5 750 gig hard diskand 6 gigs of ram, meanwhile you would pay 1,200 for a 2.5 ghz i5 with 4 gigs of ram, 500 gig hard drive, 13 inch screen and a OS that doesnt run half of what people want
enjoy your logo
Re:OS X is THE superior OS (Score:4, Insightful)
"half of what people want"
A web browser? To *most* people a computer is just another appliance, like a toaster. It might have a few more features, but in the end they want it for a limited set of tasks. Browsing the web, editing photos, collecting/serving media, and a handful of other tools.
Windows, Linux, OSX all have these tools. It's merely a matter of preference now.
Re: (Score:3)
My PCs last pretty much indefinitely. Funny thing, my officemate's Mac has had all kinds of problems.
Guess anecdotal stories are what you make of them.
Re:OS X is THE superior OS (Score:4, Insightful)
True, but the patent abuse is more than enough to justify not buying anything from Apple. Or Microsoft, for that matter.
Re:OS X is THE superior OS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:OS X is THE superior OS (Score:4, Funny)
The software you need to use is the real reason you use a computer, not because you want to use an OS.
I'm a kernel hacker, you insensitive clod.
Re:OS X is THE superior OS (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple also has no "non over-priced" products. I'm so bored of the what OS is better. It's a pile of files. The software you need to use is the real reason you use a computer, not because you want to use an OS. All marketing "make a demographic" back when software was in its infancy bullshit. I've got windows7 and do very little windowing.
Whats funny is that 99% of people spend 99% of their time in an application, not sitting in the operating system. Although I'm fully prepared to argue that I've used every major operating system produced in the last 20 years...and they're all pretty much the freaking same once you spend 3 days on it and get used to it.
So sitting in safari on a mac vs chrome on windows. Office apps on a mac vs office apps on windows. Any difference at all? Really? I guess at that point you get reduced to claiming that only an apple trackpad suits you. It doesn't really, but its a fairly pathetic thing to cling to as a last ditch effort to justify the higher cost.
Re: (Score:2)
The software you need to use is the real reason you use a computer, not because you want to use an OS.
I see you haven't met many Apple Fanbois.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:OS X is THE superior OS (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with your analysis is that you've put the cart before the horse. Or, more accurately, the OS before the applications.
Your friend wants to run Adobe stuff. It runs on either OS X or Windows. She has the Windows versions. She is price sensitive. She has no major beef with her current application loader (er, OS).
Yep, the no brainer advice is to keep her on the Windows platform. Because of the apps. (As an aside, it's a moderate PITA to switch out operating systems for Adobe Creative Suite products. Totally amazing here in the 21st Century, but there you have it.)
But good luck finding a Dell that actually competes with an Air in terms of wieght, size and performance. Of course, if she's doing video, then she does not want an Air - she wants a fairly beefy high end laptop. A laptop that is sold by Apple, Dell, Asus, Lenovo, probably HP and bog knows who else. Your best technical advise to here would be 'you want something with a bit more horsepower than an Air - here are a bunch of choices.
The OS is a minor issue.
Re:OS X is THE superior OS (Score:4, Insightful)
Native software will always have significant advantages over web apps. That being the case there's no reason to assume we'll ever do everything via the browser.
Universal thin clients is as old and unfullfilled a prediction as "The year of Linux on the desktop". And you think Microsoft's vision of the future adds any weight? Ha ha.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The question isn't whether or not everything will move to a thin client, it's whether or not a significant chunk of users can do everything they need in a web browser.
Also, as per the article, MS still has 90% of the desktop market, their vision very much matters, especially as they creep into the mobile space, because they really could completely re-envision the desktop-laptop-mobile relationship. Not necessarily for the better of course, but they certainly can change things a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, as per the article, MS still has 90% of the desktop market, their vision very much matters
It matters, in that lots of people use Windows and their vision affects the direction that goes. But their vision for the past decade or two has mostly been wrong. You speak of mobile: they've been losing ground on mobile for years.
Re:OS X is THE superior OS (Score:5, Funny)
This is the first comment you've made on slashdot - very poor effort. It's not even good shilling.
Re:OS X is THE superior OS (Score:4, Funny)
It's getting to the point with you brainwashed Apple fans where I HAVE the mod points, but your post isn't even inspiring me to mod you down as a blatant shill. It's not inspiring me to do anything more than just roll my eyes and make this snarky reply, in fact.
The interface is not the OS (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that the idea of an OS being able to be "beautiful" is sort or wonky. There is no reason such an interface couldn't run on winXP, win2k, or even somewhat in NT4, all you really need is the opengl support in the OS & drivers and you can do nifty things with alpha channel.
I'm also not convinced apple hardware is actually high quality, it's just that their os will only install on their hardware. apple is basically like a crossbreed between dell & microsoft, and this lets them charge premium prices on their run-of-the-mill hardware because their os won't install on other (less expensive, perhaps higher quality) intel hardware.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There is no reason such an interface couldn't run on winXP, win2k, or even somewhat in NT4, all you really need is the opengl support in the OS & drivers and you can do nifty things with alpha channel.
It's not a matter of technicals, it's a matter of taste and UI design expertise. Microsoft doesn't have any taste, and the Linux community lacks UI design expertise.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Not everyone has the money to buy them. Sad, for them."
Most of us on the other hand don't have the Time or Money to waste trying to use, fix and secure Redmond's pathetic products.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_economy [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
OS X comes with Apple's quality hardware. Not everyone has the money to buy them. Sad, for them.
Some have the sense to build a hackintosh with the exact same parts for $500 instead of paying $1500. Others take apart the apple box to find that the hardware is fairly pedestrian and common. Then the disillusionment starts to set in...
Re: (Score:3)
> Why OS X isn't more popular then?
You're simply swimming in the Kool-Aid and don't realize it.
That's why.
People can be given a Mac for free and not take to it. The "superiority" of MacOS is mostly in your head. "Beauty" is highly subjective.