Last I looked, Apple have a <7% share of the OS market, which is just short of inconsequential. Vista already tops that with 7.91%. Linux doesnt even make it into whole numbers.
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2
Of course, these numbers are meaningless. They measure OS based on net access to a few specific sites; many computers don't access those sites. It's like saying that OS <...> has an install base of many millions, only to find out the parent company cleverly confuses 'installed OS' with 'sold license'. For regular users, Windows is the biggest, true. Apple comes in second very far behind, also true.
Where are the gamers going to go? Mac? Linux? Great, if you like 2D flash style games...
Be serious here. Gamers make up a very tiny fragment of the regular users, and then I'm being very generous on what exactly constitutes a 'regular' user. Gamers spend thousands of dollars just to get benchmarks up to meaningless heights, and are prepared to kill more readily in defense of their 'favourite' brand of video card or CPU than Ballmer wishes to kill Google. A genuine 'regular' user just about knows that there is such a thing as a connector for the monitor, and expects the system to work the way he thinks it ought to work.
In addition, you can play 3D stuff equally well on Linux or the Mac, there's no inherent limitation as to why these OS'es would not be suitable for serious gaming. Ageing UT2003 runs perfectly fine on the Linux side of my setup. Doom 3 was released for Linux too, and works just fine. The only reason why these systems aren't used more is because 'the industry' has little experience with OpenGL coding, and that marketing forces (read 'eye candy sells') more or less lock them in with DirectX. If you're a normal user who doesn't get a hard-on for super benchmarks, then there are most certainly very viable alternatives available.
Consoles? Courtesy of Sony and their botched PS3 launch, M$ have tripled their share in that market in the last 18 months, almost by accident.
Funny, that. I heard that Nintendo's Wii is giving both these systems a major headache thanks to its innovative controls which offer a MAJOR break from the standard thumb-twitching joypad. My sweetheart---who is a total computer illiterate---actually remembers the Wii because of this, and won't even think about the graphically superior PS3 or Xbox360.
Vista, Xbox and M$ are here to stay, get over it.
Perhaps.
Anyway, one thing has not been said in this discussion, and most certainly not in the article redrumloa referenced. The problem is not Microsoft. (Not completely, anyway.) The problem is that the majority of the users cannot or will not take the time to operate a computer
properly. In other words, taking a few days to learn about system internals, what actually goes on in that thing, what the major threats are, and how to guard against these. To these people, a computer is like any other electrical appliance: turn it on, do with it what you want, turn it off, on to the next job at hand. Microsoft is the only company in the world which faces the horrible problem of dumbing down one of the most complex machines made by man to a sufficient degree that Joe User's grandma's old rickety neighbour can use it, too.
That is why the computer has such remarkably 'silly' access controls, presents such opaque error messages, and sacrifices tons of performance for its Protected Video Path.
We are not the targetted audience of Microsoft: we belong to that quantum sliver of humanity which doesn't faze at hearing the words USB, stack, protocol, error, driver, update and solved in the same sentence.
Try to install Linux: once set up it is rock steady, and offers a very usable GUI which may look a little different from Windows, but operates along many of the same principles. (I'd trust my parents with such a setup, and might even try it on them just for research purposes.) Now try to install a new program. 'Download here!' the button says. Oi, why won't the program install? 'Well ma'am, you downloaded the Windows version; you should have obtained our RPM package at this URL instead.' RPM? 'Yes ma'am. RPM. A program to install your programs.' So you mean I can't just double click? 'Yes ma'am.' SON! GET YOUR A** OVER HERE AND INSTALL WINDOWS AGAIN!
Unfortunately, I never used an Apple, so I cannot comment on its userfriendliness for Joe User's grandma's rickety neighbour. But I do hope I made it clear that this very important factor is completely missing from the original article.
For the record, I think Microsoft botched things, because it is impossible to dumb down the machine to a degree where it just Does What The User Wants, and guard him against shooting himself in the foot again and again. It cannot be done, and in the process the company delivered a piece of software which doesn't really work well for
anybody. I think it would have been wiser had they created a solid, stable and secure core (and they can certainly do that, if not by themselves then by simply buying a little company which does kernel development), locked it down rigorously, and sold it
that way. People still might bypass the security mechanisms for convenience, but at least Joe User can then rather painlessly handle the task of educating the sweet neighbour on the importance of NOT doing that, and resetting the system to its secure state again. Unfortunately, for fear of breaking countless of applications still assuming they'd be run as root, Microsoft decided to 'wean' users to a stronger security model by inserting code which does very little
now, but will be much less forgiving in the future. In addition, 3rd party software producers demanding full privileged access to the kernel 'because their software cannot work properly otherwise' is not helping either.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't. With hindsight, I think a clean break might have been hard on the company now, but FAR less so in the future. But try explaining that to a bunch of ties and brief cases and MBAs.
