Posted on 11/15/2005 12:11:28 PM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing
Let me address the inevitable "Ubuntu vs. OS X" comparison. The thing that surprised me most about using the PowerMac was not that OS X's UI was better than Ubuntu's, which I have known for quite some time having used both regularly, but how small that difference really was. As I said, OS X's UI is a step up from GNOME's. However, I wouldn't say it is in a completely different league. In terms of the fundamental UI elements, GNOME is extremely competitive.
(Excerpt) Read more at osnews.com ...
^^^^^^^^^It doesn't get much easier than running a self-contained program. You just drag it to your Applications folder, no installer necessary.^^^^^^^^^^
In linux, you don't even need to drag. You simply type in what you want(which is what you'd do in your browser anyways) then click click done.(with some processing time inbetween, unavoidable on any platform)
Why is reading so hard?
I specifically said I found gartner's numbers much more credible. For a reason which *YOU* yourself have quoted.
^^^^^^^^^According to Gartner, forecasts need to distinguish between the OS the machine ships with, and the OS that is installed right after it's unboxed.^^^^^^^^^^
And Garner is taking into account for that fact. That's why they said it'd have to be 2005.
Have you looked at your calendar lately?
To add into the above statement
#########After taking account for piracy, Gartner said 2004 worldwide market share for Mac OS is 2.5 percent, versus 1.3 percent for Linux. However, this will change next year. Gartner predicts in 2005, the Mac will slip to 2 percent market share, and Linux will grow to 2.1 percent.##########
Taking into account to piracy?
Translated, that means : After taking into account for the 95% that go to windows installs linux will have more marketshare than the mac does.
I really don't see what's so hard about all of this. Linux will run on anything. Mac OS, only on macs. Apple themselves are their biggest enemy when it comes to the amount of users who use their software worldwide.
The sheer numbers work for linux, and against apple.
And besides, google's numbers are over a year old. If you read the article, Gartner's numbers are about the same as google's. Google hasn't released any numbers since then.
^^^^^^^^As your second link reports, Linux is used merely as a free disposable operating system on computers sold in Asia.^^^^^^^^^^^
That's fine. I'm not arguing for/against that.
^^^^^^^^^The Asian customer then erases Linux and replaces it with a pirated copy of Windows. The Windows piracy rates in China and India are about 92% and 88% respectively.^^^^^^^^^^^
And taking into account for that fact, Linux still beats the mac.
^^^^^^^^^^I'm not anti-Linux.^^^^^^^^^^^
Did you notice how I never accused you of this either way? I don't need accusations. I've got something better.
^^^^^^^^^^^The current Linux user interface is lousy for the home/office desktop environment.^^^^^^^^^^^
No it's not. It'll keep up with a mac in many ways.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^According to real-world network statistics, Mac OS X is far ahead of Linux in actual usage for desktop computers.^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Doesn't matter. Your link's numbers are still too high based on apple's own statistics, the numbers can't be that high.
^^^^^^^^^^^for several years before it was either easy or popular to do so^^^^^^^^^^
Don't take this as a flame, but being as this is a world of white background and text it's gonna come off that way......
Before it was easy? That being the case, why did you post in the first place?
The rest of your post, I largely agree. The one sticking point that linux has that the mac doesn't is that you are required to go out and buy another computer in order to run the OS. Linux will install on your existing computer and the end result is about the same. A well packaged, stable, easy to use system that has plenty of applications for the average home user. Office, internet, music/movie/media/etc, graphics, chat, cd/dvd burning...........
It's third party apps that are the achilles heel at this point.
I find loading a program via clicking its icon or listing easier than typing its execution call into a command line.
Linux seriously needs to move away from that crap if it wants to be installed on desktops.
The only one here who seems to have a reading problem is you, Half. It was YOU who selectively read the articles and ignored the panoply of other analysts who discounted the Linux market. In addition, your cited articles were from 2004... before the introduction of the Mac Mini and the 47% increase in Apple's market share.
Have you looked at your calendar lately?
Yes, it is 2005, Half, but that means nothing in realationship to Gartner or Kuznetsky's crystal ball gazing. Apple's domestic market share has grown faster than the industry (retail sales show 6.7% compared to 4.3% for the same quarter last year). Worldwide, Gartner predicted Apple to slip to 2%... didn't happen.
The fact is, Half, that tha vast majority of computer buyers and users do not want to buy into an amateur OS that they have to tinker with and twitch to get to do what Windows and Macs do as a matter of course. Yes, there are tinkerers and people who like to get under the hood and try to tweak things to improve the OS (I used to do that but now I prefer to just USE my computers...) but MOST people don't want to buy into problems... they don't want a problem, they want something that works.
Just as in the world of automobiles, there are people who prefer to be their own mechanics, people who tinker around to run their cars on discarded frying oil from restaurants, people who even choose to build their own cars... or who prefer to put a souped up engine from another maker in the body of a car it was not designed for... but, Half, they are a very small minority even when compared to those who buy "boutique" cars. Most people buy a car that has been assembled by one manufacturer and take their cars to the local garage, buy regular gasoline, and want it to get them from point A to point B with as little fuss as possible. The vast majority of computer users are the same.
Could you please explain what you mean here. Do you have any reason to believe that when the Intel-based Macs come out in 2006, that there will be an increased ability to run Windows over Virtual PC? ....or are you saying something different, IOW that because Windows is made for Intel based computers and the 2006 Intel Macs would have the same chip, that there will be an new out of the box ability to run Windows based software [or a Windows OS such as XP Professional] ?!
I am a longtime Mac user who needs Windows based software for my law office and therefore have used Dell PCs for this purpose. I am not particularly computer savvy, so if you could keep your response clear and not assume I know more than I do, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Apple will not ship Macs with Windows preinstalled - but they will not prevent you from purchasing a copy of Windows and installing it alongside Mac OS X. You should be able to boot up with either or both operating systems.
More info about Apple's new patent-pending method for hosting multiple operating systems is given here.
To point out that I'm not inherently hostile to either Linux or the idea of using Linux as a desktop OS. The same reason why I mention that I have paid versions of Microsoft Office on my Macs. The OS wars are full of zealots. I have my preferences, but they are based on what's worked best for me and not on hatred of Bill Gates or because I think Linux is communism warmed over.
The rest of your post, I largely agree. The one sticking point that linux has that the mac doesn't is that you are required to go out and buy another computer in order to run the OS. Linux will install on your existing computer and the end result is about the same.
For a power user (or at least someone interested in playing with computers) , none of that's a problem. That's the other reason why I pointed out using Linux as a desktop OS before it was easy to do so. I'm well aware of what one can do with Linux but I don't confuse what works for me with what works for a computer-illiterate novice. I don't think the average home user wants to worry about installing an OS. If they've already paid for Windows on the PC, it's likely that's what they'll keep using. I think being able to buy desktop-ready Linux computers from a large vendor like Dell, Gateway, or IBM would give Linux a real boost in that market.
A well ackaged, stable, easy to use system that has plenty of applications for the average home user. Office, internet, music/movie/media/etc, graphics, chat, cd/dvd burning........... It's third party apps that are the achilles heel at this point.
I think OpenOffice still has a little further to go before I'd abandon Microsoft Office for it. Remember that a significant number of people out there want exactly what they have on Windows, not something close. In fact people who want their computer to work exactly like it does under Windows are often disappointed with Macs, too. To make the switch, a person needs to be willing to learn some new things. If they aren't, they'll be miserable switching from Windows to anything else, be it Mac or Linux or BeOS or whatever.
^^^^^^^^^I find loading a program via clicking its icon or listing easier than typing its execution call into a command line.^^^^^^^^^^
Synaptic is not a command line program. Neither are any of the other programs like it.
^^^^^^^^^^^Linux seriously needs to move away from that crap if it wants to be installed on desktops.^^^^^^^^^^^
It already has.
^^^^^^^^^^It was YOU who selectively read the articles and ignored the panoply of other analysts who discounted the Linux market.^^^^^^^^^
Go back and read my posts. I said before you came in that I find Gartner's numbers more credible.
^^^^^^^^^^In addition, your cited articles were from 2004... before the introduction of the Mac Mini and the 47% increase in Apple's market share.^^^^^^^^^^^
If I remember correctly, this translates into roughly a million new mac users. Isn't that recently what was in the news?
I doubt that's enough, but until more research is done by groups with much more connections and data than either you or I have it'll be hard to say openly.
When that happens, call me to it. If I'm wrong, I'll appologize. I don't have a problem with that.
^^^^^^^^^^^Yes, it is 2005, Half, but that means nothing in realationship to Gartner or Kuznetsky's crystal ball gazing. Apple's domestic market share has grown faster than the industry (retail sales show 6.7% compared to 4.3% for the same quarter last year). Worldwide, Gartner predicted Apple to slip to 2%... didn't happen.^^^^^^^^^^^
You're getting marketshare mixed with userbase.
^^^^^^^^^^^^The fact is, Half, that tha vast majority of computer buyers and users do not want to buy into an amateur OS that they have to tinker with and twitch to get to do what Windows and Macs do as a matter of course.^^^^^^^^^^^
That's not what linux is anymore. Suse, Xandros, Linspire, and many others are "ready out of the box".
^^^^^^^^^^^^To point out that I'm not inherently hostile to either Linux or the idea of using Linux as a desktop OS.^^^^^^^^
Ahh, no need for that. I'm not labeling anybody a linux hater. Not that the label would mean anything anyways, coming from me.
^^^^^^^^ For a power user (or at least someone interested in playing with computers) , none of that's a problem.^^^^^^^^^^
Heh, I'm a power user. But I don't have a power bank account, if you catch my drift.
^^^^^^^^^I don't think the average home user wants to worry about installing an OS.^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't either. However, there's nothing that says that the owner of the computer has to be the one to install it. This route would still be far cheaper than buying a mac. I don't know what rates are around you, but OS installs cost around 80-120 $.
^^^^^^^^^I think being able to buy desktop-ready Linux computers from a large vendor like Dell, Gateway, or IBM would give Linux a real boost in that market.^^^^^^^^^^^
Agreed.
^^^^^^^^^ I think OpenOffice still has a little further to go before I'd abandon Microsoft Office for it.^^^^^^^^^^^
Considering that the discussion has been framed/geared towards "joe user", I doubt that joe user is using most of those advance functions of MSO anyways.
^^^^^^^^^^In fact people who want their computer to work exactly like it does under Windows are often disappointed with Macs, too.^^^^^^^^
Again, agreed. That's why the mac hasn't died, and why windows is here to stay.
I'm surprised when I run into a person doesn't know that apple makes computers. It doesn't happen very often, but I've run into them. Apple = the ipod company.
Given the security problems that MS has brought upon itself, let linux truely become a mainstream knowledge item, and more people will be switchers than you'd think. As a linux user, you know exactly what I'm talking about. Most people don't know what linux is, or that linux operating systems even exist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.