Mac share was around 8% last year, it's closer to 10% now. Their laptop share has has been growing at phenomenal rates and with huge numbers of college aged and high school kids using Macs, once those people hit the workforce you're going to see more and more Apple products hitting business shelves and home desktops. Some analysts even peg Apples U.S. market share at up to 20%. While Microsoft certainly is still holding ground for the business sector, and accounts for a huge margin of their market share, Apple's home products have been growing and Vista's bad rep has helped that. As Mac continues to catch on you're going to see it transfer over to the office space more and more.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Windows Vista vs Vista7
- Thread starter Vashypooh
- Start date
Mac share was around 8% last year, it's closer to 10% now. Their laptop share has has been growing at phenomenal rates and with huge numbers of college aged and high school kids using Macs, once those people hit the workforce you're going to see more and more Apple products hitting business shelves and home desktops. Some analysts even peg Apples U.S. market share at up to 20%. While Microsoft certainly is still holding ground for the business sector, and accounts for a huge margin of their market share, Apple's home products have been growing and Vista's bad rep has helped that. As Mac continues to catch on you're going to see it transfer over to the office space more and more.
I clarified what I meant by recapture here:
But please since you have nothing to add to the conversation, keep playing the semantics game.
You know what's more annoying than your spewing BS? You trying to speak for me. Guess what big guy, I'm an IT Manager and my company uses Vista. I'm pretty sure a lot of companies out there are too. Speaking from an IT standpoint, the ONLY reasons why companies won't migrate to a new operating system are:
1. Cost is not justified. There's nothing Vista can do that XP can already do. With enterprise level firewalls and protection, there's no reason for Vista's superior security.
2. 16-bit applications will not work on Vista. A lot of business apps are stuck in the stone age and only someone like you would blame Microsoft for not pushing ahead instead of business apps for falling behind. Business apps had YEARS to get out of the 16-bit age. 32-bit has been around since fucking Windows 95. You can't blame Microsoft for saying enough is enough, and drop legacy support that's been destabilizing their operating systems.
IT Managers don't give one bit of a damn how employees feel about the way the GUI looks. All they need to do is run their applications. They don't need to be mucking with the control panel or network settings or whatever. That's our job.
Quit trying to speak for us. You don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Well you'd be pretty wrong. Most estimates are around 8-10% adoption for enterprises using Vista, even Microsoft admitted Vista adoption on the business side has been slower than they anticipated. Vista does not have the trust of many in the business world including those in the IT world. And you aren't the only IT professional on this forum "big guy". I work in IT for a large multinational semiconductor company and we're still using XP. I've talked to our managers and admins about Vista adoption and they haven't begun even evaluating it. It's not even on the radar. And the ones who have taken a look at it and used it have concerns regarding various issues around Vista. Compatibility being the major one, and not just 16 bit apps, we have tons of proprietary systems and software vendors who don't support Vista or have just begun to. The system requirements are another, we have over 600 boxes on our site alone. This of course is in addition to retraining our admins and support staff, and ensuring our various OSes (Sun Solaris, VMS, Win) can all properly communicate. But hey, don't let me cloud your delusions.
Master Blaster
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2006
- Messages
- 1,442
You are correct. ROI (return on investment), the two examples you speak of, would possibly be negative for a company at this point - generally speaking.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2001
- Messages
- 15,814
Recapture? They never lost it! Get YOUR head out of your ass.
ehh... i wouldent be so sure... the place i work at (which has 250k XP machines) has already stated that we will not be moving to Vista at any point in the forseeable future... and will start evaluating windows 7 soon, since MS wants to sell us more crap lol
honestly, i purchased a lenovo x61, it came with vista... i really wanted to downgrade to XP... but i told myself i would leave it on there for at least 6 months, becuase i figure i need to keep abreast of whats out there... its been a painful few months, vista (even with 4gb of ram) is just slow, even with SP1 and updates and a lot of the "pretty" features turned off, its still just insanely slow...
i have also had a lot of problems with the wireless config, for some reason if i am on a P2P network it loves to disable my wireless nic randomly? a lot of applications that i NEED to use for work and such just flat out wont work properly... and I cant afford to upgrade to the newer versions (an upgrade to this program costs over $2500 and really dosent add any new features)
things like UAC are insanely annoying, and even after disabling all that garbage theres still things it does silently like if i place a file in the program files directory its not actually there but in some shadow folder? what kind of garbage is that?
also even if my user has "administrative" privilages why cant i do whatever i want in the machine? even in a command prompt (which it tells you all comands are run as administrator) certain really stupid things it tells you that you need administrative rights?! wtf?? (i think it was ipconfig /release all - of all things)
long story short, i have a feeling that at the end of my 6 months i will happily format my laptop and insall a copy of XP or maybe FLPC
With all the crap you spew on the forum I find it very difficult to see you working in the IT industry. Besides, you're just repeating what I just said. Those who won't upgrade simply don't have any reason to. There's nothing wrong with XP nor is there anything wrong with Vista. Again, it's the fault of business apps who won't update their software.
I can't wait til you begin listing those proprietary software you spoke of. Go ahead, pick some names out of Google. I'll be here all day.
Do you even know the definition of proprietary? As in we made it and own it? It's stuff we developed in house for our own use. Granted most of this software is not very large or complicated, and some of it runs on the Unix side of the house, but it still needs to properly interface and some of it is crucial to our operations. This in addition to in house developed modules and customizations we've added to vendor supplied software for our specific needs. But that all has nothing to do with this thread. We're all very happy that your business is happily running Powerpoint and Outlook on your Vista systems, but there are plenty of other businesses out there who require more power and flexibility out of it's platform of choice. Vista hasn't shown itself to be reliable and enterprise oriented enough to offer that. Many were hoping Win7 might change that, but so far it's not looking great.
Obviously not if you want a list of the stuff we named and developed solely for our own use.
Vista running poorly on 4 gigs or ram?
Rofl thats a lie.
My brother has a very low quality laptop with only a gig of ram and a low power AMD Turion Dual core. Its been running vista just fine. My brother is also not tech savy in anyway and he has never had a problem with the damn thing.
In fact he stopped using XP on his desktop alltogether (a power Desktop I built for him btw) in favor of his little laptop.
Hating on Vista is annoying and at this point it mainly highlights fanboys.
Rofl thats a lie.
My brother has a very low quality laptop with only a gig of ram and a low power AMD Turion Dual core. Its been running vista just fine. My brother is also not tech savy in anyway and he has never had a problem with the damn thing.
In fact he stopped using XP on his desktop alltogether (a power Desktop I built for him btw) in favor of his little laptop.
Hating on Vista is annoying and at this point it mainly highlights fanboys.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2001
- Messages
- 15,814
im confused by this... what fanboys? apple fanboys? xp fanboys?
and my laptop with 4gb of ram runs slower than my desktop with xp and 2gb of ram... and the CPU's are pretty close, L7500 in my laptop and T7200 in my desktop
Joe Average
Ad Blocker - Banned
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,459
I'd say this:
If you're using the stock Lenovo Vista installation, that's why... the only company that does proper "clean" installs is/was Dell on some of the Vostro series machines where they installed only the OS and the drivers and nothing else. Every other OEM installs some crap of some kind, and Lenovo isn't innocent in that respect.
As for Vista with 4GB being "slow" I find that a bit difficult to believe; within a month the installation should be self-tuned and pretty damned snappy - of course, that presumes it's just the OS and drivers, obviously.
"How fast is fast?"
If you're using the stock Lenovo Vista installation, that's why... the only company that does proper "clean" installs is/was Dell on some of the Vostro series machines where they installed only the OS and the drivers and nothing else. Every other OEM installs some crap of some kind, and Lenovo isn't innocent in that respect.
As for Vista with 4GB being "slow" I find that a bit difficult to believe; within a month the installation should be self-tuned and pretty damned snappy - of course, that presumes it's just the OS and drivers, obviously.
"How fast is fast?"
Is that true? I thought it was only Vista x64, and that 32-bit Vista still has the 16-bit WoW/NTVDM like XP.
I would agree that it would not be economically productive to pay for upgrading a business network to Vista from XP in most cases, but businesses are never quick to migrate; it wasn't long ago that Windows 2000 was still a common sight. I think a more interesting question might be whether they would choose to run Vista or XP when building a new network (I'm not saying they'd all say Vista, probably far from it - but would there be a good reason behind that, or just the general vague dislike of Vista?).
Joe Average
Ad Blocker - Banned
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,459
It is only on 64 bit OSes; 32 bit versions of Windows run 16 bit software just fine. If necessary, that's what virtual machines are for...
Updating software can be costly and can introduce bugs. Why would you update an application that works perfectly fine as is? It's a bit perverse to say it's the business app's "fault" if it's working just fine.
I really don't think it's anyone's "fault" at all; it shouldn't be suprising that certain OSes are not suited to run certain applications and this has nothing to do with blame.
wait wait wait..
did you just compare a laptop and a desktop for performance... and then claim its vista's fault..
I think that qualifies as a first..
Oh dear!
Quarterly sales figures reported by a bloke who is writing up an article about Apples corporate performance? Not the kinda stuff you want to be basing claims of the type criticised upon!
Sales figures fluctuate quite a bit from one short period to another, and sales figures aren't what 'OS market share' is based upon anyways. Usage percentages are what represents the share on OS enjoys in comparison with another. And overall usage levels are best assessed from web browser agent data rather than from sales information/survey. Browser agent market research has its own set of problems and unreliabilities, of course, not the least of which is that they don't pick up the comparitive usages of systems which aren't net-connected.
The figures I used above come from NetApplications reporting. There are several organisations which regularly publish such data (Wiki provides a chart of the figures reported by the leading few) but Net Apllications stuff has the best methodology and and is based upon the biggest and most reliable sample. They've produced a quite reliable picture of overall usage for quite a long time now.
Fluctuations in sales over any particular quarter may or may not mean anything at all. Conclusions drawn from such data are rather wild speculation at best. And in any case, I'd suggest you have another good look at what's actually SAID in the linked article - have a close look at what's actually specifically quoted from Gartner's Mikako Kitagawa, and how it compares to the rather ridiculous headline affixed to the piece. Kitigawa is speaking to research conducted to compare the hardware sales of leading manufacturers such as Dell, HP, and Apple. In relation to OS market share she's only really making specific comment in the form of speculation that if 'mini-laptops' continue to gain popularity/usage, and if Apple continues to not provide one, they might lose overall OS share as a result.
As said, MacIntel helped Aplle gain a wee bit bigger market share than they enjoyed previously. That's a pretty damned big thing for Apple, because two or three percentage points more in the overall usage market translates to a HELLUVA big improvement from Apple's perspective. Climb from 6% overall to 8% overall, for example, means three-fifths of fuck-all in the grander scheme of things, but to Apple it's a 33% improvement.
As said, Apple's share definitely did get better, and of late a wee bit of the gains made have been clawed back.
I'll stick to my understanding of research and analysis, go look at the data, and draw my own conclusions thank you very much. I've no need to go look at a hack journo's grandiose misreportings of the speculations of an analyst who isn't even speaking to relevent research!
And the "Oh Snap!" bullshit is just plain childishly immature