What I want to know is where did all that money come from that Microsoft was touting to support the successful sales launch of Vista? They showed sales figures that exceeded XP's launch...who bought all of those copies of Vista?
I don't know how this works, but could it be from companies like Sony and HP? Do they have to pre-pay for all the copies of Vista that they load on the machines that they ship out to stores and warehouses? So maybe we're really not talking about customer adoption of Vista as much as we are about systems shipping to the sales channels with Vista installed on them.
Just trying to make sense of the conflicting reports.
And I have to admit the idea of Vista dominating stored-in-a-warehouse market sort of appeals to me.
I tried to find a link to one analyst's claim that these figures do not mach their channel check.
The main points were:
- their study shows 3 - 5 million Vista retail box sales.
- there were less than 15-17 million PCs sold during first month after Vista launch.
His conclusion: these 20 million include also:
- coupons [for free Vista upgrade] issued since October and reclaimed in February (4 months, not one)
- Vista retail boxes in the channel
- licenses sold to OEMs (their estimate - the remaining 15-17 million), but then, again, it is more like 2 months since they started getting them and include unsold licenses.
He checked back the XP press release and even asked Microsoft for clarification - did those 17 million include OEMs. The answer was YES, but that is not clear from those press release, he explains, and as far as he remembers, the answer to this question few years back was NO.
Anyway, I could not find it. We shall wait and see. Within a [fiscal] year this will show up in the quarterly reports.
This does not really surprise me, we are in the era of bloated OS's. Even OS X Tiger has a required 256mb, and recommended 512... but with just 512 mb, my new MBP was too slow, and felt as slow as my 1ghz eMac (768mb).
I run Tiger on an old G4 iBook (800 MHz), and with 640 MB of RAM it feels pretty snappy- and I am one of those impatient 'speed sensitive' people who thought OS X was unusablely slow until Jaguar (10.2).
I can't imagine a nice Intel-based MacBook Pro with 512MB RAM being too slow with Tiger. You may have other problems there.
Quote:
Leapord will most likely require 512mb, and recommend 1gb. Also, it'll probably need a 1ghz G4 or better.
Speculation is always fun. I speculate that Leopard will run fine with 512, and that even my old iBook G4 (circa 2003-4) will be able to run it effectively. 1GHz G4 minimum for Leopard? I dunno... Tiger, after all, runs on 350 MHz G3s just fine (aka my old Indigo iMac).
We'll know either way come June.
Quote:
We get wiz bang graphics, lots of redunant code, and of course our bugs at start. It happens to Vista, and will to Leapord.
Yeah, but the difference is, a lot of people aren't going to touch Vista with a ten-foot pole until Service Pack 2 comes out. Meanwhile, most OS X releases are good-to-go upon release.
Some ppl might wait until 10.5.1 to upgrade, but that's about it. The 'fear level' with OS X upgrades is certainly less than it is with Windows, its certainly not 'bashing' to state this.
I know my company doesn't plan to touch Vista until 2008, and most of our current hardware CAN run it. So that's not the problem... the software is.
To start, I am a long-time reader of these forums, but a first time poster. I do my best to avoid getting into the muck, so to speak, because I am an Apple "fanboi"... a converted one at that as up until 1996 I was a die-hard Windows user.
With that said:
1) The 20 million copies of Vista that Microsoft reported selling in the first two-months is a GROSSLY misreported fabrication. Very much the same as those used, by and large, to determine market share. 20 million copies of Vista were NOT sold in this two week period to consumers and definitely not in two months.
As has been reported, a goodly part of that number are from upgrade deals that were given out for new machine purchases during the October-December holiday buying period. The remainder is about 70% of what Microsoft sold to OEMs/brand manufacturers/etc. to install in newly created machines which have not necessarily (almost definitely) not sold yet. Especially, considering the number of new PCs reported as sold in the same period.
Similarly, these numbers do not take into account the number of machines that were sold with Vista or elligible for an upgrade, but did NOT keep that system installed or even install it (you know, those pesky Linux/Unix users, multi-booters and NT/XP diehards).
What this basically boils down to is an extremely lackluster launch for Windows Vista... EXTREMELY lackluster.
2) Businesses do tend to buy cyclically and they do tend to replace machines rather than upgrade them. It's all about tax write-offs and bottom lines. And, as far as what they will get next or won't get, it will never be a matter of overall cost of ownership nor getting the better product, which is invariably why Apple will not have an easy time of breaking into those Windows-locked companies.
That decision is always based on the lowest dollar sales cost and the IT guys recommendations (at least to some degree). What IT admin or system tech is going to recommend their company completely retool when they also insure the possibility of losing or putting themselves out of a job.
Does anyone relaize how many people have their careers tied up in being able to, with varying degrees of success, keep a Windows work environment running? Assume for a minute that some other OS came into existence and was the be all and end all for what every computer user wanted and required a third of the admin time that Windows does.
Does anyone really believe a Widnows IT guy is going to go running to the board of directors telling them how great the system is and how much money they'll save in the long run switching over? Hell no, they're going to throw bricks at it and give you every reason under the sun why it just isn't going to work for what they do!
This isn't rocket science, it's basic human nature.
3) Just because it hasn't been said and it does deserve a remark whenever someone talks about Vista... it is NOT original... it is NOT innovative. And, contrary to Bill's many interviews, it is not the first time parental controls have been in an operating system; it does not have a unique photo mangement system; it does nothing unique, innovative, revoltuionary or easier than can be done on a Mac in terms of DVD authoring; and, the idea that the Zune is holding sway in any segment (let alone the high-end) of the music player market is completely LUDICROUS.
Why won't any bonafide reporter call him and Steve Ballmer on any of this crap when they are sitting right in front of them?
I run Tiger on an old G4 iBook (800 MHz), and with 640 MB of RAM it feels plenty snappy- and I am one of those impatient 'speed sensitive' people who thought OS X was unusablely slow until Jaguar (10.2).
I can't imagine a nice Intel-based MacBook Pro being too slow with Tiger, even with 512. You may have other problems there.
That may be due to different standards and usage patterns though.
It does run noticeably faster if you increase the memory, even my sister noticed the speed difference between 512MB and 2GB on that system.
I'm thinking about upgrading my main computer beyond 2GB because Toast really racks up the swapping counts, it's affecting other things while it does that.
For the operating system that's only true because its been so long between releases. Plenty of business systems I know of, and home users, have upgraded from 10.2 to 10.3 to 10.4 and will to 10.5 with maybe a memory upgrade. Are these running as fast as new systems??? of course not but they are still very productive, and yet have the latest features that increase usefulness.
Actually, I bought my PowerBook G3 Pismo in march 2000.
Every OSX update I did from 10.1 through 10.4 it became snappier and faster under OSX.
Can't see what 10.5 will do because it died on me after it keeled from a table.
the mini, macbook, macbook black and the $999 i-mac all have the same low end on board vampire video card that runs vista 3d desktop slowly
Somehow, I don't think that the Vista UI uses more than a few thousand polygons a second to do its fancy 3D UI stuff, and that should be well within the range of what that chip can handle. Even the texel count shouldn't be limited by the GMA.
i really tried to give vista (ultimte) a fair shake on my 2 year old dell dimension with 3.4 ghz HT, 1mb ram, and raid 0. the system was actually unable to successfullly be installed (upgrading an existing xp system) with raid 0, so i had to delete it. FIRST big bummer. then after it was up and running (wont even go into details that vista told me i dont have a sound card...) several important programs did not work at all, or only partially, including ms programs such as sql 2005, visual studio, divx, x-lite, etc etc. this was the SECOND big bummer. the other day i wanted to delete a couple of files from the trashcan. vista only kept showing 'computing time to delete' and that was the end of it. this was the THIRD big bummer, which let me to the big question, what did all those thousands of people do for FIVE WHOLE FREAKIN YEARS? sat in one braindead meeting after the next? did the 'managers' only think of their own little fiefdoms? this is and was totally pathetic. this company deserves to go under with a big thud.
Man, what an opportunity for Apple... they need to jump on this like white on rice.
Realistically it's not MUCH of an opportunity for them. Switching to Mac would still cost alot more for businesses then Vista, and doesn't solve the problem regarding upgrades.
This does not really surprise me, we are in the era of bloated OS's. Even OS X Tiger has a required 256mb, and recommended 512... but with just 512 mb, my new MBP was too slow, and felt as slow as my 1ghz eMac (768mb).
I have Tiger running on a 5-year-old 600Mhz iBook G3 with 384MB RAM and it runs perfectly fine. It's not a screamer, but it gets the job done with no complaints from me. Are you saying that Vista (or even XP) would run just fine on a 5-year-old 600Mhz PC with 384MB RAM? I happen to know that it wouldn't. I've seen it for myself.
Say whatever you want about Windows bashing and fanboys (most of it is true) but at least acknowledge the reality of the situation which is that OS X does a far better job of scaling itself back for older equipment. I have no idea how Apple does it, but it works very well. You can (and should) run the current OS X on older laptops and machines if you need to. It works fine. Windows... well, not so much. You don't really get that option, and you do get stuck in an endless hardware upgrade cycle if you want to run the latest and greatest OS.
i really tried to give vista (ultimte) a fair shake on my 2 year old dell dimension with 3.4 ghz HT, 1mb ram, and raid 0. the system was actually unable to successfullly be installed (upgrading an existing xp system) with raid 0, so i had to delete it. FIRST big bummer. then after it was up and running (wont even go into details that vista told me i dont have a sound card...) several important programs did not work at all, or only partially, including ms programs such as sql 2005, visual studio, divx, x-lite, etc etc. this was the SECOND big bummer. the other day i wanted to delete a couple of files from the trashcan. vista only kept showing 'computing time to delete' and that was the end of it. this was the THIRD big bummer, which let me to the big question, what did all those thousands of people do for FIVE WHOLE FREAKIN YEARS? sat in one braindead meeting after the next? did the 'managers' only think of their own little fiefdoms? this is and was totally pathetic. this company deserves to go under with a big thud.
1MB of Ram? Of course Vista didn't run well...
But seriously, I know many people, and only one person has actually "upgraded" to Vista, and no one else has bought a new computer. MS is twisting the facts again...
This does not really surprise me, we are in the era of bloated OS's. Even OS X Tiger has a required 256mb, and recommended 512... but with just 512 mb, my new MBP was too slow, and felt as slow as my 1ghz eMac (768mb).
Leapord will most likely require 512mb, and recommend 1gb. Also, it'll probably need a 1ghz G4 or better. That excludes machines older than 2003. This excludes many Apples that people own. The Capitol Hill iMac, the original eMacs, the PowerMac G4 towers, and of course, many iBooks, the TiBook series, and what not. I could be wrong, Apple may still include support for these machines, but I somehow doubt it. Someone can prove me wrong, and that'd be fun
Again, its all bloated software. We get wiz bang graphics, lots of redunant code, and of course our bugs at start. It happens to Vista, and will to Leapord.
Sorry, just a little sick of the Vista bashing. I spend 50% of my time in OS X, the other 50% in XP. Can't say I'm a true Apple Fan, and definitely not a FanBoi. I am however, a person who uses the tools he needs to get certain tasks done. As long as it works, I don't care.
Businesses will not want to buy a whole new set of machines, and at this moment, XP is the most stable of the two. As my father's company says: "Use the previous major edition of Windows, cause the hackers, gamers, and programers will have already figured out the holes, and they'll be plugged up. Just wait till the next major OS release to upgrade to Vista". Btw, they are just now upgrading from Win2k and Win98 to XP. Rah.
Mmmm, interesting. I use both and have very different attitudes.
I cannot possibly see a person who uses both refer to XP as stable! What hour of the day is that? Just curious.
Are you sure you are not a MS 'fanboi'? I'll let you off 'wiz' and 'redunant' but the fact you can't even spell 'Leapord' kind of worries me!
Realistically it's not MUCH of an opportunity for them. Switching to Mac would still cost alot more for businesses then Vista, and doesn't solve the problem regarding upgrades.
Does anyone relaize how many people have their careers tied up in being able to, with varying degrees of success, keep a Windows work environment running? Assume for a minute that some other OS came into existence and was the be all and end all for what every computer user wanted and required a third of the admin time that Windows does.
Does anyone really believe a Widnows IT guy is going to go running to the board of directors telling them how great the system is and how much money they'll save in the long run switching over? Hell no, they're going to throw bricks at it and give you every reason under the sun why it just isn't going to work for what they do!
This isn't rocket science, it's basic human nature.
Good post. It points to a wonderful irony.
AND .. maybe this is the Achilles heel in the MS strategy of still having 95% of the market in 5 years and all of those using Vista. For two decades MS has succeeded because so many IT people's jobs depended on all the help normal folk needed due to the horrendous interface and bug ridden OS called Windows. Now, here we are with those very same IT people, at a time when Apple have such a superb alternative machine and OS, digging their collective heels in against the MS new OS!
I have said it before and I say it again... TWA, PANAM ... MIcrosoft.
Man, what an opportunity for Apple... they need to jump on this like white on rice.
Unfortunately, Apple really doesn't have anything that lends itself to the enterprise market. Even the lowest iMac is too expensive and the Mini is too easy to steal.
Unfortunately, Apple really doesn't have anything that lends itself to the enterprise market. Even the lowest iMac is too expensive and the Mini is too easy to steal.
Enterprise was always going to be the last nut for Apple to crack. But I think they do have some very good opportunities in the consumer market while Vista spends another year or so getting its act together.
To take full advantage though, they do however have to price more aggressively, and fill a few product-line holes (subnotebook, sub-$1000 notebook, minitower).
Note: Before someone whines, I'm not advocating that Apple enter the low-end market, just that it hits the midrange market a whole lot more aggressively.
It does run noticeably faster if you increase the memory, even my sister noticed the speed difference between 512MB and 2GB on that system.
I don't recall arguing that more RAM isn't a good thing, Jeff. I think its a well-understood given that 'you can never be too rich and you can never have too much RAM'.
What I am saying is that Tiger runs well with less than a ton of RAM, even on older hardware. And consistently, in my experience (not only my system, but friends' systems and systems at work), it does exactly that. Apple does deserve some credit here.
Comments
What I want to know is where did all that money come from that Microsoft was touting to support the successful sales launch of Vista? They showed sales figures that exceeded XP's launch...who bought all of those copies of Vista?
I don't know how this works, but could it be from companies like Sony and HP? Do they have to pre-pay for all the copies of Vista that they load on the machines that they ship out to stores and warehouses? So maybe we're really not talking about customer adoption of Vista as much as we are about systems shipping to the sales channels with Vista installed on them.
Just trying to make sense of the conflicting reports.
And I have to admit the idea of Vista dominating stored-in-a-warehouse market sort of appeals to me.
I tried to find a link to one analyst's claim that these figures do not mach their channel check.
The main points were:
- their study shows 3 - 5 million Vista retail box sales.
- there were less than 15-17 million PCs sold during first month after Vista launch.
His conclusion: these 20 million include also:
- coupons [for free Vista upgrade] issued since October and reclaimed in February (4 months, not one)
- Vista retail boxes in the channel
- licenses sold to OEMs (their estimate - the remaining 15-17 million), but then, again, it is more like 2 months since they started getting them and include unsold licenses.
He checked back the XP press release and even asked Microsoft for clarification - did those 17 million include OEMs. The answer was YES, but that is not clear from those press release, he explains, and as far as he remembers, the answer to this question few years back was NO.
Anyway, I could not find it. We shall wait and see. Within a [fiscal] year this will show up in the quarterly reports.
This does not really surprise me, we are in the era of bloated OS's. Even OS X Tiger has a required 256mb, and recommended 512... but with just 512 mb, my new MBP was too slow, and felt as slow as my 1ghz eMac (768mb).
I run Tiger on an old G4 iBook (800 MHz), and with 640 MB of RAM it feels pretty snappy- and I am one of those impatient 'speed sensitive' people who thought OS X was unusablely slow until Jaguar (10.2).
I can't imagine a nice Intel-based MacBook Pro with 512MB RAM being too slow with Tiger. You may have other problems there.
Leapord will most likely require 512mb, and recommend 1gb. Also, it'll probably need a 1ghz G4 or better.
Speculation is always fun. I speculate that Leopard will run fine with 512, and that even my old iBook G4 (circa 2003-4) will be able to run it effectively. 1GHz G4 minimum for Leopard? I dunno... Tiger, after all, runs on 350 MHz G3s just fine (aka my old Indigo iMac).
We'll know either way come June.
We get wiz bang graphics, lots of redunant code, and of course our bugs at start. It happens to Vista, and will to Leapord.
Yeah, but the difference is, a lot of people aren't going to touch Vista with a ten-foot pole until Service Pack 2 comes out. Meanwhile, most OS X releases are good-to-go upon release.
Some ppl might wait until 10.5.1 to upgrade, but that's about it. The 'fear level' with OS X upgrades is certainly less than it is with Windows, its certainly not 'bashing' to state this.
I know my company doesn't plan to touch Vista until 2008, and most of our current hardware CAN run it. So that's not the problem... the software is.
.
BUY THE BEST, CRY ONLY ONCE!!!
With that said:
1) The 20 million copies of Vista that Microsoft reported selling in the first two-months is a GROSSLY misreported fabrication. Very much the same as those used, by and large, to determine market share. 20 million copies of Vista were NOT sold in this two week period to consumers and definitely not in two months.
As has been reported, a goodly part of that number are from upgrade deals that were given out for new machine purchases during the October-December holiday buying period. The remainder is about 70% of what Microsoft sold to OEMs/brand manufacturers/etc. to install in newly created machines which have not necessarily (almost definitely) not sold yet. Especially, considering the number of new PCs reported as sold in the same period.
Similarly, these numbers do not take into account the number of machines that were sold with Vista or elligible for an upgrade, but did NOT keep that system installed or even install it (you know, those pesky Linux/Unix users, multi-booters and NT/XP diehards).
What this basically boils down to is an extremely lackluster launch for Windows Vista... EXTREMELY lackluster.
2) Businesses do tend to buy cyclically and they do tend to replace machines rather than upgrade them. It's all about tax write-offs and bottom lines. And, as far as what they will get next or won't get, it will never be a matter of overall cost of ownership nor getting the better product, which is invariably why Apple will not have an easy time of breaking into those Windows-locked companies.
That decision is always based on the lowest dollar sales cost and the IT guys recommendations (at least to some degree). What IT admin or system tech is going to recommend their company completely retool when they also insure the possibility of losing or putting themselves out of a job.
Does anyone relaize how many people have their careers tied up in being able to, with varying degrees of success, keep a Windows work environment running? Assume for a minute that some other OS came into existence and was the be all and end all for what every computer user wanted and required a third of the admin time that Windows does.
Does anyone really believe a Widnows IT guy is going to go running to the board of directors telling them how great the system is and how much money they'll save in the long run switching over? Hell no, they're going to throw bricks at it and give you every reason under the sun why it just isn't going to work for what they do!
This isn't rocket science, it's basic human nature.
3) Just because it hasn't been said and it does deserve a remark whenever someone talks about Vista... it is NOT original... it is NOT innovative. And, contrary to Bill's many interviews, it is not the first time parental controls have been in an operating system; it does not have a unique photo mangement system; it does nothing unique, innovative, revoltuionary or easier than can be done on a Mac in terms of DVD authoring; and, the idea that the Zune is holding sway in any segment (let alone the high-end) of the music player market is completely LUDICROUS.
Why won't any bonafide reporter call him and Steve Ballmer on any of this crap when they are sitting right in front of them?
Okay, so, yeah... that was a rant... apologies!
I run Tiger on an old G4 iBook (800 MHz), and with 640 MB of RAM it feels plenty snappy- and I am one of those impatient 'speed sensitive' people who thought OS X was unusablely slow until Jaguar (10.2).
I can't imagine a nice Intel-based MacBook Pro being too slow with Tiger, even with 512. You may have other problems there.
That may be due to different standards and usage patterns though.
It does run noticeably faster if you increase the memory, even my sister noticed the speed difference between 512MB and 2GB on that system.
I'm thinking about upgrading my main computer beyond 2GB because Toast really racks up the swapping counts, it's affecting other things while it does that.
For the operating system that's only true because its been so long between releases. Plenty of business systems I know of, and home users, have upgraded from 10.2 to 10.3 to 10.4 and will to 10.5 with maybe a memory upgrade. Are these running as fast as new systems??? of course not but they are still very productive, and yet have the latest features that increase usefulness.
Actually, I bought my PowerBook G3 Pismo in march 2000.
Every OSX update I did from 10.1 through 10.4 it became snappier and faster under OSX.
Can't see what 10.5 will do because it died on me after it keeled from a table.
Indeed, very off topic.
the mini, macbook, macbook black and the $999 i-mac all have the same low end on board vampire video card that runs vista 3d desktop slowly
Somehow, I don't think that the Vista UI uses more than a few thousand polygons a second to do its fancy 3D UI stuff, and that should be well within the range of what that chip can handle. Even the texel count shouldn't be limited by the GMA.
Man, what an opportunity for Apple... they need to jump on this like white on rice.
Realistically it's not MUCH of an opportunity for them. Switching to Mac would still cost alot more for businesses then Vista, and doesn't solve the problem regarding upgrades.
My company just finished upgrading to xp...a process that's taken 3 years to complete. We won't be getting Vista anytime soon.
Mine too. We're still in the process of upgrading users from Win 2k and Windows NT 4. Infact we just cut off NT 4 purchases recently.
This does not really surprise me, we are in the era of bloated OS's. Even OS X Tiger has a required 256mb, and recommended 512... but with just 512 mb, my new MBP was too slow, and felt as slow as my 1ghz eMac (768mb).
I have Tiger running on a 5-year-old 600Mhz iBook G3 with 384MB RAM and it runs perfectly fine. It's not a screamer, but it gets the job done with no complaints from me. Are you saying that Vista (or even XP) would run just fine on a 5-year-old 600Mhz PC with 384MB RAM? I happen to know that it wouldn't. I've seen it for myself.
Say whatever you want about Windows bashing and fanboys (most of it is true) but at least acknowledge the reality of the situation which is that OS X does a far better job of scaling itself back for older equipment. I have no idea how Apple does it, but it works very well. You can (and should) run the current OS X on older laptops and machines if you need to. It works fine. Windows... well, not so much. You don't really get that option, and you do get stuck in an endless hardware upgrade cycle if you want to run the latest and greatest OS.
i really tried to give vista (ultimte) a fair shake on my 2 year old dell dimension with 3.4 ghz HT, 1mb ram, and raid 0. the system was actually unable to successfullly be installed (upgrading an existing xp system) with raid 0, so i had to delete it. FIRST big bummer. then after it was up and running (wont even go into details that vista told me i dont have a sound card...) several important programs did not work at all, or only partially, including ms programs such as sql 2005, visual studio, divx, x-lite, etc etc. this was the SECOND big bummer. the other day i wanted to delete a couple of files from the trashcan. vista only kept showing 'computing time to delete' and that was the end of it. this was the THIRD big bummer, which let me to the big question, what did all those thousands of people do for FIVE WHOLE FREAKIN YEARS? sat in one braindead meeting after the next? did the 'managers' only think of their own little fiefdoms? this is and was totally pathetic. this company deserves to go under with a big thud.
1MB of Ram? Of course Vista didn't run well...
But seriously, I know many people, and only one person has actually "upgraded" to Vista, and no one else has bought a new computer. MS is twisting the facts again...
This does not really surprise me, we are in the era of bloated OS's. Even OS X Tiger has a required 256mb, and recommended 512... but with just 512 mb, my new MBP was too slow, and felt as slow as my 1ghz eMac (768mb).
Leapord will most likely require 512mb, and recommend 1gb. Also, it'll probably need a 1ghz G4 or better. That excludes machines older than 2003. This excludes many Apples that people own. The Capitol Hill iMac, the original eMacs, the PowerMac G4 towers, and of course, many iBooks, the TiBook series, and what not. I could be wrong, Apple may still include support for these machines, but I somehow doubt it. Someone can prove me wrong, and that'd be fun
Again, its all bloated software. We get wiz bang graphics, lots of redunant code, and of course our bugs at start. It happens to Vista, and will to Leapord.
Sorry, just a little sick of the Vista bashing. I spend 50% of my time in OS X, the other 50% in XP. Can't say I'm a true Apple Fan, and definitely not a FanBoi. I am however, a person who uses the tools he needs to get certain tasks done. As long as it works, I don't care.
Businesses will not want to buy a whole new set of machines, and at this moment, XP is the most stable of the two. As my father's company says: "Use the previous major edition of Windows, cause the hackers, gamers, and programers will have already figured out the holes, and they'll be plugged up. Just wait till the next major OS release to upgrade to Vista". Btw, they are just now upgrading from Win2k and Win98 to XP. Rah.
Mmmm, interesting. I use both and have very different attitudes.
I cannot possibly see a person who uses both refer to XP as stable! What hour of the day is that? Just curious.
Are you sure you are not a MS 'fanboi'? I'll let you off 'wiz' and 'redunant' but the fact you can't even spell 'Leapord' kind of worries me!
Ask daddy for a spell checker on that PC
Realistically it's not MUCH of an opportunity for them. Switching to Mac would still cost alot more for businesses then Vista, and doesn't solve the problem regarding upgrades.
Cost more now but save in the long run ....
"a system that is Windows Vista capable doesn't necessarily translate to one that is Windows Vista enjoyable.?
Now that's awesome.
Does anyone relaize how many people have their careers tied up in being able to, with varying degrees of success, keep a Windows work environment running? Assume for a minute that some other OS came into existence and was the be all and end all for what every computer user wanted and required a third of the admin time that Windows does.
Does anyone really believe a Widnows IT guy is going to go running to the board of directors telling them how great the system is and how much money they'll save in the long run switching over? Hell no, they're going to throw bricks at it and give you every reason under the sun why it just isn't going to work for what they do!
This isn't rocket science, it's basic human nature.
Good post. It points to a wonderful irony.
AND .. maybe this is the Achilles heel in the MS strategy of still having 95% of the market in 5 years and all of those using Vista. For two decades MS has succeeded because so many IT people's jobs depended on all the help normal folk needed due to the horrendous interface and bug ridden OS called Windows. Now, here we are with those very same IT people, at a time when Apple have such a superb alternative machine and OS, digging their collective heels in against the MS new OS!
I have said it before and I say it again... TWA, PANAM ... MIcrosoft.
Man, what an opportunity for Apple... they need to jump on this like white on rice.
Unfortunately, Apple really doesn't have anything that lends itself to the enterprise market. Even the lowest iMac is too expensive and the Mini is too easy to steal.
Unfortunately, Apple really doesn't have anything that lends itself to the enterprise market. Even the lowest iMac is too expensive and the Mini is too easy to steal.
Enterprise was always going to be the last nut for Apple to crack. But I think they do have some very good opportunities in the consumer market while Vista spends another year or so getting its act together.
To take full advantage though, they do however have to price more aggressively, and fill a few product-line holes (subnotebook, sub-$1000 notebook, minitower).
Note: Before someone whines, I'm not advocating that Apple enter the low-end market, just that it hits the midrange market a whole lot more aggressively.
.
It does run noticeably faster if you increase the memory, even my sister noticed the speed difference between 512MB and 2GB on that system.
I don't recall arguing that more RAM isn't a good thing, Jeff. I think its a well-understood given that 'you can never be too rich and you can never have too much RAM'.
What I am saying is that Tiger runs well with less than a ton of RAM, even on older hardware. And consistently, in my experience (not only my system, but friends' systems and systems at work), it does exactly that. Apple does deserve some credit here.
.