• On GameFAQs: Is it OK to lay my Wii down on its side?
January 12, 2009 8:55 AM PST

Will Windows 7 stymie Mac OS X's growth?

by Don Reisinger

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.


Recent posts from The Digital Home
Sorry, kids: No social networking on the Xbox 360
Game Boy enters Toy Hall of Fame with Big Wheel
No Doubt says 'no' to Band Hero depiction
Twitter's contribution to Modern Warfare 2
Wal-Mart unveils tech deals for November 7
Touch-screen phone use soars, iPhone on top
Dedicated tweeting gadget TwitterPeek launches
Amazon seeks 'Call of Duty-est Town'
Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 1 of 7 pages (308 Comments)
by myles taylor January 12, 2009 9:45 AM PST
Don, the thing you totally forget to take into consideration is that Apple isn't just going to be sitting on their hands. Snow Leopard will be out, new machines will be out, new products. Windows 7 is already a year away and you're already talking about it eclipsing Mac OS X which is already a year old in it's current version. I don't see a slew of Mac users switching back. I think Windows 7 will help with Market retention, but not gain Market share back from Mac. It will help them crack into the Netbook industry some more, but in another year Apple could easily come out with it's own Netbook. There are too many variables here and not near enough absolutes for you to make the statements you have. Interesting idea, to be sure; definitely not the certainty you make it sound like.

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.
Reply to this comment
by MMC Racing January 12, 2009 9:49 AM PST
Apple do a netbook? Seems they never want to be a player in the cheap markets.
by myles taylor January 12, 2009 9:55 AM PST
I think it would probably be something like a larger version of the touch and they probably wouldn't call it a Netbook, but I think Apple is going to get into the mobile computer market. It's just a matter of time I think. Their Touch platform had taken off and they are just scratching the surface.
by MMC Racing January 12, 2009 10:20 AM PST
I agree they will be releasing other devices in the mobile space, but a netbook is a low cost device. If they could package up a netbook size touch for $300, they would sell the heck out of it, but I don't see that happening.
by MicrosoftRocks January 12, 2009 10:32 AM PST
Apple simply doesn't offer the consumer enough choice. Can you get a notebook with 2 internal hard drives in it? How about one with a Physx chip? How about a docking bay? A Netbook?

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?)
by ballmerisanape January 12, 2009 10:41 AM PST
MicrosoftRocks,

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.
by rplat January 12, 2009 11:05 AM PST
I use a Mac Pro and have dual booted Windows Vita for quite some time. I've also had Windows 7 (beta) running since it's release a few days ago. Now, please tell me again why Windows 7 is such an improvement over Vista and OS X. It has a nice interface and seems to be stable but it certainly does not revolutionize Windows.
by thinkbaz January 12, 2009 11:11 AM PST
Typical Apple fanboy irrational exuberance, except it's over Windows this time.
by Spartan_458 January 12, 2009 1:24 PM PST
Apple already has a netbook. It costs $2000 and is called the MacBook Air.
by pithenumber January 12, 2009 6:21 PM PST
Apple doesn't like cheap markets, no netbook
Win7 is better than Vista, XP, and OS X. Try it for yourself
by JuggerNaut January 13, 2009 2:25 AM PST
@MicrosoftRocks

..."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!
See more comment replies
by The_happy_switcher January 12, 2009 9:46 AM PST
"Now excuse me while I go outside to take some pictures of those pigs flying around my house."

I assume the pigs came with the software and lipstick.
Reply to this comment
by Penguinisto January 12, 2009 11:35 AM PST
Okay....

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
by Seaspray0 January 12, 2009 1:42 PM PST
@applerocks. You have no excuse for your behavior. Prior to it being released and without even trying it, you were already judging it. Conclusion: You are the ignorant pig with the lipstick.

@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.
by whizkid454 January 12, 2009 2:03 PM PST
Based on AppleRocks's display name, the credibility of an objective comment automatically drops to zero.

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.
by The_happy_switcher January 12, 2009 3:07 PM PST
This author is getting all excited about a BETA, without all the bells, whistles and other bloatware MSFT can think of piling on before going gold. Also, how fast is WIN7 going to be after the user installs their apps into the registry and another windows systems grinds to a halt over time just like all the other OS's?

[CNET editors' note: Offensive content removed]
by Mark_Anderson January 12, 2009 3:28 PM PST
You know, AppleRocks, I think it's people like you who will drive folk back to Windows more than W7 will. I mean, after all, who would want to be associated with the likes of you?

Ugh.
by The_happy_switcher January 12, 2009 3:38 PM PST
Anderson, you write like a thirteen year old girl. Aren't you really a chick masquerading as a dude on this board?
by Mark_Anderson January 12, 2009 4:04 PM PST
No, son. I'm a man.

You'll know what that means one day.
by Mark_Anderson January 12, 2009 4:11 PM PST
Actually, on second thoughts, judging by your screen name you appear to be 45 or 46.

Now that really is tragic - a middle aged fanboy!
by pithenumber January 12, 2009 6:26 PM PST
@applerocks
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
by ferretboy88 January 13, 2009 7:54 PM PST
Applerocks needs to move out of his parents basement and start using his computer for work instead of wasting his time. Over 40 and still living at home with Mom is not going to get it done.
See more comment replies
by rommey January 12, 2009 9:47 AM PST
Hell No! Window's 7 is still a pig taxing any computer. OSX can do more and not tax the hell out of the computer. Da!
Reply to this comment
by iertry January 12, 2009 9:55 AM PST
Have you even tried Windows 7 yet?
by karpenterskids January 12, 2009 10:21 AM PST
Yeah, have you tried Windows 7 for yourself, or are you just assuming that it's Vista 2.0?
by whizkid454 January 12, 2009 2:04 PM PST
Ah, the clueless never cease to amaze me. Rommey, Windows 95 is calling!
by Seaspray0 January 12, 2009 2:17 PM PST
They are assuming and with reason. Ask yourself why mac fanboys always slander windows but never tell you one thing positive about OSX. It's because Apple corp grew market share through a mud slinging slander campaign. Politicians do the same thing. When they can't tell you why you should vote for them, they'll sling mud and slander to convince you not to vote for their opponent. Microsoft's mojave experiment only proved this to be true. Strangers were amazed that vista was nowhere near the horror they heard it was. My question is... heard from who? Why apple and their fanboys, of course.
by The_happy_switcher January 12, 2009 3:41 PM PST
Fartspray, you don't consider the fact that all around the country on campuses half of all students are using Mac laptops a success? When they graduate and join the workforce they will be buying Macs for their homes and Apple's market share will grow by leaps and bounds.
by Mark_Anderson January 12, 2009 4:09 PM PST
No it won't. Apple have always had a strong presence in education and it's made absolutely no difference.

And where do you get your figure of 50% from? Maybe in Switzerland but not in the US.
by pithenumber January 12, 2009 6:28 PM PST
@Applerocks
Troll
by tm_anon January 12, 2009 7:35 PM PST
@Seaspray0
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.
by Dalkorian January 13, 2009 11:03 AM PST
Seaspray0, you can't really be this delusional, can you? I could rattle off a list of things that are better about OS X (security of it's Darwin core, stability of Unix again because of it's Darwin core, features like Spaces, Expose and Time Machine just as a starter), but would you hear any of them?

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.
by Mark_Anderson January 14, 2009 4:42 AM PST
@tm_anon

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.
See more comment replies
by redwall_hp January 12, 2009 9:49 AM PST
"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."

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.
Reply to this comment
by Rawnchie14 January 12, 2009 9:55 AM PST
redwall_hp, many many people using the beta mind you, have experiences a much faster and more capable experience with Windows 7, because despite what people would like to believe, it's more than cosmetic changes. They overhauled how the system runs in the background, making it capable of being run on netbooks. That's a huge change, when you look at Vista's requirements.

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.
by rapier1 January 12, 2009 10:38 AM PST
I'm really not seeing the performance differential that you are. In fact, I can't find anyone that is seeing a 40% decrease in performance. Here is an example: http://futuremark.yougamers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=72298
by  Brian January 12, 2009 3:15 PM PST
I don't have the guts to download ANYTHING from Micro$**t.

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.
by pithenumber January 12, 2009 6:31 PM PST
Mac + PC house
prefer PC's. Vista isn't as bad as the media makes it seem. Windows 7 is the first step forward since XP SP3
by random truth January 13, 2009 5:28 AM PST
The vista betas and alphas were alot faster than the final release. I remember Microsoft advertising how vista would be faster on the beta site. So, I am not going to compare speed until the final release.
by D3vildog699 January 13, 2009 4:42 PM PST
I'd be cautious in anything Brian has to say about Microsoft. he seems to think you can play High end Games on a mac using VM Fusion or parallels... or even Boot Camp. Dude can't go one post without saying some lame 1990's Windows name (Winblows, windoze, Micro$***)
by random truth January 13, 2009 5:46 PM PST
Devildog, you certainly cant play high end games in virtualization, but you seem to not understand what boot camp is. Their is no emulation going on. See the efi on Apple computers is backwards compatible with bios commands. Boot camp is just an update to the efi firmware (to enable backwards compatibility) drivers for windows, and a gui that allows joe sixpack to have a dual-booting machine. So yes you can run high end games in boot camp. All the games will perform the same or slightly better than on pc hardware of the same spec.
by D3vildog699 January 13, 2009 6:24 PM PST
Doubtful, considering that the Mac Hardware isn't made for gaming. the GPU is a rendering GPU not made for gaming like what i can put into my mother board. The Mac doesn't have the specs to handle Crysis on high, most PC's don't unless you build them, that means a SERIOUS GPU or SLI to get two 8800gtx or 9600gt or something similar.

...Prove me wrong.. i'll wait
by Rawnchie14 January 12, 2009 9:49 AM PST
Well if Windows 7 works on Boot Camp, then maybe Microsoft still makes those sales in the end? Who knows.

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).
Reply to this comment
by karpenterskids January 12, 2009 10:24 AM PST
I know, same here!
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.
by rapier1 January 12, 2009 10:39 AM PST
This is a really good point. MS really doesn't care what you run the OS on as long as you buy it.
by Pishkado January 12, 2009 9:51 AM PST
The tendency to compare some future product that's in the lab, or even in beta, with competitors in production shipment has been the downfall of many a prognosticator in the past, but apparently not everyone has learned. As myles taylor points out, comparing Windows 7 with today's Mac OS is absurd. The only meaningful comparison is with what Apple will have when it comes out.
Reply to this comment
by Hep Cat January 12, 2009 10:28 AM PST
Don's just trolling the Mac Macs again.
by Seaspray0 January 12, 2009 2:29 PM PST
@pishkado. I find that funny since apple has been comparing the two in mac/pc ads for years. 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. Well, people have caught on to the BS that apples comparison was certainly not meaningful or truthful. As you can see, the mac/pc adds are gone as apple no longer has the ability to make a meaningful comparison that's believable.
by Pishkado January 12, 2009 7:45 PM PST
Ads are ads, Seaspray0. I don't write Apple's ads, or Microsoft's for that matter. I take all ads with a grain of salt. When a supposedly objective supposed expert writes a supposedly objective column, I hold him (in this case) to a higher standard.
by tm_anon January 12, 2009 7:56 PM PST
@Seaspray0

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.
by Dalkorian January 13, 2009 11:10 AM PST
by Seaspray0 January 12, 2009 2:29 PM PST
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.
by ZetaZeta_ January 16, 2009 8:01 AM PST
@tm_anon:

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.
by ZetaZeta_ January 16, 2009 8:03 AM PST
*you're running incorrectly written applications
*getting a prompt for anything else, you're
by potable February 3, 2009 11:42 PM PST
@ tm_anon: you have made a moronic comment. vista does not prompt you with UAC for playing MP3 files, nor does it prompt you with UAC to use your browser. UAC was designed to help newbish people (people who go out buy a pc, dont update anything, it dies, they throw it out and get a new one) but the way it was implemented was wrong.

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.
by tm_anon February 5, 2009 2:10 PM PST
@potable

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.
by notsatch January 12, 2009 9:52 AM PST
Better grab the fire extinguisher on your way back in from the picture taking. The flames are about to begin...
Reply to this comment
by stonefingers January 12, 2009 9:56 AM PST
I'm not quite sure how to take this article. First, I didn't switch to a Mac because of problems I was having with XP, (of course I wanted an even more secure and stable machine), I switched because I wanted to create music on a computer, and I was having no luck with my Windows machine at the time. I also wanted to create digital movies, and again, no luck. With my iMac, I've never had a problem. Well, I take that back - I did have a problem once, but I called AppleCare, and they fixed it. One call. Not one for the hardware, one for the software (unless it was OEM, then it was another call to yet someone else...). One call. Windows 7 may be all you're saying it is, but it just can't be all that a Mac is - ever.
Reply to this comment
by compudoc318 January 12, 2009 10:40 AM PST
and a mac can never be what windows is or they wouldnt need boot camp
by thopp January 12, 2009 10:55 AM PST
I think that's what most people like about their Apple products - "One call." HP, Dell, Gateway, and other hardware companies just don't do customer service as well as Apple. Granted, I have heard of my share of complaints with Apple (such as poor documentation and Apple stores not keeping record of documentation), but for the most part, those who actually purchase AppleCare have the best customer service by far. I think THAT is the reason why more consumers will not look back. Those who don't purchase AppleCare however may go back to their Windows machines after something happens like their Macbook's logic board goes bad and realize that Apple will charge nearly $800 to replace it (yes this is a fairly large problem seen on previous Macbook generations). As far as Windows 7 as an OS, it is everything Vista should have been, but wasn't. Media Center finally does much of what one would expect (QAM, H264, TV recording sharing, etc.). I think MS hit a homerun here, but Apple may come back with a grand slam with Snow Leopard and other new hardware - we'll just have to wait and see.
by rapier1 January 12, 2009 1:39 PM PST
I don't think Snow Leopard is going to be a grand slam... Apple itself said that its mostly a maint. release without any really exciting features. While they tend to be sooper seekrit when its comes to hardware they're usually upfront about the OS updates. We'll have to see... but I'm not expecting a whole lot from it - which is disappointing.
by tm_anon January 12, 2009 8:06 PM PST
@compudoc318

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.
by Dalkorian January 13, 2009 11:15 AM PST
by compudoc318 January 12, 2009 10:40 AM PST
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.
by eldernorm January 14, 2009 10:42 AM PST
@ compudoc318 January 12, 2009 10:40 AM PST
"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
by stanorlaski January 28, 2009 12:55 PM PST
Seriously? There are a ton of quality video and audio programs for Windows, in fact most of the same programs are on each platform.

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.
by the_mrwhite January 12, 2009 9:58 AM PST
What you also have to take into consideration is that every Mac comes with iLife. And there is NOTHING of it's equal on the Windows side period. My point is, the Mac converts will or are using iLife will expect that to be there on the windows side and it's not. A HUGE draw back in my eyes. Once you use iLife and mac all these wonderful videos, and slide shows, your own web site and create music why would you ever go back just for an updated version of Vista operating system? (which by the way is what it is, according to Steve Ballmer himself)
Reply to this comment
by rapier1 January 12, 2009 10:44 AM PST
Sure there are equivalents on the Windows side. I'm really not sure how you can argue that. You might not like them as much but the same class of applications exist under both platforms.
by Mark_Anderson January 12, 2009 3:31 PM PST
Most PCs come with Works. I guess the provision of default packages tells us a lot about intended audiences.
by eldernorm January 14, 2009 10:45 AM PST
@ rapier,
"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.
by Mr. Dee January 12, 2009 9:58 AM PST
Here is the thing, you talk about security and Vista like the OS had issues where vulnerabilities was concerned. In fact, Vista is a very secure OS, Device Drive Signing, UAC, Patch Guard, Windows Firewall with Advanced Security, DEP, ASRL, Windows Defender. The OS was packed to the brim with security. What hurt Vista was its initial reception, device driver compatibility and application compatibility in the first few months of its release. Over time, those things have ironed out. But because we are in a world of 24-7 news, blogs, and sites like yours and more techno savvy culture the news got out louder about this version of Windows.

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.
Reply to this comment
by Starderup January 12, 2009 10:39 AM PST
I regard Windows 7 Beta as Vista SP2. What's the difference, unless you are paying for a copy?
by MSSlayer January 12, 2009 7:13 PM PST
Packed to the brim with security?

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.
by Mark_Anderson January 14, 2009 4:44 AM PST
Really? Show me real world examples of those exploits then and not just theoretical ones that have been closed.
by ZetaZeta_ January 16, 2009 8:06 AM PST
@ MSSlayer:
That's a security flaw of IE, not Windows.
by CDubber January 12, 2009 10:00 AM PST
Having been paying with the Windows 7 beta in VMware Fusion, I don't see what all the premature gushing is about. It still looks archaic next to OS X, and you can bet as Microsoft adds "features" before release, performance will suffer. And we've yet to see Snow Leopard (I was disappointed to not see anything at Macworld) to make a solid OS X vs. Windows 7 comparison.

The reports of OS X's imminent demise are ludicrous, based on Microsoft's track record with Vista.
Reply to this comment
by Rawnchie14 January 12, 2009 10:05 AM PST
Demise? No one said Mac is going to die, they're just going to halt their rise, become niche, as Apple intended in the first place.
by stanorlaski January 28, 2009 1:01 PM PST
This comment cracks me up, how can people become so emotional about an OS? I go to Fry's and look at Mac's and I still don't get it. It looks and feels a lot like Vista. To a Windows user there definitely seems to be a learning curve. Personally I could never overcome the hardware/software incompatibilities (though I know that non-business users probably can). Why in the world would I spend so much for what is basically an appliance (OSX or MS)?
by edmalloy January 12, 2009 10:05 AM PST
This is a bizarre blog entry. It throws logic to the wind, missing the most basic points.

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.
Reply to this comment
by pjhenry1216 January 12, 2009 10:39 AM PST
Windows 7 has been getting reviews all over. Its more likely a majority of people are telling the truth as opposed to a majority of people are lying. Don't try pulling Occam's Razor to sound intelligent. Your entire comment is based mostly on opinion and conjecture, yet you use it as fact.
by eerongal January 12, 2009 11:33 AM PST
this is an invalid use of occam's razor. A conclusion reached by occam's razor would state that he just plain liked windows 7 of his own accord. Your conclusion is by no means simple given the facts we have been given to date. Your assertion requires the assumptions that 1) He has somehow been bribed/converted/forced/whatever to "like" windows 7, and 2) that the afforementioned pre-frabricated opinion was held to its bargain to be posted here. When using occam's razor, the solution that requires the least amount of assumptions (that is, the simplest) is considered correct.

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.
by MSSlayer January 12, 2009 7:14 PM PST
Don may have liked it, but he is consistently one of the more ignorant people working for CNET, which is pretty breathtaking if you think about it.
by tm_anon January 12, 2009 8:23 PM PST
@eerongal

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.
by studiodave56 January 12, 2009 10:09 AM PST
Don't you not remember that every version of Windows was so much more and far ahead of everything else until it actually shipped. Sure the beta may work now and show promise but after MS drops in all the security measures (To secure their foothold not protect users) and removes all the features that they promised but can't deliver it will still be 5 years behind.
Reply to this comment
by pjhenry1216 January 12, 2009 10:40 AM PST
They never removed features. They only canceled the addition of features that were originally planned. If the feature is done, there's no need to remove it.
by Mark_Anderson January 12, 2009 3:33 PM PST
Except the Beta is described as near feature complete which strongly suggests they won't be removing anything from it.
by lordmorgul January 13, 2009 1:59 AM PST
The only features Windows 7 has are already present in other operating systems... so that even if it keeps all its new features (which make it much better than XP or Vista) it is still not superior to either OS X or Linux (either Gnome or KDE desktops are significantly better in usability). The fact remains, it is a poor carbon-copy of features developed by others, with a core set of libraries that are still flawed and backward compatible FAR beyond what is necessary and secure, and poor multi-user OS design from the outset.

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.
by ZetaZeta_ January 16, 2009 8:09 AM PST
@lordmorgul:
I don't see DirectX 11 in other operating systems.
by bbabadu January 12, 2009 10:11 AM PST
Great article, as a user of both OSX and Windows at home (and a Beta tester of Windows 7), I think it's an accurate overview so far. I don't think MS had a choice but to focus on what Vista should have been,, and after using Windows 7, they're on the right track - it's stable, fast, easier to do common tasks, and runs well on old hardware (have it on an old Dell w/P4 & 1GB ram).

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.
Reply to this comment
by srminton January 12, 2009 10:12 AM PST
As a mac user, I'm excited about this Windows innovation and improvement. If Windows remained as poor a competitor to Mac OS as it has been in the past 2-3 years, innovation of Mac OS would slowly grind to a crawl. Competition is the lifeblood of innovation. If Mac OS starts to lose market share to Windows again, then Apple will just have to innovate again and take another leap ahead. And if they fail to do that, I'll be amongst those switching back to Windows when I'm due for a computer upgrade a year or three from now. For now, however, I'll expect to see Apple maintain its track record by out-innovating Microsoft within the next 2 years as it has in the last 2, until the facts prove otherwise.

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.
Reply to this comment
by Chapmaniac January 12, 2009 10:20 AM PST
You bet I'll be updating from Vista to W7 when it's released later this year. I'm actually fine with Vista on my system (quad core with 8 GB RAM) but I'm very interested in W7 when I read how people are easily installing it on netbooks and how fast it runs - even when compared to XP.
Reply to this comment
by wynand32 January 12, 2009 10:21 AM PST
There should be a moratorium on commenting on articles like this by anyone who hasn't used both Vista and OS X, significantly, on a daily basis. I've used both now, for a full year, side by side, and I can honestly say: pick one or the other you'll be perfectly happy. I simply cannot say that either Vista or OS X lets me get my job or personal computing done any better or worse than the other.

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.
Reply to this comment
by jav1231 January 12, 2009 10:21 AM PST
It remains to be seen if anyone will leave OSX for Windows. Historically speaking, this doesn't happen.
Reply to this comment
by Wei_Zhu January 12, 2009 12:29 PM PST
Are you sure about that? As I recall, Mac used to have much higher market share in the early 90's, until it was taken aware by Windows.
by ZetaZeta_ January 16, 2009 8:13 AM PST
To be fair, Apple's sales keep going up, but it can still lose market share when the competition sells at a faster rate. I don't think many OS X users are going to switch away from the OS. Nothing, not even a blatantly superior OS (i'm not saying Windows 7 is that OS necessarily) will make them switch.
by svk1069 January 12, 2009 10:23 AM PST
I tried the Windows 7 beta. I don't get the press' big love affair with it. Sure, it's better than Vista, but that isn't saying much. I also think that it's still not as user-friendly as it could be. I for one don't like that combined taskbar windows. I quickly turned it off.

It's a good, solid operating system but hardly something I would gush over. This is what *should* have been released instead of Vista.
Reply to this comment
by MontyMoose January 12, 2009 10:24 AM PST
STOP!!! Every one is forgetting the economy...
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
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.

Which industry were you talking about, anyway?
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.
by pithenumber January 12, 2009 6:40 PM PST
boot camp into Win7
by pecos-bill January 12, 2009 11:09 PM PST
FYI
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.
Showing 1 of 7 pages (308 Comments)
advertisement

FAQ: Buying the right Windows 7 upgrade

Readers still have lots of questions on just which version of the software they need to buy in order to upgrade their PC. CNET News tries to offer some answers.

N.Y. lawsuit details Intel's 'largesse' toward Dell

Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's federal antitrust case filed Wednesday alleges a longstanding symbiotic relationship between Intel and Dell.

advertisement

About The Digital Home

Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has covered everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Besides his work with CNET, Don's work has been featured in a variety of other publications including PC World and a host of Ziff-Davis publications.

Don writes product reviews for InformationWeek and is a regular contributor to Processor Magazine. You can visit his personal site at DonReisinger.com or if you would like to email Don with questions or comments, drop him a line at CNETDigitalHome@gmail.com. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.

Add this feed to your online news reader

The Digital Home topics

Subscribe to the Digital Home podcast

Have you ever wanted a no-nonsense discussion on what is really going with all the tech topics related to your Digital Home? If so, join Don Reisinger as he brings you the same biting commentary you've come to expect from his Digital Home blog in all its audio glory.

Subscribe to this podcast using an RSS reader other than iTunes

Subscribe to this podcast using iTunes

Don's links
Don's Facebook account
Don's Twitter feed
Don's Friendfeed account
Don's Google Reader account
Don's Last.FM account
Don's Pownce account
Don's Flickr account
advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right