It's true: Windows is caught between Mac and Linux

Paul, nice chart. You might find the blog post at http://brandygalos.blogspot.com/2007/02/apple-and-linux-in-proportion.html interesting.Among other things, it compares the percentage of Mac and Linux users to people who think the moon landing took place on a sound stage in Arizona.

Funny. But the article does bring up an interesting point. I agree that macs are generally sold to the upper % of spenders, but don't think the opposite it true for linux. I think that Windows still covers the low end up to the high end. Mac steals a little of that high end business, but linux really just steals a small amount from all over the spectrum. It isn't like Linux is the OS for poor people or anything like that. Most average consumers dont even know linux exists. Linux is for the tech savvy, the religious open sourcers, and the business trying to save a buck or two, and that group of users spans a far wider spectrum than simply "low end". http://www.chipnit.com

Lies, damned Lies and Statistics. :-) Paul, You and others use very honest stats to back up your arguments. This is a case of no one being wrong because everybody isright. Recently we have heard that the Asus PC is flying off the shelves, Mac laptops are being used by 40% of US Freshmen this year and that the Apple now has 14% of the American computer market. You quite rightly point out that Windows has 96% of the world computer market. Mac sales are mostly confined to places like the US, Canada, Western Europe and Australia and New Zealand. Windows has almost all the market share in India and China although with right pricing for those markets, I wouldn't think profits would be impressive. What is one supposed to make of this? Stats are interesting. Say you were a Martian and you took a peek at a formal dinner. You would conclude that 100% of male earthlings wore dinner jackets (tuxedos to our mates across the pond). Your observation would be correct, but your conclusion would be wrong. Take for instance over that last 20 years I have had about 23 computers. Now 20 were provided by work and were Windows computers while I have owned an Atari and two Macs - but because most of my computer work takes place at home about 90% of my work was done on the Macs. Also I chose to buy the Atari and the Macs while some unseen person decided that I should use Windows. Looking at the bare data would give you a very different idea from the way that I work and the choices regarding computers that I have made. Interestingly enough in the last couple of years our IT guys have wanted to go over to Linux, but Senior management has vetoed the idea because they want to use the same OS as they use at home. Data is marvellous but it depends on how you interpret it. Take for example the BBC notoriously used the 3% figure of worldwide Mac use to justify not providing the iPlayer for MacUsers. When they were asked what percentage of hits on their website came from MacUsers the shamefaced answer was 'about 30%'. The BBC has now admitted that about 9% of Home Users in the UK use Macs and are now designing an iPlayer for Mac and Linux Users. (The iPlayer is paid for by our television licence which is a type of tax and Mac and Linux rather objected that public money was being used to give Microsoft an unfair commercial advantage.) Until last week our University refused to support Mac or Linux Users with the excuse that they were only 3% of the market, but breakdowns showed that between 10 and 20% of all students at the university were using Macs and they now have changed their policy. Is the 40% Freshmen figure relevant to you if you run a college computer shop in the US? Yes The 3% figure is irrelevant. Is the 14% figure relevant if you are sales manager of a Computer Warehouse in the US? Yes. The 3% figure is irrelevant. Is your 3% figure relevant if you are trying to decide what resources to devote to providing drivers for a worldwide market. Yes. The other figures are not so relevant. Basically you need to apply the statistics properly to see if they are relevant to your situation and for each situation it will be different. As far as Linux beginning to dominate the Desktop, I am not sure where that one came from but they do seem to be making strong inroads with the low-cost laptop market.

The 96% market share chart is a snapshot in time of a mature and saturated PC market that has no further growth potential, even for Microsoft. Corporations, banks, and retail outlets are big users of Windows, but what can Microsoft possibly do to entice them to upgrade? These users are well served with nothing fancier than DOS and they don't need to pay extra for eye-candy or GUI wizardry to meet their bottom line. What the static chart doesn't represent is what's happening over time and how things are developing in the new non-PC markets like the consumer and mobile markets. It doesn't capture the fact that OS X is installed in the iPhone or iPod Touch, two devices which are capturing increasing shares of existing markets or defining them. Also, the chart doesn't capture the dynamic adoption by the younger generation of MacBooks over Windows-based laptops. These are tomorrow's consumers and they're open-minded about Macs. So, I don't see the the 96% purple swath remaining that large over too long a time.

"What the static chart doesn't represent is what's happening over time and how things are developing in the new non-PC markets like the consumer and mobile markets" @halesgarcia: That is not the purpose of the chart. The article is about desktop OS's. Having pointed that out, I'd also like to remind you that it doesn't take into account mobile juggernaut Windows Mobile or Blackberry for that matter either.

"In Europe you are starting to see a real MS hate fest, and a Linux love fest. Give it a few years and see what happens." MS has been hated here since 98 and almost got broken up. I've been hearing about Linux making 'inroads' since then....you keep on waiting and stroking that might mouse but just don't hold your breath.

Hey wait, not so fast Lindy.. That you hate Windows (or for that matter, anything Microsoft), is obvious maybe, but not understandable, but I am not going to sit and watch and say nothing when you say 99% of India are pirates.. Now have you ever been to India, or seen that 99% of them use pirated Windows? I am from India, and absolutely object to your utterly pathetic biased opinion. Who the hell gives you the right to say this I don't know. I think it is you who are using numbers for Bias now.. Hate windows as you want (not that it will have any effect on me whatsoever) but don't you make any such unsolicited statements and expect to get away with it.. and since you are such a windows hater, why the hell are you here, reading a Blog meant for Windows users, anyway?

kanwaljit, you dont know that I hate Windows more than I know the true rate of software piracy in India. I dont hate Windows, that would be stupid, its sofware. I maintain a very large Enterprise Windows Server environment for a living. I think Windows 2003/2008, XP, Exchange, and SQL are great products. I think Vista, SMS, Virtual PC/Server, WHS, the Zune, and the 360 to name a few are total junk. I think Office is now bloated as heck and way over priced. I have either maintained or owned all of these including a Zune I won at Microsoft event. My 360 has RROD'ed twice now. What I dont like is Microsoft's focus on total domination, and its lack of innovation. They focus on number of features vs what customers want. They focus on a product having many lackluster, buggy features over a fewer high quality features. Vista is a perfect example of this. So in the 360. As a console on paper the 360 has it all, HD, Xbox Live, downloadable content, many games, all of that is great until it RROD on you...multiple times. A mac fanatic I am far from. I have been reading Paul's site for a long time because I have worked so much with Windows over the years. Yes I prefer Mac products at home, as I think that Apple is way more consumer oriented and not focussed on market domination. As far as software piracy in India. Honestly how many articles do I have to read that state that China and India are at 70-90% piracy rate, compared to 35% world wide and 25% in the US. You are right its NOT 99% like I exaggerated......I would think you would get the exaggeration????? A quick google of "software piracy in India" gave me many links......here are a few that speak to the India and China being the software piracy kings of the world...oh and I linked them specifically because they were written by your countrymen so the truth would not offend you coming from them. http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2006/03/30/stories/2006033003470400.htm http://www.financialexpress.com/old/fe_full_story.php?content_id=98672

Ok Vista added DVD maker to go along with its Movie maker....have you tried using it? I have its a great way to make a coasters. Compared to iMovie/iDVD that came with my Mac its a joke. Vista's new Movie Maker 6...would not see my Sony hard drive cam corder and download video off of it, like Windows Movie Maker 2, could with my Sony digital 8mm camcorder. iMovie pulls video off of both camcorders perfectly fine......as in "it just works". UAC, while its intent is good, compared to the same basic thing in OS X or say Ubuntu...its a nightmare of compatibility problems and a click fest. Vista search, compared to spotlight, I have used both and I can say that spotlight is better. Basic network file copy in Vista the reason I sold my new HP notebook and bought a Macbook last year. Battery life on a Vista notebook compared to Leopard....sweet baby Jesus its night and day. Vista boot times. Vista search index always running. Vista's basic requirement for 2gig's of RAM min. I could go on if you would like? Great features on paper I am sure. Put Joe User down in front of a Vista PC or a Leopard PC and do the things I have listed above and I feel confident that Joe will like the Leopard better.

Lindy: Please do a little test for me: put up a bittorrent client on any of your machines (uTorrent or Azureus are fine) and load one of the popular (lots of peers and seeds) Windows Vista or Windows XP torrent out there (The Pirate Bay, BTMon will help you) and see where do most of the downloaders come from. In the Peer list I saw about 87% of the downloaders are from either the US or Canada (you can even see their IPs or hostnames from ISPs like Comcast or Rogers). ...and since you are there seek out the Leopard torrents as well. You will see that it is pirated like hell too. But that does not count in numbers, as statistics and market share information only count SOLD licenses, not pirate copies! If you add piracy rates to the actual market numbers MAC and Linux will fall to 0.01%, as every pirated copy of the OSX will have 1000 of Windows. When viewed from a pirate's angle the real quality of each OS is revealed: if you look at the three platform as being free (for a pirate they are) they will still choose Windows by a very wide margin, as OSX is locked to a very expensive hardware platform (it is breakable, but does not worth the trouble) and Linux is hard to use for everyday work. Do not forget that Microsoft Office (bloated or not) is still the most coveted piece of software (even on MACs). If I tried to move 100 word/excel users to OpenOffice in the next 6 month most of them would quit their jobs before accepting the alternative platform. That is MS quality. Zsolt

kadarzsoft I will pass on the torrent/pirate bay experience. I am sure your scientific theory is more accurate than the dozen links to articles I saw about software piracy. A woman in my same department at work went to China last year to visit her daughter. Before she left she asked people what software they wanted, and she would get it for them, and they could pay her back. Her daughter told her for the cost of a CD or DVD in China no less, any software you wanted could be purchased at a store on the street. That is the kind of piracy I am talking about, which does not exist in the US, or if it does its not in the open like in China. I have no doubt that you can get anything you want via torrent, including Leopard, and from the US. Of course copies of Leopard like you said, probably go to only Mac users or those who want to hac it to work on a PC, way to much work for Joe User. Windows on the other hand can or at least can be attempted to be (Vista Ready) run on any PC hardware making it that much more of a pirate target. Office is a very good product. I think 2007 adds alot of features that 2003 did not have, but its slower over all. 95% of Office users probably wont use most of the features but some will. I bet if you told those 100 people the could quit if they did not like Open Office and gave them some training they would use Open Office with out any fuss. You would not need much training since the current version of Open Office is almost a clone of Office 2000 or 2003. You of course would save 100 x whatever you paid for Office for those users. Hopefully it was not $399 per copy :)

Pay for support when using an enterprise grade Linux environment (Red Hat or Suse), give money for training on those "free office apps" and count the degrading user productivity and already you are way over the MS licensing costs. Piracy in China: you cannot sell $90 OS and $199 Office to a customer who does not earn that much in 4 month. The US (and MS) still takes hundreds of millions of dollars from China on the account of software licenses. That is the real success (for your economy, not my country's). Even a small city state or pacific island pays several millions of dollars to the US thanks to the MS domination. One more comparison to (try to) end this debate: The local IT store I work with sells more copies of Windows in 3 days than the number of downloads from the Ubuntu ftp server in the country in a YEAR. And I am in Romania, where the piracy is said to be above slightly over 70% (and I also live in the 6th largest city). Linux desktop sales are about 40% of the market (cheap hardware), but as I said earlier, the majority of those systems end up with Windows OS sooner or later through academic/corporate licensing.

"iMovie? You've gotta be kidding" let's not forget the disaster that is the newest version! ;) "My new Sony Camera did not work with Vista because at the time Vista did not natively support hard drive based cam corders August of 2007" Vista doesn't natively support any camcorder that doesn't use common tape formats, since other storage methods (i.e. hard drive or DVD) don't use DV format for recording. Windows Vista only supports DV MPEG-2 import via the MSDV/1394 or UVC/USB class drivers. "It does not ask you for a password, unless your account does not have admin rights and then it does." That's a complete lie! I pointed this out to a smarmy Bestbuy Mackie sales guy one day by creating an admin-level user account on a demo system, and it still popped up asking for a password for privilege escalation. He was speechless after that. Unfortunately you still aren't.

Try running Vista on one of your beige boxes built in 2001. Well my case is from 2001, and the components are aging now, but the system is very fast and stable. End of story.

"You obviously don't understand the principles behind Free and Open Software (FOSS)." If you talk to Richard Stallman, the two are not equal, and don't belong in the same sentence together.

There are a few inaccuracies stated above when refuting the competing products. The average home user probably doesn't notice much difference between new computers. I used an old 1999 G4 with a CPU upgrade to wait for the Intel machines and sales show expansion, rather than avoidance. Some of us use older machines [in my basement while I'm lifting weights] and do not upgrade as they do not need to upgrade the computer or the OS. It is unfortunate that many Windows users will replace perfectly working hardware because they are not smart enough to reinstall XP when it becomes dog slow because of malware or viruses [from stupid web habits and DL's]. I have seen it in so many friends and coworkers. I encourage them to buy the OS reinstall CD or DVD when it is not included with the PC, but they also are too timid to try it to fix their issues. On the other OS, Mac, most of my friends and coworkers just use the shipped OS and just don't upgrade. I was shocked that so many don't even update software. These are average users all over. I have found the latest iMovie to work great, but have found Vista to work great on my Mac Pro Tower as well as a 3 yr old custom box and a new Dell Dimension 410. Office for Windows and Mac is still our choice and I got 2004 and 2008 upgrade for $29 due to a MS rebate and upgrade program. 2007 Windows version works great on XP and Vista. All in all, most of your comments about an OS being better or worse are full of crap [inaccuracies]...most of you. Many of the complaints that you post are not correct. I come here for news on both OS'es. Paul gives great info on all products, and it is usually better than most sites that I know of or find by surfing. I even named a goldfish after him [it's a Sarasa Comet, and is kinda chubby].

Avro/halesgarcia, Great posts. I've had countless email conversations with Paul about his analysis-free obsession with worldwide marketshare. His response is always the same: "I just like marketshare and I like hard numbers". Great.... why? No answer. This is a losing battle with Paul. For whatever reason, he has ZERO interest in actual thought and analysis of the data points. He's just got this rain-man like obsession with worldwide marketshare because it's in his view the most accurate number. I agree that linux isn't making "strong in-roads" into any market I can see outside of servers. This is Paul's main point in the text of his comment and so it's pretty fair, but the his whole fixation of global share as god is ridiculous and a clear bias on his part. Linux is pretty damn devoid of any user-centric or UI innovation. It's just copy-cat central (or I guess, de-central). Marketshare debates are only relevant when you narrow the context to particular groups for which the "network effects" apply. We're clearly seeing that, with the move to web-apps, there is less and less of a network effect in place between enterprise/business computers and home consumer purchases. Apple's consumer marketshare is probably closer to it's retail share than it's worldwide share. People no longer feel as strongly that "I have a PC at work... I should have one at home too". Why does this matter? Because if you're a consumer, you care about different things than a business user (beyond internet access and office). On the flip side, software developers don't care about the overall share. They care about the share in the section of the market that would be interested in their product. So, for example, Adobe doesn't care about Apple's 2% worldwide share since Apple has easily over 30% of the total content creation market (and as high as 80% is some segments). Most interestingly, Microsoft's Office sales marketshare apparently shows that Mac Office makes up to 20% of their revenue for all office sales. That alone says that the Mac market is far more viable for users and valuable for developers than Paul's graph suggests. Again, how many "point of sale" PC's are included in the worldwide share numbers? How many corporate drone PC's that will never run anything other than Office? How many are sold into vertical markets that use them for single-purpose functions (medicine, robotics, manufacturing)? Tally up all those numbers and exclude them for the discussion of the Mac for normal home users. Those sales are irrelevant to the home user who wants to browse the internet, chat, manage their home media and maybe play a game or two. What's most interesting about the latest NPD numbers at retail is that the revenue growth numbers. Apple's share of revenue is way higher then they're share of retail units. Conversely, the PC market's unit growth is higher than it's revenue growth. This all means that Apple's managing to be a more successful computer business with better long-term financials than the PC market which is on a margin-slicing spiral to commodity status. Commodity margins leave little room for R&D and innovation, which makes the PC market's structure so unfortunate. All of the margin in consolidated in Microsoft and Intel's pockets (more in MS). So every PC maker is basically stuck waiting on these two companies to do ALL the innovation for them since they can't afford it. This makes the PC market pretty comparable to the Mac market, accept the quality and reliability is inferior and the user satisfaction is dramatically lower (all facts backed up by Consumer Reports and PC Magazine year after year). So Paul can drone on about world-wide share all he wants. Anyone with half a brain and half an hour can discover how pointless it is as a metric of anything. Here's some info that have more impact on people and the computer business than Paul's hobby horse stats: Apple has out-lived IBM as a computer maker. Apple's revenue was just under half of Microsoft's revenue in 2007 (24 billion vs 51.1billion), despite having just under 3% of the worldwide PC share to Microsoft's 96%. Apple's net income (profit) was 3.5 billion compared to Dell's 2.95 Billion in 2007.

Waethorn, More cherry picking and weird FUD, I see. #1. How does Mac Office being 20% of overall Office sales NOT prove that there's tons of money to be made in developing Mac software? It's sure making Microsoft a mint. How does it somehow "just prove" that Apple should give up their inherent value proposition so that OEM's can ruin their superior service and support record with PC-style finger pointing on support issues? I don't see any logic in your one-liner. #2. You really don't want to play the EULA game. This is pure FUD for purposes I can't understand aside from broad-sided Apple bashing. What is your point exactly? That Apple machines aren't certified as life support systems? Ok. I don't think the average Macbook or iMac buyer cares. I'm not sure how many consumers are looking for a nuclear weapons guidance system either. In fact, this was my whole point. There's a ton of PCs sold into vertical niches where the box runs one in-house, custom application and isn't available to the third party software market. These systems don't count as relevant in the market share debate.... unless you want to argue that it's a lucrative business. But Apple is clearly making plenty of money (more than Dell in fact) with their current products and strategy. #3. Since Apple computers get much better resale and have far better long-term reliability, they're inherently less likely to end up in a landfill than the $399 plastic garbage pedaled by PC vendors. My family has there fully working Macs over 7 years old still in use running Tiger. I've sold every Mac on ebay at a great price before each upgrade (recently sold a 400mhz G4 system for $300 that I had bought on eBay for $400 two years ago). Plus, Apple's early move away from CRTs was dramatically better for the environment. I would like nothing more than to have an honest and lively debate, my friend. But you don't seek to engage or understand. This is just fun geek mental exercise for me, and it'd be more fun if there was genuine discussion. Instead, you make if more like two people in bunkers lobbing grenades at each other. LAME.

DRWAM, Macs vs. PC silliness aside... That's very interesting. It looks like, surprise surprise, our government regulators are operating at a snail's pace and keeping technological progress held back. This is very upsetting to hear (not about Mac in medicine, because who cares so long as it works). I recently met a medical tech consultant in an airport who was carrying around two Dell laptops. One was his company laptop and the other was a client laptop that he had to bring because they wouldn't let him access their stuff on any other machine. He saw my macbook pro and asked how I liked it. I raved a little bit and then he explained that he was switching his business to macs because of the additional support costs of Vista and that it's a move he's hearing many companies in his network considering. So I asked him about the healthcare cost situation and where tech could play a role. He gave one example of where we're getting screwed that really stuck out which reminds me of your FDA issues. He explained that we use this ICD-9 coding system for billing that is totally of date and causes countless problems with diagnosis and reimbursement because it's 30 years old and lacks codes for so many issues. Meanwhile, apparently, the rest of the world is on ICD-10 which is the update from the '90s and makes things dramatically clearer. So why is our country still running medical billing on a coding system from the Carter administration? He said because Medicare and Medicaid are still on this old system and nobody wants to maintain two billing systems. Great. So people get their claims rejected by insurance companies because of an out-dated system that's ripe for abuse thanks to the glacial pace of our government insurance. How does this come back to this thread? Well, I guess because it's a lesson about the problems with being a consumer innovator like Apple and wanting to do business with governments and enterprises. Their pace and IT requirements make innovation basically impossible. And since they're looking for the cheapest box they can buy, they aren't very profitable businesses to sell hardware into, hence the new focus on the consumer by Dell and HP. I could imagine linux making serious inroads into some of these vertical markets since they're strictly using the OS as a platform for one or two applications. Kiosk-style systems would probably serve many of these markets better, though what the hell do I know.

" I don't see any logic in your one-liner." Obviously. My point is that Apple is an OEM. They should sell Office 2008 as an OEM version. OEM versions are preinstalled and supported by the OEM itself, not the software publisher. Without software publisher support, OEM versions of software cost far less than retail versions, and Microsoft offered it to Apple that way, but they flat-out refused to sell it that way, even though it's the highest selling OS X application on the planet. They'd rather gouge customers by selling only retail versions. Remember that it's not just Microsoft's software, but the markup on a higher price = higher profit for the reseller too. Too bad - it's also one of the most telling reasons why cost-conscious customers won't by a Mac. "But Apple is clearly making plenty of money (more than Dell in fact) with their current products and strategy." Ya, by gouging customers. I refer you to my previous statement. "Since Apple computers get much better resale and have far better long-term reliability" Please provide proof. Last time I checked, there's only 4 major notebook makers on the planet - Quanta, Clevo, Compal, and ASmobile, of which no less than 2 of them have previously built laptops for Dell, HP, Lenovo, as well as your precious Apple, not to mention *ME*. Yes, I sell systems made by the same ODM as all the other big name brands. So I guess I can claim that systems I sell are at least as reliable as any major brand name (I don't though - I've seen too many name brands, INCLUDING Mac's, fail before 3 years are up, that I include a 3-year warranty in every system I sell). "Exchange keeps us connected as well." Please tell me you're not using Blackberry's....What a waste of money! Not only does it go through an unreliable central NOC, but you also have to pay for Blackberry Enterprise Server, JUST to connect Exchange with the devices. Windows Mobile devices are the easiest devices to configure on a properly-configured domain - just buy them for each user and get them to cable-sync them once to their workstation. Done, and done. Additional configuration can be controlled via Group Policy in AD by your IT staff. Windows Mobile - for when "Direct Push" means "*DIRECT* Push" (TM). "Apple's early move away from CRTs was dramatically better for the environment." Sorry, but that's completely wrong! Just ask Greenpeace about that - Apple's contracted factories have been judged as some of the worst for the environment....and let's not get into the whole disposable iPod thing....

That's February 2007 and July 2007.

Nope, we don't use it for mobile, just standard office email, but we have many offices and 300 employees. Schedules for edifferent procedures can be a pain, but the schedulers know where we arethrough the calenders, and keep us informed. I have a 2 yr old Treo, but do not use it for any web service. I have computers around me all day, so no mobile is needed. BTW GE seems to have abandoned it's pursuit of Linux run hardware, but I have not checked out their latest Advantage Workstation. The older product used Red Hat. The newer doesn't show what it runs, but claims it is 64 bit, so is it a good assumption that it is XP and Vista?

"Try and find a machine comparable to the Mac mini in features and form factor for the same price. Just try. Beat the macbook or iMac with comparably equipped and designed PCs from a major vendor" I've done this over and over again enough times to prove that it's true. I can do this any day of the week, sorry to say. Let's play the "what do you get for x amount of $$?" shall we? Ok right off the bat, Dell gives Apple the beat down with an Inspiron 1420: Apple Macbook 13" 2.1GHz stock machine (base config): $1099.99 includes the following (get ready for the humour here): 2.1GHz Core 2 Duo (model please?) 1GB of DDR2 667 120GB SATA 5400RPM Hard Drive Includes a combo drive (they stil make those :-P ), 1280x800 LCD, bluetooth, wireless, and not much else Inspiron 1420 system for approx. same price: Intel Core 2 Duo T8300 (2.4Ghz Penryn) 3GB DDR2 667 RAM 320GB SATA 5400RPM Hard Drive DVD Burner Intel 4965AGN WiFi (makes laptop Centrino-compliant) Bluetooth, webcam, glossy 1280x800 screen, in-home service actual price: $1084 Now let's play everybody's favourite spinoff game: "So how much does Apple charge for that?" Well considering that Apple has nothing even close, the "closest" I could get is to take the next model up - the mid-line Macbook @ 2.4GHz, and add a 250GB SATA 5400RPM Hard Drive. The only other difference between it and the 2.1Ghz is the CPU speed, a DVD Burner, and 2GB RAM total. Still no in-home service. You still only get 2GB, and not 3 (4GB on the Mac is hideously overpriced), and the hard drive options are inferior. Apple charges $1399 for it. So $300 more, and "Apple doesn't gouge customers" eh? "So don't even try and call Apple out on "gouging" with a 14.5% net margin " I'd like you to point out which orifice on your body you pulled that figure out of.... "Microsoft is making 80% profit margins on Windows and Office and increasing their prices over time " ....ditto on that one. Oh yes, I guess in your world where down means up, and black means white, and Windows Vista price cuts are selling for less than XP did when it was released (with or without inflation) means increasing prices. "That Dell XPS One isn't cheaper than the iMac even though it's specs are inferior." WRONG! The Dell XPS One uses desktop CPU's which already put it way above the iMac in performance. Apple doesn't use desktop CPU's. Period. So no consumer quad-core offerings until Intel brings out their quad-core mobile chips. That's just sad (funny-sad, considering it's Apple). I've been selling quad-core systems for a year now!

I meant geek in the nicest way, btw.

After reading some of the comments and decided to do some asking around. Find some knowledgeable persons to either justify or dismiss my comments. Lets start with Linux article given. This theory of free and open source software. This online manifesto of source highlights why Windows and the average users will not migrate over to Linux. I will debunk this manifesto and prove its nothing but deception. 1. Linux is not Windows. These argument are completely ridiculous. Many of the changes in Windows happen in the API and kernel level. Just because they are not as visable as the Linux distros, doesn't mean they aren't signicant or experience altering. The idea that user experiences are the same from Windows to Windows is absolutely insane. There are college courses dedicated to the changes in Windows-related software and hardware. Thats why industry certified computer technicians have to certify on the specific OS each time a new one comes out. While NT3, NT4, 2000, and XP are based on the same code, the changes are like night and day. Second, Linux doesn't come with all the necessary drivers to run applications. No iTunes, no Microsoft Office, and most importantly No Blu-Ray. Sony and its Blu-Ray partners has no version of the desktop Blu-Ray writers or readers that support any distro of Linux. If you attempt to come up with your own version of Blu-Ray drivers, once it updates the player will not work. Part of their DRM system. You have to get Nero to get any support. It doesn't come natively. You can burn data to it but all those Blu-Ray DVD movies will not work. The latest drivers are only written for Windows Most of the latest software, hardware, and applications aren't even supported by the mainstream corporations. Why? Because these companies are not going to jeopardize their proprietary code and allow everyone access to their computers. Second, why make drivers for an OS that doesn't even have 1 percent of the market. In the real world, people want to get paid. The resources put into making a product for Linux doesn't equal the return on investment. Incase you guys don't get it, this is a capitalistic society we live in. Thats why its rare that PC games get ported over to Mac and even rarer that they get a genuine Linux port. 2. Linux is too different from Windows. The argument here is that Linux is too radical a change for Windows users. That the open source out of the box thinking makes it a better OS. Again. WRONG! Just check all of the security companies that rate Linux based OSes for security flaws, vunerabilities, and viruses. Yes, it does have vunerabilities. Its vunerable to viruses. They may not be as prevalent as say Windows Vista or XP, but they do exist. A statistical analysis of First Six Month High Vunerabilities which compared XP, Vista, OS-X 10.4, Red Hat Linux, Novell SUSE, and Ubuntu 6.06 showed that both Vista and XP had fewer vunerabilities in the first six months than their Linux or Apple counterparts. This was a joint venture by CSO and Microsoft. Also, just this year alone, according to secunia.com, there are 4 more security advisories for Ubuntu 7.04 than Windows Vista. Now if you compare Vista vs Ubuntu 7.04 security advisories, there are 125 security advisories for Ubuntu 7.04 vs only 25 for Vista. Because Vista is built on the Server 2003 code base, 80% of the issues suffered by Windows XP do not affect Vista. Also, the new ribbon UI employed by Microsoft Office 2007 is significantly different from the UI that was previously used previous office versions. Also, the interface of Internet Explorer 7.0 is way different than previous I.E. versions. The firewall and security improvements in Vista represent a fundamental change in the way Windows handles security. Change does come to Windows and anyone who has really used Windows would know that. 3. Culture Shock. The idea is that because its a community of hackers, crackers, writers, and enthuisast that it makes for better support. Once again, thats completely irrelavent. There are more online forums dedicated to Microsoft Windows users, that are free and easily accessable. The sheer numbers of the Windows Base and the enthuisast simply outnumber the entire Linux base. I can find workarounds for any Microsoft OS easier than I can find a Linux forum. Second, unlike some of these Linux guys who we absolutely know nothing about, the guys at Microsoft are college professionals. They are well educated and because they have a salary, they are accountable. Which brings me to my point, who the hell do I hold accountable if a Linux distro completely wrecks my system? The distros? Again, because its all free, there is no accountability for shotty or flawed coding. If Microsoft screws up, I can get my refund plus tech support. Since Microsoft has spent millions of dollars in developing a tech infrastructure, its not very hard to get some one to fix your machine. Ever try to find a business that does fix Linux machines? Good luck. 4. Old vs New. This section is completely disingenuous to Windows users. With our ability to access the registry within Windows, we can do the same tweaks to the OS that any Linux user can do. They no more create an OS than anyone else. The Distros act like Microsoft with the community of Linux users to make an OS. Microsoft does the same thing, except we have a corporate business community, software business community, financial business community, IT industry community, the MSDN and TechNet community of enthusiasts/professionals to make changes and "build Windows." Except the sheer numbers make a better product. We have exactly as much input when a new "Windows" comes out. Thats what the Beta and RC programs are all about. 5.This article contradicts itself. "The user knows everything so there is no need for "user friendly" features. The user knows everything there is to know about the software; he doesn't need help." Then what the hell was that about community, forums, and distros? You don't call that help? Then he goes on about software being too hard for the Windows user. Almost every piece of software is reviewed by IT media companies, including complexity or simplicity of use. Anyone can find reviews on any piece of software made for Windows Machines. Once again, a very disingenuous article because most people don't want to waste time manipulating code. If its that beta-ish where you have to manipulate code, then its not ready for average user who isn't going to adopt any Linux OS. The entire Mac OS line is dedicated to user friendly people who simply want to get to work. 5. This article deals with user friendly. So all those beta and RC that both Microsoft and Apple use don't make a great easy to use product for the masses. Lets see, who has all the money and market? Linux has less than 1 percent. Apple has about 2.87 percent of the world market and about 6 percent of the U.S. market. Now Microsoft has 96 percent of the world market with about 93 percent here in the U.S. Through out this entire article and section, Linux novices are insulted because we have to learn everything about the OS and the software? Who the hell has that kind of time in 2008 and yet has a job? With husbands, wifes, kids, jobs, civic responsibities, religion, politics, entertainment, and other parts of American or World life..... Who wants to tinker with a OS that requries that much effort? For what, watching YouTube clips, sending your friends email, editing your vacation photos, burning music CD's, and seeing who's winning the election on MSNBC? Again, you have to gage whether that effort is really worth it. For 15 years, the entire WORLD has concluded... Its not that important! 6. Everyone who has ever known computer history knows that the real birth of the GUI belongs to the briliant but hardly rememberd Xerox Parc team of Palo Alto. Also, if you really research Windows history, the roots of the Windows OS actually begins in 1981. Microsoft began development of the Interface Manager (Later it would be renamed to "Windows."). In 1982, the emerging Windows UI was changed to resemble the GUI from the Xerox Star (Thanks to a flawed contract signed by Apple.). Windows 1.00 was actually demonstrated at Comdex in Atlanta, Georgia in the spring of 1983! It was announced th the keynote speech by Bill Gates. That means while Jim Gettys and Scheifler began their work on X-Windows in 1984, they definitely heard about Windows and had seen what Microsoft was up to. So in many ways, Microsoft influenced X Windows and every Linux GUI. Even today there is a Vista-Ubuntu theme for Linux. Appearantly, there's something good about Windows that Linux users frequently adopt the GUI. 7. FOSS. The problem with it is that it is free. One of the basic fundamentals in our current existence is one of the roots of all evil. Money. Its a necessary evil. It pays for the roof you sleep under. It pays for the food that you eat. It pays for the computer you are reading this on, and it pays for the internet access you're using. Nobody makes money on Free Open Source Software. Therefore, why make video games that you have to charge money under? No reason and thats why over 99 percent of PC games are officially unsupported. People want to get paid, like it or not, want it or not. Now while I love the Star Trek and Star Wars Jedi ideals, this is not a world in which that kind of utopian values can be adopted. Can we get there one day, absolutely. Are we there yet? Hell No. Not by th nearest stretch. Linux values must make way to practicality and the realistic nature of the real world. The reason Linux has not caught on is that so many people is that Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman has failed to act like a Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. You need someone to truely act as a unifying force and create a unified vision. Allow for all the variants and variations of Linux but under one roof. You can licence the rights to development to Red Hat, Novell, Ubuntu, Sun, etc... But then take that collective talent, throw in some marketing, and sell a version to reward people to want to make it better. Get all the 3rd party software on board. If Stallman and Torvalds had done that, Linux might be as big as you guys want it to be. The problem is that none of them wants to be Gates or Jobs. Thats why Linux is still just a hobbyist, enthuisasts, and minor subculture of the computer world.