digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Macs now have 8% of PC market

techradar.com — Apple's OSX cutting into Windows' dominanceApple is celebrating a new milestone after a research company reported that Macs have now taken an 8% market share in computing for the first time. Net Applications conducted a survey on 40,000 sites, and came to the conclusion that 8.2% of computers accessing the web were using Apple's OSX ...

show profanity settings
expand all
  • MrSlav, on 10/02/2008, -45/+86yep but it's still the pc market isn't it
    • itsbob, on 10/02/2008, -8/+47Yes, Personal Computer
    • Technopundit, on 10/02/2008, -9/+4I'm a PC.
      See?
      I'm rumpled.
    • wolferz, on 10/02/2008, -4/+29Technically Mac's ARE IBM/PC clones now. They now run on the same x64 architecture that Dells and HPs use.
      • Huangism, on 10/02/2008, -10/+3those copycat *****! i hate macs
      • bbtweb, on 10/02/2008, -23/+17except with 1/100 of virus / crashing problems of a windows machine.
      • bjornski, on 10/02/2008, -2/+5And about the same proportion of the software market.
      • bbtweb, on 10/02/2008, -11/+7I've never had a problem finding the software I need for mac. Maybe that's because I bought it for what it's best at.
      • jakem1, on 10/02/2008, -7/+14^^ Looks?
      • soopafly, on 10/02/2008, -5/+9Who needs a handful of CD burning software when you could have thousands!!!!

        :-/
      • datdamonfoo, on 10/02/2008, -2/+2jakem1 wins.

        And I would love to know what crashing problems bbtweb thinks windows has.
      • bbtweb, on 10/02/2008, -8/+3I own two PCs (desktop / laptop) and MacBook Pro. In the two years of their life, I have replaced a hard drive in my desktop because windows security is so full of holes that my drive was rendered useless even running windows firewall, defender, norton antivirus. My laptop runs nothing but the basic windows build with office being the only other software installed on it and it has thrown multiple blue screen errors throughout the course of its life. While these are inconveniences, they are not the end of the world (i work in high performance computing so I'm well aware of usual problems and how to properly set up a computer). All I'm pointing out is that in that same time span, I have had absolutely no trouble with my MacBook Pro at all. It hasn't so much as frozen up on me. So I'm not a fanboy, I'm simply stating the facts based on my expreience with both platforms which I continue to use daily.

        jakem1...who cares about looks? maybe you do, good for you. I bought my mac because it runs pro tools much more stably than windows.
      • wolferz, on 10/02/2008, -1/+12@bbtwebb

        ....wtf? You replaced your hard drive because of security? I've been a professional computer tech for 10 years now and what you just said makes my brain hurt trying to understand it. I normally only point such stuff out when some one is trying to make claims I don't generally agree with... but I just couldn't help myself this time. Seriously, I have a headache from re-reading your comment trying to understand it.

        Windows security may be full of holes, especially in versions of Windows prior to Vista, but software can not make hardware fail *except* if it over stress' the hardware (the way Crysis caused many video cards to over heat). There are no virus' or other malware out there that can kill a hard drive. Harddrives fail in one of 3 circumstances. 1, They are subjected to shocks (dropping/kicking the computer, etc) or otherwise abused (opening the drive up to see the inside). 2, mechanical components of the drive fail as a result of age and heavy use. 3, the drive is defective.

        I won't say there are no other possibilities, (I mean... I've seen a case screw make a computer not boot without being in contact with anything but the case itself. no short no nothing and another screw in the same hole caused no problems) but having worked on literally >10,000 computers (you do the math: 5 computers a day, 5 days a week, 51 weeks a year, for 10 years... and yes these are conservative estimates) I have never seen a hard drive fail for any reason not listed above. I even had a computer once with around 33,000 "infected files." (A worm that was being removed by Norton was also being backed up and then restored by Windows System Restore then restored again with a new file name by the worm still running in memory... causing the virus to replicate at an exponential rate) Hard drive worked fine... it was just full.
      • hiikeeba, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4Then why do they do the "I'm a Mac" "I'm a PC" thing? That suggests they are two different things.
      • kreatre2007, on 10/02/2008, -3/+4UM... No they're not. Although they have Intel processors, they are not clones. Apple and Intel codeveloped the logic boards (mother boards to Windows PC geeks). These are at totally new design that uses Intel's extensible firmware interface instead of the crappy primitive bios still being shipped on other PCs. Also, Apple's logic board design makes use of a lot of technology not found inside of other brands. The truth be told... Intel has been inside just about every Mac since Intel makes more than just processors. They make I/O controller modules and other types of chips.
      • wolferz, on 10/02/2008, -1/+5@hiikeeba

        Well you see hiikeeba, sometimes people lie. Mostly they tell white lies... lies that don't really hurt any one because in the end telling the truth or lying wont change anything but for whatever reason telling the truth will make things harder. In this case a group of very smart and extremely well paid people working at Apple were trying to come up with the new big marketing campaign to boost sales of their product. While they worked on the problem they realized that most people, even the people who like and use macs, are unaware of what the term PC has always referred to and even more of them simply don't care. They also realized that few people were aware of the changes that have happened to the mac in the last decade. Being the smart people they are they knew that a 60 second advertisement aimed at trendy youths looking to join in on the next fad is not the right place for a history lesson about computers overflowing with technical jargon especially when, in the end, it really doesn't change anything.

        So... you wanna know where babies come from too?

        Honestly, dude I was tempted not to do the whole baby-wants-to-know-the-nature-of-the-universe thing cause you seem like your trying to be respectful and all, but it's just such an incredibly obvious answer. :-/

        @kreatre2007

        So maybe now you will tell me that computers with AMD cpus or computer with non-Intel chipsets are not "IBM/PC Clones" (note the pretty quotation marks... pretty pretty quotation marks yea!) or, as it is sometimes referred two by all these new computer people, IBM/PC Compatible. I mean, you'll have to forgive this oldskooler of his use of oldskool terminology but even after Intel split the market by changing socket styles both Intel and AMD computers were still referred to as IBM/PC Clones... never mind that IBM had long since stopped being the major decider on where the x86 architecture would go next. And since then AMD and Intel have traveled farther and farther apart in design philosophy and styles but at no point did ether one become a different architecture.

        The 8086, 8088, 80386, 80486, and all the Intel and AMD cpus including the Athlon 64s and the Core 2 Duos (but not the Itaniums) are considered x86. Any computer using these cpus without some sort of really fundamental change to the instruction set is considered to be using the x86 architecture. If it has a 64-bit CPU then it is using the x86-64 architecture (commonly shortened to x64). And, just to drive this home all the way, Apple even considers the new Macs to be x86-64 computers. If the computer is an x86, it is considered an IBM/PC Compatible or Clone or whatever new term you want to use for the same thing.

        Oh and when determining what architecture a computer is, the only question is the registers... not what I/O controller or logic board it uses.
      • bbtweb, on 10/02/2008, -4/+1@wolferz

        I agree with everything you said, and I know it is an extremely rare case. You may be absolutely right, the drive may have been defective from the start. All I knew for sure was that until that virus got in, my drive was working properly. After the virus got in it was like the drive was getting no power, it just would not run at all. Perhaps the timing of the virus hitting and drive failure was just too coincidental.

        On another note however, Vista is terrible in terms of security. Windows XP is way more stable in that sense. Service Pack 1 has made some great headway but there is still much work to be done, and frankly I'm surprised that Vista didn't at least debut with the same security level as XP.
      • wolferz, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2@bbtweb

        ok... I think I've filled my ***** quota for the day and then some, so I'm just gonna talk plainly here. I don't know everything, despite my years as a computer tech. The whole point of the Haunted Screw Story, as my (then) coworkers and I refer to it, was to point out just how crazy things can get when dealing with computers. I'm not trying to argue per see, but I really think you got some things wrong.

        About Vista security. If you keep UAC turned on and pay attention to the circumstances surrounding UAC prompts (which, in regard to the average computer user, is a *huge* if) Vista *is* inherently more secure than XP. On top of this there have been considerably fewer security flaws found in Vista as compared to XP over the same run... despite XP having had 5 years more than Vista to mature in real-world conditions. The security model used by XP and all previous versions of Windows was and still is inherently flawed. Vista's is no where near perfect, but there is no way it could be considered worse than XP.

        Stability? It depends on the hardware you use and, more specifically, if the hardware manufacturer bothered to develop decent drivers. With the right hardware (pretty much anything that hit the shelf a month or more after Vista and a LOT of hardware released up to a year (possibly more) before) and with fully up-to-date software Vista is quite possibly the most rock solid stable OS I have used on a regular basis... and I have used Linux (redhat, slackware, suse, gentoo, and currently ubuntu) close to daily for the last 6 or 7 years. Also, Vista has had fewer bugs and stability problems (that were related to the OS itself and not third party drivers or software) reported than XP did during its early years.

        Being at least as stable and secure as XP? That's a pretty tall order for any company to pull off much less on an operating system. Vista was heavily re-written from the ground up especially when it comes to the security model and features. A new OS that is as different from its predecessor as Vista is from XP is going to have an entirely new list of bugs and (probably) some minor left-overs from the previous version where some of the old code was kept. And no they can't all be tested before release. I've never picked up the latest version of any software product expecting it to be less or equally buggy to the previous versions. It's just a given that they wont be (though there is the occasional pleasant surprise).

        Regardless, I have to admit that driver and software compatibility issues are still noticeably more common on Vista than XP and as such Vista is less stable than XP *on average*... but not by much and certainly no where near as much as most digg users would lead one to believe.
      • bjornski, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1"...even running windows firewall, defender, norton antivirus."

        There's a large part of your problem.

        Get Comodo and Avast!, then you really don't need much else besides external scanners now and then (ad/spy-ware).

        Norton...... ick. That in itself is malware in my eyes.....
      • Tenoq, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2@ bjornski -

        Comodo is great - but not really for the novice. Avast! is a buggy AV program at best, and ineffective at worst. I've seen a few machines flake out doing SP3 with Avast!, and I know it's not particularly effective at malware protection.

        Norton '09 is probably worth a look. A lot of people hate Norton thanks to the 2006/07 versions. I know, I did too. I'm thoroughly impressed with '09 though. Lighter on system resources than any other all-in-one package I've seen so far. Moreover, Symantec are so confident they've got a little usage meter on the main Norton screen that shows how much of your system resources Norton is using. :p
      • Macintoshreader, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2Macs are not PCs, even if they run X86-64 (CISC) processors. A Mac is not a PC in the sense that Macs use an EFI-ROM while PCs use BIOS and that a PC can't run OS X out-of-the-box or without modifications to the kernel.

        Put simply, a Mac is a computer that was made to run OS X, while a PC is a computer that can run any OS that is not OS X--this includes Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, etc.

        PC is also an abbreviation for Personal Computer. PC has two meanings, which is what people don't seem to get.
    • peestandingup, on 10/02/2008, -15/+9When using "PC" as a more generic term, it means "personal computer".

      When using "PC" in say when referring to multiple platforms (ie Mac or PC), its short for "Windows PC".

      This is pretty much common knowledge. Not only is your comment ignorant, but everyone who dugg you up is somehow more ignorant than you. Congratulations to you all.
      • surferjoemaui, on 10/02/2008, -3/+7A mac will also run windows. so your still not explaining your self very well. what you should say is when you refer to a 'PC' you mean a computer that wilnot run OS X
      • KibibyteBrain, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2A Mac is a certified platform, just like the IBM x-Series and newer Sun Ultra Workstations. They are all just standard intel architecture PCs, but also meet the additional standards to run certain software applications with certification. There are a million good reasons for having certified platforms, even if they would not seem to apply to 90% of the market.
        However, Macs are not quite IBM-compatible, as they do not support the old fashioned boot features due to the use of an EFI over BIOS. This does cause some old DOS based software to not work on Macs. But close enough, especially considering they basically followed Intel's design guidelines to the letter...
      • wolferz, on 10/02/2008, -1/+1But common knowledge isn't always correct. After all it was once common knowledge that the world was flat. One day, a couple centuries from now, we may get laughed at for thinking brushing our teeth every day is healthy.

        And fyi, in the more specific sense no, PC does not mean Windows PC. Unless you think statements like "My Window PC runs Ubuntu" are good form. PC in reference to a platform means "IBM/PC Clone." In other words computers that draw their heritage and design philosophy from the 8086/8088 based computers developed and sold by IBM in starting in 1981. Since this includes all x86 and x64 computers and since modern Mac computers use the Intel Core 2 Duo CPUs (x64 architecture) that makes modern Macs "IBM/PC Clones" as well.

        So modern macs are actually included in *both* usages of the term PC.

    • mattlevesque, on 10/02/2008, -5/+27A Mac is just a certified PC that runs a *nix based OS.

      Personally I think that Mac are too expensive for the hardware you get. Don't get me wrong, the designs are nice but they're not worth the price difference.

      I prefer building my own PC and installing Linux. That way I get the best of both world, good hardware and software.
      • RudeTurnip, on 10/02/2008, -3/+4If you can tell me a good FOSS substitute for iMovie, Garageband and iDVD, I will enthusiastically install Ubuntu on my Dell desktop system to complement the (amateur) editing I do on my MacBook Pro.
      • MattBD, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3@RudeTurnip
        There's plenty of fair Garageband substitutes - I found Jokosher to be fairly similar, and Ardour is supposed to be good for those familiar with Pro Tools. For movies, there's the likes of Kino and Cinelerra.
        You might want to try Ubuntu Studio rather than regular Ubuntu as that's strongly oriented towards that kind of thing, and includes lots of these apps by default.
      • mattlevesque, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1You should try Open Movie Editor http://www.openmovieeditor.org/
        Here's a youtube demo : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ljEb1PdEdM
        I know it look's a bit ruff but it's promising. It's worth a try.
      • clclark33, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5I think that is a common thought that is a bit misleading. The big problem is that Apple chooses not to compete in the commodity pc market. I have a G5 tower I purchased 4 years ago and I'd like another Apple tower, but they have yet to produce one that gives the best value... a non-workstation single cpu tower that allow for some expansion (i.e. extra hard drives, expansion cards, etc.). I don't want an iMac because I don't want a bundled monitor when my existing monitor is perfect. A Mini is way too underpowered for my purposes. The Mac Pros are just way too much, in power and cost, for me to justify purchasing a new one.
      • MicrosoftBob, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1Ah yes, the ever-elusive xMac. It's a shame, really.
      • fjf314, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3I agree that price can really make a difference here. I think that Macs are nice, but considering that I can buy a laptop with the same hardware running Vista or Linux for about half the price I'm not exactly motivated to buy one.
      • kfilip, on 10/06/2008, -0/+1A small correction - MacOS X is based on *BSD not *nix system.
    • jack12345678910, on 10/02/2008, -4/+5for those who think that mac's percentage will only rise. it will soon reach a zenith because of its price. if they tried to lower the price, how would they differentiate it from their normal products? if they made it uglier, then mac's appeal disappears. if it looks the same but sells for lower price, then who would buy the expensive one? therefore mac is stuck.
      • clclark33, on 10/02/2008, -4/+3I disagree. The largest growth segment for Macs is the laptop market. The price range for entry level laptops is very compact and the Apple MacBooks are priced very competitively considering the software included among other things.

        I agree that the desktop market will require Apple to be more aggressive regarding lower priced models, but it seems that the average consumer doesn't mind paying for a new monitor with a new computer every time.
      • fjf314, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3Since when is paying $1000 for an entry-level laptop "competitive"? You can get a machine with the same hardware from any other OEM for about $600 or $700.
    • digginamish, on 10/02/2008, -2/+15Wasn't it at 8.5% in the 80's? So, I guess this isn't so much a "new milestone" as getting back to the previous position.
      • Macintoshreader, on 10/03/2008, -1/+5Nope. Apple had more than 50% market share from '84--when the Macintosh was introduced--to '90. Afterwards, they started loosing sales to Windows 3.0, and Windows 95 killed Apple's market share.
  • smmakira, on 10/02/2008, -19/+74This is a pretty good gain considering the little amount of time this has happened in. I say most of the credit needs to go to the programmers. They have done a terrific job on OSX.
    • FunkyWitDaSysTm, on 10/02/2008, -3/+16well, they started with a great base.

      mmm, bsd.
      • chrispchiken, on 10/02/2008, -1/+8all your base are belong to bsd.
      • BrainInAJar, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5everything good steals from BSD...
      • Gir53457, on 10/02/2008, -2/+1I'd give the credit to college campuses and Apple PR/Marketing. Most colleges sell Macs in their bookstores now, combined with the student discount and free printer/iPod giveaways that Apple offers to students at Mac stores. Apple laptops have become pretty much the norm for any college student, especially now that they can run Windows now.
      • scruffles, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4@BrainInAJar - it isn't stealing. The good people at Berkley went to a lot of trouble to make sure their software could be used in exactly this manor.
      • zazzalicious, on 10/02/2008, -0/+6You live in a manor?
    • TheUngod, on 10/02/2008, -0/+11I don't see Jobs giving a speech with anything along the lines of "programmers, programmers, programmers, programmers." Doesn't have the same ring to it. And he doesn't sweat enough.
      • digitalpencil, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5which is surprising given the stage lights and the black turtle neck..
      • Tenoq, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1@ digitalpencil

        He's cold-blooded.
    • FredFredrickson, on 10/02/2008, -10/+12I'd give most of the credit to their marketing team. Without that, OSX would be dead, even if it still looked like Mac OS 9.
    • acacia987, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2the way this stat was taken is really misleading and pointless. think about all those pc's in the offices where you don't have the ability to surf the web. take it with a grain of salt, and if anything a high end estimate.
      • kaaBOOM, on 10/03/2008, -1/+1Think about all those Macs in design studios where you don't have the ability to surf the web.
  • adarkmethod, on 10/02/2008, -19/+10imagine what would happen if they stopped fighting 3rd party hardware.... I'd go so far as to bet that atleast 1% of that gain WAS on 3rd party hardware...
    • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/02/2008, -2/+151%? Are you out of your mind? There's no way it's over .1%. Do you really think that even that much of the overall consumer market would have a clue as to how to build a Hackintosh, much less actually go ahead and do it? Newsflash: It's a tiny, tiny sliver of the market.
      • Gir53457, on 10/02/2008, -2/+1I've taught my sisters how to perform basic upgrades and am comfortable that they could build a PC with minimal guidance. System building is actually quite easy.
      • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1And yet ask the vast majority of the public if they could do it and you'll hear a resounding "NO". On top of that, getting a Hackintosh together is bit more complicated than just throwing some parts together. 1% of all Macs as Hackntoshes? Utter, pure, and uncut *****.
    • TheUngod, on 10/02/2008, -4/+13I'd go so far as to bet OSX would have more problems than Windows on 3rd party hardware.
      • mgill3, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3Which is why Apple sticks to their own hardware.

        Everything made in house = far better quality control.
      • Disease, on 10/02/2008, -7/+4^^^ = communism
      • rpgmaker, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1OSx86 has demonstrated it. The more practical approach is to license OSX to other hardware manufacturers like HP or Dell but that won't be as glamorous and Apple will never do that since NOT doing it is working really well for them.

        To me the best they can do is not ***** with the people that are trying to install OSX in their machine.
    • CCB0x45, on 10/02/2008, -1/+6first off you are an idiot if you think 1% of that is running hacked OS X on third party hardware... completely wrong.

      Second off they would have to make insane amount of changes, hire tons of people to work on drivers, and all sorts of other ***** if they wanted to support OS X on third party systems, and there is no way they could maintain the quality of OS X as it currently stands or the quick development cycles if they moved to third party hardware.
      • clclark33, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1Actually, an easier way to provide support for third party hardware would be to have a list of approved hardware and only support that. Apple only uses Intel processors, so what is to stop them from saying "we'll only support Nvidia graphics cards and Asus motherboards"? That would work very well, but then again, they may not sell quite as much high end hardware. I for one would prefer a single processor tower that's under $2000.
    • JoshuaGross, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1Citation needed
  • bequity, on 10/02/2008, -9/+29Way back in April 2006 Switch To A Mac predicted the following:
    "Apple will have at least 8% market share by the end of the Leopard Mac OS X 10.5 lifecycle."

    Spot on in my view, no one at the time was calling for such a market share. In case you want to read it here it is:
    http://switchtoamac.com/site/macs-boot-camp-market ...

    It's located at the bottom of that URL
    • Huangism, on 10/02/2008, -21/+3well macs blows anyway
      o noes 8% what will MS do!!
  • tourettes1992, on 10/02/2008, -52/+46WOW 8%, windows has what 92%? Not counting linux though, but still clearly 60% of the market if not more. 8% isn't that big, but apple celebrates over everything...
    • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/02/2008, -7/+55Since that's up from about 3% just a few years ago, it's a pretty damn big increase. With Apple cutting margins in the near future, expect to see it hit the double digits within two years.
      • jakem1, on 10/02/2008, -10/+9It's still at 3% or less worldwide. Also, with the US economy crumbling I'd expect to see Apple's US marketshare drop. People will still need computers in a recession but they won't spend extra for image.
      • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/03/2008, -2/+2Funny, I don't think this survey measured only US computers.
      • thedragon4453, on 10/03/2008, -2/+1One of the rumors running pretty rampant is a $799-$899 Macbook. If that happens, I think Apple will clinch 10% in a year or less. Especially if it's a aluminum Macbook like is also being predicted.
    • DiscoUnderpants, on 10/02/2008, -5/+41These figure are significant. I am a software developer. Decisions for software development are made based on the user base of a particular OS. Is it worth making a OSX version? When you are getting into 10% of the market range then a lot more companies are going to start saying yes to that question.
    • PacmanMafia, on 10/02/2008, -6/+26WOW you don't get it. This really is big. The fact that somehow Apple did not go out of business when it was still a small company and when it isolated itself from Windows completely...that beats me. Apple over the years has taken risk after risk and they are beating the odds. And your right. 8 percent is small but Apple is doing great. They wouldn't be this well off if it wasn't for the iPod though. That was the gateway product for consumers to start looking into the Apple Computers.
      • k2001, on 10/02/2008, -5/+1Not completely, since there is virtual machine that emulate the Window and Bootcamp.
    • AvidPreatorian, on 10/02/2008, -14/+4microsoft counts every windows in public schools as a "sale", that's sad since many educational institutions dont have a choice but to get windows machines.
      • Eiknujrac, on 10/02/2008, -3/+17And I'm sure Apple is counting every computer sold to schools as well.....
      • AvidPreatorian, on 10/02/2008, -10/+2point is, windows is usually the choice because of the budget not preference and windows has been available for way longer. it is showed into all dell computers use in schools. 8% is a huge number for apple.
      • Radan, on 10/02/2008, -8/+2The thing is, part from Universities and such, many schools don't even allow other OS:s than Windows, simply because they are still running old outdated programmes without Mac versions, and switching out everything for new software would be all too costly without any major benefits.
      • jakem1, on 10/02/2008, -2/+12Are you guys serious? Apple has been just about giving away Macs to schools and universities since the '80's.
      • Radan, on 10/02/2008, -1/+1Maybe in the US, but at least not in Sweden.
    • Sparhawk2k, on 10/02/2008, -1/+13It's also big for Apple because they make much more money off every sale. They're doing the hardware and the OS.
    • mgill3, on 10/02/2008, -5/+15Apple's not "celebrating" the 8% market share, they celebrate the fact they're selling more and more Mac's every quarter of sales.

      Windows actually has 90% market share, down from 92%. Windows market share is slowly declining, while Mac OS market share is quickly increasing. (When you look at their small size)

      http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid= ...
      • kd4nuh, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2Yeah, Mac's flat line is much more inclined than Windows'. Kool-Aid drinker...
    • yikiad, on 10/02/2008, -6/+9i'd LOVE to have an 8% market share of a product that hundreds of millions of people have. don't forget that anything that does not run macos includes "dumb" terminals that run for POS, which counts for more than 30% of all pc's.
      • CCB0x45, on 10/02/2008, -1/+11I think its safe to say the PC market is in the billions range now... at least over 1 billion.
      • djgreedo, on 10/03/2008, -1/+3No, this measurement is of computers accessing websites. It doesn't count machines that don't run a web browser.

        It's also worth pointing out that Mac users in general are heavier Internet users than PC users (i.e. a lot of PCs are owned by people who hardly use the computer, whereas most Mac users are heavy users). This means that the 8% figure is artificially large (e.g. 1 Mac user might use the Internet more than several Windows users combined). I'm speaking GENERALLY, of course.
    • JoshuaGross, on 10/02/2008, -1/+8I'm pretty impressed, I have a 0% market share
    • judicar, on 10/02/2008, -2/+2Well, considering the closest competitor is Linux and their desktop market share has been stagnant at around 2%, yeah its a big deal
    • RealHyperX, on 10/02/2008, -1/+4I am back to the mac after going to vista after using a mac. It seems 10.5.5 fixed all my issues that I had. I went to the apple store today and there were hundreds of people. Mac is amazing. The worst thing about the Mac are the users. Pretentious. But that is my only issue now.
    • yoink23, on 10/03/2008, -2/+0agreed...wait, I'm a mac user. Hey!
  • kolop1, on 10/02/2008, -12/+4I though Mac had 10%, It's sadly less than I thought.
  • Technopundit, on 10/02/2008, -37/+64This is something to brag about?
    • TheUngod, on 10/02/2008, -13/+22I can see a kid coming home to his parents yelling about getting an 8% on his math test. He'd get a smack in the head.
      • burjzyntski, on 10/02/2008, -8/+2I spelled my name correctly on my SAT!
      • chron, on 10/02/2008, -8/+17Would you mind explaining how market share and math grades correlate?

        I'm specifically interested in how one has any relevance or significance for the other.

        Thanks for your time.
      • bjornski, on 10/02/2008, -2/+6@bujzyntski

        Sarah?
      • burjzyntski, on 10/02/2008, -5/+0nope, not quite (username=first+last+middle, combined). i see you're polish, too, though, so that may contribute to your thinking...or absence thereof, ZING!
      • TheUngod, on 10/02/2008, -4/+5They don't correlate. I was merely pointing out how ridiculous it is to brag about such a low "score."
      • bjornski, on 10/02/2008, -2/+2What zing? I think you heard a "whoosh".

        And no, I'm not Polish. It's just a nickname when I was the one that had to go grab fresh beers for everyone in the living room.. The alias was always "bjorn", but when they wanted "brewskis", they'd mix it all up. You'd have to have as drunk as we were to see the humor in it.

        The Swede runs strong in this one.

        And it was a Palin reference. Nice try, though.

        Next time, don't "zing" your own comments. It's like laughing at your own jokes.
      • zazzalicious, on 10/02/2008, -4/+11I can see a kid coming home and saying 'I've cornered 8% of the Personal Compter Market'... I doubt if he'd get a smack around the head...
      • Tenoq, on 10/03/2008, -4/+7Worst.
        Comparison.
        Ever.

        Tell me, TheUngod - what sort of work do you do? Not the CEO of the monopoly in your industry? You fail at life. *slap around the head*.
      • hirschab, on 10/04/2008, -0/+1Are.... you.... ?
    • mgill3, on 10/02/2008, -10/+12Yes, considering the number of computers they have out there, a couple percent is a big deal. They're growing quickly. (While Windows market share slowly declines)

      http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid= ...
      • kd4nuh, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2Once again, Mac is growing slowly (2% over 1 year) while Windows is slowly declining by the same amount. Both lines are flat. I think you are seeing a different graph than me. Plus, nobody outside the United States uses Macs. Apple's market share worldwide is 3.5%!
    • Radan, on 10/02/2008, -2/+7Also, remember Apple is one company bringing both the hardware and the software, while the PC market got a dozen major companies backing it up (Dell, HP, Sony, Microsoft for the OS e.t.c).
    • relayer2112, on 10/02/2008, -8/+3When your rival is been a monopolist convicted of abusing its power, well... YES.
    • Urkel, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4In related news, despite everyone declaring themselves "Video Editors", 99% of computers are spent doing the exact same thing 100% of the time.
    • srg13, on 10/03/2008, -2/+38 percent of a market that contains billions of computers? Making over 20 billion dollars in revenue each year?

      I think that's something to brag about...
  • CamperBob, on 10/02/2008, -10/+4So WTF is up with AAPL? Why is it almost all the way back to where it was before the iPhone was announced? Even relative to other stocks nowadays, it's getting pounded.
    • FredFredrickson, on 10/02/2008, -3/+7Because AAPL stock wasn't really worth $180 a share?
      • CamperBob, on 10/02/2008, -5/+2Duh... if it was worth $100/share two years before they sold 10 million iPhones and 60 million apps for them, then it's worth at least that much now.
      • jakem1, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4The market doesn't base its decisions on your opinions CamperBob.
      • CamperBob, on 10/04/2008, -1/+0I don't see any "opinions" in the numbers I quoted, jakem1.
    • digitalpencil, on 10/02/2008, -6/+1it's hardly getting 'pounded'.. apple are releasing new products at lower price points as of November to contend with Windows equivalents. Jobs warned investors early this year that this would "likely affect Apple's upcoming earnings"
      • FredFredrickson, on 10/02/2008, -0/+8It's down over $60 this month, and is down 6% for the day, as I type this. That's pounded.
      • bjornski, on 10/02/2008, -1/+4Hey, the economy is in the *****! Time to buy up all the stock in a company that almost totally ignores the budget consumer!

        Good thinking.
    • PhillyMJS, on 10/02/2008, -2/+8A few analysts downgraded the stock because they feel that people won't be buying new computers in this *****, uncertain economy. Apple got hardest hit because the only model they sell below $1000 is the Mac mini. Econobox makers like Dell will be less vulnerable.

      It's a buying opportunity, if I've ever seen one... I'm waiting for AAPL to bottom out and then I'm pouncing on some. It will go back up.
      • FredFredrickson, on 10/02/2008, -2/+4I doubt it'll hit that $180 mark again for some time.
  • Aleman360, on 10/02/2008, -17/+32Witness the power of marketing.
  • thesoze, on 10/02/2008, -29/+16call me when it hits 25% - Apple's still overpriced - is the white person new bling?
    • alex7575, on 10/02/2008, -1/+7What does this have anything to do with race? WTF
    • thesoze, on 10/02/2008, -9/+1come on...do you really know any non-whites who use a Mac. white people are so status oriented..

      even the Mac case is white..get a clue

      hahaha, we SO serious?
      • Lewiji, on 10/02/2008, -2/+6My flatmate is black, plus about 6 guys I worked with in an Apple Store were black or Asian
      • EwMo, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2Jay-Z has been seen with a MacBook Pro before. And I know a lot of Asians with macs too. As in 5 that I thought of in the 30 seconds it took me to type this.
      • Invid, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2I'm black and Mac (with generous Linux helpings and Windows garnish).

        I did however, buy a blackbook to fight the power.
      • Macintoshreader, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1I'm black and I have a Mac. Most of Apple's products are in Aluminum (grey), not white. The MacBook comes in both black and white.

        Thanks for showing your stupidity and making generalizations.
    • digitalpencil, on 10/02/2008, -4/+2wait till November..
      • xoineg, on 10/02/2008, -3/+2so all of you cheapos that are voting for mccain and can't afford a mac, if Obama wins you should be able to upgrade to a REAL OS :D
      • digitalpencil, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2^ err..? no.. Apple are introducing a new product line in November with a significantly more competitive pricing structure. and i'm not voting for anyone, given i'm not American..
    • relayer2112, on 10/02/2008, -3/+1"call me when it hits 25% - Apple's still overpriced - is the white person new bling?"

      That's a pretty stupid thing to say, the "bling" part that is.
  • 22justin, on 10/02/2008, -18/+13Im using windows XP on a MacBook Pro, so does that count, I guess not
    • gamepr0, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3well THAT is an example of someone who wants to LOOK cool.
      remember taht most people will use a mac because they like the OS better.

      like vista would sell better if it'd be on a cool design laptop
  • channelx, on 10/02/2008, -20/+1560% of the time, Macs will never cut it in a PC market every time.
  • Tape99, on 10/02/2008, -30/+45And i bet more then 4% of that 8% is running windows on them.
    • bigsteve, on 10/02/2008, -4/+104% of the 8%? Or 50% of the 8%? I don't think either is correct. Purchasing and loading Windows can be a real undertaking for the uninformed, and just isn't necessary unless you're running a specialized piece of software. In that case, why did you buy a Mac to begin with? The large majority of Mac owners either dual-booting Windows or virtualizing it are doing so to assist in web design, software development, IT consulting like myself, or some other MIS/IT professional use. I'd imagine some Mac-owning Windows games fans are doing it too, maybe.
      • jakem1, on 10/02/2008, -5/+6I think you'd be surprised how many people are buying Macs as status symbols but using Windows as their primary OS to get things done.

        Also, check out this image that appeared in an Australian, pro-Apple newspaper yesterday: http://images.theage.com.au/ftage/ffximage/2008/10 ...
      • Tenoq, on 10/03/2008, -1/+4I'm sorry, but how the ***** is The Age a pro-Apple newspaper? They couldn't give two ***** about Apple. Look at their damn Green Guide - 30-40 pages of PC ads and discussions, and one column by Gary Barker (if you're lucky) on Macs. Pro-Apple my arse.

        And no, people buy Apples to use MacOS. You'd be surprised how many people don't even know you can run Windows on their Mac. :p

        If we're pulling out random statistics, I'd say 0.4% of that 8% are using Windows on their Mac as the primary OS. As in 0.032% of the total PC market. :p
    • danielwsmithee, on 10/02/2008, -2/+10This market share data is based on the operating system running not the hardware. So if you truly think that half the people who own macs are running windows then Apple would have have a 16% hardware market share. I doubt no more then 1% of Mac owners run windows all the time.

      On the other hand Apple market share in this could also increase from people OS X on there generic PC.
    • eldano512, on 10/02/2008, -2/+6That's actually not true because it said, specifically, the 8% is running OSX
  • aaronbrannt, on 10/02/2008, -31/+77In a related story, 8% of computer buyers have too much money.
    • MScrip, on 10/02/2008, -9/+5There are plenty of Windows machines that cost as much as a Mac.

      HP, Acer, Dell, and Sony all have laptops that cost $1100... the same price as a base MacBook.

      What's wrong with dropping $1000 or more on a computer every 5 years. I know people who buy $25,000 cars every 5 years.
      • JakeW, on 10/02/2008, -1/+6Everything is more expensive for Macs. If you buy a $1,000 computer now with Windows (or build it yourself and run Linux) you'll get much better parts, then if you had to use the parts Apple lets you use, and upgrades using what they let you use. 2GB of RAM for a Mac is $200. That is outrageous.
      • Tenoq, on 10/03/2008, -4/+2@ JakeW -

        Unless you buy the full Windows OS. And then buy a security solution or two, as is required. Then pay for servicing when it gets infected anyway.... which a few of my clients have done this week.

        TCO difference is probably *****-all, for the average consumer, IMO. But for tech-heads, Windows would be the better choice. Or Linux, if they don't play games.
    • atact88, on 10/02/2008, -3/+6Cause the hardware you get on a PC for $1100 includes dual core cpu, at least 2 Gb RAM, a dedicated video card, 250 Gb+ hard drive space, 17 inch screen, and decent speakers. What does your $1100 Mac come with?
      • MicrosoftBob, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5Teh Shiney?
      • MScrip, on 10/02/2008, -3/+1I don't have a Mac... I'm just saying that every manufacturer make a computer with a sticker price of $1100. I was referring to the OP who said that people have "too much money."

        Lots of things cost $1100 or more. A Nikon D90 is $1300... is that too much to pay if someone wants it?
      • Funpolice2050, on 10/02/2008, -2/+3Are you serious? You are comparing a camera to a computer? The point is an $1100 PC will give you more bang for the buck than a $1100 Mac.
      • Tenoq, on 10/03/2008, -1/+2Software?
      • MScrip, on 10/03/2008, -1/+1> "Are you serious? You are comparing a camera to a computer?"

        No! I was referring to the OP (again) about the quote "computer buyers have too much money."

        There are lots of "things" that cost $1100. If you want to buy a laptop, or a camera, or a washer and dryer for $1100, go ahead.

        But saying that Mac users have "too much money" is stupid. There's a lot of things you can buy with $1100. A Macbook is just one of them. Apple sold 2 million Macs last quarter and made over a billion dollars. Are Macs only for the super rich? And who's buying $1000 cameras too?
      • Macintoshreader, on 10/03/2008, -3/+1A base model iMac comes with 1GB of RAM, 250GB Hard Drive, 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, and a 20" 1680x1050 (High-Def) screen, which is much better than a 17". Oh, and you also do get a dedicated GPU and decent speakers.

        FAIL!
    • chesscat, on 10/02/2008, -2/+3NO, just better taste.
  • leelooishot, on 10/02/2008, -24/+18OH MY GOD 8%
    and every one is a college student or college drop out that wants to be different OH MY GOD!!!!
    • BossKey, on 10/02/2008, -5/+7No, some of them actually use theirs at Jet Propulsion Laboratories, film and television studios, biology labs...

      (I swear when I watch NOVA half the time when they go to some respected scientist's lab, it's a Mac in the background. I guess scientists prefer to be able to use Unix and Microsoft Excel at the same time.)
    • bjornski, on 10/02/2008, -8/+6Think different!

      Like all your friends.
      • gcnaddict, on 10/02/2008, -2/+4Why are you being buried?
      • bjornski, on 10/02/2008, -2/+5Because all their friends at Starbucks are doing it too.

        Can't be seen "thinking different" from them!
    • anillop, on 10/02/2008, -1/+4Then after they graduate and their job makes them use a PC they will switch back like most people who used macs in college. (including myself)
  • itsbob, on 10/02/2008, -13/+98% of the systems sold in that period, its hard to tell how many are actually used daily.
    Most Mac users use a perfectly good system for 6-8 years before buying a new one, how long is it before a Windows user has to replace their system?
    • FredFredrickson, on 10/02/2008, -4/+10Why would it be any different? If anything, I'd expect a PC to last longer because it's often easier to upgrade it.
      • itsbob, on 10/02/2008, -8/+13Lets see, my 3 year old Win XP machine needed $400-600 in upgrades to be usable with Vista, we just bought a newer one with Vista installed adding to the Windows machine sales. But my G4 iBook still works great 5 years later with 10.5.
      • FredFredrickson, on 10/02/2008, -6/+7There was a huge difference between XP and Vista... the platform was re-built. OS X 10.4 to 10.5 was a theme change by comparison.
      • BossKey, on 10/02/2008, -1/+6In my case (not necessarily everyone's) a Mac lasts longer because sometimes they include components that seem superfluous at the time, a little more than what a typical PC user thinks they need, but turn out to be good for long-term use. For example I am able to use an old 2003 Mac laptop as a media center with wireless control, because it has Bluetooth and a DVI port that I can run to the HDMI port of my TV for a perfect all-digital signal. Most laptops don't have DVI ports, especially not in 2003. But because Apple made DVI and Bluetooth standard on it and allow up to 2GB RAM in it, the machine has stayed relatively current. Heck, it was still my front-line laptop for graphics production until a few months ago - I wasn't just using it for Web surfing and email.

        I also agree with itsbob about the long-term compatibility that Apple often designs in. That old PowerBook runs the very latest OS X, 10.5, quite competently. I am not so sure about the ability of PC laptops from 2003 to run Vista.
      • Tenoq, on 10/03/2008, -1/+1PCs in our area have a lifespan of about 2 years before they need a new PSU, at the very least. Unless you run a UPS.

        Bad power FTL.

        Unless of course you built your own, with a decent PSU. But if you bought an OEM or whitebox from the dodgy Chinese shop... good luck. :p
    • DoubtingThomas, on 10/02/2008, -1/+8Depends on what the Windows user is doing. If they are doing the same sort of things as a Mac user, the same, 6-8 years. In the workplace it could be even longer in many cases. If they are a gamer, they are incrementally upgrading their system as needed.
    • wrestlingnrj, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3I personally get a new PC almost every year, while my parents haven't bought a new one since 2001. I think most people would probably fall into the latter category, but that's just based on my personal experience.
    • danielwsmithee, on 10/02/2008, -2/+2This statistic is based on which operating system is seen surfing the internet. So it is a decent representation of what is actually being used.
    • MattBD, on 10/02/2008, -1/+1A lot of that is because quite frankly a lot of users of either system are thick, but Windows quickly gets clogged up with crap and can eventually grind to a halt. If these people were to just do a fresh install it would be fine, but they think the computer's broken and just go and buy a new one.
      It's generally the OS that makes a difference, not the hardware. Plenty of people run Linux on computers that are over 5 years old and it works fine.
      • Tenoq, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1Probably because it's cheaper than getting a tech to do the fresh install. Sure if they knew how to do it themselves it'd be cheaper... but if they knew that, they wouldn't have clogged it up with crap in the first place.
      • MattBD, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1@Tenoq
        Yeah, that's a fair point. The money some people must rake in just reinstalling Windows...
    • judicar, on 10/02/2008, -4/+1 >8.2% of computers accessing the web were using Apple's OSX

      Try reading more
  • grepgav, on 10/02/2008, -1/+42I'm not a Mac user (kinda expensive for me) but I am still glad to see this. If this keeps on happening it just means more competition which will end up being good for all of us. If this forces Microsoft and the PC hardware manufacturers to improve I'll be a happy camper.
    • Zedian, on 10/02/2008, -1/+7Could not have agreed more.

      This applies to the video game industry....more spread out figures and that means competition which forces all the major players to step up their game adjusting prices to reasonable levels, make better products and we consumers go home with a big-fat glee on our faces.
    • Viriatus2, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2uhhh Apple's hardware is close, so i guess it's the other way around...
  • mgill3, on 10/02/2008, -16/+8Whoo hoo, 8% and counting. That number has steadily been rising, while Windows market share has steadily ben declining.

    People are starting to smarten up.

    Here's where you can look at the trend, statistics don't lie:
    http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid= ...
    • cybrguy, on 10/02/2008, -1/+5Smarten up? Maybe people want simple and are willing to pay extra if they think it will be easier on their brain.
      • mgill3, on 10/02/2008, -5/+6Mac's are so much easier on your brain, gah. After using a Mac for a while, trying to use Windows hurts my brain.

        And get rid of the myth that Mac's are "expensive," because in relation to what you're getting, they're very competitive. If they weren't completive, you wouldn't see the increase in market share, people are obviously buying.
      • Lythium, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3mgill - neither one is inherently superior to the other, as far as the OS, and I have used both. It's a matter of personal preference and what you're used to.

        And Macs are not, in fact, all that competitive - if they were, they would have market share in the double digits. I looked around A LOT when I was looking for a new computer this spring - for equivalent specs, Macs would have cost me an extra 25-50% (with the low range being the extra price on desktops, and the high end mostly on laptops). On average, they were even more expensive - again, we're talking equivalent specs here - than even Sony's Vaio, which I rejected almost at once as overpriced.

        If you go for the "name-brand" Windows PCs, there will be much less of a difference in prices of course - Macs were still noticeably more, but it was more like 10-15%. I don't know how YOU shop for computers, however, but I look for something that will give me the best price while still giving me everything I need in a machine. Macs don't fit *either* of those criteria - they are more expensive and not at all as useful for a gamer.
    • eggsovereasy, on 10/02/2008, -2/+4"statistics don't lie"... lol

      Statistics: The only science that enables different experts using the same figures to draw different conclusions.
      - Evan Esar
      • mgill3, on 10/02/2008, -2/+2In some cases, yes.

        But this is very simple. Sales, over time comparing one thing to another.

        It's very clear.

      • Lythium, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2How about raw numbers? PCs may have dropped in percentage of market share while still seeing a bigger NUMERIC increase in sales. You can also look at gross and net revenue, rather than simply market share. You can look at the amount of money generated by software, subscriptions, hardware, and tech support for Macs vs PCs. Finances and statistics are both very far from being as cut-and-dry as you seem to think they are.
      • MScrip, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2> "PCs may have dropped in percentage of market share while still seeing a bigger NUMERIC increase in sales"

        Exactly. There are simply more computer being bought today. Most families have 2 or 3 computers in their home.
    • javaroast, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1Post that link a few more times, I think there might be a few people that missed the first times you posted it. And what the hell kind of valid PC marketshare includes the Playstation and Wii?
    • anillop, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1Well considering that Mac used to dominate the market before they completely blew their lead in the late 80's I suppose 8% is a decent recovery from their former glory.
  • FredFredrickson, on 10/02/2008, -16/+16http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

    Doesn't look like 8% there. I think Linux will overtake Mac OS before Mac OS even gets close to overtaking Windows.
    • itsbob, on 10/02/2008, -1/+10Wow, Vista is up over 13%
    • eggsovereasy, on 10/02/2008, -6/+29Did you even look at that chart?

      This is all for september:
      2003
      Linux:2.4
      Mac: 2.1

      2008
      Linux: 3.8
      Mac: 5.2

      So in the same period of time Linux improved 1.4 points and Mac improved 3.1, almost twice as much. Linux pretty much stagnated all of 2007 and while it has made a substantial gain this year (.5 points), Mac gained 1 point. And Linux is down from August.

      If this trend continues Mac will grow it's lead over Linux.
      • FredFredrickson, on 10/02/2008, -2/+3If you consider the fact that only a year or two ago, half the world didn't even know what Linux was, and no retailers sold it, I think that the trend will change. Linux isn't far off from it.
      • eggsovereasy, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2I bought Mandrake at CompUSA in like '01...

        But anyway, in the last year or two is when it has started to stagnate according to your link?
      • thesledman, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2What? only a year or two? It seems that on 2003 more people knew (and used) Linux then Mac. Nothing you say makes sense or can be backed up. You made a bad call, it happens, just move on...
      • MattBD, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1Netbooks are taking a big chunk fo the market, and it's growing. Many of those run Linux, so that's likely to be the main point where Linux adoption is increasing.
    • BossKey, on 10/02/2008, -1/+5The one thing Apple has that Linux does not is a nationwide high-profile chain of stores keeping OS X visible in Middle America as an alternative, and a relentless media campaign. Linux may need more help if it's going to do any better than growing at only half the rate of OS X as noted by eggsovereasy.
      • pyrates, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1Actually linux won't get as far as apple because the people doing the support don't want to hold your hand. And that is what Apple is now going after, albeit with a higher price. But those who can afford it, want it. Plus Apple is pushed to sell more macs by keeping them user friendly. Can't say the same for open source unless the programmer really wants it. But I've tried submitting bugs that would make it more user friendly to Ubuntu, and a lot of them have rejected them because they still want to keep it linux, which is command line based. And it needs to get away from that idea.
      • regx, on 10/02/2008, -0/+0Um take a look at Kubuntu
        KDE 3.5 is much more user friendly on the desktop than GNOME, but has a ton of advanced features as well.
        All of the advanced stuff is hidden by default giving the noob an intuitive interface.
        By advanced I am referring to things like konqueror profiles, klipper actions, etc.

        In my opinion KDE 3.5 is actually more user friendly than OSX
      • MattBD, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1@regx
        I agree with what you say. KDE 3.5 is by far the most productive desktop I've ever used (and yes, before anyone says anything, I have used a Mac). Its default text editor, Kate, is far superior to TextEdit on OS X, Konqueror is probably the most genuinely useful and helpful file manager around.
        Everything is laid out in a logical fashion, with applications sorted by category. You can easily customize it, and in Katapult it has a launcher which I think is friendlier and easier to use than Spotlight.
        I'd been using Gnome for a couple of months and I came back to KDE 3.5 and I was just blown away at how intuitive and productive the desktop is compared to anything else I'd used (which is quite a bit as I've been trying several window managers as well lately).
    • Scott2, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3clearly you are unable to read a chart.
    • judicar, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2> ... collected from W3Schools' log-files over a period of five years

      Those are just statistics for that website, not the entire web.
  • kaota, on 10/02/2008, -24/+17Once you go Mac, you'll never go back

    :D
    • cybrguy, on 10/02/2008, -2/+9I have a mac workstation and a PC one here in the office. I use the mac one whenever someone else has a problem on their mac so I can do testing and troubleshooting. So 98% of the time, its the PC being used.
      • AvidPreatorian, on 10/02/2008, -6/+1completely opposite here.

        i think you're using it wrong..
    • Lythium, on 10/02/2008, -4/+8I've used Macs. My husband owned Macs. I gave them a fair shot (and more then - I was forced to use them when I was working for newspapers). And I couldn't WAIT to get away from them (and my better half is now happily running all his graphic design software on his new Windows PC).

      Not even talking price-point comparisons here =P
      • thesledman, on 10/02/2008, -3/+1Just curious, have you used a Mac recently, since leopard 10.5 came out or was it the old power PC. As a Windows user since 3.1 now Vista, and a recent addition of an iMac into the household I really don't see that much of a difference. They both seem very similar and capable, although the Mac seems faster and has a much more polished look & feel.
      • Lythium, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4Not sure which OS it was - not anything terribly recent, in any case. My husband bought his iBook (which is now a very expensive paperweight) sometime in early '06, so whatever was current at the time is my last experience with it. As I've mentioned elsewhere, though, the price of the hardware and the limited availability of the software (as well as the combative attitude of some of the users, I might add) are not encouraging me to remedy that.
    • MazeKaz, on 10/02/2008, -1/+5Until you want to play a game.
    • MattBD, on 10/02/2008, -2/+4@kaota
      I own a MacBook and I much prefer my Ubuntu install. And people say the same about Slackware, ie Once you go Slack you never go back. That makes me think that they just say it because it rhymes, which does not make a convincing argument.
  • kungfumaniac, on 10/02/2008, -13/+1word.
  • Haecceity, on 10/02/2008, -11/+1915% of the traffic on my sites (non-technical, nothing to do with Macs in any way) is from computers running OS X.
    • gavroche, on 10/02/2008, -1/+4That is about what I get too. I run 2 commercial high-end audio websites in New York and Montreal and they are getting around 28% and 18% respectively, both have less then 1% of linux users and the rest is running Windows.
    • BarriedaleNick, on 10/02/2008, -0/+9To be honest i thought 15% was a bit over the top but I checked my goggle analytics and mac os comes out at 13.49 %. Most on intel as well. I have had one visit from a Nintendo Wii - which strangely cheered me up.
    • MattBD, on 10/02/2008, -3/+6Wouldn't that include iPhones and iPod Touches?
      • Haecceity, on 10/03/2008, -1/+1Those are seen as a separate OS in my stats. It's something like 0.12% for IPhones.
    • digginamish, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2Those numbers are likely skewed; unless the visitors to your site are getting there for reasons that are completely independent of your content (which is unlikely, unless you run a search engine), there is a direct correlation between who gets there and why.
      It would be like the Democratic party taking a survey on their website: they would find that Obama has a 99% support rating among Americans - the fact that those are most likely Democrats or people interested in Obama invalidates the accuracy and would never be considered a random sampling.
  • mgill3, on 10/02/2008, -11/+8Yes, considering how small they are, a 2% increase is pretty significant over such short time.
  • Solkre, on 10/02/2008, -12/+9I want a mac but I can't afford one.
    My Windows computer does everything I need and more. I know what I'm doing so it's not sluggish and doesn't crash on me. I take care of my computer and it works fine.

    I'm a PC, and I'm using Vista Ultimate 64bit.
    • Lythium, on 10/02/2008, -4/+6See, this is the mentality that I just don't grok. Why would you want a Mac, if what you have does everything you need and more. Why would you want to pay premium for an admittedly slick case?
      • surferjoemaui, on 10/02/2008, -5/+3Why would you want an ugly car?
      • Lythium, on 10/02/2008, -1/+4Because it runs as well as the pretty one and costs a hell of a lot less? And has more of the features I need?
      • seraph582, on 10/03/2008, -1/+3plus, for less, it'll run circles around the trendy looking car

        edit: oh yeah, GAMING too
    • Solkre, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1Because I like computers, and while I wouldn't have any work to do on the Mac, I'd love one to play with. Not play games of course, it's a Mac. It's the same reason I can multiple boot into other OS that I don't need to be productive.
  • mgill3, on 10/02/2008, -10/+4I don't know WTF "w3schools.com" is, but try:
    http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid= ...

    Seems more reputable.
    • gavroche, on 10/02/2008, -4/+3w3schools.com is ok. With all the sites running Google Analytics, Google should tell us their version of the story.
    • JNudda, on 10/02/2008, -3/+2"I don't know WTF "w3schools.com" is"

      uh........you obviously don't know much about web design then
  • SSCrow, on 10/02/2008, -9/+35When you start at Zero, you have no where to go but up.
    • emptyhead, on 10/02/2008, -2/+10tell me again how you could possibly start at anywhere except zero market share? :p
    • mgill3, on 10/02/2008, -6/+4Well, Apple started before Windows (they were first to the market with a personal computer) And Microsoft decided to basically JACK the Mac OS idea and license it to every bob tom and joe computer company.

      I wonder how Microsoft got their massive market share?
      • bjornski, on 10/02/2008, -1/+9By not locking you into their hardware, and being less expensive.
      • MtheoryX, on 10/02/2008, -7/+1You're still locked into their software though. Let's see...

        MS is a software company...locks you into their software.

        Apple is a hardware company...locks you into their hardware.

        There's no difference between the two in that regard.
      • bjornski, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3Once I buy the OS, I'm not locked into *****, except the fact that the programs have to run in the Windows environment, and since MOST do, it's the reason I got the OS in the first place. Not because the machine "looked cool" or was easier.

        Not like all the software I run IN that environment is MS. I'm not locked into ***** in that regard. I have no interest in running software that runs in other OSs. So I don't feel restricted in the least.
      • UKsHaDoW, on 10/02/2008, -3/+3Microsoft got exclusive deals with manufacturers.
    • surferjoemaui, on 10/02/2008, -2/+5Apple was around before MS and the mac GUI(desktop. mouse, point and click-drag and drop) was around before MS windows.
      • Funpolice2050, on 10/02/2008, -3/+3And apple stole the GUI design approach from Xerox.
      • seraph582, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2GUI (mouse, point/click, etc) was a Xerox invention that predated Apple.
    • DaffyDuck, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1Actually, you could go from zero to 3 then back to zero, never approaching 8.
  • worldgate, on 10/02/2008, -16/+11Well, time to pass the lube and steve jobs photo's around for all the apple fanboys so they can jerk off now. 8 percent of the market, wow.
  • RayKinStL, on 10/02/2008, -15/+10It still makes me laugh at how insecure Apple people are that they need studies like this to justify them paying more money for their computer. The fact that you celebrate having a whooping 8% of the market is not something to brag about...not when you've been in business for over 25 years in the PC market. What Apple should be celebrating is that they still exist as a company given the low market share they've had. I guess here's to being a great peripheral, MP3, and cell phone company, and a second rate PC manufacturer!
    • surferjoemaui, on 10/02/2008, -3/+2 And a good OS writer!
    • MtheoryX, on 10/02/2008, -3/+1"What Apple should be celebrating is that they still exist as a company given the low market share they've had."

      Low marketshare of what? The OS market? The laptop market? The general PC market? The portable media player market? The mobile phone market? The online media sales market?
  • mgill3, on 10/02/2008, -4/+11There could be a small percent that run Windows on their IntelMac's, but remember they've obviously purchased the Mac for being a Mac. I used to sell Mac's, and many people wanted to transition, and for some people that means having both OS's installed on the machine. If they needed to continue and run Windows and some of their Windows apps, this method allows them to do it while, over time, tinkering and learning OS X and eventually converting all their apps and moving all their data over to the Mac side of the computer.
  • cadmiumpaint, on 10/02/2008, -12/+23Apple would rather be a BMW than a Chevy any day of the week.
    • bjornski, on 10/02/2008, -6/+8And they both do pretty much the same thing.

      Only real difference is you buy one so your friends see you with it.

      Either that, or the "Chevy" that millions and millions of people use is TOO HARD for the doted-upon, pampered drivers of the "BMW".

      They both get you around.
      • cadmiumpaint, on 10/02/2008, -4/+9so i guess you just buy all your clothes at wallmart huh?
      • bjornski, on 10/02/2008, -5/+5Actually, many of them from thrift shops.

        It's amazing the good quality of stuff that people throw away as "waste".

        But what's your point?
      • scruffles, on 10/02/2008, -2/+8The only reason to buy a BMW over a Chevy is to impress your friends? You've never even sat in a BMW before, have you?

        If the only reason to buy an Apple is to show them off to your friends, how do you account for all the iMacs being sold? Maybe there are some people who prefer the Mac and can afford to buy one. Why does that disgust so many people?
      • bjornski, on 10/02/2008, -3/+2"prefer and can afford to buy one."

        Beautifully honest.

        Beyond that though? Really not much difference. I can still do more with my "Chevy" without "after market parts". Your "BMW" can do that stuff too though, as long as it becomes a "Chevy" first.
      • scruffles, on 10/02/2008, -2/+5So if someone offered to trade you a BMW of the same age for your Chevy, you would turn them down, right? Because, they're basically the same car, and who needs the hassle.

        BTW, I never said I had a BMW. I actually own two Chevy's. I would be open to trading either, or both for a BMW, if anyone out there is interested.
      • djgreedo, on 10/03/2008, -3/+2Umm...since when do peolpe with Macs have friends?
      • djgreedo, on 10/03/2008, -1/+4@scruffles

        For your analogy re: someone offering to trade a BMW for a Chevy to be accurate:

        1) the Chevy would have to be as good as the BMW in the first place (my Dell is easily as good as any Macbook)
        2) the BMW would have to only run on about 50% of the world's roads (as an alalogy for the lack of software comparatively on Mac)
        3) the BMW can not be used for personal recreation (an analogy for the fact that games support on the Mac is poor).
        4) The BMW is only available in white.

        I'd keep the Chevy.
        Well, actually, I'd trade, sell the BMW, buy another Chevy, then spend the left over money on games or maybe some 3rd party hardware to give the Chevy a boost.

        Well, actually, I'd spend the money on whores.
      • djgreedo, on 10/03/2008, -4/+1@scruffles

        For your analogy re: someone offering to trade a BMW for a Chevy to be accurate:

        1) the Chevy would have to be as good as the BMW in the first place (my Dell is easily as good as any Macbook)
        2) the BMW would have to only run on about 50% of the world's roads (as an alalogy for the lack of software comparatively on Mac)
        3) the BMW can not be used for personal recreation (an analogy for the fact that games support on the Mac is poor).
        4) The BMW is only available in white.

        I'd keep the Chevy.
        Well, actually, I'd trade, sell the BMW, buy another Chevy, then spend the left over money on games or maybe some 3rd party hardware to give the Chevy a boost.

        Well, actually, I'd spend the money on whores.
      • scruffles, on 10/04/2008, -0/+1@djgreedo - I didn't make any analogy comparing BMWs to Macs. I was just poking at someone who thinks BMW's are somehow equivalent to Chevy because they are both cars.

        I'm glad you like your Dell. I use one for 8 hours a day. It's one of the better Windows computers I have used, and I'm sure if I had to limit my choices of home computers to Windows machines, Dell would be at the top of my list. Fortunately for me, that isn't the case.

        So I guess we are both happy with our choices and everything is right with the world.

        ... that is, unless you were posting to make fun of Apple users out of some sort of repressed jealousy.. in which case, have fun.
    • Commodore84, on 10/02/2008, -3/+2You've clearly never driven a BMW.
      • seraph582, on 10/03/2008, -2/+2Howdy Vandy fan - go 'dores.

        Anyway, the guy's right - they both get you from point A to point B, but the BMW is gonna much mroe pleasurable to do so in. The difference between German Cars and Macs is that there's more than just hype and urban marketing for german cars: there's an actual high performance product that sells itself easily.

        Macs aren't gaining much share because they don't do anything really that much different beyond the shiny googly casing to warrant switching standards and paying way more money.
    • 335io07, on 10/03/2008, -3/+4I drive two BMW's. A 08 335i and a 07 750Li. Nice cars indeed. Comparing a BMW and a Macintosh isn't a fair comparison. A Mac is not the "top of the line" computer. It does have it's premium cost and a nice case but it simply isn't a top of the line computer. There are companies that build great PCs. Alienware, Dell, and Sony for example (they also have a premium cost). Some of those computers put Macs to shame.

      To put into your perspective of comparing Macs with BMWs, I would compare Alienware with Ferrari's. I would rather drive a Ferrari than any of the cars I own (or any other BMW's in the dealer lot). A Mac has too many limitations in terms of hardware and OS. The only reason you don't see Macs crashing is because they build hardware systems around their OS. PC is the opposite. With a PC, you have the option of having all of the newest processors, video & sound cards, cases, etc... With a Mac you are limited with what Apple provides for you.

      The only thing that might hinder Windows is the hardware manufacturers with their drivers. I can say something like "but can you run Crysis on a Mac?" and piss off many Mac owners, but this is a real question. The real answer would be "Yes, I can but it won't be playable." Kind of like asking "Hey can your BMW pull 1.09 G's on a skidpad?" No, it can't. Ferrari's, however, can.
  • dynomyte, on 10/02/2008, -5/+10Sometimes people date for looks, no matter how 'overpriced', and sometimes people date for personality (functionality).

    And then there's gaming...
    • BossKey, on 10/02/2008, -6/+4That's why I bought a Mac. I bought it for Unix, reliability, value, software not available on Windows, etc.

      I don't care about the looks so much, it's under my desk...

      Some people will call Macs overpriced and appearance-driven, then insist on buying some oversized, high-margin, aggressively designed SUV when a Kia would have done the exact same family transportation tasks; never understood that...
    • markusfarkus, on 10/02/2008, -4/+5I still don't get this price comparison that people keep bringing up. For months I went back and forth between PC and Mac laptops and every time I built a comparable machine the Mac always came out $200 - $300 less. Maybe I'm just not the average user who is satisfied with a $400 pooter from Best Buy.

      So yes, Macs are shinier than most PC's. But at the end of the day I prefer the OS and I'll leave the gaming to my PS2 or Wii
      • Seaton, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3I built a $3500.00 computer for $1400.00.

        If you compare the specs to a similarly equipped Mac Pro, it would be worth $5500.00.

        Low end Macs are just that. Low end.
      • arjie, on 10/02/2008, -1/+1Dell XPS M1330 (T8300, 4GB RAM, 250GB 5400RPM Hard Drive vs. Macbook). The XPS is $111 cheaper and lighter.

        I checked just now. It was much worse some time ago.
      • seraph582, on 10/03/2008, -1/+3There's your problem - don't buy prebuilts from ***** best buy - best buy doesn't make the computers. Buy directly from Dell or HP to get competitive results, or for extra bang for the buck, try discounters like TigerDirect or NewEgg.
  • RJinLA, on 10/02/2008, -12/+5Sheep go Baaaaah...
    • MtheoryX, on 10/02/2008, -3/+2And idiots go "Sheep go Baaaaah..."
    • RJinLA, on 10/05/2008, -0/+1Do they really? Shall I go in depth by my limited comment? It was meant to be a quick easily interpreted opinion on how I feel the masses just simply buy into the marketing hype put out by Apple. I didn't think it needed explaining, however -7 diggs makes me realize there are more sheep here than I thought. Oh well. :) Enjoy your overpriced hardware... Sorry you were offended. :)
  • nysus, on 10/02/2008, -14/+17I'm a switcher. Always hated Microsoft software was pretty much crap from day one (except for maybe Windows 95 which was the balls to me back in the day when I was used to Windows 3.1). So when Vista came out, I decided to get off the Microsoft planned obsolescence treadmill and buy a MacBook Pro and a copy of Windows XP with Fusion. I rarely have to use Windows XP, only need it for a couple of different apps and a website that only works with IE (quickbooks).

    I wouldn't say Mac OS X is lightyears beyond Windows XP. They both get the job done. But there is no question that Mac OS X is the clear winner. It's a lot less clunkier and has some cool bells and whistles that make using a computer much less frustrating (like Spotlight, Spaces, and Expose). I can't speak for Vista, I've only used it briefly, but I haven't heard reports that it offers huge advantages over XP. It didn't seem like it when I used. Acted like vista with a slightly better look.

    I'm glad I switched. However, I will be much happier the day a Linux OS can compete and I can run most of the applications I need on it. I think Apple is just Microsoft dressed up in pretentious, hipster clothing.
    • bigsteve, on 10/02/2008, -4/+1You had me until the last retarded line.
      • regx, on 10/02/2008, -1/+4Why did he loose you with the last line? Mac is built on open source, only they remove features, add restrictions and make you pay for it. Linux is open source and free. Basically this means no restrictions, make derivative works, pass them around, run on as many machines as you like. Download and compile any version of any software. Free upgrades for everything.

        I just bought an I-Phone only I couldn't install the latest I-tunes on my Mac because it requires OSX 1.4.
        I had to load I-Tunes 8 on Windows because MS is less restrictive than Mac.

        The only reason you can run Windows on a Mac is because MS doesn't lock you to the platform like Apple does. You are still paying for restrictions with any commercial OS though.

        So I think his last statement just makes perfect sense.
    • regx, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1Um Spaces (Virtual Desktops) are in most desktop managers in BSD. Apple removed them and then put them back in to entice users to upgrade. With Linux you can also run multiple desktop managers. You can even shut one down and bring up another without rebooting. OSX only has aqua (which sucks in my opinion).
      If aqua floats your boat you can get KDE and GNOME to mimic aqua.

      Compiz has expose only it is better, and there are a ton of other options as well such as 3d cubes for your virtual desktops. Just rotate the cube and you have a new desktop.

      Check out KDE 3.5 with compiz and I think you will agree that the day you speak of is already here.
      • nysus, on 10/02/2008, -1/+1The big reason I don't use Linux are there are important applications I can't run at all on Linux:

        Online Quickbooks (needs IE)
        Photoshop
        Timeslice (a time tracking app)
        GoToMeeting

        Another big problem I see with Linux as a desktop platform is that it's always playing catchup with other OSes. Whenever a unique or innovative app comes out, it's written for the other major OSes first.

        I use Linux to run my servers. And I've used Ubuntu which I think is rock solid. But Ubuntu lags when it comes to running the applications I need and want.
  • artfuldodga, on 10/02/2008, -5/+7"Lets just count 40,000 sites that Mac users love..." and still only come up with 8%, i'd like to see a list of the sites =]
  • READY2000, on 10/02/2008, -13/+10I like Mac but its just not practical. I use Windows at work, and a little time I get at home, I dont want to waste my time to learn the intrecacies of Mac OS. Besides, most of the computing we do at home is "internet" anyway. There is more choices and saving going with Windows.

    No I will not buy mac just run windows!
    • Palaceguard, on 10/02/2008, -5/+2lol. learning to use a Mac takes 30 minutes
      • Seaton, on 10/02/2008, -2/+3Which is why my Mac using family members needed to take classes on how to make DVD movies using iMovie.

        I've never taken a computer class in my life.
  • emptyhead, on 10/02/2008, -2/+13Tell me again how you measure market share through hit counts on webservers?
    Hint: you simply can't.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_share

    8% Installed base perhaps, but only AAPL knows the market share.
    • javaroast, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3You are absolutely correct. Hit counts are an entirely unreliable source for marketshare.
  • UltamateAddict, on 10/02/2008, -10/+18You know, microsoft is doing a happydance right now because, I doubt the iFans want to hear this, but they own 25% of apple through stocks. LOL!


    Wait, stock market is crashing, maybe they're not doing a happydance.

    But still, microsoft kicks apple's butt!
    • jwdav, on 10/02/2008, -1/+6I guess Microsoft was able to get a better return on AAPL than their own stock ...

      Seriously, I'd love to see a source for your claim that MS owns 25% of AAPL
    • geogeer, on 10/02/2008, -1/+8Actually they don't own any AAPL. They sold off the bit they bought years ago.
  • cbd37, on 10/02/2008, -6/+7At this rate they will be the leader of the PC market in about 50 -60 years.
    • BossKey, on 10/02/2008, -2/+4Only according to a linear calculation. Technology follows decidedly non-linear trends where changes happen much faster after the tipping point is reached...in 20 years, Apple will either dominate, or be long-dead along with most of the companies existing today.
      • seraph582, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2great, but what if it does go linearly?
  • yournamehere, on 10/02/2008, -7/+2they gained .27% from last month...
    http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid= ...
  • Shadowgamers, on 10/02/2008, -5/+13According to W3Schools, Macs only have 5.2% (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp% ...

    Must be the MacIntel's, right?
  • EcchiZ3n, on 10/02/2008, -8/+1Macs are not PCs though... *sarcasms
  • mgill3, on 10/02/2008, -15/+8It's so entertaining to me how many PC users are in denial of Apple's Mac market growth...

    Statistics:
    http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid= ...

    Windows is slowly declining in market share, while *ding!* Mac OS is increasing.

    Epic windoze fail.
  • rblancarte, on 10/02/2008, -3/+6This reminds me of when Homer dreams he is John Elway, and he dreams of the 4th quarter magic, scoring a late TD for the Broncos in the Super Bowl. And then they pan out and show the score San Fran 49, Denver 10.

    Granted, I use both a Mac and a PC, but IMHO, this isn't news.
  • ZetaVu, on 10/02/2008, -4/+10http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_deskto ...

    Funny, everyone else has them pegged at more like 3.5%. If you look at browsers Safari is even lower and slipping away (I don't expect the appleheads to install firefox)
    • gramathy, on 10/02/2008, -6/+3Um. That's because you're an idiot.

      Everyone that I know that uses a mac uses Firefox instead of Safari. It's faster, at least until the next update push when the JS update goes through.
    • Scott2, on 10/02/2008, -2/+4You'd be wrong. Safari is not a whole lot better on Mac than PC. It has a bad habit of breaking, and Apple has a bad habit of not fixing it right away.

      I used to manage a 2000 unit installed base of Macs for a school district, and every one of those Macs had Firefox set as the default browser.
  • LeviTheSmith, on 10/02/2008, -6/+8Fanboy rage orgy
  • tr909, on 10/02/2008, -11/+5Only 8% of people have taste? :) See you subterranean fellows down below.
  • vorjay, on 10/02/2008, -6/+7This says, out of 40,000 web sites "8.2% of computers accessing the web were using Apple's OSX ". What about all the computers that are used for offline use? Sales wise Apple doesn't sell 8% of all desktop computers.
  • dfwlinuxguy, on 10/02/2008, -9/+12I think that Apple is quite possibly more evil than Microsoft - they just don't yet have the market share. Just look at the recent events of how they are treating developers of programs for the iphone. It's just the latest example of Apple not giving a damn about anyone but Apple. Users and developers be damned. Flame away fanboys!
  • schrutefan, on 10/02/2008, -12/+6A Mac is a PC? WTF?! Now I have to get rid of my Macbook!
  • WebmasterNeal, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4It is inevitable that Apple will gain even more market share in the desktop world. They are flanking Microsoft by getting consumers to buy their portable devices that of course work better with their Mac desktop environment. Their desktop market share is a end result of their portable device sales. I must say though, that Microsoft's post Seinfeld commercials (Mojave, I'm a PC - are pretty effective)

    The one problem they may have is if our country heads into a deeper recession, people may opt for the cheaper PC alternatives.

    On a side note it would be interesting to see what google.com's PC/Mac market share is since that is a more fair representation of the average web user.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 96 of 96 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.