Will Windows 7 stymie Mac OS X's growth?
As of December, Apple's Mac OS X commanded 9.63 percent of the OS market, according to Net Applications, while Microsoft still led the way, accounting for more than 88 percent of the operating-system market.
But the real story behind those figures is Apple's meteoric rise in the market. Just one year prior, in December 2007, Apple controlled just 7.3 percent of the operating-system space--a record at the time.
There are numerous reasons why Mac OS X has become so popular over the past few years. Part of it can be attributed to Apple's success and its status in the industry as the most renowned and respected company to consumers. It can also be attributed to Mac OS X itself, which is easily one of the best operating systems ever made.
And most assuredly, part of the reason for Mac OS X's success is Windows Vista. Although it currently controls 21 percent of the market, it was a failure on many levels for Microsoft. Suffice it to say that compatibility issues, User Account Control annoyances, vendor and enterprise unrest, and poor PR contributed to the blunder that was Vista.
But now, as a new Microsoft operating system starts making its way to store shelves, it's incumbent upon us to forecast its expected impact. And after downloading the Windows 7 beta and immersing myself in its environment, I think I can say, both as a Mac user (I'm writing this on my iMac) and what some may call an Apple nut (I own just about every Apple product released over the past five years), Windows 7 will not only stymie Mac OS X's growth, it will push Apple's market share back down to pre-Vista levels.
Even though it's only in beta testing, and there are still quite a few months left for Microsoft to screw things up, Windows 7 is easily one of the best operating systems I've ever used. Driver support is outstanding, and performing basic tasks on a 3-year old, homemade Windows box was delightfully fast. User Account Control was barely seen, and the operating system's redesign, though obviously taking pointers from Mac OS X, made using Windows much easier than in previous iterations. Simply put, the experience was delightful.
But there's another key factor to consider: Windows 7 is optimized for netbooks. And although the market is currently still in its infancy, the netbook space is one of the fastest-growing in the industry, and most analysts believe that the mini devices are the future. Windows XP works fine with netbooks, but Linux has controlled the market with its better software, and now that Windows 7 is available, expect that to end quickly. In other words, Microsoft, with Windows 7, has solidified its place in the future.
Besides the world of netbooks, Windows 7 is still an extremely compelling offering for the enterprise and consumers alike. In essence, it combines all the best features from Windows XP and Vista, as well as Mac OS X, to create a multimedia experience that should make consumers on both Macs and PCs happy. That said, there's always that lingering security issue, and although Microsoft claims that Windows 7 will be the most secure operating system it has ever released, I'll wait to see if that's true.
But the real success for Windows 7 will come from vendors and the enterprise. Hewlett-Packard and Dell will be happy with Windows 7 because their customers will be happy. And the enterprise will be absolutely delighted with Windows 7 because it's not the resource hog Vista is, and believe it or not, it does more in fewer steps, creating an extremely simplified experience--something I've been enjoying on Mac OS X for years now.
That "satisfaction factor" will enable Windows 7 to capture some of Mac OS X's market share. For the first time in recent memory, the new Microsoft OS will appeal to consumers who want a better experience, companies that want reliable software without breaking the bank, and vendors that want their customers to be happy. That didn't happen with Vista, which forced many to switch to Mac OS X, but I think that it will happen with Windows 7.
Now, I know some of you are thinking that the damage has already been done that Mac converts will never look at a Windows machine again. I'm sure that a large percentage of Mac users would probably agree with that sentiment right now. But I'm a firm believer that if people use a particular operating system at work and like using it, they'll bring it into the home.
Maybe millions of people across the U.S. started using Vista, hated it, and bought a Mac because they've heard such great things about it. Or maybe they decided to ignore Vista when they needed a new computer because of all the bad PR and tried out the Mac instead.
But once the enterprise starts adopting Windows 7--and it will--consumer converts will realize that the new Microsoft system is an outstanding product that not only improves the Windows experience but actually eclipses Mac OS X's.
Apple's popularity in the market won't change, regardless of Windows 7, and undoubtedly, there will be a slew of people who will buy Macs because of their affinity for their iPod and iPhone. Regarding those people, Microsoft never stood a chance.
But it's the average consumer--the person who doesn't follow the tech world, doesn't know why so many people hate Microsoft, doesn't understand the basic difference between Mac OS X and Windows, and simply doesn't care about tech, as long as it works--who will consider the alternatives. She will read about Windows 7 on sites like this, examine the price differences between a MacBook Pro and the latest-and-greatest Hewlett-Packard notebook, use Windows 7 at work, and then pick Microsoft's product over Apple's up for personal use.
In the process, Mac converts who moved to Mac OS X out of sheer hatred for Vista might start making their way back to the Windows world, after they hear great things about Microsoft's latest operating system.
As a person who performs almost every computing task on a Mac and tells anyone who will listen that at this point, the average consumer should be using a Mac instead of a Windows machine because of security and usability, I'm starting to prep myself for the single moment that I thought would never come: I'll be using a Windows 7 machine as my main computer and telling anyone who will listen that, believe it or not, using the latest Microsoft operating system really is worth it.
Now excuse me while I go outside to take some pictures of those pigs flying around my house.
Check out Don's Digital Home podcast, Twitter feed, and FriendFeed.
Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and posts at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.








Lately I've been increasingly disappointed in your articles Don. Stop watching pigs fly and look at this a little more in-depth. No offense. I've liked a lot of your articles in the past; lately they seem to be a bit shallow though.
Apple is not friendly to developers. They limit what you can do on your own hardware. They limit where you can sell your apps. They limit what languages or tools that you can use to build a program.
Microsoft, otoh does none of that. Which is why Apple will lose users. It wouldn't be the first time (remember the first Mac/PC war back in the early 90's?)
You forget that you can run Windows naively, or virtually on a Mac. Every year running Windows apps on a Mac becomes faster and faster... and will be seamless sooner than later.
Additionally, as far as developers go... that is a matter of opinion. Some developers like the fact that they can optimize their software for a standardized hardware platform... this is one of the reasons why iPhone/Touch software development has exploded the way it has.
Win7 is better than Vista, XP, and OS X. Try it for yourself
..."Apple is not friendly to developers. They limit what you can do on your own hardware. They limit where you can sell your apps. They limit what languages or tools that you can use to build a program."...
Actually, you have that totally backwards. Microsoft makes it hard for developers not using Microsoft developer tools. Try doing Ruby on Rails development on Windows versus Mac (one fine example) and then try to tell me that Apple limits developers as compared to Microsoft!
I assume the pigs came with the software and lipstick.
Agreed.
@Don: Your logic is way off. Here's why:
* Windows 7 won't be out until late this year/early 2010 (or so) given any reasonable estimate.
* If someone just dropped 1 or 2 $k on a new computer, and some variable amount of money on software, what makes you think he or she will suddenly ditch that investment for a Windows machine? Especially within the next 3-5 years (the average life of a computer in a family household)?
* It's nice that you're all goggle-eyed at a beta, but let's see what happens once all the features and bugfixes get tacked on...
/P
@penguin. There has been no appreciable change in hardware requirements or performance reguarding previous OS beta's and their actual release. You are simply being the standard windows pessimist and fud distributor, who when cornered with his lies, doesn't think anyone will notice.
But what should I expect from the two biggest I-tards ever to post the face of cnet.
But Penguinisto, you do realize that the Beta is feature complete? It's not getting any bigger (or bloated). The hard work has already been done and it will improve. This is NOT a repeat of Vista, it's Vista done right.
[CNET editors' note: Offensive content removed]
Ugh.
You'll know what that means one day.
Now that really is tragic - a middle aged fanboy!
Troll, you are just throwing insults
@Penguin
you make valid arguments, I believe the Beta is feature filled already.
Its to keep those who didn't plop 2k on a new machine no reason to switch
And where do you get your figure of 50% from? Maybe in Switzerland but not in the US.
Troll
The "mojave experiment" wasn't posted anywhere but television commercials that I've seen and I've been online for a lot longer than the amount of time between now and when those "experiments" were carried out. I'd like to see some actual data on those and see exactly how they were carried out, what was told to people about what they were testing and exactly what kind of background the people partaking in the "experiment" had. I'd also like to see if they were able to test out equally modern operating systems by both Linux and Macintosh in comparison and if they were allowed to try and install a program, send an email with the included program or do any other normal everyday task involving internet access.
@Mark_Anderson
While I was in college, I knew exactly one person with a Mac. Granted I was on a smaller campus, but before my senior year I didn't even know that one person. The Mac is gaining market share and educational institutions are a very good way to see that. The price of a Mac, when paired with the price of a PC with every piece of software necessary for your day to day usage as well as every piece of software necessary for system maintenance, comes out to being just under that of a PC. Notice I said under? If you get the free software available for a PC to do every little thing you need on a day to day basis, there is still the hassle of dealing with system maintenance, defragging a hard drive, running antivirus scans, cleaning the registry and cleaning the cache and of course, when you do get a virus that wasn't caught by your antivirus program, there's the hassle of calling MS about it and getting help for removing it after finding out what virus you have and potentially what information has been accessed and what other users you've infected without knowing about it. If you count your time at minimum wage and then count up all the hours spent doing all of those menial tasks not necessary on a Mac for most of the life of the computer, the Windows machine ends up costing much much more. The real choice isn't between Windows and Mac, it's between Mac and Linux. Windows should be put to pasture and allowed to roam free. It wasn't the best, but at least it was there. It's time to move on to something better.
Thanks for reminding us of that mojave joke though. Anytime a company has to use deception to try to trick users into liking it's products it's already failed.
I'm constantly laughing at a good friend of mine who is a die hard fista apologist, yet is always trying to figure out how to do things he used to do all the time in ex-pee and is constantly swearing at the thing for screwing around with his settings on him (views to folders that change in particular seem to plague him). I hear the same things from most fista apologists, "there are no issues, except ...".
I'll never understand the idea that a free man would willingly go back to a life of slavery. Idiotic control whips like WGA don't exist or belong in a real operating system. That is why fista sp 3, AKA w7, isn't welcome on any hardware I own and in fact winblows never will be again.
Rape me once, shame on you. Rape me twice, shame on me.
There's so much wrong with your post it's difficult to know where to begin. I think I counted every possible ABM cliche there is in your post.
Somehow I doubt that. I bought a MacBook in 2008, and though I still have to maintain several computers running Windows I definitely prefer Mac OS X now. I don't think a lot of people who invest in the Mac platform will go back. The most they'll do is try dual-booting Windows 7.
Anyway, I'm still skeptical of Windows 7. They haven't sufficiently proven that it's not just Vista with a new UI. Vista is about 40% slower than XP in real-world tests, despite requiring twice the RAM. Unless they can outdo XP performance-wise (in multiple 3rd-party tests), I am disinclined to believe any of Microsoft's grandiose claims.
These weren't just MS claims either, they're word-of-mouth from many different beta testers, since the operating system is floating around now to people, as well as beta keys. Plus Don stated specifically that he tried it himself, and LIKED it being an Apple aficionado. That says a lot, I think.
I gave up on Windoze when I switched to the Mac.
Now with two Macs and no PCs, I am not taking this technology for granted.
prefer PC's. Vista isn't as bad as the media makes it seem. Windows 7 is the first step forward since XP SP3
...Prove me wrong.. i'll wait
Otherwise I'm surprised that Windows 7 is getting as much positive vibes as I've been seeing around the net. This is a big development, and I'm glad MS got their head out of their a$$ and decided to produce a more functional operating system. I look forward to trying the BETA soon (got my key already).
Windows 7 seems to be getting a lot of positive feedback (other than a few "oh, it's no different from Vista" remarks), and I think that it'll at least cause some of the more skeptical to give it an open-minded try for themselves.
Problem with your statement. Yes, Mac has a UAC, but there's a difference. When sending an email, you don't get prompted, when running your browser, you don't get prompted, when downloading a file, you don't get prompted, when running an MP3 file, you don't get prompted. For all of those little things that you do on a day to day basis that could cause catastrophic failure on a Windows PC, the Mac lets you run them because they aren't programs. They're not able to access the core of the machine just by being ran. The average Mac user doesn't encounter UAC unless he's installing a program to his computer that did not come with the computer. Actually, neither does the average Linux user. Our UAC is limited to what is necessary to keep our computers free of viruses and malware. Windows UAC was limited to how many different ways it can ask if you really want to use Windows. From what I've read, Windows 7 gives you a bit more choice, but I still have that one little, tiny, very small question. If UAC can be implemented in such a user friendly way right from the start in both Linux and Mac, why couldn't they do it in Windows? I switched from XP to Ubuntu a month ago, the UAC is very user friendly. I have one program that requires me to give access, that being my firewall. Everything else runs well with no problems and no need to give it access. I see UAC only when installing a new program or restarting my computer. Even without a real need to do so, I still restart once every 3 days.
Perhaps you should look into what UAC should be. Take a look at a machine running Ubuntu or another distro of Linux or take a look at a Mac. There are reasons you don't hear complaints about it with those platforms.
My favorite ad was when they were making fun of the UAC. Strange they never mentioned in the commercial that apple also has a user access control.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a little disingenuous of you. The UAC you claim is in OS X is the same user permissions control that has been in all *nix variants since Unix was developed back in the 70's as a multiuser networking operating system. The UAC you find in fista is brand new for 2007 and was specifically designed to annoy the users in order to get them to pressure developers to sign their drivers.
You either understand that difference or you ask your mommy permission to use her computer.
When sending an email, you don't get prompted, when running your browser, you don't get prompted, when downloading a file, you don't get prompted, when running an MP3 file, you don't get prompted. For all of those little things that you do on a day to day basis Windows lets you do just fine. It's when you're running incorrectly applications that aren't written with administrative privileges in mind, applications that touch system files, some installations, and changing critical user settings does UAC prompt. If you're getting a prompt for anything, you're doing something wrong.
And the reason there aren't complaints about Mac and Linux UACs are because the users are (and I'm going to make a bold claim here) smart enough to know it's supposed to be there, and why it's there. PC users are grandmothers, children, and jocks who don't seek an alternative. They come across a UAC prompt and become confused. If Vista had the EXACT SAME prompts as OS X, there would still be more complaints due to its userbase. People have a small uproar about what they don't understand, and then Macbois pick up the pieces and claim there's something wrong with the system.
*getting a prompt for anything else, you're
and to those that say there is no viruses for mac or no need for antivirus software think about it, Why would someone write a virus that attacks a smaller percentage of computer users? its kinda like fishing, you going to fish where there is more fish and be done faster or going fishing where there are very little fish. same goes for linux as well.
im just waiting until they start hacking into all these iphones that people are buying. thats going to be the next big virus market, will see then how good apple is at coding thier devices.
If UAC isn't prompting for those areas which have been proven to cause catastrophic failures through imbedded programming which causes its damage by simply running a basic file, then what good is it?
If it doesn't prompt when you check your email through Outlook Express since it has been proven not only to be vulnerable to viruses, but also to spread them, then what good is it?
If it doesn't prompt you when you start your browser (namely, IE) since IE is an integral part of the OS and can cause major system changes and can allow rogue programming to run, then what good is it?
Either MS still doesn't get a clue in how to secure their browser and UAC is a piece of crap bandaid meant to help the public feel like somehow it's their fault that malware installed and caused them to have problems or it's an annoyance because it runs at everything because of how ridiculously integrated so many pieces of MS software are to the OS. Take your pick.
The reason any other OS uses a windows emulator is because of proprietary software. Apple makes software for Windows, Linux users make software for Windows. We don't even charge for that software and it's high quality stuff. Windows on the other hand makes no concessions. The reason Mac runs boot camp and the reason Linux has WINE is because no matter what BS MS gives, it is still anti-competitive. And OS is about the OS, not about the killer app. Given an environment with the exact same apps running on all three operating systems I would guarantee that many Windows users would choose another OS. Given an environment where all applications run on all platforms, I guarantee that most Windows users would choose another OS. Linux would achieve a very large marketshare, Mac would gain ground due to its ability to innovate in unforseen ways and Windows would be left to you and whatever trolls think it's actually worthwhile. Even gamers would go somewhere else if they had the choice. Windows is the master and unfortunately, due to many poor choices by those in power, so many people are its slaves. I found my freedom and I hope they do too.
and a mac can never be what windows is or they wouldnt need boot camp
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you embarrass yourself like this in real life too? Where to start ...
1. Go back to school and learn concepts like "capitalization" and "punctuation". But please don't stop there ...
2. Understand the difference between Apple, a Mac and OS X. They are not necessarily interchangeable and synonymous words.
3. Once you've achieved this level of education, then you'll see how ridiculous your comment is.
"and a mac can never be what windows is or they wouldnt need boot camp"
Using both PCs and Macs, I agree with the above. Every day I say a prayer that Macs will never lower themselves o the level of XP or heaven forbid, Vista. LOL :-)
Love the Mac, hate the PC (software that is. The hardware is a Dell and its work ok for several years. ) But I will not run Linux (do not have the time to fool with it) and consider Mac hardware the least expensive for overall cost of ownership.
So, PC users (read Microsoft fans) enjoy what you have. And read CNET articles cause they sure like to put down Apple products, but me, I am just going to use my Mac. Its just better. Sorry. :-)
Just a thought.
en
I hear this from people all of the time, and it's simply not true. Unless, you are a print shop or a video studio (even then don't many studios use Premier?) almost no one uses anything that complex.
"Sure there are equivalents on the Windows side. I'm really not sure how you can argue that."
Hey, I can buy an old VW bug and put a ford 350 cid engine in it, but when I just want to drive a car, my Toyota runs fine, costs less (overall cost ) and I do not have to tinker with everything all the time.
Just a thought.
en
PS. @ the_mrwhite, Excellent point. and each new and improved version of iLife can be purchased and used on your older system (within reason), so you get new and better software if you wish.
Just a thought.
Back in 2001, XP face similar compatibility issues on both the hardware and application fronts. But back then, you rarely had this social experience in technology, blogs and instantaneous information rhetoric which is now mostly inaccurate like what you spit out here. Windows Vista fundamentally major, its quite obvious it would have broken things in a major way, simply because Windows needed fixing to begin with. Security needed to be fixed, the way how device drivers were written by third party developers needed to be fixed. Thats what Vista did, UAC told developers, stop writing apps that need elevated privileges to write to core parts of the operating system.
Windows 7 fixes a few things, yes it improves performance, yes it uses less disk space and it includes an improved UI that makes navigating and interacting with your content much easier, but all of this would not have been possible with Vista 6.0 going to Windows 7 6.1
Please remember that.
If I didn't already know you are clueless about security and computers, I might be shocked at you ignorance.
The security features of Vista are all just tacked on, and every single one of them has been broken. IE + activeX == An attacker can take control of your system without you even realizing it.
That's a security flaw of IE, not Windows.
The reports of OS X's imminent demise are ludicrous, based on Microsoft's track record with Vista.
1. Normal people don't flow back and forth between operating systems. The hardware and (other than operating system) software costs precludes this. It may be case that people with OSx machines might dual boot more often.
2. Changing requires more that simply a great operating system. The flow toward Mac is due to many factors, including the hardware packages, the integration of the software, etc. etc.
3. IMHO, in all its years MS created one excellent OS - Win95 (AFTER Service Packs) and one OK OS - XP (AFTER Service Packs). Now we are to believe that these same people have produced a GREAT OS, even though it is still in Beta?? I don't think so.
Sadly, I guess that Occam's razor points directly to the conclusion that another blogger has sold his soul to the junkman.
If a fact can be correlated, then it is removed from the equation on how simple it is. For example, if he stated clearly at the beggining of the article "Microsoft paid me to say this" then that removes both of those problems with your assertion. However, given what we have been given, we have no facts to correlate to the removal of these assumptions.
Given the facts that this article clearly stated that he both enjoyed windows 7, and thinks it will halt the growth of OSX, and nothing to the contrary of WHY he believes this, the conclusion that he just liked it would be the one that has to be reached.
True, based solely on his argument and that of other "professionals", using Occam's razor would indicate that they prefer Windows7. However, also using Occam's razor, the argument could be made that a company that has continually made OS after OS that only becomes usable by the majority of people without major hassle only after Service Packs have been issued and that Service Packs cannot be issued until the OS has been officially released would indicate that that company would continue to create OS after OS that become usable by the majority of people without major hassle only after Service Packs have been released. In other words, if a company has been a certain way, it will continue to be a certain way. The only assumption needed to come to that conclusion is that they haven't fired the entire staff and hired new people.
A better Windows it might be... but it is only a better Windows, not a better OS. The market share that MS is losing will not be regained by copying nifty features from others and keeping the bloatware. Yes, I've tried Windows 7, and its still disgustingly bloated.
I don't see DirectX 11 in other operating systems.
I don't see myself going Windows exclusively, I like both operating systems and like my Mac, but will upgrade from XP when Windows 7 is available.
One other thought, too - as we move more of our work to mobile devices, it's not all about the desktop OS in a vacuum - integration between the desktop and the mobile OS is crucial. The best integration currently available is Mac OS and the iPhone (largely because they're developed by the same firm). For MS to really get ahead of the Apple, they will also have to make a similar leap ahead with Windows Mobile (or else rely on RIM and Palm to seal that half of the deal by building airtight and improved integration with Windows 7). Again, hopefully that innovation will come and prod Apple to keep innovating their own mobile platform.
Two caveats:
1) I use Vista on (mostly) relatively high-end systems (quad-core processors, 3GB+ RAM). On my Dell Latitude XT tablet, it's a bit pokey.
2) At work, I simply could not rely on OS X alone, simply because we use some Microsoft technology, such as SharePoint, that just isn't supported at the same level.
The kicker: since using the Windows 7 beta, I can honestly say that if I could sell my MacBook Pro for a good enough price, I would. The performance and features are such that I see no reason to maintain two different environments, and I can get more done in Windows 7 than I can in OS X, simply because of the software that's available to me.
It's a good, solid operating system but hardly something I would gush over. This is what *should* have been released instead of Vista.
- by MontyMoose January 12, 2009 10:24 AM PST
- STOP!!! Every one is forgetting the economy...
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by Hep Cat January 12, 2009 10:30 AM PST
- You'd think that after "26 years in the industry" you might know that Apple manufactures Macs, and that Mac isn't an acronym for anything. You might have even picked up along the way that most Windows users never upgrade their OS - they just buy a new computer every 3-4 years.
- Like this
-
- by Starderup January 12, 2009 10:32 AM PST
- Actually, they wouldn't have to buy a new computer because the new Macs are Intel based.
- Like this
-
- by pithenumber January 12, 2009 6:40 PM PST
- boot camp into Win7
- Like this
-
- by pecos-bill January 12, 2009 11:09 PM PST
- FYI
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 7 pages (308 Comments)Those users who have switched to MAC are not going to go out and buy a new computer
just to switch back to windows!!
They will wait for sometime to let the public debug the new Windows 7 and then perhaps may make the change when its time to buy a new computer.
Of course many who are using MAC's will have found a new home and remain MAC people.
Just my opinion after 26 years in the industry
Which industry were you talking about, anyway?
MAC = Media Access Control layer, part of the Ethernet networking stack/OSI model
Mac is shorthand for Macintosh
In the industry since 1982 but that doesn't mean I know everything.