The Great Debate

[Kim Crosser]

the other 15%

Per PC Magazine (yeah - I know you need to consider the source!):

In December 2004, the W3C group measured on-line desktop/personal use by operating system:

Macintosh: 2.7%
Linux: 3.1%
Windows (some flavor): the rest (94.2%)

As a former Mac evangelist (started with an original Lisa, then original Mac 128K, a Mac Plus, a Mac SE/30, a Mac Classic, a Mac Portable [18 pounds!], a Mac LC II, a PowerBook, a Mac PowerPC 601, a PowerMac 8100/80, and an iMac), I am saddened.

As a realist, I surrendered to the dark side and became a Microserf some years ago.

[MikeD]

the other 15%

Per PC Magazine (yeah - I know you need to consider the source!):

In December 2004, the W3C group measured on-line desktop/personal use by operating system:

Macintosh: 2.7%
Linux: 3.1%
Windows (some flavor): the rest (94.2%)

Please provide proof of this data! References?

The story I have is that IDC published a Dec. 2003 report that MS Windows had 93.8% of new licenses issued the previous year (http://www.technewsworld.com/story/32706.html). Hmmm... hasn't changed much in over a year? Plus the fact that you can't buy a PC from anyone except HP without having a MS license issued to you, those numbers seem VERY suspect Kim! How did they measure on-line desktop/personal use fully and completely? It's not possible unless they got access to every servers access logs and then went and asked all those users if it was personal use? Assuming they used a sample, what was the sample, games.msn.com?

Did they count the number of people who where forced to buy a MS license (The Microsoft Tax) just to delete the OS completely and install BeOS, Linux, Minux, OS/2, etc? Not hardly!

People like to believe the 95% lie. It makes them feel good. Just like that guy in the Camery next to you on the freeway likes to think the difference between your car and his is just a couple 0's. It makes him feel better about his decision.

The 15% I threw out was just a rough guess off the top of my head (based on a few reports I read here-and-there over the last year+). I know MS drones like to debate it because MS publishes such bloated numbers so it will look the part. And most everyone buys into the facade. But it's a number that cannot be measured unless you take a census. And that is not likely going to happen. No one will ever know for sure, and THAT is the only fact in this debate.

And for those that care even further: I believe in the freedom of choice! Windows, Mac, Linux, Solaris, IRIX, OS/2, BeOS, etc. It's your money you should be able to decide who gets when buying technology. But you don't have that choice. When you buy a new PC you must pay MS their surcharge. It really is taxation without representation, but since it's not the government doing it people keep quiet. It should anger people but it doesn't.

And the point you ask? I mention it merely to inform Tim that I do not think its wise for a small business owner (like himself) to just throw away 5% (if you buys Kim's story) to 15% (if you buy my story) right off the bat when it would cost him $0 in incremental costs to support 100% of his potential market.

End of sermon...

[gulf911]

Oh Brother, sucked in again. Kim's numbers are correct. Forced? Lets see... if you buy a MAC what OS do you buy???

People are not forced, you can most certainly buy many (whitebox)PC's with no OS. The OS is basically given away anyway by Dell, for example. Sing the praises all you like about the other white meat... the numbers aren't changing, even in the server arena vs Linux. As a matter of fact MS W2003 server OS's outsold Linux Enterprise, and you are not forced into a server OS. Its taken quite a while but with XP and W2003 server, MS has a reliable and fairly secure OS. Don't look now but you have to pay for Linux now also. Right now MS has a more robust OS, period. Again this doesn't mean this can't change, but I don't see it anytime soon. How do I know? I have been supporting/installing/configuring/tweaking all of them since the mid 80's.

Off soapbox..

[rss996]

What is a MAC????????????

[Kim Crosser]

Reference : http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1745930,00.asp - John C. Dvorak's PC Magazine column of December 28, 2004.

This other article "debunks" Dvorak's claim of decreasing Mac share (and gives real numbers over time), but still says Mac is only 2.7%. http://sean.typepad.com/ditto/2005/01/debunking_dvora.html
(Note that the debunker doesn't explain the missing market share - since Mac+Linux = 5.8% and he claims Windows is 89.9% - somewhere he lost 4.3%.)

Admittedly, Dvorak publishes these columns intentionally to stir up emotions, and his claim of "shrinking" market doesn't stand up. My post was along the same lines - it was intended as a (semi-)humorous prod.

I was a long-time Mac afficionado, and went around explaining to those poor schmucks running DOS and early Windows systems just how bad they had it - especially with the early Mac OS, where "plug and play" really worked well, and when just installing some memory in a Windows system required tweaking the OS configuration manually (and you needed an hour or two of IT help to add a new disk drive or printer!).

Somewhere around the early '90s, Windows caught up with the Mac in usability, while "Type 1" errors started to be all too common on the PowerPCs/PowerMacs as the Mac OS bloated and became more complex. Now, I would argue that the only real difference between Mac and Windows is a matter of personal preference for the UI - there isn't any significant functional difference.

[martinreinhardt]

Windows isn't even an OS

The best products of 2004
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/12/30/01FEtoyawards_1.html

[Jad]

I have an unusual cure for irrational hatred of perfectly good companies. I suffered this with Microsoft, Starbucks and Philip Morris. I decided on the 'if you can't beat them, join them' approach with a twist. I have bought stock in each of the companies, Microsoft split and is up 15%, Starbucks is up 170% and Philip Morris, along with a great dividend, is up 50%. Now I am perfectly happy having a cigarette while I enjoy my Starbucks at an internet cafe. Well, I don't smoke or drink coffee, but I do go to Starbuck and get other drinks and accept MS dominance of the world. Plus, if the stocks ever tank, I still win as these companies suck and deserve to suffer

So, I can be bought, but wouldn't any of you accept a ride in the MS Formula 1 program if offered Or happily take free tires from them for that matter if offered.

[Kim Crosser]

...perfectly good companies.

??? Microsoft uses their OS dominance to stifle competition in other areas - if the FTC and some pesky European governments would quit hassling them, they would happily continue destroying any companies that dare to offer better software at lower prices.

Starbuck's is the Wal-Mart of coffee (but at Mr. A's prices). Any other coffee vendor offers better tasting coffee at better prices, but with a Starbuck's on every block, where ya gonna go? ("Guatemalan coffee growers, working on Starbuck's plantations, are paid poverty prices for their toil." - Global Exchange organization sweatshop study)

Philip Morris - "Smokers' early deaths may be a boon to the Czech Republic's finances, a study commissioned last year by Philip Morris Cos. said." Let's see - by killing off our customers, we help governments save money!

Doh! Perfectly bad companies is probably a better term. Too bad corporate anti-social behavior continues to get rewarded in the market.

[Jad]

OK, nothing is happening on the forum, so I will stir a little...

Unfortunately, beating your competition and giving people what they want is good business whether polically correct and nice or not. People are addicted to cigarettes and coffee and will go elsewhere if these evil companies don't supply the fix they want (how did Starbuck get on every corner to begin with if they are so bad). You think other good companies wouldn't love it if you would become addicted to their products (like we are with Porsche )

I am not saying this is good, or I like it, but my not buying cigarettes and coffee wasn't working at putting them out of business, so at least with this new strategy I can afford my addiction to Porsches . It is bad, but I now have less hate for the supplier everytime I see someone who clearly can't afford it paying $5 for coffee or smoking, it is not my choice what they choose to do with their money.

This is way off an appropriate forum topic, so I shall shut up now like I should have 10 lines ago, yet again