Vista Use Grows as Mac OS X Stays Flat

jdelator writes to mention ComputerWorld is reporting that Microsoft's Windows Vista has increased their market share steadily every month while their main opponent, Mac OS X, has remained essentially flat. "According to Net Applications, in June Windows Vista accounted for 4.52% of all systems that browsed the Web, up from January's 0.18%. Vista has grown its usage share each month since its release to consumers Jan. 30, hitting 0.93% in February, 2.04% in March, 3.02% in April and 3.74% in May. Apple Inc.'s Mac OS X, meanwhile, accounted for 6.22% in January and hit its high point of 6.46% in May, but it slipped back to 6% in June. If Vista's uptake trend continues, it should pass Mac OS X in Web usage share by the end of August."

This is hardly a valid analysis

[janrinok]

Of course Vista is increasing its market share. It is starting from a zero and slowly increasing. I would be surprised if anything else happened. And the fact the the Mac isn't growing in usage is also not surprising. They cater for different users. The thing that is worth noting is that Vista is growing more slowly than predicted although it will get there eventually simply because it is on most computers that are being sold. Still, there is nothing here that should be news to a regular /.er.

Apples and Elephants

[Llywelyn]

These are two separate statistics representing two separate things: Vista adoption vs. "Switchers."

They cannot be directly and meaningfully compared on a month-to-month basis.

Re:forced purchases?

[delirium of disorder]

you can't really get anything other than Vista on a new PC

Maybe you just [sun.com] aren't [system76.com] looking [dell.com] hard enough.

Re:forced? more like encouraged

[cez]

While forced is a bit off...I recently bought a new laptop for Pa Dukes. A few years ago he refused to have XP on his Desktop because it was "too new" and probably "full of bugs", he's an old mainframe or micro kinda guy, so no way was I going to get him one with Vista. We had settled with Win2k on his desktop, but I convinced him XP would be great for the new laptop. It actually cost me more to get the same exact hardware specs with XP than it would have with Vista, and wasn't as easy as I thought it should be...also, it was XP Home (shudder, without spending even more) not Pro that it shipped with, but the differences there are another rant, though transparent for a user such as him. In the end I was going to just get the Vista one, like I did for my friends new one (love those ultra-bright screens) and just blow out Vista with a copy of XP (Don't for get that Dell Hardware DVD to Load before XP First!) but I wanted something that would work out of the box for him with only some decrapafying and teatiming for me.

New computer sales and MOLPS

[nurb432]

Well, this is pretty easy to understand.

1 - New pcs come with vista, more pcs are sold then mac.
2 - molp holders need to start upgrading per their agreement. ( and even if they havent yet, when they renew its considerd a 'vista sale' on microsofts books )

Re:And Windows users buy PCs more often

[ogminlo]

There were indeed price/performance deltas back in the PPC days of the Mac, but with the Intel switch the list prices for Macs compared to Dells have equalized. In fact, a MacBook compared to a similarly-spec'd Dell XPS (the Inspiron line can't spec up to the MacBook) favor the Mac by better than 100 bucks. Actually, the XPS noted here is eerily similar to the Macbook... I'm sure it is just a coincidence.

MacBook midrange white @ $1,299
Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger
2.16GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
1GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x512
120GB Serial ATA @ 5400 rpm
XGA 1280 by 800 (native) TFT display with built-in iSight
SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)

Dell XPS M1330 white @ $1,474
Intel Core 2 Duo 2.0GHz/800Mhz FSB, 4MB Cache
Windows Vista Home Premium Edition
XGA Standard Display with 2.0 Megapixel Webcam
1GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz
120GB SATA Hard Drive (5400RPM)
CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW Drive)

The Dell has slightly better graphics capability and the Mac has a slight CPU advantage, but the point is the old bunk argument about how expensive Macs are is indeed just bunk. It doesn't matter if PC users chuck their rigs sooner or not- the Macs are less expensive than their brand name PC counterparts nowadays.

Re:Vista Numbers Suggest Poor Adoption

[mshmgi]

I don't want to need anyone's "permission" to use software I bought. PERIOD.

Therein lies the problem. You didn't "buy" Windows ... you bought a license to use Windows under a prescribed set of circumstances. If you actually "bought" Windows - then I would have to agree with you.

-- written on OS X 10.4.10

Re:Nothing to see here....

[Corwn of Amber]

As for supporting PC hardware, it's a) very easy and b) already there anyway.

Nope, not true for either case. Hardware manufacturers release buggy drivers constantly. And hardware manufacturers which are not targeting the Apple market do NOT release drivers, buggy or not, for OSX.

All the hardware I need is supported. They support every mobo chipset for every current x64 CPU. There are drivers for half of all WiFi adapters (Asus WL-167G, for one). There is an ongoing project to write one for the Intel WiFi cards (IPW 2100/2200 working, 3945 and more recent still under development). There are drivers from ATI and nVidia (nVidia is better supported since that's what Apple seems to prefer to put in Macs). There are drivers for a LOT of webcams (see list on Macam project HCL). There are drivers for AC'97 and Intel HDAudio and such. There are drivers for Marvell and Intel and Realtek and Broadcom Ethernet chips. There is a driver for the (crap) JMicron IDE controller.
What were you saying again? If you want to run OSX, on a non-Apple computer, just read the Supported Hardware lists and buy only that.