Tech | November 29, 2009 | 13 comments

Windows 7 Sales Beat Mac Sales

source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/183325/windows_7_sales_beat_mac_os_x_market_share.html

Image
TheBrownKid
Not news, but something nice to slap in the face of Mac Fanboys.
  1. groups:
    Tech,   Technology
  2. tags:
    Mac,  Windows 7
  3.     
    |

13 comments // Windows 7 Sales Beat Mac Sales

  • rwahrens
    • 0
      rwahrens  

    • You just keep coming up with numbers all over the map. In one post it's this, in the next, it's that. I don't think you truly understand.

      I did say how Macs are superior - they address more RAM, whatever you say, since you sure can't get the numbers right. They are more stable, require less maintenance, and they ARE faster, as it is not just hardware that determines speed.

      I don't need to show you these speed tests, lots of sites have linked to them, including ZDnet, Cnet, Pc Mag and others. Google is your friend.

      Productivity, as I noted, and you ignored, is an amalgam of hardware reliability and speed and Operating System speed, application optimization, OS reliability and stability. The Mac OS is specifically designed to run on Macs, Macs are specifically designed to run that OS. They are a system that works together, and that system is designed for reliability and stability.

      Windows is designed to run on any old box using x86 architecture. It must be an OS for all boxes, and it suffers lower efficiency and stability as a result. Don't try to deny it, I've got too many years watching Windows systems self destruct, and I know what I'm talking about. Sure, there exist systems running Windows that are stable - there are some Macs that aren't. That doesn't change the fact that Macs are more reliable and have more productive time up than windows boxes.

      " Well that has nothing to do with weakness in the systems, it is because 90% of the business world uses PC, so if you are going to write a virus, you write it for the system that is most prevalent"

      Crap.

      Most botnets are of a size less than 5 digits. Some have gotten into six digits. One or two have gotten bigger, but that is rare. There are thirty million Macs, some as old as a decade or more, plenty for a botnet.

      Numbers are not the determining factor, ease of attack is. There are millions of old windows boxes that have not been patched. They are vulnerable, and exploits exist that can be readily adapted and deployed to link them to millions of others to do their masters' bidding. No need to research another system when you've got low hanging fruit ready to hand. Criminals are NOT noted for their R & D programs!

      There are NO viruses for the Max OS X system. In the last three years, two trojans have been released, both bombed because they required user intervention to spread. Their threat level was noted as low. Neither is active in the wild today to any real extent in the Mac community.

      "That all goes back to what I said earlier, for the basic end user, mac is probably a better choice. If you are a professional, and know about system maintenance and what not to do with you computer, then a system is a system nowadays, both are EQUAL."

      And professionals know that Macs take less maintenance and cost their owners less over the life of the unit. They last longer, and bring more on the used computer market.

      Fact is, your remarks at the beginning were biased, and snarky at Mac owners because you thought other Windows users were here to just bash Macs because of the title of the article. You've been trying to justify that attack ever since.

      Sure, Windows 7 is going to outsell macs, the raw number of users dictate that will happen. But macs are gaining market share, Apple's mac sales have been growing at an annual rate of over three times the industry average for several years now, and particularly this year, when almost every other manufacturer of computers have lost ground. Hell, even Micro$oft had to lay off employees!

      In the last year, Apple has gone from 24 billion bucks in the bank to over 34 billion. They now have more money than Micro$oft does!

      48% of the money made in the consumer computer market is made by Apple. The percentage of profit they take from that market is even higher.

      Apple and their signature product, Macs, are, by any measure, a success. It's hard to argue with that, so I'll see you around the forums.

      So long.

    • 2 years ago
  • LowShred
    • 0
      LowShred  

    • This isn't a slap in the face to anyone. Apple has a niche, while my grandma can run windows no problem. After Vista, a lot of people are going to be upgrading. Besides, they both have their advantages. I mean, try editing HD video on a PC... without it crashing or freezing. It just doesn't happen. Mac will always be superior in the creative market, and windows will always have the people who don't need anything too demanding. Nothing touches linux though.

    • 2 years ago
  • Sam_the_Wizer
  • beatnik_kid
  • StrangE2U
    • 0
      StrangE2U  
    • LowShred:

      beatnik_kid... thank you!!!

      The tired myth of "macs are just better for design" is dead. I edit/render full hd (have even done cinema 4k just as a test) on my pc all day with no issues or freezing.

      My main belief as to why the design industry has clung to mac so much is simply the fact that the towers/monitors make the office look much more chic. Because i will give apple credit for making sexy looking machines, but when i can go price one out that costs as much as a bmw 5 series, then i know i am getting ripped off, especially when i know that they are running INTEL chipsets, not powerPC anymore.

    • 2 years ago
  • rwahrens
    • 0
      rwahrens  
    • LowShred:

      That's where you're wrong. I've worked with graphics folks, and without exception, they prefer Macs for graphics work, whether still or video.

      I've seen the crap apps you have to work with, and they are clunky and unintuitive by comparison.

      Add to that the fact that any version of Windows is limited to 3 gigs of RAM, where the larger Mac Pros the Pro graphics folks work with can address, with 64 bit, over 16 gigs of RAM, and there is no way a PC can touch a Mac for video or graphics work.

      Additionally, go compare Dell or Hp machines, at the top end, comparable to Mac Pro machines, using the same components and software, and often, these days, the price is actually lower for a Mac.

      Your information is out of date.

    • 2 years ago
  • beatnik_kid
  • rwahrens
  • StrangE2U
    • 0
      StrangE2U  
    • LowShred:

      Rwahrens -

      "I've seen the crap apps you have to work with, and they are clunky and unintuitive by comparison."
      - Ok, I am not even sure what you are talking about here... The crap apps I have to work with? You do realize that the whole CS4 suite is on PC too right? So Premiere runs just fine on my system. I assume you are referring to final cut being only on a mac? Final cut is not (by any means) the be all end all of video editing just FYI, although it is quite nice!

      "Add to that the fact that any version of Windows is limited to 3 gigs of RAM, where the larger Mac Pros the Pro graphics folks work with can address, with 64 bit, over 16 gigs of RAM, and there is no way a PC can touch a Mac for video or graphics work."

      - LOL. Since when is windows limited to 3 gigs of ram? I must have a super secret special edition to recognize my 6 gigs, I only hope it doesn't blow up when I put in the other 6. Windows has been available in 64bit for quite a while now my friend, and not matter what 32bit OS you choose, you will always be limited to 3gigs of RAM, it's an inherent problem with x86 architecture. The fact of it is that with windows, memory is actually limited to 8TB (yes terabytes), though good luck finding a motherboard with the space for it.

      HERE: read this, just found it for you. http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000811.html

      The "pro graphics folk" like Peter Norrby (who runs WINDOWS) and develops industry leading, cutting edge software for use in AE? Not to mention plenty of others who run windows machines just fine.

      I think it is your information that is outdated friend... do a bit of reading before you make claims like that.

      As far as the price actually being lower for a Mac? well... not even going to touch that claim.

      Look, what it all boils down to is personal preference, do you like OSX, or do you like Windows? I have no problem with Mac (other than price really), and truthfully, I love some of the functionality of OSX (Exposé is awesome). I work with both systems, so i am familiar with the shortcomings of each of them, and yes, they both have shortcomings. In my honest opinion, OSX is a better OS for the normal end user, who might be on the average level of computer knowledge, which is the majority of people who use computers.

      But to say that mac is technologically superior to a pc system, especially making blatantly false claims about hardware limitations of a windows based system, is just ignorant.

    • 2 years ago
  • rwahrens
    • 0
      rwahrens  
    • Image
    • LowShred:

      "Since when is windows limited to 3 gigs of ram? I must have a super secret special edition to recognize my 6 gigs, I only hope it doesn't blow up when I put in the other 6. Windows has been available in 64bit for quite a while now my friend, and not matter what 32bit OS you choose, you will always be limited to 3gigs of RAM, it's an inherent problem with x86 architecture. The fact of it is that with windows, memory is actually limited to 8TB (yes terabytes), though good luck finding a motherboard with the space for it. "

      Who said anything about 64 bit? I was referring to the 32 bit version, but for your information, the Mac OS is not limited to 12 gigs at 64 bits, but 16 on current Mac Pro motherboards. Yes, Windows may be able to run 8 TB, but the Mac's OS can theoretically run 16 TB - on a future motherboard, of course. You may do a little research yourself.

      Here's a start:

      http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/

      And current Macs at 32 bits? They can recognize 4 gigs, not the 3 windows is limited to.

      There is more to Macs than chic or sexy. Their build quality is better, and they use high quality parts. Customer satisfaction is higher, and has been, for years now than for any other PC manufacturer.

      They are NOT BMW series priced at all, especially not at the high end where graphics pros buy their machines - they are very competitively priced for the capabilities, features and quality you get.

      Apple has chosen not to compete at the low end. They don't build low end machines with razor thin margins. So yeah, from THAT viewpoint, they are more expensive, but you get what you pay for.

      Whatever you are running may run fine on your machine, but a majority of the graphics industry, including video , runs on Macs. I've known, supported and worked for graphics experts for years, and I've rarely met one that truly liked doing graphics or video work on Windows. Drop all the names you wish, but facts are facts - Apple has dominated that industry, and continues to do so today, and with what Snow Leopard brings to the table, they will in the future too.

    • 2 years ago
  • StrangE2U
    • 0
      StrangE2U  
    • LowShred:

      "Who said anything about 64 bit? I was referring to the 32 bit version..."

      Did you read what you typed?

      - - "Add to that the fact that any version of Windows is limited to 3 gigs of RAM, where the larger Mac Pros the Pro graphics folks work with can address, with 64 bit, over 16 gigs of RAM, and there is no way a PC can touch a Mac for video or graphics work."

      (side note, really who cares about 32bit processors anymore? I mean I know many end users still run 32bit, but if we are talking on a professional level, that would be unheard of)

      I mean forgive me if I read that wrong... and the whole 32bit issue is really a dead one. The advent of PAE (physical address extension) allows 32bit processors to access more than the actual physical memory... blah blah... basically, windows blocked higher access on ealier 32bit (and even some of the more recent ones i think) so boo to windows on that, but, if you bought the higher versions the limit was less restricted. That is still even true today with 7. Ultimate allows access of up to 192gb if you have the way to build that kind of system (if you are wondering, OSx64 is currently limited to 32gb). Again, pretty much irrelevant because of all motherboard limitations, biggest one I have come across is 128gb, and I would cry at the price of filling all those slots with quality ram... ouch

      "Mac OS is not limited to 12 gigs at 64 bits, but 16 on current Mac Pro motherboards. Yes, Windows may be able to run 8 TB, but the Mac's OS can theoretically run 16 TB... You may do a little research yourself"

      I have done some research on the subject. As I said above, windows isn't limited to 12gb (depending on which version you buy), and neither is osx... I have done my reading

      Yes, theoretically, any 64bit system can access 16Tb of memory, that is how a 64bit processor is designed to work. However, it cannot be all ram because that memory includes the memory of your graphics card(s). The only limitations are instituted by the OS running the processor, in which case some version of Linux is actually the best way to go... lol, but who runs Linux anyway? Jokes aside though..

      None of it really matters all that much until software developers start writing more for 64bit, and especially writing multi threaded applications to work with all of the cores of the processor. And that all depends on the tools and ease that OS developers bing in the future to make these things eaiser...

      Look... I know i exaggerated a bit with the BMW comment, but still, a maxed out Mac pro is just under $20k, that is huge. So forgive the hyperbole.

      This whole thing is a moot point, what it really all boils down to is personal preference. Both systems are used in the graphics industry (video, print and web). But, I believe many upper-level directors started with Macs, because, in the pre-64bit days (especially when the PowerPC chips were out) Macs did have the big upper hand, so of course, you go with whats best. So many firms have stayed with them. But today, they are running the same processors, chipsets and graphics cards as pc's. The cross-platform issues of yesteryear are all but gone as well, both systems can read almost all of the same file types, font issues are dead... so really, who cares anymore?

      As I said, I quite like the Mac OS, I use it regularly, have no problems with it at all... But this perpetuation of the, now, myth of "technological superiority" of Macs is getting ridiculous. Computer hardware capability has finally surpassed the capability of software in so many aspects that now the software companies that we use so much are playing catchup.

      On a final note... I LOVE MY IPHONE!!! I will hand it to apple, iphone and ipod are the best gadgets in the world! lol

    • 2 years ago
  • rwahrens
    • 0
      rwahrens  
    • LowShred:

      "I have done some research on the subject. As I said above, windows isn't limited to 12gb (depending on which version you buy), and neither is osx... I have done my reading"

      Did you read what YOU typed?

      "Since when is windows limited to 3 gigs of ram? I must have a super secret special edition to recognize my 6 gigs, I only hope it doesn't blow up when I put in the other 6. Windows has been available in 64bit for quite a while now my friend, and not matter what 32bit OS you choose, you will always be limited to 3gigs of RAM, it's an inherent problem with x86 architecture. The fact of it is that with windows, memory is actually limited to 8TB (yes terabytes), though good luck finding a motherboard with the space for it. "

      I guess you did your reading after you wrote that.

      Point is, Macs ARE technically superior, especially in the upper tiers of their product line. No matter how you slice it, they can, on a practical basis, currently address more RAM. Speed comparisons, by independent sources, show that Adobe products run consistently faster on the Mac OS, sometimes as fast as 20% on some tasks.

      In the graphics/video world, productivity is king, and the Mac is king of productivity. I've been supporting Windows and Mac systems for over 15 years, and I can tell you from hard personal experience that Macs just take less maintenance, which results in more productivity for the user and a lower Total Cost of Ownership for the business. Yeah, that Mac may cost $20k, but it'll burn through tasks it is put to faster and more accurately than a Windows box will, with less downtime, resulting in a faster return on investment.

      Yes, personal preference is part of the equation, but in business, the bottom line counts more, which is why the Mac is used more in these fields than windows boxes.

      nuff said.

    • 2 years ago
  • StrangE2U
    • 0
      StrangE2U  
    • LowShred:

      rwahrens -

      Yes I read what i typed... I was saying "put in the other 6" because I have another six gigs of ram that just came a few days ago that I have yet to install (been lazy lately), not to imply that 12gb was what windows is limited to. And the 8tb limitation is for windows server editions I guess, though I don't know much about server tech... so we will leave that where it is.

      "Nuff said"

      You say that like you have made some finite point that proves everything you were saying is correct, which isn't true.

      "Point is, Macs ARE technically superior, especially in the upper tiers of their product line. No matter how you slice it, they can, on a practical basis, currently address more RAM"

      Explain to me how they are technically superior? What makes them so? It's like saying that my 454 big block is better that your 454 big block because my car is red. Truthfully, mac pro's don't even offer the i7 chips yet, still using Xenon... so... ther is that. Though rumors say that they are going to be switching sometime soon, some of their laptops do offer them. That aside though, please explain what makes macs so superior?

      Where in the world did you see that mac can address more ram? The most they can address is 32gb, that is a FACT, and that is why they offer up to 32gb on their site. You can get more, I think, and even run i7 chips if you build a hackintosh, which actually is cheaper. The truth is, actually, that windows ultimate editions can address more ram.

      If you have links to these independent tests showing results of adobe products faster and more efficiently on macs, I would like to see them. Because, from what I have read and experienced, the general consensus is that they run equally on both systems.

      As far as maintenance issues go, I know I know, pc's are "more prone to viruses" right? Well that has nothing to do with weakness in the systems, it is because 90% of the business world uses PC, so if you are going to write a virus, you write it for the system that is most prevalent. In the past few years though, more and more viruses are turning up for macs because more and more people are turning to mac. But, if you treat your workstation as just that. a place to do work, stay off the porn and other irreputable websites, and have a good anti-virus, your system will remain in tip top shape for years. That all goes back to what I said earlier, for the basic end user, mac is probably a better choice. If you are a professional, and know about system maintenance and what not to do with you computer, then a system is a system nowadays, both are EQUAL.

      I am not trying to argue that mac does not hold the market for the graphics industry, I know that is true. What I am arguing is that most people's reasoning for this is now false, and based on the advantages of now outdated technology. Six years ago, you were right, macs were technologically superior, today, they are not, they are equal.

    • 2 years ago
more from Tech:
from the community

top videos