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.
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.