OptimisTech
Senior member
- Nov 13, 2001
- 277
- 0
- 71
Originally posted by: jlbenedict
To me, it appears Apple is hypocritical now.. They mock Vista.. yet, they are the ones developing "Boot Camp" so Windows operating systems can run on your Mac.
This is another reason Mac OS X will NEVER surpass Windows' market share. Why would developers spend time and money writing OS X native software when they can turn around and say "Install Windows on your Mac."
Even if Mac OS X gets licensed out, the developers will continue waiting for the OS X market share to reach a level that warrants spending money on.
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
Because that also requires spending money on a Windows license thus increasing the cost of using their software by a couple of hundred dollars. No software company in their right mind would advertise that their software works on Macs but only if you install Windows first.
its funny MS has 95% of the market share tons of cash for R&D and they can't even stay ahead of the little guys OS wise.
What developer would say install windows on your mac?Originally posted by: secretasianman325
Originally posted by: jlbenedict
To me, it appears Apple is hypocritical now.. They mock Vista.. yet, they are the ones developing "Boot Camp" so Windows operating systems can run on your Mac.
This is another reason Mac OS X will NEVER surpass Windows' market share. Why would developers spend time and money writing OS X native software when they can turn around and say "Install Windows on your Mac."
Even if Mac OS X gets licensed out, the developers will continue waiting for the OS X market share to reach a level that warrants spending money on.
What developers will continue waiting (besides game)? Most of the big ones already develop software for OS X. If their software is worth anything to the masses its likely worth spending a few $$ to port it to Mac OS so they can sell it and make even more money. I have had a Macbook Pro for a few weeks (I got it free from a client) I have installed XP on it but besides setting it up have never booted into it. Its to much hassle I am a network admin for handful of small-medium business so if I need to do some thing I can ssh or Remote Desktop into a box and do it there, even then not much I cant do on the Mac.
Oddly enough I haven't used my PC much at all since I got it.(good thing since its in the basement and it really freaking cold down there these last few weeks) I thought it would be a toy for me and I would be using XP on it, I was wrong it took like a week to get my work flow worked out. Hard to call myself a mac use but I use OS X now to get my work done.
But since I deal with people and there computers every day I can say OS X will never surpass windows in market share. Think of all the people out there using computers at there jobs most of them know nothing about computers if you switched them to a different email program they would be lost for a week, after internet explorer 7 came it confused many of my users and its just a web browser, a few of the bad boys whom like to browse the bad stuff resulting in getting all kinds of nasty malware type things I installed and suggested using Forefox even after explaining to some of them a few times you have to click the orange thing instead of the blue thing to use they still can't manage to click the right program. I can't fathom what changing OS's would be like.
- Mar 4, 2000
- 27,370
- 240
- 106
In market share - never! But, technically, Apple has always been chased by Windows. Vista was chasing OSX Tiger - and now as Vista stumbles out of the gate, Leopard is about to hit the street.
Conclusion? Market share does not reflect technical superiority. Example - VHS vs Betamax. What creates market share is perceived value, i.e., what you get for the money paid.
To maximize OS market share, keep it cheap, simple, allow rser customization, and avoid proprietary hardware.
Conclusion? Market share does not reflect technical superiority. Example - VHS vs Betamax. What creates market share is perceived value, i.e., what you get for the money paid.
To maximize OS market share, keep it cheap, simple, allow rser customization, and avoid proprietary hardware.
Without application support... OS X will not make it.
I actually think that in about 5 years, Apple will stop developing OS X/XI and just sell boutique, designer windows hardware and consumer electronics plus media/software download services.
MS has already announced that the next major OS release (after Vienna) will involve a "compatibility break", which I take mean a fundamental OS architecture change ala mac OS 9 --> OS X.
I am totally guessing here but my guess is shared by, and based upon, some industry "Experts"... the next MS OS is going to be a UNIX based OS.
MS signed a large agreement/settlement with Sun as you'll remember... as part of that agreement, technology licensing terms were more or less completely spelled out giving MS full access to all Solaris IP.
So I think MS OS 2012 will be UNIX, based upon Solaris. Win32/64 compatibility will be provided for, etc.
This move would remove any technical advantage that OS X, linux, or any other unix based system has on MS's OS.
I actually think that in about 5 years, Apple will stop developing OS X/XI and just sell boutique, designer windows hardware and consumer electronics plus media/software download services.
MS has already announced that the next major OS release (after Vienna) will involve a "compatibility break", which I take mean a fundamental OS architecture change ala mac OS 9 --> OS X.
I am totally guessing here but my guess is shared by, and based upon, some industry "Experts"... the next MS OS is going to be a UNIX based OS.
MS signed a large agreement/settlement with Sun as you'll remember... as part of that agreement, technology licensing terms were more or less completely spelled out giving MS full access to all Solaris IP.
So I think MS OS 2012 will be UNIX, based upon Solaris. Win32/64 compatibility will be provided for, etc.
This move would remove any technical advantage that OS X, linux, or any other unix based system has on MS's OS.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
I also think the Mac vs PC commercials are dumb, but because they attack Vista yet they don't have the balls to actually compete with MS.
If Apple wanted to compete with Windows, they wouldn't go out of their way to NOT allow Mac OS to run on PC's. They would do the opposite, they would WANT Mac OS to run on PC's, they would want to put Mac OS on Dell desktops and laptops. But it's obvious they don't want to do that.
And the problem with Linux is there is no money behind it, pushing it, not as far as marketing to consumers. There is money to made in supporting it via the business sector, but one problem, especially for small businesses, is people who WORK in the in their IT have a Windows based system at home, and will recommend Windows at work. Plus these companies usually by OEM machines, and OEM's, especially Dell, don't pay $90 for OEM XP Home, they pay maybe $25, and that discount is passed to the customer. And who wants linux for free when Windows is only $25?
If Apple wanted to compete with Windows, they wouldn't go out of their way to NOT allow Mac OS to run on PC's. They would do the opposite, they would WANT Mac OS to run on PC's, they would want to put Mac OS on Dell desktops and laptops. But it's obvious they don't want to do that.
And the problem with Linux is there is no money behind it, pushing it, not as far as marketing to consumers. There is money to made in supporting it via the business sector, but one problem, especially for small businesses, is people who WORK in the in their IT have a Windows based system at home, and will recommend Windows at work. Plus these companies usually by OEM machines, and OEM's, especially Dell, don't pay $90 for OEM XP Home, they pay maybe $25, and that discount is passed to the customer. And who wants linux for free when Windows is only $25?
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
That's because 90% of the device support in OS X is done by Apple and there's no way that they could make OS X run on even decent number of generic PCs without a huge amount of work and 3rd party support and 3rd parties aren't going to jump on the OS X bandwagon without a good reason, essentially Apple's in the same position all of the desktop Linux developers are in right now.
Mark Shuttleworth and Canonical would probably disagree with that statement.
Me. You couldn't pay me to use Windows on my personal machines.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
You are in a very small minority.
Seriously though, there is nothing wrong with that. People should use what is best for them, period, and choices make that possible. Certainly, both Linux and Apple have forced MS to make a better OS.
You're right, and a more accurate statement on my part would be "...there is not enough money behind it..."
I don't quite understand... if you are implying the Solaris being open source now, and possibly GPL3 in the future, means MS could not keep their version closed source then. If that is what you are saying... then here is my view.
Solaris being CDDL and possibly GPL3 in the future does nothing to MS right keep their "Solaris" under wraps, if they want to.
Solaris is the IP/copyright holder...and can and already did grant MS rights to use the "pre-open sourced" Solaris code. When Sun "open sourced" Solaris they effectively created a fork of their code. All additions contributed to Solaris thereafter were done so under the CDDL, any contributions made after the move to GPL3 will be made under the conditions of GPL3...but old code (contributed pre license change) doesn't grandfather into the conditions of the new code.
Am I missing something or did you mean something else.
Either way... do you agree with me that MS has got to be thinking, or least should be thinking, "if we are going to do a compatibility break to make a major OS/hardware architechure change... we should go UNIX (with improvements)."
Well in the U.S. you have the server arena, which from linux-oriented hardware sales is worth about 1.2 or so billion dollars each quarter. This is people paying for Linux, people purchasing hardware without getting support contracts and such won't get counted.
The EU finished a fairly substantial analisys of the worth of Free/Open source software for the European economy. Their conclusions were something along the lines of it would cost a additional 15 billion dollars (their figures are in Euros) to replace currently used Free software with closed source equivelents. People directly invense about 1.2 billion Euro in developing Free/Opensource software. For people developing new software by doing with FLOSS they gain a potential 36% costs in budget. Also by 2010 they expect that FLOSS-related activities is going to worth about 4% of EU GDP. (GDP for 2005 is estimated to be over 14 trillion dollars).
Also they say that in the U.S. the amount of programmers that actually work on pre-packaged propriatory software is around 10%. 70% of programmers work in IT companies developing custom software AND make salaries comparable to those 10%. The demand in the EU for FLOSS skills vs skills using propriatory software is 30% vs 70% (which many wanting both) of job postings. In other words a hell of a lot of programmers make money working on Floss-related software projects.
It's pretty interesting. You can grab the PDF at:
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/ict/policy/doc/2006-11-20-flossimpact.pdf
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
So? I still exist.
The problem isn't money by a long shot, Shuttleworth has proven that already. He built a company around software with no intial income and funded it on his own for several years without making any money, if money was the problem he would have been done after the second release.
No, but MS licensing Solaris code as the base of the next Windows would require MS to amit that they've been wrong for the past 20 years which won't happen. And they'd still have to develop some Win32 compatibility layer because there is no way that they are going to tell everyone "F' off, we're starting over so you have to too.".
MS as a company will die before they break compatibilty that completely. If you've ever talked to anyone at MS you would realize that they all believe they're doing the right thing, they would view switching to unix as a downgrade since their software is already the market leader. MS switching to a unix core would be analogous to the pope switching to buddhism, it's just not going to happen.
I have not directly talked with MS myself, but my father has worked extensively with MS on some projects. I don't think my father has the same view of MS folks that you do... I could be wrong, of course... my dad will almost never openly talk bad about anyone even if they deserve it.
If they don't go UNIX, or at least a UNIX structure (QNX's arch. is hot)... to me, MS is crazy.
But then again, I thought Apple was crazy... they had a chance to do UNIX right and they screwed the pooch with their Mach micro kernel bullsh1t (in my ignorant opinion). So I guess it would be naive of me to think MS is going to see the light and make a huge change that, as you said, would be tanamount to admitting their previous architectures were a mistake.
And don't get me wrong, I like OS X. But I like Solaris and Linux much better. I use windows for games and because most of technical/office software I have to use right now is windows only.
Still... I would like to think the Solaris move would make a lot of sense. Solaris is probably the best OS of the planet...saying nothing about the UI and application support. It is really fast, scalable, and highly secure... and it is an EAL 4+ code base.
It already runs great on x86 and runs on a other platforms which says something about the platform portability.
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
I didn't mean it in a bad way, just that virtually everyone who works at MS genuinely believes that their software is superior to what else is out there and for them to decide to ditch Windows and rebuild it ontop of Solaris would require not only a huge idealogical shift but also all of their developers and 3rd party developers would be essentially starting over.
I wouldn't call Solaris the best OS on the planet, probably not even close. The hardware support is abysmal compared to Windows and Linux and it still comes with CDE by default. Hell the default shell can't even backspace properly. There is definitely potential, as projects like Nextenta show, but there's a long way to go before Solaris could even think about competing with Linux on the desktop and that's saying something.
Oh god this same thing happened at my work. We switched from Lotus Notes to Microsoft Outlook and it resulted in literally dozens of emails being sent around with topics like "how to send mail" and "how to add contacts". We later upgraded to IE7 and some more problems came up since it looks slightly different than IE6 or Firefox or any other browser you can name. Eventually we had a rollback and all computers are once again using IE6.
Chaotic42
Lifer
- Jun 15, 2001
- 34,786
- 1,968
- 126
MacOS marketshare won't move up above 6% or so until they get support for the applications that people use everyday. There's no compelling reason for people to switch. Even if they get tired of Windows, once they find out that some application or game that they use doesn't work, they'll switch back.
Really, if Windows 98 and Windows ME didn't make people switch away from Windows to MacOS, nothing will.
As for Linux, Linux has some severe problems that it has to overcome. First of all, Linux isn't designed for the average person. Applications for Linux are buggy, lack features, and have spotty support. It's not a cohesive package, it's a bunch of programs thrown together with well-wishes from the developer. It's just not designed for end-users. There are no killer apps. There's too much variation.
Don't get me wrong, the new free Unixes are excellent systems. I've been using Linux for 10 years now, but it's going to take one hell of a culture change for Linux to challenge Windows on the desktop.
I'd love to see a Unix core with Windows on top. I miss the hell out of my Unix tools when I'm in Windows (Oh how I miss my greppy-weppy). Windows isn't great, but it's good enough, and that's all it has to be.
Really, if Windows 98 and Windows ME didn't make people switch away from Windows to MacOS, nothing will.
As for Linux, Linux has some severe problems that it has to overcome. First of all, Linux isn't designed for the average person. Applications for Linux are buggy, lack features, and have spotty support. It's not a cohesive package, it's a bunch of programs thrown together with well-wishes from the developer. It's just not designed for end-users. There are no killer apps. There's too much variation.
Don't get me wrong, the new free Unixes are excellent systems. I've been using Linux for 10 years now, but it's going to take one hell of a culture change for Linux to challenge Windows on the desktop.
I'd love to see a Unix core with Windows on top. I miss the hell out of my Unix tools when I'm in Windows (Oh how I miss my greppy-weppy). Windows isn't great, but it's good enough, and that's all it has to be.
the application platforms becoming available now which allow one set of code to compile on linux, apple and windows environments are quite exciting. we are entering a period where the OS you are running will be less relevant, you will be able to access the same tools regardless of the platform you are working with. Eventually M$ will have no choice but to drop the price of Windows, or even give it away free of charge.
That statement makes no sense. They have 95% of the market share. They're so far ahead of 'the little guys' it's a joke.TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 403
-
Facebook
Twitter