In other words, for example, out of hundred existing Windows users, for every five that "upgrade" to Vista, there are at least three that move to Mac. In the process, Vista may have gained 5% of XP users, but Windows has lost 3% to Mac.

It's important to make the distinction between business and home market share. While I agree that Macs will soon dominate the home market (again), there is an enormous hurdle in the business world, where the amazingly vast majority of desktops are running Windows. IT managers and CTOs are numbskulls and it will take a major, major, major effort to get them to allow, much less support and embrace, Macs. Until Apple develops and supports an Enterprise line of products (both hardware and software) there will be no chance. OS X Server is cool , but apparently doesn't scale well. One machine (Xserve) and no clear desktop option will hinder the business market absorption.

At the same time, Microsoft is improving, slowly but surely, especially in the Server market, and just might be able to eek out a new OS (Singularity based) that will satisfy everyone. Well at least satisfy the IT managers and CTOs.

Once the tipping point has been passed (and that's 51% folks, not 100%) nothing can stop the momentum. This is likely what we'll see over the next couple of years, with Microsoft's continued decline.

Guest @ Thu Jul 03, 2008 2:54 pm

There is no way that Singularity is going to be anything more then a think tank project.

The numbskull IT managers and CTOs of today were the college students of yesterday. Today's students, increasingly, are using Macs. So while there is currently a bias against Macs in business, within the next generation, this bias will be greatly diminished, if not eliminated.

Mac users will get promoted to IT management and CTO, but more immediately, many college grads and job switchers will prefer employers that allow them to use Macs. Those employers with a no-Macs policy with find themselves at a recruiting disadvantage, at least in good economic times.

It'll take years, but it'll get progressively better.

Comparing XP to Vista transitions is hardly comparable to Windows to Mac. An XP user who doesn't want change has no choice but to get Vista on his new computer.

I'm sure that far more then 16% of Mac users are using Leopard, as opposed to Tiger. And how many Mac users are upset that they can't get Tiger on their new macs?

I thought the short but well-stated comments are right on target. My gut feeling as well, is that increasingly we will experience an erosion of Windows dominance, and all it's clone machines. Fact is, OS-X works. And with powerful processors to come (quad core in a notebook maybe?) and a leaner and meaner Snow Leopard, it's a double plus.

I really believe Windows is on a downhill trend going forwardw. Snow Leopard will contribute to the impact. Similar to an individual trying to evolve entreprenership, without a plan or idea, you go nowhere. MS doesn't seem to have a plan for future incarnations of Windows. As it is, they have a lot of recovering to do with their big 7-year mistake with Vista.

Only downside of OS-X's increasing popularity is I really DON'T want to see OS-X grow to the extent of Windows. There is something about finesse, and a niche market, (like owning a BMW versus a Volkswagen or small Toyota). OS-X might lose it's luster if it becomes a commodity OS.

Mr. Ballmer and Microsoft face a dilemma with Windows:(1) they can make incremental but inadequate improvements to Windows so as to maitain its backward compatibility with all of its existing applications, or (2) they can decide to undertake a complete overhaul of Windows to correct all of its deficiencies and update it to a modern architecture but, in so doing, sacrifice backward compatibility and require that legacy applications run in a compatibility layer. The first option means that Windows is probably headed toward the cascading failure that Mr. Martellaro describes, supra.

Adopting the second option creates a strategic opening for OS X and Window's other competing OSs, because, to use the capabilities of a modernized Windows, every existing application will have to be rewritten and, more importantly, repurchased. Thus, every CTO and CIO will be free to choose the OS, applications, and licensing terms that are in his company's best interests, since he has no legacy applications and must buy everything anew anyway. Developers will also be free to choose the OS that they want to develop for. That kind of freedom means that Windows would have to compete against OS X and Linux and who know what else on the merits, instead of relying on its monopoly and its installed base of legacy applications, and will have rely on its good will with decision makers and developers. And once the vassals are free, it is hard to imagine that they will have much good will toward their former Lord Microsoft, who constantly laid its heavy boot upon their necks. The second option may lead to a structurally sound version of Windows, but it also means a fair fight, where Windows shall almost certainly lose it monopoly and must henceforth compete on the merits to maintain and acquire its customers.

Cascading failure or, for the first time in more than twenty five years, competing on the merits, that is quite a dilemma. Whatever shall Mr. Ballmer do? Mr. Ballmer, of course, has a third option, which Microsoft doesn't have. He can follow Mr. Gates into retirement, use his vast wealth to set up a charitable foundation, and embark on a career in philanthropy.

Check out Midori
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1466

Quote

Willmark wrote:
Guest @ Thu Jul 03, 2008 2:54 pm

There is no way that Singularity is going to be anything more then a think tank project.

Midori, anyone?
http://gizmodo.com/5021126/microsoft-midori-is-a-secret-post+windows-operating-system

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Midori, anyone?
http://gizmodo.com/5021126/microsoft-midori-is-a-secret-post+windows-operating-system

Rumor and conjecture, anyone?

Is this Mary Jo Foley? Has she ever gotten anything right?

.. as a conceptional it sounds cool. Who knows what 5 years will bring to the OS market. We all agree that leopard won't be the OS of choice in 5 years. I hope not anyway.

I think competition is a good thing. I would like Apple's OS to be a smaller market. I think Apple moves faster than MS and is more willing to take risks. Of course those risks come with mistakes and bad press. OS 10.0 anyone? Ugh...

That said, both of my folks have moved from the Windows platform to mac laptops and are amazed. Well, mostly by 10.5.3's ability to screenshare, via iChat, with them over the internet (from Japan to Cape Cod) with no router-based firewall changes or IP addresses needed. Works great.

I think as my dad watched that whole process - he saw the platform difference immediately and was enamored. He is a crusty windows user from the 3.11 days.

Quote

Nemo wrote:
Mr. Ballmer and Microsoft face a dilemma with Windows:(1) they can make incremental but inadequate improvements to Windows so as to maitain its backward compatibility with all of its existing applications, or (2) they can decide to undertake a complete overhaul of Windows to correct all of its deficiencies and update it to a modern architecture but, in so doing, sacrifice backward compatibility and require that legacy applications run in a compatibility layer.

I anticipated that MS would have pursued the 2nd option years ago. At that point in time, a decision would have had to be made between Mac and Window. And the decision would have been tough. Now though, Mac is running on all cylinders and gaining share. MS let Windows drift in order to maintain profits but it sacrificed its future.

"Writing code like they did in the old days", "vets", ?? Hmmm.... scary!!! And how did MS get windows to work initially? Will Jobs sell them a license again? Oh dear..... and who is buying vista..... Oh! - is that right, I can get a down grade license for "free" to XP if I buy vista ultimate?! Oh, and what are those little grey furry things jumping off the ship and onto the dock - couldn't be a sign surely.

Perhaps the cascade is getting very close to sinking windows as a viable future os.

Cheers

The term 'cascade failure' is an interesting choice. It happens to be the term I've used for some years to describe a particular class of Windows problems. The customer starts by complaining that X doesn't work, X being an application, or printing, or sending e-mail or something. As I look at the system problems start cropping up in other areas; networking fails, all apps give a fatal error when you try to start them, strange screen redraw errors show up. All of this can snowball over a period of 15 to 30 minutes. The only solution is to Nuke&Pave i.e. format and rebuild the whole system.

IMO that's what M$ needs to do. Nuke&Pave Windows. Start over with a *nix core and build a new environment on top of it with a compatibility layer for legacy 95-XP apps.

Sound familiar?

Quote

geoduck wrote:
IMO that's what M$ needs to do. Nuke&Pave Windows. Start over with a *nix core and build a new environment on top of it with a compatibility layer for legacy 95-XP apps.

I completely agree that that is what needs to happen. I'm not sure MS has the will, nor the time, to implement something along these lines. The Mac marketshare is continuing to rise, albeit slowly. But if Mac OS reaches 10% the increases could come much faster and cause greater angst for MS.

Several items about this article come to mind.

"...market share of Mac OS X had leaped from about 6 percent to 8 percent in the last year. Vista fans have countered that Vista's market share has climbed from 4.5 percent to 16.1 percent in the same period..."

Are we really talking about OS X, or Mac OS? Wouldn't it make more sense to talk purely about Mac OS vs. Windows? Trying to measure individual version market share is practically pointless -- it's like counting the market share of blue Porsches vs. red Corvettes.

"...a two percent gain by Apple in 12 months is nothing to brag about..."

Agreed, 2% wouldn't be anything to brag about. But going from 6% to 8% is a 33% increase, not a 2% increase. At this rate, it will take less than 7 years to exceed 50% marketshare.

"...Microsoft never bit the bullet and revamped the architecture of Windows as Apple did in going from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X..."

Not true. Microsoft did exactly this with Windows NT, but then allowed it to be pushed to the background by the cheapskates who wanted Windows 9-5/8. The nice, clean, architected, VMS-based Windows NT was corrupted in NT 4.0 (e.g., usermode GDI) and Win2manyZeros. The home and game users who could not see the benefit of an architected solution destroyed any chance for business to have a stable environment. Let this be a lesson to Mac-o-philes. (I know what I'm talking about, as I was a leading advocate for the now defunct Windows NT on the now defunct Alpha RISC platform, and I suffered through that MS fiasco. It's nice to be back on Mac!)

"...Windows will be victimized by cascade failure..."

Your example is not of a cascade failure. A cascade failure is where one small initiating failure creates another failure, which creates others, then more, a continuing chain of subsequent failures, until the whole system is broken. You'll need a better analogy. Sorry, I don't have one to offer.

"...Mac OS X market share will reach an inflection point and depart the linear curve..."

I believe that point has been reached, with the 33% growth rate mentioned above. The trick is to maintain or increase that 33% growth rate.

"...And if I were a Windows apologist right now, I wouldn't be looking at Vista market share as a glowing indicator of Microsoft's strengths."

I agree whole-heartedly.

Quote

Alphaman wrote:
Several items about this article come to mind.

"...market share of Mac OS X had leaped from about 6 percent to 8 percent in the last year. Vista fans have countered that Vista's market share has climbed from 4.5 percent to 16.1 percent in the same period..."

Are we really talking about OS X, or Mac OS? Wouldn't it make more sense to talk purely about Mac OS vs. Windows? Trying to measure individual version market share is practically pointless -- it's like counting the market share of blue Porsches vs. red Corvettes.

And just what other "Mac OS" would you want to include? OS 9? Maybe 8.5? How about 7.1? System 6? The number of users of pre-OS X versions must be in the "statistically insignificant" zone by now.

Do realize that "OS X" includes: Cheetah, Puma, Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, and Leopard, plus the server versions--and, in a sense, the iPhone OS, too, though that is fairly small numbers.

Quote

gslusher wrote:
And just what other "Mac OS" would you want to include? OS 9? Maybe 8.5? How about 7.1? System 6? The number of users of pre-OS X versions must be in the "statistically insignificant" zone by now.

Yes, absolutely. If we are to be totally fair and impartial, then it must be an oranges to oranges comparison. Anything else would be turned around and used as fodder against any rational argument we posed, just as the members here are critiquing the Windows/Vista numbers.

Unless you can back up that "statistically insignificant" with facts, of course.

Alternatively, a comparison could be made of Leopard vs. Vista, and Tiger vs. XP, or some other appropriate dividing line. But to say MacOS vs. Vista or Leopard vs. Windows needlessly confuses and misrepresents the statistics by contrasting product families against specific products.

The Mac may have a 7.5% US market share. But its Global market share is only around 2%. The Mac can only take windows market share from the domestic market of a few industrialized countries, chief of which is the US. While this may account for a significant percentage at the moment (25% of PC users live in US), that percentage is slowly shrinking as major developing countries' consumers (China and India in particular) increasingly adopt the PC into their daily lives. Macs are just too expensive to compete globally with the PC. Eventually the Mac growth curve will just plateau once the small niche market they occupy gets totally saturated with the Mac.