Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Noise Over Mac OS Market Share "Slip"

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the i'll-show-you-flatline dept.

481

OakDragon writes, "Mac OS market share actually slipped since last September. This reverses a trend in the winter and spring months that showed some slight growth. The actual percentage loss is small: 0.02%. But it may be significant since it follows a solid growth trend. It must be disappointing to Apple and Mac fans to see what is basically a flat line in desktop market share." Mac-oriented sites are pointing out the unreliability of the metrics from Net Applications, which are based on users of the HitsLink service.

cancel ×

481 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First Post (0, Troll)

etrnlconundrm (1003711) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141656)

Initiation FTW GNAA Foreva

Mac feebs are... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16141693)

HOHHHHHHHHH-M0HHHHHHHHH-SEXUALS! Every one of them. Of course, they only number about two hundred, total.

Statistics..... (5, Informative)

BWJones (18351) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141657)

I'd have to say that from my limited sampling, these numbers are very possibly off and a .2% downward change is likely statistically insignificant, especially given their sampling methods.

Traffic from my blog [utah.edu] primarily from the US shows about 19% of traffic is from the Macintosh (200-900 unique visitors/day). Of all the traffic that hit my blog from the recent Boing Boing posting, it appears that of those that clicked through, over 23% of the clicks were from Macintosh systems and from the traffic I get from Slashdot, about 15% is from Macintosh systems. This limited sampling shows a steady increase in the percentage of Macintosh users that have visited over the past few years.

Traffic from another site I manage, Webvision [utah.edu] (I know, I know, ....really old design from the early 90's, but it's been low on my priority list for the last four years) was likely the first online textbook receiving much more international traffic (about 1000 unique visitors/day from all over the world) and I have seen the international Macintosh marketshare increase from about 4% to 6.5% of total traffic over the past year.

Both of these statistics mirror the trends I have seen reported for the platforms marketshare on much wider scales. These are direct measures that I am reporting as opposed to a fee based service like HitsLink whose measures are not as direct. Too bad Google's Zeitgeist no longer reports on platform statistics which were a good measure of overall platform usage from a much wider used resource.

Macintosh = Dell PC = HP PC (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16141743)

Another explanation is that the potential Macintosh customer now realizes that the Mac is little different from a Dell PC or a HP PC. The principal difference is the price.

Once Steve "I have a big ego" Jobs switched the Macintosh from the PowerPC to the Intel processor, the Macintosh lost its mystique. Using some simple patches/tools, you can run Windows XP on the Mac. With a little effort, you can run the x86 MacOS on a Dell PC or an HP PC.

Since the Mac is now essentially a PC clone, why would you pay a premium for Mac hardware?

Re:Macintosh = Dell PC = HP PC (5, Insightful)

BWJones (18351) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141781)

Another explanation is that the potential Macintosh customer now realizes that the Mac is little different from a Dell PC or a HP PC. The principal difference is the price.

Well, I just priced out a new workstation comparing the top of the line MacPro and an equivalently configured Dell. I ended up buying the 3.0Ghz version of the MacPro for $1000 cheaper than an equivalent Dell.

Once Steve "I have a big ego" Jobs switched the Macintosh from the PowerPC to the Intel processor, the Macintosh lost its mystique.

Au contraire. Have you ever unboxed a new Mac? Have you ever really spent time with a Mac? While the OS is most of the experience, it goes beyond the OS.

Using some simple patches/tools, you can run Windows XP on the Mac. With a little effort, you can run the x86 MacOS on a Dell PC or an HP PC.

And with some simple tools, I can run Windows on my Mac. So?

Since the Mac is now essentially a PC clone, why would you pay a premium for Mac hardware?

See my above comment. It turns out that for the high end at least, the Macintosh is MUCH less expensive than a Dell or HP.

Re:Macintosh = Dell PC = HP PC (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16141901)

Well, I just priced out a new workstation comparing the top of the line MacPro and an equivalently configured Dell. I ended up buying the 3.0Ghz version of the MacPro for $1000 cheaper than an equivalent Dell.

I'll be honest: I read that and I thought you were lying. So I went and looked for myself, and sure enough, I can't duplicate your results.

I can't get the Dell price down far enough. Only $1000 more expensive than the MacPro? The best I can do is $1500 more expensive.

Excuse me while I go and try to find all the pieces of my entire fucking worldview that you just completely shattered.

Re:Macintosh = Dell PC = HP PC (4, Insightful)

Millenniumman (924859) | more than 7 years ago | (#16142017)

Dell's computers aren't cheaper than Apples for the same thing, but Dell sells cheaper computers. They just aren't comparable to any of Apple's.

Re:Macintosh = Dell PC = HP PC (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16141904)

One thing that many people forget is that what Dell has on their website for prices is WAY more than businesses actually pay. At my previous employer, a Dell desktop that cost us around $600 was close to $1,100 on the public website for the exact same machine without the "corporate discounts".

Just because a workstation costs more than an Apple on the Dell configuration page that is available to the general public, it does not mean that any companies are actually paying that much. Dell regularly gives heavy discounts, especially if buying multiple machines. I also know that Apple discounts, but not almost 50% off of the web page price.

This is not a critisism of Apple at all, just trying let people know that Dell's web page prices for business class machines are WAY more than any smart business would ever pay.

Re:Macintosh = Dell PC = HP PC (0, Flamebait)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141971)

Well, I just priced out a new workstation comparing the top of the line MacPro and an equivalently configured Dell. I ended up buying the 3.0Ghz version of the MacPro for $1000 cheaper than an equivalent Dell.

I haven't checked prices in a couple weeks but I am currently using a Compaq nw9440 laptop, which is pretty much the same machine as a MBP but with some different doodads. Same LCD, same size, about the same weight, etc. It was the same price with onsite service contract as buying the MBP with the non-onsite service contract where you have to take it to an apple store and get sneered at by so-called geniuses.

Have you ever unboxed a new Mac? Have you ever really spent time with a Mac? While the OS is most of the experience, it goes beyond the OS.

"Have you ever unboxed a new Mac"? What does that have to do with using the computer? This statement of yours hurts your argument more than it helps it, and makes it clear that your love of the Macintosh is pure fetishism.

I have not only unboxed new macs of every generation except the G5 (but I have unpacked a G4, WOO FUCKING HOO, I'M LIVING NOW) but next to my HPQ laptop is a dual G5 2.0GHz. It annoys the piss out of me. The Dock? Stupid. NeXTStep's dock was at least reasonable from a usability standpoint. Applications have inconsistent looks to them, and the appearance was supposed to be the selling point really. Menus misbehave constantly. And yes, I am fully patched, although I am running 10.3 - work is unlikely to shell out the $120 for the OS upgrade until one comes along that we either need for a new program, or one comes out that actually delivers $120 worth of new functionality instead of just being released to give them an excuse to change the API and break a bunch of their own programs again (like xcode - why can't the fucking IDE properly run on newer/older versions of the OS?)

Using some simple patches/tools, you can run Windows XP on the Mac. With a little effort, you can run the x86 MacOS on a Dell PC or an HP PC.
And with some simple tools, I can run Windows on my Mac. So?

And with some simple tools, you can run Windows on your Mac.

Redundant much?

Since the Mac is now essentially a PC clone, why would you pay a premium for Mac hardware?
See my above comment. It turns out that for the high end at least, the Macintosh is MUCH less expensive than a Dell or HP.

But why would a nerd buy a Dell or HP when you can build a clone for half the price? (Half might actually be literal in the high end...) You can argue that it's comparing Apples to Oranges, for lack of a better pun, but since you don't have the capability to do that with a Mac, I think it's a valid comparison.

I think Apple should start selling ATX CPU/MB combos. They could pick up the people willing to build their own machines that are currently avoiding them, probably without hurting prebuilt system sales much at all because most of the people who buy Apples now (not all but most) are not the types who will or even can assemble their own computer (even though it's so pathetically easy these days that anyone with two neurons to rub together ought to be able to do it.)

Re:Macintosh = Dell PC = HP PC (5, Insightful)

BWJones (18351) | more than 7 years ago | (#16142050)

But why would a nerd buy a Dell or HP when you can build a clone for half the price?

Ummmmm, perhaps because I am not a nerd? Geek perhaps, yes. But not a nerd. Furthermore, it is not my job to build computers. Rather it is my job to do other things like generate and analyze data, teach, write grants and papers. I would much rather spend my time doing these things than building boxes, installing drivers, dealing with conflicts and such. I want my computers to work when I pull them out of the box. I want my computers to simply work when plugging in a peripheral without launching a wizard that says "I see you are trying to add new hardware". I want my computers to not constantly notify me in the middle of a presentation that my anti-virus software is out of date or than the computer suddenly discovered a new wireless network. (I've seen people who, for kicks when someone is making a presentation with a Windows laptop at a big conference, start creating new wireless networks).

When your time reaches a certain value/minute, you start to look for ways to optimize your life and for me at least, the Macintosh allows me to get work done without getting in the way.

Re:Macintosh = Dell PC = HP PC (1)

ben there... (946946) | more than 7 years ago | (#16142002)

Well, I just priced out a new workstation comparing the top of the line MacPro and an equivalently configured Dell. I ended up buying the 3.0Ghz version of the MacPro for $1000 cheaper than an equivalent Dell.

You should probably mention that you are comparing Apple's top desktop to a top Dell Precision workstation from the Small Business section. As another poster said, businesses don't actually pay that much when they buy more than one.

More importantly, your statement only holds true at the very top end...of the business market...without any discounts.

Re:Macintosh = Dell PC = HP PC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16142034)

Also where has the other person been? Windows was an Apple clone? The only innovative things in Vista are cheap knock offs of Tiger not even Leopard. Microsoft is falling behind in "their" efforts to clone Mac. Too busy patching holes in security. Macs are stunning boxes and unlike Windows systems effortless to set up and use. After nearly two decades on Microsoft systems, DOS then Windows, I'm thrilled with the Mac I just bought. I'll still keep my Windows systems for now but I'm writing this on the Mac, where I spend most of my time.

Re:Macintosh = Dell PC = HP PC (2, Insightful)

cubicledrone (681598) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141913)

why would you pay a premium for Mac hardware?

About the same price. Oh, and Macs have no such thing as "driver installs." Peripherals work. Right Now. Instantly. No errors. No dialog boxes. No ding noises.

And OS X is the best operating system on the planet.

Re:Macintosh = Dell PC = HP PC (1)

Fordiman (689627) | more than 7 years ago | (#16142038)

Due to the fact that four-fifths of the population own and use PCs, I'd be remiss if I didn't say, "Most people don't give a half-shit."

Meanwhile, the 'no driver installs' holds true for any new prebuilt system.

Oh, but you're talking about custom systems. Well, I'll make you a deal: Build your own Mac using specs found from the OSX86 wiki and patch your copy of OSX appropriately as per their instructions. We'll assume this as an out-of-the-box equivalent. Now, tell me about your 'no driver installs'.

Oh, I'm sorry, were you insisting upon comparing apples to oranges (or frankenboxes, as the case may be)?

Am I reading TFA correctly? (1)

kripkenstein (913150) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141748)

"According to Techweb, data gathered by Net Applications shows that the Mac OS had 4.35 per cent of the world's operating system share last December. Now it only has 4.33 per cent.""

Yet, at the link to the actual data, it says, for August 2006:

winXP: 84.18%, win2000: 6.54%, Mac: 3.71%, win98: 2.40%, winME: 1.10%, Other: 2.07%

So, 3.71%, not 4.33%. Looks like The Inquirer is reading the line for April 2006, and not September 2006. Actually, Mac share drops continually during the period December 2005 (4.35%) to August 2006 (3.71%). This is more than half a percentage point... which you can trust as much as you can trust their methodology, I guess.

Btw, "Other" rises from 1.33% to over 2% during the same period. That's us Linux people, right?

Re:Am I reading TFA correctly? (2, Informative)

BWJones (18351) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141796)

"Other" is actually Linux combined with Mactel (and still others) as they break out the Mactel and MacOS (PPC) separately apparently......

Re:Statistics..... (1, Informative)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141812)

Traffic from my blog [utah.edu] primarily from the US shows about 19% of traffic is from the Macintosh (200-900 unique visitors/day). Of all the traffic that hit my blog from the recent Boing Boing posting, it appears that of those that clicked through, over 23% of the clicks were from Macintosh systems and from the traffic I get from Slashdot, about 15% is from Macintosh systems. This limited sampling shows a steady increase in the percentage of Macintosh users that have visited over the past few years.

I really hate when people post their statistics coming from their blogs. It is just as statistically insignificant as saying that there are a large number of Linux based Firefox users visiting Slashdot.

My website currently has 117953 hits this month of which 2997 are MacOS users (2.54%). Not only that, but I know that several *regular* readers use OS X as their main OS (myself included). Just so you know, less than 0.57% were from Slashdot referrers, 27% were direct and 45% were from Google.

Obviously my site doesn't cater to Mac users specifically nor nerds specifically and that's why 92% of the traffic I receive is Windows based.

Re:Statistics..... (1)

BWJones (18351) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141839)

I really hate when people post their statistics coming from their blogs. It is just as statistically insignificant as saying that there are a large number of Linux based Firefox users visiting Slashdot.

Well, given that my blog is not really Macintosh centric, those stats should be valid. Just in case though, I posted more international stats from an even more platform neutral site or did you not read that far....

Re:Statistics..... (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141831)

Meh. Of my 4 sites, one is 0%, one is 4%, one is 13%. All depends on the site content.

Re:Statistics..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16141980)

My experience is similar. I run a law website with a good amount of OS-agnostic tech content and an appreciable fraction of the parent post's unique visitors per day. For the last few months, Google Analytics reports these platform stats:

Sep 06
Windows: 90.21%
Macintosh 8.16%

Aug 06
Windows: 89.70%
Macintosh: 7.88%

Jul 06
Windows: 91.64%
Macintosh: 6.78%

Jun 06
Windows: 90.75%
Macintosh 7.59%

May 06
Windows: 90.83%
Macintosh: 7.72%

The balance is reported as Linux and FreeBSD.

I can't be bothered going back beyond that, as I think this sufficiently illustrates: (a) that the percentages fluctuate and (b) that "Macintosh" accounts for a non-trivial percentage of visitors.

w3schools.com backs you up. (1, Redundant)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141984)

I'd have to say that from my limited sampling, these numbers are very possibly off and a .2% downward change is likely statistically insignificant, especially given their sampling methods. Traffic from my blog primarily from the US shows about 19% of traffic is from the Macintosh (200-900 unique visitors/day). ... shows a steady increase in the percentage of Macintosh users that have visited over the past few years.

They were actually reporting a 0.02% change, which most people would consider noise. Claims of accuracy to the five places are silly, unless you have millions of hits.

w3schools.com [w3schools.com] OS index shows a growth in share for September of 0.2%, though they have a less generous estimate of 3.8% total share.

Everywhere I look, I see more people using Mac and Linux. It's hard to believe the combined share is less than 1 in 10.

SO I should not have switched back to CP/M? (4, Funny)

pilgrim23 (716938) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141660)

Forgive! It was the Eye Candy what made me do it!

Talking about using CP/M is funny, but... (2, Informative)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141846)

Talking about using CP/M is funny, but, since few Slashdot readers know what CP/M is, they won't understand the joke.

CP/M is Control Program for Microcomputers, an OS used with 8088 microprocessors back before IBM thought of selling PCs. It was a dog of an OS, mostly because it was unfinished. Back then CP/M was sold by a company that thought printing the original of manuals on a dot-matrix printer with an old ribbon was acceptable practice.

The Morrow Microdecision came with a Command Line Interface language called Pilot that was in many ways better than the CLI that comes with Windows XP. I suppose Microsoft's plan is never to supply a finished OS so people will always want new versions.

--
Bush lied, the U.S. government killed thousands. Impeach.

Re:Talking about using CP/M is funny, but... (2, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141916)

...few Slashdot readers know what CP/M is

Crabby Prehistoric Man?

Woah, no need for buggy whip! It was just a joke.

Re:Talking about using CP/M is funny, but... (1, Flamebait)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#16142005)

Please don't explain jokes. It doesn't make them funny for the people who only understand them after you explain them, and it makes them a lot less funny to those of us who DO understand them. I've owned two different CP/M machines (A Kaypro 4 and then later an Altos with 8" floppies, two of 'em) and your explanation makes me sad. Also, the majority of CP/M machines used the Z80, not the 8088. This is especially significant because the Z80's instruction set is a superset of that of the 8088 and your 8088 programs might run on Z80 systems, but Z80 programs probably won't run on 8088-based CP/M systems.

Re:Talking about using CP/M is funny, but... (1)

snarlydwarf (532865) | more than 7 years ago | (#16142067)

You mean the Z80 ran a superset of 8080. The 8088 is an entirely different beast (a 16-bit-internal 8080 sort of.. a real ugly CPU, actually, the Z80 and Z280 were much better successors to the 8080 series than the 8088 was, but that is another story).

There was an 8088 version of CP/M and even nifty machines like the Compupro10 (1 8088, 4 Z80s) that ran MP/M and eventually Concurrent CP/M (or Concurrent CP/M 8-16 on Compupro hardware, automatically executing programs on the right CPU).

A Z80 could in no way shape or form run 8088 code.

Re:Talking about using CP/M is funny, but... (1)

snarlydwarf (532865) | more than 7 years ago | (#16142032)

CP/M was for 8080's originally, not 8088.

Pilot wasn't a command line interface: it was used to write a basic menuing system for the MD series.

The command line shipped on the MD series was good old "CCP", the "Console Command Processor".

ZCPR3 beat the DOS of its day, though, no doubt about it.

(And, yes, I still have my original MD3, and it still worked last I checked it. But, then it doesnt even have a fan. The only moving parts are the floppy drives.)

Article is untrustworthy (1)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141924)

The article doesn't even get iPod sales correct. It gets the peak month wrong, and it's off by several millions. How can we accurately discuss the results if it doesn't even get public iPod number correct?

Core 2 Duo and Quads On The Way? (1, Insightful)

Shuh (13578) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141681)

Who's going to buy a brand new Macintosh when we are just about to go to Rev. B. chips/platforms? Maybe everyone who is not 1-point-oh-averse has already bought a Mac. And everyone else wants x86 2.0.


Re:Core 2 Duo and Quads On The Way? (2, Informative)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141768)

99% of the computer buying population has no idea what your post even means.

Re:Core 2 Duo and Quads On The Way? (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141794)

Hence names like "Core 2 Duo and "Core Duo."

They're the same right?

Tom

Re:Core 2 Duo and Quads On The Way? (1)

Shuh (13578) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141964)

99% of the computer buying population has no idea what your post even means.



Then I'm in luck! 99% of the computer buying population is not going to read my post.


the only thing that slipped is my slashdong! (-1, Flamebait)

Asshat_Nazi_v2.0 (989409) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141691)

INTO YOUR ASS!!!
INTO YOUR ASS!!!
INTO YOUR ASS!!!
INTO YOUR ASS!!!



I was still in High School, I had a big cock and was horny all the time, jerked off at least 3 times a day. My body is small and slim with very little hair, 5"4",125lbs. My fat cut 7" cock looked huge on me. I had been jerking off thinking about gay sex lately, I was very turned on by the fantasy of having sex with an older man, and having a cock in my ass.

I got a job working after school and weekends at a antique shop, it was ran by 2 older gay gentleman, very nice gentleman who were always flirting and teasing me. An older very distinguished looking handsome customer came in the store, he was a silver haired fox who looked like he had money.

The owners knew him well, he bought a small end table and asked the owners if I could help him unload it at his house, I thought this was kind of suspicous since it didn't weigh much but my horniness and curiousity made me jump at the chance. We rode in his SUV to a big house in a ritzy neighborhood and I carried the end table into his house. He gave me a tour, it was huge and very nice, there was an indoor hot tub and he asked me if I wanted to soak for a while, I told him I didn't have a swim suit and he laughed and told me I could go without, he always did.

I was getting turned on so I started to undress, my tank top came off first and my back was turned to him and I pulled down my cutoffs, no underwear and bent over to finish removing my cutoffs, it was a turn on to expose my ass to him, he watched me climb into the hot tub, my cock was rock hard. I watched him take off his shirt, he had a sexy chest covered with silver hair, he pulled down his pants and underwear in one motion exposing a beautiful 8" cut cock, very fat. We sat in the tub for five minutes talking, he asked me if I wanted a massage, I moved over close to him with my back to him and sort of sat on his lap, I could feel that big cock, I started moving my ass around until it was between my cheeks, I moved up and down, it felt so hot, made my asshole spasm. He was rubbing my shoulders and back, he reached around and started massaging my inner thighs making my cock twitch, finally he started stroking my cock, I was so turned on it was all I could do not to cum. He had me stand up and started tonguing my ass while stroking my cock, I was in pleasure overload and exploded cum after about two minutes of this.

We went into his bedroom, still naked and dried off, he put his hands on my shoulders and gently pushed me to my knees, grabbed the back of my head and guided me to his cock. I sucked on it hungrily feeling it get harder in my mouth, when he was rock hard he guided me to the bed and had me lay on my stomach. He ate my ass again this time harder, getting his tongue up inside me, this made my cock hard again, I relaxed and felt my boypussie open up. Next he slowly inserted one of his fingers , it kind of hurt at first but then I started to love the feeling. Two fingers was next with some lube, he two finger fucked me for along time, I loved how it felt, like I was getting stretched. I was moaning and moving my ass up and down.

He stopped and put his big cock back in my mouth, I sucked him for maybe a minute and he pulled out and rolled on a condom, had me get down doggie style got behind me and pushed that big cock head against my tight hole. He slowly pushed, I thought it was to big and would never fit, all of a sudden it popped in, the sensation took my breath away, it felt so huge and it hurt a little, but I was starting to relax and it was feeling better by the second.

He slowly pushed in until he was deep inside me and moved in and out very slowly to start with, it still burned but the thought of getting fucked, having a big cock inside me was such a turn on.

He fucked me for a long time, after I got used to it and fully relaxed the feeling was pure pleasure. My cock was rock hard.

The pace got faster and harder, finally I came again, without even touching my cock, such intense pleasure. He came and stayed inside me, I layed flat on my stomch with him still inside me, he slowly went limp, slipped out of me and rolled off me.

Is it just me, or is it getting hot in here? (1)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141699)

Between this, the gentoo article, and the global warming article, I'm seeing some local warming right here.

Market fluctuates. (2, Insightful)

greenguy (162630) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141707)

Film at 11.

Not at all reliable (5, Insightful)

CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141714)

Of course these numbers and not at all scientfic. The change is also completely insignificant. I agree on all of that. However, I have a feeling many who will denounce these statistics would be singing thier praises if they showed a significant gain ;-)

Re:Not at all reliable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16141832)

Of course these numbers and not at all scientfic. The change is also completely insignificant. I agree on all of that. However, I have a feeling many who will denounce these statistics would be singing thier praises if they showed a significant gain ;-)
Keyword: significant. And so they should. Significant statistics are interesting.

Re:Not at all reliable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16141864)

"However, I have a feeling many who will denounce these statistics would be singing thier praises if they showed a significant gain ;-)

Ha ha, so very true!

12 months ago all the Mac fanboys were saying "ahhh, market share doesn't matter." Last month they were all like "See our great gains in market share!" Now watch them fall back to their original story.

(Note: I am a life-long Mac user, only owned 1 PC ever)

Re:Not at all reliable (0, Flamebait)

linzeal (197905) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141926)

I mean Jesus H Christ hasn't anyone at Slashdot taken statistics?

Re:Not at all reliable (1)

JulesLt (909417) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141973)

Who can forget the years when every .1% gain was seized on as evidence!

That's Because... (0, Troll)

NiceRoundNumber (1000004) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141721)

You need to buy at least five or six PC's before you get one that works decently. The Mac always works the first time. :)

On a more serious note, what's the Linux vs Windows market share these days?

Re:That's Because... (1)

xoran99 (745620) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141872)

That's not what I heard... I've heard more logic board horror stories than I care to recount. Not to mention this battery I've got to send in...

I love Apple, but you can't pretend that they don't have their problems :)

Re:That's Because... (1)

foxhound01 (661872) | more than 7 years ago | (#16142031)

actually, i'd say the ratio is closer to 2:1 but then again, so is the price ratio of mac to pc.

Re:That's Because... (1)

Fordiman (689627) | more than 7 years ago | (#16142094)

Really?

That's weird. I've only ever seen one that doesn't work well, and that's one my (slightly undereducated) friend put together. Though, I don't blame her; she went for all bleeding-edge parts and mashed them together hoping they'd work without doing much research.

Meanwhile, I've never built a computer that didn't "Just Work (tm)". Nor have I seen a Dell or HP in recent years that didn't.

Still, I gotta answer your last question in straw-man fashion, just to be smarmy. The market share, using only my computer as a sample, is 25% Mac OSX, 25% Windows, 25% Linux, and 25% NetBSD.

Does anyone even care anymore? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16141731)

Mac marketshare is always between 3-5%. They're saying on the high side of that 3-5% so that's just peachy. Why is everyone so concerned about marketshare for the Mac when all the hardware is all basically commodity, and most of the really good Mac software comes from Apple anyway?

Re:Does anyone even care anymore? (1)

archen (447353) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141829)

And the data that is surpringly absent is the actual number of visits. Maybe 10 times more people visited in the same period where apple didn't grow as much. Does that mean apple has no growth? No it means that the "marketshare" went down despite the fact that Apple still sold more computers. I am sort of a Mac person, but I'm seriously not going to get worked up over marketshare. As long as Apple continues to grow in sales, be profitable, and make good products I'm okay with whatever they're up to.

Re:Does anyone even care anymore? (1)

misleb (129952) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141956)

Also, I think a large marketshare could be detrimental to the overal user experience. I mean, as long as Apple keeps such tight control over things, users are guaranteed a very consistent, intuitive experience. One of the problems I have with Windows is that there are a zillion different developers all will different "visions" for what what an applicaition should do and be. Every programmer and his mother wants to sell some piece of crap software on Windows. The bar is set so low.

And then there is malware! Ugh. I think it is at least partially true that the reason your typical Windows machine is so riddled with spyware is because of the marketshare. I'd much rather OS X stay under the radar of scammers.

I hope Mac remains largely a niche in the PC market. I'd hate to see such a good brand diluted by marketshare.

-matthew

Everyone knows (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16141741)

Mac owns 90% Market Share

Nothing to see here, move along (5, Informative)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141746)

Go dig into the numbers a bit. I'm not a Mac fanboi (see my abuse of one earlier today) but this is a non-story. The site in question is tracking Mac OS and MacIntel seperate, so of course Mac OS is dropping. Add the two together and you get a different picture. They appear not to have fixed the scripts that generate the cute graphs though, because up to now they broke out each OS variation so they could see the migration patterns in Windows versions.

Re:Nothing to see here, move along (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141809)

AND, since its a non-story, why is it even accepted on Slashdot? Oh right, the editors don't actually, you know, edit.

Re:Nothing to see here, move along (2, Informative)

Brad Oliver (604118) | more than 7 years ago | (#16142066)

If you click on each month, and combine Mac OS with MacIntel, you get the following:

Sep 05: 3.74%
Oct 05: 3.87%
Nov 05: 4.11%
Dec 05: 4.35%
Jan 06: 4.21%
Feb 06: 4.30% (4.28 + 0.03)
Mar 06: 4.37% (4.29 + 0.08)
Apr 06: 4.49% (4.33 + 0.16)
May 06: 4.42% (4.19 + 0.23)
Jun 06: 4.32% (3.92 + 0.36)
Jul 06: 4.29% (3.80 + 0.49)
Aug 06: 4.33% (3.71 + 0.62)

The reported 0.02 decline by the Inquirer is the difference of Dec 05 (4.35) vs Aug 05 (4.33). I'm not sure why Dec 05 was chosen as the comparison month vs. Sep 05 (which paints a rosier picture) or Apr 06 (which paints a bleaker picture) but there you have it.

But if the results proved otherwise... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16141757)

Mac-oriented sites are pointing out the unreliability of the metrics from Net Applications, which are based on users of the HitsLink service.

Yet if it proved the opposite they wouldn't question its reliability at all, and would bring it up every chance they get.

Re:But if the results proved otherwise... (2, Insightful)

devjj (956776) | more than 7 years ago | (#16142063)

And the Mac-haters would be complaining about how the statistical methods are flawed. In the end, it's all the same.

Price much? (-1, Troll)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141769)

My custom Core 2 Duo desktop cost me $922 (CDN with tax + shipping), the cheapest similar thing [I didn't buy a keyboard/mouse with this] is the mac mini which cost $899 for the 1.83 Core Duo [not Core 2 Duo, e.g. conroe] version. Factor in taxes and the Mac Mini is $1024 in Ontario (6% GST and 8% PST). So for $100 less I got a better case [Antec 380W Tower], better processor [Core 2 Duo vs. Core Duo], and 512MB more memory.

OMG!!! COULD THAT BE WHY Apple is losing sales? I just don't know!!!

Tom

Re:Price much? (1)

Llywelyn (531070) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141808)

To start, that tower is only "better" if your space is worthless. A large part of the Mac Mini's appeal is its form factor.

Re:Price much? (0, Flamebait)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141827)

Trust me, surface area is precious to me. But I'd still rather have a tower I can put things like my TV TUNER CARD in [thus removing the need for a TV] or a half-way decent GFX card in. MacMini is basically a laptop without a screen, keyboard or trackpad. You can't add a PCI device to it, etc... Even given my limited horizontal surface area for stuff I'd much rather have the tower. I can [and do] stack shit on top of it anyways so the loss is trivial.

Oh, and it being a better box underneath is a nice feature too...

Tom

Re:Price much? (1)

arminw (717974) | more than 7 years ago | (#16142069)

.....You can't add a PCI device to it, etc........

Why would you need or want to? The USB or firewire will allow just about any peripheral device to be connected that has been invented by the mind of man. What sort of PCI device functionality could be connected to a low end type computer such as a mini or its much bigger non-Apple equivalents?

Re:Price much? (-1, Flamebait)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#16142089)

I already own the said PCI TV tuner card.

So what *I'll do* is pay LESS MONEY for my next box [re: what I did with this] and then SAVE MORE MONEY by NOT buying additional hardware that I already have in another form factor. Why would I pay MORE money for the Mini, and THEN pay EVEN MORE money to get a tuner?

Damn, you're a good consumer.

Tom

Re:Price much? (1)

sharkman67 (548107) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141819)

I'm sure you're running Linux on that box. If not you need to factor in the cost of Windows and any other apps you need to make it an Apple to Apple comparison. Sorry for the pun Argg..

Re:Price much? (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141848)

Remind me how "free" Mac OSX upgrades are?

Yeah, I am running Gentoo on it. I get your point, but it's moot once you hit the next revision of OSX. And anyways, for the price of "Apple Approved" memory [to at least match the GB I have] you could have bought an OEM copy of WinXP. So you're still ahead by ~$100 with the custom box. And yes, I trust the people I bought it from. The box works and if it didn't they'd make it right [not all shops are evil]

Tom

Re:Price much? (1)

Llywelyn (531070) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141983)

I keep hearing this argument, does Steve Jobs beat up everyone who doesn't upgrade or something?

It costs you $0 if you don't upgrade, and the computer continues to work.

Re:Price much? (0, Troll)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#16142004)

It costs me $0 to upgrade my Gentoo box.

Tell me how fun this is in a year or two when your newer applications stop working because of broken/missing symbols and what not. If I bought a MacOS box I'd upgrade it, not only because I want security fixes but presumably because I'd use OSX software that I need to have running and can't afford the risk of it not being compatible with previous releases.

Tom

Re:Price much? (1)

Llywelyn (531070) | more than 7 years ago | (#16142046)

Stop spreading misinformation.

First, security updates continue, IIRC all the way back to 10.1.

Second, newer applications don't "stop working." What happens is developers start to take advantage of new features in the API--Core Data, Core Animation, Spotlight, etc which, yes, one has to pay to get. Applications that do not use these features will continue to work into the far futrue.

The only time the "links broke" was at the 10.2 switch, and hasn't happened since. This was a deliberate move that was planned from before 10.1, announced in advance, and was related to the switch between GCC 2.x and 3.x. Other than that the software is, generally, both forward and backward compatible.

Re:Price much? (1)

adisakp (705706) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141833)

FWIW, If you look at the Mac Pro (dual Xeons == four cores) and price a similarly configured four core workstation from Dell, the Mac ends up being about a thousand dollars cheaper.

Re:Price much? (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141870)

I'd never buy a MP Intel box. That's just criminal. AMD HT all the way!

Core 2 Duo + CSI (Intel's name for HT, not the TV show) would probably be a good contender, who knows...

Tom

Re:Price much? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16141836)

If you think an Antec mid-tower is "a better case" than a Mac Mini you were never in the mini's target market anyway...

Re:Price much? (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141895)

My point is if I wanted to price shop, the Mac Mini would be what I'd compare against a custom box. Yeah, I guess if the OUTSIDE APPEARANCE of the box mattered more I'd be in the "target market." But for the rest of us who can at least compare two numbers to find out which is smaller ... we avoid Apple because you pay for a stupid name.

As for the Antec being "better" ... let's see

- room for PCI/PCIE cards
- ventilation
- room for drives, e.g. RAID
- PSU that can handle the combo

And frankly this case actually looks decent. It's not just "another beige box." It's got neato ports on the front, neato front panel, it's cool.

Tom

Re:Price much? (1)

plalonde2 (527372) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141961)

Yes, all that case room is a great place to put devices that have drivers that will operate poorly with my OS.

99% of the market want a simple box that works. I use my mini (Core Solo at that!) as a glorified KVM, web browser, mailer, skype box, and occasional photo munger. An appliance to do this wins every time against spending effort configuring another effing PC.

Re:Price much? (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141991)

Only problem I have with this box is the ICH8 is not well supported by 2.6.17 but apparently 2.6.18 addresses the issues I'm having.

In general, I use my boxes for a lot of random tasks. One of which is TV watching which uses my 5 yr old Hauppage WinTV PCI card. It's passed through 4 or 5 diff boxes and it's just the way things are :-)

But also I need a bit more horsepower than a core solo @ 1.6GHz. My build times affect how much work I can get done in a day and faster == better.

That and Core2 is wickedly overclockable. Without changing the voltage and not going over 60C [I turned the alarm on] I can clock my 1.83GHz Core 2 Duo all the way upto 2.6GHz [380MHz x 7] with PC2-6400 memory. It still runs cool, passes memtest86 and runs builds properly. And given that the Core 2 competes well with the Opteron it's not a bad free speed boost.

Tom

Re:Price much? (1)

plalonde2 (527372) | more than 7 years ago | (#16142053)

I keep a separate Linux box for development - the dev tools I need to run are Windows/Linux only. But the last time I tried to configure my Linux box to do email, web, skype, etc, I swore so loudly I bought the mini. It just worked. And it makes a greak keyboard/mouse switch (via Synergy).

My dev time is too precious to screw around with getting appliance-level performance out of Linux.

Re:Price much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16141894)

Well, "better case" is highly subjective. Your tower certainly isn't "better" for someone who needs a small-profile case. The mini is essentially a headless laptop, and with that shrinkage comes extra cost. If you don't need it, great for you. I just wish Apple would sell an inexpensive headless tower without 4 fucking cores and everything else industrial strength like the Mac Pro. I'll bet they could sell a nice Conroe tower for cheaper than the mini, with upgrade space to boot.

Of course, the other argument for Mac fanboys is that your PC probably didn't come with all the stuff that's standard on a Mac. Firewire, blueooth, wifi, gigabit eth0, remote, optical audio i/o, OS X, iLife, etc. You probably don't have every one of those. Maybe they're worth nothing to you, personally, but to make a blanket statement that it means Macs are overpriced is silly.

Apple's very price-competitive for what they sell. The thing is that they include the kitchen sink in every model, whereas many consumers don't need or want all that. It's all a tradeoff. Congrats on your new computer.

Re:Price much? (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141929)

Actually the mobo I got [Gigabyte 965P-S3] has Intel HD sound, gbit eth0, 1394, usb, parallel and serial ports, PS/2 keyboard/mouse, a PCI-E 16X and 3 1x slots as well as 3 PCI slots. It also has four, count em four, not 1, not 2, but four slots for DDR2 memory.

As for OSX/ilife/etc, I don't want that. Gentoo is free. I have all the tools I need as a developer, gamer, music listener, author, pron viewer, etc for free from the nice world of OSS.

I agree with your post though. I know the mini has a niche market. But RIGHT NOW [as you pointed out] if I were to compare custom boxes, the mini is what I'd choose as it's more comparable in featureset [e.g. not a quad-core xeon]. So yeah, if Apple made something similar they could probably price it right. Unfortunately, "rational" people is not who Apple targets.

This would be like asking Alienware to make a low-power student box... :-)

Tom

$200 PC computers and $500 laptop PCs (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141773)

"Mac OS market share actually slipped since last September."

The statistic is affected by the $200 PC computers and $500 laptop PCs that are being sold.

Time to bring back the B-word? (2, Funny)

Sometimes_Rational (866083) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141789)

Does this mean that Apple is beleaguered again?

It's those stupid comercials. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16141790)

I blame those idiotic commercials with the "nerdy" pc guy and the "hip" mac guy. They cater to the lowest common demoninator of consumer, and convey no real selling points for the mac. To me they seem condescending and blatently inflammatory.

If you want to sell your product apple, sell it on its own merits. "OMG The alternative is the SUXORZ!!" is not a good advertising methodology.

Re:It's those stupid comercials. (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141805)

I find them less insulting than the drug commercials or the "we're green friendly, see our efficient SUVs" commercials.

Yea I agree their commercials are full of shit, specially since the first thing I do with an x86 is install GNU/Linux on it. But at least they're silly.

Being told to talk to my doctor about yeast infections is not funny. It's just downright nasty.

Tom

From a Mac User...GOOD! (5, Insightful)

Danathar (267989) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141807)

Quite frankly I don't want to see OS X have some huge marketshare. I'd prefer the platform to have enough marketshare that developers can make money and Apple to make a profit, but not big enough for Virus writers and spyware authors to care (the way it is now).

Why does OS X have to have an increasing marketshare to remain successful?

Re:From a Mac User...GOOD! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16141888)

Here Here! I'm with ya buddy!

Re:From a Mac User...GOOD! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16141927)

Anything thing that makes Microsoft's marketshare go down is a good thing, be it Mac OS X, GNU/Linux, TreeLSD, or CowboyNealOS.

beleaguered (5, Funny)

ElephanTS (624421) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141857)

Bloody hell! It's back to beleaguered then.

gmod up (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16141879)

And 3uilding 1s

Something to do with Mac OS X only running on Macs (1)

DECS (891519) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141898)

This is pretty absurd. The market for 10.4 Tiger is pretty much done, because anyone who wanted to upgrade to to Tiger did so last year.

Anyone buying a Mac in the last year and a half got Tiger for 'free.' So who is left to buy a Tiger upgrade? If they waited this long, why buy it now rather than waiting for Leopard in a few months?

Statistics are worthless if they are presented by idiots who don't even know what the numbers mean.

----
www.roughlydrafted.com

How to gain marketshare (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16141903)

Free MacOS from its dependance on Apple hardware.

People say that Apple relies on its profits from hardware more than software, and breaking the tie will cause Apple's hardware business to suffer. But I don't think that is true. Here is why:

1. Apple zealots still buy Apple hardware because it is "higher quality" and "more stabler" etc. No net loss/gain here.

2. People unwilling to buy Apple hardware, but willing to run MacOS will pay Apple whatever they charge for OSX ($199?) and run it on their PC. They will also (likely) purchase other Apple apps for the OS. Net gain here of both userbase (and everything that comes with that, including commercial app support) and profit.

3. Windows lovers will continue to buy PC parts. No net loss/gain here.

4. People who only purchased Apple hardware to run MacOS will buy PC parts and run MacOS on it. Net loss on hardware only here.

In the end I think there are far more people in group 2 than there are in group 4, and the benefits of the increased userbase will far outweigh any loss on hardware they may incur.

Whats stopping them? An outdated ideology that relegates their products to a niche market (save the iPod, and we all know what a failure that was).

Re:How to gain marketshare (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16141992)

And what is the cost of support of (2)? It's not simply a gain in the count of customers, it's a gain in support costs. The question is what is bigger.

Re:How to gain marketshare (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16142022)

If the user paid the $200 for the OS, I assume the support costs of supporting said user are covered. If not, they did not price the OS properly.

Re:How to gain marketshare (3, Interesting)

westlake (615356) | more than 7 years ago | (#16142060)

Free MacOS from its dependance on Apple hardware.

Home users are not desktop system builders in the numbers that matter. Fewer still even want to think about customizing a laptop.

Dual boot and virtualization are not (yet) mass market. They are for the enthusiasts who simply must be able to work in both the PC and the Mac environments.

OSX for the generic PC would require drivers for every random combination of PC hardware.

Mac Fanboys - Man Your Positions! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16141920)

Let me get this straight...

Apple's overpriced, but pretty, x86 OEM boxes are remaining a niche product in the computing world at large???

SHOCK!!!

The writing has been on the wall for Mac hardware ever since IBM dumped Apple as a customer a couple years ago.

Apple will flounder around in the x86 OEM business(you are here) -> then go software only(ala Be) -> and finally sell off the Mac/OS X stuff to concentrate on the lucrative and growing digital content market

Market share fascination? (2, Insightful)

askegg (599634) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141923)

What is the fascination with market share?

What's the thinking here? More market share must mean more sales and therefore more profit? Apple seems to be making plenty of money, so what does more market share gives you, or is it just a measure of how many customers you did not get?

IMHO, the problem is you can not make a product that will please everyone. Apple has decided to make a certain kind of product - looks cool, well designed, easy to use and at a premium price.

I guess it depends on how you classify your market. If you are talking portable mp3 players in the USA, then Apple has around 80% of the market (their figures).

If you mean "laptop computers" then the field is wide open to every man and his dog that can bolt a machine together - including the el cheapo models who compete on price alone. This is akin to putting Mercedes, Audi and Lexus in the "car market" and wondering why their share is so low (hint: you are including Hyundai and others). This is not the same market. Who are the premium computer manufacturers? IBM might be there, Dell isn't.

As long as Apple continues to focus on making their products this way they will have a following and will generate profits - to hell with market share.

shocker! (0, Troll)

grant420 (985416) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141946)

Let's see: 1. Macs are pricier (oh, but they are "cuter"!) 2. There are far fewer software titles available (especially games) 3. To me, Macs offer a much lower utility. For #3 here's an example. I am a PC tech and was disgusted the other day when I couldn't even copy and paste (or drag and drop) a folder from a user's Mac hard drive to a Safari/Firefox-loaded FTP site. It prompted for username & password like it should, I authenticated, and the Mac browser displayed the folders, but wouldn't allow me to paste files. This procedure works like a charm in every version of Windows I use at work. To me the irony of this that Apple pretty much invented the whole drag and drop GUI, right? Regardless, they are touted as being so user friendly and this just hammered another nail in the coffin for me when it comes to Macs. I'll admit that they look purty, though!

Re:shocker! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16142061)

You're a PC tech... aren't you supposed to figure out why it didn't work?

What does the origin of GUIs have to do with your inability to troubleshoot?

Next time, use an FTP program and save face (and trouble).

Re:shocker! (1)

sxtxixtxcxh (757736) | more than 7 years ago | (#16142096)

how did you get safari to run on every version of windows?

This just in... (1)

ectotherm (842918) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141948)

Both Mac fans are despondent over the news of the market share slippage...

What's "the market?" (1)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 7 years ago | (#16141986)

So, "the Mac OS had 4.35 per cent of the world's operating system share last December. Now it only has 4.33 per cent." Is that, by any chance, a share of a "market" that consists mostly of corporations and IT departments?

The Mac has always had that problem. "Market share" depends entirely on how you choose to define the market. Among people who don't want Apple computers, Apple's market share is small.

Cessna has a market share of about 4% of the airplane market (Cessna has revenues of $3.5 billion, Boeing $52.45 billion, Airbus $34.4 billion) but nobody worries about Cessna. If you define "the market" as "general aviation," then suddenly Cessna's market share becomes 33%.

What next? The Seattle Caviar Company's share of the egg market is slipping? Sunkist Oranges only has an 0.001% share of the apple market? Shinola has only a 1% market share of the shit market?

Re:What's "the market?" (1)

easter1916 (452058) | more than 7 years ago | (#16142009)

There's a shit market? What?!?!?! Why did nobody tell me about this before... I've lost a fortune. My output is full of shit. Just look at most of my posts.

Not as disappointing as... (1)

jpellino (202698) | more than 7 years ago | (#16142006)

"It must be disappointing to Apple and Mac fans to see what is basically a flat line in desktop market share."

Not as bone chilling as the news that "Other" (that's French for Linux, boysngirls) has about as many users as WinME.

"Sloppy metrics" is the understatement of the decade.

Some expected a bigger dip... no big deal (4, Interesting)

camperslo (704715) | more than 7 years ago | (#16142018)

IIRC even Steve Jobs said something early this year about being surprised at sales being stronger than expected. The PPC to Intel transition is a major one and is an excellent long term move. But it did cause some people to hold off on buying waiting for more native software, and allowing time for the shaking out of any minor glitches in the first products. A few probably also held off on buying when they heard that the Core 2 chips were coming.

It is pretty obvious that the move was a wise choice and that both Macintosh users and Apple will be better off long term. The appeal of the new generation of machines can be expected to increase over time. In addition to new features in the OS, it is reasonable to expect that 10.5 will bring even better performance. It'll likely make better use of multiple CPU cores, use the GPU horsepower for other tasks, use the Core 2 supplemental SSE3 instructions (I've heard them called both SSSE3 and SSE4), and use of the 64-bit capabilities. The software for Windows support will also be more mature (Apple's utility is currently beta).

The release of Vista will likely bring an increase in the number of people pondering new machines instead of just an OS upgrade. With Apple being more visible than in the past some of those people will opt for getting Macs instead (either solely for the Apple experience, or to run Windows too). Some may also be playing wait and see with Vista. If it isn't really, really, wonderful, it'll help Apple.

Boot Camp Anyone? (1)

logicnazi (169418) | more than 7 years ago | (#16142041)

What apple really cares about (and what matters for OS adoption) is how many people are making serious or primary use of OS X. What these numbers show is what portion of web browsing is done in "OS X"

Now given the recent release of boot camp, parrells and similar programs it seems likely that a significant percentage of OS X users will spend say 5% or more of their time in windows. If the growth in market share for OS X is usually less than the average percent of time OS X users have started spending in windows it would look like the usage is down even if there was an actual ncrease in the number of people buying and using OS X.

In short it seems likely this is an artifact of the recent ability of OS X users to effectiely run windows.

Statistical illiteracy (innumeracy?) (2, Informative)

OnanTheBarbarian (245959) | more than 7 years ago | (#16142043)

Anyone who thinks that a 0.02% change is likely to be statistically significant has to be smoking crack. Of course, with enough users and a rigorous enough methodology, it's possible, but I doubt it.

Commodity hardware + GNU/Linux = you win! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16142055)

The fact that Apple is running out of suckers [yahoo.com] does not surprise me.

Commodity/standard/cheap hardware + GNU/Linux [debian.org] = you win!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>