It's a bit easier to use, but only once you get used to it. For the average XP user, Windows 7 is as different a thing as switching to OS-X would be. They'll like it once they get used to it and we will of course see a gradual upgrade wave to Windows 7, but I don't see how it will be as fast or as complete as updates have been in the past. A lot of shops will stick with XP right through to the first service pack at minimum.
I don't think its quite as drastic as switching from XP to OS X. All the familiar Windows tools are there, just reorganized. But you're correct - it is change, and people generally don't like change. Businesses and universities that choose not to deploy it already decided this before even the beta came out. It doesn't matter how good Windows 7 is, they don't want to spend the time or resources to upgrade from something that already works. Vista's adoption has been slow in part because its simply not XP.
They'll move when extended support for XP is killed off in 2014, and Microsoft will no longer be releasing security updates for it. By that time, Microsoft will hopefully have released at least two major Windows releases that build on the quality of Windows 7, instilling more trust and faith in the company's ability to create a decent OS. I don't think Windows 7 will be able to kill off XP on its own, but given time, people will move on and be better off when they do.
Considering it is pain in the ass to switch from XP to Win7 I can see why Mac sales would rise.
And how is switching to completely different platform (and having to ditch all your software and re-purchase OSX versions, or find available alternatives) easier than upgrading existing platform..?
Have you already forgotten Windows ME? I think Windows XP was a slight improvement.
XP over ME was a huge improvement. XP was based on NT, which was good in it?s own right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
I think what you might be mixing up, (and what a lot of folks confuse when they think about Windows 7's "reception"), is the consumer reception versus the corporate reception.
Don?t forget that Windows is also the consumer OS for the majority of people, especially on cheap PC running older HW. Vista wouldn?t work on netbooks and so Linux was able to gain some ground and MS was forced to sell WinXP OEM for the emerging netbook fad, but the cheaper versions of Win7 will run on netbooks as well as XP. Apple will likely continue to dominate the high-end of the consumer market, continue to be the most profitable single vendor in this segment, while cheap netbooks in all their profitless crapdome will bring MS a little MS marketshare.
"In our view, Apple is 'THE' undisputed growth name in tech with numerous catalysts on the horizon (e.g. China iPhone ramp, netbook/tablet launch, etc.) and no business model issues," he said. "In addition, AAPL is currently benefiting from a positive mix shift (to higher margin iPhones/iPod touches)."
This is true. There's no regaining the Premium segment of the market for MS. MS simply doesn't have the ecosystem Apple does. Their business model simply doesn't support it. If Windows 7 could make the perfect cup of espresso as well, it still wouldn't dent Apple's growth. You get to a point where you've lost so much mindshare, while your opponent has gained so much ground (and in a 1st class segment of the market) that the road back to desirability will be all the more rocky.
Windows 7 might boost generic PC sales, but it will really have no relationship to Mac sales. There's no "gaining back lost market share" for MS. MS is now confined to the low end and mid-end of the market and that's not going to change anytime soon. Consumers in the Premium segment who have $1000 to spend are looking for Macs, and in a recession, and in the presence of heavily adverstised lower-cost (allegedly high-value) alternatives. These people sure as hell aren't going to look at a generic PC, Windows 7 or not.
I think you are wrong.
While Mac is strong in high end market, it is not as strong as studies published here are presenting.
Corporate users are purchasing their equipment through different supply channels, not retail. I don't think anyone could have taken that into account. I don't think it is possible.
Additionaly, there is a number of extremely expensive notebooks from Lenovo, HP... overpricing most expensive Macs. I would expect respective manufacturers to discontinue, or at least minimize high end branch... which is, much as I am following them, not happening. Not to mention that Mac choice is limited, and there is nothing there to compete with, say, Lenovo X or Lenovo W high-end models; those few available Macs simply can't cater for all the needs.
what a stupid hypothesis is this article. But I know, these analists have to do something to show they've done their job.
It's possible that when one company advertises its products, it can animate the competitors' consumers, as well. But the result always depends on the strategy and the productline of each company.
So this article for me was just blablabla, with no sense. Sorry.
Absolutely. You have to have an over-active imagination to read anything at all into the graph. Sales went up with some Windows launches, and down with others. Take the graph back to 1995, and you will see a spectacular collapse of Mac sales after Windows 95 was launched.
Mac sales have more to do with what Apple's doing than what Microsoft's doing. The post-Windows 95 collapse resulted from Apple overstocking with slow low-end models that no one wanted (do you remember the "underperforma" brand?) and not making enough of the good high-end ones to meet demand. Analysts at the time claimed that the real reason was that Windows 95 had "finally caught up with the Mac", a claim made about every Windows release.
Apple's success today is because (a) they have learnt from the 1990s fiasco and run tight inventory and (b) makes stuff people want. Absolutely zilch to do with what Microsoft's doing. As the graph actually demonstrates, if you look at it properly.
Let's hope Windows 7 for once does live up to the hype. Not only will Windows users be relieved of much pain and suffering, but a really good version of Windows will pressure Apple to try harder.
I'm hoping that your post was made in humor. I will turn 68 later this year ( hell, I have socks older than you) and I can say, beyond all doubt, that aging sure beats the alternative.
Thats really scary. Based on your posts in this thread I thought you were 13. Well at least you win the record for the oldes Apple koolaid drinker on this forum.
Coming from someone obviously still in junior high. It's past 3 o'clock- did you just get home?
Newbee just said he was 68 which shocked me because I thought he was a 13 year old fanboy. So the only other explanation for his posts has to be he has od on viagra and his depends are too tight.
If Apple is "so niche", why did MS even bother with the "laptop hunters" series of ads or the "I'm a PC" series of ads to counter Apple's ads? For a company that's "less than a thorn" in MS' side, they sure seem to react like Apple really is more than a thorn in their side.
I can see 2 possible reasons here:
1. If mosquito is buzzing around your ears and sipping your blood every night - why do you care? It can't really drain enough blood to cause you trouble, and at the end of the day you are doing good thing by feeding little creature. However, mosquito's bite tingle, and buzzing is annoying, so you'll get bug spray and deal with a little bugger.
2. Microsoft, shockingly, decided to try to improve their image and public exposure (which were both pretty low). With Zune HD, Windows 7 and (presumably) new WinMo phones out soon - maybe even tablet - Microsoft does desperately need that exposure, something even SB can't be blind to.
Seriously - while there is definitely a bit of (attempted) vendetta in MS adds, it is not necessarily true that MS decided to advertise just because of Apple, or even primarily because of Apple.
Money well spent. The Premium market is the most coveted. Once you've lost that, it's all about fighting like mad for the bottom end. An embarrssing position for MS, to say the least. And a very sore point for Ballmer. Nearly every time he makes public comments it's always about Apple and how MS "has more work to do", "rounding errors", etc.
If your brand isn't the Gold Standard of its industry, it'll be in a constant deficit in terms of image, desriability, and brand loyalty.
The best computers in the industry - as in, the ones people with $$ are buying, aren't Windows PCs. Big problem.
What you meant is "The most expensive computers in retail - as in, the ones people with $$ are buying, aren't Windows PCs. Big problem."
What you meant is "The most expensive computers in retail - as in, the ones people with $$ are buying, aren't Windows PCs. Big problem."
There.
No, he said the "best computers in the industry" .... sounds about right, at least according to all the latest user and owner satisfaction surveys I keep seeing, year after year after year.
A: Apples growth potential lies in Windows switchers obviously, but Apple doesn't want you to just switch to a mac, they want you to switch to a mac that they make can money on.
Who else is out there to target, anyway? Linux users? It is almost as if you sad "Why does Apple target human beings?"
Most Windows users are still running XP and Microsoft's official upgrade path from XP to 7 is "buy a new computer"... I was going to say "you do the math," but no math is required, is it?
Well of course, MS is trying to help their allies. But you don't really need new computer - P4 system with 2GB of RAM will do great for majority of users.
But even if you opt for new computer, getting a PC with OEM W7 (and being able to use some or all of your existing Windows software) is still much easier on the budget than getting equally equipped Mac (if any) and purchasing new software.
I'm sorry TeckDud, but those words just don't "go" together. Corporations, as a whole, don't usually buy "Premium" computers...... they almost always look for biggest discount and/or cheapest price.
Man, your posts are getting more rediculous every day. Are you feeling ok? still taking your meds?
Not completely true.
While "cannon fodder" employees do get cheap units, executives will more often go for HP EliteBook or Envy models, Lenovo T or X, high end Vaio... at least here in NZ.
Comments
It's a bit easier to use, but only once you get used to it. For the average XP user, Windows 7 is as different a thing as switching to OS-X would be. They'll like it once they get used to it and we will of course see a gradual upgrade wave to Windows 7, but I don't see how it will be as fast or as complete as updates have been in the past. A lot of shops will stick with XP right through to the first service pack at minimum.
I don't think its quite as drastic as switching from XP to OS X. All the familiar Windows tools are there, just reorganized. But you're correct - it is change, and people generally don't like change. Businesses and universities that choose not to deploy it already decided this before even the beta came out. It doesn't matter how good Windows 7 is, they don't want to spend the time or resources to upgrade from something that already works. Vista's adoption has been slow in part because its simply not XP.
They'll move when extended support for XP is killed off in 2014, and Microsoft will no longer be releasing security updates for it. By that time, Microsoft will hopefully have released at least two major Windows releases that build on the quality of Windows 7, instilling more trust and faith in the company's ability to create a decent OS. I don't think Windows 7 will be able to kill off XP on its own, but given time, people will move on and be better off when they do.
Considering it is pain in the ass to switch from XP to Win7 I can see why Mac sales would rise.
And how is switching to completely different platform (and having to ditch all your software and re-purchase OSX versions, or find available alternatives) easier than upgrading existing platform..?
Have you already forgotten Windows ME? I think Windows XP was a slight improvement.
XP over ME was a huge improvement. XP was based on NT, which was good in it?s own right.
I think what you might be mixing up, (and what a lot of folks confuse when they think about Windows 7's "reception"), is the consumer reception versus the corporate reception.
Don?t forget that Windows is also the consumer OS for the majority of people, especially on cheap PC running older HW. Vista wouldn?t work on netbooks and so Linux was able to gain some ground and MS was forced to sell WinXP OEM for the emerging netbook fad, but the cheaper versions of Win7 will run on netbooks as well as XP. Apple will likely continue to dominate the high-end of the consumer market, continue to be the most profitable single vendor in this segment, while cheap netbooks in all their profitless crapdome will bring MS a little MS marketshare.
Are you expecting something in addition to Snow Leopard?
New Macbooks and iMacs, lower prices..?
"In our view, Apple is 'THE' undisputed growth name in tech with numerous catalysts on the horizon (e.g. China iPhone ramp, netbook/tablet launch, etc.) and no business model issues," he said. "In addition, AAPL is currently benefiting from a positive mix shift (to higher margin iPhones/iPod touches)."
This is true. There's no regaining the Premium segment of the market for MS. MS simply doesn't have the ecosystem Apple does. Their business model simply doesn't support it. If Windows 7 could make the perfect cup of espresso as well, it still wouldn't dent Apple's growth. You get to a point where you've lost so much mindshare, while your opponent has gained so much ground (and in a 1st class segment of the market) that the road back to desirability will be all the more rocky.
Windows 7 might boost generic PC sales, but it will really have no relationship to Mac sales. There's no "gaining back lost market share" for MS. MS is now confined to the low end and mid-end of the market and that's not going to change anytime soon. Consumers in the Premium segment who have $1000 to spend are looking for Macs, and in a recession, and in the presence of heavily adverstised lower-cost (allegedly high-value) alternatives. These people sure as hell aren't going to look at a generic PC, Windows 7 or not.
I think you are wrong.
While Mac is strong in high end market, it is not as strong as studies published here are presenting.
Corporate users are purchasing their equipment through different supply channels, not retail. I don't think anyone could have taken that into account. I don't think it is possible.
Additionaly, there is a number of extremely expensive notebooks from Lenovo, HP... overpricing most expensive Macs. I would expect respective manufacturers to discontinue, or at least minimize high end branch... which is, much as I am following them, not happening. Not to mention that Mac choice is limited, and there is nothing there to compete with, say, Lenovo X or Lenovo W high-end models; those few available Macs simply can't cater for all the needs.
The name gives me the impression that this site is a great source of latest news on Apple.
I would never have guessed 68.
That's because I'm "immature" for my age!
what a stupid hypothesis is this article. But I know, these analists have to do something to show they've done their job.
It's possible that when one company advertises its products, it can animate the competitors' consumers, as well. But the result always depends on the strategy and the productline of each company.
So this article for me was just blablabla, with no sense. Sorry.
Absolutely. You have to have an over-active imagination to read anything at all into the graph. Sales went up with some Windows launches, and down with others. Take the graph back to 1995, and you will see a spectacular collapse of Mac sales after Windows 95 was launched.
Mac sales have more to do with what Apple's doing than what Microsoft's doing. The post-Windows 95 collapse resulted from Apple overstocking with slow low-end models that no one wanted (do you remember the "underperforma" brand?) and not making enough of the good high-end ones to meet demand. Analysts at the time claimed that the real reason was that Windows 95 had "finally caught up with the Mac", a claim made about every Windows release.
Apple's success today is because (a) they have learnt from the 1990s fiasco and run tight inventory and (b) makes stuff people want. Absolutely zilch to do with what Microsoft's doing. As the graph actually demonstrates, if you look at it properly.
Let's hope Windows 7 for once does live up to the hype. Not only will Windows users be relieved of much pain and suffering, but a really good version of Windows will pressure Apple to try harder.
does anyone remember this?
i wonder what version of the mojave experiment they'll put out to salvage windows 7
I'm hoping that your post was made in humor. I will turn 68 later this year ( hell, I have socks older than you) and I can say, beyond all doubt, that aging sure beats the alternative.
Thats really scary. Based on your posts in this thread I thought you were 13. Well at least you win the record for the oldes Apple koolaid drinker on this forum.
Coming from someone obviously still in junior high. It's past 3 o'clock- did you just get home?
Newbee just said he was 68 which shocked me because I thought he was a 13 year old fanboy. So the only other explanation for his posts has to be he has od on viagra and his depends are too tight.
If Apple is "so niche", why did MS even bother with the "laptop hunters" series of ads or the "I'm a PC" series of ads to counter Apple's ads? For a company that's "less than a thorn" in MS' side, they sure seem to react like Apple really is more than a thorn in their side.
I can see 2 possible reasons here:
1. If mosquito is buzzing around your ears and sipping your blood every night - why do you care? It can't really drain enough blood to cause you trouble, and at the end of the day you are doing good thing by feeding little creature. However, mosquito's bite tingle, and buzzing is annoying, so you'll get bug spray and deal with a little bugger.
2. Microsoft, shockingly, decided to try to improve their image and public exposure (which were both pretty low). With Zune HD, Windows 7 and (presumably) new WinMo phones out soon - maybe even tablet - Microsoft does desperately need that exposure, something even SB can't be blind to.
Seriously - while there is definitely a bit of (attempted) vendetta in MS adds, it is not necessarily true that MS decided to advertise just because of Apple, or even primarily because of Apple.
Money well spent. The Premium market is the most coveted. Once you've lost that, it's all about fighting like mad for the bottom end. An embarrssing position for MS, to say the least. And a very sore point for Ballmer. Nearly every time he makes public comments it's always about Apple and how MS "has more work to do", "rounding errors", etc.
If your brand isn't the Gold Standard of its industry, it'll be in a constant deficit in terms of image, desriability, and brand loyalty.
The best computers in the industry - as in, the ones people with $$ are buying, aren't Windows PCs. Big problem.
What you meant is "The most expensive computers in retail - as in, the ones people with $$ are buying, aren't Windows PCs. Big problem."
There.
What you meant is "The most expensive computers in retail - as in, the ones people with $$ are buying, aren't Windows PCs. Big problem."
There.
No, he said the "best computers in the industry" .... sounds about right, at least according to all the latest user and owner satisfaction surveys I keep seeing, year after year after year.
Q: Why does Apple target Windows users?
A: Apples growth potential lies in Windows switchers obviously, but Apple doesn't want you to just switch to a mac, they want you to switch to a mac that they make can money on.
Who else is out there to target, anyway? Linux users? It is almost as if you sad "Why does Apple target human beings?"
Most Windows users are still running XP and Microsoft's official upgrade path from XP to 7 is "buy a new computer"... I was going to say "you do the math," but no math is required, is it?
Well of course, MS is trying to help their allies. But you don't really need new computer - P4 system with 2GB of RAM will do great for majority of users.
But even if you opt for new computer, getting a PC with OEM W7 (and being able to use some or all of your existing Windows software) is still much easier on the budget than getting equally equipped Mac (if any) and purchasing new software.
What math are you doing?
Tell us I'd like to know because Apple has given me exactly everything I've wanted this year:
1.) Firewire on the MacBook
2.) MAtte screens on both the 17" and 15"
3.) iPhone Video
4.) iPhone stereo blutooth
5.) iPhone 32gb
6.) iPhone MMS
7.) Most likely Bluray too
Most of those above you have stated were not in Apple's business model.
So who is it? You like to talk if you actually have a seat on Apple's Board of Directors but I hate to inform you- you don't.
I am still waiting for DivX/XviD player for iPhone, and capability to use it as portable drive. Among the other less important things.
Premium market/corporate market?
I'm sorry TeckDud, but those words just don't "go" together. Corporations, as a whole, don't usually buy "Premium" computers...... they almost always look for biggest discount and/or cheapest price.
Man, your posts are getting more rediculous every day. Are you feeling ok? still taking your meds?
Not completely true.
While "cannon fodder" employees do get cheap units, executives will more often go for HP EliteBook or Envy models, Lenovo T or X, high end Vaio... at least here in NZ.
I would never have guessed 68.
Nope. Vocabulary is definitely 20-ish or bellow.
Shouldn't 68-ers be spending most of their "computer" time playing Wii Sports, anyway?
Nope. Vocabulary is definitely 20-ish or bellow.
Shouldn't 68-ers be spending most of their "computer" time playing Wii Sports, anyway?
Is this the best you can do? .... what a disappointment.