Gee, that looks like an interesting growth curve, don't you think???
Posted on 06/02/2006 9:17:14 PM PDT by Swordmaker
The same thing happened with Windows XP. When Beta 2 arrived, I found myself torn between what was new and good about the operating system, and what was new and bad.
Significant negatives back in 2001 included product activation (which doesn't affect Microsoft volume licensing customers), changes to the network-configuration user interface and the way XP interacted with other versions of Windows on small networks. Was Windows XP truly better than Windows 2000? It was a toss-up in many ways. In the end, I went with the improved app compatibility and user interface improvements of XP. But it wasn't by much.
Well, Microsoft just upped the ante on internal conflict with the release of Vista Beta 2. It boils down to this: The software giant is favoring security and IT controls over end-user productivity. Don't get me wrong, security and IT manageability are very good things. But some of the people actually using the Beta 2 Vista software describe their experience as akin to that of a rat caught in a maze.
(Excerpt) Read more at computerworld.com ...
why would i need that junk software?
OS X has been out of beta for five years, Echo. Apparently you are not aware of that. It is existing, working technology standard that Vista is not even rising to meet. It is appropriate to compare a "new" product against "existing" products to see if there are improvements. Vista, in the opinion of the author, fails in comparison to the existing and available technology of OS X. It is even more telling when that author is considered an expert in the field of Windows.
Even before I switched to a Mac computer I thought iTunes was the best music player I had used. It was one of the reasons I made the switch.
no duh a beta program is going to fail against a mature one... doesn't take a rocket scientist. I could have told you that. Linux is easily better than Vista right now(its still beta).
i'm not big into music although I do play guitar(haven't played in a while though). If im using windows Winamp or media player is fine for me, if im using linux any one of its media players is fine, im not picky. I got some big 'ol Boston Acoustic speakers that can rock the house! :)
Oh, come on. Sure, these things need to go back to MS for refining, but other than that, a beta that's rough around the edges is hardly news, and it's hardly unique. My reaction to this was pretty much "well, what else is new?" I'm quite content to wait for the final product, personally - if it looks good, maybe we'll find a place for it, and if not, we won't. But anyone who's making that call now, based on the state of the beta, is just foolish, IMO.
Your ignorance shows no bounds... did you notice that your vaunted link is ignorant itself? It has split the Apple Market...
Mac OS ......... 4.19%
and
MacIntel ......... 0.23%
Now, add those to Mac OS X components together :
Mac OS X ....... 4.42%
Now, plug THAT figure into your graph and you will see a consistent although slight INCREASE in Mac Market share over the period of transition from PowerPC architecture to Intel architecture.
In fact, the first time you posted that chart the Macintel percentage was 0.19% and only a week or so later it is 0.23%, a respectable increase for a new product.
Gee... did you notice that sudden drop of 0.14% in the "Mac OS" share from December's 4.35% to January's 4.21%? What happened in January? Oh, Apple released the first MacIntel, the Mac Mini... who's first appearance on that list was in January with an initial market share of about 0.17% with ONE model on the market...
Do you think that the website that maintains that chart DELIBERATELY split the Mac OS X market in January to further distort the Mac OS X record? Naw... that would be FUD.
And, Echo, it is STILL ten (10) times more than your beloved LINUX's "market" share...
Gee, that looks like an interesting growth curve, don't you think???
wow! huge incease! they are breaking it all down, they gave all the data on the chart, if they lumped ALL OSX togeather you would NOT know the macintel marketshare.
doesn't take much to make a graph move when you're talking about 0.23% especially since its a new product :\
They also split WinXP, Win98, WinME, WinNT ETC...
It is an appropriate comparison if the Ferrari beta test models comes with flat mismatched tires and two of the wheels have been mounted sideways... or the steering wheel, the acceleration pedal and the brake pedal are installed in front of different seats.. one of which faces backwards.
That's a valid point... but then the OS X market share should be inclusive of both...
they are NOT the exactly the same thing... if they were Photoshop CS2 would work on the intelmacs...
OS X.4 is OS X.4 on either platform.
If you want to breakdown OSes by processor, then WinXP should be WinXP Intel and WinXP AMD... etc.
Then consistency is apparently not their strong point.
my dad worked at Ford, they find all kinds of things wrong during testing(beta), thats the point to testing, run it hard make it fail then address the failure/cause of failure(pretty much the idea)
It works on MacIntels and MacPPCs.
How many years has Microsoft been testing Longhorn/Vista to make it fail... and addressing the cause of failures... and still release a Beta like this? Six? Seven?
If Ford were to do there testing and correction the way MS seems to have, the Ford 500 would be due to be released sometime in late 2009.
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.